What is a measurement? (layperson question)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Galteeth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurement
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of measurement in the context of quantum mechanics, exploring definitions, interpretations, and the measurement problem. Participants question the existence of a scientific consensus on what constitutes a measurement and whether the measurement problem might be an illusion influenced by anthropomorphic bias.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that there is no consensus on the definition of measurement, as indicated by the variety of interpretations in quantum mechanics.
  • One participant references Wikipedia for definitions and highlights that the issue lies more in the consensus about what physical quantities measurements represent in quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant mentions John Bell's writings on quantum mechanical measurement problems, suggesting a lack of progress on the issue over time.
  • There is a discussion about the Consistent Histories approach, which refines the Copenhagen Interpretation by framing measurement as a mathematical procedure rather than a physical collapse of the wave-function, though it still leaves philosophical questions unresolved.
  • Decoherence is introduced as a concept that explains how the interaction with an environment can mimic wave-function collapse, challenging traditional views on measurement effects in experiments like the double slit.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is no established consensus on the definition of measurement and that the measurement problem remains a contested topic with multiple interpretations and ongoing debates.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding measurement, including the dependence on various interpretations and the unresolved nature of philosophical questions surrounding the measurement problem.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to measurement theory, as well as individuals curious about the philosophical implications of measurement in science.

Galteeth
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
I know this is a hotly debated subject here, but what is the general scientific consensus (or most popular definition) on what constitutes a measurement?

Secondly, are there theories where the measurement problem becomes an illusion because of anthropomorphic bias? (To put in a crude metaphor, where the observation you choose to make isn't really a choice, it just seems that way, since you could conceive of a different outcome?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no consensus.
Otherwise a list of Interpretations would be much shorter.
 
There is definition of measurement in wikipedia.
But in QM it seems that problem is more in consensus about what physical quantity these measurements represent.
 
Galteeth said:
I know this is a hotly debated subject here, but what is the general scientific consensus (or most popular definition) on what constitutes a measurement?

Secondly, are there theories where the measurement problem becomes an illusion because of anthropomorphic bias? (To put in a crude metaphor, where the observation you choose to make isn't really a choice, it just seems that way, since you could conceive of a different outcome?)

Take a look at "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" in Wikipedia.
I think there is also an entry on "The measurement problem"
 
If you are a "layperson" you may also find helpful to read some popularizations (books) on the subject. Some times they contain errors and biased statements, but they can give you a better picture of what is involved without forcing you to know the math.
But knowing a little linear algebra and calculus always helps, as (specially linear algebra) also provides you with some picture of what is going on.
 
JustSam said:
See https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2331535&postcount=17" for John Bell's writing about problems with quantum mechanical measurement.

Right. I had actually read that post before. I was wondering if there has been any progress on this issue since, and apparently the answer I'm getting here is "not really."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Galteeth said:
Right. I had actually read that post before. I was wondering if there has been any progress on this issue since, and apparently the answer I'm getting here is "not really."
I'm sure if I get something wrong, smart people will come and correct me, so here goes!

I think the main progress is that more people appreciate Bell's complaint. In the 60's, Bell was a voice in the wilderness, with most everyone else completely satisfied with the understanding of quantum mechanical measurement. In the 90's, the inconsistencies finally impinged on the sensibilities of enough physicists that there is now a general recognition of what is now called the "measurement problem".

There has been a corresponding refinement in the Copenhagen Interpretation, called the Consistent Histories approach, that tries to explain measurement as a mathematical procedure to obtain the probabilistic answers for a given experiment, rather than as the physical collapse of the wave-function. The Consistent Histories approach goes a long way towards providing a consistent set of rules for applying quantum mechanics that works for quantum erasure, interaction-free measurement, and so on. However, Consistent Histories still leaves some fundamental philosophical questions unanswered.

A second point of progress is the study of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence" , which shows how the evolution over time of the wave-function in the presence of an environment can mirror the collapse formerly thought to have been caused by measurement. For example, in the double slit experiment, when the two slits are observed to see which slit the the particle goes through, the interference pattern is destroyed. But now, instead of explaining this by saying the observation was a measurement that caused a collapse, we can now say that the interaction with the observing photon caused the particle to get out of phase with the path through the other slit, thereby gradually decreasing the interference pattern.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K