Is the instantaneous collapse of the wave function frame dependent?

In summary, the question of whether the instantaneous collapse of the wave function is frame dependent explores the implications of quantum mechanics and relativity. It examines how different observers, moving at varying speeds or in different gravitational fields, might perceive the collapse of a quantum system. The analysis suggests that while the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is invariant, the interpretation of wave function collapse may vary based on an observer's frame of reference, leading to discussions on the nature of reality and the role of observation in quantum theory.
  • #1
timmdeeg
Gold Member
1,487
305
In a thought experiment one could arrange synchronized clocks in an inertial frame of reference such that they show the same time when the collapse happens. Does that mean that according to the relativity of simultaneity from the perspective of an observer in relative motion to that frame the collapse doesn't occur instantaneous?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No. Take the EPR paradox for example. When measuring one spin you have no way of telling that the wave function has collapsed due to a measurement somewhere else or not - or when it collapsed.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes timmdeeg and haushofer
  • #3
timmdeeg said:
In a thought experiment one could arrange synchronized clocks in an inertial frame of reference such that they show the same time when the collapse happens. Does that mean that according to the relativity of simultaneity from the perspective of an observer in relative motion to that frame the collapse doesn't occur instantaneous?
Mostly it means that collapse interpretations aren’t naturally compatible with relativity - this is why we only see them in non-relativistic QM.
 
  • Like
Likes timmdeeg and PeroK
  • #4
The very question mixes relativity and non-relativistic QM. This is problematic.
 
  • Like
Likes timmdeeg
  • #5
Vanadium 50 said:
The very question mixes relativity and non-relativistic QM. This is problematic.
Does that mean the question whether or not the collapse of the wave function is an invariant phenomenon doesn't even make sense?
 
  • #6
Orodruin said:
No. Take the EPR paradox for example. When measuring one spin you have no way of telling that the wave function has collapsed due to a measurement somewhere else or not - or when it collapsed.
Not even when an entangled particle is measured? We don't have two measurements but have the certainty that the other particle has the correlated state in the same instant of time.
 
  • Like
Likes cianfa72
  • #7
timmdeeg said:
Not even when an entangled particle is measured? We don't have two measurements but have the certainty that the other particle has the correlated state in the same instant of time.
Neither “the other particle” nor “at the same time” are in the math (as opposed to the misleading natural language we use when we aren’t doing the math), so it’s a stretch to say that we know any such thing.

What we do know is that we have measured our quantum system at one point in space and that this measurement will be correlated with a measurement that might or might not ever be made or already have been made at at some distant location.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost and timmdeeg
  • #8
timmdeeg said:
We don't have two measurements but have the certainty that the other particle has the correlated state in the same instant of time.
No, you don't. The only "certainty" you have is that if you measure the other particle you will see the appropriate correlated statistics. Any claim about the "correlated state" of the other particle in the absence of a measurement is interpretation dependent.
 
  • Like
Likes timmdeeg
  • #9
timmdeeg said:
Not even when an entangled particle is measured? We don't have two measurements but have the certainty that the other particle has the correlated state in the same instant of time.
Who are ”we”? There is no way for the other observer to know that you have measured. It is not until you compare the measurements that you actually find correlation.
 
  • Like
Likes timmdeeg
  • #10
Orodruin said:
Who are ”we”? There is no way for the other observer to know that you have measured. It is not until you compare the measurements that you actually find correlation.
Ah, understand.

My thanks to you to @Nugatory and @PeterDonis for clarifying this matter.
 

FAQ: Is the instantaneous collapse of the wave function frame dependent?

What is the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics?

The wave function collapse in quantum mechanics refers to the process by which a quantum system's wave function, initially in a superposition of several eigenstates, appears to reduce to a single eigenstate due to a measurement. This collapse is instantaneous and results in the system having definite properties that can be observed.

Is the collapse of the wave function truly instantaneous?

In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the collapse of the wave function is considered to be instantaneous. However, this instantaneous nature raises questions about how it fits with the theory of relativity, which does not allow for faster-than-light interactions.

What does it mean for the wave function collapse to be frame dependent?

If the wave function collapse were frame dependent, it would imply that observers moving at different velocities (in different inertial frames) might disagree on the timing or even the occurrence of the collapse. This could lead to inconsistencies in the observed outcomes of quantum measurements.

Is the instantaneous collapse of the wave function frame dependent according to current scientific understanding?

According to current scientific understanding, particularly within the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the instantaneous collapse of the wave function is not considered frame dependent. However, this remains an area of active research and debate, particularly in the context of reconciling quantum mechanics with relativity.

How do different interpretations of quantum mechanics address the issue of wave function collapse and frame dependence?

Different interpretations of quantum mechanics offer varied perspectives on wave function collapse and frame dependence. For instance, in the Many-Worlds Interpretation, there is no collapse, and thus no issue of frame dependence. In contrast, the Relational Interpretation suggests that the collapse might be observer-dependent, which could imply some form of frame dependence. Decoherence theory also provides an alternative by explaining apparent collapse through interactions with the environment, sidestepping the need for instantaneous collapse altogether.

Similar threads

I Is an accelerating frame the same as an inertial frame at a point?
Replies
11
Views
2K
I Understanding Relativity of Simultaneity in Resnick, Part II
Replies
20
Views
2K
I Observing a Collapsing Shell: Time Dilation Explained
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Potential energy and the gravitational field of a collapsing cloud of gas
Replies
1
Views
871
I Understanding Relativity of Simultaneity in Resnick, Part I
Replies
16
Views
1K
I What causes an accelerated clock to record less events
Replies
8
Views
730
I Wave function collapse in the early Universe
Replies
2
Views
636
I Comparing Clock Rates in Accelerated vs Constant Velocity Frames
Replies
14
Views
1K
B The synchronization of clocks and the relativity of motion
3
Replies
84
Views
5K
I Questions about a thought experiment involving time dilation
Replies
2
Views
350

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top