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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
