Mixed states vs pure states - physical POV

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physical nature of pure and mixed quantum states, exploring their definitions, implications, and differences. Participants delve into concepts of superposition, statistical mixtures, and the interpretation of quantum states in various contexts, including measurement and basis choice.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe a pure state as a superposition of different states, suggesting that it consists of multiple eigenstates simultaneously.
  • Others argue that a pure state can be represented in different bases and that the notion of superposition is dependent on the choice of basis.
  • There is a discussion about mixed states being statistical mixtures, with some asserting that they arise from incomplete knowledge or from subsystems of entangled systems.
  • Participants express uncertainty about whether a mixed state can be definitively in one of the eigenstates, with some emphasizing that it cannot be unambiguously represented as a statistical combination of pure states.
  • One participant questions the interpretation of superposition, asking if it is accurate to say that a superposition consists of both states at once before measurement.
  • Another participant highlights the difference between a pure superposition and a mixed state, using specific mathematical examples to illustrate their points.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of superposition and mixed states, with multiple competing views remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the interpretation of coefficients in mixed states requires caution, and there is an acknowledgment of the complexities involved in measuring states and the influence of basis choice.

  • #61
vanhees71 said:
Well, can you prove that the measurement devices used to measure the polarization of photons or the spin of particles etc. etc. are not described by quantum statistics of macroscopic "very-many-body systems"

Absolutely, I can't prove that, and I don't believe it. I believe that there should be a non-schizophrenic formulation of quantum theory, but the current formulation is schizophrenic.

If so, then you'd be right in saying that there is a division of the world in microscopic and macroscopic behavior.

I'm saying that the formalism has this division. I'm not saying that the division is inherent in nature. I believe it's not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
stevendaryl said:
I'm calling your approach schizophrenic. If the only meaning of the quantum state is to give probabilities for measurement outcomes (or other macroscopic quantities such as mean values) in terms of preparation procedures, then that's necessarily schizophrenic. A non-schizophrenic theory would not mention macroscopic quantities such as measurements or preparation procedures in the fundamental laws, but would be able to derive whatever is being claimed about those things.
Physics is defined as describing preparation procedures, measurements, quantitative observations of Nature. All theories of physics are right about this way to investigate what's objectively going on. If you want something else, it's not physics!
 
  • #63
stevendaryl said:
Absolutely, I can't prove that, and I don't believe it. I believe that there should be a non-schizophrenic formulation of quantum theory, but the current formulation is schizophrenic.
This is your very individual idea about what the natural sciences should provide. Nature doesn't care about our feelings and expectations how she should behaves. She is just is she is.
 
  • #64
vanhees71 said:
This is your very individual idea about what the natural sciences should provide. Nature doesn't care about our feelings and expectations how she should behaves. She is just is she is.

My complaint is not in how nature behaves, but the schizophrenic way that we describe it. I don't believe that nature is schizophrenic.
 
  • #65
vanhees71 said:
Physics is defined as describing preparation procedures, measurements, quantitative observations of Nature. All theories of physics are right about this way to investigate what's objectively going on. If you want something else, it's not physics!

You're confusing your own philosophy of physics with physics itself.
 
  • #66
It's not my philosophy of physics. It's what physicists do in all kinds of physics labs and theory institutes around the world.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K