- #1
zonde
Gold Member
- 2,961
- 224
Reading about collapse and Born rule it gives strong feeling that there is semantic mess in QM with the word "measurement".
Wikipedia describes Born rule in following way:
In its simplest form it states that the probability density of finding the particle at a given point is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that point.
So the born rule speaks about finding the particle at a given point. Operationally this is obviously detection in particle detector with amplification to classical signal.
But when measurement is defined using operator it leads to different operational definition of measurement. Again from wikipedia Measurement in quantum mechanics:
The state of a system after measurement is assumed to "collapse" into an eigenstate of the operator corresponding to the measurement. Repeating the same measurement without any evolution of the quantum state will lead to the same result.
This type of projective measurement operationally is defined as filter or splitter of particle beam.
Both measurements are essential in QM and are clearly different operationally and mathematically. But in ordinary language they go by the same name.
Is it possible that big part of "measurement problem" is semantic in nature?
Wikipedia describes Born rule in following way:
In its simplest form it states that the probability density of finding the particle at a given point is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wavefunction at that point.
So the born rule speaks about finding the particle at a given point. Operationally this is obviously detection in particle detector with amplification to classical signal.
But when measurement is defined using operator it leads to different operational definition of measurement. Again from wikipedia Measurement in quantum mechanics:
The state of a system after measurement is assumed to "collapse" into an eigenstate of the operator corresponding to the measurement. Repeating the same measurement without any evolution of the quantum state will lead to the same result.
This type of projective measurement operationally is defined as filter or splitter of particle beam.
Both measurements are essential in QM and are clearly different operationally and mathematically. But in ordinary language they go by the same name.
Is it possible that big part of "measurement problem" is semantic in nature?