[Q]Different interpretation of same wavefucntion.

  • Thread starter Thread starter good_phy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interpretation
good_phy
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Hi

Is it possible that same wavefuction described by math can be interpreted to different

aspect?

For instance, Some wrote wave function as same as momentum eigenstate which is

normalized

But he seemed claim that it is not momentum eigenstate even mathmetical formula is same

And he assumed it is in superposition of all momentum eigenstate in oder to find probability which eigenstate is chosen after momentum measurement

Is it possible? I know if current state is momentum eigenstate and we measure momemtum,

we must get same momentum as same as eigenvalue of that eigenstate and measurement

can not change current state.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hm, could you post the exact argument given by this person? I agree, if it is a momentum eigenstate, measurement of momentum should give the exact eigenvalue...
 
I usually try to think of the wave function as the math that leads to the position space probability density function psi^2. I can think in spatial coordinates very well, so I think of psi^2 as the fundamental thing while I treat the underlying stuff as crazy math. I'm sure I'm missing something with this viewpoint, but that's how I visualize a wave function.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top