Against Collapse: A Mathematical Argument

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of "Collapse" language and how it is not necessary in quantum mechanics. It introduces a simple argument using the joint probability density for measurement results in a state and the Fourier transform to show that using a multi-time formalism correctly can eliminate the need for wavefunction collapse. The conversation also touches on the idea of rephrasing collapse in terms of conditional probability and its connection to the Heisenberg cut. It concludes by considering different models and how they can represent consecutive measurements without the need for collapse.
  • #1
Peter Morgan
Gold Member
274
77
One sees "Collapse" language all the time, and yet it seems there's a very simple argument that shows that it's not necessary. Suppose we measure ##\hat A## twice, at an earlier and at a later time, then the joint probability density for the measurement results being ##u## and ##v## respectively, in a state ##\rho(\hat A)=\mathsf{Tr}[\hat A\hat\rho]## is ##\rho\left(\delta(\hat A-u)\delta(\hat A-v)\right)##. If we take the Fourier transform of that and perform a single change of variable, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\quad\rho\!\left(\delta(\hat A-u)\delta(\hat A-v)\right)
&=&\int\hspace{-0.7em}\int\!\!\rho\!\left(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{j}\lambda\hat A}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{j}\mu\hat A}\right)
\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{j}\lambda u-\mathrm{j}\mu v}\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda}{2\pi}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mu}{2\pi}\cr
&=&\int\hspace{-0.7em}\int\!\!\rho\!\left(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{j}\alpha\hat A}\right)
\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{j}\alpha u-\mathrm{j}\mu(v-u)}\frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha}{2\pi}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mu}{2\pi}
\quad\mbox{(substituting $\lambda=\alpha-\mu$)}\cr
&=&\rho\!\left(\delta(\hat A-u)\right)\delta(v-u)
\end{eqnarray*}
[we can think of the integrands above as generating functions for moments ##\rho\left(\hat A^n\right)##.] This asserts that there's a 100% correlation between the results one obtains for the two measurements, because ##v## must be exactly equal to ##u##, and yet there's been no "collapse" of the state ##\rho(\cdot)##, we've just used the one state at different times. If ##\hat A## commutes with the Hamiltonian, the same measurement procedure will give the same result, whereas if ##[\hat A,\hat H]\not=0##, a different measurement procedure will have to be used to give the same measurement result as was obtained at the earlier time, but if we make the same measurement at different times we will, according to this calculation, obtain precisely the same result. Conversely, if we don't obtain the same, perfectly correlated results, we haven't made the same measurement (the proof of how well we understand what measurements we've made is in the measurement results).

This is a very simple calculation, but it seems to say that just using a multi-time formalism correctly (which is very natural for quantum fields such as quantized EM/quantum optics, but trickier, though it can be done, if we use a one-time Hilbert space unitarily evolved to different times) is enough, we don't ever have to collapse the wavefunction. Note that although the wavefunction does not determine what the measurement result for either the first or the second measurement will be, the wave function determines the conditional probability density for both the first and the second measurement, given the measurement result of either one, which does determine the measurement result of the other. Indeed, adopting this conditional probability approach is perhaps less likely to lead our intuition astray, insofar as one might not want to say that the second measurement "collapsed" the result for the first measurement.

Of course it has been argued before that no-collapse interpretations are possible, but this is an entirely mathematical argument that seems to me to have relatively little metaphysical/ontological baggage. I haven't seen the argument reduced to the three line derivation above (short is how I like 'em), but is it out there in a closely comparable form?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Peter Morgan said:
##\hat A## twice, at an earlier and at a later time, then the joint probability density for the measurement results being ##u## and ##v## respectively, in a state ##\rho(\hat A)=\mathsf{Tr}[\hat A\hat\rho]## is ##\rho\left(\delta(\hat A-u)\delta(\hat A-v)\right)##
No, this is the joint density for simultaneously getting ##u## and ##v##. For consecutive measurement you need first to apply a filter operation ##\rho\to P\rho P^*## corresponding to the first measurement, then the unitary dynamics for the time between the measurements, and then another filter operation for the second measurement. This is the generally accepted procedure.

Note also that rephrasing collapse in terms of conditional probability is essentially von Neumann's 1932 argument showing that the Heisenberg cut can be places anywhere. The collapse happens at the Heisenberg cut when you match a theoretical quantum description of part of the universe with a classical description of the remainder in terms of preparation and measurement. As long as you stay on the level of conditional probabilities you are on the level of theory. To make your argument work in a longer sequence of activities you need to consider more and more complex conditional probabilities. But somewhere you need to start with having prepared something and end with having observed something, and collapse there is unavoidable and objective.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes bhobba and Peter Morgan
  • #3
A. Neumaier said:
No, this is the joint density for simultaneously getting ##u## and ##v##. For consecutive measurement you need first to apply a filter operation ##\rho\to P\rho P^*## corresponding to the first measurement, then the unitary dynamics for the time between the measurements, and then another filter operation for the second measurement. This is the generally accepted procedure.

Note also that rephrasing collapse in terms of conditional probability is essentially von Neumann's argument showing that the Heisenberg cut can be places anywhere. The collapse happens at the Heisenberg cut when you match a theoretical quantum description of part of the universe with a classical description of the remainder in terms of preparation and measurement. As long as you stay on the level of conditional probabilities you are on the level of theory. But to make your argument work in a longer sequence of activities you need to consider more and more complex conditional probabilities. But somewhere you need to start with having prepared something and end with having observed something, and collapse there is unavoidable and objective.
Thanks, Arnold, very useful as always. I started thinking in these terms in a free field theoretic setting, inevitably for me, where ##\hat\phi_f## is equivalent to ##\hat\phi_g## if ##(f-g,f-g)=0## (using the pre-inner product ##(f,g)=\langle 0|\hat\phi_f^\dagger\hat\phi_g|0\rangle##), which can be true when ##f## and ##g## are time-like separated. Then ##\rho\left(\delta(\hat\phi_f-u)\delta(\hat\phi_g-v)\right)=\rho\left(\delta(\hat\phi_f-u)\delta(\hat\phi_f-v)\right)## is consecutive in the sense that ##g## has support that is later or earlier in time than the support of ##f##, but is simultaneous in the sense of a block world model (to which I personally don't attach an ontological significance, though some people do). In a one-Hilbert-space-at-each-time model, the usual nonrelativistic approach, ##\hat A## now is equivalent to the unitarily evolved operator ##\hat U^\dagger\hat A\hat U## at a later time, so that in ##\rho\left(\delta(\hat A-u)\delta(\hat A-v)\right)##, ##\hat A## can refer to both ##\hat A## now and ##\hat U^\dagger\hat A\hat U## at a later time, which again is as much as to say at the same time "yes, simultaneous", but also that this is how one can represent consecutive measurements.
Your second paragraph seems to me much more interesting, although a classical physicist would seem to be equally bound by the argument, insofar as the expression for ##\rho\left(\delta(\hat A-u)\delta(\hat A-v)\right)## is equally true for a classical physicist (defining such as an observer who only has access to a commutative algebra of observables ##\hat A##, for whom all states can be assumed to be mixed states because they cannot distinguish mixed states from pure states). Both a classical and a quantum physicist can measure what there is (what the universe presents to us without our intervention) or they can work with prepared states that have been calibrated and tuned by using standardized measurement devices. Yes there is a separation into state ##\rho:\hat A\mapsto \rho(\hat A)## and measurements ##\hat A##, but the state doesn't necessarily have to be "prepared", with "collapse" invoked as providing that separation.
When I look at it in the light of your comment, my title, 'Against "Collapse" ', more clearly alludes to Bell's 'Against "Measurement" ' than I thought when I wrote the OP, though of course that was in my mind. I'm particularly against saying that collapse —the application of a projection operator as a dynamical or nondynamical process— happens at the moment of appearance of a measurement event such as an Avalanche PhotoDiode current spike. I think that's become a common way of talking about measurement and there's no need for it, but, as you say in your second paragraph, anyone sophisticated will not think in such terms in any case, since they will follow von Neumann in just applying the Heisenberg cut in whatever way they think is most convenient. Which strongly suggests that I can stop worrying about it. Thank you!
 
  • #4
Peter Morgan said:
but also that this is how one can represent consecutive measurements.
No. Try your recipe on a harmonic oscillator with measurements of momentum ##p## followed by a measurement of position ##q##, or vice versa, and you'll see that you get nonsense.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #5
A. Neumaier said:
No. Try your recipe on a harmonic oscillator with measurements of momentum ##p## followed by a measurement of position ##q##, or vice versa, and you'll see that you get nonsense.
I'm not sure I can see how to fix this, but I would take a measurement of ##\hat p## at later and earlier times, translated by the Hamiltonian to the same time as a measurement of ##\hat q##, $$\exp(i(\hat p^2+\hat q^2)t/2)\hat p\exp(-i(\hat p^2+\hat q^2)t/2)=\hat p\cos{t}+\hat q\sin{t},$$ modulo constants, to be sometimes, indeed for the SHO periodically, the same as the measurement of ##\hat q## at a given time.
 

1. What is "Against Collapse: A Mathematical Argument" about?

"Against Collapse: A Mathematical Argument" is a scientific paper that presents a mathematical model to argue against the possibility of a global collapse of human civilization. It aims to provide a more nuanced and evidence-based perspective on the topic of collapse, which is often discussed in a sensationalized manner.

2. What inspired the creation of this mathematical argument?

This mathematical argument was inspired by the growing concern about the possibility of a global collapse of human civilization, as well as the lack of scientific evidence to support such claims. The authors of the paper wanted to use their expertise in mathematical modeling to provide a more rigorous analysis of the issue.

3. How does the mathematical model in this paper work?

The mathematical model in this paper is based on the concept of "critical slowing down", which suggests that systems close to a tipping point will exhibit slower recovery from small disturbances. The model uses this concept to analyze various factors that could potentially lead to a collapse, such as resource depletion and environmental degradation.

4. What are the main findings of this paper?

The main finding of this paper is that while there are certainly challenges facing human civilization, there is no evidence to support the idea of an imminent collapse. The mathematical model suggests that human societies have a high degree of resilience and are capable of adapting to changing conditions, making a global collapse unlikely.

5. What are the implications of this paper's argument?

This paper's argument has important implications for how we approach the topic of collapse and its potential solutions. It highlights the need for evidence-based discussions and actions, rather than fear-mongering and alarmism. It also emphasizes the importance of building resilience and adaptability in our societies to better withstand potential challenges in the future.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
921
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
608
Replies
3
Views
805
Replies
2
Views
540
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
404
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
736
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top