B 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!
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
This is still a great mystery, Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance" But science and mathematics are full of concepts which at first cause great bafflement but in due course are just accepted. In the case of Quantum Mechanics this gave rise to the saying "Shut up and calculate". In other words, don't try to "understand it" just accept that the mathematics works. The square root of minus one is another example - it does not exist and yet electrical engineers use it to do...