- #1
- 7,861
- 1,599
- TL;DR Summary
- In QM, is there an agreed upon mathematical interpretation of macroscopic events?
In classical probability theory, a probability space has a set of "point" or "outcomes" which may be multidimensional vectors. "Events" are sets of these points. By analogy, in QM, it seems a macroscopic event would defined (in principle and mathematically) by as a set of possible measurement outcomes. For example, "The cat is alive" would include many different outcomes since whether the cat is alive or not doesn't depend only on whether one atom of the cat is here or there.
Is it correct to think that macroscopic events can (in principle) be defined this way? - correct in the sense that our sensation that a macroscopic event has definitely happened corresponds to one vector of measurement outcomes being realized from a set of such outcomes.
Is it correct to think that macroscopic events can (in principle) be defined this way? - correct in the sense that our sensation that a macroscopic event has definitely happened corresponds to one vector of measurement outcomes being realized from a set of such outcomes.