by james.goetz » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:24 am
Joy Christian wrote:james.goetz wrote:thray wrote:And what are those properties?
I am an analytic philosopher with limited background in the known details about the properties of quantum states. I also understand that there is no consensus for a QM interpretation. For example, advocates of QST propose that the position and momentum of a quantum state can be simultaneously measured despite the proposal of the Copenhagen interpretation.
In that case you will immediately understand our point when I say that wave function is an epistemic object. It only represents a compendium of our knowledge of the physical system, not the properties of the system itself. In other words, it does not have any ontological significance. Admittedly this is a minority view these days, especially after the dogmatic acceptance of Bell's theorem by the physics community. However, some of us in this forum believe that Bell's theorem is simply wrong, and as a corollary Einstein's statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics and his epistemic view of the wave function become viable. Consequently there cannot be any such thing as "wave function collapse" on which you are relying, because what is collapsing is just the state of our knowledge of the system, not the system itself.
Thank you.
I first want to clarify that I am not trying to defend QST because I don't have enough background in physics to do that. But I want to make sure that I have a clear summary of it. For example, this is a subsection of a thought experiment that I am revising. Below is a revision of the two paragraph summary without using the term "wave function collapse." Does this look any clearer?
Birkhoff and von Neumann [11] introduced quantum logic in response to logical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation. Takeuti [8] formed the quantum logic into an introduction of QST. Eventually, Ozawa took the lead to develop QST into a feasible interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) that coheres with the classical law of noncontradiction, predicate logic, and experimental physics [9, 10, 12, 13]. For example, QST defines quantum states with certainty instead of classical uncertainty.
In short, QST begins with a prior probability distribution of observables for a particular quantum state. This distribution looks similar to a corresponding Copenhagen probability distribution of observables for the quantum state, but QST assigns predicate logic to each observable in the prior set for the quantum state. For example, the existence of each observable in a particular quantum state is true or false. This results in a set of existing observables that completely defines the quantum state despite classically non-commuting observables such as momentum and position. Additionally, QST can define entangled states because it is a state-dependent theory instead of a particle-dependent theory. Furthermore, QST preserves two points of the Copenhagen interpretation. First, each quantum state endures for 1 Planck time. Second, there is a probability distribution for the probabilistic causality during the transition from one quantum state to the next. For instance, the transition from one quantum state to the next is the only element of uncertainty in QST.
References
8. Takeuti, G.: Quantum set theory. In: Beltrametti, E.G., van Fraassen, B.C. (eds.) Current Issues in Quantum Logic, pp. 303–322. Plenum, New York (1981)
9. Ozawa, M. Quantum reality and measurement: A quantum logical approach. Found. Phys. 41, 592–607 (2011)
10. Ozawa, M. Quantum set theory extending the standard probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory. New Generat. Comput. 34, 125–152 (2016)
11. Birkhoff, G., von Neumann, J.: The logic of quantum mechanics. Ann. Math. 37, 823–843 (1936)
12. Sulyok, G., Sponar, S., Demirel, B., Buscemi, F., Hall, M.J.W., Ozawa, M., Hasegawa, Y.: Experimental test of entropic noise-disturbance uncertainty relations for spin-1/2 measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 030401 (2015)
13. Demirel, B., Sponar, S., Sulyok, G., Ozawa, M., Hasegawa, Y.: Experimental test of residual error-disturbance uncertainty relations for mixed spin-1/2 states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 140402 (2016)
[quote="Joy Christian"][quote="james.goetz"][quote="thray"]And what are those properties?[/quote]
I am an analytic philosopher with limited background in the known details about the properties of quantum states. I also understand that there is no consensus for a QM interpretation. For example, advocates of QST propose that the position and momentum of a quantum state can be simultaneously measured despite the proposal of the Copenhagen interpretation.[/quote]
In that case you will immediately understand our point when I say that wave function is an epistemic object. It only represents a compendium of our knowledge of the physical system, not the properties of the system itself. In other words, it does not have any ontological significance. Admittedly this is a minority view these days, especially after the dogmatic acceptance of Bell's theorem by the physics community. However, some of us in this forum believe that Bell's theorem is simply wrong, and as a corollary Einstein's statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics and his epistemic view of the wave function become viable. Consequently there cannot be any such thing as "wave function collapse" on which you are relying, because what is collapsing is just the state of our knowledge of the system, not the system itself.[/quote]
Thank you.
I first want to clarify that I am not trying to defend QST because I don't have enough background in physics to do that. But I want to make sure that I have a clear summary of it. For example, this is a subsection of a thought experiment that I am revising. Below is a revision of the two paragraph summary without using the term "wave function collapse." Does this look any clearer?
Birkhoff and von Neumann [11] introduced quantum logic in response to logical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation. Takeuti [8] formed the quantum logic into an introduction of QST. Eventually, Ozawa took the lead to develop QST into a feasible interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) that coheres with the classical law of noncontradiction, predicate logic, and experimental physics [9, 10, 12, 13]. For example, QST defines quantum states with certainty instead of classical uncertainty.
In short, QST begins with a prior probability distribution of observables for a particular quantum state. This distribution looks similar to a corresponding Copenhagen probability distribution of observables for the quantum state, but QST assigns predicate logic to each observable in the prior set for the quantum state. For example, the existence of each observable in a particular quantum state is true or false. This results in a set of existing observables that completely defines the quantum state despite classically non-commuting observables such as momentum and position. Additionally, QST can define entangled states because it is a state-dependent theory instead of a particle-dependent theory. Furthermore, QST preserves two points of the Copenhagen interpretation. First, each quantum state endures for 1 Planck time. Second, there is a probability distribution for the probabilistic causality during the transition from one quantum state to the next. For instance, the transition from one quantum state to the next is the only element of uncertainty in QST.
References
8. Takeuti, G.: Quantum set theory. In: Beltrametti, E.G., van Fraassen, B.C. (eds.) Current Issues in Quantum Logic, pp. 303–322. Plenum, New York (1981)
9. Ozawa, M. Quantum reality and measurement: A quantum logical approach. Found. Phys. 41, 592–607 (2011)
10. Ozawa, M. Quantum set theory extending the standard probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory. New Generat. Comput. 34, 125–152 (2016)
11. Birkhoff, G., von Neumann, J.: The logic of quantum mechanics. Ann. Math. 37, 823–843 (1936)
12. Sulyok, G., Sponar, S., Demirel, B., Buscemi, F., Hall, M.J.W., Ozawa, M., Hasegawa, Y.: Experimental test of entropic noise-disturbance uncertainty relations for spin-1/2 measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 030401 (2015)
13. Demirel, B., Sponar, S., Sulyok, G., Ozawa, M., Hasegawa, Y.: Experimental test of residual error-disturbance uncertainty relations for mixed spin-1/2 states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 140402 (2016)
