Live data from Hacker News

A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

physics.stackexchange.com

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#31
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interpretation is a crutch, gives nothing extra, and only obfuscates things; it should be discarded. Let's just accept that (1) we don't know the objective reality, and (2) there is something that ensures consistency of information across fairly large distances -- entanglement experiments have been done up to 1000+ km's -- maybe even across the entire universe, though the latter has never been tested.

> entanglement experiments have been done up to 1000+ km's Do you have a link to more info on that? I've never heard of such an experiment and I'd be interested how you send entangled particles 1000+ kms without disturbing them in a way that invalidates the experiment.

References 104 and 105 here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Testing_a...

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#32
post #7

> But surely the wave function is smeared across both slits That's the whole point of the experiment - you can't get an interference pattern if it does not. > and the act of detecting which slit the photon could go through, if it were a particle The whole point of the double slit experiment is that there is only one photon, and which slit it goes through is irrelevant. Whether a photon is a wave-function is missing t…

Does a wave function collapse if there is no conscious entity to measure that?

It is a philosophical question, but philosophy is precisely designed for dealing with what is technically unfalsifiable in hard science—the “far lands” of modeling the system from within itself.

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#33

The confusion with the Copenhagen interpretation comes from two main sources in my opinion: 1. What can count as a measurement? 2. Quantum ‘thing’ interacting with a classical world One of my favorite talks on this subject is by Sean Carroll and offers the ‘many worlds ‘ interpretation as an alternative, mainly for its simplicity. Recommend watching the whole thing but if you want just the “debunking”: 25:11 https://…

Interpretation is a crutch, gives nothing extra, and only obfuscates things; it should be discarded. Let's just accept that (1) we don't know the objective reality, and (2) there is something that ensures consistency of information across fairly large distances -- entanglement experiments have been done up to 1000+ km's -- maybe even across the entire universe, though the latter has never been tested.

>Interpretation is a crutch, gives nothing extra, and only obfuscates things; it should be discarded.

It assists people in considering where the models might go and make them think of experiments to invalidate/validate the interpretation.

They are as good as any hypothesis and there is a point when you have to guess what things might be, even if you are not sure yet.

You can't move forward without conjecture at some point.

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#34
post #31
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> entanglement experiments have been done up to 1000+ km's Do you have a link to more info on that? I've never heard of such an experiment and I'd be interested how you send entangled particles 1000+ kms without disturbing them in a way that invalidates the experiment.

References 104 and 105 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Testing_a...

Ah, it's done between satellites! Interesting, thanks.

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#35
post #23

"Shut up and calculate"

Which is fine and dandy if calculation is your goal. If "understanding the nature of reality" is your goal then engaging with various interpretations of QM is unavoidable. (which is not to say it will be fruitful. This stuff might be genuinely beyond the reach of science. We might be hitting the brick wall of the unknowable. But that's not an excuse to stop trying. Some current formulations of the question are probab…

Totally agree, that was a popular quote back when people weren't satisfied with the Copenhagen interpretation.

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#36
Contrary to what used to be hammered into people, it must be observed by the observer, that is, by you. Any random interaction will not trigger the collapse. An interaction must itself be observed by the observer, otherwise it will not cause a collapse.

It seems that the universe works pretty much as Haskell does. Things that don't matter to anything else do not happen.

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#37

Does anyone have a link to a real world example of the double slit experiment where the photons are observed at the slits , causing the wave function of the light to collapse so the light acts as a particle beyond the slit, ending up in two piles on the detector screen, rather than the wave pattern. Every time I ask this, some do-gooder will not read a word I wrote and send me a video of the basic slit experiment and…

You are asking that the screen be moved back to the slits - less than a slit-slit distance away.

The wave aspect of the EM field remains downstream of the slits. The photon aspect is only exhibited at the screen.

There may be no such images, because it’s not interesting to observe two bright spots. There has to be enough path length difference to allow the phase difference causing the interference. Think about the classical case.

The mystery is not the interference, it’s that the photon density at the screen tracks the predicted interference pattern, even if they arrive at one per second.

Bohm’s pilot wave theory has an explanation for this.

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#38
There's a difference between strong and weak quantum measurements. Experimentally we can now even apply feedback on quantum states to stabilize them, which requires making partial, non-destructive measurements of a quantum state and then applying signals to correct deviations.

The whole talk about "wave function collapse" originated from the beginnings of quantum mechanics where the measurement process was poorly understood, in my opinion it should be replaced by the modern understanding, in which a measurement is a combination of an entanglement process between the system under test and a large external system, followed by decoherence caused by the many degrees of freedom of the external system. That produces wave form collapse, but it's not an abrupt or absolute process but rather a continuous, controllable one.

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#39

There's a difference between strong and weak quantum measurements. Experimentally we can now even apply feedback on quantum states to stabilize them, which requires making partial, non-destructive measurements of a quantum state and then applying signals to correct deviations. The whole talk about "wave function collapse" originated from the beginnings of quantum mechanics where the measurement process was poorly und…

I think the most reasonable explanation is that unobserved things do not happen, at all, or only happen on some abstract statistical level.

That doesn't imply that consciousness is special. The reason why you are aware of reading this, if you are indeed aware of reading this, is that your life matters for some future event, which on the fundamental physical level has already happened, but its exact results depends on how your life unfolds in some way. If I locked you up in an impenetrable box that is to be completely obliterated at some future point in time, so that whatever you do in the box would make no observable difference, the rest of your life in the box would not happen.

Re: A wave function does not collapse upon detection?

#40

Oversimplifying, but hopefully not too much. For simplicity, let's assume that it's the wave function of an electron, but this applies to any particle. The first problem is the question. What does " detection " means? The technical term is " measurement ", and the most important idea is that you can measure different things, for example the position of the electron, or the speed of the electron, or the energy of the…

This is all "operationally correct".

If you are intrigued as to what it means for the wave function to collapse, and related questions such as at which speed does it collapse, etc, you must consider what it means to measure something.

If you want to know the property of some particle you need to interact with it ... at least with another particle. The system of those two particles is described by a wave function. This wave function evolves according to the Schrödinger equation and it will tell you that after the interaction you have a superposition of two states: one where the particle you're measuring is inside the box and the measurement probe particle is carrying that information, and the other state that tells you that the particle is outside the box *and* the measurement probe tells is carrying that information.

The wave function of the system hasn't really collapsed to a single state.

Now, let's say that your measurement apparatus records the information of this test particle by e.g. printing it out to a piece of paper or whatever (bits in hard disk)

The wave function of the whole system now captures the superposition where the measured particle was in one state and the paper contains black ink in some places and not in other places, superimposed with the other state where the measured particle was in the other state and the paper carries ink in other locations.

Nothing has collapsed yet; you just have a very complicated wave function. By processing the measurement you effectively introduced a "causality amplification" process, but one that operates on the whole of the wave function.

But, you may protest: "I see only one outcome of the measurement!"

The wave function of the universe is in a superposition of your body (and thus brain) being in a state where you have observed ( and recorded such observation) one measurement outcome and another state where you have observed the other outcome.

Both states are equally real and present in the wave function of the universe. But each of the brain states in the superposition doesn't interact with the other states do each future though you have in one of the superimposed states are effectively independent from the others, giving the impression that the wave function has "collapsed".

Some people like to say that the "universe has split" into independent world lines or something like that. Some people find this terminology helpful, some find it confusing. But the thing is, this just follows from applying the Schrödinger equation without making arbitrary exceptions when humans get involved.

Post reply on HN