Recent content by andreab1987

But this has nothing to do with my previous statement. My point is that the psi_a are the same functions both in (40) and in (42), and these psi_a are defined as the eigenfunctions of the operator A. In order to apply the schmidt decomposition for Psi(x,y,t) you must choose a different basis...

Actually the author claims they are the same; in fact read the first line after eq. 41 "According to standard QM, the probability of finding the state to have the value a of the observable Aˆ is equal to ..." and then read the 5th line after eq. 42 "The probability for this to happen is...

Correct

Please read the line just after eq. 40. The author says that psi_a are a complete normalized eigenfuntions of the operator A. You must understand that in order to compare the probability distribution with the one of standard quantum mechanics, he must use the same basis of eigenvectors of the...

You seem not to understand that pratically all physicists use only standard quantum mechanics and consider hidden variables, bohemian mechanics, dechoerence, many worlds only as phylosofical speculations, and not as scientific theories. I came here with sincere interest to understand if there...

Nonsense

You have given no arguments before and you are given no arguments now. You are only quoting some sources. It is well known that there are many people who do not accept standard quantum theory, in spite of its extraordinary experiemental evidences; these peoplea try to develope alternative...

It evident that you do not understand what you are writing, since in the appendix it is written explicitly that the eigenvectors are eigenfunctions of the operator A; hence eq. 42 cannot be the Schmidt decomposition.

No it isn't. In fact Schmidt theorem says that: For any vector v in the tensor product , there exist orthonormal sets u and v ... this means that the two orthonormal sets are in general different for any different vector v; in other words they depend on the choice of v, but there are...

I have explained the reason why eq.42 is wrong and you have raised no counter arguments; you have only said that it is correct because someone else think it is correct, and this is not a valid argument. I give you another argument proving that the so called "theory of quantum measurement" of...

Eq. 42 is never used in serious scientific papers on quantum mechanics. I have published some papers on Physical Review B, and read a lot of papers on Physical Review Letters and Physical Review B and I have never found eq. 42. This is due to the fact that in standard quantum mechanics eq. 42...

You are wrong: Eq. 42 does not describe a measurement, as I have already explain to you; in fact the time evolution of the wave function in eq. 2 does not allow for the change in the position of the needle before and after the measurement. I am very expert in quantum mechanics, while I think...

I would like to add that changing psi_a with psi'_a means nothing at all. You seem not to understand that you have to describe a measurement; so the wave function must evolve in time form an initial situation when the electron has a given momentum and the needle of the detector has value zero...

I disagree. Eq. 42 is wrong because it is not possible to use a simple decomposition of the wave function as a sum of terms such as Psi_a X_a with X_a non-overlapping, but the corret sum such be given for two independent index a and b with terms Psi_a X_b. In other words, the author is right...

Thank you very much for providing the correct link. However eq. 42 in the appedix does not seem correct to me. For example, consider the momentum p as the operator A. So we are measuring the momentum of an electron through a detector. Before the electron interacts with the detector, the...