Does a measurement setup determine the reality of spin measurement outcomes?

In summary, the concept of spin in the Copenhagen interpretation is not considered to be real before a measurement is performed. In Bohmian mechanics, spin is determined before the measurement by the wave function, which is considered to be ontologically real. However, in this interpretation, spin does not exist as a separate entity, only particle positions do. The measurement of spin in Bohmian mechanics is simply the measurement of whether the particle ends in the upper or lower detector in a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. In some interpretations, such as the thermal interpretation, spin is considered to be a real number that is only discretized by measurement. In the Copenhagen interpretation, spin is not considered to be real until measured, while in Bohmian mechanics it
  • #211
romsofia said:
A measurement is simply the establishment of a correlation between a "system" observable an an "apparatus" observable.
A. Neumaier said:
Which correlation is established in the Stern-Gerlach experiment between a "system" observable an "apparatus" observable when you take a single measurement of a spin?
romsofia said:
I will outline the steps taken by Bryce DeWitt in his book (as it is an old book, and I don't think many members will have it off hand!):
What you outline only says that by the formal part of quantum mechanics, the system state and the detector state become entangled through the interaction.

Measurement, i.e., recording a particular value of the spin, is not yet involved. A single measurement establishes no correlations at all. A sufficiently long sequence of measurements therefore does not establish anything either, but just reveals the preexisting correlations created by the entanglement.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
PeterDonis said:
Those aren't formulas for updating the probabilities of the 6 rolls of the die. They're formulas for updating the probabilities of hypotheses. What hypotheses are you updating the probabilities of?
There are six relevant hypotheses, namely that throwing the dice the next time will give 1 resp. 2,3,4,5,6.
 
  • #213
Elias1960 said:
There are six relevant hypotheses, namely that throwing the dice the next time will give 1 resp. 2,3,4,5,6.

Well, then it's easy to falsify all but one of them just by rolling the die once more. Which obviously isn't right, so you must be misidentifying the hypotheses. Try again.
 
  • #214
A. Neumaier said:
Another important difference is that a POVM measurment makes no claim about which values are measured.
So there's no meaning whatsoever in the POVM formalism? I thought it's a binary decision "click or no-click"?
 
  • #215
A. Neumaier said:
?

Which correlation is established in the Stern-Gerlach experiment between a "system" observable an "apparatus" observable when you take a single measurement of a spin?
The observable is the spin component in a direction determined by the magnetic field. The "apparatus observable" (usually called the pointer observable) is the location of the particle. The SG magnet establishes within some accuracy (which can at least in principle be made as good as you wish) an entanglement between the spin component and the position of the particle. Rightly calibrated selecting particles in the appropriate spatial region leads to a FAPP 100% determination of the spin component, i.e., is a preparation procedure for the corresponding pure spin state.
 
  • #216
A. Neumaier said:
Another important difference is that a POVM measurment makes no claim about which values are measured.

It just says that one of the detectors making up the detection device responds with a probability given by the trace formula.
vanhees71 said:
So there's no meaning whatsoever in the POVM formalism? I thought it's a binary decision "click or no-click"?
This is not what I was saying.

The POVM gives probabilities for a particular detector element responding "click or no-click", without assigning a numerical value to it. The latter must be assigned independently. POVM and value assignment together define a numerical observable. Given only the POVM, the value assignment can be done in principle arbitrarily. To make the detector produce a measurement of the intended observable, the value assignment must be properly calibrated.

Just as a classical pointer just points somewhere, without assigning a numerical value to it. The latter must be assigned independently. This is done by adding a scale with numbers on it a reasonable interpolation scheme implied by additional ticks. Pointer and scale together define a numerical observable. Given only the pointer, the scale can be chosen in principle arbitrarily. To make the detector produce a measurement of the intended observable, the scale must be properly calibrated.

The situation is therefore completely analogous to the classical case.
 
  • #217
A probability is a numerical value (between [0,1]). To measure it you prepare a lot of systems and count in how many cases the detector clicks. Then, if the POVM is an accurate description, the relative frequency of the clicks should converge to the predicted value of the probability.

One should not complicate the issue even further by discussing the trivial fact that you have to calibrate your measurement device to give a value for an observable in a given unit.
 
  • #218
vanhees71 said:
A probability is a numerical value (between [0,1]). To measure it you prepare a lot of systems and count in how many cases the detector clicks. Then, if the POVM is an accurate description, the relative frequency of the clicks should converge to the predicted value of the probability.
Yes, of course.
vanhees71 said:
One should not complicate the issue even further by discussing the trivial fact that you have to calibrate your measurement device to give a value for an observable in a given unit.
But POVMs also cover measurements of arbitrary observables, not only of binary ones. A numerical assignment is necessary in all cases where one wants to measure nonbinary observables (such as relative position, particle spin, interference patterns, or optical angular momentum states). In this case one needs to assign different numbers to different detector elements.
 
  • #219
A. Neumaier said:
Did you ever apply what you recommend to others?
Only if I find it useful for me to do this. Fortunately, I do not have to make money by computing something for other people.
A. Neumaier said:
Please tell us the updated probability distribution after having recorded the information described above.
Feel free to make a financial offer for computing something for you, but I doubt I will accept it, given that I have no necessity to work for money.
PeterDonis said:
Well, then it's easy to falsify all but one of them just by rolling the die once more. Which obviously isn't right, so you must be misidentifying the hypotheses. Try again.
The possibility of falsification shows that they are not hypotheses? I think hypotheses even have to be falsifiable, else they are not empirical hypotheses (even if string theorists think otherwise).

Similar to the remark above, I see no reason to try something upon your request. The time when I was a pupil who had to answer questions in examinations was in the last Millenium, and there is also no contract for me which obliges to teach you something. If you want an introduction into the objective Bayesian probability interpretation, there are textbooks for this, I would recommend

Jaynes, E.T. (2003). Probability Theory: The Logic of Science

for this.
 
  • Sad
Likes weirdoguy and Motore
  • #220
@Elias1960: Asking these questions was a polite way of pointing out how poorly you understand what you are talking about. By doing the exercise you would have found this out without having to be told explicitly, saving your face.
Elias1960 said:
I doubt I will accept it, given that I have no necessity to work for money.
But probably you also feel that you have no necessity to save your face. Well, as you wish...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and weirdoguy
  • #221
A. Neumaier said:
@Elias1960: Asking these questions was a polite way of pointing out how poorly you understand what you are talking about. By doing the exercise you would have found tis out without having to be told explicitly, saving your face.
If I make errors, I prefer open explanations of the errors. And, BTW, everybody understands very well that your method of asking questions, like a teacher to pupils, is a way of saying that I don't understand anything. Given that this is combined with not openly telling what is wrong, this is much worse than an explicit explanation of what was wrong with what I wrote.
 
  • #222
Elias1960 said:
your method of asking questions, like a teacher
Well, I am a university teacher, and know how to impart knowledge efficiently.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42 and berkeman
  • #223
A. Neumaier said:
Well, I am a university teacher, and know how to impart knowledge efficiently.
To put oneself into a superior position, namely by asking questions in a way expected from a teacher to pupils, in a discussion with somebody you don't know at all, and who has not asked you for help, is not very polite behavior. I doubt that such impolite behavior is a good way to impart knowledge efficiently.

You also seem to have ignored that my last post was also a sort of request for an explicit description of what was wrong with what I wrote. So, I repeat this request, if there was IYO something wrong with what I wrote, explain what was wrong, and what would be IYO the correct way to describe this.
 
  • #224
Elias1960 said:
everybody understands very well that your method of asking questions, like a teacher to pupils, is a way of saying that I don't understand anything.

No, it was a way of trying to get you to show your work explicitly. Which was a perfectly valid request (I made it too) and you refused to do it. Which means that you are now banned from further posting in this thread.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy
  • #225
A. Neumaier said:
But POVMs also cover measurements of arbitrary observables, not only of binary ones. A numerical assignment is necessary in all cases where one wants to measure nonbinary observables (such as relative position, particle spin, interference patterns, or optical angular momentum states). In this case one needs to assign different numbers to different detector elements.
Fine, but how can one make this concrete for the most fundamental observable in non-relativistic QT, i.e., position measurements. I've been googling a long time, but couldn't find a concrete description of this fundamental example. I tried to make it up myself, but I'm unsure, whether it's correctly defining a POVM. At least it would make some sense to me as a simple model to describe a position measurement of a pixel detector with finite resolution. The details are in the other thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...m-theory-the-povm-concept.977280/post-6233312
 
  • #226
A. Neumaier said:
Well, I am a university teacher, and know how to impart knowledge efficiently.
Well, but obviously rather the math students than physics students. SCNR ;-)).
 
<h2>1. What is a measurement setup in the context of spin measurement outcomes?</h2><p>A measurement setup refers to the experimental apparatus used to measure the spin of a particle, such as a Stern-Gerlach apparatus or a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine.</p><h2>2. Can the measurement setup influence the outcome of a spin measurement?</h2><p>Yes, the measurement setup can influence the outcome of a spin measurement. Factors such as the strength and orientation of magnetic fields, as well as the sensitivity and precision of the measurement instrument, can affect the results.</p><h2>3. Does the measurement setup determine the reality of spin measurement outcomes?</h2><p>No, the measurement setup does not determine the reality of spin measurement outcomes. The outcome of a spin measurement is determined by the intrinsic properties of the particle being measured, and the measurement setup simply allows us to observe and quantify these properties.</p><h2>4. How do scientists account for the influence of the measurement setup on spin measurement outcomes?</h2><p>Scientists take great care in designing and calibrating their measurement setups to minimize any potential influence on spin measurement outcomes. They also conduct multiple measurements and analyze the data statistically to account for any experimental errors.</p><h2>5. Are there any limitations to the accuracy of spin measurements due to the measurement setup?</h2><p>Yes, there are limitations to the accuracy of spin measurements due to the measurement setup. These limitations can be minimized through advancements in technology and careful experimental design, but they cannot be completely eliminated due to the inherent uncertainty and complexity of quantum systems.</p>

1. What is a measurement setup in the context of spin measurement outcomes?

A measurement setup refers to the experimental apparatus used to measure the spin of a particle, such as a Stern-Gerlach apparatus or a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine.

2. Can the measurement setup influence the outcome of a spin measurement?

Yes, the measurement setup can influence the outcome of a spin measurement. Factors such as the strength and orientation of magnetic fields, as well as the sensitivity and precision of the measurement instrument, can affect the results.

3. Does the measurement setup determine the reality of spin measurement outcomes?

No, the measurement setup does not determine the reality of spin measurement outcomes. The outcome of a spin measurement is determined by the intrinsic properties of the particle being measured, and the measurement setup simply allows us to observe and quantify these properties.

4. How do scientists account for the influence of the measurement setup on spin measurement outcomes?

Scientists take great care in designing and calibrating their measurement setups to minimize any potential influence on spin measurement outcomes. They also conduct multiple measurements and analyze the data statistically to account for any experimental errors.

5. Are there any limitations to the accuracy of spin measurements due to the measurement setup?

Yes, there are limitations to the accuracy of spin measurements due to the measurement setup. These limitations can be minimized through advancements in technology and careful experimental design, but they cannot be completely eliminated due to the inherent uncertainty and complexity of quantum systems.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
114
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
993
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
431
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
12
Views
878
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
52
Views
619
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
877
Back
Top