Wave Function Collapsing Function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of wave function collapse in quantum mechanics, specifically questioning whether there exists a mathematical function that describes this phenomenon or if it occurs instantaneously. Participants explore the implications of wave function collapse on the nature of quantum states and their reality.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire if a function exists to describe wave function collapse or if it is an instantaneous event, expressing curiosity about the fate of other possible states post-collapse.
  • One participant asserts that there is no function describing collapse, noting that collapse does not appear in the mathematical formulation of quantum theory, which only provides probabilities for measurement outcomes.
  • Another participant questions whether the wave function represents a physical reality or merely a measure of probability, suggesting that the concept of superimposed states may not hold in "real" terms.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that while the wave function's reality is debated, its mathematical framework allows for accurate predictions in quantum mechanics, leaving the question of its "realness" open to interpretation.
  • One participant argues against the necessity of a collapse, proposing that accepting Born's Rule as a fundamental postulate negates the need for a collapse and emphasizes the philosophical nature of the debate surrounding the reality of quantum states.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of a scientifically sound definition of "real" in the context of quantum mechanics, with references to various mathematical constructs used in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of wave function collapse and the reality of quantum states. There is no consensus on whether collapse is necessary or if the wave function can be considered "real." The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the philosophical implications of the discussion, noting that questions about the reality of quantum states and the necessity of collapse may not be resolvable within the framework of objective science.

sqljunkey
Messages
183
Reaction score
8
Is there a function that describes the collapsing of a wave function? Or does in happen instantaneously in theoretical terms. I do want to know what happens with the other possible states, whether they stay alive but in another form, or what's going on.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sqljunkey said:
Is there a function that describes the collapsing of a wave function? Or does in happen instantaneously in theoretical terms. I do want to know what happens with the other possible states, whether they stay alive but in another form, or what's going on.
There is no function describing collapse; and for that matter, collapse doesn't even appear in the mathematical formulation of the theory so there are no "theoretical terms" for describing it.

As for what's "going on"? The theory obstinately refuses to say anything about that. It tells us the probability of getting a particular measurement result given the wave function; and it tells us what the wave function will be after we've gotten a particular measurement result; but says nothing about how we get from the pre-measurement state to the post-measurement state.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
So it's just a measure of probability, and not an actual physical thing. Not a superimposed state in "real" terms?
 
sqljunkey said:
So it's just a measure of probability, and not an actual physical thing. Not a superimposed state in "real" terms?
That's too strong of a statement. The thing that we know for sure is that you can use the mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics, including the wave function, to predict with exquisite accuracy how the world works. That fact is not obviously inconsistent with the wave function being "real", but it it is also not obviously inconsistent with the wave function not being "real".

You might want to search this forum for more of the 83 bazillion or so threads about interpretations of quantum mechanics that we have.
 
Well, I think sqljunkey is on a very right track! If you think his statement over, i.e., "So it's [the quantum state, i.e., statistical operator] just a measure of probability, and not an actual physical thing." and finally accept it you save a lot of time to do the really interesting things with quantum theory instead of mulling about the never solvable philosophical problems some people have with it. There will never be a consensus about these issues, because it doesn't belong to objective science but to personal believes. E.g., I don't think that one needs a collapse but that the assumption of a collapse is full of problems contradicting basic principles of physics. You don't need a collapse as soon as you have accepted that Born's Rule, i.e., the probabilistic (and only probabilistic) meaning of the quantum state, as a fundamental postulate to define the theory.

Whether the state is "real" is a question that cannot be answered, because there is no scientifically sound definition of the meaning of "real" in this context. When do you call a mathematical construct real? Are the coordinates of the Earth to describe its motion around the Sun real? Are electromagnetic fields real? Are the fiber bundles real that build the basis of the description of this field as a gauge field real? I have no clue, what these questions mean, let alone what a useful answer may be! All I know is that all these mathematical constructs lead to an amazingly detailed description by relatively few basic concepts (if I have to name one basic concepts then it's group theory to describe symmetries).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Zafa Pi, bhobba and weirdoguy
The OP was answered long ago. Time to close this thread.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Can particles appear and disappear "with" a cause?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Can someone please explain to me the motion of an electron?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
High School The wave function of the electron doesn't collapse when passing through air?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Why does anyone think gravity might collapse wave function?
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
Undergrad How Do We Model Wave Function Collapse After Measuring Particle Location?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Is There A Study Showing The Observer Effect Ignoring Conscious Intent?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
High School Quantum entanglement and simultaneity
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School The arrow of time (again)
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
High School Can we all agree "consciousness" is not required to collapse wave function?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
Undergrad How non-conscious can an Observer be and cause wave function collapse?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
9K