Where Can I Find Comprehensive Notes on Quantum Mechanics Interpretations?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on finding comprehensive resources for understanding quantum mechanics interpretations, particularly covering significant topics from the last fifty to sixty years, such as Bell's theorem, decoherence, and the many-worlds interpretation. Recommended texts include "Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Approach" by L. Ballentine and "Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods" by A. Peres, both noted for their clarity and pedagogical approach. Additional resources mentioned are "Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition" by Schlosshauer and various online articles, including a free PDF from arXiv. The discussion emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between interpretations and mathematical formulations in quantum theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics fundamentals
  • Understanding of Bell's theorem and its implications
  • Knowledge of decoherence and its role in quantum mechanics
  • Awareness of various quantum interpretations, such as many-worlds and Bohmian mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Read "Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Approach" by L. Ballentine
  • Explore "Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition" by Schlosshauer
  • Investigate the implications of Bell's theorem in quantum mechanics
  • Study the differences between various quantum interpretations and their experimental predictions
USEFUL FOR

Students, physicists, and educators interested in deepening their understanding of quantum mechanics interpretations and their historical context, as well as anyone seeking to clarify the distinctions between different mathematical formulations and interpretations in quantum theory.

  • #61
atyy said:
@Eloheim, there are two versions of the Born Rule.

In the first version, stated by Weinberg, if we make a measurement of O, the system that is in state ψ will collapse into an eigenstate |oi> with eigenvalue oi, with probability |<oi|ψ>|2.

In the second version, if we make a measurement of O, the system that is in state ψ will give the result oi with probability |<oi|ψ>|2. So there is no collapse in the second version. If this version is used, most textbooks add collapse as a distinct postulate.

As I understand it, "collapse" and the "projection postulate" are the same, but vanhees71 is using the second version of the Born rule without collapse. Both versions of the Born rule cannot be derived from the Schroedinger equation.

I do accept that there are correct interpretations without collapse, such as Bohmian mechanics and probably also many-worlds. What I am skeptical about is whether the ensemble interpretation without collapse is correct, if one allows filtering type measurements as a means of state preparation.


I never understood, why the state must collapse to the eigenstate, while when we apply QT to real-lab experiments we use the second version only. QT doesn't say, what happens to the measured system but that's given by the measurement apparatus we use to measure the observable. The Born postulate just states that the probability to find a value as you said above (tacitly assuming that the eigenvalue is non-degenerate, i.e., the eigenspace of this eigenvalue is one-dimensional).

There are, of course, special cases, where you (can) do an ideal von Neumann filter measurement. The most famous example is the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which nowadays can be done with practically arbitrary precision using neutrons.

The good old original setup by Stern and Gerlach is, however, better to discuss this in principle: You use an oven with a little opening to get a particle beam that can be described by a mixed state (thermal in the restframe of the gas, making up the particle beam). The particles then go through an inhomogeneous magnetic field. One solve the corresponding dynamical problem in very good approximation analytically and even exactly to arbitrary precision numerically, see e.g.,

G. Potel et al, PRA 71, 052106 (2005).
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0409206

You end up with well-separated partial beams that are "sorted" (with high precision) after their spin components given by the direction of the magnetic field, usually chosen as the z direction. In other words, after running trough the magnet you have a quantum state, where the position and spin-z component are entangled, and you can get a particle beam in a (nearly) pure spin state by just forgetting all unwanted partial beams, blocking them by some absorber material. There is no collapse necessary but just to put some absorber material in the way of the "unwanted" partial beams. Of course, you may now ask, how the absorption process happens microscopically in terms of quantum theory, and this might not be a simple issue, but experiment clearly shows that you can block particles, and nothing hints at some "collapse mechanism" that may ly outside of the quantum dynamics of a particle interacting with the particles in the absorber.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
vanhees71 said:
I never understood, why the state must collapse to the eigenstate, while when we apply QT to real-lab experiments we use the second version only. QT doesn't say, what happens to the measured system but that's given by the measurement apparatus we use to measure the observable. The Born postulate just states that the probability to find a value as you said above (tacitly assuming that the eigenvalue is non-degenerate, i.e., the eigenspace of this eigenvalue is one-dimensional).

There are, of course, special cases, where you (can) do an ideal von Neumann filter measurement. The most famous example is the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which nowadays can be done with practically arbitrary precision using neutrons.

The good old original setup by Stern and Gerlach is, however, better to discuss this in principle: You use an oven with a little opening to get a particle beam that can be described by a mixed state (thermal in the restframe of the gas, making up the particle beam). The particles then go through an inhomogeneous magnetic field. One solve the corresponding dynamical problem in very good approximation analytically and even exactly to arbitrary precision numerically, see e.g.,

G. Potel et al, PRA 71, 052106 (2005).
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0409206

You end up with well-separated partial beams that are "sorted" (with high precision) after their spin components given by the direction of the magnetic field, usually chosen as the z direction. In other words, after running trough the magnet you have a quantum state, where the position and spin-z component are entangled, and you can get a particle beam in a (nearly) pure spin state by just forgetting all unwanted partial beams, blocking them by some absorber material. There is no collapse necessary but just to put some absorber material in the way of the "unwanted" partial beams. Of course, you may now ask, how the absorption process happens microscopically in terms of quantum theory, and this might not be a simple issue, but experiment clearly shows that you can block particles, and nothing hints at some "collapse mechanism" that may ly outside of the quantum dynamics of a particle interacting with the particles in the absorber.

It would be nice to have an example of how this is done for successive measurements. The reason I am skeptical is that by including the apparatus and environment in the unitary evolution, to get the state for a subsystem, one has to trace out degrees of freedom, which in general will result in an improper mixed state, not a pure state. If we interpret the improper mixed state as a proper mixed state, we can get a pure state for a sub-ensemble. So I think the assumption still has to be made that an improper mixed state can be treated as a proper mixed state.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 314 ·
11
Replies
314
Views
18K
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
23K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 135 ·
5
Replies
135
Views
11K