Ben Rudiak-Gould
Mar4-05, 09:13 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>cafeinst@msn.com wrote:\n> Here is a question: Is it possible to interpret this experiment in a\n> different way, as follows? Instead of saying that the wave-function\n> collapses, can we say that the light shining on one of the slits\n> disturbs the phase angle of the electron when it passes throught the\n> slit by a random angle, theta, so that the wavefunction is multiplied\n> by exp(i*theta)? Then the noninterference pattern when the electrons\n> are measured at the other end can be explained without saying that "the\n> wave function collapses", as Feynman implied. In other words, the\n> photon at one of the slits causes decoherence.\n\nYes, the disappearing interference pattern can be explained by decoherence\ninstead of wave function collapse, and it\'s impossible to tell which one is\nreally responsible. This is why it\'s so difficult to figure out what\nactually causes the wave function to collapse, or whether it collapses at all.\n\nNote that it\'s decoherence of the entire system, not just of the electron\nwave, that\'s responsible. Wikipedia has a good article on it [1].\n\n-- Ben\n\n[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>cafeinst@msn.com wrote:
> Here is a question: Is it possible to interpret this experiment in a
> different way, as follows? Instead of saying that the wave-function
> collapses, can we say that the light shining on one of the slits
> disturbs the phase angle of the electron when it passes throught the
> slit by a random angle, \theta, so that the wavefunction is multiplied
> by \exp(i*\theta)? Then the noninterference pattern when the electrons
> are measured at the other end can be explained without saying that "the
> wave function collapses", as Feynman implied. In other words, the
> photon at one of the slits causes decoherence.
Yes, the disappearing interference pattern can be explained by decoherence
instead of wave function collapse, and it's impossible to tell which one is
really responsible. This is why it's so difficult to figure out what
actually causes the wave function to collapse, or whether it collapses at all.
Note that it's decoherence of the entire system, not just of the electron
wave, that's responsible. Wikipedia has a good article on it [1].
-- Ben
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence
> Here is a question: Is it possible to interpret this experiment in a
> different way, as follows? Instead of saying that the wave-function
> collapses, can we say that the light shining on one of the slits
> disturbs the phase angle of the electron when it passes throught the
> slit by a random angle, \theta, so that the wavefunction is multiplied
> by \exp(i*\theta)? Then the noninterference pattern when the electrons
> are measured at the other end can be explained without saying that "the
> wave function collapses", as Feynman implied. In other words, the
> photon at one of the slits causes decoherence.
Yes, the disappearing interference pattern can be explained by decoherence
instead of wave function collapse, and it's impossible to tell which one is
really responsible. This is why it's so difficult to figure out what
actually causes the wave function to collapse, or whether it collapses at all.
Note that it's decoherence of the entire system, not just of the electron
wave, that's responsible. Wikipedia has a good article on it [1].
-- Ben
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence