Lectures on Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

[Doc Al]

I stumbled across this site quite by accident. I've never heard of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, but they know how to party!

Earlier this year they hosted a series of lectures on "Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Current Status and Future Directions". A top-notch roster of speakers including: Wallace on Many Worlds; Goldstein on Bohmian mechanics; Ballentine (my hero) on the Statistical Interpretation; Pearle on Spontaneous Collapse; Griffiths on Consistent Histories; and several others (including Lucian Hardy). And experimentalists Zeilinger and Aspect as well.

The lectures are all here for your viewing pleasure. If you have any interest in these things, check it out: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/activities/scientific/QT-LECTURES/

 

[dextercioby]

Thanks, DocAl, this was a highly useful post.

Daniel.

 

[seratend]

Personnally, I recommend Ballentine pdfs, especially the 2nd one for the ones who have a sufficient knowledge on probability theory. (except for the zeno paradox part, where the explanation, in my opinion, fails to explain the source of the paradox) .

Formula end of page 7 seems to be wrong (no 1/T), but the result is ok.

It is a pity he has not sufficiently developped the logic of inductive inference section and its relationship with QM.


Seratend.

 

[Locrian]

Thankyou for the link

 

[slyboy]

Don't forget to watch the excellent lecture by Leifer on Quantum Logic (although my opinion on it might be slightly biased).

And, yes, we do know how to party - at least as far as it is possible for a group of theoretical physicists to party.

 

[statespace101]

Personnally, I recommend Ballentine pdfs, especially the 2nd one for the ones who have a sufficient knowledge on probability theory. (except for the zeno paradox part, where the explanation, in my opinion, fails to explain the source of the paradox) .

Formula end of page 7 seems to be wrong (no 1/T), but the result is ok.

It is a pity he has not sufficiently developped the logic of inductive inference section and its relationship with QM.


Seratend.

I can't for some reason at the time to get ballentines PDF's to up load, but I do have his book Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development and the watched pots in it. His line of reasonong was if measurements are made so finely spaced as to make the measurements a continuous specturm that the systems evolution should come to a halt. In the book there's sufficent reason as to why that paradox is false.

 

[seratend]

I can't for some reason at the time to get ballentines PDF's to up load, but I do have his book Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development and the watched pots in it. His line of reasonong was if measurements are made so finely spaced as to make the measurements a continuous specturm that the systems evolution should come to a halt. In the book there's sufficent reason as to why that paradox is false.

Yes, the system stops if you have a real interaction that becomes infinite for short time.

However, the important point, in my opinion, is to understand we should not mix the collapse postulate with an action on the system (the source of the paradox - not explained in the pdf which is focused on the infinite interaction).

(if we have not infinite interactions, the system does not stop: continuous measurement is possible and the collapse postulate still works and the system under measurement is not stopped).

Seratend.