Wavefunction collaps past/future effect

  • Thread starter Thread starter batmanmg
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wavefunction
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics, questioning whether this collapse implies destruction and recreation of the wavefunction. It compares the wavefunction to a guitar string, suggesting that observation is akin to hitting a harmonic. The conversation highlights that while quantum mechanics provides probabilities, the behavior of the ultra-micro world remains uncertain between observations. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics exist, with some suggesting that wavefunction collapse is a real phenomenon, while others propose hidden variable theories that do not require it. Ultimately, the existence of wavefunction collapse remains a topic of debate, with no experimental evidence favoring any specific interpretation.
batmanmg
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Wavefunction "collaps" past/future effect

A newb writes,

Do wavefunctions really "collapse?" It seems like this implies that they are destroyed and then recreated. Would it be more accurate to consider them like a guitar string and that observing it is like hitting the harmonic?

I guess another way to put this question would be to ask, Does a wavefunction's past effect its future once a certain observation has made it "collapse" and "reform"?

Wave Function

_______wave's past_________observation___Future
.-------------^------------------. V .--------^-------.
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~|
^_____________________________.^.
Neck_______________________The harmonic
Guitar String
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My poiny of view:
1. QM equations give us the probabilities about something. And are the best ones that we have to describe that ultra-micro world.
2. "observations" give us measures about what happen.
3. Between two measures we simple doesn't know how the ultra-micro world is or behave.
To now more, you can see the following thread:
Can future events affect the past?
 
In the standard interpretation, wave function "really" do collapse, but we don't know whether the wave function is real, so we don't know whether the wave function really collapses.

It is often said that the collapse is just analogous to the transition from uncertainty to certainty when one throws a die and gets a result. However, this is difficult to make precise in the standard interpretation, because quantum uncertainty without hidden variables is not uncertainty about reality, since the wave function is not necessarily real.

However, in some cases, eg. non-relativistic quantum mechanics, we can imagine that there are hidden variables. In this case, quantum mechanics is very much like a classical theory, just a bit unusual in its nonlocality. In this case, one can derive the wave function collapse as an effective approximation to a reality in which there is no wave function collapse. Bohmian Mechanics is an example of this sort of hidden variable theory. At present we don't know if it can be extended to cover all relativistic quantum phenomena.

Another sort of hidden variable theory postulates that the collapse is real. Example of this sort of hidden variable theory are the GRW and continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) theories.

At present, we have no experimental evidence favouring any of the hidden variable theories.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes afcsimoes
batmanmg said:
Do wavefunctions really "collapse?"

In interpretations that have collapse - yes. But not all interpretations do. The formalism that all interpretations use doesn't have it.

Thanks
Bill
 
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 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
14K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K