- #1
Proggle
- 82
- 0
Greetings,
I'm an undergrad physics student currently taking a course in QM.
There is, however, something that's been bothering me that's not exactly technical or mathematical in nature, but more of a matter of interpretation.
As far as I've gone into QM, everything is dominated by probability. I'm satisfied with that and can understand that when a measurement is made regarding a physical property (in QM terms, an observable), multiple results can be obtained from the same system.
Where it gets more complicated (in my mind, at least) is when one poses the question of whether defining things in terms of probability is an attempt to define a system that is truly random or making the best possible "educated guess" into the likely outcomes. Let me try and illustrate with an example (although I fear I'm getting metaphysical):
Say you're measuring the spin of a particle in the Z axis, and you get +h/2. Now, suppose you could somehow manage to achieve exactly the same conditions that existed just before you performed the first measurement. With this I mean basically rewinding time, not just the experimental conditions, but absolutely the same exact version of the universe that existed before your last measurement.
Do you still have a chance of getting -h/2 for the spin value? Is it a matter of interpretation? Or is this question beyond the scope of QM/Physics in general?
Another question along those lines would be:
Is there a chance that the probabilistic interpretation of QM is in reality a model for making crude predictions out of underlying physics that are not yet understood? Or is it clear that there is no room for hidden physics "under the hood"?
Hoping to hear some answers so I can sleep well again. :D
I'm an undergrad physics student currently taking a course in QM.
There is, however, something that's been bothering me that's not exactly technical or mathematical in nature, but more of a matter of interpretation.
As far as I've gone into QM, everything is dominated by probability. I'm satisfied with that and can understand that when a measurement is made regarding a physical property (in QM terms, an observable), multiple results can be obtained from the same system.
Where it gets more complicated (in my mind, at least) is when one poses the question of whether defining things in terms of probability is an attempt to define a system that is truly random or making the best possible "educated guess" into the likely outcomes. Let me try and illustrate with an example (although I fear I'm getting metaphysical):
Say you're measuring the spin of a particle in the Z axis, and you get +h/2. Now, suppose you could somehow manage to achieve exactly the same conditions that existed just before you performed the first measurement. With this I mean basically rewinding time, not just the experimental conditions, but absolutely the same exact version of the universe that existed before your last measurement.
Do you still have a chance of getting -h/2 for the spin value? Is it a matter of interpretation? Or is this question beyond the scope of QM/Physics in general?
Another question along those lines would be:
Is there a chance that the probabilistic interpretation of QM is in reality a model for making crude predictions out of underlying physics that are not yet understood? Or is it clear that there is no room for hidden physics "under the hood"?
Hoping to hear some answers so I can sleep well again. :D