Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Quantum Physics via Quantum Tomography: A New Approach to Quantum Mechanics
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="A. Neumaier, post: 6587780, member: 293806"] I didn't claim a contradiction with, I claimed the nonapplicability of Born's rule. These are two very different claims. You seem to follow the [B]magic interpretation of quantum mechanics[/B]. Whenever you see statistics on measurements done on a quantum system you cast the magic spell "Born's probability interpretation", and whenever you see a calculation involving quantum expectations you wave a magic wand and say "ah, an application of Born's rule". In this way you pave your way through every paper on quantum physics and say with satisfaction at the end, "This paper proves again what I knew for a long time, that the interpretation of quantum mechanics is solely based on the probabilistic interpretation of the state a la Born". You simply cannot see the difference between the two statements [LIST=1] [*]If an ensemble of independent and identically prepared quantum systems is measured then ##p_k=\langle P_k\rangle## is the probability occurrence of the ##k##th event. [*]If a quantum system is measured then ##p_k=\langle P_k\rangle## is the probability occurrence of the ##k##th event. [/LIST] The first statement is Born's rule, in the generalized form discussed in my paper. [B]The second statement [/B](which you repeatedly employed in your argumentation) [B] is an invalid generalization[/B], since the essential hypothesis is missing under which the statement holds. Whenever one invokes Born's rule without having checked that the ensemble involved is actually independent and identically prepared, one commits a serious scientific error. It is an error of the same kind as to conclude from x=2x through division by x that 1=2, because the assumption necessary for the argument was ignored. This is not a contradiction since both the gyro-factor of electrons and the charge-mass ratio of the antiproton are not observables in the traditional quantum mechanical sense but constants of Nature. A constant is stationary and can in principle be arbitrarily well measured, while [B]the arbitrarily accurate measurement of the state of a nonstationary system is in principle impossible[/B]. This holds already in classical mechanics, and there is no reason why less predictable quantum mechanical systems should behave otherwise. This is because of your magic practices in conjunction with mixing up "contradition to" and "not applicable". Both prevent you from seeing what everyone else can see. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Quantum Physics via Quantum Tomography: A New Approach to Quantum Mechanics
Back
Top