On the necessity of the postulate of the collapse of the wave function: an explicit calculation of the "double-slit" problem

R. Martínez-Galicia and V. Romero-Rochín*

Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Apartado Postal 20-364, 01000 México, D.F. México.

* Corresponding author. e-mail: romero@fisica.unam.mx.

Abstract

Based on numerical calculations of the two-slit problem, we object van Kampen's proposal that the collapse of the wave function is an unnecessary postulate of Quantum Mechanics if the measuring apparatus is included in a unitary evolution of the system-apparatus. We argue that van Kampen's interpretation does not substitute the collapse postulate, it is not precise and it appears impracticable.

Keywords: Wavepacket collapse; quantum measurement.

Resumen

Basados en cálculos numéricos del problema de las dos rejillas, objetamos la propuesta de van Kampen de que el colapso de la función de onda sea un postulado innecesario de la Mecánica Cuántica si el aparato de medición se incluye en una evolución unitaria del conjunto sistema-aparato. Argüimos que la interpretación de van Kampen no sustituye el postulado del colapso, no es precisa y parece ser impracticable.

Descriptores: Colapso de la función de onda; medición cuántica.

PACS: 03.65.Bz

DESCARGAR ARTÍCULO EN FORMATO PDF

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge CONACYT (Mexico) for its partial support from through grant No. 32634-E.

References

1. J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1955).         [ Links ]

2. W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 43 (1927) 172;         [ Links ] Translation into English in Quantum Theory and Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, eds. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1983).         [ Links ]

3. See for example, Quantum Theory and Measurement, ed. J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1983).         [ Links ]

4. N.G. van Kampen, Physica A 153 (1988) 97.         [ Links ]

5. N.G. van Kampen, J. Stat. Phys. 77 (1994) 345.         [ Links ]

6. R. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M.L. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Vol. III) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1963).         [ Links ]

7. N.Bohr, in Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, P.A. Schilpp, ed. (The Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, IL, 1949).         [ Links ]

8. R.H. Dicke, Am. J. Phys. 49 (1981) 925.         [ Links ]

9. P. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk, Helv. Phys. Acta 69 (1996) 613.         [ Links ]

10. B. Huttner, A. Muller, J.D. Gautier, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A 54 (1996) 3783.         [ Links ]

11. M.D. Feit, J.A. Fleck Jr., and A. Steiger, J. Comp. Phys. 47 (1982) 412. We used a grid of 512 × 512 points.         [ Links ]

12. F. Shimizu, K. Shimizu, and H. Takuma, Phys. Rev. A 46 (1992) R17.         [ Links ]

13. D. Kielpinski et al., Science 291 (2001) 1013.         [ Links ]