Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Mathematically what causes wavefunction collapse?

  1. Oct 29, 2013 #1
    Hi all, I was wondering mathematically ,what causes wave function collapse? and why does it exist in all it's Eigen states before measurement? Thanks for any help and please correct my question if I have anything wrong.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 29, 2013 #2
    Nothing in the Mathematical formalism of QM does it predict wave function collapse.
  4. Oct 29, 2013 #3
    But where does the idea come from? and what of the double-slit experiment?
  5. Oct 29, 2013 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It's just a heuristic rule. If you perform a measurement, you find the system in an eigenstate to the corresponding observable and the probability for this is given by the Born rule. So the Copenhagen interpretation introduces the collapse rule which does exactly this.

    Many people dislike collapse because of this. There are numerous interpretations of QM which don't need collapse but all of them are weird some other way.
    This depends on the observable. Your state is an eigenstate wrt to some observables and a superposition wrt to other observables. Such observables are called incompatible with the first set of observables. Their existence is the cause of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
  6. Oct 29, 2013 #5
    The idea comes from that we see a definite result (i.e spin up or down), not a superposition of spin up and spin down.

    I suggest you read up on the measurement problem. Wikipedia isn't too bad at explaining that.

    There are also some good chapters in David Albert's "Quantum Mechanics & Experience" on the issue.
  7. Oct 29, 2013 #6
    I get the heuristics an the intuition (what little there is) I was just hoping for something more concrete mathematically.
  8. Oct 29, 2013 #7
    Hall (quantum theory for mathematicians) treats wave function collapse as an axiom of quantum mechanics.

    "Suppose a quantum system is initially in a state ψ and that a
    measurement of an observable f is performed. If the result of the measurement
    is the number λ ∈ R, then immediately after the measurement, the
    system will be in a state ψ' that satisfies fψ=λψ' "
  9. Oct 29, 2013 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You could read a bit about decoherence. It helps to state the problem much clearer and it explains why some interpretations don't need collapse.

    QM suggests an answer to the question why collapse is only a heuristic rule. If you perform a measurement, you get entangled with the system. The resulting state is a superposition of "you experiencing A" and "you experiencing B". The Copenhagen interpretation says that the real experience is selected by collapse. The Many Worlds interpretation says both experiences are real, they belong to different worlds. Therefore, it doesn't need collapse.

    The introduction of collapse could be seen as sticking to reductionism while the QM math suggests a more holistic picture, where the experimenter and system can't be separated.
  10. Oct 29, 2013 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Understanding "collapse" requires mathematical modeling of the entire system, including the measuring apparatus. This is not easy to do, and drastic approximations are typically made. There is a very large literature on this. Here is just one (relatively user friendly) paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/quantph/0306072
  11. Oct 29, 2013 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Concrete mathematically"? Will you be asking about "jumbo shrimp" next? :smile:

    Seriously though, as far as the math of QM goes, it doesn't get much better than the postulate that every observable corresponds to a Hermitian operator, and that a measurement of that observable must yield a value that is an eigenvalue of the corresponding operator.
  12. Oct 29, 2013 #11
    Any link as to where I can learn more about advanced QM mathematically? not just this problem but all of it.

    especially the derivations

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2013
  13. Oct 29, 2013 #12


    Staff: Mentor

    You need to study Ballentine - QM - A Modern Development:

    Here you will find QM developed from just two axioms and why the outcome of an observation is an eigenvector, and indeed what a state is in the first place. Schrodinger's equation, for example, is given its correct basis - symmetry.

    And once you have grasped that then you can take a look at Gleason's Theorem and see that the second axiom more or less follows from the first:

    After that you will understand exactly what QM is about, and its true foundational issue encoded, basically, in just one axiom.

    The reason its not usually presented this way is the math is FAR from trivial. But its really the only way to understand just what the theory says.

    Then when you have finished that you can look into decoherence which is the basis of much of the modern interpretations of QM:

    The measurement problem has not been solved - the collapse issue is still there in modern treatments, but decoherence has explained APPARENT collapse, which for many people, myself included, is good enough.

    If you want to go even deeper into it get my go-to book on it by Schlosshauer

    And after all that if you want our very deepest and most sophisticated version of QM then check out:

    Be warned however - such books are called by mathematicians non trivial - which is a euphorism for HARD.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  14. Oct 29, 2013 #13


    Staff: Mentor

    That's the first axiom in Ballentine's treatment, the second axiom following from that via Gleason's theorem, so basically that's it, that's all - just one axiom.

    This is the fundamental foundational postulate from which all of QM basically follows - and Ballentine gives its detail.

    But what it means - that is a MUCH MUCH more difficult matter.

    Still its very wise to understand the mathematical formalism and exactly what its axiomatic basis is before delving into that minefield.

    And it will take you WAY beyond, well to be blunt, the sickening tripe often found in the popular press that use QM to promote mystical nonsense like What the Bleep Do We Know Anyway.

    And finally here is the way I like to look at that single axiom.

    Imagine we have a system and some observational appartus that has n possible outcomes associated with values yi. This immediately suggests a vector and to bring this out I will write it as Ʃ yi |bi>. Now we have a problem - the |bi> are freely chosen - they are simply man made things that follow from a theorem on vector spaces - fundamental physics can not depend on that. To get around it QM replaces the |bi> by |bi><bi| to give the operator Ʃ yi |bi><bi| - which is basis independent. This is the foundational axiom of QM, and heuristically why its resonable.

    If you want an even deeper foundational treatment based on the modern view, nowadays its often thought of as just a novel version of probability theory - there basically being just two reasonable models applicable to physical systems. Check out:

    That would probably be the most recent view - QM is basically a probability model - there are many of those and the study of such is a modern development - but for modelling physical systems some very reasonable assumptions leads to basically two - bog standard probability theory you learnt about at school and QM - but what distinguishes QM is it allows entanglement, which would seem the rock bottom, basic, essential wierdness of QM.

    Last edited: Oct 29, 2013
  15. Oct 29, 2013 #14
    There are many sources but you are not ready for those. You should likely begin with a more elementary treatment (after you finish calculus and linear algebra).

    So I can say I did answer your question though, Ballentine is the standard mathematically oriented quantum book. A more elementary but still slightly more mature book than griffiths is Zettili, quantum mechanics.
  16. Oct 30, 2013 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  17. Oct 30, 2013 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    In the mathematical formalism of QM is no collapse of the state, and it's not necessary at all to claim that there is one. It's only one flavor of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it causes a lot of trouble, particularly inconsistencies with causality in relativistic quantum theory.

    For a good exposition of the foundations of quantum theory, I'd also recommend to read Ballentine's textbook, which follows the Minimal Statistical Interpretation, which has been already mentioned in this thread, or also the newest textbook by Weinberg, who gives a good overview over some of the interpretations of quantum theory too:

    S. Weinberg, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University
  18. Oct 30, 2013 #17


    Staff: Mentor


    Few people seem to mention that - don't quite know why.

    That's just another reason to study Ballentine - he explains it all carefully - its one of the few books that does.

    Heard good things about Wienberg's book as well - but don't personally have it - although it's on my list.

  19. Oct 30, 2013 #18
    It might be too obvious but it's worth repeating - the mathematical formalism does not explain what we classical observers see(single outcomes). It's a crippled model and needs additional fancy stuff, hence the need for collapse postulates, unobserved universes and magical guiding waves. In other words, even if you choose to look the other way, the measurement problem is still there.
  20. Oct 30, 2013 #19
    All of the interpretations are attempts to explain a fundamental unknown: why measurements are statistical at the quantum level. ALL are 'weird' because quantum mechanics is.


    Wikipedia says this:

    QM suggests nature is fundamentally indeterministic, meaning nature exhibits statistically based observables. A quantum system is described by a quantum state. The evolution in time of a state is described by the wave function: but there is no universal on what the wavefuntion means let alone it's possible 'collapse'. The effect of a measurement on the state [wave function] makes it jump into some eigenstate…but which eigenstate is a matter of chance!!

    And I especially like this:
    The following quote is from Roger Penrose celebrating Stephen Hawking’s 60th birthday in 1993 at Cambridge England.....this description offered me a new insight into quantum/classical relationships:

  21. Oct 30, 2013 #20


    Staff: Mentor

    It's there in one form or another, meaning each interpretation handles it its own way, and not everyone agrees which is the best way.

    IMHO that's the real issue with QM - that each interpretation sucks in its own unique way - not any particular issue such as what causes wave-function collapse because for a particular issue one interpretation has there is another where it doesn't even exist or is a non issue.

    Last edited: Oct 30, 2013
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook