Recent content by A. Neumaier

But his book is nearly as far as possible from the consensus textbook orthodoxy; see the last paragraph of p.20 in Beck's paper!

Orthodoxy is what is (by most textbooks) imparted to students when they have to learn quantum mechanics. That automatically excludes quantum field theory.

By the paper cited, we now know much better than we used to know....

Beck, G. (2025). How to be an orthodox quantum mechanic. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20597 From the abstract: From the conclusion:

Good theories (of which good models are anintegral part) have a high explanatory power, revealed by appropriate computations (that themselves don't have explanatory power) that can be matched with experiments. But neither theories nor calculations have causal power since they are just texts on...

I fully agree with that. But it has nothing to do with what I wrote. Calculations produce the predictions. But they have no causal physical power. What happens is not a result of calculations with models of physics, but of interactions of actual physical systems! To produce a decay (and...

It is generally assumed to be in a plane wave state with with low uncertainty in momentum. This is very far from a classical particle. No. The filter containing the slit turns most of the plane wave into heat, with exception of the little part that passes through the slit. This part is...

All have their own interpretation in mind, unless they specifically mention a particular interpretation. Even in that case, they have their own interpretation of that particular interpretation in mind since no interpretation (not even the Copenhagen interpretation) has a standard version...

Actually only the first half is part of the Copenhagen interpretation. The second half is not, since an integral part of the Copenhagen interpretation (not shared by most other interpretations) is that every quantum system must be interpreted in a classical experimental context. Thus your...

This is not part of the 7 rules - the part common to all interpretations. It is only part of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Rule 3 only states that the state of an isolated system evolves deterministically. It only follows that the state of open system only (if any) can behave randomly. But this is quite different from your much stronger claim claim! This rule says nothing at all about outcomes , neither it...

Not necessarily - it might be that the question whether these probabilites are all equal (and hence equal 0.1) is undecidable in ZFC. Note that these probabilities are independent of the knowledge of the first trillion digits! So you take ignorance to mean equally likely? This means that your...

But mathematicians talk, e.g., about the probability with which a particular digit appears in the deterministic sequence of digits of pi. This is only one example of many of the use of probabilities in deterministic systems. Whenever one has a sensible measure normalized to 1, one has a...

In this case you'd quote (in words) a standard reference for the questionable 'only' part of this claim!

Then you should leave assessments of difficulty to them! Even tests of Bell inequality violations are hard to realize, in the sense that they cannot be tested in a student lab but are very sophisticated. ... how, without destroying the good vacuum? ... and how do you ensure that the atom...