# Wave function collapse (split from informational diode)

## Recommended Posts

On 6/9/2023 at 10:02 AM, MJ kihara said:

A device capable of detecting wave function of an entangled state..

Is wave function collapse a real phenomenon?

##### Share on other sites

Wave function collapse is part of the Copenhagen interpretation and don’t appear in other interpretations. So no, it’s not real. It’s a concept to help understand QM, like all elements of these interpretations.

##### Share on other sites

The WF describes the probability distribution of finding quanta/field excitations in a particular position.

If you want more detail quantumphysicslady breaks it down quite simplistically.

Edited by StringJunky
##### Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The WF describes the probability distribution of finding quanta/field excitations in a particular position.

If you want more detail quantumphysicslady breaks it down quite simplistically.

Actually, the wave function describes probability amplitude, a complex value. The probability distribution is a squared modulus of the wave function and contains less information about the state of the system.

##### Share on other sites

Actually, the wave function describes probability amplitude, a complex value. The probability distribution is a squared modulus of the wave function and contains less information about the state of the system.

OK. Ta.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Is wave function collapse a real phenomenon?

There is no local reality between interactions that collapse the wave function.
Furthermore, there is no non-locality, where any information is tranferred superluminally.
Numerous experiments have shown this, and we recently had a very long thread on the subject.

I would think someone who professes to have a workable 'theory of everything' would know this.

##### Share on other sites

Any wavefunction that describes a probability isn't real to begin with but mathematical. The superposition function of an entangled pair is such an example of a strictly mathematical wavefunction.

##### Share on other sites

What caused Einstein to use 'spooky action at a distance' phrase?

##### Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Any wavefunction that describes a probability isn't real to begin with but mathematical. The superposition function of an entangled pair is such an example of a strictly mathematical wavefunction.

Is it away of spreading our real ignorance about the real situation of an aspect until we get the real answer through observation?

##### Share on other sites

That is a poor way to describe statistical mathematics. In point of detail any probability function has a very useful purpose. That purpose is to provide a full range of possible answers or account for the full possible set of outcomes. Some things in nature (in particular in the quantum regime) cannot be locked down to a single value answer but will have a likely-hood of a range of answers. Lets try an example.

lets say your goal is to mathematically predict where a ball will stop and provide the exact location of where the ball will stop when you roll it down a gravel hill. With factors such rocks, gravel amount of initial force delivered to the ball, etc etc. The best you will be able to do is predict a range of possible locations of where that ball will stop you also would only be able to provide a range of possible paths taken by the same ball. Each time you perform the experiment the ball will choose a slightly different path and stop at different locations.

this is where probability functions come into play, Another example is the Feymann path integrals, The Euler Langrangian gives the probability of all possible paths. Up to this point mathematically you can only provide a probability of possible outcomes. This is inherent in many classical systems as well as quantum systems. Once you perform the experiment. you have determined the path taken as well as the end point. So that probability function collapses into a determined mathematical state.

in entanglement its identical. you do not know which entangled particle you have whether or not its spin up or spin down however you know you have a 50% probability it could be spin up or spin down. So you write that as a probability function. (the entangled superposition state). Once you measure the particle you know you have a spin up, and the other particle must be spin down.

the probability function is no longer needed as you have measured a determined state.

##### Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MigL said:

where any information is tranferred superluminally

Transfer through which way? ....can gaining of knowledge regarded as transfer of information.

##### Share on other sites

23 hours ago, swansont said:

So no, it’s not real.

23 hours ago, StringJunky said:

describes the probability distribution

22 hours ago, MigL said:

I would think someone who professes to have a workable 'theory of everything' would know this.

According to my thinking...wave function collapse is real.... probability distribution is real..it is a real phenomenon describing real things....the issue of being real phenomenon and not real...it's not real to the majority cause the conventional concepts don't account for it...it's the case of, as from stringJunky post..'shut up and do the calculations'.

##### Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

According to my thinking...wave function collapse is real.... probability distribution is real..it is a real phenomenon describing real things....the issue of being real phenomenon and not real...it's not real to the majority cause the conventional concepts don't account for it...it's the case of, as from stringJunky post..'shut up and do the calculations'.

Can you confirm what you mean by “real”

That it physically exists, or that it is not illusory?

A mirage is real in the former sense (there’s a physical phenomenon), but not in the latter (the object you see isn’t actually what or where you think it is). Other things are concepts, so they are not real in the former sense - a hole, for example - but the lack of material is not an illusion.

You seem to be advocating both that the wave function is a physical object (a real phenomenon), and that the collapse is not an illusion.

Do you have evidence that the wave function physically exists?

##### Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Is it away of spreading our real ignorance about the real situation of an aspect until we get the real answer through observation?

No, there are no hidden variables either.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Do you have evidence that the wave function physically exists?

3 hours ago, MigL said:

No, there are no hidden variables either.

All this; collapse, distribution-happens when you try to ring fence wave-particle duality...when you try to interpret wave-particle duality you end up getting wave function.

The reason mostly from my perspective explain why on my 'other discussions' I never accepted to drop the terminology 'virtual particles'....since to understand the reality of the issue under the discussion there are other exotic terms like virtual tubes and mirrorness has to be taken into consideration.

Cumulatively 'virtual particles' entangle to form basic structures...e.g virtual tubes....to conventional virtual particles(equilibrium point between primodial quantum to quantum as a unit) ....to actual particles we know of.

When 'virtual particles' are emitted by particles they are highly entangled to it(contain more information about it) as the concentration of this particles(virtual particles) increase and depending on level of their stability they collapse on to themselves increasingly becoming  mirror of their actual particle which is emitting them, therefore, forming virtual tubes to conventional virtual particles-As you are understanding this explanation, you are ring fencing to the actual particle,your distribution is narrowing to the peek.. that's amplitude of probability function.

Let us digest that because it's the most critical part of wave function collapse mechanism....ring fencing wave-particle duality...does it sound outrageous?

.......point of concern-It will be appropriate you let me here and in my other subsequent discussions use virtual particles to refer to spacetime particles and the other usual one i will be referring to it as conventional virtual particles...to me and my ideas the more fundamental 'virtual particles' accumulate while entangling to become conventional virtual paricle while conventional virtual particle having failed to reach quantum threshold disintegrate to fundamental 'virtual particles'......

Spelling...'paricle' it's particle.

##### Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

All this; collapse, distribution-happens when you try to ring fence wave-particle duality...when you try to interpret wave-particle duality you end up getting wave function.

That’s interpretation, though. An aid to understanding. A concept, not an object.

10 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

The reason mostly from my perspective explain why on my 'other discussions' I never accepted to drop the terminology 'virtual particles'....since to understand the reality of the issue under the discussion there are other exotic terms like virtual tubes and mirrorness has to be taken into consideration.

Cumulatively 'virtual particles' entangle to form basic structures...e.g virtual tubes....to conventional virtual particles(equilibrium point between primodial quantum to quantum as a unit) ....to actual particles we know of.

This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

##### Share on other sites

Probability distribution maps virtual tube that contains quantum particles... information gained restrict the position/momentum of the qauntum particle within this virtual tube... shrinking of the virtual tube to approximately where the quantum particle is, is interpreted as collapse...in this regard quantum particle can be thought as being distributed within it's virtual tube...the periphery of this tube is highly flexible, therefore,it respond to any kind of interaction it encounters...also since it's below quantum formation threshold it's highly fragile,meaning it can disintegrate into virtual particles a.k.a spacetime particles(just like a bubble pop when pinched) when it encounters interaction above it's fragility...therefore probability distribution is real and wave function collapse is a real phenomenon.

##### Share on other sites

You can’t use your pet theory about QM to conclude anything about how mainstream physics treats the issue.

##### Share on other sites

On 6/10/2023 at 10:49 PM, MigL said:

I would think someone who professes to have a workable 'theory of everything' would know this.

I was responding to that...from the 'other concept'

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

to conclude anything about how mainstream physics treats the issue.

I don't intend to replace mainstream physics..my hope is using it's tools to be able to give alternative ways of understanding such issues.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

my hope is using it's tools to be able to give alternative ways of understanding such issues.

Why though?

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

I don't intend to replace mainstream physics..my hope is using it's tools to be able to give alternative ways of understanding such issues

You asked a question, so this was moved into the mainstream physics section. “Alternative” views need to be raised in the speculation section.

##### Share on other sites

On 6/12/2023 at 7:15 PM, HawkII said:

Why though?

To have a deeper understanding of nature....i.e what is the real nature of energy and it's actual relationship with matter....why couldn't zero point energy which is massive just turn into matter...such like issues and of course why are we(human)conscious and intelligent.

##### Share on other sites

Energy is simply the ability to perform work.

Mass is the resistance to inertia change.

Matter has the requirement of "taking up space" so via the Pauli exclusion  principle only fermionic particles count as matter. Bosons do not.

If you learn mainstream physics you will discover there is an answer to most of your questions. Without invoking personal theories.

##### Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

To have a deeper understanding of nature....i.e what is the real nature of energy and it's actual relationship with matter....why couldn't zero point energy which is massive just turn into matter...such like issues and of course why are we(human)conscious and intelligent.

I suppose making different models for existing things might be useful. I personally am a practical person who wants answers rather than more models for thinking about the same stuff.

Edited by HawkII
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HawkII said:

I suppose making different models for existing things might be useful. I personally am a practical person who wants answers rather than more models for thinking about the same stuff.

Funny part is, if you use actual physics to toy model systems. You do end up learning far more than from lectures or reading literature or watching videos. However further discussion on the pros and modelling are outside the topic under discussion.

## Create an account

Register a new account