- #1
Lord Draco
- 5
- 0
What causes a particle to go into superposition?
Is it correct to say that it goes into superposition when it is unobserved?
Is it correct to say that it goes into superposition when it is unobserved?
I have a question, suppose the environment does not force the electron (e-) into one particular eigenstate of the hamiltonian (as you say). What then would be the equation of the "superposition of eigenstates" for the (e-) that you refer to ? Thanks for helping me understand your concept of the (e-) superposition.dicerandom said:What do you mean by "go into superposition"? The particle will be in whatever state is dictated by its surrounding environment, if that environment does not force it into one particular eigenstate of the hamiltonian then it will be in a superposition of eigenstates.
Rade said:I have a question, suppose the environment does not force the electron (e-) into one particular eigenstate of the hamiltonian (as you say). What then would be the equation of the "superposition of eigenstates" for the (e-) that you refer to ? Thanks for helping me understand your concept of the (e-) superposition.
Lord Draco said:What causes a particle to go into superposition?
Is it correct to say that it goes into superposition when it is unobserved?
vanesch said:If you take projections for real, then clearly, a measurement *removes* superposition wrt to the eigenbasis of the measurement operator ;
if you take an MWI view, then measurement *entangles* the system state with the observer state ; however, the observer will experience only one of these terms, so we can now forget the other terms (although they are there) and consider we will only study what will happen to the term we experience (which comes down, of course, to use the projection in one way or another).
marlon said:Indeed, this is what QM measurement is all about...
:rofl:vanesch said:The day we will know about non-unitary physical process, maybe, this projection will obtain a physical meaning as a shortcut to something real
marlon said::rofl:
Beats looking for multi universa, no ?
marlon
:uhh:vanesch said:I really don't know.
Unitary QM incorporates of course many worlds if you extend the validity of it to the level of objects on the scale of a human body.
most researchers stick to strict unitarity (and hence to no projection and hence to many worlds),
Well, the first question is: do you think that the principles of quantum theory apply universally, or not ?marlon said::uhh:
I am sorry but i have no idea what this means. "the scale of a human body"...C'mon man...what is that about ?
Let's be clear: I also stick to that "view" to do practical calculations of course. But it should be clear that it is a totally undefined procedure which violates locality and which has no grounds in any physical process, every physical process we know off being described by a unitary time evolution operator which cannot implement it. I think most people who have given it any thought realize that there is something highly fishy in this view.No most researchers stick to the "original" interpretation of QM, ie the fact that measurement breaks superposition and all other info is GONE. It did not get entangled or... what ever...
Well, as you know, the distance scale is at least 50 km if we accept the Vienna experiments. An entangled pair of photons 50 km apart still shows entanglement, so this is a system of 50 km diameter that needs to be described by quantum theory.This is also the vision i have on this.
The only thing that bothers me is where do we make the distinction between QM and Newtonian physics ? At what distance scale ?
It is entirely possible that QM and classical physics are two limiting cases of a yet unknown theory and that collapse occurs "for real". But the implications this would have are quite drastic, in that it would certainly imply non-local actions (with all the consequences for relativity).But ofcourse, the fact that this border is not "clear" or known, does NOT imply that there is something wrong with the underlying formalism...
Yes, I think you're missing something then. If you're not struck by Bell's theorem, I think you're missing something. I would say that it is one of the most shocking results you could ever think of.EDIT : you know, Vanesch, i have really read some of the links to papers you provided on the measurement problem. We have had some small discussions on this before. But i still really do not understand what all the fuzz is about. Even this Bell-thing is not clear to me. I understand what it is about but i do not get the content of this theorem. Even in college, it seemed very superfluous to me. Perhaps it is me; but i feel like i am missing out on something here.
That's an attitude that many people have. But to me, it is a very strange view. It looks a bit like chemistry when people still thought that you needed a "living force" to work with organic compounds. They considered their chemistry not "universal": certain things obeyed the laws of chemistry as they knew it, and other things, well, were the result of "living force". With the same atoms. But that didn't mean they could not do their anorganic chemistry well in the lab.I use QM almost every day for my ab initio simulations. I look at QM from a very pragmatic point of view. The QM formalism works because i can calculate physical quantities with it, that are ofcourse correct. So, i am happy...That is all for me.
Superposition is a principle in quantum mechanics where a particle can exist in multiple states or positions at the same time. This means that the particle is in a state of uncertainty until it is observed or measured.
A particle can enter into superposition when it is in a state of quantum indeterminacy, meaning it has not yet been observed or measured. This can occur during certain experiments or interactions with other particles.
The act of measurement or observation causes superposition to collapse. When a particle is observed, it is forced to take on a definite state or position, and the other possible states in superposition disappear.
No, superposition is a principle that only applies to particles at the atomic and subatomic level. Macroscopic objects, such as everyday objects, do not exhibit quantum behavior and therefore cannot enter into superposition.
Superposition is a key principle in quantum computing because it allows quantum bits (qubits) to exist in multiple states simultaneously, allowing for more complex and efficient computations. This is what gives quantum computers their potential for solving certain problems much faster than classical computers.