Recent content by Peter Morgan

The fundamental principles of QFT, however, include many measurement operators that can be constructed by smearing the measurement operator-valued distributions that are in the axioms, then there is a single state that tells us the expected statistics for any measurement procedure that...

Put in an extreme instrumental form, I think "The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments" requires QM to allow us to compute expected relative frequencies for datasets we will collect, which we will compare with actual relative frequencies for those...

But note what I call Hegerfeldt nonlocality, for which I find arXiv:quant-ph/9806036 and arXiv:quant-ph/9809030 helpfully short and clear. If there is a projection to positive frequency (positive energy, given the correspondence principle), then analyticity ensures that a wave function that is...

On May 18th, I presented a Colloquium for the School of Engineering and Physical Sciences at North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh, with the title "A Dataset & Signal Analysis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", by Zoom. I attach a PDF of the slides and the YouTube video is here. I am...

Thank you. I didn't have a copy of Ballentine available yesterday. I associate a focus on preparation as distinct from measurement with Margenau, but there is surely room for Ballentine's take on that approach in general to be different in details. I much like his postulate 1 on page 43, That...

Apologies, I hadn't understood you to be espousing a minimal statistical Interpretation different from that of Ballentine. What you have just described is significantly closer to how I think about QM than I think Ballentine's approach is. I think the standard definition of the word ensemble is...

I had only seen v1 of that, so thank you for the push.

I think the distinction is that I see a dataset where you see an ensemble of particles. It would be only a small issue if there were not clouds to worry about and perhaps it is, as you think, not an issue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Certainly QFT as we have it is effective to an extraordinary degree and I have no problem with discussing asymptotic states, but I think there are alternatives. If one thinks that something very fundamental has to change for us to make progress or even perhaps to understand what we're doing...

I would add 'Algebraic QM', which can be found in textbook form in https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5627, by François David, (published as "The formalisms of quantum mechanics", Springer 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10539-0 ). For me algebraic QM holds interest because I think it is a more...

I take the minimal statistical interpretation of QM to be qualitatively different from QFT insofar as there is no idea of a collection of identically prepared systems (an ensemble) in QFT (the second paragraph of the Beck orthodoxy preprint very nearly insists that there must be a concept of a...

tl;dr summary: We will not here consider quantum field theory whatsoever. I suppose that's part of what orthodoxy requires: we can ignore QFT because it's the same as QM.

As a tensor product of states. If we consider the Wightman axioms, they do not mention tensor products at all. There is a very weakened sense in which we can construct tensor products for 'systems' that exist only at space-like separation to each other (because the algebras of observables for...

In QFT, as in SR, I take kinematics and dynamics to be merged into a single 3+1-dimensional model of the world (my feeling is that anyone can choose whether to think of that as how the world really is or as a model.) We can still distinguish kinematics and dynamics for that kind of model if we...

CM+ includes contextuality/measurement incompatibility, which allows multiple experiments to be modeled in a single algebraic structure, exactly as one finds in QM. This, I claim, is classically natural. CM+ can be thought of as a hidden-measurement theory: though it begins as ordinary CM...