No. Only the sign behaves probabilistic, but ##g-2## is a universal constant, a coefficient in the Hamiltonian.vanhees71 said:The magnetic moment of the electron is proportional to its spin and as such of course an observable as any other and thus behaves probabilistic.
No, it's like parent 3. Hidden variables in this case are positions of atoms (of which the food and sibling are made), not position of the sibling. Only fundamental stuff needs to always exist, emergent stuff may be created.martinbn said:But your need for hidden variables is like parent 2.
Why are positions of particles fundamental?Demystifier said:No, it's like parent 3. Hidden variables in this case are positions of atoms (of which the food and sibling are made), not position of the sibling. Only fundamental stuff needs to always exist, emergent stuff may be created.
This doesn't alter the fact that a constant is measured, not a spin observable.vanhees71 said:Yes, but to measure ##(g-2)## you must somehow measure the gyration frequency,
This is quite wrong.vanhees71 said:and this can be done only by measuring a component of the magnetic moment.
I was "surprised" how my conversation with WernerQH went. I remembered him as someone with whom I had constructive and interesting exchanges in the past. So I went back and read some of his early posts and our exchanges. Conclusion: He has not changed, what is different is the current context. That context is set by DrChinese rejecting Bohr's analysis and understanding of quantum phenomena, and then vanhees71 accidentally joining him by disqualifying Bohr's explanations as mere philosophy.vanhees71 said:The problem with Bohr is that he is so unclear in his writing that it invites such "philosophing" about "what might the author have wanted to say", and that's why QT till today is often displayed as something mystic. I find Bohr' and Heisenberg's writings did a bad job in "interpreting QT", because they were too philosophical rather than to wrap off all the dust of the unclear quarter of a century of "old quantum theory", where you had no clear picture of how to describe "quantum phenomena", leading to indeed vague and inconsistent pictures like "wave-particle duality", which was substituted by Bohr just by the even more obscure "complemantarity principle". I think with modern QT there's no need for such philosophical distortions of a very elegant and clear mathematical formulation which just does what all deep physical theories do, i.e., summarizing many empirical facts into a scheme of a few generally valid basic principles, with which all these and (hopefully) many to be discovered phenomena in the future can be described.
The current state of quantum phyics is such that some appeal to authority is still needed. And you cannot just replace Bohr by Ballentine (or Peres) as "your authority," because (1) they are not accepted by sufficiently many people as authority and (2) they never accepted their status as authority, and hence did not act and write in a way that would make them suitable authorities.gentzen said:Well, the quest for unification is not my quest. I guess my quest is just to be able to communicate (about physics), without too much appeal to authority.
There is wholeness in Biology, and maybe this explains why it was a "non-mathematical" discipline, because how can you analyse something which cannot be decomposed? What we have in physics is actually contextuality (not wholeness), which yields to mathematical analysis without much resistance.Bohr (1958) Quantum Physics and Philosophy Causality and Complementarity said:A new epoch in physical science was inaugurated, however, by Planck's discovery of the elementary quantum of action, which revealed a feature of wholeness inherent in atomic processes, going far beyond the ancient idea of the limited divisibility of matter.
gentzen said:As long as you don't explicitly measure, the probability that the neutron has turned into a proton indeed gradually increases.
I guess you are misinterpreting my intentions (see my reply to the old post by vanhees71 above). I just try to explain the standard picture, not defend my own interpretation(s) or Neumaier's thermal interpretation. Of course there will be a time where I will again defend "them," but not in the current context where serious physical mistakes are commited (not by you) from my point of view.WernerQH said:Yes, that's the theorist's picture. The experimentalist knows that the neutron decays even when he's not "measuring", and on a time scale shorter than microseconds.
The frequencies are precisely about spin precession, and that's of course an observable in the usual sense of the word. For details see (open access), e.g.,A. Neumaier said:This doesn't alter the fact that a constant is measured, not a spin observable.
All high precision measurements in quantum physics measure constants, not state-dependent observables.
Only measurements of state-dependent observables are subject to Born's rule, and these are quite inaccurate.
This is quite wrong.
The ultrahigh precision measurements of ##g-2## are not measurements of a spin component, but measurements of two frequencies whose ratio is then taken. See Section 9.4 of my paper Quantum tomography explains quantum mechanics (Version v4).
vanhees71 said:Yes, but to measure ##(g-2)## you must somehow measure the gyration frequency, and this can be done only by measuring a component of the magnetic moment.
Spin precession frequencies are not the same as components of the magnetic moment.vanhees71 said:The frequencies are precisely about spin precession, and that's of course an observable in the usual sense of the word. For details see (open access), e.g.,
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801
Thank you for clarifying, and for your thoughtful comments in general. Actually I've been exposed to the "standard picture" ad nauseam. (I learnt quantum mechanics fifty years ago.)gentzen said:I just try to explain the standard picture, not defend my own interpretation(s) or Neumaier's thermal interpretation.
I can't make sense of this at all. In NMR the spins interact with a field varying at radio frequencies, but the interaction term still depends on the angle between the spin and the varying field. Perhaps you think of a spin as precessing at an exactly defined frequency, but it could also be an average frequency. Random deviations from the momentary direction cannot be resolved experimentally.A. Neumaier said:Frequencies are measured by (here NMR) spectroscopy, not by quantum measurements according to Born's rule.
Yes, the interaction can only be defined in terms of the spin vector.WernerQH said:I can't make sense of this at all. In NMR the spins interact with a field varying at radio frequencies, but the interaction term still depends on the angle between the spin and the varying field.
Because here (a story told to a child) we are using a classical model, where particles are small objects with well defined positions by definition.martinbn said:Why are positions of particles fundamental?
What's measured are in fact decay electrons as a function of time, showing oscillations with the frequency ##\omega_a##. That's of course related to the precession of the muon spin. If it were not, how do you think would this measurment have anything to do ##(g-2)## in the first place. NMR is used to accurately measure the magnetic field, which is the other ingredient needed to get ##(g-2)## from the measured ##\omega_a##. It's all in the quoted paper, and in more detail in Ref. [56] in there:A. Neumaier said:Yes, the interaction can only be defined in terms of the spin vector.
But the measurement of the constant ##g-2## is unrelated to measuring components of the spin vector (which are observables whose results are state-dependent).
Measuring a constant has nothing at all to do with Born's rule.
Wait, are we not giving analogies, while we have QM in mind?Demystifier said:Because here (a story told to a child) we are using a classical model, where particles are small objects with well defined positions by definition.
How can you count rotations without ever measuring an angle?A. Neumaier said:But the measurement of the constant g-2 is unrelated to measuring components of the spin vector (which are observables whose results are state-dependent).
In QM, I don't know what is fundamental. But in non-relativistic QM position could be fundamental. Momentum, on the other hand, could not, because Bohmian mechanics with momentum ontology cannot reproduce predictions of standard QM.martinbn said:Wait, are we not giving analogies, while we have QM in mind?
Then you are in the position of parent two.Demystifier said:In QM, I don't know what is fundamental. But in non-relativistic QM position could be fundamental. Momentum, on the other hand, could not, because Bohmian mechanics with momentum ontology cannot reproduce predictions of standard QM.
vanhees71 said:but there's no hint at the claimed dichotomy between a classical and a quantum world.
In a Bayesian sense that depends on your expectations :Pphysika said:absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If this is strictly correct then there is no inductive scientific method. A scientific hypothesis is accepted because of ongoing absence of any evidence it is not true. This assumes the hypothesis is not a "Pauli"= not even wrongphysika said:absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This is Poppers view. Which is why his focus is on corroboration only. I do not like Popper at all. He sweeps the interesting part under the rug just because it is not deductive. But life does not progress in a deductive manner neither i think is learning or natural science. I think Popper just refused to acccept or get to peace with this.hutchphd said:If this is strictly correct then there is no inductive scientific method.
A scientific hypothesis may be "accepted" for as long as it is not contradicted and competes well in the "Occam's Razor" test. But Newtonian physics is "accepted" as a practical engineering tool for most human endeavors - even though it has been contradicted.hutchphd said:If this ["absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"] is strictly correct then there is no inductive scientific method. A scientific hypothesis is accepted because of ongoing absence of any evidence it is not true. This assumes the hypothesis is not a "Pauli"= not even wrong
How much do you know of Popper's own view and motivations? Are you sure that you won't end up with a similar realization as meFra said:This is Poppers view. Which is why his focus is on corroboration only. I do not like Popper at all. He sweeps the interesting part under the rug just because it is not deductive. But life does not progress in a deductive manner neither i think is learning or natural science. I think Popper just refused to acccept or get to peace with this.
when you will come across explainations of Popper's actual motivations? Or will you be so blinded by his objections to Bayesianism that you won't be able to see the genius of his solution of how to overcome the circularity of induction?For me, it was the opposite. This interview has significantly increased my respect for Deutsch, and also for Popper. It slightly decreased my respect for my own background in philosophy, with respect to what I have read, what I haven’t read, and what I didn’t even plan to read.
Popper realised that the problem of induction actually implies that there's no such thing as justified knowledge in the first place, and that we do not need knowledge to be justified in order to use it.
There is no process of justifying a theory. So theories, according to Popper, are always conjecture, and thinking about theories is always criticism. It's never a justificatory process. It's always a critical process.
