Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: Aaron Bergman <abergman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:19:21 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1118659478.518851.280290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"I.Vecchi" <vecchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Aaron Bergman wrote:
> > for any
> > experiment you can describe where a human observer can gain information,
> > there isn't going to be a problem.
>
> Maybe, but then you are saying that the measurement process is "human
> observer"-dependent, right?
I'm describing a pragmatic approach. In general, I don't think that
decoherence solves the problem of measurement. But, if we postulate that
measurements occur as I describe, then decoherence describes how the
macroscopic and microscopic observables entangle and select the basis
for the microscopic observables.
Aaron
.
- References:
- Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: Seratend
- Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: Aaron Bergman
- Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: Seratend
- Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: Aaron Bergman
- Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- From: I.Vecchi
- Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- Prev by Date: Re: The Elegant Universe
- Next by Date: Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- Next by thread: Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
