View Single Post
A. Neumaier
Apr21-11, 11:40 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,943
Quote Quote by A. Neumaier View Post
This post contains replies to posts 1-7 from
I'll comment on the later posts at another time.
This post contains replies to the remaining posts from

Quote Quote by JesseM View Post
But Neumaier says that his interpretation "acknowledges that there is only one world", and that it "is consistent with assigning a well-defined (though largely unknown) state to the whole universe", shouldn't that mean the interpretation has to give more than just a collection of probabilities for different states at different points in spacetime, since in our "one world" we see "states" consisting of definite outcomes rather than just probabilities?
We see definite outcomes whenever we look at a system large enough that the assumptions of statistical mechanics apply. In particular, this holds for all the things that are _actually_ measured, such as pointers of instruments, colors of pixels on a screen, developped photographic plates, sounds in a Geiger counter,
currents in a photodetector.

We _infer_ from these raw measurements properties of systems that we cannot ''read'' directly, and the inference is as good or as bad as the causal link provided by quantum mechanical theory in the respective case.
Quote Quote by JesseM View Post
But there are plenty of cases where var(A) would be large even for macroscopic systems, like the state of macroscopic "pointers" which show the results of experiments on quantum particles
Yes. This implies that the macroscopic pointer gives only unreliable information about the quantum particle, unless many repeated measurements are made under sufficiently idenitcal conditions.

Quote Quote by rogerl View Post
Do you guys agree that the Ensemble Interpretation (a requirement for Neumaier Interpretation) is already falsified?
The thermal interpretation does not _require_ the ensemble interpretation.
Instead, it gives the conditions under which an ensemble interpretation is valid.
See Section 10.3 of my book.
Quote Quote by rogerl View Post
I presume that the Ensemble Interpretation is the same as the Statistical Interpretation?
Quote Quote by rogerl View Post
Both these can't handle single system. But Neumaier Interpretation (actually not an Interpretation but just a QFT way of looking at it or from a QFT point of view) can handle single system. Why is that Neumaier's can handle single system while the Ensemble and Statistical can't since they are identical? What are the differences?
The difference is that I discard the so-called eigenvalue-eigenstate link,
and give the quantum expectation a different interpretation. See Sections 10.3-10.5 of my book.

Quote Quote by JesseM View Post
if Neumaier's interpretation only gives probability distributions for such macro-states rather than definite values,
It gives definite values to macroobservables of macrostate, within some tiny uncertainly level.
Quote Quote by JesseM View Post
the simulation yielding a series of macroscopic pointer states whose overall statistics should match the results of analogous experiments performed in the real world. If we require that the simulation be a "local" one
A valid simulation must be as nonlocal as QM itself.
Quote Quote by JesseM View Post
So, I think it's misleading to call Neumaier's interpretion a "local" one
It isn't local; I nowhere claimed that. The thermal interpretation shares all nonlocal features with orthodox quantum mechanics.