Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: "Seratend" <ser_monmail@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
Aaron Bergman a =E9crit :
> In article <1116673523.731545.15140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Seratend <ser_monmail@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In other words, for the collapse postulate, every eigenbasis is ok
to
> > express statistical results (the born rules), but in the lab, we
just
> > have one basis where the statistics apply. Why?
>
> Because we're entangling with a specific classical observable.
>
Why? I mean the entanglement does not choose a basis. Every basis is ok
to express the statistics of the entanglement.
For example, in statiscal classical mechanics we use to choose by
default, A(p,q) as an observable (in the formulation a la Von Neumann,
[q,p]=3D0). What does prevent us to choose another basis and other
observables to express the statistics? From this point, why in
classical mechanics do we seem to have the superselection rule
(prefered basis=3D p,q)for the experiments?
> > (and please do not use the decoherence as the way to solve this
issue)
>
> Decoherence really does solve this issue up until you start to ask
> questions about the human brain. At that point, I advocating throwing
up
> one's arms and being happy that we seem to get the right answer.
>
> Aaron
You can remove the human brain and just stay with events and outcomes
(in order to avoid philosophical questions). Your point of view seems
to be the selection of the basis (to express the results) after the
experiment: an a posteriori selection (no prediction).
In this case, you are implicitly saying (in my understanding) the QM
framework does not give (a prediction) an answer to the preferred basis
of experiment results. We must do before the experiment to know/learn
what is the preferred basis. (We must have/construct a collection of
experiments where we know the preferred basis of the statistics in
order to build other experiments for predictions - statistics on a
given basis).
Seratend.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: Aaron Bergman
- Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- References:
- Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: Souvik
- Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- Prev by Date: Beam-splitter and Uncertainty
- Next by Date: Scientists levitate heavy objects
- Previous by thread: Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- Next by thread: Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|