- #36

A. Neumaier

Science Advisor

- 8,614

- 4,647

What interference are you talking about?charters said:The uncertainty in QM must be ontic because we observe interference between the different possibilities the state of a single subsystem ranges over

In the TI, beables are q-expectations, not wave functions. The reduced density matrix is only a tool to compute these. In case of a 2-state system, one can instead use the Bloch vector to encode the q-expectations, ranging over a unit ball. Interference does not apply to this representation.

We observe approximations to the ontic values. The same observed highly peaked bimodal distribution of observations in a large sample of trials can be interpreted either as the observation of a tiny random true binary value ##\pm\hbar/2## of the system measured, with small bell-shaped measurement error - this is the TI interpretation of the observations regarded as measuring the detector beable. Or it can be interpreted as the observation of a single true value of the order of ##O(\hbar)## with a bimodal measurement error - this is the TI interpretation of the observations regarded as measuring the system beable.

Only the convention used - for which beable the measurement is and what is regarded as its true value - can decide between the two possibilities, and say anything about the relation between the measurement of the detector beable and what it means for the system beable.

A single observation gives a value approximating the corresponding beable of the detector, which approximates the corresponding beable of the measured system, with an unknown error (if one does not assume to know beables).charters said:The possibilities in an epistemic probability distribution cannot exhibit interference, as only one of them actually exists.

This is

**independent of any epistemic analysis**. The latter is about what an observer knowing only approximate observations is rationally entitled to imagine about success rates of future predictions.

Last edited: