> The wave function is a probability distribution

> it represents the observer's knowledge of a system

> The Schrodinger equation describes how these probabilities evolve with time

> The wavefunction is a member of an infinite dimensional hilbert space

> An observable is any dynamical variable which can be measured
> It is represented by a Hermitian operator (all its eigenvalues are real)
> The wave function can be represented in the eigenbasis of the the observable

> When an experiment is made to measure this observable, one of its eigenvalues is
observed
with a probability given by Born's rule (square of the absolute value of the
component)
> Hence, the observer's knowledge of the system changes, which results in the
wavefunction
being projected onto the eigenspace of the observed eigenvalue (after all, the
wavefunction
is a measure of the observer's knowledge)

> Why are only eigenvalues observed? This can be explained through the process of
decoherence.
> When the measuring apparatus interferes witht he system, it can be shown, using
schrodinge-
r's equations and rules of probability, that out of the various states the system
could have
"attained" after the measurement, only the pure eigenstates survive
> The eigenstates quickly decohere. The information about their phase angles is
lost, and hence
they can no longer interfere (superpose)
> If speaking in terms of a density matrix expressed in the eigenbasis, the off-
diagonal memb-
ers of the matrix quickly fall off to 0 and only the diagonal survives intact

> However, decoherence doesn't select the precise eigenvalue - it only "selects"
the preferred
eigenbasis
> The result of the experiment can not be predicted with absolute certainty - only
probabilities
can be given about obtaining ther eigenvalues (by Born's rule)
> Hence, their is an element of inherent randomness in the theory. This randomness
cannot be
rempved or explained away

> What about the state of the system before it was measured? can it be said to be
in a
one state (eg. position) or the other before the experiment was performed?
> The answer is no as that would give rise to inconsistencies - this easily seen
the dual-slit
experiment. It can not be said whether a photon went through a certain hole, as
that
would lead to logical conclusions which cleaerly disagree with experimental
evidence
> Hence, QM only talks about probabilities of obtaining certain results when an
experiment
is performed. It does not allow one to speak about what the system "actually" was
before the
measurement occurs

> Also, certain obervables do not commute (eg. position and momentum) as they do
not share a
common eigenbasis
> hence if two eperiments are performed to measure these observables one after
another
immediately, we get uncertain results
> For instance, if the position is measured to be x1, i.e, the wave function was
projected to
the | x1 > basis, and immediately after that the momentum was measured to be p1
(that is, |x1 >
was projected to the p1 eigenspace)
> As x and p share no common eigenvector, another measurement of x is not
guaranteed to return
x1 now, hence both position and momentum of a system can never be known to any
desired accura-
cy at the same time
> This is the uncertainty principle and holds for any two non-commuting observables

> The motivation for schrodinger's equation can be googled easily

> Bell's paradox isn't really a paradox because 1. FTL signals cannot be
transmitted
using two entagled particles as the outcome of an experiment will always be
random, hence
the desired information signal cannnot be formed at the sender's end
> There is no spooky action at a distance because there is no action at all
> There is just a perfect correlation between the two entagled particles
> After the first particle is measured, the second particle's result is also
determined
by the simple rule of conditional probability
> Nature never forgets about this correlation (which originated because of some
interaction
b/w the particles in the past)

> It is a similar case with the quantum eraser experiment and also the fact that
conditional
probabilities do not depend on the order in which the signal and idler photons
are measured
> see the pdf in the folder or just goolge lubos quantum eraser for a link to the
pdf