Classical and Quantum probabilities

Click For Summary
Classical and quantum probabilities differ fundamentally in their interpretations and implications for event outcomes. Classical probabilities, based on Kolmogorov's axioms, suggest that probabilities arise from a lack of information about a system, while quantum probabilities reflect intrinsic uncertainties in nature. The discussion highlights that while mathematical rules for calculating probabilities can be applied in both contexts, the assumptions about the physical processes involved differ significantly. For instance, the two-slit experiment illustrates how classical assumptions about particle paths lead to incorrect interpretations of quantum events. Ultimately, the distinction lies in how each framework conceptualizes the nature of probabilities and the information available about the systems being studied.
  • #31
slyboy said:
Bohmian mechanics is a good example of the kind of thing I am talking about. There your ontic state (state of reality) is just the particle positions and the quantum state vector. You just have an ordinary Kolmogorv distribution over particle positions.

Yes, this is the part of Bohmian mechanics that is sufficient to show that you do not NEED any "quantum probability rules" that go beyond Kolmogorov probability ; the very fact that it is possible to construct a model that gives you the same predictions as QM using Kolmogorov probability is sufficient to show that. Don't understand me wrong: I didn't want to say that Bohmian mechanics must therefore be "right" or whatever ; it is just that the very existence of that model, giving QM probabilities, and obeying Kolmogorov probabilities, disproves the statement that you cannot have QM probabilities satisfying Kolmogorov's axioms.

However, there are perfectly good Kolmogorov distributions over position that are not allowed in this theory, since they have to obey the ``equilibrium hypothesis'' in order to agree with the predictions of QM, i.e. the prob. distribution must be the one coming from the Born rule applied to the state vector.

Yes, this is correct ; however, it doesn't invalidate the claim that QM probabities CAN be generated by a system obeying Kolmogorov's axioms. If that system can also generate other probabilities (not those of QM) doesn't matter. The very fact that with the right distributions, you DO get out the QM predictions, is enough.

Just as a side note: this doesn't mean I endorse Bohmian mechanics. I have mixed feelings towards it, my main complaint being that the guiding equations do not obey the imposed symmetries on the wave dynamics (like Lorentz invariance). But I do think that it is very useful to study Bohmian mechanics because it is a model that disproves a lot of claims about QM, like the one we're discussing here, namely that "quantum probabilities" are somehow not "normal probabilities as we know them" (Kolmogorov axioms).

cheers,
Patrick.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
339
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
487
Replies
6
Views
350
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K