Elementary questions about inner product interpretation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the inner product <\varphi|\psi> in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to the concept of wave function collapse and its connection to measurement. Participants explore whether this collapse necessitates a measurement and the role of various operators and Hamiltonians in this process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if the collapse associated with <\varphi|\psi> requires a measurement, suggesting it might be part of the wave function's evolution influenced by vacuum energy in the Schrödinger equation.
  • Another participant asserts that collapse does involve measurement and emphasizes that <\varphi|\psi> represents a probability amplitude rather than a probability.
  • A clarification is made regarding the implicit operator in the measurement process, with a participant suggesting that the collapse could be represented by an operator M acting on the state.
  • Discussion includes the idea that the standard textbook description of measurements does not include an operator M, focusing instead on the initial state and observable, leading to probabilities for eigenstates.
  • Participants mention decoherence and environmentally induced superselection as concepts that could explain measurement without invoking collapse, while noting that the dynamical description does not yield a single outcome but retains probabilistic elements.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the distinction between probability and probability amplitude, with emphasis on the correct mathematical representation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of measurement for collapse and the role of operators in this context. There is no consensus on the interpretation of these concepts, and multiple competing views remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various interpretations of quantum mechanics, including speculative extensions and the role of decoherence, without resolving the implications of these theories on the original question of collapse and measurement.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
256
When one says that <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> is the probability that [itex]\psi[/itex] collapses to [itex]\varphi[/itex], does this "collapse" necessarily involve a measurement (so that one would have to find the implicit Hamiltonian)? Or does this just exist as part of the evolution of the wave function, perhaps the vacuum energy playing a role in the Schrödinger equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nomadreid said:
When one says that <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> is the probability that [itex]\psi[/itex] collapses to [itex]\varphi[/itex], does this "collapse" necessarily involve a measurement
Yes. (Also it's not the probability but the probability amplitude.)

nomadreid said:
(so that one would have to find the implicit Hamiltonian)?
In order to do what?

nomadreid said:
Or does this just exist as part of the evolution of the wave function, perhaps the vacuum energy playing a role in the Schrödinger equation?
The vacuum energy is a concept from quantum field theory. It doesn't play a role in ordinary QM. However, there are some speculative extensions to QM which use an explicit physical mechanism to achieve collapse. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#Objective_collapse_theories.
 
Thanks, kith.
Also it's not the probability but the probability amplitude.
Ah, oops, right. There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.
to find the implicit Hamiltonian
In order to do what?
Sorry, I mean the implicit operator. I was considering that the collapse would be brought about by some operator in the measuring process, so that one would be looking at <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> = <M[itex]\psi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> for some operator M.

Thanks for the link.
 
nomadreid said:
Sorry, I mean the implicit operator. I was considering that the collapse would be brought about by some operator in the measuring process, so that one would be looking at <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> = <M[itex]\psi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> for some operator M.
This is a good question. In the textbook description of measurements, there is no such operator M. We have an initial state |ψ> and an observable O and are able to calculate the probabilities for the occurances of the eigenstates of O as final states. The measurement itself has no representation in the mathematical framework.

Now we can try to describe the measurement dynamically. A measuring device and a system interact, so in principle, we should be able to write down an interaction Hamiltonian for them. If we look at the time evolution of the system only, this interaction leads to decoherence in one basis. From this basis, we can construct the observable O. The emergence of the preferred basis is called "environmentally induced superselection". Decoherence means that an initial superposition loses its ability to interfere. This leads to several possible interpretations which get rid of the collapse. But note that your operator M is not a possible description of what happens. The dynamical description doesn't yield a single outcome but contains a probabilistic element.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
nomadreid said:
When one says that <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> is the probability that [itex]\psi[/itex] collapses to [itex]\varphi[/itex]

Just a clarification, the probability is [itex]|<\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi>|^2[/itex], not <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]>. The latter is the probability amplitude.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thanks, kith. Very interesting. Now I shall work on the gritty details ...

thanks for the clarification, LastOneStanding.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 309 ·
11
Replies
309
Views
17K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 155 ·
6
Replies
155
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
7K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
10K
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K