On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 2:11:32 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 09:20:05AM -0800, [email protected] > <javascript:> wrote: > > > > My tentative solution to the wave collapse problem is to trash wave > > mechanics (which is not Lorentz invariant) and use Heisenberg's Matrix > > Mechanics. No waves, nothing to collapse. Is this a cop-out? AG > > In matrix mechanics, the wave function is replaced by a vector, and > collapse is replaced by a projection onto a basis vector. > > Projections are not unitary (except for the identity matrix), and that > is the problem with any collapse type theory. >
Thanks. That's clears enough. Collapse by another name. CMIIAW, but even if it were a unitary process, it would in effect be a local hidden variable, forbidden by results of Bell experiments. But let's talk about "unitary" which I think is equivalent to "linear". Why is non unitary, that is non linear bad? Because it means irreversible? I do believe that some measurement processes are in fact irreversible in principle, and not simply in the statistical sense, that is, FAPP. IIRC, Bruce proved that for spin measurements on Avoid2, but it was not well received. AG -- 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.
