Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: "Frank Hellmann" <Certhas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:57:58 +0000 (UTC)
Seratend wrote:
>
> Yes this is the formal point of view of the quantum results
> measurements. However, this does not explain the selection of the
> eingenbasis used to match the computed results with the experimental
> results.
> 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?
>
> Seratend.
>
> (and please do not use the decoherence as the way to solve this
issue)
I have seen this argument quite a few times, do you have any good
concise review papers on this?
A meassurement is represented by a Projection operator, and you can
develop the whole apparatus of the statistical interpretation of QM
without ever refferring to a basis, so I really don't see where this
problem comes into things.
Frank.
.
- References:
- Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: Souvik
- Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Aren't Infraparticles Already Wigner Particles?
- Next by Date: Re: Normal ordering and VEV subtraction
- Previous by thread: Re: Wave Function of the Universe?
- Next by thread: Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|