Scientist propose solution to quantum measurement problem, explain further

Link to Article

The scientists

In their recent opus magnum, Theo Nieuwenhuizen (Institute of Physics, UvA) and colleagues claim to have found a solution to the so-called quantum measurement problem

Their claim

After reviewing the literature on measurement models, they focus on the so-called Curie-Weiss model for quantum measurements. The joint dynamics of the tested system coupled to the measurement apparatus now produces results that explain the measurement postulates. It shows that the off-diagonal terms ("cat-terms") disappear in a physical process due to the coupling to the apparatus, on a basis selected by the interaction Hamiltonian. The registration of the measurement outcomes by the pointer of the apparatus occurs because the measurement triggers the transition from the initial metastable state to one of the stable final states; the apparatus being large, this means an amplification of the signal. The transition of the pointer variable from its initial metastable state to one of the final stable states is a process with classical features, such as the dumping of excess free energy in the bath.

I am by no means a physicist, but I do enjoy trying to understand some of the issues they face. From what I've read this quantum measurement problem, well is a problem. Could someone explain why it is a problem, and how these scientist from the Institute of Physics propose to solve it? (as layman as possible)

Answer

“quantum measurement problem” is a not real "problem" which these authors say they offer a "physical way out of a mathematical embarrassment” to something that is certainly not an embarrassment. Instead quantum uncertainty is what nature tells us about what is and what we can know. They are reported to conclude that the "dynamical instabilities inside the apparatus near the end of the measurement." can permit the statistical outcomes without need for a physical collapse. But no collapse nor multiple universes are really needed at all. That gets to the point that QM is not classic physics and trying to make it that is not productive. The reporting is that:

"The statistical formulation of quantum mechanics, though abstract and minimalist, is sufficient to explain all relevant features. Since alternative interpretations involve unnecessary assumptions of one kind or another, the authors advocate the usage of the statistical formulation in physics education of quantum mechanics."

So their conclusion is correct but I don't get why they think they have added anything - that is unless somehow saying that some large collection of quantum states that we call a measuring device can form a meta-stable state that then does not collapse when an observation is made. Although it is controversial to say this it is I think most correct to say that there is no wave function collapse. there is no measurement problem. Uncertainty is inherent. QM requires that we give up usual notions of reality but it requires little beyond HS math to follow. The description of the wave function is a math language that best allows us to describe what nature allows us to predict or know. It has withstood all tests. It is absolutely clear that one cannot separate measurer and measured. It requires no collapse to provide it's answers and it tells us that we cannot know more than probabilistic outcomes for what we choose subjectively as observations.