Is the collapse indispensable?

In summary: Yes, it is a matter of philosophy. It's not that easy to say that anything that does not appear in one interpretation of quantum mechanics but not in another is purely a matter of philosophy, and can never be tested by any experiment.In summary, the collapse belongs to the subjective side, since it is associated with ''knowledge'' of which nature is ignorant. Properly distinguishing between an objective and a subjective side clears up a lot of the confusion prevailing in the foundations of QM. The best basis to clear up confusions is the (free) book http://www.fisica.net
  • #176
vanhees71 said:
it should be very clear that the state has a meaning for an individual system
This is not very clear - on the contrary, it directly contradicts the minimal statistical interpretation. It is neither minimal nor statistical, but the source of all troubles, including atyy's claim that the statistical interpretation needs a collapse. Every interpretation that attaches a state to the individual system needs the collapse, whereas if an individual system has no associated state there isn't even a way to say what the collapse should mean.

vanhees71 said:
it's a (measurable!) difference whether you prepare N times a polarization entangled two-photon Fock state or some state with 2N photons.
Indeed, the two sources create two essentially different systems. In the first case, each individual system contains exactly 2 photons, while in the second case, each individual system contains exactly 2N photons.

In both cases, one can verify what the source produces by making experiments on a large number of these systems, and in this way distinguish the two.

And in both cases, the individual system has no state, it has only the general characteristics of a quantum system that are independent of its state (in this case, the fixed number of photons they contain).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #177
I would like to say something on the topic of this thread.
I think that collapse can't be simply removed for the following reasons:
1. QM with collapse is standard. So if we say that QM predictions are experimentally verified we mean QM with collapse. Present attempts at removing collapse are making additional assumptions (about how to model measurement). Adding assumptions is justified only if we arrive at new predictions so that we can verify these new assumptions. Otherwise we have to stick to less specific model.
2. Attempts at removing collapse assume that macroscopic (classical) objects (experiment equipment) are very complex quantum systems that can be approximated as simple quantum systems. I think this is assumption is false. And the reason is following. In case of simple quantum systems we take into consideration any particle that participates in interactions within the system, that way we make a clear cut between the system under consideration and the rest of the world. However in case of large classical systems we ignore environment even so the system is constantly interacting with environment. So basically the cut is impossible to make, at one moment photon is part of environment (does not yet belong to the system) at next moment it is absorbed (belongs to the system) and yet a moment later it (another one) is heading away from the system (does not belong to the system any more). We can compare it with living being who is breathing the air. We can not place a clear cut between living thing and it's environment while we can do that for a piece of rock.
 
  • #178
zonde said:
QM with collapse is standard.
No. Collapse occurs only in some of the standard interpretations. Collapse is certainly not part of shut-up-and-calculate, the part on which everyone agrees.

Only the Born rule (which doesn't say anything about the state after measurement) is standard, when applied in the appropriate context (e.g., in scattering experiments).
zonde said:
In case of simple quantum systems we take into consideration any particle that participates in interactions within the system.
No. You simply ignore most things. The whole detector participates in the interaction with the system, otherwise it couldn't detect anything. Thus it would have to be taken into consideration, according to your claim. Simply ignoring this and replacing the interaction by collapse is obviously an approximation. In addition, there are losses due to contact with the transmission medium and its boundary. Again these consist of lots of particles interacting with the system (otherwise the system could not lose anything to them). You ignore this, too. The typical Bell-type experiments ignores all these issues and replaces them by approximate reasoning about efficiency.
 
Last edited:
  • #179
A. Neumaier said:
No. Collapse occurs only in some of the standard interpretations. Collapse is certainly not part of shut-up-and-calculate, the part on which everyone agrees.
It's not so much a question about the part on which everyone agrees but rather about the approach that is most universally used to get clear unequivocal predictions for real experimental setups. But it would be better to her a confirmation from some experimentalist.

A. Neumaier said:
In addition, there are losses due to contact with the transmission medium and its boundary. Again these consist of lots of particles interacting with the system (otherwise the system could not lose anything to them). You ignore this, too. The typical Bell-type experiments ignores all these issues and replaces them by approximate reasoning about efficiency.
Yes, here you are right.
 
  • #180
zonde said:
that is most universally used to get clear unequivocal predictions
The predictions depend only on the shut-up-and-calculate part.
 
  • #181
atyy said:
I think we (kith, you , rubi, and I) have agreed many times that this uses the deferred measurement principle, and is a way of calculating the same probabilities without using collapse. However, what we have is a simultaneous measurement at single late time, not two measurements in sequence. This is the same as avoiding nonlocality in quantum mechanics by saying that there is no reality to the distant observer, since the distant observer does not need to be real until she meets Bob. So yes, collapse can be avoided, just like nonlocality. However, one has to place some non-standard restriction on what one considers real (sequential measurements or distant observers).

Okay, but isn't that more of a matter of qualms about the interpretation of QM? If you can get the same numbers (in theory) without collapse, doesn't that show that collapse isn't "indispensable"?
 
  • #182
A. Neumaier said:
Indeed, the two sources create two essentially different systems. In the first case, each individual system contains exactly 2 photons, while in the second case, each individual system contains exactly 2N photons.

In both cases, one can verify what the source produces by making experiments on a large number of these systems, and in this way distinguish the two.

And in both cases, the individual system has no state, it has only the general characteristics of a quantum system that are independent of its state (in this case, the fixed number of photons they contain).
Now you yourself admit that the state (an equivalence class of a preparation procedure of a single (!) system) has a meaning for the individual system. You can't have ensembles if you can't prepare individual systems. I also agree that you can test the assumption whether you really have prepared some specific state can only be done on the ensemble since probabilistic statements are meaningless for an individual system. That's the minimal interpretation: Specifying the state of an individual system has only very limited meaning concerning the observable facts about this system. The only statement you can make is that, if you have prepared the system in some state, where some observable is determined, i.e., if measured on the individual system you get a predetermined value, which is the eigenvalue of the self-adjoint operator representing that observable. The statistical operator describing the state then must be of the form
$$\hat{\rho}_A(a)=\sum_{j} p_j |a,j \rangle \langle a,j|, \quad \sum_j p_j=1,\quad p_j \geq 0.$$
The ##|a,j \rangle## span the eigenspace of ##\hat{A}## of eigenvalue ##a##.

Your last paragraph simply describes an unprepared system. Then you cannot even associate a state to an ensemble or better said you don't even have an ensemble, because it's not said how to specify it.
 
  • #183
vanhees71 said:
You can't have ensembles if you can't prepare individual systems
One prepares individual systems, according to the statistical interpretation, but these individual systems have no state, since the state is a property of the ensemble only, not of the individual systems.
vanhees71 said:
you yourself admit that the state (an equivalence class of a preparation procedure of a single (!) system) has a meaning for the individual system.
No. Only measurable properties that are definite in the state of the ensemble have a meaning for the individual; in the present case the number of particles specifying the individual system - since this is common to all individual systems by definition of the ensemble. But the individual system has no state - it only has the definite properties common to all individual systems in the preparation.
vanhees71 said:
Your last paragraph simply describes an unprepared system.
No. It describes the individual systems in a preparation whose state has definite particle number but otherwise only statistical properties that depend on what is prepared and measured. For example, in an electron accelerator one prepares an electron beam whose individual systems are known to be electrons but whose other properties are undetermined and depend on the measurement performed on them, according to the momentum distribution determined by the state (the detailed preparation).

In fact, strictly speaking, the measurement results are not even properties of the individual system but properties of the detector in contact with the particle field determined by the preparation. One can completely avoid mentioning the individual microscopic systems. Indeed, what one measures in a collision experiment are ionization tracks and tracks of deposited energy - properties of the detection fluid or wires. Quantum mechanics predicts how the statistics of the tracks in the detector is related to the state of the source, both macroscopically determined stuff.

The particles themselves remain invisible and their properties may even be regarded as completely hypothetical. That we say we measured the track of a particle is already an interpretation of the measurement results, even a problematic one: In the most orthodox setting where only properties can be measured that correspond to commuting operators, a quantum particle should not have a track, since a track implies fairly definite position and momentum simultaneously!
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #184
rubi said:
It shows that every quantum theory that requires collapse can be converted into one that evolves purely unitarily and makes the same predictions. Here is the recipe:
We start with a Hilbert space ##\mathcal H##, a unitary time evolution ##U(t)## and a set of (possibly non-commuting) observables ##(X_i)_{i=1}^n##. We define the Hilbert space ##\hat{\mathcal H} = \mathcal H\otimes\underbrace{\mathcal H \otimes \cdots \mathcal H}_{n \,\text{times}}##. We define the time evolution ##\hat U(t) \psi\otimes\phi_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\phi_n = (U(t)\psi)\otimes\phi_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\phi_n## and the pointer observables ##\hat X_i \psi\otimes\phi_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\phi_n = \psi\otimes\phi_1\otimes\cdots\otimes (X_i\phi_i)\otimes\cdots\otimes\phi_n##. First, we note that ##\left[\hat X_i,\hat X_j\right]=0##, so we can apply the previous result. Now, for every observable ##X_i## with ##X_i\xi_{i k} = \lambda_{i k}\xi_{i k}## (I assume discrete spectrum here, so I don't have to dive into direct integrals), we introduce the unitary von Neumann measurements ##U_i \left(\sum_k c_k\xi_{i k}\right)\otimes\phi_1\otimes\cdots\otimes\phi_n = \sum_k c_k \xi_{i k} \otimes\phi_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \xi_{i k} \otimes\cdots\otimes\phi_n##. Whenever a measurement of an observable ##X_i## is performed, we apply the corresponding unitary operator ##U_i## to the state. Thus, all time evolutions are given by unitary operators (either ##\hat U(t)## or ##U_i##) and thus the whole system evolves unitarily. Moreover, all predictions of QM with collapse, including joint and conditional probabilities, are reproduced exactly, without ever having to use the collapse postulate.

Of course, this is the least realistic model of measurement devices possible, but one can always put more effort in better models.

In this paper Pati shows that when an unknown bit becomes a part of two entangled bits there is a unitary process such that the inital state of the bit is not erased but copied to a third bit.
 
  • #185
A. Neumaier said:
One prepares individual systems, according to the statistical interpretation, but these individual systems have no state, since the state is a property of the ensemble only, not of the individual systems.

No. Only measurable properties that are definite in the state of the ensemble have a meaning for the individual; in the present case the number of particles specifying the individual system - since this is common to all individual systems by definition of the ensemble. But the individual system has no state - it only has the definite properties common to all individual systems in the preparation.

No. It describes the individual systems in a preparation whose state has definite particle number but otherwise only statistical properties that depend on what is prepared and measured. For example, in an electron accelerator one prepares an electron beam whose individual systems are known to be electrons but whose other properties are undetermined and depend on the measurement performed on them, according to the momentum distribution determined by the state (the detailed preparation).

In fact, strictly speaking, the measurement results are not even properties of the individual system but properties of the detector in contact with the particle field determined by the preparation. One can completely avoid mentioning the individual microscopic systems. Indeed, what one measures in a collision experiment are ionization tracks and tracks of deposited energy - properties of the detection fluid or wires. Quantum mechanics predicts how the statistics of the tracks in the detector is related to the state of the source, both macroscopically determined stuff.

The particles themselves remain invisible and their properties may even be regarded as completely hypothetical. That we say we measured the track of a particle is already an interpretation of the measurement results, even a problematic one: In the most orthodox setting where only properties can be measured that correspond to commuting operators, a quantum particle should not have a track, since a track implies fairly definite position and momentum simultaneously!

I can fully agree with that formulation. The association of the state with the individual systems forming the ensemble is the common equivalence class of preparation procedures. For the single system only that observables have a definite value that have been prepared. About everything else you have only probabilistic information, which has a meaning only for the ensemble.

The question about the "tracks" of single particles in, e.g., a cloud chamber has been fully understood by Mott as early as 1929

N. F. Mott, The Wave Mechanics of ##\alpha##-ray tracks, Procs. Roy. Soc. A 126, 79 (1929)
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/126/800/79

It's, of course, due to the interaction of the particle with the matter in the detector which makes the particle appear as if moving on a "track". Of course, that's a pretty coarse-grained picture of the partice.
 
<h2>1. What is meant by "collapse" in this context?</h2><p>The term "collapse" refers to a significant and sudden decline or failure of a system or structure. In this context, it usually refers to the potential collapse of human civilization as a result of various factors such as environmental degradation, resource depletion, and societal issues.</p><h2>2. Is the collapse inevitable?</h2><p>There is no definitive answer to this question as it depends on various factors and perspectives. Some experts argue that the current trajectory of human society is unsustainable and a collapse is inevitable, while others believe that with proper action and changes, a collapse can be avoided.</p><h2>3. What are the potential causes of a collapse?</h2><p>There are many potential causes of a collapse, including environmental disasters, economic instability, political unrest, and societal breakdown. These factors can be interconnected and exacerbate each other, leading to a collapse of the overall system.</p><h2>4. Can we prevent a collapse?</h2><p>Preventing a collapse requires significant and systemic changes in how we live and interact with the environment and each other. This includes addressing issues such as climate change, resource management, and social inequality. It is possible to prevent a collapse, but it will require a collective effort and commitment from individuals, governments, and organizations.</p><h2>5. What can scientists do to help prevent a collapse?</h2><p>Scientists play a crucial role in understanding the potential causes and consequences of a collapse and providing evidence-based solutions. They can also communicate their findings to policymakers and the public to raise awareness and drive action towards preventing a collapse. Additionally, scientists can contribute to developing sustainable technologies and practices that can help mitigate the factors leading to a collapse.</p>

1. What is meant by "collapse" in this context?

The term "collapse" refers to a significant and sudden decline or failure of a system or structure. In this context, it usually refers to the potential collapse of human civilization as a result of various factors such as environmental degradation, resource depletion, and societal issues.

2. Is the collapse inevitable?

There is no definitive answer to this question as it depends on various factors and perspectives. Some experts argue that the current trajectory of human society is unsustainable and a collapse is inevitable, while others believe that with proper action and changes, a collapse can be avoided.

3. What are the potential causes of a collapse?

There are many potential causes of a collapse, including environmental disasters, economic instability, political unrest, and societal breakdown. These factors can be interconnected and exacerbate each other, leading to a collapse of the overall system.

4. Can we prevent a collapse?

Preventing a collapse requires significant and systemic changes in how we live and interact with the environment and each other. This includes addressing issues such as climate change, resource management, and social inequality. It is possible to prevent a collapse, but it will require a collective effort and commitment from individuals, governments, and organizations.

5. What can scientists do to help prevent a collapse?

Scientists play a crucial role in understanding the potential causes and consequences of a collapse and providing evidence-based solutions. They can also communicate their findings to policymakers and the public to raise awareness and drive action towards preventing a collapse. Additionally, scientists can contribute to developing sustainable technologies and practices that can help mitigate the factors leading to a collapse.

Similar threads

  • Sticky
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
804
Replies
35
Views
3K
Replies
46
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
13
Replies
445
Views
24K
Back
Top