What will be the final conclusion?

[nouveau_riche]

if measuring or the act of measurement is considered as an event that finally result in localisation of state of particle then what will be the final conclusion drawn in a situation where many observer observe a single particle simultaneously but they choose different probability values out of the sets available with the probability pattern of that particle(like different axis of spin)?

 

[Demystifier]

According to QM, they cannot do that. It is not possible that different observers simultaneously measure spin along different axes. In the quantum theory of measurement, different measurements are described by different wave functions "of the universe", while the actual wave function "of the universe" is only one.

 

[nouveau_riche]

why can't they do that?
all it need is to observe it simultaneously

 

[nouveau_riche]

is it all has to b the wave function of universe,i think that wave function also interact with our conciousness

 

[Demystifier]

is it all has to b the wave function of universe,i think that wave function also interact with our conciousness

I think it doesn't.

 

[Varon]

According to QM, they cannot do that. It is not possible that different observers simultaneously measure spin along different axes. In the quantum theory of measurement, different measurements are described by different wave functions "of the universe", while the actual wave function "of the universe" is only one.

Can you give an actual example of an experiment about this different wave functions vs the actual wave function of the unvierse? What do you mean?

 

[Fra]

At the risk of overinterpreting your question...

if measuring or the act of measurement is considered as an event that finally result in localisation of state of particle then what will be the final conclusion drawn in a situation where many observer observe a single particle simultaneously but they choose different probability values out of the sets available with the probability pattern of that particle(like different axis of spin)?

Not sure what you mean by an observer "choosing a probability", but if you mean that the observer _infers_ from their subjective interaction history different probabilities, then in MY view, the conclusion is that there will take place actual physical interactions between the observers.

However, such things are not described by current QM formalism. In current formalism, there are only classical observers and they are always assumed to be in agreement and their interactions/communications are trivial.

So we don't have many worlds, we have only one world, but with many observers, and the different inferences the observers make translate into expected physical interactions between the observers. Ultimately this line of reasoning is what I think may explain exactly the things that are usually put in manually (brought over from classical mechanics), that is the hamiltonian etc.

The extreme implication of the twisted view of mine is that the structure of the hamiltonian or lagrangian actually should follow from such an "interacting observer" picture. But so far none of this is on the table. So while the conceptual "conclusion" is this, the exact technical and mathematical realization (ie what new mathematics implements these ideas) is an open question.

/Fredrik