How Does the Statistical Interpretation Address Quantum Interference Effects?

[zbyszek]

L.E. Ballentine presentation is obscure, tedious, didactic, eclectic and old turkey style. In addition, it is simply wrong, since the writer reject the experimental evidence.

So you are the man of your word. You have read it.

Could you explain in more detail what experimental evidence has been rejected
by Ballentine, please?

Cheers!

 

[Anonym]

Zbyszek:” Could you explain in more detail what experimental evidence has been rejected by Ballentine, please?”

The “collapse of the wave function” . We already discussed that in the “wave packet description” session.

The “collapse of the wave function” is not a postulate and it is not interpretation dependent. The collapse is universally valid firmly established experimental result connected with the transition from Quantum world to Classical world (E. Schrödinger cat). The collapse is a key problem of the measurement theory and therefore also is called “The Measurement Problem”. The theoretical description of the natural phenomena is groundless without consistent and adequate measurement theory. There are and always will be people that claim that a quantum world is a classical world or a classical world is a quantum world, that the measurement problem do not exist, AB phenomenon do not exist,quarks do not exist, etc. These are the people that have no problems in their world. God bless them. But it is not interesting world.

 

[Careful]

Zbyszek:” Could you explain in more detail what experimental evidence has been rejected by Ballentine, please?”

The “collapse of the wave function” . We already discussed that in the “wave packet description” session.

The “collapse of the wave function” is not a postulate and it is not interpretation dependent. The collapse is universally valid firmly established experimental result connected with the transition from Quantum world to Classical world (E. Schrödinger cat).

The world in which the experiments you consider to be conclusive are accepted as such must be very poor minded indeed.

 

[zbyszek]

The “collapse of the wave function” is not a postulate and it is not interpretation dependent.

Is the collapse also required in the interpretation where the wave function is not associated
with any single object but only with ensembles?

The collapse is universally valid firmly established experimental result connected with the transition from Quantum world to Classical world (E. Schrödinger cat).

I might have some insides, not discussed in QM textbooks yet, as to the quantum to classical transition, and to the Schrodinger cat problem in particular.
For example, the lack of observed superpositions of macroscopic objects can be derived from a structure of the many-body wave functions of those objects.

If you mock up the measurement process by sampling (can be approximate) of the many-body probability density (the wave function modulus squared) you will find that the
density itself prevents macroscopic superpositions from happening in the results of measurements.

No reduction of the wave function required.

Cheers!
zbyszek

 

[Anonym]

Careful:” The world in which the experiments you consider to be conclusive are accepted as such must be very poor minded indeed.”

But I am happy to be there. In addition, I have plenty of tools in my restaurant.

 

[Anonym]

Zbyszek:” Is the collapse also required in the interpretation where the wave function is not associated with any single object but only with ensembles?”

The theory should explain the results of experiments. That all.
In the wave-packet description session you stated that the Born interpretation is exception, may be more than interpretation. L.E. Ballentine reduced it to just another interpretation. As I stated above, I made my mind. You helped me to do that. I am grateful to you for that. I do not intent to convince anybody. I try to understand.

 

[dextercioby]

There is Einstein's "Reply to criticism" available on-line.

The book "Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods" by Asher Peres assumes statistical
interpretation and has large parts devoted to hidden variables.

I heard good things about Ballentine's textbook "Quantum Mechanics: Modern developement"
but don't have access to it yet.

Cheers!

Then you should get it really quickly. It' simply splendid. By far, the best book in the field.

Daniel.

 

[dextercioby]

Zbyszek:” Could you explain in more detail what experimental evidence has been rejected by Ballentine, please?”

The “collapse of the wave function” . We already discussed that in the “wave packet description” session.

The “collapse of the wave function” is not a postulate and it is not interpretation dependent.

It is a postulate, it's necessary to merge it with the other axioms, as Ballentine shows. Oh, and yes, it's probably difficult to follow his 1970 article, simply because it's difficult to follow any article of that kind, including Wigner's that you quoted.

Daniel.

 

[zbyszek]

I try to understand.

Anonym,
Let me stick to this sentence of yours.

Our brains trick us into believing things that do not exist and make as blind to plain evidence
residing just in front of us. I am not patronizing you. The same happens to me way too often.

One way to fight that is to employ different parts of our brains when analysing
a problem.

How is it done?
In the case of reading a paper, that you presume to be wrong(right), you try to remember
that your mind is trying to trick you. During the analysis of the paper try to find evidence that
the paper is correct(wrong). The oposite to the presumption.

In my case, I contemplate almost every sentence of the paper and try to dig out its meaning
in relation to preceeding sentences in a way that would contradict my presumptions.

It takes time but often pays off with understanding.

Give Ballentine a chance. If you are really after the understanding, analyse the first 15 pages
of the review temporarilly assuming that Ballentine is right and your brain plays with you.

After that you will either find better evidence supporting your reservations or annihilating them.

As a side remark, such an exercise would help you deal with symptoms of Alzheimer's desease if you are unlucky to suffer from it in the future.

Cheers!

 

[marlon]

Wow. I never knew that initial preparation is responsible for double-slit electron diffraction.

LOL
That makes TWO of us. This is the very point i was objecting against but this guy just doesn't want to hear me out.

Gee, I always thought that the restriction of the wavefront was the major cause. So, I wonder how electron microscope manufactures guarantee that their electrons are properly prepared?

Don't bother :rofl: i have asked a similar question before.

Also, would you be so kind as to show us how to compute the correlation between electrons in a XX-slit experiment of any kind. Usually we assume that the incident electrons are independent, hence they cannot be correlated .

Exactly, also a question i have asked to him. Yet no answer.

greets
marlon

 

[masudr]

Hmm, I'm pretty confused by zbyszek's comments. I've tried to make sense of them from zbyszek's point of view. I think what s/he means by the preparation of electrons etc. is that, for example, for an intereference pattern to be observed, we need coherence etc.

I'm not sure though; is this really what zbyszek means?

 

[dextercioby]

Try to read the 8-th and 9-th chapters of Ballentine's QM book or the article in discussion to get the idea behind his assertions.

Daniel.

 

[zbyszek]

Hmm, I'm pretty confused by zbyszek's comments. I've tried to make sense of them from zbyszek's point of view. I think what s/he means by the preparation of electrons etc. is that, for example, for an intereference pattern to be observed, we need coherence etc.

I'm not sure though; is this really what zbyszek means?

He means that for an interference pattern to be observed all electrons have to follow the same wave function. In particular, this means the coherence etc.

In order to satisfy this requirement, the electrons have to be carefully prepared. They cannot
be cast into the experimental setup regardless of their energies and momenta.

In the statistical interpretation of QM the preparation procedure of an ensamble of electrons is synonymous to the wave function of the ensemble.

Cheers!

 

[reilly]

LOL
That makes TWO of us. This is the very point i was objecting against but this guy just doesn't want to hear me out.



Don't bother :rofl: i have asked a similar question before.



Exactly, also a question i have asked to him. Yet no answer.

greets
marlon

Could not agree more. Somehow, all I see is a future in this thread that is full of words, but little concrete substance. That is, don't hold your breath on getting answers to our questions.
Regards,
Reilly

 

[Anonym]

Zbyszek:” Originally Posted by Anonym
I try to understand.
Let me stick to this sentence of yours.”
Careful:”The world in which the experiments you consider to be conclusive are accepted as such must be very poor minded indeed.”

I do not want to go too far beyond my competence. For me understanding means translation into the suitable mathematical language ( here I see three and Born approach is not relevant at least at the beginning). Now a question is how the difference between the information and the information rate is defined. As Careful said it is “very poor minded indeed.”