Recent content by Peter Morgan

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...

The idea that QM is incomplete whereas, presumably, CM is complete, has colored the foundations of physics for too long. I suggest that QM is complete in the sense that it has enough resources to model any collection of data from multiple experimental sources: that is, QM is empirically...

Thanks for this, @gentzen. I found it on the CI of QM page for SEP. What I now find remarkable is that contextuality is a very natural classical concept that we can easily introduce into classical physics. In particular, Koopman's Hilbert space formalism for Classical Mechanics1 allows us very...

VERY good to see you here, @RUTA! Though it is a notable new approach, I think the information-theoretic approaches introduce axioms that I don't find obvious enough for them to be axioms. It's not yet ready for prime-time, but please consider thinking of "A Dataset & Signal Analysis...