SCHRODINGER'S CAT PARADOX RESOLUTION USING GRW COLLAPSE MODEL

International Journal of Recent advances in Physics (IJRAP) Vol.3, No.3, August 2014
SCHRODINGER'S CAT PARADOX
RESOLUTION USING GRW COLLAPSE
MODEL
J.oukzon, A.A.Potapov
, S.A.Podosenov
1Israel Institute of Technology,2IRE RAS,3All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute
Abstract:
Possible solution of the Schrödinger's cat paradox is considered.We pointed out that: the collapsed
state of the cat always shows definite and predictable measurement outcomes even if Schrödinger's
cat consists of a superposition: cat=livecat+
deathcat
Keywords
Measurement problem, two-state systems, GRW collapse model, stochastic nonlinear
Schrödinger equation, Schrödinger's cat paradox.
1. Introduction
As Weinberg recently reminded us [1], the measurement problem remains a fundamental
conundrum. During measurement the state vector of the microscopic system collapses in a
probabilistic way to one of a number of classical states, in a way that is unexplained, and cannot be
described by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation [1]-[5].To review the essentials, it is
sufficient to consider two-state systems. Suppose a nucleus n whose Hilbert space is spanned by
orthonormal states
st, i = 1,2 wherest =undecayednucleusatinstanttands
t =
decayednucleusatinstantt
is in the superposition state,
Ψ$% =cst + c
s
t, c
+ c

= 1. (1.1)
An measurement apparatus A, which may be microscopic or macroscopic, is designed to
distinguish between states st, i = 1,2 by transitioning at each instant t intostateat, i =
1,2 if it finds n is in st, i = 1,2. Assume the detector is reliable, implying theat and
a
t are orthonormal at each instant t-i.e., (ata
t = 0 and that the measurement
interaction does not disturb states st, i = 1,2-i.e., the measurement is “ideal”. When A
measures Ψ$%, the Schrödinger equation’s unitary time evolution then leads to the
“measurement state” (MS) Ψ$%*:
DOI : 10.14810/ijrap.2014.3302 17

18
Ψ$%* =cstat+ c
s
tat, c
+ c

= 1.(1.2)
of the composite system nAfollowing the measurement. Standard formalism of continuous
quantum measurements [2],[3],[4],[5] leads to a definite but unpredictable measurement outcome,
either at ora
t and that Ψ$% suddenly “collapses” at instant t into the corresponding
state st, i = 1,2. But unfortunately equation (1.2) does not appear to resemble such a collapsed
state at instant t?. The measurement problem is as follows [7]:
(I) How do we reconcile canonical collapse models postulate’s
(II) How do we reconcile the measurement postulate’s definite outcomes with the “measurement
state”
Ψ$%*at each instant t and
(III) how does the outcome become irreversibly recorded in light of the Schrödinger equation’s
unitary and, hence, reversible evolution?
This paper deals with only the special case of the measurement problem, knownas Schrödinger’s
cat paradox. For a good and complete explanation of this paradoxsee Leggett [6] and Hobson [7].
Pic.1.1.Schrödinger’s cat.
Schrödinger’s cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an
internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying),the flask is shattered, releasing
the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that
after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the
cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum
superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.
This paper presents antheoretical approach of the MS that resolves the problem of definite
outcomes for the Schrödinger’s cat. It shows that the MS actually is the collapsed state of both
Schrödinger’s cat and nucleus, even though it evolved purely unitarily.
The canonical collapse models In order to appreciate how canonical collapse models work, and
what they are able to achieve, we briefly review the GRW model. Let us consider a system of n
particles which, only for the sake of simplicity, we take to be scalar and spin-less; the GRW
model is defined by the following postulates [2] :
(1) The state of the system is represented by a wave function ψ$x,…, x%belonging to the

19
Hilbert space L
ℝ%.
(2) At random times, the wave function experiences a sudden jump of the form:
ψ$x,…, x% → ψ$x,…, x%; x34,m ≤ n,
ψ$x,…, x%; x34 = ℛ4x34ψ$x,…, x%89ℛ4x34ψ$x,…, x%9
:;. (1.3)
Here ψ$x,…, x% is the state vector of the whole system at time t, immediately prior to the jump
process and ℛ4x34is a linear operator which is conventionally chosen equal to:
ℛ4x3 = πr

;/@expxA
B 2r

,(1.4)
whereris a new parameter of the model which sets the width of the localization process, and xA4is
the position operator associated to the m-th particle of the system and the random variable x34
which corresponds to the place where the jump occurs.
(3) It is assumed that the jumps are distributed in time like a Poisson process with frequency
λ = λDEF this is the second new parameter of the model.
(4) Between two consecutive jumps, the state vector evolves according to the standard Schrödinger
equation.We note that GRW collapse model follows from the more general S. Weinberg formalism
[1].Another modern approach to stochastic reduction is to describe it using a stochastic nonlinear
Schrödinger equation [2],[3],[4],[5].
2. Generalized Gamow theory of the alpha decay via tunneling using
GRW collapse model.
By 1928, George Gamow had solved the theory of the alpha decay via tunneling [8]. The alpha
particle is trapped in a potential well by the nucleus. Classically, it is forbidden to escape, but
according to the (then) newly discovered principles of quantum mechanics, it has a tiny (but
non-zero) probability of tunneling through the barrier and appearing on the other side to escape
the nucleus. Gamow solved a modelpotential for the nucleus and derived, from first principles, a
relationship between thehalf-life of the decay, and the energy of the emission. The G-particle has
total energy Eand is incident on the barrier from the right to left, see i.2.1.

20
i. 2.1.The particle has total energy E andis incident on the barrier HIfrom right to left.
The Schrödinger equation in each of regions: J = KII 0M, JJ = KI0 ≤ I ≤ NM and JJJ =
KII ≥ 0M takes the following form:
P
IBPI
+ 2QBℏ
8S − HI:I = 0. (2.1)
Here (i) HI = 0 in region J,(ii)HI = HU in region JJ, (iii) HI = 0 in region JJJ. The
corresponding solutions reads [8]:
JI = VcosWI,JJI = XYexpZWI[ + X;expZ−WI[,(2.2)
JJJI = Yexp]WI + ;exp−]WI.(2.3)
Here
W = 2^Bℏ_2QS, W = 2^Bℏ`2QHU − S. (2.4)
At the boundary I = 0 we have the following boundary conditions:
J0 = JJ0, ∂JIBPIbcU =∂JJIBPIbcU . (2.5)
At the boundary I = N we have the following boundary conditions:
JJN = JJJN, ∂JJIBPIbcd =∂JJJIBPIbcd .(2.6)
From the boundary conditions (2.5)-(2.6) one obtain [8]:
XY = VB2Z1 + ] WBW[ , X; = VB2Z1 − ] WBW[,
Y = VecoshZWN[ + ]f sinhZWN[g, ; = ]Vh sinhZWN[ exp]WN,(2.7)
f = 1B2ZWBW − WBW[ , h = 1B2ZWBW + WBW[.
From (2.7) one obtain the conservation law: V
= Y
− ;
.
Let us introduce now a function SI, N:

# I
21

;/@expI
2ij
SI, N = îj
B
,for− I NB2,

;/@expI − N
2ij
SI, N = îj
B
,forNB2 ≤ I +.(2.8)
Assumption 2.1. We assume now that: (i) at instant k = 0 the wave function lI experiences
a sudden jump lI → #l
I of the form
#I = ℛlI3lI89ℛlI3lI9
:;,(2.9)
l
whereℛlI3is a linear operator which is chosen equal to:
ℛlI3 = îj

;/@expIA
B 2ij

,(2.10)
# I
(ii) at instant k = 0 the wave function llI experiences a sudden jump llI → ll
of the form
# I = ℛllI3llI89ℛllI3llI9
:;,(2.11)
ll
whereℛllI3 is a linear operator which is chosen equal to:
ℛllI3 = SIA, N,(2.12)
(iii) at instant k = 0 the wave function lllI experiences a sudden jump lllI → lll
of the form
# I = ℛlllI3lllI89ℛlllI3lllI9
:;,(2.13)
lll
whereℛlI3is a linear operator which is chosen equal to:
ℛlllI3 = îj

;/@expIA − N
B 2ij

. (2.14)
Remark 2.1. Note that. We have choose operators (2.10),(2.12) and (2.14) such that the boundary
conditions (2.5),(2.6) is satisfied.
3. Resolution of the Schrödinger’sCat paradox
Let nkandn
k be
nk =undecayednucleusatinstantt
And
n
k =decayednucleusatinstantt(3.1)
correspondingly. In a good approximation we assume now that

22
n0 = ll
# I(3.2)
and
n
0 = J
#I.(3.3)
Remark 3.1. Note that: (i) n
0 =decayednucleusatinstant0 ==freeG −
particleatinstant0. (ii) Feynman propagator of a free G-particle inside
regionI are [9]:
pJI, k, IU = q r
/

stℏuv
ℏ xrb;byz

u {|.(3.4)
exp wt
Therefore from Eq.(3.3),Eq.(2.9) and Eq.(3.4) we obtain
n
k = l
#I, k = }J
#I
U
;
pJI, k, IU~IU =

;/@ q r
= ^ij
/

stℏuv
z

€
~IUexp U
; q− by
zv exp w‚
ℏ
8hI, k, IU:|.(3.5)
Here
hI, k, IU = rb;byz

u − ^_8QSIU.(3.6)
We assume now that
ℏ ≪ 2ij

≪ 1.(3.7)
I
Oscillatory integral in RHS of Eq.(3.5) is calculated now directly using stationary
phaseapproximation.
The phase term hI, k, IU given by Eq.(3.6) is stationary when
…†b,u,by
…by
= −rb;by

u − ^_8QS = 0.(3.8)
Therefore
−I − IU = ^k`8S/Q(3.9)
and thus stationary point IUk, I are
IUk, I = ^k`8S/Q + I.(3.10)
Thus from Eq.(3.5) and Eq.(3.10) using stationary phase approximation we obtain
n
k = ^ij
zu,b

€

;/@exp q−by
z v exp w
ℏ ehZx, t, xUk, I[g| + ‡ℏ.(3.11)
Here

23
hZx, t, xUk, I[ = rZb;byu,b[z

u − ^_8QSIUk, I.(3.12)
FromEq.(3.10)-Eq.(3.11) we obtain

;/
} ~IIexp ‰−
(n
kIAn
k ≈ ^ij
Z^k`8S/Q + I[

Š
2ij
Y
;
=
= −^k‹Œ
r.(3.13)
Remark 3.2. From Eq.(3.13) follows directly that G-particle at eachinstantk ≥ 0 moves
quasi-classically from right to left by the law
Ik = −^k‹Œ
r,(3.14)
i.e.estimating the positionIkat each instant k ≥ 0 with final error ijgivesŽIk − Ik ≤ ij,
with a probabilityKŽIk − Ik ≤ ijM ≅ 1.
Remark 3.3. We assume now that a distance between radioactive source andinternal monitor
which detects
a single atom decaying (see Pic.1.1) is equal to ’.
Proposition 3.1. After G-decay the collapse:livecat →deathcatarises atinstant“j”d.
“j”d. ≅ •
s_Œr
.(3.15)
with a probability –—˜™.KdeathcatM to observe a statedeathcat at instant
“j”d.is–š˜™.KdeathcatM ≅ 1.
Suppose now that a nucleus › whose Hilbert space is spanned by orthonormal states
ntk, ] = 1,2
wherenk =undecayednucleusatinstantkandn
k =decayednucleusatinstantk
is in the superposition state,
u› =nk +
n
k,
+

= 1.(3.16)
Remark 3.4. Note that: (i)n
0 =uncayednucleusatinstant0 =
=G − particleatinstant0insideregionJJ. (ii) Feynman propagator G-particle inside region
II are [9]:
pJJI, k, IU = q r
/

stℏuv
exp wt
ℏ hI, k, IU|. (3.17)

24
Here
hI, k, IU = rb;byz

u
+QkHU − S.(3.18)
Therefore from Eq.(2.11)-Eq.(2.12), and Eq.(3.2) and Eq.(3.17) we obtain
nk = ll
# I, k = }JJ
# I
d
U
pJJI, k, IU~IU =

;/@ q r
= ^ij
/

stℏuv
# I d
U exp wt
~IUSIU, NdIUJJ
ℏ hI, k, IU|,(3.19)
where
1forI ∈ 80, N:
0forI ∉ 80, N:
dIU =

Remark 3.5.We assume for simplification now that
Nℏ; ≤ 1.(3.20)
Thus oscillatory integral in RHS of Eq.(3.19) is calculated now directly usingstationary phase
approximation. The phase termhI, k, IUgiven by Eq.(3.18) isstationary when
…†b,u,by
…by
= −rb;by

u = 0.(3.21)
and therefore stationary point IUk, I are
IUk, I = I.(3.22)
Therefore from Eq.(3.19) and Eq.(3.22) using stationary phase approximation weobtain
nk = # I, k = ‡1SI, N dIexp wt
ll
ℏQkHU − S| + ‡ℏ.(3.23)
Therefore fromEq.(3.23) and (3.20) we obtain
(nkIAnk = ‡1SI, N dI + ‡ℏ = ‡ℏ.(3.24)
Proposition3.2. Suppose that a nucleus n is in the superposition state given byEq.(3.16). Then the
collapse:livecat →deathcat arises at instant “j”d.
“j”d. ≅ •
sjzz_Œr
(3.25)
with a probability –š˜™.KdeathcatM to observe a state deathcat at instant
“j”d.is–š˜™.KdeathcatM ≅ 1.

#I, kpresent an GJ-particle which moves inside
25
Proof. From Eq.(3.16), Eq.(3.11),Eq.(3.13),Eq.(3.23)-Eq.(3.24) weobtain
›($$› =
(nkIAnk +

(n
kIAn
k +
+
∗
∗(nkIAn
k =

(n
kIAn
k + ‡ℏ.(3.26)
(n
kIAnk +

From Eq.(3.26) one obtain
Ž“j”d. ≅ •
sjzz_Œr.(3.27)
Let us consider now a state u›given by Eq.(3.16). This state consists of asum two Gaussian
wave packets:ll
# I, k and
l
#I, k.Wave packet
ll
# I, kpresent an GJJ-particle which
live inside regionII see i.2.1. Wave packet
l
region I from the right to left, see i.2.1.Note thatI∩ JJ = ∅.From Eq.(B.5) (see Appendix B) we
obtain that: the probability–I, ~I, k of the GJ-particlebeing observed to have a coordinate in
the range x to x +dx at instantkis
–I, k =
;
J
#I
;
, k~I.(3.28)
From Eq.(3.28) and Eq. (3.11) follows that GJ-particle at each instant t 0 moves quasi-classically
from right to left by the law
Ik = −^k

‹Œ
r
(3.29)
at the uniform velocity^

‹Œ
r
.Equality (3.29) completed the proof.
Remark 3.6. We remain now that: there are widespread claims that Schrödinger’scat is not in a
definite alive or dead state but is, instead, in a superposition of the two[6],[7],[10]:
cat=livecat+
deathcat.
Proposition 3.3. (i) Assume now that: a nucleus n is in the superposition state isgiven by Eq.(3.16)
and Schrödinger’s cat is in a statelivecat.Then collapselivecat →deathcat arises at
instantk = “j”d. is given by Eq.(3.25).(ii) Assume now that: a nucleus n is in the superposition state
is given by Eq.(3.16) and Schrödinger’s cat is, instead, in a superposition of the two:
catatinstantk=livecatatinstantk+
deathcatatinstantk.
Then collapselivecat →deathcat arises at instant k = “j”d.is given by Eq.(3.25).
Proof. (i) Immediately follows from Proposition 3.2. (ii) Immediately follows from statement (i).
Thus actually is the collapsed state of both the Schrödinger’s cat and thenucleus at each instant t
“j”d. always shows definite and predictableoutcomes even if cat also consists of a superposition:
cat=livecat+
deathcat.Contrary to van Kampen’s [10] and some others’ opinions,

“looking” at the outcomechanges nothing, beyond informing the observer of what has already
happened.
26
4. Conclusions
The canonical formulation of the cat state:
cat =livecat¤ndecayednucleus+
deathcatdecayednucleus
completely obscures the unitary Schrödinger evolution which by using GRW collapse model,
predicts specific nonlocal entanglement [7]. The cat state must be written
as:
catatinstantk =livecatatinstantkundecayednucleusatinstantk +
+
deathcatatinstantkdecayednucleusatinstantk
This entangled state actually is the collapsed state of both the cat and the nucleus, showing definite
outcomes at each instant t “j”d.
5. Acknowledgments
A reviewer provided important clarification.
Appendix A
Suppose we have an observable Q of a system that is found, for instance through an exhaustive
series of measurements, to have a continuous range of values ≤q≤
. Then we claim the
following postulates:
Postulate1. Any given quantum system is identified with some infinite-dimensional Hilbert space
H.
Definition 1.The pure states correspond to vectors of norm 1. Thus the set of all pure states
corresponds to the unit sphere ¥⊂H in the Hilbert space H.
Definition 2.The projective Hilbert space P§ of a complex Hilbert space H is the set of
equivalence
classes8¨: of vectors v in H, with ¨ ≠ 0, for the equivalence relation given by v~«w⟺¨ = ®
for some non-zero complex number ∈ ℂ. The equivalence classes for the relation ~«are also
called rays or projective rays.
Remark 1.The physical significance of the projective Hilbert space P§is that in canonical
quantum theory, the states ° and ° represent the same physical state of the quantum system,
for any 0.
It is conventional to choose a state ° from the ray 8°: so that it has unit normŽ°° = 1.
Remark 2. In contrast with canonical quantum theory we have used also contrary to ~«
equivalence relation~±,see Def.A.3.

Postulate 2.The states K² ≤ ² ≤
M form a complete set of ³-function normalized basis
states for the state space H of the system.
Remark 3.The states K² ≤ ² ≤
M form a complete set of basis states means that any state
° ∈ §of the system can be expressed as ° = ´²²~² µz
27
µ¶
while ³-function normalized
means thatŽ²² = ³Z² − ²[from which follows´² = Ž²|°so that
|° = µz|²Ž²|°~²
µ¶ .The completeness condition can then be written asµz|²(²|~²
µ¶ = 1·.
Completeness means that for any state|° ∈ ¥it must be the case thatµz|²|°|
~² ≠ 0.
µ¶
Postulate3.For the system in a pure state|° ∈ ¥the probability–²,~², |°of obtainingthe
result q lying in the range², ² + ~²on measuring Q is
–², ~²,|° = ¸´²¸
~².(A.1)
Postulate 4.The observable Q is represented by a Hermitean operator ¹·whose eigenvalues are
thepossible resultsK²| ≤ ² ≤
M,of a measurement of Q, and the associated eigenstates arethe
statesK|²| ≤ ² ≤
M,
i.e.¹·|² = ²|².
Remark 4.The spectral decomposition of the observable ¹·is then
¹· = µz²|²(²|~²
µ¶ .(A.2)

Postulate 5.(

von Neumann measurement postulate) Assume that|° ∈ ¥.Then if onperforming a
measurement of Q with an accuracy ³², the result is obtained in therangeq² −³², ² +³²v,then
the system will end up in the state
«·º,»º|´
`Ž´|«·º,»º|´(A.3)
ºY»º
where¶z
–·², ³² = ¸²¼½²¸~² »º .
º;¶z
Postulate 6. For the system in state|°¾ =¿|°, where|° ∈ ¥, ¿ ∈ ℂ, ¿ ≠ 1 and|° =
µz ´²|²~²
µ¶
the probability –²,~², |°¾ of obtaining the result q lying in the range
², ² + ~² on measuring Q is
–², ~²,|°¾ = |¿|;
¸´²|¿|;
¸
~².(A.3)
Remark A.3. Formal motivation of the Postulate6 is a very simple and clear. Let|°ÀÁ,k ∈ 80,b
e
a state

28
¾ = ¿°u,where°u ∈ ¥, ¿ ∈ ℂ, ¿ ≠ 1and°u = ´Â²²~² µz
°u
µ¶
= ², k²~². µz
µ¶
Note that:
(i) any result of the process of continuous measurements on measuring Q for the system instate°u
and the system in state°u
¾one can to describe by an ℝ-valued stochastic processesÃuÄ =
ÃuÄ,°uand
Åu
¾Ä,°u
¾Ä = Åu
¾such that both processes is given on an probability space,ℱ, and a
measurable
spaceℝ,
(ii) We assume now that ∀È ∈ ℱ:
É
8ÃuÄ: = ÃuÄ~
Ä = É
8ÃuÄ,°u: = Ž°u¹·

°u,(A.4)
¾Ä: = Åu
É
8Åu
¾Ä,°u
¾Ä~
Ä = É
8Åu
¾: = Ž°u
¾¹·
¾ =

°u
¿
Ž°u¹·

°u,(A.5)

= ²²(²~²
.
where:ℱ ↣ is aË-gomomorfizmsuch that ℱ ⊆ and¹·
(iii) From Eq.(A.4)- Eq.(A.5),by using Radon-Nikodym theorem, one obtain
Åu
¾Ä = ¿
ÃuÄ.(A.6)
¾Î
(iv) LetÍuIbe a probability density of the stochastic process ÃuÄ and let Íu
¾Ä.From Eq.(A.6) one obtain directly
be a probability density of the stochastic process Åu
¾Î = ¿;
ÍuÎ¿;
.(A.7)
Íu
Definition 3.Let °¾ be a state°¾ =¿°, where ° ∈ ¥, ¿ ∈ ℂ, ¿ ≠ 1 and ° =
´²²~² µz
µ¶
and let °¾ be an statesuch that°¾ ∈ ¥. States°¾ and °¾ is
aQ-equivalent:°¾~±°¾
iff∀² ∈ 8 ,
:
–², ~²,°¾ = ¿;
¸´Ï²¿;
¸
~². (A.8)
Postulate 7.For any state°¾ =¿°,where ° ∈ ¥, ¿ ∈ ℂ, ¿ ≠ 1 and ° = ´²²~² µz
µ¶
thereexist an state°¾ ∈ ¥ such that °¾~±°¾.
AppendixB.Position observable of a particle inone dimension
The position representation is used in quantum mechanical problems where it isthe position of the

particle in space that is of primary interest. For this reason, theposition representation, or the wave
function, is the preferred choice of representation.
B.1. In one dimension, the position Iof a particle can range over the values− I Thus the
Hermitean operatorIAcorresponding to this observable willhave eigenstatesIand associated
eigenvaluesIsuch that:IAI = II.
B.2. As the eigenvalues cover a continuous range of values, the completenessrelation will be
expressed
as an integral:
°u = IŽI°u~I
29
; .(B.1)
Here ŽI°u = °I, kisthe wave function associated with the particle at each instant t. Since there
is acontinuously infinite number of basis statesI,these states are ³-function normalized
ŽII = ³ZI − I[.
B.3. The operatorIAitself can be expressed as
IA = II(I~I
; .(B.2)
B.4. The wave function is, of course, just the components of the state vector°u ∈ ¥, with respect
to the position eigenstates as basis vectors. Hence, the wavefunction is often referred to as being the
state of the system in the positionrepresentation. The probability amplitudeŽI°uis just the wave
function, written°I, kand is such that°I, k
~Iis the probability–I, ~I, k;°uof the
particlebeing observed to have a coordinate in the range Ito I + ~I.
Á , k ∈ 80,be a state°u
Definition B.1.Let °À
¾ = ¿°u, where °u ∈ ¥, ¿ ∈ ℂ, ¿ ≠ 1
and°u = °I, kI~I
; .Let¸°u,¾¼be an state such that∀k ∈ Ð0,:¸°u,¾¼ ∈ ¥.States°À
Áand
¸°u,¾¼is calledI-equivalent: °À
Á~b¸°u,¾¼iff
–I, ~I, k;°u
¾ = ¿;
°I¿;
, k
~I = –ZI, ~I, k;¸°u,¾¼[.(B.3)
B.5.From Postulate A.7 (see Appendix A) follows that: for any state°u
¾ = ¿°u,where°u ∈
¥, ¿ ∈ ℂ, ¿ ≠ 1 and°u = °I, kI~I
; there exist an state¸°u,¾¼ ∈ ¥such that
°À
Á~b¸°u,¾¼.
Definition B.2.A pure state°u ∈ ¥ , where °u = °I, kI~I
; is called a weakly
Gaussian
in the position representation iff
ÑÂ_
s exp x−b;ŽbÂz
°I, k
=
z {,(B.4)
ÑÂ
whereŽIuand Ëuan functions which depend only on variable t.

¾ = ¿°u,where
30
B.6. From Postulate A.7 (see Appendix A) follows that: for any state °u
°u ∈ ¥, ¿ ∈ ℂ, ¿ ≠ 1 and°u = °I, kI~I
; is a weakly Gaussian state in the position
Representation, the probability –I, ~I, k;°u
¾ of the particle being observed to have a
coordinate
in the range Ito I + ~I is
–I, ~I, k;°u
¾zÑÂ_
s exp Ò−Zb¾Óz;ŽbÂ[z
¾ =
z Ô.(B.5)
ÑÂ
B.7. From Postulate A.7 (see Appendix A) follows that: for any state°u
¾ = ¿°u,where
°u ∈ ¥, ¿ ∈ ℂ, ¿ ≠ 1and°u = °I, kI~I
; is a weakly Gaussian state in the position
Representation, there exist a weakly Gaussian state¸°u,¾¼ ∈ ¥such that
–I, ~I, k;°u
¾ = –ZI, ~I, k;¸°u,¾¼[.(B.6)
References
[1] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062116 (2012).
[2] A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, H. Ulbricht, Models of wave function Collapse,Underlying
Theories, and Experimental Tests,Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 471-527 (2013) http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4325
[3] K.Jacobs, D. A. Steck, A Straightforward Introduction to Continuous Quantum Measurement,
Contemporary Physics 47, 279 (2006) DOI:10.1080/00107510601101934
[4] M.B.Mensky,Continuous Quantum Measurements and Path Integrals,Hardcover: 188 pp. Publisher:
CRC Press (January 1, 1993) ISBN-10: 0750302283 ISBN-13: 978-0750302289
[5] M.B.Mensky,Quantum Measurements and Decoherence: Models and Phenomenology,Series:
Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 1102000, XVI, 231 pp. ISBN 978-94-015-9566-7
[6] A.J. Leggett, Schrödinger’s Cat and Her Laboratory Cousins, Contemp.Phys.,1984, v.25, No.6, pp.
583-598.
[7] A. Hobson, Two-photon interferometry and quantum state collapse,Phys. Rev. A 88, 022105 –
Published 8 August 2013
[8] G. Gamow,ZurQuantentheorie des Atomkernes,Z. Physik 51, 204 (1928)
[9] R. Feinman, A. Hibbs, (2005), Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, Dover(Emended Edition).
[10] N.G. van Kampen, PhysicaA 153, 97 (1988).

SCHRODINGER'S CAT PARADOX RESOLUTION USING GRW COLLAPSE MODEL

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to SCHRODINGER'S CAT PARADOX RESOLUTION USING GRW COLLAPSE MODEL (20)

More from ijrap (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

SCHRODINGER'S CAT PARADOX RESOLUTION USING GRW COLLAPSE MODEL