What does the probabilistic interpretation of QM claim?

meopemuk

Quote by Calrid

And you don't find that frustrating?

For centuries scientists struggled to find the ultimate answer. Now we found it! Time to celebrate with champagne and caviar and not be depressed.

Eugene.

*Calrid*

Quote by meopemuk

For centuries scientists struggled to find the ultimate answer. Now we found it! Time to celebrate with champagne and caviar and not be depressed.

Eugene.

I'm gonna take coke then if you don't minds, I need a pick me up. I picked a bad day to give up methamphetamine.

A. Neumaier

Quote by meopemuk

Except for the missing description of time evolution. http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=476412 (I hope Dr. Neumaier wouldn't notice this post as he would vehemently disagree.)

You speak from a position of ignorance about what QFT is and can do.

In the thread http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=476412 , I showed that your statement is wrong. But you didn't even find it worth your time to do the little work that would have enabled you to understand my argument and to verify that I am correct.

A. Neumaier

Quote by strangerep

I didn't see where you "explained the experiment by the classical
Maxwell equations" in these slides. (Or are you implicitly referring
to the arguments given in Mandel & Wolf?)

I used the fact the quantum mechanics of a photon is given by the Maxwell equations.
See p.8. Thus the analysis starting p.51 applies verbatim.

Quote by strangerep

It's not clear to me where, in the hidden variable assumptions you
listed, one has assumed point particle structure.

The properties (i)-(iv) characterize what is expected of a classical elmentary particle.
More precisely, they characterize a particle that preserves a classical identity while moving through the beam splitter. Pointlikeness is not essential here - it is just the usual classical model for an elementary particle. But since this seemed to be the cause of your query, I changed the wording and now speak of a ''hidden classical particle assumption''
isnead of a ''hidden point particle assumption''. Thanks for the correction! (The updated version will probably be on the web an hour from now.)

strangerep

Quote by Calrid

Is maths even suited to this problem?
[...] in terms of interpretation how do we even know that our maths is even apt?

It's not all-or-nothing.
Maths develops/evolves partly to meet new challenges.

[...]
All good philosophical questions.

Perhaps, but they should probably be taken up in the philosophy forum,
since this seems to be gradually drifting away from the original intent of
this thread.

*Calrid*

Quote by strangerep

It's not all-or-nothing.
Maths develops/evolves partly to meet new challenges.

Perhaps, but they should probably be taken up in the philosophy forum,
since this seems to be gradually drifting away from the original intent of
this thread.

This is all pure philosophy anyway unless you are going to tell me interpretations now aren't? But yes I was not expecting a discussion on them anyway. They just highlight that mathematically we have no idea if maths even represents anything, just that it appears to inductively reproduce results. The actual maths is pretty much a philosophical representation of something we can't measure, on which we base a philosophical interpretation.

A. Neumaier

Quote by A. Neumaier

In my lecture http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/optslides.pdf , I call this revision the thermal interpretation of quantum mechanics. It does not require the slightest alteration of quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. I only changed the currently accepted weird way of talking about quantum system (a long tradition introduced by many years of brainwashing) into one which matches common sense much better. So it is not a change in the foundations but only a change in the interpretation - one that is more consistent with the mathematics

A discussion forum for discussing the thermal interpretation has been approved:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492
Please post your comments there.

StevieTNZ

Quote by Calrid

Bit of a tangent but I read an article about them having closed all the loop holes in Bell's recently.

Quote by Calrid

There are only one or two left now that haven't been filled in by experiment and I suspect they will become ever more absurd as they are closed, or more bizarrely correct even!

Ah? Not all have been closed, clearly, since you're saying there are a few left lingering.

Similar Threads for: What does the probabilistic interpretation of QM claim?
Thread	Forum	Replies
Is their a probabilistic to deterministic calculator web abb?	General Math	4
A probabilistic inequality	Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics	3
The Probabilistic argument	Linear & Abstract Algebra	3
probabilistic interpretation of wave function	Advanced Physics Homework	5
problem with Probabilistic	Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics	0