> Il 15 novembre 2019 alle 11.57 Alan Grayson <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > > > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:48:44 AM UTC-7, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > Il 14 novembre 2019 alle 23.25 Alan Grayson < > > [email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > > The problem with physics is physicists ! Yeah, that's my > > > conclusion after many years of studying, arguing and reading. Many, > > > perhaps most, attribute ontological character to what is epistemological; > > > namely the wf. This leads to all kinds of conceptual errors, and > > > ridiculous models and conjectures -- such as MW, particles being in two > > > positions at the same time, radiioactive sources that are simultanously > > > decayed and undecayed, and so forth. The wf gives us information about > > > the state of a system and nothing more. Sorry to disappoint. AG > > > > > > > > > > "The question of whether the waves are something 'real' or a > > fiction to describe and predict phenomena in a convenient way is a matter > > of taste. I personally like to regard a probability wave, even in > > 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for > > mathematical calculations. For it has the character of an invariant of > > observation; that means it predicts the results of counting experiments, > > and we expect to find the same average numbers, the same mean deviations, > > etc., if we actually perform the experiment many times under the same > > experimental condition. Quite generally, how could we rely on probability > > predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and > > objective ?" -M. Born, 1949, p. 105-106 > > > > > > https://archive.org/stream/naturalphilosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt > > > > https://archive.org/stream/naturalphilosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt > > > > > > It seems to me that Born is going down a slippery slope. I see the wf as > "real" in an epistemological sense; it tells us what we know about a system. > But if it's "real" in an ontological sense, I think it leads to nonsensical > interpretations of superpositions, and reality, as I described above. AG > "The underlying error may be the conviction that the system itself has to be represented in order to represent our actions upon it. In quantum theory we represent actual operations and the relations among them, not a hypothetical reality on which they act. Quantum theory is a theory of actuality, not reality. I have taken this term from Whitehead's writings." -David Finkelstein, in 'The State of Quantum Physics'.
"Unfortunately, quantum theory is incompatible with the proposition that "measurements" are processes by means of which we discover some unknown but preexisting reality." -Asher Peres, "What is a state vector?" , Am. J. Phys. 52 (7), July 1984 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1708442130.122718.1573818896950%40mail1.libero.it.
