High School Quantum field theory and the collapse of the wave function

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between wave functions and quantum fields in the context of quantum mechanics. It questions whether the collapse of a wave function represents a transition from a probabilistic wave to a quantum field or if the wave itself is inherently probabilistic within the quantum field. The response clarifies that state vectors, which are wave functions, collapse to other state vectors and are distinct from quantum fields. The original poster expresses gratitude for the clarification and acknowledges the complexity of the topic. This highlights the nuanced understanding required in quantum theory discussions.
Joao
Messages
80
Reaction score
8
Hi everyone! Sorry for the bad english!

So, just a quick doubt... Does things collapse from a wave of probability into a quantum field or is the wave in the quantum field the probabilistic wave itself?

An example to make it clearer:
Suppose we have an atom, it enters an atom interferometer, it takes both paths simultaneously and exists into one exit or the other...

So, when its traveling inside the interferometer, is its travel represented as an wave in its various fields (like the up quark field, the down quark field) and this wave is a probabilistic wave or does the atom stops being represented as waves in the quantum fields to be represented as a probabilistic wave, and when its measured it collapses into the quantum field?

Thanks! =)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Joao said:
Does things collapse from a wave of probability into a quantum field or is the wave in the quantum field the probabilistic wave itself?
neither. State vectors (which are wave functions in the simplest cases only) collapse to other state vectors, and are very different objects from quantum fields.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Joao and AlexCaledin
A. Neumaier said:
neither. State vectors (wave functions in the simplest cases only) collapse to other state vectors, and are very different objects from quantum fields.

Thanks a lot for the answer! Now that's a possibility I didn't considered and, to be honest, I don't fully understand! I'll try to look more into what you just said! Thanks!
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K