A. Neumaier said:
The book is mainly based on the five free preprints mentioned in the edited post #1 (together with a preprint on coherent spaces). These cover the general content of the book, and in particular the essence of the thermal interpretation, but in a less final form. In particular, some arguments were improved or polished based on the feedback from the discussion here on PF.mattt said:
What do you mean by "authoritative"? Isn't that a qualification that only readers can give?A. Neumaier said:
It means that this is the officially published definition of the thermal interpretation. Only the author of an interpretation can say whether it is authoritative. This is in contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation, whose content is different dependent on whom you ask, since there is no unique defining document.Demystifier said:
According to google, that word doesn't exist.vanhees71 said:
Searching on google, I couldn't find such a meaning of the word "authoritative". But I found this: https://piedmont.libanswers.com/faq/135714A. Neumaier said:
Well, google is not a dictionary. You should consult for exampleDemystifier said:
According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authority#English authority refers to a book or quotation that settles an argument. Now what does "settles" mean? If it means settles as far as the author is concerned, then it's OK.A. Neumaier said:
The word authority has not a single, narrow meaning, so taking just one of its uses as ''the'' meaning is ill-advised. According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authority#English, authority refers toDemystifier said:
Well, if the thermal interpretation will become popular in the future (which is certainly something that you want) then it will be hard to avoid some modifications and distortions by other writers.A. Neumaier said:
It settles an issue for the author first. In extreme cases it settles the issue only for the author ;-).Demystifier said:
Yes, but anyone can go back to the authoritative source. There things are specified precisely. Anything in science can be misunderstood, but if the definitions are useful and clear enough they will survive this.Demystifier said:
I have no idea how is that related to TI, but the existence of a sufficiently powerful quantum computer might be an argument against GRW-like collapse theories.ftr said:
There is probability in TI, just no fundamental one.ftr said:
Yes, that is what I meant "no fundamental". I believe (you can correct me) that the quantum computers are based on the notion of fundamental property of QM.A. Neumaier said:
No. All past work on quantum computers assumes the standard machinery of quantum mechanics and is independent of interpretation issues.ftr said:
Are you saying that TI is just plain old interpretation and has no significant practical value of any sort other than "explaining".A. Neumaier said:
No. It is a new interpretation that explains the measurement problem. But (like any other interpretation of quantum mechanics) it does not change any of the predictions that could be relevant for quantum computers.ftr said:
So do you think all other interpretations also only try to explain the measurement problem but not "ontology" to any level.A. Neumaier said:
Well, some interpretations, including the thermal interpretation, also specify an ontology. But ontology is also explanation only, not prediction.ftr said:
The ontology of the thermal interpretation is defined by stating that everything computable from the collection of all q-expectations of a quantum system is an objective property of the system. Thus in quantum field theory, field expectations define local properties and ##n##-point functions define for ##n>1## nonlocal properties. Intuitively, field expectations specify properties like densities and currents in small open regions.ftr said:
) since all of them try to explain the probability point of view which they take as the correct starting point.The thermal interpretation explains probability in a different way than the other interpretations. Therefore there are no direct implications for interpretations with a different starting point.ftr said:@A. Neumaier, does TI imply that all other interpretations are highly misguided (not to use a stronger language
Thanks, although I am not convinced, but I may try to elaborate and clarify my question later.A. Neumaier said:
A. Neumaier said:
Yes.ftr said:
I don't know. It is probably like any other e-book?ftr said:
No. The Coulomb force is mediated by virtual photos, real photons necessarily oscillate, hence cannot be static. But this has nothing to do with the TI.ftr said:
.Independent of any measurement, a particle has at all times lots of objectve but numerically uncertain properties. It moves along a fuzzy world tube centered around the path given by the q-expectations of the position, with a width given approximately by the square root of the sum of the q-variances. All properties including their uncertainties are in principle computable. Measuments reveal approximatioms of the theoretical values.ftr said:@A. Neumaier, I hope you don't get sick of my questions
1. What does TI imply about the value of a property of a particle before measurement is it still undefined?
2. what does TI imply anything about the path of a particle. I mean is it possible to compute it?
Is in the case of say a C60 molecule its geometrical structure maintained or fuzzy too?A. Neumaier said:
In a frame where 4 nuclei have positions with fixed q-expectations, the nuclei have quite definite locations (uncertainty tiny). But the electrons are delocalized over the whole molecule, and have the shape of the whole geometry.timmdeeg said:
Nuclei goes through 1 slit, the electrons through 2?A. Neumaier said:
Why 4 nuclei? Electron delocalisation requires pi bonds like e.g. in benzene. In C60 fullerenes we have covalent bonds. But apart from that and if I understand you correctly the path of a molecule is fuzzy before measurement but the position of the nuclei to each other obey the laws of chemical bonding, correct?A. Neumaier said:
No, nuclei plus electrons are a unit. The molecule passes the two slits.EPR said:
timmdeeg said:
That's a non-sequitur. Pi bonds are covalent bonds. And there are plenty of pi bonds in C60.timmdeeg said:
Because 4 points are needed to fix a definite frame in space. Thus fixing the mean positions of 4 nuclei produces an approximate rest frame of the C60 molecule. Because such a molecule is quite rigid, it determines the position of all nuclei up to a tiny uncertainty.timmdeeg said:
In a moving frame (relevant when one wants to do diffraction experiments with C60) , there is additional uncertainty. In a double slit experiment, the whole molecule is delocalized over the region of the slit and later over the region of the diffraction pattern, and localizes only when hitting the detection screen.EPR said:
Yes, but the electrons are nevertheless delocalized, because of their indistinguishability. In the Hartree-Fock approximation usually employed by chemists when discussing the nature of bonds, one considers approximate effective electrons confined to an atomic orbital. Then one has a notion of delocalization for these effective electrons, leading to a different concept of delocalization.timmdeeg said:
Ah I see, this makes the difference in how Chemists understand delocalized electrons.A. Neumaier said:
Yes indeed, I've been mistaken here.DrClaude said:
If I understand it correctly q-expectations play a decisive role in your TI. Searching the web this seems to mean a specific kind of average. My guess is the "average" of all possible outcomes. Could you please explain the meaning of q-expectations in the case of the double-slit experiment where the outcomes have unequal weights?A. Neumaier said:
In the TI, the q-expectation of A is not an average but just the trace of the product of density operator times A. Please first read Part II to understand the basics.timmdeeg said:
Thanks.A. Neumaier said:
I think in your FAQ and TI writing the double slit experiment is not well illuminated. IS it possible for you to specifically address the double slit for TI and how the q-expectation give rise to the interference pattern.A. Neumaier said:
My FAQ hasn't been much updated the last few years, hence is nearly silent about the thermal interpretation. The web page for the latter is here. For the double slit experiment see Section 4.3 of Part IV of my preprint series,ftr said:
Thanks. Of course I have read that and followed some of the discussions on it. It makes sense to me as far as the bucket analogy for the single point detection, however, I am still not clear about the interference pattern and the part you mentioned about the delocalization of the Molecule.A. Neumaier said:
Whole molecules with their delocalized electrons (in a moving coordinate system whose origin and orientation is itself uncertain) are bucketwise detected. The double slit dynamics is essentially that of the center of mass, which has a density field to which the buckets respond. The inner structure of the molecule does not matter in the setting, only the total mass; the inverse of the latter defines the scale of the concrete diffraction pattern.ftr said:
