- #1

- 32

- 0

- Thread starter tommyburgey
- Start date

- #1

- 32

- 0

- #2

- 35,847

- 4,664

Zz.

- #3

- 18

- 0

- #4

- 10,963

- 3,676

There are two kinds of physicists: practical ones and those who want to understand nature on the deepest possible level.

The measurement problem "strikes fear into the eyes" only for the latter.

What that problem actually is? Perhaps not everyone will agree, but I would summarize the problem by the following questions:

Do physical observables have some values even when we do not measure them?

If no, then how exactly measurement makes them?

If yes, then how exactly measurement changes them?

The measurement problem "strikes fear into the eyes" only for the latter.

What that problem actually is? Perhaps not everyone will agree, but I would summarize the problem by the following questions:

Do physical observables have some values even when we do not measure them?

If no, then how exactly measurement makes them?

If yes, then how exactly measurement changes them?

Last edited:

- #5

- 18

- 0

But why fear? I would say "fascination and excitement". Many students of quantum mechanics (including me) get "hooked" precisely by the contraintuitive nature of QM and the sense that it never completely fits into your mind.There are two kinds of physicists: practical ones and those who want to understand nature on the deepest possible level.

The measurement problem "strikes fear into the eyes" only for the latter.

- #6

- 35,847

- 4,664

Ah, but you're missing another option here. There could be physicists who are "practical ones" but also interested in understanding nature "on the deepest possible level". The difference being that until there's truly something that can distinguish and answer those questions, everything that is being argued is simply a matter of tastes and would not lead to any kind of agreement.There are two kinds of physicists: practical ones and those who want to understand nature on the deepest possible level.

The measurement problem "strikes fear into the eyes" only for the latter.

Physicists like Tony Leggett make testable proposals on the measurement problem rather than simply argue based on tastes. I would consider that to be very "practical".

Zz.

- #7

- 32

- 0

So is it philosophical rather than physical?

- #8

- 18

- 0

- #9

- 10,963

- 3,676

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0406173

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0705.3542

- #10

- 35,847

- 4,664

As for references, he wrote about the quantum measurement problem in an article in Science a few years ago (Science v. 307, p.871 (2005)). But his seminal work on this issue was a few years earlier after the Schrodinger Cat-type experiments by the groups at Stony Brook and Delft that essentially did an experiment he sugested (J. Phys.: Condens. Matt., v.14, p.R415 (2002)).

Zz.

- #11

JesseM

Science Advisor

- 8,496

- 12

Also, my sense is that it would be hard to really develop a theory of quantum cosmology (where the entire universe is treated using quantum rules, with no observer outside to measure it) without at least partially addressing the measurement problem, so it's not purely philosophical in this sense.

- #12

- 451

- 0

I suggest reading “The Quantum Challenge” by G Greenstein and AG Zajonc. It is good and clear presentation of the problem and it current status (2005) almost without math.What is the measurement problem and why is it such a problem?

Regards, Dany.

- #13

- 1,227

- 2

If you want to strike fear into the eyes a physicist; mention the measurement problem

- #14

- 2,111

- 18

But if you don't know what the quantum mechanical measurement is, you can pretend that you don't have any problems with it, and nothing will force you to admit that you have no idea what it is.

- #15

- 451

- 0

Please, define what the quantum mechanical measurement is (the definition that you use).if you don't know what the quantum mechanical measurement is, you can pretend that you don't have any problems with it, and nothing will force you to admit that you have no idea what it is.

Regards, Dany.

- #16

- 451

- 0

You have no idea what the measurement problem is. It is clearly defined during last 80 years. You confuse OP and violate PF guidelines:What that problem actually is? Perhaps not everyone will agree, but I would summarize the problem by the following questions:

Do physical observables have some values even when we do not measure them?

If no, then how exactly measurement makes them?

If yes, then how exactly measurement changes them?

Regards, Dany.Specifically, we aren't here to defend mainstream science, we are here to explain it.

I will therefore ask people … to please refrain from posting statements of their opinionsunlessthey can quote a peer reviewed published paper, textbook, or other source which supports this as a current subject of scientific debate in accordance with our guidelines.

- #17

- 2,111

- 18

I was talking about the process, that is mathematically described as the state being projected onto some eigenstates. This is what quantum mechanical measurement usually means.Please, define what the quantum mechanical measurement is (the definition that you use).

Regards, Dany.

It is mathematically clear, but what is it physically? When does the projection occur? What initiates the projection?

We are violating only the philosophy "shut up and calculate", but that yet is not a big crime.You have no idea what the measurement problem is. It is clearly defined during last 80 years. You confuse OP and violate PF guidelines:

- #18

- 451

- 0

No. It is not a measurement. You are talking about the universally valid phenomenon called the collapse of the wave packet.I was talking about the process, that is mathematically described as the state being projected onto some eigenstates. This is what quantum mechanical measurement usually means.

Let us talk physics. Your definitions still not clear to me. What is the physics the measurement apparatus obey? Is it the classical physics only (macroscopic)? If so (CI), then why you call it the quantum mechanical measurement? If your physical system under test is macroscopic (obey laws of the classical physics), you will find that every dynamical variable is measurable (observable); if your physical system under test is microscopic (obey laws of the quantum physics), then only the dynamical variables that form the mutually commuting set of self-adjoint operators will be observable. But the measurement set-ups are the same. Clearly for me that you perform the same measurements, only the results are different. Therefore, it is the demonstration that the quantum world is not the classical world. In addition, the above type of measurements is accompanied by the collapse of the wave packet.It is mathematically clear, but what is it physically?

R.Penrose calls it the “R-process” to make distinction from the unitary evolution of the QM system (“U-process”). But it is not a process, there is no dynamics that associated with it and it is not needed. The act of the measurement is instant.

If you agree with me, please redefine the quantum mechanical measurement.

At the same instant when you perform the measurement. It is the transition from the Quantum World to the Classical World. Symbolically we call it the E. Schrödinger Cat.When does the projection occur?

Interaction with the measurement apparatus.What initiates the projection?

Regards, Dany.

- #19

- 2,111

- 18

If a Gaussian wave packet, that is badly delocalized, hits a wall, and collapses into a smaller area, when does the collapse occur? This is a measurement of the position. When does the measurement occur?At the same instant when you perform the measurement.

I can be more specific. Suppose we can approximate some wave packet solution in one dimension as

[tex]

\psi(t,x) = e^{-(x-vt)^2}

[/tex]

Okey, that's not a real solution of SE, but it doesn't matter. The peak of the wave function is at location [itex]x=vt[/itex] at any given instant t. Now, if there is a wall at location L, can you tell me when this "wave packet hits that wall"? An answer "at time [itex]t=L/v[/itex]" is not valid, because that is only the instant when the center of the packet hits the wall. An answer "when the packet first touches the wall" isn't valid either, because it is touching it all the time.

So, when does the wave packet hit the wall? When does the measurement of the position occur?

Last edited:

- #20

- 10,963

- 3,676

Be careful before such statements. I have published several papers on this issue in peer reviewed physics journals. For one of these journals the editor is the Nobel-prize winner G. 't Hooft (who, by the way, also explores the measurement problem in QM). How about you?You have no idea what the measurement problem is. It is clearly defined during last 80 years. You confuse OP and violate PF guidelines:

For people like you who think that all conceptual problems of QM are already solved a long time ago, I have written a review:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609163

And yes, it is accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal (for which the editor is the mentioned Nobel-prize winner).

Last edited:

- #21

- 10,963

- 3,676

Brilliant!

But if you don't know what the quantum mechanical measurement is, you can pretend that you don't have any problems with it, and nothing will force you to admit that you have no idea what it is.

Is that written by you? Do I have a permission to cite it somewhere?

- #22

- 32

- 0

- #23

- 2,111

- 18

hmhm.. yeah it's mine. I used to think this way in programming, one older programmer emphasized this to me. In social life you can always accuse others when things don't work, and nothing forces you to see your own mistake, but in programming your own program, that doesn't work, forces you to see your mistake mercilessly. And watch how the justice works here: If you refuse to find your own mistake in the code, you cannot get the program working anymore!Brilliant!

Is that written by you? Do I have a permission to cite it somewhere?

My comment about wave function collapse was part a more general philosophy. There is usually two kinds of "not understanding". Kind of, where nothing forces you to see the problem, and kind of where it is impossible to keep pretending.

Citing it... hmhmh... I didn't think it's that good myself :/

- #24

- 2,111

- 18

I remember hearing this too. It sounds like misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Perhaps measurements can change past events in some very exotic interpretation, but its not part of the popular Copenhagenian interpretation at least.but I also heard that some wackos actually think that measurement and discovery can change past events???

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but the Shrodinger's cat paradox is a real paradox. You'll have to understand QM before it. What is paradoxical is how macroscopic and living beings could be in superposition of very different states.Also I don't understand how Schrödinger's cat can be anything other than pure philosophy as it doesn't change anything physically it's just our understanding of the events.

- #25

- 451

- 0

The OP question is: What is the measurement problem and why is it such a problem? There are several sessions here at PF related to that question but at least during last year nobody suggest the discussion of the roots and the present status of the problem which is now under intensive development.Be careful before such statements.

In addition, I consider CI out-dated. First of all, I try through discussion with

Your post #4 is related to the M. Born statistical interpretation of QM and has nothing to do with the Measurement Problem. As to your warning to be careful, it may be considered by OP, that we don’t fear anything:

I have no idea what you are talking about.For people like you who think that all conceptual problems of QM are already solved a long time ago.

Regards, Dany.

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 638

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 9K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K