I agree. Which is why I made my emperor's new clothes comment vis a vis interpretations. This "stochastic approach" looks to me like nothing more than dressing up the typical QM evolution.JC_Silver said:Is that demanded by the math? Because I understand that this is the conclusion given on the paper, but when I look at the math used the only thing I gather is that in between division 1 and division 2 the particle is unknowable and trying to predict its properties gives us all of QM weirdness.
I don't see why a regular particle with definite positions wouldn't be able to be describe by regular statistics.
By saying it can't be known by any means tells me this is different from classical physics, the particle is doing something weird where classical statistics break down and we are not allowed to look.
The math only says that between two divisions the particle's states are fundamentally unknowable, that is the superposition.
This is what confuses me, to me the math doesn't seem to demand that the particle have definite values, it demands that its state be unknowable.
I don't think it is. They are just describing their data.PeterDonis said:Note that this description assumes a statistical interpretation, in which "sorting into subensembles" happens. An interpretation in which the quantum state describes individual runs of the experiment would describe this differently, along the lines of the descriptions @DrChinese has been giving.
They are describing their data in a particular way, in terms of "subensembles". The only reason for doing that is to perform statistical analysis. If we are discussing interpretations, such an analysis is only relevant for statistical interpretations.iste said:They are just describing their data.
How do you define "FTL action"?DrChinese said:So I ask this simple question: if there is no FTL signaling mechanism (which there is none such known), does that require also that there can be no FTL action at a distance? Because such a conclusion is not a logical deduction from the premise. Most scientists would say that it is at least possible that there could be FTL action even if there is no FTL signaling.
I don't follow. If interpretations are independent of the predictions of quantum mechanics then they should be independent of the statisticsl analyses experimenters perform.PeterDonis said:They are describing their data in a particular way, in terms of "subensembles". The only reason for doing that is to perform statistical analysis. If we are discussing interpretations, such an analysis is only relevant for statistical interpretations.