English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Can anything other than an observer collapse the quantum wave function?
Can the quantum wave function collapse on it's own?

2007-07-11 19:29:06 · 5 answers · asked by daviddepape 2 in Science & Mathematics Physics

5 answers

The act of observing involves physically hitting a wave function with photons (or something else). You have to hit it with something in order to measure it. Bouncing the photons (or whatever you used) off the wave function gives you information about the wave function, but it also alters the wave function.

It's like a rubber ball randomly bouncing around a room. If you could not see or hear, the only way you know where the ball was is if it hit you. You'd know where it was at that instant (collapsing the wave function), but since it would bounce off you and keep traveling randomly around the room, your knowledge of the ball's position would quickly (but not instantaneously) become out-of-date. This corresponds to how a wave function will spread out again after being measured (collapsed).

2007-07-11 19:41:18 · answer #1 · answered by lithiumdeuteride 7 · 0 0

The wave function collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics is one of many and is, as you point out, fraught with problems.

Basically what is meant by observation in this sense is interaction with a macroscopic system. There is certainly no problem in having, say, interaction with photons and including that in the wavefunction - so that will not do it (this area of quantum mechanics falls under quantum electrodynamics).

Any interaction with a macroscopic system will do. But there is actually no definition of what a macroscopic system is, or why it behaves differently than the microscopic components it is made of, which presumably follow quantum mechanics.

2007-07-11 20:20:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The "measurement situation" has been argued each and every which way, alongside with some very stupid procedures, ever as a results of fact the 1920's. regrettably we're not any closer to wisdom QM than we've been then, even nevertheless i'm constructive you will discover people who disagree. it truly is a philosophical mess. i've got joked with regards to the potential of writing a e book entitled, "a hundred and one Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics." in basic terms keep in mind that each and every answer you get to this question is largely an opinion--(and you will discover people who disagree approximately that. you will hit upon philosophers who will disagree that the sky is blue. curiously they discover that form of outrage relaxing.)

2016-10-20 23:08:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Leedskalnin's flux capacitors can. They can only be filled by relativity: the electric field always pushes back on the charged particles before it gets interesting. Metglas will let you get one down to the size of a harry potter wand. You wonder why Bohm went so completely Bohmmy? One of these and you could turn your computer monitor into a parrot. Just sayin'.

2013-10-24 14:56:14 · answer #4 · answered by ? 1 · 0 0

parabolic diffusion

2007-07-11 19:45:18 · answer #5 · answered by lar kruvatar 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers