User talk:Atreus57

While it should not be necessary, in the 21th century, to explain again why the measurement "problem" is not a problem at all, I am only too grateful some authors that finally wrote about this subject and explained the true "situation", namely that indeed, the "measurement problem" is a false problem. Here I can quote a very good review like http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.5290 While I could also quote some better textbooks, any student should know them. I invite the users to add other citations in the text and to complete the presentation I made with the details. I am not having much time now. However, I think my add is important in clarifying the stated issue and to explain why the historical "measurement problem" should be considered as solved in the context of quantum mechanics.

edit warring at measurement problem
Your recent editing history at Measurement problem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 09:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Measurement problem
First of all, please excuse me if I make stupid spelling mistakes, I am typing this on my phone.

To continue the discussion started on the Measurement problem talk page, which has been closed for good reasons, since it was getting off topic: So you quote another, longer part from Schrödinger's paper. This one is actually even better to understand the measurement problem. It is stated clearly that the evolution in qm is twofold. You have the linear Schrödinger evolution and the nonlinear collapse evolution (you can call it whatever you want, if you dont like the notion collapse). The collapse reduces the wavefunction (again, you can call it expectation catalogue if you like) to one of the eigenstates of a linear operator. The measurement problem is: in which situations do you have to apply which type of evolution? QM has no unambiguous answer to this.

Now you say that "It is simply (really simply) that some questions are immaterial for the system considered in the context considered." Fine. That is just another way to put it. Then: which are the questions that are immaterial and which are not? What does it depend on? The theory does not tell you! This is the measurement problem. Xaggi (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)