- #31
- 8,700
- 4,780
The statistical tools are impeccable. Instead I question the interpretation of the state.Fra said:
No. I am not talking at all about information, except to contrast it with the subjective approach.Fra said:
The statistical tools are impeccable. Instead I question the interpretation of the state.Fra said:If I understand you right before regarding your interpretation, one of your motivators was to question the physical justification of the statistical tools used, by an actual observer, to produce expectations for single outcome?
No. I am not talking at all about information, except to contrast it with the subjective approach.Fra said:Let me know if I understand you approximately right - your conceptual solution?
Seems to be to essentially consider the whole classical environment (with all the the macroscopic pointers etc) as an objective information sink, from which any quantum tomography is taking place.
Ok, I certainly don't mean that the mathematical tools was questioned withing the field of mathematics. In my phrasings the "justification of the tools", is the "interpretation" I guess, ie. to justify why those tools are the RIGHT tools, for the physical situation?A. Neumaier said:The statistical tools are impeccable. Instead I question the interpretation of the state.
In your terminolgoy, does reading off experimentally accessible macroscopic equipment (sources, detectors, filters, and instruments) not counts as gathering "information"? If we label it "objective, classical information", rather than "quantum information" does that make it better?A. Neumaier said:No. I am not talking at all about information, except to contrast it with the subjective approach.
Statistics is indeed the right tool for handling aleatoric uncertainty in physics.Fra said:Ok, I certainly mean that the mathematical tools was questioned withing the field of mathematics. In my phrasings the "justification of the tools", is the "interpretation" I guess, ie. to justify why those tools are the RIGHT tools, for the physical situation?
It counts as gathering information in the colloquial sense, but not in the sense of information theory, which quantifies missing information rather than knowledge.Fra said:In your terminolgoy, does reading off experimentally accessible macroscopic equipment (sources, detectors, filters, and instruments) not counts as gathering "information"? If we label it "objective, classical information", rather than "quantum information" does that make it better?
Here we may reach difficulties as I think we have taken on different tasks here. Which statistics? The task of general inference (including abducing the best laws) is much more than just "objective frequentist statistics" in my view. One has to ponder about things like information processing resource constraints. As no real observer/agent can simply or access store all raw data som some faithful form, from from that make "objective" inferences. The subjecitivty of inferences are not just due to having incomplete data, it may also be due to gaming elements, such as randomly trying certain rules. Also encoding data, may involve lossy compressions, and the lossy compressions have to be choosen from what is likely to be most beneficial for future predictions. In this soup, all things that I think you consider the model must evolve. I agree that fitting too many parameters at once as once will not work, this is part of the information contstrain considerations for me. It's also why I think neith the state space nor laws (such as hamiltoinans) can be trated as statics, with predtermined parameters. The hamiltonians is one of the things that begs explanation.A. Neumaier said:Statistics is indeed the right tool for handling aleatoric uncertainty in physics.
Ok, good, then I think I understand. I wasn't referring to just such "ignorance" that are from macro/micro levels. What counts for me is the agents real "predictive power" and fitness in a given environment, which is influenced both by knowledge and missing information.A. Neumaier said:It counts as gathering information in the colloquial sense, but not in the sense of information theory, which quantifies missing information rather than knowledge.
The only agent that matters in an objective approach to physics is the scientific community as a whole. This community has access to all data (available at a given time) and makes decisions on what is true based on accepted statistical reasoning. This makes it objective to the extent that science can be objective.Fra said:As no real observer/agent can simply store or access all raw data in some faithful form, from that make "objective" inferences.
Ok, thanks for clarifying! Then I think I see your perspective and logic. I think its nice but It still leaves many questions in my perspective unanswererd though. My take on objectivity and inference seems different. And your view IS the more consesus one.A. Neumaier said:The only agent that matters in an objective approach to physics is the scientific community as a whole. This community has access to all data (available at a given time) and makes decisions on what is true based on accepted statistical reasoning. This makes it objective to the extent that science can be objective
Nice summary!A. Neumaier said:The point of my paper is a proper conceptual foundation of quantum physics with the same characteristic features as classical physics - except that the density operator takes the place of the phase space coordinates.
Morbert said:explain the electrical characteristics in terms of quantities like local densities of states...
Definitely explaining. E.g. we might observe some undesired electrical characteristic like a poor subthreshold swing, or a high off-state current, or early onset of ambipolar current. We learn why this is happening by studying quantities and processes in the FET (Maybe electrons are tunnelling across the short-channel barrier, or into the valence band due to a poorly tuned band gap. Or maybe inelastic phonon scattering assists band-to-band tunnelling etc). And we anticipate which devices won't suffer from these problems based on these insights.physika said:Explain or describing ?
Demystifier said:Is there a simplified version of your theory for "dummies"?
The Christmas holidays helped a lot to finally get the task done...A. Neumaier said:Not yet, but I'll try to create something. It will take some time since simplification is hard work...
I just put a revised version (v3) of the paper on the arXiv, which will appear there tomorrow. In addition I created the requested/promised Ariadne's thread as an Insight article which is currently on Review. Unfortunately, to maintain understandability, I haven't managed to completely avoid formulas in the Ariadne's thread, but the text/formula ratio is very large, probably ##>100##.A. Neumaier said:What I'll add is a formula-free Ariadne's thread for dummies.
Done. To make the paper a pleasure to read for philosophobists like you, the philosophical part has been completely separated from the physics and is placed in the revised v3 at the very end!vanhees71 said:What would help a lot were a clear statement of what you call "first principles" and then a derivation of the POVM and the more conventional special case of projective measurements without too much philosophy in between.
You can now find it here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.05294A. Neumaier said:I just put a revised version (v3) of the paper on the arXiv, which will appear there tomorrow.