Quantum Mechanics without discontinuities

What is the collapse of the wave function? Is it necessary? The Quantum Mechanics can be built without making use of discontinuities in the time evolution. The appearance of the collapse is due to the entanglement between the preparation device and the observed system, in combination with the delayed choice initial conditions.
More details can be found in http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4344/.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Quantum
• Mechanics
• wave
• function
• collapse
• state
• vector
• reduction

[BlackPsychoNonick]

you still try to oblerve the proces so we still end up in state 5 and we dont know the state of 5 .

and the mach zehnder experiment taskt about light not matter .

please tell me if im wrong  and why . im new to this and sry for my bad eng im german :)

[holotronix]

@BlackPsychoNonick: Thanks. In QM, matter and light are alike: state vectors in a Hilbert. A state cannot have all properties well defined. If we measure the position, the system has a precise position, but its momentum is undefined, and conversely. But we decide what to observe NOW. It is like its initial conditions were tuned THEN so that NOW it has the property we decided to measure (either position or momentum, not both). Mach-Zehnder experiment is another example - yes, about light.

[nickharvey7]

Nice video!

In my video Quantum Mechanics an artist view Time has the symmetry and geometry of spacetime. Could this explain entanglement?

[holotronix]

Thanks. I will watch your videos asap.

Entanglement is a natural consequence of Schrodingers equation for systems of at least two elementary particles, as predicted and explained since 1935 by EPR and Schrodinger, long time before being confirmed by experiments. It is just counterintuitive, because it lives in the phase space, beyond the usual 3D space. My proposal allows apparently entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory, directly from Schrodingers equation.

[j0hnnytamb0rine]

Edward Current likes this video, so i do too.

[brokenequa]

Edward Current.

[skogsturken]

O'rly?

[morpheusxnyc]

Whoah... This is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay above my pay grade.

Edward Current liked this, so I watched, but yikes - this is strictly for physicists and serious students of quantum physics.

[holotronix]

@OldSchoolSkill: Very brief: The evolution of a closed system is unitary. An observation fixes an initial condition. More noncommuting observations establish initial values which are not compatible. But the observed system is not closed: we need to consider all its past interactions. That includes the previous measurements. My claim is: for the extended system (including the previous measurement devices), the initial conditions given by apparently incompatible measurements become compatible.

[holotronix]

@OldSchoolSkill: thank you for your questions. This is not that simple. Please refer to philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4344/ for some explanations that I hope will answer your questions.