Talk:Ensemble interpretation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arnold Neumaier Criticism

I added a rebuttal to this, as it seems quite clear from the quote, that Neumaier, apparently, does not understand that the ensemble interpretation is not about a collection of particles, but a collection of identical experimental preparation procedures. In the ensemble interpretation, it is quite legitimate to consider an ensemble of our single sun, even though there is only one of them. For example, a radiation pulse may be applied to the sun. If a number of the same pulses are applied to the sun, each having the same preparation conditions at each pulse, i.e. the same conditions as if no pulses had been applied before, there will be a statistical probability as to how the sun will react to the same pulse. The ensemble interpretation is not evidenced by the effect of multiple pulses or multiple particles. It is evidenced about multiple setups, assuming the same Kevin aylward (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

- Who is this motherfucker?

Occam's Razor?

Am I being ignorant or is this one the only interpretation that survives Occam's Razor? Most other interpretations seem to be based on the idea that quantum mechanics are inconsistent with the universal law of cause and effect or invoke some metaphysical oddities such as creating "mirror universes" or whatnot. 134.95.171.90 12:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (Ashmodai)

The Ensemble Interpretation may survive some of the effects of Occam's Razor, however, it is not as complete in its scope or (according to single particle experiments) as accurate as the other interpretations, and thus the issue is largely moot. 72.94.11.86

I disagree, the Ensemble Interpretation gives the exact same results as the CI in all observations, so it lacks nothing in its scope. From the response here, it seems to me that the EI is being misunderstood. Kevin aylward 12:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It "gives the same results" instrumentally. It expicitly doesn't offer ontological explanation in some areas. it is ridiculous to apply the Razor in such a way that non-explanation is better than explanation,; if so "I dunno" would be the perfect Theory of everything. 1Z 12:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it seems to me that there is misunderstanding on what the *quantum* ensemble interpretation is. It has nothing to do with a reduction to a classical ensemble. For example, your comment of “…however… “on the dice state vector implied that the Dirac notation was first applied to classical situations, and then generalized to quantum situations after the fact. My point was to illustrate that there is no requirement that a quantum mechanical invented notation mandated an interpretation that an entity had to be in simultaneous dual states. The classical *analogy* shows why this may be the case.

To claim that a photon *is* wave, necessitates that there is a real, physical wave propagating. That is, that there is a disturbance in a physical medium, i.e. an ether. This idea has significant problems as the Michelson Morley experiment specifically designed to detect such an aether proved to be negative.

The logic to conclude that a photon *must* have went through both slits assumes that a photon is obeying common sense and Newtonian Mechanics, which it doesn’t, therefore the logic is invalid. It is also meaningless as such an event can never, in principle be measured. As a suggestion, one could probably assume that there is quantum background noise disturbing the photons (ZPE ?), hence why each photon ends up in different positions, without introducing the notion of a real physical wave passing through both slits. This quantum noise field would be a function determined by the physical apparatus.

I don’t have time right now to address this further, but if you search my name on the web you will discover my email address.

Kevin aylward 12:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"It has nothing to do with a reduction to a classical ensemble". I have citations saying otherwise.

Dice analogy: then correct, don't just delete.

"To claim that a photon *is* wave, necessitates that there is a real, physical wave propagating. That is, that there is a disturbance in a physical medium, i.e. an ether. This idea has significant problems as the Michelson Morley experiment specifically designed to detect such an aether proved to be negative". You can have waves without an "ether" or relativity would be false.

"The logic to conclude that a photon *must* have went through both slits assumes that a photon is obeying common sense and Newtonian Mechanics, which it doesn’t, therefore the logic is invalid".

Both slits are causally relevant, and the wave hypothesis explains why.

"It is also meaningless as such an event can never, in principle be measured. " Naive. Instrumentalism and verificationism are not "just true", they are contentious claims, like your antiquated claim about the ether.

What do you mean by this? I certainly don’t claim that there is an aether, but, apparently you do. If you claim that a photon *is* a wave, what *exactly* is this wave? Other than the word “wave”, what do you claim it actually is? Certainly water waves experience diffraction, but no physical object actually flows with the wave. The wave is an illusion. The diffraction is simple an effect of individual particle motion.

"This quantum noise field would be a function determined by the physical apparatus." Do you have a citation showing this to be part of the EI, or is it WP:OR? (And are you talking about an EM field, or something else)? 1Z 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am making a suggestion, not a claim, as to how particles might have random trajectories.

Then it remains the case that the E.I per se offers no specific interpretation of single-particle behaviour.1Z

I don’t know what you mean by this. The EI correctly predicts the properties of single particles. As I noted, the EI, is not an “interpretation” in the sense of trying to give a comforting classical picture view of what is actually physically going on. Some things just can’t be reduced to prior knowledge. It is a new (Kurt) Godel axiom. What is does, is give a correct mathematical account of all phenomena, without the logically absurd idea of say, wave function collapse.

Kevin aylward 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"The EI correctly predicts the properties of single particles".

Prediction is not interpretation. Do you know what instrumentalism means?

"#EI is not an “interpretation” in the sense of trying to give a comforting classical picture view of what is actually physically going on"

I don't require interpretations to necessarily be classical. I do require them to give an answer to the question "what is going on inside the apparatus" (as does everybody else). "You will measure such-and-such results" simply is not an answer to that question, classical or otherwise.

"Some things just can’t be reduced to prior knowledge"

I have no idea what you mean by that.

You claim, by inference, that there must be a naive, nice and neat classical picture view of QM. I don’t. Godel shows us that non-derivable axioms are required if a system is complete. Why do you believe that QM should have a physical “explanation”? why conservation of momentum?

Conservation of momentum is explained by Noether's theorem.

Ho hummmm... nope... This just replaces one turtle with another turtle. Like, now explain why minimising an action?

"It is a new (Kurt) Godel axiom".

Or that.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/godel.html

"What is does, is give a correct mathematical account of all phenomena, without the logically absurd idea of say, wave function collapse."

The point is that it cannot say what is happening instead of collapse (as, for instance the MWI can).

and your point would be?

It is non-interpretation (Or as you put it: "minimal"). It is no triumph to give the correct mathematical results.--that comes from the formalism. Interpretations are interpretations of the formalism, so they all do that.

1Z 12:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You still misunderstand the point of EI. I agree that the word "interpretation" for the EI, is not an optimum word. However, this is what these things are called. What else would you suggest? The IE is an interpretation of the mathematics, not the physical reasons as to why the mathematics is so. The CI gives no explanation either. The EI is just a better one, in my view.

Kevin aylward 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Other approaches do give proper, ontological interpretations, which you dismiss as false or absurd. The point is whether, in science, you can dismiss one explanation without having a better one -- whether occam's razor prefers simple explanations over complex ones, or whether it prefers non-explanation ("I dunno").1Z 19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Many innacuracies.

This is one of the worst QM interpretations, since it cannot account for single-particle experiments. There are many problems with the article.1Z 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have started a rewrite. Too tired to continue, will polish it tomorrow.1Z 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

However, this referance, http://www.iqc.ca/~qipcourse/interpret/ specifically,

http://www.iqc.ca/~qipcourse/interpret/survey.html

indicates that the EI is quite favored. And of course, the EI accounts for single particle experiments with no trouble at all. Again, it just seems that the correct understanding of what the EI actually is, is being missed.

Kevin aylward 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please give the EI interpretation of single-particle experiments.1Z 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of erroneous text

I reverted back to my original text. The modifications were misleading. I will re add in the relevant ones, at the correct point.

Specifically, I removed the:

"Whatever the motivation is for denying that individual particles have wave functions, it is not incorrect results."

Because it is factually incorrect, according to standard quantum mechanics, for the reasons stated here.

It should be noted that, according to standard quantum mechanics, there is only a single Schrödinger wave function for an ensemble of particles, not a sum of wave functions of the individual particles. Indeed, one approximation technique to solving the Schrödinger equation, the Hartree-Fock approximation, uses such an individual sum, but this is known to only give correct results in certain situations. Or, for example, it should be noted that the De-Broglie wavelength of a molecule is not related to the individual particle “wavelengths”, but only depends on the total mass and velocity of the molecule itself. Thus, the identification of individual wave functions to individual particles, can not be maintained in the general case.

I am also going to rewrite the edits made to my original text as there is clearly a misunderstanding on what the quantum ensemble interpretation means. The reference to other classical ensemble generalisations is misleading. In addition, the edits are clearly not NPOV as required. For example, it is only an opinion of some interpretations that a particle *must* go through both slits, not a fact. Secondly, my text is not my personal views, but the views held by the EI itself, so my name will be removed.

Criticism is ok in principle, but the point of this page is to address the EI as an interpretation, as is, not as a defence that it is correct. Criticisms, should at least be left to the end of page.

Kevin aylward 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the incorrect results predicted by interpretations which assert that individual particles do have WFs. 1Z 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. Any and all graduate books on QM explains the multiple particle Schrödinger Equation is not the same equation that would occur if particles had individual wave functions.

Kevin aylward 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please rewrite incrementally. do not revert wholesale.

Please note that if you want to present your material as the "EI itself", you will need to provide citations.

The article you reverted does not state that the particle goes through both slits as a fact, it notes that it is a hypothesis which explain the observed results.1Z 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

Please edit in accordance with guidelines, ie discuss issues on talk page, do not engage in wholesale reversion.1Z 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is what you should have done. You dismantled the original page completely. You are showing a clear non NPOV. Kevin aylward 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I flagged the problems on the talk page a month before the rewrite and there was no response.

Note that my version is extensively cited and sourced (11 references to your 1). I did not "dismantle" the page, I edited into a longer version. There is no material critical of EI at all in your version, although you see fit to criticise CI, and to explain the "attraction" of EI, and although all the other intepretation=of=QM pages contain criticism. Since I have included all your positive citations in my version, it is better sourced and less POV. You are applying the editorial guidelines in reverse. 1Z 16:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, how about emailing me? This is to cumbersome to discuss in this way. For example, you say you cite sources of the ensemble interpretation, however, other than the name “ensemble interpretation”, they are *not* the same ensemble interpretation. Or for example, you seem to misunderstand the notion that “the ensemble interpretation does not apply to individual particles” that it means that it does not apply to individual particles:-). This is a misunderstanding as to what applies to means.

In my view, you should have added a section to the end of the original, titled maybe Criticisms. The fundamental point of the page is to explain what the EI is, in contrast to the other well known ones, but you intermingled all sorts of stuff not actually relevant to the interpretation. Why don’t you email me direct and we can work on the page together. ka@kevinaylwardEXTRACT.co.uk (remove EXTRACT) Kevin aylward 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In my view I shouldn't, since there are issues of context about different versions of the EI and so on. There is no wikipedia guideline saying that one editor's text is sacrosanct.

Sure, this page is not sacrosanct, but I originated this page because there was no page on this interpretation, so they should be a certain amount of moral etiquette as to what goes in it. If you had wanted to write an “EI is crap” page, you should have instigated one.

Kevin aylward 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please nominate what you consider "irrelevant".1Z 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

This para cannot stand

"The ensemble interpretation, unlike other interpretations to the Copenhagen Interpretation, does not attempt to justify, or otherwise derive, or explain quantum mechanics from any deterministic process"

1 The CI is not derived from a determinsitic process (you were thinking of Bohm?)

You have not read this text clearly enough. It says that *other* interpretations (than CI) that are *not* the CI, attempt to derive from deterministic processes. It does not state that the CI is deterministic. Kevin aylward 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

2. It is contradicted by the notable source John Gribbin

"The basic idea is that each quantum entity (such as an electron or a photon) has precise quantum properties (such as position or momentum) and the quantum wavefunction is related to the probability of getting a particular experimental result when one member (or many members) of the ensemble is selected by a experiment" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterdjones (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

This is not the Ensemble Interpretations of this page. It is *another* interpretation, which, unfortunately has the same name as this one, and has no relevance. I have seen this confusion a few times before. Kevin aylward 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot find an authoratative statement as to which is the "real" one, they both go in.1Z 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, Ballentine, "Quantum Mechanics". There is no assumption that an entity has precise quantum properties such as position or momentum anywhere in the book. This is "The Quantum Ensemble Interpretation”. Not “a modified classical ensemble interpretation”

Kevin aylward 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that in my version of the page I treated them separately.1Z 18:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I genuinely welcome the addition of genuine criticisms to be placed in the page. I would like to know what they are, as I am still amazed that this interpretation is not more widely known. However, so far, the arguments against made so far, do not appear to be very strong to me.

Kevin aylward 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You have not shown that Ballentine's version of events supersedes Gribbin's. Evidently, both should go into the article.

I await specific rebuttals with keen interest. 1Z 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with including the Underlying classicism paragraph. However, I would prefer it re titled, and without the

“So why does the ensemble interpretation still have adherents? It has modified its claims in various ways.”

Bit.

This is saying in code that the quantum ensemble is the extended classical ensemble, and that the QEI is shit. Lets try and keep factual statements of what experts claim. I will post a version of that section shortly.

The Facts of QM

Despite all the debates about waves and particles, the fundamental fact is this.

Standard quantum mechanics has 6 basic postulates. One of which, is that the probability of a particle having a position and momentum within a given range, is given by the Shrodinger Equation. All measurements are based on this. That is, measuring distributions of positions and momentum’s of idealised particles. Nothing is said about hypothetical waves being the entities in question. The single wave solution to the Shrodinger Equation is named a wave, merely for convenience. As a matter of actual application, the Shrodinger “wave” is not considered real, only a mathematical computation device. So as far as standard, conventional QM goes, it is all about particles, not waves. So, as a practical matter, QM is about particles. That’s just the way it actually is.

Waves can be observed with antennas.

Behaviour often associated with waves can be observed with antennas, however this same behaviour can be explained on the biases of large numbers of particles moving in a random statistical way.

Likewise, Particle behaviour can be explained as superpositions of waves.1Z 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point of “when the light is so low that only single photons go through the slit, yet a “wave” pattern only builds up over time. Look at newspaper print from afar an close up. What looks continuous isnt. This is truly trivial. What is the continuous physical wave for water waves? Hint, there isn’t any.

Continuity is not the point. The point is that the macroscipically separated parts of the apparatus have a causal influence on each other. That is incompatilbe with claissical point-particles obeying classical laws. You have effetively coneded the point, with your vague references to "fields" which might implement such effects. Well, they might. Buth then there might be waves. You simply don't have a good argument agaisnt a realistic wave interpretation. All you can say is that a alternative is possible.1Z

Look, as I said, if you simply number crunch standard QM, for say, Bragg diffraction of particles, you get patterns of particle locations, that look from a distance continuous. Close up, it isn’t.

Kevin aylward 06:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you don't get particles from the formalism in most cases. You get a wave equation which you are told--which you may be told, depending on which interpretation you are taught--represents the possibility of finding a particle.1Z 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

mesoscopic superpositions can be observed in recent expereiemnts. Attempts as explaining the TSE require some sort of distributed entity, whether a wave or your mysteious quantum field.

The EI is not about “explaining” in any physical manner. It is a number cruncher.

Fine. Then it cannot claim to be a better explanation. You cannot say that other explantions are false becasue they conflict with your non-explanation.1Z 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no explnatory model of quantum computing other than one involving superpositions.

Oh? I will address this latter, but although, for the record, do you have any actual physical evidence that quantum computing actually works?

Yes. it is an established field. A commercial QC was recently announced.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/1355255&from=rss

1Z 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Kevin aylward 06:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Standard QM" is a mixture of experimental results and interpertation. The interpretationl situation is not satisfactory, which is why there are many rival interpretations.

Agreed.

Particle-only interpretations are not satisfactory with regard to the experimental results.:1Z 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• All* experimental results are explained by treating entities as particles. This is simple not debatable. The mathematics of QM is de-facto about the probabilities of particle positions and momentum’s. Have you actually even solved the Shrodinger equation for any examples at all?

Look, email me and we can discuss this better.

Kevin aylward 06:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"*All* experimental results are explained by treating entities as particles".

Simply false.

Nonsense.

>Most physicists explain the SP-TSE by saying the photon goes though both slits as a wave.

No, they don’t. The far majority of professional physicists don’t say anything about physical interpretations. They just calculate. This is people just verbally waffling gibberish. For example, professional physicist say:

http://www.phys.tue.nl/ktn/Wim/qm11.htm#ensemble

“ A related consequence of a realist version of an individual-particle interpretation of the quantum mechanical state vector is that a microscopic object must split if the state vector does so. For instance, in neutron interference experiments of the type considered in Publ. 27 this would imply that a neutron traversing a neutron interferometer does so while being split into two halves, each of which taking a different path. Since this is in disagreement with all empirical data (strongly suggesting that each neutron follows either one path or the other) a realist individual-particle interpretation of the quantum mechanical state vector is unattractive (as is the "suspended animation" interpretation of the Schrödinger cat state referred to above). It is quite remarkable that nevertheless this interpretation is widely entertained. This may be due to the popular idea of particle-wave duality, having been developed in the Copenhagen interpretation during the early stages of the development of quantum mechanics, but being obsolete by now.”

This guy needs to quote his data. 1Z 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The mathematics of QM is de-facto about the probabilities of particle positions and momentum’s

Solutions to SE often have the mathematical form of waves, which is sometimes interpreted to mean the probability of finding a point particle. You are confusing formalism and interpretation.

You have this quite backwards. There is no ifs or buts about it. With all due respect, it seems to me that you have never done a formal course in graduate quantum mechanics, as what you say is completely incorrect. I am quite stunned by your assertion. Google on “Postulates of quantum mechanics”. The very first one, out of 1000’s

http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node20.html

“is the probability that the particle lies in the volume element…”

It is you that is completely confused on formalism and interpretation. Kevin aylward 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not part of the mathematical formalism, it has to be expressed verbally.

"Whereas some physicists have indeed taken the view that all measurements are ultimately measurements of position, I would myself regard such a perspective as being much too narrow. Indeed, the way the quantum formalism is normally presented does no require all measurements to be only of position". (R. Penrose, "Road to Reality", p517)"

1Z 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don’t see the relevance of this quote, but Penrose, is pretty much alone on this viewpoint, and wrong.

To know that something is changed, i.e. different from something else, i.e. a measurement, it must be in a different position. Think about how you measure wavelength, or mass, or velocity. Even if it’s a LCD display, the reason the display changed is because something moved from where it was. That is a measurement of position.

How about giving an actual example of a measurement that at its deepest level, is not due to something at a certain position from another position?

I already have.

Seriously, you have been reading to many pop accounts of QM targeted to laymen. You need to read professional academic textbooks and actually understand the maths involved. 99% of pop accounts of QM is just fodder for the masses.

Look, this is too detailed to disccus on this page, whats your email address?

Kevin aylward 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"I don’t see the relevance of this quote, but Penrose, is pretty much alone on this viewpoint, and wrong."

I look forward to N>1 citations from particle-only adherents.1Z 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems 1 : Superposition

"For example, it can be assumed that before the measurement, that the system was simply in the measured state, although this assumption is not strictly necessary". This is very problematical, because there is no explanation of why a particle in the TSE would behave as it does. 1Z 18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

You keep going on about “explanation”, as if there is some classical picture idea ultimately at the root of it all. I don’t believe that there is, and as far as the Ensemble Interpretation goes, “explanations” is whatever the math says it is. The EI not designed to address such ideas, so why must you keep going on about it is flogging a dead horse The EI is this, the wave function is not a description of a single particle. That is, the wave sum, does not imply a particle is literally in a combined state, its just notation for calculating probabilities of similar prepared particles. That’s it. End of story.

One can postulate any number of reasons why particles do not follow Newtonian trajectories. In could be Bohms pilot wave, it could be random quantum (Casimir, ZPE) background noise, or tiny Teletubbies. Its all irrelevant, I don’t care, and neither does the EI.

You need to understand that not everything in this universe is derivable from what you learnt as a kid. New facts just exist as is. Particles don’t obey Newtonian Mechanics. Why should they? What god do you believe said it must be that way? 81.98.250.0 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't associate explanation with classicism. I don't think anyone but you does (hence the citation needed tag).

"I don’t believe that there is, and as far as the Ensemble Interpretation goes, “explanations” is whatever the math says it is".

Except when you solve the SE and get a wave.

"The EI not designed to address such ideas, so why must you keep going on about it is flogging a dead horse"

The problem is your claim that realistic interpretation in terms of waves and superposition is false. There are counterarguments, some of which focus on the explanatory value of these ideas.

"If we treat the wave picture as real, we can explain the SPTSE" 

is a good reason for thinking waves are real, contra the EI.

--I have already stated, light as a wave was proven wrong by the photo-electric effect, so no, there is not a good case for saying waves are real. You still fail to explain what this claimed wave is.

If you had not written the article to suggest EI is true and the alternatives are false, there would not be such a problem.

-- I didnt, I presented the EI, just how other interpretations have been presented. I didn’t expect the Spanish inquisition for simple bringing to light that the EI existed. This is not the place for detailed analysis of the pros and cons for such interpretations.

-- "You need to understand that not everything in this universe is derivable from what you learnt as a kid. New facts just exist as is. Particles don’t obey Newtonian Mechanics."

Alternatively, maybe particles aren't little billiard balls, whatever laws they obey. Maybe you are the one who is sticking like glue to what you learnt.

1Z 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you *really* do need to understand that *standard, accepted, quantum mechanics* is about the probability of the momentum and position of particles. Please, go and look up the postulates of quantum mechanics and some real application examples. Ignoring this fact, wont make it go away. You claim that its all waves, whilst 100% of practising physicists calculate probabilities of particles being somewhere. e.g. the tunnel effect for tunnel diodes. No sane quantum mechanic takes the view that the wave function, when it splits at a potential hill, really means that an physically electron splits and goes partly in one direction, and partly in another. This idea shows, with all due respect, that you simple do not understand QM other than basic paperback concepts. Kevin aylward 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Standard QM is an interpretation. it is disputed by some. You are failing to disinguish the formalism from the interpretation that usually accompanies it,.

"No sane quantum mechanic takes the view that the wave function, when it splits at a potential hill, really means that an electron physically splits and goes partly in one direction, and partly in another. This idea shows, with all due respect, that you simple do not understand QM other than basic paperback concepts".

Many do.

  Apparently not.

We now have evidence of macroscopic superpositions and quantum computation technology that exploits the phenomena you deny

http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html

--- I don’t have time to address all these references, but as usual you still don’t understand what you are reading. To wit, from your reference above:

“The remarkable feature was that even with identical initial conditions, the deviation of a given individual walker appeared random, while the deviation of many walkers revealed an interference pattern.”

Is exactly in accord with my claims. Why you fail to see this, says much. The particle (walker) does not split. There is a “wave” associated with the particle. This wave is the identification that the particles take apparently non Newtonian paths. The “wave” *only* shows up after many trials. If there was a real physical wave, it would be visible in a snapshot. Furthermore, you are oblivious to the fact that this is a *classical* experiment, not a quantum one. It is an illustration that classical systems can be set up that to match the observations usually only attributed to quantum experiment. Hence, taking out some of the apparent mystery of QM. The fact that you present this classical experiment as support for your claim of “We now have evidence of macroscopic superpositions and quantum computation technology that exploits the phenomena you deny” shows your layman understand of QM. As I noted prior, when did you actually undertake a formal course in gradate quantum mechanics?

In addition, this paper makes the redundant, but obligatory fashionable, QM is strange noises. Little of this verbiage is a requirement of QM. It just makes a more interesting read for the layman. Although to its great credit it uses the phrase “then everything is as if the particle had passed through both slits”. This classical experiment shows clearly that a particle does not actually have to go through both slits to produce effects that might naively be interpreted as if it did.

In the walker experiemnt, it is possible to tell which slit the droplet went trough, It is not in the SPTSE. The SPTSE is therefore not classical behaviour writ small.

Please sign you comments.1Z 10:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/611801.stm

-- This bbc story is typical fodder mass gibberish, making statements that real physicists usually cringe at. You need to understand this fashionable noise is just that, fashionable noise. The statement that:

“One of the central tenets of the theory is that particles on the sub-atomic level can simultaneously be in two places and have two energy states.”

Is false. It is not a “central tenet” of QM. Standard QM makes no such claims. Only the wafferly verbiage appended to the mathematics in *some* interpretations make that claim. The mathematics, as a matter of course, treat the wave function as a calculating device.

The description of the Schrödinger Cat is nonsense. Schrödinger introduced the argument to prove that the CI interpretation was misguided, not as an example that QM was truly that daft. It achieved that proof, yet many simply choose to ignore it.

Again, you need to read real text books.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/8/1/013/njp6_1_013.html

http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/epjd/abs/2005/11/d05103/d05103.html

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/77/19884/00919516.pdf?arnumber=919516

1Z 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems 2: Eigenvalues and sharp values

"That is, if it were possible to absolutely, physically measure say, a particle in two positions at once, then QM would be falsified as QM explicitly postulates that the result of any measurement must be a single eigen value of a single eigen state".

But that is only true of position measurements. Any accurate position measurement is automatically a vague momentum measurement, and vice-versa. Moreover, "does not exist" does not straightforwarrdly follow from "is not observered". The postulate of a wave, taken realistically, explains what goes on in a TSE before measurement. EI does not have an alternative explanation.1Z 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

You keep going on about “explanation”, as if there is some classical picture idea ultimately at the root of it all. I don’t believe that there is, and as far as the Ensemble Interpretation goes, “explanations” is whatever the math says it is. The EI not designed to address such ideas, so why must you keep going on about it is flogging a dead horse The EI is this, the wave function is not a description of a single particle. That is, the wave sum, does not imply a particle is literally in a combined state, its just notation for calculating probabilities of similar prepared particles. That’s it. End of story.

One can postulate any number of reasons why particles do not follow Newtonian trajectories. In could be Bohms pilot wave, it could be random quantum (Casimir, ZPE) background noise, or tiny Teletubbies. Its all irrelevant, I don’t care, and neither does the EI.

Look, not everything in this universe is derivable from what you learnt as a kid. New facts just exist as is. Particles don’t obey Newtonian Mechanics. Why should they? What god do you believe said it must be that way?

First, light waves were proven false in the photo electric effect, and highly unlikely by the Michelson-Morley experiment, i.e. no aether discovered. If you are postulating a wave what is waving? What is your medium for the wave? Other than the word, wave which you bound about, what is your wave? What do you think a negative and positive wave amplitude *actually* is? i.e such that they cancel for an interference pattern? Hint: direction.

You can’t just claim that waves solve one problem, if it fails in others, which it does. The particle approach works in all cases. That is, the SE predicts the probability the positions and momentum’s of ensemble of *particles*, not waves. That’s just the way it is. I just don’t have time for all of this. Its clear that you have little knowledge as to real applications of the SE.

This is not the right forum to debate like this. If you want to debate further, email me. 81.98.250.0 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"You keep going on about “explanation”, as if there is some classical picture idea ultimately at the root of it all".

No, I don't associate explanation with classicism. You need to cite your comments on the subject in the article.

"I don’t believe that there is, and as far as the Ensemble Interpretation goes, “explanations” is whatever the math says it is."

Even where the math says "wave"?

"The EI not designed to address such ideas, so why must you keep going on about it is flogging a dead horse The EI is this, the wave function is not a description of a single particle. That is, the wave sum, does not imply a particle is literally in a combined state, its just notation for calculating probabilities of similar prepared particles. That’s it. End of story. "

You go further than that in the article. For instance you claim that waves do not exist. Their explanatory value is a reason for thinking they do exist. Hence the emphasis on explanation.

"One can postulate any number of reasons why particles do not follow Newtonian trajectories. In could be Bohms pilot wave, it could be random quantum (Casimir, ZPE) background noise, or tiny Teletubbies. Its all irrelevant, I don’t care, and neither does the EI."

Or one could postulate that some mysterious physics makes waves appear like particles under some circumstances. Your version of EI is not minimal on the issue.

"Look, not everything in this universe is derivable from what you learnt as a kid. New facts just exist as is. Particles don’t obey Newtonian Mechanics. Why should they? What god do you believe said it must be that way?"

Look, not everything in this universe is derivable from what you learnt as a kid. New facts just exist as is. Particles aren't little billiard balls. They behave like waves under some circusmtances. Why shouldn't they?

First, light waves were proven false in the photo electric effect, and highly unlikely by the Michelson-Morley experiment, i.e. no aether discovered.

Whilst particles are proven false by diffraction experiments....what we need is a theory that does justice to both experiments...well, we've got one.

Good luck in finding a contemporary authority to back up you claims about the ether, and the "disproof" of waves.

"If you are postulating a wave what is waving?"

It's a structure in Hilbert space. You are about 100 years out of date.

"You can’t just claim that waves solve one problem, if it fails in others, which it does. The particle approach works in all cases".

Since we don't know what unknown laws they are obeying we can't really say that.

"That is, the SE predicts the probability the positions and momentum’s of ensemble of *particles*, not waves."

The SE is an equation solutions for which tend to be waves. The solution to the SE for the electron in an H atom is not a little billiard ball. The probability interpretation is supplied verbally.

" That’s just the way it is. I just don’t have time for all of this. Its clear that you have little knowledge as to real applications of the SE. "

You need to find time to support you claims with citations. Unverifiable material is liable to be removed.

"This is not the right forum to debate like this. If you want to debate further, email me."

Do you acquire the ability to cite sources over e-mail ?

1Z 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed discussion on quantum superposition as it is not relevant.

Pete, please stop doing this. You still do not understand what the ensemble interpretation is. Why don’t you understand that you are making criticisms on the EI that it is not designed to addresse from the outset, so your comments simply have no relevance. The EI has no problem with superpositions at all. It is mathematically identical to the CI, so it therefore accounts for everything that the CI does. Just like the CI, it says nothing about what happens before measurements.

…It is also quite problematical in interpreting a single-particle Young's slits experiment.

--Look, Pete, its is not supposed to give to give a *physical* understanding of such experiments, so this comment is simply irrelevant.

Since the photon is observed as a localised particle, it must, by this assumption, have been localised throughout its transit through the apparatus. However, blocking either one of the slits always affects the observed result· This is not the expectation if a localised "billiard ball" were traveling through one slit or the other.[2]

It is expected if the ball takes a non Newtonian path, as for example, in the Bohmian model. However, the EI, doesn’t make any statement about what is happening.

You might want to have a read of this. It has some more background, but I have only just located it my self.

http://www2.ihst.ru/personal/apech/stat.php

Moreover, the real existence of quantum superpositions is a useful idea.

--Look, dude, the EI *has* superpositions. Its inherent in the math. So, yes it is a useful idea.

It explains the single-particle double slit experiment,

You own link http://www.physorg.com/news78650511.html shows a classical experiment with characteristics of diffraction for single particles, so clearly, billiard balls can have motions associated with waves.

>and also the efficacy of quantum computing. (Thus, it is justifiable by abduction even if not directly observable).

As I noted, EI is compatible with quantum computing. If you have a problem with this, go and email Leslie Ballentine, as I have done. Kevin aylward 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained, the EI does not offer an ontological interpetation of SP expereiments. ("it is not supposed to give to give a *physical* understanding of such experiments,") Number-crunching is irrelevant.

--and as I have explained many, many times, the EI is not designed to offer an ontological view, so your comments are meaningless. Why you can not understand this point is beyond me. Number-crunching is relevant as it is precisely what the EI is about. It is a number cruncher, by *definition*.

The fact that other interpretations can offer an ontological view is a counter-argument to some of you claims. You are simply suppressing criticism. WP has about 10 pages on quantum interpretation, and they all have criticism sections. 1Z 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The EI does not have ontological superpositions, You actually say so in the article :"there is no need for collapse"

--But this does not mean that there are no suppositions in the mathematics. It’s the SAME mathematics as CI. The issue here is that do not have the background to understand this mathematics.

Irrelevant. Ontological superpositions give an ontological explanation of how various things work.1Z 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bohmian mechanics explains the TSE using waves and particles. But you reject waves, so you cannot be appealing to BM. The relation between the TSE and waves is ubiquitous in the literature.

--The (wave) state vector is an abstract mathematical entity that enables results to be calculated.

That is you opinion. Please try to understand that WP is not a soapbox.

If you have a cite form Ballentine, add it. Wikipedia is not based on editors arguing from their own authority, as you are doing.

--No I am not. I am stating what the EI is. End of story. A

No, you are censoring contrary views.1Z 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

--ll you do is state numerous references with no understanding at all as to what these references mean. Your references are vacuous. I already proved that this was the case when you quoted a classical reference in support of your quantum mesoscopic ideas.

I dare say my edits are not entirely perfect, but you are not even on square one when it ocmes to following the guidelines.1Z 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues about waves, superpositions and SP experiments are relevant, because Gribbin thinks they disprove the EI.

-- And have I have already said, Gribbin is *not* referring to the quantum ensemble interpretation discussed here.

That is your opinion. The relevant fact is that Gribbin does not say that, despite the dishonest editing whereby you inserted a word he does not use.

Please try to grasp that WP is based on verifiability. You need to justify your edits according to notable authorities, not according your own ideas.

-- They are not my ideas, they are the ideas of the EI.

Since your edits are not justifiable by the Guidelines,I am fully entitled to revert them. (There are also a number of internal inconsistencies).

-- What internal inconsistencies would these be?

You muddle about waves and fields, mostly. If we have to reject the existence of waves on the basis that "only particles are observed", we would also have to reject the field, which, according to you connects the two slits in the TSE.1Z 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment about QC stays in until you can quote an authority saying otherwise. 1Z

The QC comment is going out, I will try and locate the email from Ballentine with the quote on quantum computing. However, for reference, quantum computing relies on the results of *ensembles* of quantum measurements. Despite the many pop arguments that analyze quantum computing with a claim of “qbits existing in two states at once” the actual details of the mathematics does not in any way rely on that metaphysical statement. All quantum mechanical measurements always resolve to measurements of ensembles, as does CC. Its just the way it is.

That does not advance the argument at all. I am not saying EI gives incorrect mathematical results for QC. I am saying that the waves and superpositions give an ontological understanding, of what is going on, and this is indirect evidence for the relativity of waves, contra your claims about particles. (BTW, it is high time you made it clear whether the particle-only claim is your own or a notable authority's)

1Z 12:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Again

Removed again irrelevent comments on wave-particle duality.

Unfortunately Pete does not understand the EI. He needs to first read the Ballentine graduate, academic text book, “Quantum Mechanics” before making claims as to what the EI is and what it is not. His continuing reference to ideas such as particles being in two places and other wave ideas shows that most basic ideas of the EI are completely misunderstood by him. The Ballentine book addresses this in detail, and shows exactly why such ideas are dispensed with. This book is a peer reviewed text book used in many universities as part of standard QM courses. Based on this, the idea that that the EI is somehow refuted by, e.g. Gribbon’s, is not tenable.

To recap,

Pete earlier wrote: Please cite the incorrect results predicted by interpretations which assert that individual particles do have WFs. 1Z 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And I replied: See above. Any and all graduate books on QM explains the multiple particle Schrödinger Equation is not the same equation that would occur if particles had individual wave functions.

Summary – what this shows is that Pete simple does not have any academic standard background in even standard QM and is therefore not qualified to address these issues. This is not intended as a personal derogatory comment, but as just a statement of fact. That is, it is so well known that single particle wave functions can not be directly generalized to multiple particles systems, whatever the interpretation, such that not understanding this fact, implies that the holder of that view, knows, essentially nothing, other than pop, layman accounts of QM.

It's still a WF. Irrelevant.

It is for you to cite the book.

"And I replied: See above. Any and all graduate books on QM explains the multiple particle Schrödinger Equation is not the same equation that would occur if particles had individual wave functions."

That is a different issue. A multiple WF is still a WF, and not a classical statitisyical ensemble.

Ho humm...It is not a multiple wave function, it is *one* wave function that describes multiple particles. I will post the relevant quote and equation tonight. It is also not a classical ensemble

It is still a WF. It remains the case that single-particle experiments can be perfomed.1Z 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP is based on verifiable sources, not on self-declarations of expertise.

In any case Aylward is clearly not an expert,

--Of course I am not an expert, but I have some formal graduate credentials in QM/Physics, identified on my user page.

So do I.

or he would have heard of the SP experiments, he would undertstand th edifference between prediction and interpretation, etc. Constantly averting to the views of one expert, Ballentine is WP:POV. ALmost any other textbooks will refute his views, e.g by relaying the SPTSE to the wave nature of matter.

They do not refute his views at all. You just don’t understand what the view is. The “wave” nature of matter is accounted for by the random, non Newtonian statistical motions of particles.

The point is that they are notable and that is is WP:POV to suppress them. You still don't understand what a wikipedia article is: it is not a usenet posting that gives one person's views and nothing else.1Z 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will post a quote on this. To wit, the claim that if the original experimenters had equipment that allowed them to actually see the discrete nature of photons and electrons then this whole wave-particle confusion would never have happened. That is, the “wave” pattern only builds up over time as each particle hits the screen. Photographs actually show this.

I have cited evidence relating to the direct observation of waves, and you have deleted it in an act of POV editing.1Z 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You don’t understand that as a matter of actual fact, CI predictions are based on calculations of ensembles. The exact HUP statement is only derivable, from consideration of ensembles. The reality is, that the CI inherently uses the ensemble approach in actual calculations, it just doesn’t usually explicitly refer to that name.

I doubt that that is a fact. "Perspectives on modern physics" by Arthur Beiser derives it from wave-packet considerations. 1Z 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

His response to these uncomfortable facts is one of suppression.1Z 10:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It’s a matter of time. I am spending too much time explaining 501 graduate QM. You are debating matters that are not open to debate, simply because you do not understand standard QM.

Lack of time is is not an excuse for ignoring editing guidelines. You must discuss changes to the talk page. If you can only discuss them slowly, so be it. You are not entitled to constantly revert. There are specific rules against doing so. Please read the guidelines. Please sign your comments.1Z 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Do you have a copy of your sole source Ballentine? Why don't you cite it?

I do as of yesterday. That is, I hade misplaced my original copy some time ago, and have now just received a new copy from Amazon. I will try and place the key quotes over the next few nights. These will be on the interpretation of the state vector, and for example, some descriptions of actual experiments that prove, for example, a photon does not split up.

Have your read the editing guidelines? Do you know what WP:NPOV and WP:OR are?

1Z 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are required to hold discussions on talk pages as part of the conflict resolution procedures. If you continue to duck questions put to you, it will go against you if this reaches arbitration. 1Z 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the link I posted that discusses various ensemble interpretations? That should have been evidence enough, that yes, there were EI that Gibbons might have applied to, but the modern EI has no such problems. What use are references when people don’t read them, or if they do, don’t understand them?

Kevin Aylward

The job of an editor is to add relevant citations to the article.

Have your read the editing guidelines? Do you know what WP:NPOV and WP:OR are?

1Z 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

macroscopic quantum effects in Josephson systems

macroscopic quantum effects in Josephson systems

Please explain why direct observation of superpositions and wave behaviour in SQUIDs is not "relevant" to an article denying that there is any such thing.1Z 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know what the problem is here. I just can not seem to get you to understand what the EI is about. There is no denial of superpositions and wave associated behaviour in the EI.

Obviously there is: "According to proponents of this interpretation, no single system is ever required to be postulated to exist in a physical mixed state so the state vector does not need to collapse."1Z 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have stated this many times. I have explained that the mathematics of the EI is identical to the CI.

Yes. The denial consists in denying that superpositions and wave associated behaviour arw anything more than mathematics.1Z 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It’s the same old wave function we all love and trust, but it is considered an abstract mathematical construct that predicts that multiple entities, for example, can have their positions so distributed that the give the appearance of a wave when viewed from afar. As in the CI case, the EI gives no explanation as to why this should physically be the case.

Which is obviously a form of denial, since it denies a direct ontological interpretation of wave functions as physical waves.1Z 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How many more times do I have tell you that yes, superpositions and wave behaviour is all part and parcel of the EI. What is it that you are having trouble following? What don’t you understand about the single electron/photon diffraction patterns look wavelike in structure, but on close examination the “waves” are seen to be bunched up and spread out with localised particulate impacts.

You have also said that actual, physical waves are not part of EI. That is a form of denial.1Z 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

--- The quote from Ballentine, Introduction, page 4

“When first discovered particle diffraction was a source of great puzzlement. Are ‘particles’ really ‘waves’. In the early experiments, the diffraction patterns were detected holistically by means of a photographic plate, which could not detect individual particles. As a result, the notion grew that particles and wave properties were mutually incompatible, or complementary, in the sense that different measurement apparatus would be required to observe them. That idea however was an unfortunate generalisation from a technological limitation. Today it is possible to detect the arrival of individual electrons, and to see the diffraction pattern emerge as a statistical pattern made up of many small spots (Tonomura et al, 1987), but particles whose behaviour is very different from what classical physics would have led as to expect.”

Today it is also possible to detect waves and superpositions as such. What is being detected in SQUID experiments is not a mere mathematical formalism.1Z 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Its really that simple. Particles with non Newtonian motion. Why? I don’t know, and the EI is not designed to answer that question.

Some interpretations answer that question with ontologically real waves. You are denying that approach1Z 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

--I am not denying that such approaches are not valid. I actually like the Bohmian view. My point on starting the EI page was to show that such an interpretation existed. I don’t know if the EI is correct, or not. I am open on the matter. My view, in general, is that we have models, such that more than one model can be equally valid. I take the view that QM is a new axiom, that it cannot be explained other than via its postulates. Kevin aylward 06:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more that QM cannot be explained in classical terms. I cannot agree less that QM postulates are self-explanatory as far as giving a physical picture of what is going one -- hence the need for interpretation and the profusion of interpretations. I really don't know why you are so rigidly insistent on associating ontological interpretation with classical ontological interpretation. Many worlds, for instance, is thoroughly ontological, and thoroughly non-classical.1Z 10:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, what more can I say then that the EI uses the same Shrodinger equation, and that, in actual experiments reality, the CI calculates results according to ensembles.

Calculation is not interpretation.1Z 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, so that’s it, you have a problem with the name “interpretation”? I have already explained, that’s what these things are called. The “interpretation” is to do with the interpretation of the state vector, to wit, from Ballentine:

A. A pure state |y> provides a complete and exhaustive description on an _individual_ system. A dynamical variable represented by the operators Q has a value (q, say) if and only if Q|y>=q|y>

B. A pure state describes the statistical properties of an ensemble of similarly prepared systems.

This link may be of interest on the ensemble interpretation

http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp/rppdf/p03-113.pdf

Kevin aylward 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The EI offers an interpretation of thge WF as it applies to ensembles, but (explictyl) not as it appliest SP experiments. It remains the case that that explantory usefulness of waves and superposiitons as part of an ontological interpretation of SP extps, QC's etc, is an argumetn for taking waves an superpositions realitically, and therefore a reelvant criticsm of the EI 1Z 22:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

--But the EI, as I have noted, specifically excludes by construction, ontological interpretations, i.e. physical explanations as to a why, so criticism on this point are moot. It says from the outset, hey, we generate the right numbers, and don’t know how or why. I stated this right at the start, so what’s the point in giving example in which it doesn’t give a physical explanation, which is implying that it doesn’t give a mathematical explanation. i.e. implying that the EI gives the wrong answers. The EI gives the correct answers, despite not providing a feely goody explanation of physical processes. Kevin aylward 06:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All interpretations and non-interpretations give the right answers, so that is not a selling point. Your/Ballentine's claim about the non-existence of waves , superpositions and collapse as physical realities is ontological interpretation, albeit of a negative sort (ie you are being inconsistent about whether EI offers ontological interpretation), and it is perfectly reasonable to compare it with other approaches. I am not saying that lack of ontological/physical explanation implies lack of mathematical explanation. I do not know how you arrived at this idea, I haven't said anything close to that. 1Z 10:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The job of an editor is to add relevant citations to the article.

Have your read the editing guidelines? Do you know what WP:NPOV and WP:OR are?1Z 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Interpetation and Non-interpretation

---

S12a. Which interpretation of quantum mechanics is most consistent?

---

"The most widely prevailing interpretation is probably shut up and calculate - trying to stay clear from the interpretational problem, the blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped (in Feynman's words). Probably it was Mermin who coined the name of this non-interpretation, although it is generally attributed to Feynman. See

  N.D. Mermin, Could Feynman Have Said This? Physics Today, May 2004,
  http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-5/p10.html

But even this non-interpretation needs some core to make the results of the calculations applicable to reality..."

"Among the traditional interpretations, the statistical interpretation discussed by Ballentine in Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358-381 (1970) is the least demanding (asssumes less than the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation) and the most consistent one. It explains almost everything, and only has the disatvantage that it explicitly excludes the applicability of QM to single systems or very small ensembles (such as the few solar neutrinos or top quarks actually detected so far), and does not bridge the gulf between the classical domain (for the description of detectors) and the quantum domain (for the description of the microscopic system).

In particular, the statistical interpretation does not apply to systems that are so large that they are unique. Today no one disputes that the sun is governed by quantum mechanics. But one cannot apply statistical reasoning to the sun as a whole. Thus the statistical interpretation cannot be the last word on the matter."

Alfred Neumaier's FAQ

I don’t really understand this entire quote. Some of it seems ok, but it implies that something is a bit lacking in the EI, say, for understanding the sun. I don’t see that its relevant to understand ensembles of many suns in understanding the details of a sun.

Kevin aylward 06:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why we would be forced to treat an ensemble of distinguishable systems stastistcally. 1Z 10:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All of it is "OK", since it is from a relevant authority.

Arguments to truth based on an appeal to authority is not a particular good method, irrespective of the wiki guidelines. So, for me, no its not all ok.

But that is irrelevant as far as editing the article goes.1Z 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The argument about treating suns as an ensemble is completely misleading. Indeed its quite daft. It implies the EI is failing in such situations when no one in the right mind would even consider using it. It has no practical relevance at all. Large objects such as suns can be handled classically with no loss of accuracy. QM is only required for the internal behaviour, which is very amenable to ensembles of particles. Suns are described by macro properties such as diameter, total mass, total charge, and rotation etc. The argument is as relevant as claiming that we must use the shrodinger equation in order to predict where David Beckham is going kick the ball. This is so trivially obvious, that on first reading of the above quote I thought I had missed something truly basic. The sun argument is entirely vacuous.

Note that he calls shut-up=-and-calculate

a "non-interpretation". 1Z 10:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Have your read the editing guidelines? Do you know what WP:NPOV and WP:OR are?1Z 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now here is where I agree completely with you. The EI is indeed a non interpretation in the real sense. For me, it is the obvious default meaning that should be attached to the Shrodinger equation, unless and until evidence shows that it is clearly false. Statistics inherently deal with ensembles, if QM is truly a statistical (randam) theory, then I don’t see how it can, realistically, be any other way.

The other ways are irreducble objective probability and MWI (ie subjective probability). What you have said is a statement of personal intuition, not an argument, and certainly doesn't justify your slash-and-burn editing.1Z 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I said, “interpretation” is what these things are named, so we are stuck with that name.

I use "approach" where "interpretation" is not appropriate.1Z 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a nice link on the HUP pages (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102069 ) that show a claimed derivation of the shrodinger equation from the assumption of momentum error being inversely proportional to distance error. I like it because it just takes a classical ensemble, and assumes that there is, essentially, additional noise acting on the particles.

This isn't about your likes and dislikes. Please try to focus on editing the article accoding to the guidelines. 1Z 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I have re-inserted the criticism in separate sections. It is well-sourced and acceptable by Wikipedia's guidelines.

While not prohibited, this back-and-forth presentation of the "controversy" is not encouraged from a stylistic point of view. C.f. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, specifically the section on article structure. It states, for example,

"Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate. A more neutral approach can result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other."

On a related note, your job as editors is not to prove interpretations of quantum mechanics right or wrong, but to create a resource where people can find out about the work that has been done so far. This can and should include a summary of related controversy, if any exists. Publishing the entire debate in the article detracts from its usefulness, however. I'm glad you've both put so much work into this research. Now let's try to make the story palatable to readers.Maniacmagee (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that it is well sourced, the issue is that what you are sourcing is irrelevant to the EI. You continually are making criticisms on the EI that the EI states from the outset that it is not addressing, i.e. physically how things work.

That is false. I criticise the assumption that the photon is already in the measured state,and that is in the article in words which you wrote. You are being inconsistent about the extent to which the

EI is a non-interpretation

Nothing you source is contradictory to the EI at all. This is getting quite tiresome. The EI is simply “the state vector does not describe an individual system”. Period. You simply do not understand the EI in any way shape or form. Your argument that it must imply say, that a particle is in two places at ones is ridiculous.

I do not say that. If you want to withdraw the claim about meausurement, fine.

--- I removed, again, your bit on “..This is not the expectation if a localised "billiard ball.. by assumption etc…" were travelling through one slit or the..”, because it is again, quite vacuous. The EI does not mandate in any way how a particle “transits” through the apparatus. There is no “assumption”. This is only *your* assumption, not one due to the EI. For example, I have *already* pointed out that Bohemian trajectories could be one way of flight. Or, particles could disappear along the track and reappear at another place by background fluctuations. Again, I don’t know, and the EI doesn’t make any claims as to what happens.

I have already pointed out that Bohmian trajectories are incompatible with a particle-only ontology.

Why?

You are being inconsistent.

Hypothetically, there could be a variable background distribution of particles being created and destroyed, dependant on the density of mass-energy in their vicinity, e.g pairs of slits in matter, that result in variable disturbances of other particles. I just don’t buy waves. Waves need to be a continuos substance. The clue here is that water is a “wave”, but its diffraction effects are entirely due to the motion of particles. The Bohmian wave generating potential, could simply be a relative “macroscopic” approximation to a particulate nature of the vacuum. I am not claiming it is, only that without more information, I see no essential incompatibility with non Newtonian motion and no waves to make that so.

I don’t understand what you are getting at with your “The argument about eigenvalues overlooks complementarity and the uncertainty principle..etc”. What exactly are you trying to say?

That eigenvalues are only well-defined in the chosen measurement basis. This is a rather basic aspect of QM.

Although, until I understand your point, it may be that you have missed that in the EI, the HUP makes no statements on *individule* products of position and momentum..

That is false. Again. you do not have the right to remove material that you personally disagree with, you must find alternatve authorities.

HUP is taken as a statement on standard deviations of repeated measurements. Measurements of an individual entity can be much better than HUP. HUP is a limitation of prediction, not measurement.

That is extremely contentious. many standard texts derive the HUP in a way that has nothing to do with ensemble or repeated measurements. You are imposing a POV in contravention of the editing guidleines.

In fact, this is not actually true. It is a misnomer. Any professional physicists knows what the real derivation of HUP is. It is the pop accounts are confused on this matter.

Have a good read of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

and you should change your mind. To wit, there is no derivation e.g.

"When Heisenberg introduced his relation, his argument was based only on qualitative examples. He did not provide a general, exact derivation of his relations.[3] Indeed, he did not even give a definition of the uncertainties δq, etc., occurring in these relations. Of course, this was consistent with the announced goal of that paper, i.e. to provide some qualitative understanding of quantum mechanics for simple experiments.”

The first mathematically exact formulation of the uncertainty relations is due to Kennard. He proved in 1927 the theorem that for all normalized state vectors |ψ> the following inequality holds:

(see above link for math)

Since the above inequalities have the virtue of being exact and general, in contrast to Heisenberg's original semi-quantitative formulation, it is tempting to regard them as the exact counterpart of Heisenberg's relations (2)-(4). Indeed, such was Heisenberg's own view. In his Chicago Lectures (Heisenberg 1930, pp. 15-19), he presented Kennard's derivation of relation (9) and claimed that "this proof does not differ at all in mathematical content" from the semi-quantitative argument he had presented earlier, the only difference being that now "the proof is carried through exactly".

But it may be useful to point out that both in status and intended role there is a difference between Kennard's inequality and Heisenberg's previous formulation (2). The inequalities discussed in the present section are not statements of empirical fact, but theorems of the quantum mechanical formalism. As such, they presuppose the validity of this formalism, and in particular the commutation relation (1), rather than elucidating its intuitive content or to create ‘room’ or ‘freedom’ for the validity of this relation. At best, one should see the above inequalities as showing that the formalism is consistent with Heisenberg's empirical principle.

This situation is similar to that arising in other theories of principle where, as noted in Section 2.4, one often finds that, next to an empirical principle, the formalism also provides a corresponding theorem. And similarly, this situation should not, by itself, cast doubt on the question whether Heisenberg's relation can be regarded as a principle of quantum mechanics.

There is a second notable difference between (2) and (9). Heisenberg did not give a general definition for the ‘uncertainties’ δp and δq. The most definite remark he made about them was that they could be taken as "something like the mean error". In the discussions of thought experiments, he and Bohr would always quantify uncertainties on a case-to-case basis by choosing some parameters which happened to be relevant to the experiment at hand. By contrast, the inequalities (9)-(12) employ a single specific expression as a measure for ‘uncertainty’: the standard deviation. At the time, this choice was not unnatural, given that this expression is well-known and widely used in error theory and the description of statistical fluctuations. However, there was very little or no discussion of whether this choice was appropriate for a general formulation of the uncertainty relations. A standard deviation reflects the spread or expected fluctuations in a series of measurements of an observable in a given state. It is not at all easy to connect this idea with the concept of the ‘inaccuracy’ of a measurement, such as the resolving power of a microscope. In fact, even though Heisenberg had taken Kennard's inequality as the precise formulation of the uncertainty relation, he and Bohr never relied on standard deviations in their many discussions of thought experiments, and indeed, it has been shown (Uffink and Hilgevoord, 1985; Hilgevoord and Uffink, 1988) that these discussions cannot be framed in terms of standard deviation.

---

If you can show me an actual rigorous derivation of the exact HUP, i.e. dx.dp<=hbar/2 that does not relay on ensembles of measurements, 10 pint of Guinness will be flying your way. Tell, me just what do you think is an actual definition of a measurement error?

So, no the exact HUP relation is not contentious at all. There is no other realistic way

I again, I removed your criticism on “the real existence of quantum superposition’s is a useful idea.”, because as I have explained many times, it is an entirely vacuous statement. The EI *has* quantum superposition’s.

The EI explicitly denies that they have "real existence" an dinsists they are merely mathematical. Your own text says so. Your approach is muddled and contradictory. it is pointless to insist that i do not understand the EI when you own statments are inconsistent.

End of story. None of your quotes have any relevance whatsoever, as the EI fully accounts for all measurements, including all those with superposition effects. End of story again. You are trying to claim that the EI doesn’t account for superposition, and this is a complete non-starter.

It doesn't account, ontologically, for phenomena that can be explained,ontologically by the real, not merely mathematical, existence of superspositions.

I have again removed your criticism about quantum computing because, as I did already inform you, the EI has no apparent problem with QC. QC works by probabilities on repeated computations, i.e. an ensemble of computations. The following is a quote I received from Ballentine in response to an email from me on the matter a few years ago. Kevin: “…I have a simple question that has been bugging me for quite a while. It seems to me that this new rage of "quantum computing" using the notion of qbits is totally invalidated by the ensemble interpretation…”

Ballentine: “…Quantum mechanics does not (usually) predict the actual result of a measurement, but only the probabilities of all the possible results. This remark applies also to quantum computing, and does not invalidate the possibility of quantum computing. My only objection is that some authors of q.c. papers write as is "reduction of the state vector" were a real process. But, in most cases, those sloppy statements can be replaced by correct statements without invalidating the main idea…”

This does not answer the criticism about ontological explanation.1Z 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that actually refutes this view of Ballentine, that is, that the EI is not compatible with QC? Until you do, there is no justification for you to criticise the EI on an alleged non computability just because you, personally, are unable to understand just how the EI accounts for quantum computing.

I am not saying the EI fails to caclulate the behaviour of QC's, I am saying calculation falls short of ontological interpretation, and I do have quotes to that effect.

Whether it passes muster by the other editor's self-declared papal infallibility remains to be seen. 1Z 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not infallible. I only have a somewhat basic handle on the EI. I am probably making some statements that are not very accurate. However, some of your comments are just unreasonable. You are making claims about what EI supposedly claims, not what it actually claims due to misunderstanding. When I correct you on this, its like you just have no ability to go, hey, ok I take that point, I was mistaken, you did look at this issue. For example, despite the fact that I specifically told you that the EI handles QC, you again inserted your own personal claims that it didn’t. It should have been enough to you that I said, hey yes, that could have been an issue, but it wasn’t because I checked up on it. I am not out to lie. I have just the same questions as you do.

You will not be able to understand why the EI does no explain QC until you grasp what interpretation

is actually about, what is at stake in the rivalry between different approaches.

When you stop inserting physical based, waffle irrelevant, criticisms on the EI, then I will stop deleting them. For example, I think your quote from Alfred Nuemaier is very relevant, so I have no problem with that being there. However, your bold emphasis on a phrase in the quote, is putting a NNPOV slant.

Kevin aylward 11:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are still not editing according to the guidelines. You need to raise issues on this page, not just massively delete. It looks like I am going to have to take this to arbitration.1Z 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of your criticisms are not salvageable.

Kevin aylward 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistent non-interpretation

I have removed the speculation about particles already being in the measured state. The article is now consistently non-committal about the ontology of quantum experiments, in line with your comments on this page. ("The EI is simply “the state vector does not describe an individual system”. ")

If that's what you want, that is what you've got.1Z 14:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am very happy with that. I was not really keen on mentioning the prior state idea, which actually makes things more complicated and confusing because of the Kochen-Specker theorem

e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/

and how it relates to Bohmian mechanics ideas of pre measured values

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

The point about the EI, is that it is very non committal. Technically, it can be argued that the EI would actually be still “correct” (or never wrong) even if one of the other interpretations turns out to be absolutely correct in the future. This is because the EI only addresses the math, not the physics. That is, it just states the minimum required to do the sums. For instance, the CI might *claim* that the state vector applies to an individual system, but there is no way, even in principle, that that can be verified experimentally. QM can only give numbers based on the probability of a systems event, not the event itself. Removing assumptions that are not actually required in order to predict the same results, and ones that are not verifiable, would seem the occams razor thing to do. Kevin aylward 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is debatable whether non-interpetation is favoured by the razor, since all things -- specifically the level of ontological explanation provided -- are not equal. 1Z 14:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Particles in two places at once

Penrose argues that this is the case in ENM, p333. 1Z 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ballentine makes similar comments about "bunching" in the TSE, QMaMD p 399. 1Z 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Bohm vs. Ensemble

"The most important consequence of Bohm's theory is its demonstration that, contrary to previous belief, it is logically possible to give a more detailed account of microscopic phenomena that that given by statistical quantum theory". LEB, QMaMD p 400. 1Z 15:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Article suffers from "Ensemble Interpretation of English Syntax" !

There are currently so many little editing glitches in this article that I am overwhelmed by the need to look at all the details one by one and fix them. (Really.)

It is as if the authors of this page felt that the syntactical rules of English need only generally apply to a large collection of QM articles, not to any specific article such as theirs!

...to each, his own... --SillinessPointerOuter 11:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making a positive contribution, you vandalised the page. 1Z 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I intend to fix what seems like a syntax error in the opening paragraph: from "ensemble of similar prepared systems" to "ensemble of similarly prepared systems". Do you approve? Reallyskeptic (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• In the introduction it says "The ensemble interpretation, unlike other interpretations to the Copenhagen Interpretation". What??? The ensemble interpretation is an interpretation of QM, it is not a variant of the CI. And is minimal interpretation or minimalist interpretation accepted alternatives to the name ensemble interpretation? Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Better atomic models to treat this interpretation seriously

This interpretation says that quantum mechanics appears on effective (statistical) level of classical physics - so to treat it seriously, there would be needed for example a good classical model of atom. I recently thought that the history of such models has ended almost a century ago with Bohr and Sommerfed, but I was positively surprised - since 1965 there was developed different Free-fall atomic model which author (Michał Gryziński) in many peer-reviewed papers in the best journals showed good agreement with experiments. Maybe there should be some subsection about it in this article?Nick9876 (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you need a notable cite that links the ideas, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH.

Secondly, Gryzinski's theory is dead since orbitals ahave been imaged and found to conform to the quantum model.

1Z (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I misunderstood this (minimalist) interpretation? Anyway these pictures are the result of summing up (on some detector lattice) signals from single (corpuscular?) electrons - statistical picture of for example different initial conditions ... so to say that they disagree with some classical model, shouldn't we calculate probability densities for them earlier? Bohr's should have maximum on a circle, but free-fall? Nick9876 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bohr model as such has been superseded by a fully quantum-mechanical model where orbitals are NOT necessarily circular, so knocking down the Bohr model is irrelevant. The imaging strongly supports the full QM model of the atom, since the orbitals in Gryzinski's diagrams are a completly different shape. 1Z (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't ensemble interpretation says that 'full QM' is still just statistical result? (of what? not classical?). Anyway, to translate such pictures into probability density, we have to average over all initial conditions - place such trajectory in all possible directions/angles - Bohr model would result in uniform distribution over the sphere, but free-falling electrons spends much time inside... But in fact it's not so simple - there is strong electric potential involved ... As a layman for these models, I can only say now that most of these papers are about a bit similar: scattering-type experiments - and in peer-reviewed journals they claim to show even better agreement than simple QM models (?) Nick9876 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I will say againt that early quantum models have been superseded anyway. 1Z (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but hopefully Coulomb and Lorentz force haven't... I will have to check it throughout myself, but the author shows many examples in which to get agreement with experiments using QM, there are just fitted some artificially introduced coefficients ... while basing on standard classical physics, he get straightforward good agreement. Don't take me wrong - it's much too early for me to say that they are right - I'm only saying that they are in favor of ensemble interpretation ... for which good modern classical atomic models would be useful, untrue? Nick9876 (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone clearly state if it is hidden variable theory or not? If it is local or nonlocal theory?

It reads as if it is hidden variable theory - we prepare different states in ensemble: they are identical from our point of view but actually they are not. So, it is hidden variable theory then? If yes, then how does it deal with EPR? Nonlocal? If no, then can somebody clarify why it is not hidden variable? These are immediate questions I have when I read this article and there is zero information about it (or it is hidden so well that it is hard to notice).

MxM (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You have not read anything about hidden variables in the EI article, because the EI makes no statement about hidden variables, and on the contrary is determined NOT to make any statement about them. The whole point of the EI is that it is the "minimal" interpretation of the probabilistic Born rule relating the square of the wave function to probability of the outcome of a measurement. The EI is determined to be silent and agnostic as to "how" or "why" this Born rule is correct. It simply takes it as given, and states that if we are restricted to probabilities, then we are forced to admit that the same expt. must be repeated many times to establish the probability of any one outcome. This repetition many times--like multiple throws of the same dice--is the very operational definition of probability. It makes no attempt to provide you with a "hidden" mechanism for the results. MensLucida (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ensemble Interpretation has been proven incorrect

This article reads like ensemble interpretation is really an active interpretation of quantum mechanics. Looking through these talk pages people seem to argue that ensemble just "doesn't explain" single particle experiments. However, I don't think that was what the original proponents of the ensemble interpretation meant. If I understand the interpretation correctly, it states that quantum mechanic equations are only applicable for ensemble system. Einstein and others didn't like what quantum mechanics would mean at a single particle level. Particular with entangled particles and "spooky action at a distance." It would seem to me that they had hoped that when we made measurements at a single particle level that we would see that the equations did not hold and that new science would need to occur to explain what was happening. However, as far as I am aware all experimentation has validated quantum theory down to the single particle level. Hence, this is not just an incomplete "interpretation" it is an incorrect "interpretation" at least from a large amount of experimentation over the last 50 years. Even though the ensemble interpretation has basically been disproven over and over by experimentation results it seems this "interpretation" still is presented by professors who carried on the dogma created from before Bells theorem. Jponline77 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Jponline,

The whole point of the EI is NOT to apply to single particles but only to ensembles of single particles.

Since:

1) QM in any interpretation, including the standard one, is agreed by everyone to be a statistical theory which only permits one to calculate the probability of some outcome based on the Born rule, and

2) the only way to verify a probability is through multiple trials, otherwise called an "ensemble" of trials, and

3) this is exactly what the EI does,

the EI cannot possibly be "incorrect" from any amount of experimentation that agrees with QM.

You may be unsatisfied with that and want more, but that is exactly what Einstein wanted as well, and Bohr denied.

Your personal satisfaction or dissatisfaction however is not the point. The EI is the minimum requirement of any framework consistent with all the predictions of QM. Your statement that it is "incorrect" is itself incorrect. MensLucida (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Elementary Considerations of the Interpretation of the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (summary and translation link)

The primary criticism of quantum mechanics by ensemble interpretation is that any real state descriptions are given up and no true picture of reality is ever formed. Ensemble interpretation states that quantum mechanics describes ensembles of systems and not individual systems. This means that the description is at best incomplete because the description does not include any information as to the systems real state, just its probable state. This is believed to be true in all instances except where an exact position and momentum can be determined for an individual particle. For a full translation of Einstein’s “Elementary Considerations of the Interpretation of the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, see http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.3701.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.45.38 (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The link is to a translation of a short article by Einstein in "Scientific Papers Presented to Max Born on his retirement from the Tait Chair of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh".

Einstein's main points: 1) ": The acceptable interpretation of the Schr¨odinger equation is the statistical interpretation given by Born. However this does not provide any real description of an individual system, but only statistical predictions about ensembles of systems" 2) "physics must strive towards a real description of an individual system" Johnjbarton (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the "Disputed" tag.

This article has a Disputed tag as of Jan, 2023. I see no evidence to support this header.

The article makes it clear that the ensemble interpretation faces criticism. Such scientific criticism is not the same as factual inaccuracy. Every quantum interpretation faces criticism. That's why we have so many ;-)

The article has 47 references. As far as I understand how Wikipedia works, a claim that the article is not factual must be a claim that the references are inappropriate or unreliable. I don't see any discussion that suggests this analysis was done when the Disputed tag was added.

To add a Disputed tag when editors do not agree with the content of an article defeats the purpose of WP:RELIABLE. We rely on sources. When editor do not agree with content, it's up to those editors to dispute the existing sources. Failing that, they can add reliable sources providing alternative views with text explaining the criticism. That has already happened in this article.

I'm seeking input from @Peterdjones

Johnjbarton (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

done Johnjbarton (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Dubious claim in "Single Particles"

Under Single Particles > Criticism we read:

However, the "ensemble" of the ensemble interpretation is not directly related to a real, existing collection of actual particles, such as a few solar neutrinos, but it is concerned with the ensemble collection of a virtual set of experimental preparations repeated many times.

It turns out that there are multiple meanings for 'probability'. See Ballentine, Leslie E. "Propensity, probability, and quantum theory." Foundations of physics 46 (2016): 973-1005. Since the article claim is unreferenced we have no idea where it came from. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The entire section "Single particles" has a single reference to an unreviewed unpublished web site. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

deleted the section. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)