On Measurement Problem In Quantum Mechanics

In Quantum Mechanics, we have a problem. All quantum mechanical entities, whatever they are, can be represented or considered or expressed as and by a classical mathematical waves. Actually, it is the states that are being represented as or by waves. When observed/measured, the state is the eigenstate, and when not measured, the state is called the superposition of states. Superposition states, as it must be clear by the name, are the superposition of the all the eigenstates i.e. a mixture of all the eigenstates interfering with each other, and thus this interference of all the eigenstates being called the ‘Superposition’.

Well, the terms and ideas like superposition and such are all from the classical wave mechanics, there is something inherently different in quantum mechanical version or treatment of these, which comes all together when measurement is considered, hence the ‘measurement problem’.

Now, we bring the ideas of wave mechanics, the quantum uncertainty, and correspond or associate it with what we call ‘quantum systems/entities’.

So, when measured, the usual quantum superposition somehow becomes or transforms to one of the eigenstates that, we consider, constitute the superposition. And the question is why?

This is the measurement problem. There are many interpretations and ideas projected as solutions to the problem, like my favorite Many world interpretation or Relative state idea of Hugh Everett, and like Copenhagen interpretation, and Pilot wave interpretation originally due to Louis de Broglie and rediscovered due to David Bohm, and many more.


                                                                  State[s]

So, why is it that the superposition collapses to one classical state when measured?

Some even claim consciousness and the act of observation to be fundamental in the determination of the particular state of the system or entity being considered. I may claim our ‘becoming consciousness’ of the entity is what is and molds the state, metaphorical pot/form, out of the superposition – metaphorical clay/formless.

Some even make it mystical.

Why is measurement so central to this? Or we could say, why is measurement/non-measurement the core to this? In other words, why is quantum certainty/uncertainty central to this?

Let’s convert these questions, rather, this question, into a statement of fact. So, measurement-no-measurement or certainty-uncertainty is central to this. That much is clear. Another thing that I want to make clear is that the terms like ‘measurement’, ‘observation’, ‘experience’. ‘consciousness’, ‘existence’, ‘certainty’, ‘definition’, and such, will be considered equivalent here.

Now the key is to question the premise itself here. We, for some understandable reason, consider that on measurement superposition, which we consider also as state – a quantum state, transforms or collapses or becomes (call it whatever you want) to one of the eigenstates. But how true is that really? And is ‘superposition’ really a state, in anyway?

We must look at the details, the key lies in the details:

(Later …)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On the nature of Nature

Image
  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...
Read more

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...
Read more