Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

[QM Interpretation]QBism puts the scientist back into scienc

  1. Dec 24, 2014 #1

    Here an article of N. David Mermin in Nature journal : http://www.nature.com/news/physics-qbism-puts-the-scientist-back-into-science-1.14912

    We can read : Both problems are symptoms of the exclusion from physical science of the perceiving subject, and are solved by restoring what the ancient Greeks removed.

    Should we read it as a new axis of research for Theoretical Physics?

    N. David Mermin is emeritus professor in the Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. He started to take QBism seriously while at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study, South Africa.
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 24, 2014 #2

    Doug Huffman

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Woohoo! Thanks for the citation to QBism! Search on arXiv!

    There is a growing literature that may have been inspired by Karl Popper's Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (Rowman 1956), Chapter 1 'Understanding Quantum Theory and Its Interpretations, Section 4 'The Objectivity of Statistical Mechanics', and Section 5 The Subjectivist interpretation of Statistical Mechanics'.
  4. Dec 25, 2014 #3
    Some physicist just beginning to ask the question about the influence of our mind on the representations they give to the physical world (What should have been , from the outset, be one of their rationality concerns). This question seems to me most fruitful than the metaphysical questions about the ontology of physical concepts such as the wave function (or the assert that ontic interprétation would be more real than epistemic interpretation) that can be read on arxiv among other.

  5. Dec 25, 2014 #4

    Doug Huffman

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time: A Proposal in Natural Philosophy by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin (Cambridge 2014) addresses the question of interpretation from consideration of fundamental and emergent time and space, and argues for a return to the common sense of natural philosophy. They regard the multiplying complexities of metaphysics and cosmology as an attempt to hide unfalsifiable failure in the fractal complexity of reality - and ignoring the Black Swan of bald induction.

    Listening to Leonardo Susskind lecture last night, I caught a chink in his armor, announced, in the CPT violations in baryogenesis.
  6. Dec 26, 2014 #5


    Staff: Mentor

    QM does not and never has required a perceiving subject. Its simply an extension of standard probability theory that allows continuous transformations between pure states. Standard probability theory does not require it - nor does QM.

    No. Indeed its re-introduction is a very backward step - there is a reason it was abandoned eg it leads to obvious absurdities when observations are recorded to computer memory.

    Last edited: Dec 26, 2014
  7. Dec 26, 2014 #6


    Staff: Mentor

    Read Von-Neumann - Mathematical Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics published in 1932 where the idea was first presented, and the reason why. Its been around for yonks.

    At the time a few people were influenced by it but even then it was very backwater.

    Since then much more work has been done on QM and the reason it was introduced is now known to be false and is now even more backwater. People like Wigner that supported it quickly abandoned it once this became known.

  8. Dec 26, 2014 #7
    You make a mistake and miss the point. It is not about the mathematical formalism of QM in itself, but about an interpretation which can
    potentially lead to a methodology base on bayesian inference ( which is a calculation method not an interpretation ), much like the work of the physicist http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2014/149/mms.pdf .

    Following is your personal opinion derived from this mistake.

  9. Dec 26, 2014 #8


    Staff: Mentor

    I am making no mistake.

    QM does NOT require a perceiving subject - end of story.

    There is zero way to tell the difference between a Bayesian view of any probabilistic theory and a Kolmogorovian view. If you could do it you would win a Nobel Prize and Fields Medal immediately.

    BTW this forums language is English - not French.

    No problem however because you should be able to explain, in English, carefully, exactly what your point is.

    In particular, in your own words, please, carefully explain both problems and exactly how it resolves it.

    The following from the original article is hand-wavey waffle:
    'The first problem is the notorious disagreement, confusion and murkiness that for almost a century has plagued the foundations of quantum mechanics, in spite of the theory's extraordinary usefulness and power. The second, less famous, problem has been with us at least as long: there seems to be nothing in physics that singles out 'the present moment'. Albert Einstein called this the problem of 'the Now'. Both problems are symptoms of the exclusion from physical science of the perceiving subject, and are solved by restoring what the ancient Greeks removed.'

    There was very little murkiness or confusion since Von-Neumann gave it its correct mathematical formulation (and they have since been sorted out) and the problem of now - that's about as vacuous a statement as you can get. Disagreement - yes - but of such a nature it was (usually) not experimentally testable.

    Last edited: Dec 26, 2014
  10. Dec 26, 2014 #9


    Staff: Mentor

    I have studied Bayesian inference and that is incorrect. It equally valid with a Bayesian interpretation or Ensemble or whatever. As it must be due to Cox's Theorem:

  11. Dec 26, 2014 #10
    Again you persit on your mistake. End of story.

    Again i speak about inference not about interpretation; an other confusion.

    The English astract is sufficiently to the subject of my talk.

    Do you have any article like N. David Mermin reviewed by its peer on this subject ? If not i am not interesting by your personal opinion.

    End of story.

  12. Dec 26, 2014 #11


    Staff: Mentor

    I asked:
    Why evade it?

    Have a look at its references:

    Schrödinger, E. Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
    Schrödinger, E. Eine Entdeckung von ganz ausserordentlicher Tragweite (ed. von Meyenn, K.) 490 (Springer, 2011).
    Bohr, N. Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature 18 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1934).
    Caves, C. M., Fuchs, C. A. & Schack, R. Phys. Rev. A 65, 022305 (2002).
    Fuchs, C. A. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5209 (2010).
    Fuchs, C. A. & Schack, R. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693–1715 (2013).
    Fuchs, C. A., Mermin, N. D. & Schack, R. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5253 (2013).
    Carnap, R. The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (ed. Schilpp, P. A.) 37–38 (Open Court Publishing, 1963).
    Price, H. Science 341, 960–961 (2013).
    Freud, S. The Future of an Illusion, in Mass Psychology and Other Writings (Penguin, 2004).

    Its philosophy - not science.

  13. Dec 26, 2014 #12
    Again my title begin by [QM Interpretation]

    it's not me you insulted in public, but the work of the people you are referencing.

    What is your publication ?

  14. Dec 26, 2014 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This interpretational question can be endlessly debated, but it won't be resolved that way.
    Thread closed.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: [QM Interpretation]QBism puts the scientist back into scienc
  1. Interpretations of QM? (Replies: 16)

  2. QM Interpretations (Replies: 17)

  3. QM Interpretations (Replies: 101)

  4. Interpretations of QM (Replies: 7)

  5. QM Interpretations (Replies: 27)