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 <meeke...@verizon.net> 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, agrayson2...@gmail.com 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, agrays...@gmail.com 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
