PeterDonis said:
I am. I don't think you're reading me.
Yes, I'm reading you. Thanks for your answer
PeterDonis said:
No, it's not. See my response to @Morbert in post #99 just now. There's a reason why, in the PF Insights article referenced, the projection postulate is stated in the very limited way it's stated. Going beyond that very limited statement, and applying it the way you're applying it, is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is.
Now, I understand your objection much better. Let me address this with a simple example. A two-particle system is initially prepared in the state ##\ket{\Psi_{12}(t_0)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\ket{\uparrow_{1z}} \otimes \ket{\uparrow_{2z}} + \ket{\downarrow_{1z}} \otimes \ket{\downarrow_{2z}})##. Then, at time ##t_1## Alice measures the spin of particle 1 along the ##z##-axis and obtains spin-up, while later, at time ##t_2## Bob measures the spin of particle 2 along the ##z##-axis. We want to know what the state of particle 2 is between Alice's and Bob's measurements, i.e., at any time ##t## ##(t_1 < t < t_2)##. Since that Alice measured spin-up, we know from the initial state that Bob will certainly measure spin-up. Therefore, the quantum state of particle 2 before Bob's measurements should be ##\ket{\psi_2(t_1<t<t_2)} = \ket{\uparrow_{2z}}##, since this is the only quantum state that assures us that Bob's measurement will give the result "spin-up" with a probability of 1. So, how we could obtain the quantum state of particle 2 after Alice's measurement, given the initial state and the result of Alice's measurement? Well, it's pretty obvious that the mathematical operation that makes particle 2 to end up in the state ##\ket{\psi_2(t_1<t<t_2)} = \ket{\uparrow_{2z}}## is the application of the projector ##P_{\uparrow_{1z}} = \ket{\uparrow_{1z}}\bra{\uparrow_{1z}} \otimes I## onto the initial state of the entire system. As is evident, the projector only acts on particle 1. This is the
definition of the collapse postulate when applied to entangled states as found in standard QM textbook (e.g., Zweibach's).
So, we can begin to discuss whether this state of particle 2 after Alice's measurement is ontic or not, whether this "collapse" is a physical process or simply a mathematical step to predict the probabilities of future measurements, but that's a separate topic. We aren't there yet.
Do you have another way to apply the collapse postulate than the one I explain here?
PeterDonis said:
As evidenced by the fact that, as I've already commented, we have had references given in this thread on both sides of the question.
What references? I don't see any that point to the way I apply the collapse postulate, as defined in the QM textbooks I mentioned, as being flawed.
To avoid confusion, I'm not saying this is the only way to analyze these kinds of experiments.
What I'm saying is that it's the way to analyze them if you use the Schrödinger equation in its usual form, that is, by allowing the quantum state to evolve forward-in-time.
Lucas.