How would you define "the measurement problem" to conclude that strictly diagonalizing the density matrix would be a solution? TIA
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > The "measurement problem" isn't necessarily finding a deterministic > subquantum dynamics. If you could show that the density matrix becomes > strictly diagonal in some non-arbitrary way (i.e. described by dynamics) > and the eigenvalues obey the Born rule (which I think would follow from > Gleason's theorem) then I think that would be a satisfactory solution. And > in fact I think Zurek has provided most of that except for the details of > the dynamic description. He relies on decoherence which produces multiple > copies of the measurement result in the environment and he argues that the > density matrix must be strictly diagonal in order that repeating a > measurement yields a repeat of the result. Given that much then you can > either suppose this defines the splitting into multiple worlds OR, > following Omnes, you can say the theory predicts probabilities and one of > them is realized...which is all you can expect of a probabilistic theory. > > Brent > > On 11/9/2017 12:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > If what you state is correct, then there's no solution to the measurement > problem (if that means discovering a deterministic outcome for individual > trials). Why then is the "measurement problem" still considered a problem > to be solved? What you've presented is more or less proof that no such > solution exists. > > On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 11:27:26 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> It would make it possible to use EPR like experiments to send signals >> faster than light...which is to say backward in time. That would pretty >> much screw up all known physics...and common sense. >> >> Brent >> >> On 11/9/2017 7:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict >> exact outcomes, thus making QM a deterministic theory, would that imply an >> INCONSISTENCY in the postulates of QM? TIA. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/everything-list/j3RV_cLRfts/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
