Comment on ‘‘Wave-function collapse by measurement and its simulation’’

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Namiki and Pascazio [Phys. Rev. A 44, 39 (1991)] propose a model of wave-function collapse associated with the nonfiring of a detector in one of two paths for which a particle is known to be present, and argue that the collapse has the same status as the collapse associated with a measurement involving an actual detection. I question this proposal on the following grounds: (i) it is based on a shift in detection probabilities in the two paths while there is no shift in wave-function amplitudes, and (ii) Namiki and Pascazio use an insufficient measure, loss of interference, as an indicator of collapse.

This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit: