Advertisement

Toward a Relativistic Theory of Statevector Reduction

  • Philip Pearle
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSB, volume 226)

Abstract

“For each measurement, one is required to ascribe to the ψ-function a quite sudden change… The abrupt change by measurement… is the most interesting point of the entire theory.… For this reason one can not put the ψ-function directly in place of the physical thing… because from the realism point of view observation is a natural process like any other and cannot per se bring about an interruption of the orderly flow of events.”

Keywords

Inertial Frame Reduction Theory Probability Rule Meson Field Reduction Dynamic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Remarks

  1. 1a.
    E. Schrodinger, Die Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 1a.
    E. Schrodinger, Die Naturwissenschaften 23, 823 (1935).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 1a.
    E. Schrodinger, Die Naturwissenschaften 23, 844 (1935).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 2.
    D. Bohm and J. Bub, Reviews of Modern Physics 38, 453 (1966).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3.
    P. Pearle, Physical Review D 13, 857 (1976).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 4.
    P. Pearle, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 48, 489 (1979).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 5.
    F. Karolyhazy, II Nuovo Cimento 52, 390 (1966) and in this volume;ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. F. Karolyhazy, A. Frenkel and B. Lukacz, in Physics as Natural Philosophy, edited by A. Shimony and H Feshbach (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge Mass., 1982) and in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, edited by R. Penrose and C. J. Isham (Clarendon, Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    R. Penrose in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, edited by R. Penrose and C. J. Isham (Clarendon, Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar
  10. 7a.
    L. Diosi, Physics Letters A 120, 377 (1987)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 7b.
    L. Diosi, Physical Review A 40, 1165 (1989).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 8.
    P. Pearle, Physical Review A 39, 2277 (1989).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 9.
    P. Pearle and J. Soucek, Foundations of Physics Letters 2, 287 (1989).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 10.
    G. C. Ghirardi, P. Pearle and A. Rimini, Trieste preprint IC/89/44.Google Scholar
  15. 11.
    G. C. Ghirardi and A. Rimini, in this volume.Google Scholar
  16. 12a.
    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, Physical Review D 34, 470 (1986)MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 12b.
    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, Foundations of Physics 18, 1, (1988).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 13.
    J. S. Bell in Schrodinger-Centenary celebration of a polymath, edited by C. W. Kilmister (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987).Google Scholar
  19. 14.
    J. S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1965).Google Scholar
  20. 15.
    J. S. Bell in The Ghost In The Atom, edited by P.C.W. Davies and J.R. Brown (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1986).Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    L Diosi, Journal of Physics A 21, 2885 (1988).MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 17.
    N. Gisin, Physical Review Letters 52, 1657 (1984).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 18.
    P. Pearle in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, edited by R. Penrose and C. J. Isham (Clarendon, Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar
  24. 19.
    P. Pearle, Physical Review D 29, 235 (1984).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 20a.
    A. Zeilinger, R. Gaehler, C. G. Shull and W. Treimer in Symposium on Neutron Scattering, edited by J. Faber Jr. (Amer. Inst, of Phys., 1984)Google Scholar
  26. 20a.
    A. Zeilinger in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, edited by R. Penrose and C. J. Isham (Clarendon, Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar
  27. 21.
    P. Pearle in New Techniques in Quantum Measurement theory, edited by D. M. Greenberger (N.Y. Acad. of Sci., N.Y., 1986). This was first brought to my attention by Y. Anaronov.Google Scholar
  28. 22.
    N. Gisin, Physical Review Letters 53, 1776 (1984).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 23.
    P. Pearle, Physical Review Letters 53, 1775 (1984).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 24.
    N. Gisin, Helvetica Physica Acta, 62, 363 (1989).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 25.
    G. Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 26.
    P. Pearle, Physical Review D 33, 2240 (1986).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 27.
    P. Pearle, Foundations of Physics 12, 249 (1982).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 28.
    Eq. (3.1) is a Stratonovich stochastic differential equation, which means for our purposes that the white noise and brownian motion can be manipulated as if they were ordinary functions.Google Scholar
  35. 29.
    Eq. (3.22) is only meant to be suggestive, as B(z,t) is not an integrable function. The condition is better expressed as an inequality for the functional integral ∫RDBexp-∫dz[B(z,t)-2λtf(an-z)]2/(2λt) > ∫RDBexp-c2, where the subscript R denotes that the functional integral is restricted to a suitable range of B(z,t).Google Scholar
  36. 30.
    P. Pearle, Journal of Statistical Physics 41, 719 (1985), and in references 23, 26, 21, and even as recentlv as reference 8. My conversion is due to discussions at Erice with Bell, Ghirardi, uisin and Shimony, which made me realize that a realist can cheerfully survive with tails in his world picture, and a recent discussion with Penrose which helped me realize that tails are not only tolerable, but they are a necessity for boost invariance.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 31.
    The nonlocal form V(a,t,v)=Σn∫ ∫dx’dxgn[φ(x),φ(x’)]Gn(x,x’,a,t,v), L(a,t,v)=Σn∫ ∫dx’dxhn[φ(x),φ(x’)]Hn(x,x’,a,t,v) is found not to satisfy the constraint (5.7c) unless Gn ana Hn are proportional to δ(x-x’), i.e. unless the form is local.Google Scholar
  38. 32.
    S. Tomonaga, Progress in Thoretical Physics 1, 27 (1946). Eq. (5.13) contains no term describing the usual interaction of the quantum field theory because it is presumed that φint(x,t) is the solution of that theory. If one wishes, the usual term can be added and φint(x,t) taken to describe the free field.MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 33.
    S. Schweber, An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (Row Peterson, Illinois, 1961).Google Scholar
  40. 34.
    G. C. Ghirardi, R. Grassi and P. Pearle, in preparation.Google Scholar
  41. 35.
    I would like to thank Roger Penrose for urging these considerations.Google Scholar
  42. 36a.
    Y. Aharanov and D. Albert, Physical Review D 21, 3316 (1980)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 36b.
    Y. Aharanov and D. Albert, Physical Review D 24, 359 (1981) emphasize this point. However, these authors considered ordinary relativistic quantum theory, with an instantaneous reduction, and concluded that the notion of a statevector itself had to be abandoned, for it is incompatible with the additional requirements of relativity and probability conservation. Because the norm of the statevector is not constrained to be 1 in the CSL theory, there is no conflict, and no need to get rid of the notion of statevector.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Pearle
    • 1
  1. 1.Hamilton CollegeClintonUSA

Personalised recommendations