Content deleted Content added
Johnjbarton (talk | contribs) →History: Change the sentence and quote from the source to reflect the carefully considered published views of Bohr rather than the conjecture of the historian. |
XOR'easter (talk | contribs) →History: per my comment at Talk |
||
Line 83:
|doi=10.3390/e19100513|bibcode=2017Entrp..19..513J |doi-access=free }}</ref> Niels Bohr never mentions wave function collapse in his published work, but he repeatedly cautioned that we must give up a "pictorial representation".<ref>{{cite journal|title=Niels Bohr on the wave function and the classical/quantum divide |author=Henrik Zinkernagel |year=2016 |doi=10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.11.001 |journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics |volume=53 |pages=9–19 |arxiv = 1603.00353|bibcode=2016SHPMP..53....9Z |s2cid=18890207 |quote=Among Bohr scholars it is common to assert that Bohr never mentions the wave function collapse (see e.g. Howard, 2004 and Faye, 2008). It is true that in Bohr’s published writings, he does not discuss the status or existence of this standard component in the popular image of the Copenhagen interpretation. }}</ref>
[[John von Neumann]]'s influential 1932 work ''[[The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics]]'' took a more formal approach, developing an "ideal" measurement scheme<ref name=HartleQMCosmology>Hartle, James B. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.12246.pdf "The quantum mechanics of cosmology."] Notes from the lectures by the author at the 7th Jerusalem Winter School 1990 on Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes. arXiv:1805.12246 (2018).</ref><ref name=SchlosshauerReview>{{Cite book |last=Schlosshauer |first=Maximilian |url=https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267 |title=Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics |date=2005-02-23 |volume=76 |pages=1267–1305 |language=en |doi=10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267 |issn=0034-6861}}</ref>{{rp|1270|q=Note that von Neumann’s scheme is in sharp contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation, where measurement is not treated as a system-apparatus interaction described by the usual quantum-mechanical formalism, but instead as an independent component of the theory, to be represented entirely in fundamentally classical terms.}} that postulated that there were two processes of wave function change:▼
▲von Neumann took a more formal approach, developing an "ideal" measurement scheme<ref name=HartleQMCosmology>Hartle, James B. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.12246.pdf "The quantum mechanics of cosmology."] Notes from the lectures by the author at the 7th Jerusalem Winter School 1990 on Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes. arXiv:1805.12246 (2018).</ref><ref name=SchlosshauerReview>{{Cite book |last=Schlosshauer |first=Maximilian |url=https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267 |title=Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics |date=2005-02-23 |volume=76 |pages=1267–1305 |language=en |doi=10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267 |issn=0034-6861}}</ref>{{rp|1270|q=Note that von Neumann’s scheme is in sharp contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation, where measurement is not treated as a system-apparatus interaction described by the usual quantum-mechanical formalism, but instead as an independent component of the theory, to be represented entirely in fundamentally classical terms.}} that postulated that there were two processes of wave function change:
# The [[probability|probabilistic]], non-[[unitary transformation|unitary]], [[local realism|non-local]], discontinuous change brought about by observation and [[quantum measurement|measurement]] (state reduction or collapse).
| |||