J. v. Neumann justified the collapse postulate by the empirical fact of the repeatability of a measurement at a single quantum system. However, in his quantum mechanical treatment of the measurement process repeatability emerges without collapse. The entangled state of the measurement device and the measured system after their interaction ensures it already. Furthermore, this state gives the same predictions for the measured system alone as the description demanded by the collapse postulate.
J. v. Neumann justified the collapse postulate by the empirical fact of the repeatability of a measurement at a single quantum system. However, in his quantum mechanical treatment of the measurement process repeatability emerges without collapse. The entangled state of the measurement device and the measured system after their interaction ensures it already. Furthermore, this state gives the same predictions for the measured system alone as the description demanded by the collapse postulate.
The collapse postulate in quantum mechanics is problematic due to the measurement problem. The problem lies not with collapse per se, but with the appeal to measurement; a theory that could underwrite the collapse process without ineliminable reference to measurement would constitute a solution to the measurement problem. This is the strategy pursued by dynamical (or spontaneous) collapse theories. But dynamical collapse theories face a number of challenges. First, they make different empirical predictions from standard quantum mechanics, and hence are potentially empirically refutable. Second, there are difficulties reconciling the dynamical collapse mechanism with special relativity. Third, the post-collapse state is not the same as the post-measurement state of standard quantum mechanics, raising the possibility that dynamical collapse theories do not solve the measurement problem after all. Assuming that these challenges can be met, dynamical collapse theories can lay claim to being serious contenders for the correct description of the quantum world. And the description they provide has a number of interesting consequences. First, it makes indeterminism an irreducible fact about the physical world. It has been argued that this has important consequences for the foundations of statistical mechanics, for free will, and for consciousness. Second, many dynamical collapse theories can be taken to imply that the quantum wave function is fundamental, giving rise to a new kind of vagueness, since a wave can be fuzzy around the edges in a way that a particle cannot. Furthermore, the quantum wave function is defined over a high-dimensional space, not the three-dimensional space of experience, suggesting to some that three-dimensionality is an illusion.
An unknown quantum state of a single system cannot be discovered, as a measured system is reprepared---it jumps into an eigenstate of the measured observable. This impossibility of finding the quantum state and other symptoms usually blamed on wave-packet collapse follow (as was recently demonstrated for pure states of measured systems) from unitarity (which does not, however, allow for a literal collapse) and from the repeatability of measurements: Continuous unitary evolution and repeatability suffice to establish the discreteness that underlies quantum jumps. Here we consider mixed states of a macroscopic, open system (such as an apparatus), and we allow its microscopic state to change when, e.g., measured by an observer, provided that its salient features remain unchanged and that observers regard macroscopic state of the pointer as representing the same record. We conclude that repeatably accessible states of macroscopic systems (such as the states of the apparatus pointer) must correspond to orthogonal subspaces in the Hilbert space. The symmetry breaking we exhibit defies the egalitarian quantum superposition principle and unitary symmetry of the Hilbert space, as it singles out preferred subspaces. We conclude that the resulting discreteness (which underlies quantum jumps) emerges from the continuity of the core quantum postulates plus repeatability also in macroscopic and open---but ultimately quantum---systems such as measuring devices accessed by observers, where (in contrast with pure states of microsystems) repeatability is paramount.
Abstract The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is commonly framed as a conflict between unitary dynamics and the appearance of definite outcomes. This paper argues that the conflict arises from a misplaced assumption about what outcomes must be. In experimental practice, outcomes are not arbitrarily precise microscopic states or instantaneous events, but stable physical records produced in measurement interactions. Treating outcomes as such records allows them to be formalized as coarse-grained equivalence classes of physical states that persist in time and support consistent interaction across systems. On this basis, decoherence explains the stability of outcomes without selecting a unique global result or modifying quantum dynamics. Objectivity is recovered through the robustness of records rather than through absolute, observer-independent outcome facts. The measurement problem is thereby dissolved without invoking collapse mechanisms, branching universes, or observer-dependent postulates, while preserving all standard empirical predictions of quantum mechanics.
The postulate of the collapse of the wave-function stands between the microscopic, quantum world, and the macroscopic world. Because of this intermediate position, the collapse process cannot be examined with the formalism of the quantum mechanics (QM), neither with that of classical mechanics. This fact makes some physicists propose interpretations of QM, which avoid this postulate. However, the common procedure used in that is making assumptions incompatible with the QM formalism. The present work discusses the most popular interpretations. It is shown that because of such assumptions those interpretations fail, i.e. predict for some experiments results which differ from the QM predictions. Despite that, special attention is called to a proposal of S. Gao, the only one which addresses and tries to solve an obvious and major contradiction. A couple of theorems are proved for showing that the collapse postulate is necessary in the QM. Although non-explainable with the quantum formalism, this postulate cannot be denied, otherwise one comes to conclusions which disagree with the QM. It is also proved here that the idea of “collapse at a distance” is problematic especially in relativistic cases, and is a misunderstanding. Namely, in an entanglement of two quantum systems, assuming that the measurement of one of the systems (accompanied by collapse of that system on one of its states) collapses the other systems, too without the second system being measured, which leads to a contradiction.
The postulate of the collapse of the wave function stands between the microscopic, quantum world, and the macroscopic world. Because of this intermediate position, the collapse process cannot be examined with the formalism of the quantum mechanics (QM), neither with that of classical mechanics. This fact makes some physicists to propose interpretations of QM, which avoid this postulate. However, the common procedure used in that, is making assumptions incompatible with the QM formalism. The present work discusses the most popular interpretations. It is shown that because of such assumptions those interpretations fail, i.e. predict for some experiments results which differ from the QM predictions. Despite of that, special attention is called to a proposal of S. Gao, the only one which addresses and tries to solve an obvious and major contradiction. A couple of theorems are proved for showing that the collapse postulate is necessary in the QM. Although nonexplainable with the quantum formalism this postulate cannot be denied, otherwise one comes to conclusions which disagree with the QM. It is also proved here that the idea of collapse at a distance is problematic especially in relativistic cases, and is a misunderstanding. Namely, in an entanglement of two quantum systems, assuming that the measurement of one of the systems (accompanied by collapse of that system on one of its states) collapses the other system too without the second system being measured, leads to a contradiction.
Many textbooks on Quantum Mechanics are not very precise as to the meaning of making a measurement: as a consequence, they frequently make assertions which are not based on a dynamical description of the measurement process. A model proposed by von Neumann allows a dynamical description of measurement in Quantum Mechanics, including the measuring instrument in the formalism.In this article we apply von Neumann’s model to illustrate the measurement of an observable by means of a measuring instrument and show how various results, which are sometimens postulated without a dynamical basis, actually emerge.We also investigate the more complex, intriguing and fundamental problem of two successive measurements in Quantum Mechanics, extending von Neumann’s model to two measuring instruments. We present a description which allows obtaining, in a unified way, various results that have been given in the literature.