Local QM? MWI, RQM, QFT, LQM, + ?

[Anonym]

Not even close. Euclid's postulates are for one specific entity (a Euclidean plane), and they were far from complete.

Dear Mentor,

I studied P.K. Rashevski “Riemann Geometry and tensor analysis” before I finished high school. At the same time I read original papers by N.I. Lobachevski and the Russian translation of J. Boljai. Before writing the post concerned the axiomatic of physical theory, …

Let me explain to you the conceptual content of my disagreement with Vanesch. Vanesch stated that the superposition principle is universally valid physical postulate. However, it is too restrictive and not a physical postulate at all. It is only the inherent feature of the mathematical framework called linear Hilbert space with very restrictive class of operators (transformations):linear operators. The mathematical framework is only the empty arena suitable or not suitable for the specific applications in physics.

In addition, Vanesch discussions of MWI remind me the N.Bohr style of presentation, for example, in the paper “The Quantum Postulate and the recent development of Atomic Theory”, Nature, 121, 580 (1928):
“… the formulation of the quantum theory, it seems, as we shall see, that its essence may be expressed in the so-called quantum postulate, which attributes to any atomic process an essential discontinuity, or rather individuality, completely foreign to the classical theories and symbolized by Plank’s quantum of action.”

As far as non-relativistic CM vs non-relativistic QM is considered, just the opposite is correct. In view of our today empirical knowledge, this definition express only the perfect confusion of the writer.

Forum Rules:”“Posting the same topic across multiple forums or multiple threads is considered spam and is not allowed.”

Vanesch insist to make propaganda of MWI in each session of discussion, does not a matter what it is specifically:’the wave packet description”, “ non-locality” or present one, etc. It is not written in any standard textbook on QM or QFT that MWI is universally valid interpretation of QT. Vanesch propaganda is in contradiction with the Rules of PF.

The self-obvious postulate of the PF is: Don’t confuse kids.

I wish that the future generation of physicists will understand Quantum Physics. Are you also?

Dany.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

To be fair though Anonym, I started it and was delighted to play discordant antagonist to Vanesche's concerto

 

[Demystifier]

It is not written in any standard textbook on QM or QFT that MWI is universally valid interpretation of QT. Vanesch propaganda is in contradiction with the Rules of PF.

The self-obvious postulate of the PF is: Don’t confuse kids.

But what if some kid asks interpretational questions on QM to which answers are not written in any standard textbook? Should we tell him/her: "Shut up and calculate!"? Or that it is impossible to answer such questions? Or that some possible answers exist but that there is no yet consensus among experts? In the latter case, shouldn't we explain them these possible answers?

 

[vanesch]

Let me explain to you the conceptual content of my disagreement with Vanesch. Vanesch stated that the superposition principle is universally valid physical postulate.

No, I didn't state that. I state that *quantum theory* takes as a postulate, the superposition principle. It is its basic principle ! In the same way as GR takes as basic postulate, that there is a pseudo-riemanian spacetime manifold. It is the starting point of the theory.
Starting from this postulate of superposition, the natural mathematical representation is a (projective) hilbert space. In fact, stating that the space of physical states is a (projective) hilbert space, or stating that the superposition principle is supposed to be valid, is the same statement.

However, it is too restrictive and not a physical postulate at all. It is only the inherent feature of the mathematical framework called linear Hilbert space with very restrictive class of operators (transformations):linear operators. The mathematical framework is only the empty arena suitable or not suitable for the specific applications in physics.

... and in quantum theory, it is, BY POSTULATE, the arena in which nature is supposed to act.

In addition, Vanesch discussions of MWI remind me the N.Bohr style of presentation, for example, in the paper “The Quantum Postulate and the recent development of Atomic Theory”, Nature, 121, 580 (1928):
“… the formulation of the quantum theory, it seems, as we shall see, that its essence may be expressed in the so-called quantum postulate, which attributes to any atomic process an essential discontinuity, or rather individuality, completely foreign to the classical theories and symbolized by Plank’s quantum of action.”

As far as non-relativistic CM vs non-relativistic QM is considered, just the opposite is correct. In view of our today empirical knowledge, this definition express only the perfect confusion of the writer.

Well, if my style of discussion is of the level of a N. Bohr article in Nature, I feel in good company

Forum Rules:”“Posting the same topic across multiple forums or multiple threads is considered spam and is not allowed.”

Vanesch insist to make propaganda of MWI in each session of discussion, does not a matter what it is specifically:’the wave packet description”, “ non-locality” or present one, etc. It is not written in any standard textbook on QM or QFT that MWI is universally valid interpretation of QT. Vanesch propaganda is in contradiction with the Rules of PF.

I don't think so. The problem is that in many threads, the interpretational issues come to the foreground, and in many cases, the MWI interpretation sheds some interesting light on the issue. The most interesting light I think is in the case of "non-locality" in the EPR situation, which comes up in many discussions. I think it is allowed to point this out, no? However, MWI is often met with 1) ignorance of what exactly it states, and 2) a strong emotional rejection from the part of some posters. I try to explain to these posters that MWI is NOT the totally crazy idea of a few lunatics, but is taken quite seriously by several people, and I try to point out its advantages in resolving certain issues. As I said, the ONLY objections I know against MWI, are of the emotional kind.

That said, you should acknowledge that I'm not forcing MWI through anybody's throat, I'm just informing people, and try to get them beyond the "emotional rejection" part, which usually doesn't allow them to even understand exactly what MWI is saying. Now, it is true that in doing so, I sometimes point out the evident logical contradictions in the "standard" Copenhagen view, which are nevertheless swallowed without any reflection.

You might also have noticed, if you read my contributions carefully, that I never claim MWI to be "true", but just a conceptual tool to UNDERSTAND quantum theory ; and especially, to understand how certain bizarre predictions of quantum theory come about.

The self-obvious postulate of the PF is: Don’t confuse kids.

I wish that the future generation of physicists will understand Quantum Physics. Are you also?

Yes, and I'm profoundly convinced that taking on an MWI view (amongst others!) helps doing this.

 

[Anonym]

To be fair though Anonym, I started it and was delighted to play discordant antagonist to Vanesche's concerto

Indeed, I tried to play second violin but it doesn’t sounds to me that bad. Always an improvement possible. After all, the well time-treated (observer-dependent) counterpoint is the art of fugue all about. I enjoy Vanesch discussions very much. I intend to write a paper with a purpose to demonstrate that more than 40 years ago it was already shown that the M.Born statistical interpretation have no room in quantum mechanical formalism. It is direct consequence of my discussions with Vanesch. According to the standard rules, he should be co-author of that paper. However, I fear even to ask his agreement.

Eventually, the principal postulates are only Global Guidelines in the actual research. Obviously, they altogether are so restrictive that the only adequate formulation of the corresponding Chapter will satisfy all of them simultaneously. Our discussions are around the measurement theory. In his famous discussions with N. Bohr, A. Einstein did not talk about them, but referred to them in his statement “… ob der liebe Gott wurfelt” (Classical Physics). In contrast, N. Bohr invent freely the “new” postulates, but clamed that A. Einstein should not tell to God what to do. His logic seems to me ridiculous. All that similar to Jewish story with Chodesh Chodashim. Obviously, no physicist is allowed to enter that room by definition. However, if you are curious enough, you may travel to Idfu temple in Egypt and you will get an idea adequate for all practical purposes.

P.S. I like old music. How I find a good piece? Let say 500 years old. I look if an author is Anonym.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Indeed, I tried to play second violin but it doesn’t sounds to me that bad. Always an improvement possible. After all, the well time-treated (observer-dependent) counterpoint is the art of fugue all about. I enjoy Vanesch discussions very much. I intend to write a paper with a purpose to demonstrate that more than 40 years ago it was already shown that the M.Born statistical interpretation have no room in quantum mechanical formalism. It is direct consequence of my discussions with Vanesch. According to the standard rules, he should be co-author of that paper. However, I fear even to ask his agreement.

Eventually, the principal postulates are only Global Guidelines in the actual research. Obviously, they altogether are so restrictive that the only adequate formulation of the corresponding Chapter will satisfy all of them simultaneously. Our discussions are around the measurement theory. In his famous discussions with N. Bohr, A. Einstein did not talk about them, but referred to them in his statement “… ob der liebe Gott wurfelt” (Classical Physics). In contrast, N. Bohr invent freely the “new” postulates, but clamed that A. Einstein should not tell to God what to do. His logic seems to me ridiculous. All that similar to Jewish story with Chodesh Chodashim. Obviously, no physicist is allowed to enter that room by definition. However, if you are curious enough, you may travel to Idfu temple in Egypt and you will get an idea adequate for all practical purposes.

P.S. I like old music. How I find a good piece? Let say 500 years old. I look if an author is Anonym.

You should include this discussion in your paper, if you ask me it's a very clear way of showing what MWI attempts to show, cut the chaff out, ie my posts though

 

[wm]

Vanesch:” QFT is not an interpretation of quantum theory, it is the application of quantum theory to a specific classical model (classical fields). As such, all interpretational issues remain with QFT in the same way as they remain with other applications of quantum theory.”

Allday:” One "law" that you can keep in mind is that quantum objects travel as waves and interact as particles”.

It is follow deterministically from your discussion with me in the Particle-Wave duality and Hamilton-Jacobi equation session that

There is no legitimation for M.Born statistical interpretation any more and it may be removed from the formalism of the Quantum Theory. Quantum Theory is the local field theory of the massive waves. No interpretation required.

I would welcome some elaboration of this last paragraph:

1. On what grounds is the Born statistical interpretation no longer legitimate?

2. How is ''collapse'' handled in QFT?

3. ''No interpretation required'' seems (to me) to be the Holy Grail of every theorist. Please elaborate; eg, on the ontology (''elements of reality'') associated with your view.

Thanks, wm