Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:gr-qc/9404051

Comment on ``Meaning of the Wave Function''

Samuel, J., Rajaram Nityananda

Published Apr 26, 1994• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We draw attention to an elementary flaw in a recently proposed experiment to measure the wave function of a single quantum system.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.gr-qc/9404051

Related papers

Comment on ‘‘Meaning of the wave function’’

Carlo Rovelli C

An experiment that would measure noncommuting quantum-mechanical observables without collapsing the wave function has been recently proposed by Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, and L. Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 47, 4616 (1993)]. These authors argue that this ``protected measurement'' may give an indication on ``the reality of the wave function.'' We show that the proposed experiment admits a much simpler interpretation: it is an experiment in which the quantum system is (assumed to be) in an eigenstate of the observable being measured. As such, the fact that no collapse occurs is trivial and can be understood without the need of the concept of ``protective'' devices. We argue that the experiment does not provide a way for measuring noncommuting observables without a collapse, does not bear on the issue of the ``reality of the wave function,'' and does not add any particular insight into our understanding (or nonunderstanding) of quantum mechanics.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1994•35 citations

Does the phenomenon of ‘reduction of the wave function’ exist in measurements in quantum mechanics?

Аркадий Исаакович Липкин

Uspekhi Fizicheskih Nauk•Jan 1, 2001•0 citations

Comment on Wave-particle duality revisited: Neither wave nor particle

Luiz Carlos Ryff

In a recent article Jan Sperling, Syamsundar De, Thomas Nitsche, Johannes Tiedau, Sonja Barkhofen, Benjamin Brecht, and Christine Silberhorn discuss the wave-particle duality using an experiment to demonstrate that "neither the wave nor the particle description is sufficient to predict the utcomes of quantum-optical experiments." I would like to draw your attention to two previous papers that discuss feasible experiments in which a photon does not seem to behave either as particle or as wave and make some brief considerations on the topic.

arXiv:2103.05054•Mar 8, 2021•0 citations

Comment on the observability of the “collapse” of the wavefunction in quantum measurements

Vladimir Hnizdo

Physics Letters A•Mar 1, 1987•1 citation

Comment on "On Phase Selective Quantum Eraser" (arXiv:1501.00817 [quant-ph])

Luiz Carlos Ryff

In a recent interesting article A. Heuer, G. Pieplow, and R. Menzel discuss a quantum-eraser experiment to investigate the complementarity of wave-like and particle-like behavior of photons. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the very same experimental setup was suggested in a previous paper, and take advantage of this opportunity to examine some aspects of this controversial subject.

arXiv:1509.04673•Sep 15, 2015•1 citation

Does the phenomenon of `reduction of the wave function' exist in measurements in quantum mechanics?

Аркадий Исаакович Липкин

Physics-Uspekhi•Apr 30, 2001•10 citations
An experiment that would measure noncommuting quantum-mechanical observables without collapsing the wave function has been recently proposed by Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, and L. Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 47, 4616 (1993)]. These authors argue that this ``protected measurement'' may give an indication on ``the reality of the wave function.'' We show that the proposed experiment admits a much simpler interpretation: it is an experiment in which the quantum system is (assumed to be) in an eigenstate of the observable being measured. As such, the fact that no collapse occurs is trivial and can be understood without the need of the concept of ``protective'' devices. We argue that the experiment does not provide a way for measuring noncommuting observables without a collapse, does not bear on the issue of the ``reality of the wave function,'' and does not add any particular insight into our understanding (or nonunderstanding) of quantum mechanics.
In a recent article Jan Sperling, Syamsundar De, Thomas Nitsche, Johannes Tiedau, Sonja Barkhofen, Benjamin Brecht, and Christine Silberhorn discuss the wave-particle duality using an experiment to demonstrate that "neither the wave nor the particle description is sufficient to predict the utcomes of quantum-optical experiments." I would like to draw your attention to two previous papers that discuss feasible experiments in which a photon does not seem to behave either as particle or as wave and make some brief considerations on the topic.