We comment on the so-called negative result experiments (also known as null measurements, interaction-free measurements, and so on) in quantum mechanics (QM), in the light of the new general understanding of the quantum-measurement processes, proposed recently. All experiments of this kind (null measurements) can be understood as improper measurements with an intentionally biased detector set up, which introduces exclusion or selection of certain events. The prediction on the state of a microscopic system under study based on a null measurement is sometimes dramatically described as "wave-function collapse without any microsystem-detector interactions". Though certainly correct, such a prediction is just a consequence of the standard QM laws, not different from the situation in the so-called state-preparation procedure. Another closely related concept is the (first-class or) repeatable measurements. The verification of the prediction made by a null measurement requires eventually a standard unbiased measurement involving the microsystem-macroscopic detector interactions, which are nonadiabatic, irreversible processes of signal amplification.
We comment on the so-called negative result experiments (also known as null measurements, interaction-free measurements, and so on) in quantum mechanics (QM), in the light of the new general understanding of the quantum-measurement processes, proposed recently. All experiments of this kind (null measurements) can be understood as improper measurements with an intentionally biased detector set up, which introduces exclusion or selection of certain events. The prediction on the state of a microscopic system under study based on a null measurement is sometimes dramatically described as "wave-function collapse without any microsystem-detector interactions". Though certainly correct, such a prediction is just a consequence of the standard QM laws, not different from the situation in the so-called state-preparation procedure. Another closely related concept is the (first-class or) repeatable measurements. The verification of the prediction made by a null measurement requires eventually a standard unbiased measurement involving the microsystem-macroscopic detector interactions, which are nonadiabatic, irreversible processes of signal amplification.
Abstract The so-called quantum measurement problems are solved from a new perspective. One of the main observations is that the basic entities of our world are particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a spacetime, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem ψ gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of ψ rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled system for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping spacetime support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a “wave-function collapse”. Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, ρ = diag(|c 1|2,…,|cn |2,…) shows how the information encoded in the wave function <?CDATA $|\psi \rangle =\displaystyle {\sum }_{n}{c}_{n}|n\rangle $?> | ψ 〉 = ∑ n c n | n 〉 gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies Pn = |cn |2 for various experimental outcomes F = fn . Our discussion represents the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the conventional interpretation based on Born’s rule, replacing it with a clearer understanding of quantum mechanics. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable.
The quantum measurement problems are discussed from a new perspective.
One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a spacetime, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem ψ gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of ψ rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping spacetime support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a ``wave-function collapse.
Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, ρ=diag(∣c1∣2,…,∣cn∣2,…) shows how the information encoded in the wave function ∣ψ⟩=∑ncn∣n⟩ gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies Pn=∣cn∣2 for various experimental results F=fn.
These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born's rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable.
A few well-known puzzles such as the Schr\odinger cat conundrum and the EPR paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.
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.
Many of the conceptual problems students have in understanding quantum mechanics arise from the way probabilities are introduced in standard (textbook) quantum theory through the use of measurements. Introducing consistent microscopic probabilities in quantum theory requires setting up appropriate sample spaces taking proper account of quantum incompatibility. When this is done the Schrodinger equation can be used to calculate probabilities independent of whether a system is or is not being measured, and the results usually ascribed to wave function collapse are obtained in a less misleading way through conditional probabilities. Toy models that include measurement apparatus as part of the total quantum system make this approach accessible to students. Some comments are made about teaching this material.
A quantum-mechanical measurement process is analyzed in terms of a model Hamiltonian describing the interaction between a quantum system (a ``particle'') and a macroscopic apparatus (a ``detector''), which is assumed to be made up of N two-level elementary constituents (``molecules''). The description of the molecule locations introduces an effective fluctuating coupling constant, and this provokes a loss of quantum-mechanical coherence in the limit of large N. It is argued that coherence is lost statistically, as a result of the interaction: The collapse of the wave function is indeed obtained when the same experiment is performed many times, as a result of the microscopic differences among macroscopically identical initial states of the detector. In this way, insight is obtained into the mechanism engendering the loss of coherence suffered by a quantum-mechanical system when interacting with a macroscopic apparatus, and the concept of ``wave-function collapse'' is replaced by that of a statistically defined dephasing process. No classical behavior of the detection system is postulated and the presence of no external observer is required.
By means of thought‐experiments it is shown that, contrary to common opinion, there exist measurement processes that do not affect at all the measured system. These “negative” measurements consist in the ascertainment of the absence of measurement outcomes that are predicted to occur with a specific probability, and that allow—in analogy with “genuine” measurements—to make new statements about the measured system, and lead, hence, to “reduction of the wave function” in the same way as this is the case with normal, “positive”, observations that do disturb the measured system. The compelling consequence is, that the usual justification for the uncertainty relation as an unavoidable retroaction of any measurement process on the measured system breaks down, and that the real justification consists in the permanent influence on the particle of all matter in its immediate or more distant neighbourhood, independent of whether this matter is part of a measurement apparatus or not.