The discussion centers on the concept of the "minimal statistical interpretation" of quantum mechanics, particularly as articulated in Ballentine's 1970 paper. Participants clarify that this interpretation asserts that quantum mechanics does not require ontic commitments beyond experimental outcomes, and that it is synonymous with the "statistical ensemble interpretation" (SEI). Key points include the assertion that wave function collapse does not exist in a physical sense and that quantum states represent infinite ensembles of identically prepared systems. The conversation highlights the potential for confusion due to varying interpretations and terminologies used in the literature.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the philosophical implications of quantum interpretations and statistical mechanics.
All interpretations of quantum theory may be termed statistical if one is thinking of the results of experiments; quantum theory is statistical in that sense.pines-demon said:I've been reading on some of the threads in this subforum and some times the concept of minimal statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is brought up. What is that? Looking for it in Google leads me to articles on statistical independence, unaccessible papers or (in first place) to PhysicsForums.
That I understand. I think I know what the "statistical interpretation" (as in Born's rule) means, but the specific use of "minimal statistical interpretation" is not clear to me.Lord Jestocost said:All interpretations of quantum theory may be termed statistical if one is thinking of the results of experiments; quantum theory is statistical in that sense.
It is not defined in the first comment of the thread, at least not clearly. That conversation has 9 pages. Can you tell me where to look?Demystifier said:
Unless my search bar is not working, the word minimal is used once (and only in the Bellentine paper). Could you clarify if it is just a synonym to something in those papers?martinbn said:
It refers to the linked interpretation.pines-demon said:Unless my search bar is not working, the word minimal is used once (and only in the Bellentine paper). Could you clarify if it is just a synonym to something in those papers?
I find this review helpful https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/eis.pdfpines-demon said:I've been reading on some of the threads in this subforum and some times the concept of minimal statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is brought up. What is that? Looking for it in Google leads me to articles on statistical independence, unaccessible papers or (in first place) to PhysicsForums.
Oh ok. So it is the same as the "minimal ensemble interpretation"?Morbert said:I find this review helpful https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/eis.pdf
These are the broad patterns of the usage of words I have observed.
Statistical: Quantum mechanics asserts statistical properties
Ensemble: Quantum states represent infinite ensembles of identically prepared systems
Minimal (general context): Quantum mechanics demands no ontic commitment beyond the outcomes of trials/tests.
Minimal (ensemble context): The infinite ensembles have no structure of pre-assigned values
It seems pretty clear to me. The only unclear thing is the claim that there are different version of SEI:pines-demon said:It is not defined in the first comment of the thread, at least not clearly.
But even that confusion is mostly cleared up in the end:Demystifier said:However, it does not mean that one cannot add additional interpretation claims to SEI. One can, and one does. One can do that in more than one way, so there is more than one version of SEI.
Demystifier said:What is common to all versions of SEI, except the facts above shared by all interpretations? All versions of SEI have in common the following:
- The collapse does not exist in the physical sense. (The information update is not considered physical.)
- Additional (hidden) variables (e.g. Bohm) are not considered.
One should generally avoid the term "statistical ensemble interpretation", since a misleading reading of the term "ensemble" in the sense of a "Gibbs ensemble" can lead to enormous misunderstandings.pines-demon said:Oh ok. So it is the same as the "minimal ensemble interpretation"?
Oh, thanks for (accidentally?) pointing out my mistake:Lord Jestocost said:One should generally avoid the term "statistical ensemble interpretation", since a misleading reading of the term "ensemble" in the sense of a "Gibbs ensemble" can lead to enormous misunderstandings.
My mistake is that Demystifier was not talking about Ballentine's minimal statistical interpretation, but about "statistical ensemble interpretation (SEI)" more general. So I agree with Demystifier that there are different versions of SEI. Sorry for the confusion I may have created.gentzen said:I don't think that there are different versions of SEI.
Due you see what is my problem here. There is a lot of different meanings here and the thread has 9 pages. So just to narrow this down, the minimal statistical interpretation is Ballentine's 1970 paper?gentzen said:My mistake is that Demystifier was not talking about Ballentine's minimal statistical interpretation, but about "statistical ensemble interpretation (SEI)" more general. So I agree with Demystifier that there are different versions of SEI. Sorry for the confusion I may have created.
I don't see what your problem is! Is it so hard to accept that there is more than one version. And why are you so focused on the name? Read what the interpretation is, not what it is called by different people.pines-demon said:Due you see what is my problem here. There is a lot of different meanings here and the thread has 9 pages. So just to narrow this down, the minimal statistical interpretation is Ballentine's 1970 paper?
From my point of view, it's enough to read the first post by me.pines-demon said:It is not defined in the first comment of the thread, at least not clearly. That conversation has 9 pages. Can you tell me where to look?
martinbn said:I don't see what your problem is! Is it so hard to accept that there is more than one version. And why are you so focused on the name? Read what the interpretation is, not what it is called by different people.
But don't you all see how it is confusing not to clarify it from the very beginning. You could have started by saying it a series of interpretations on certain way of thinking (originally devised by Ballentine), and in the thread it is explained in post #1 under the name "statistical ensemble interpretation".Demystifier said:From my point of view, it's enough to read the first post by me.
That thread had a different goal. It wasn't meant to write things the way you would like to see them.pines-demon said:But don't you all see how it is confusing not to clarify it from the very beginning. You could have started by saying it a series of interpretations on certain way of thinking (originally devised by Ballentine), and in the thread it is explained in post #1 under the name "statistical ensemble interpretation".
Exactly, that was not my thread. That's why I asked for clarifications!martinbn said:That thread had a different goal. It wasn't meant to write things the way you would like to see them.
Thanks I just did not get that statistical ensemble interpretation=minimal statistical interpretation in that post. I have one quick question, why do you say that it leads to "The collapse does not exist in the physical sense"? Is it because in this interpretation we only care on reconstructing ##|\psi\rangle## from the repeated experiments, independently of the underlying dynamics of the measurements?Demystifier said:From my point of view, it's enough to read the first post by me.
The collapse of wave function does not exist in the physical sense because the wave function itself, according to this interpretation, does not exist in the physical sense. What exists in the physical sense is a single physical object (on the nature of which this interpretation remains agnostic), while the wave function only describes a set of common properties of a large ensemble of physical objects.pines-demon said:Thanks I just did not get that statistical ensemble interpretation=minimal statistical interpretation in that post. I have one quick question, why do you say that it leads to "The collapse does not exist in the physical sense"?
Yes, I think you can explain it that way too.pines-demon said:Is it because in this interpretation we only care on reconstructing ##|\psi\rangle## from the repeated experiments, independently of the underlying dynamics of the measurements?