- #26

chroot

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,226

- 34

Sure, it could be. You observe the particle at time t=0. Later on, you observe it again at time t=10. What happens to the wavefunction between times 0 and 10 is described by the time dependent Schrodinger equation. What observations you're likely to make at time t=10 is determined by what has happened to the wavefunction in those ten units of time.Originally posted by agnostictheist

but it starts from an intail (oberved) wavefunction right?

All.what sort of "particles" would do this?

I don't know what this means.- and how can we distigush these from simply most prossible.

If the two observables do not commute, no. For example, the particle cannot be in an eigenstate of position and an eigenstate of momentum at the same time.does this wavefunction (can it) contain many eigenstates?

I've told you to go read a book about ten times now. Would you like recommandations of specific books, or what?rather I need a some source that validates what you say

No. Bell's inequality (verified many times, including the Aspect experiments) show than only probabilistic theories or non-local hidden variable theories can explain quantum mechanical experiments. Most people feel non-local hidden variable theories don't make any sense. The universe appears to be fundamentally probabilistic, and there are no deterministic theories possible which can explain it.but what I am saying is that the wavefuntion yes collapse, but to say its "random" is also an interpretation?

The collapse is a postulate of quantum mechanics. I don't know if there's a deeper answer to "WHY?"IF the wavefunction collapse, WHY does it?...due to obervation right?

but were do the other states Go?

If you say so. It sure doesn't seem to be that way, though. Experiments don't "give up."if they are loss, then i am going to ask, why do they have to be loss, and saying they are lossed could be simply throwing arms into the air and saying i give up!

- Warren