Interaction-free quantum experiments like Renninger's experiment or the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester are often taken to be examples of interaction-free measurements of a system. Unfortunately, such assumptions presuppose the ability to post-select in the future just to make sense. Interpretationally speaking, it is hard to see how post-selection can possibly be made without some form of physical collapse of the wave function or a preferred physical splitting of the wave function into branches. Without either a physical collapse or splitting, is it possible to gain information about a system of which we are totally ignorant about the preparation of its properties we are interested in without an actual interaction with it? Basically, does the idea of interaction-free measurements only make sense within some interpretations of quantum mechanics and not others? Is there a philosophical reading of the two-state formalism which does not presuppose a collapse or a splitting? In the two-state formalism, does the necessity of normalizing the overall probability factor to 1 entail the ontological reality of the other outcomes because we have to sum up over their probabilities to get the rescaling factor? The other outcomes where the bomb did in fact go off?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
classical mechanics - Moment of a force about a given axis (Torque) - Scalar or vectorial?
I am studying Statics and saw that: The moment of a force about a given axis (or Torque) is defined by the equation: $M_X = (\vec r \times \...
-
I was solving the sample problems for my school's IQ society and there are some I don't get. Since all I get is a final score, I wan...
-
Are C1, C2 and C3 connected in parallel, or C2, C3 in parallel and C1 in series with C23? Btw it appeared as a question in the basic physics...
-
500 are at my end, 500 are at my start, but at my heart there are only 5. The first letter and the first number make me complete: Some consi...
No comments:
Post a Comment