Quantum Physics via Quantum Tomography: A New Approach to Quantum Mechanics

[vanhees71]

I don't know, what you mean by "agent". Is it the physicist sitting at a computer evaluating the "raw data on tape" given some scheme to extract the measurements of observables he wants to measure? Then I'd say it's completely irrelevant how this is described by quantum theory. Here we are really in the realm, where classical physics is the only necessary description. The physicist just uses stored irreversible facts (data on some storage device like a hard disk) and evaluates them with some (classical) algorithm to extract the data in a form he wants for his analysis of the (quantum) physical experiment.

 

[CoolMint]

At the turn of the 19th century, black body radiation was the only thing classical physics could not explain and most scientists agreed that classical physics was the best explanation and nothing further was was needed.

 

[vanhees71]

There was also no theoretical understanding of the discrete line spectra. Since 1911 also the stability of matter was also no longer describable within classical physics, leading to Bohrs suggestion of "old quantum mechanics", worked then further out by Sommerfeld.

 

[Fra]

I don't know, what you mean by "agent". Is it the physicist sitting at a computer evaluating the "raw data on tape" given some scheme to extract the measurements of observables he wants to measure? Then I'd say it's completely irrelevant how this is described by quantum theory. Here we are really in the realm, where classical physics is the only necessary description. The physicist just uses stored irreversible facts (data on some storage device like a hard disk) and evaluates them with some (classical) algorithm to extract the data in a form he wants for his analysis of the (quantum) physical experiment.

What I mean by agent is in the context of weird variant of interacting generalized qbism agents with algorithmtic angles. My main point is that I still see a a physicists in the scientific community, is a "special case" of such an agent. Such an agent is what "observer" sort of means in standard QM (as the operator of the detector) as we know it. In this case, I agree that information processing power of the physicists (ie what kind of tools or super computer it has) has nothing todo with QM interacting as such. In this view, agent-agent interactions are all classical communication, and they share the same illusion of reality (modulo classical relativity of course).

To understand the analog you need to make the "physicist" part of the physical interaction, and then the speed of the inferences will necessarily depend on the physicists "technology", which in turn will influence the whole interaction between physicist-environment.

So in the way you an Neumaier refers to it, I agree. But I still suggest that is a possible "simplicifaction" that for ME, I can not let go of.

/Fredrik

 

[A. Neumaier]

You use yourself Born's rule all the time since everything is based on taking averages of all kinds defined by $\langle A \rangle=\mathrm{Tr} \hat{\rho} \hat{A}$ (if you use normalized $\hat{\rho}$'s).

Born's rule is not just taking averages of anything!

I use quantum expectations all the time, but Born's rule only when I interpret a quantum expectation in terms of measuring independent and identical prepared systems - which is a necessary requirement for Born's rule to hold.

How do you define the experimental meaning of $\langle A\rangle$ when $A$ is not normal, which is often the case in QFT?

 

[A. Neumaier]

don't understand, what the content of Sect. 4.5 has to do with our discussion.

There I discuss the case of nonstationary quantum systems.

then pointing out where, in the view of the author, this contradicts the standard statistical interpretation a la Born.

Please do not confuse contradictions and non-applicability! These are two very different things!

 

[A. Neumaier]

New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment and the Fine Structure Constant
"A measurement using a one-electron quantum cyclotron gives the electron magnetic moment in Bohr magnetons, g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28) [0.28 ppt], with an uncertainty 2.7 and 15 times smaller than for previous measurements in 2006 and 1987."
-- https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1134

How then can it be that, e.g., the measurement of the gyrofactor of the electron using a Penning trap is as precise as it is?

The measurement of the gyrofactor of the electron using a Penning trap is as precise as it is
because certain experimental situations happen to have very accurate descriptions in terms of a few-parameter quantum stochastic process, and the gyrofactor is one of these parameters.

Though not interpretable in terms of Born's rule or POVMs, such processes are able to describe single time-dependent quantum systems, just as classical stochastic process are able to describe single time-dependent classical systems.

The facts that there are only very few parameters and that one can measure arbitrarily long time series imply that one can use statistical parameter estimation techniques to find the parameters to arbitrary accuracy. The fact that the models are accurate imply that the parameters found for the gyrofactor accurately represent the gyrofactor.

I am now reading the papers you and Fra cited and will give details once I have digested them.

 

[CoolMint]

What I mean by agent is in the context of weird variant of interacting generalized qbism agents with algorithmtic angles. My main point is that I still see a a physicists in the scientific community, is a "special case" of such an agent. Such an agent is what "observer" sort of means in standard QM (as the operator of the detector) as we know it. In this case, I agree that information processing power of the physicists (ie what kind of tools or super computer it has) has nothing todo with QM interacting as such. In this view, agent-agent interactions are all classical communication, and they share the same illusion of reality (modulo classical relativity of course).

To understand the analog you need to make the "physicist" part of the physical interaction, and then the speed of the inferences will necessarily depend on the physicists "technology", which in turn will influence the whole interaction between physicist-environment.

So in the way you an Neumaier refers to it, I agree. But I still suggest that is a possible "simplicifaction" that for ME, I can not let go of.

/Fredrik

I thought you meant it as in the participatory universe argument since a case can be made that knowledge plays a role at the lowest scales.

 

[Fra]

I thought you meant it as in the participatory universe argument since a case can be made that knowledge plays a role at the lowest scales.

I haven't analyzed Wheelers historical writing as such, but surely it's related to this. But quite often, this is mistunderstood as that the physicists or "human observer" creates reality. If you put it like that, it soon gets silly. This misunderstanding is completely analogous to those that misunderstand the Heisenberg cut as something involving human consciousness. Analogies can help but also and create misinterpretations. When I read about OTHER people describing wheelers meaning, it comes out like a potential mischaracterisation - or Wheeler actually meant it like that. I don't konw.

I mean it in a deep sense. That any piece of matter is such a participatory observer. And the common reality is formed and evolved as they interact and selective pressure of the agents.

In my view, I take this very seriously, and seek the formalism that implements and are able to provide prodictions or explanatory value. Until then, it's admittedly a soup of words. And the current mathematics of QM, can not make sense of these ideas - except intuitively in a limiting sense. If we could infer that limit, from the general case, chances are it will come with additional explanatory power, such as reduction fo free parameters etc. But trying to understand, an build intuition and analogies is a good start.

/Fredrik

 

[vanhees71]

Born's rule is not just taking averages of anything!

I use quantum expectations all the time, but Born's rule only when I interpret a quantum expectation in terms of measuring independent and identical prepared systems - which is a necessary requirement for Born's rule to hold.

How do you define the experimental meaning of $\langle A\rangle$ when $A$ is not normal, which is often the case in QFT?

To get expectation values you need the probabilities/probability distributions, which are given by Born's rule in the formalism. That interpretation of the state, $\hat{\rho}$, leads immediately to $\langle A \rangle=\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{\rho} \hat{A})$. For me all that is subsumed under "Born's rule". Instead of saying "Born's rule" I also could say "the probabilistic interpretation of $\hat{\rho}$", but that's very unusual among physicists.

 

[vanhees71]

There I discuss the case of nonstationary quantum systems.

Please do not confuse contradictions and non-applicability! These are two very different things!

If Born's rule were not applicable here, the experimental results couldn't be understood with standard QT, but they obviously are!

 

[vanhees71]

Though not interpretable in terms of Born's rule or POVMs, such processes are able to describe single time-dependent quantum systems, just as classical stochastic process are able to describe single time-dependent classical systems.

How then can it be that these results are very accurately described by Q(F)T, which uses Born's rule to predict this value of (g-2)?

 

[A. Neumaier]

To get expectation values you need the probabilities/probability distributions, which are given by Born's rule in the formalism.

No.

1. To get quantum expectations one just needs a density operators and the trace formula. This is not Born's rule. But it is what is used everywhere in the formalism of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory
2. To get statistical expectations one just needs to average over a sample of measurement values. This is not Born's rule. But it is what is used everywhere in the analysis of statistical data.
3. To relate the two one needs an assumption - the assumption that the measurements come from independent and identical realizations of the quantum system. In this case (and only in this case!) one can equate quantum expectations and statistical expectations. This is Born"s rule.
4. In general, and in particular whenever the measurements are taken on a single quantum system, the relation between quantum expectations and statistical expectations is complicated. One needs sophisticated statistical techniques to extract from measurements useful information about states or model parameters.

Point 3 is a mathematically precise version of your statement that a state is given by an equivalence class of identically prepared systems.

That interpretation of the state, $\hat{\rho}$, leads immediately to $\langle A \rangle=\mathrm{Tr}(\hat{\rho} \hat{A})$. For me all that is subsumed under "Born's rule". Instead of saying "Born's rule" I also could say "the probabilistic interpretation of $\hat{\rho}$", but that's very unusual among physicists.

These are your magic wand and your magic spell, with which everything done in quantum mechanics looks as being based on Born's rule.

But your magic ignores the assumptions in Born's rule, hence is like concluding $1=2$ from $x=2x$ by division through $x$ without checking the assumption $x\ne 0$.

If Born's rule were not applicable here, the experimental results couldn't be understood with standard QT, but they obviously are!

They are understandable with the pragmatic use of the quantum formalism that uses whatever interpretation explains an experiment. They are not understandable in terms of only Born's rule, since In experiments with single quantum systems, the assumption in Born's rule cannot be satisfied.

How then can it be that these results are very accurately described by Q(F)T, which uses Born's rule to predict this value of (g-2)?

These results are very accurately described by Q(F)T, which uses only mathematics (and not Born's rule) to predict this value of g-2. QED predicts the correct value of g-2 from the QED action purely by mathematical calculations, without any reference to measurement. Hence one has nowhere an opportunity to use Born's rule, since the latter only says something about quantum observables measured by means of averaging over measurement results obtained from independent and identically prepared.

Born's rule would however be needed to interpret probabilities measured from scattering experiments, for which Weinberg correctly invokes Born's rule. This is a typical case where the assumption present in Born's rule is satisfied.

 

[vanhees71]

I give up obviously I'm unable to understand your point of view.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I give up obviously I'm unable to understand your point of view.

Is it so difficult to understand that

• I make a difference between two kinds of expectation (statistical - related to measurement only and quantum - related to the formalism only), to get more clarity into the foundations, while
• you conflate the two and hence have Born's rule even in purely mathematical calculations that have nothing at all to do with measurement?

Once you can accept that one can make this difference, you'll be able to understand everything I said. And you'll benefit a lot from this understanding!

 

[vanhees71]

I do not conflate the two. I'm talking about the meaning of the formalism, and that's probabilistic via Born's rule. All concepts related with the statistical meaning of the formalism are derived from Born's rule, including the trace rule for expectation values of observables. It even implies the probabilities for measurement outcomes, as is well known from standard probability theory.

Of course in measurements there is no Hilbert space, no operators, no trace rule, no Born's rule. You just measure observables and evaluate the statistics of their outcomes, take into account the specifics of the apparatus etc. There is no generally valid formalism for this but it has to be analyzed for any experimental setup. That's not what I'm discussing and it's not related to the interpretation of QT.

 

[A. Neumaier]

What's new is the order of presentation, i.e., it is starting from the most general case of "weak measurements" (described by POVMs)

Could you please point out to which paper (and which page) you refer here? I found no mention of weak measurements or POVMs in the geonium paper by Brown and Gabrielse that you mentioned earlier. The latter is quite interesting but very long, so it takes a lot of time to digest the details. I'll comment on it in due time in a new thread.

Maybe it would help, when a concrete measurement is discussed, e.g., the nowadays standard experiment with single ("heralded") photons (e.g., produced with parametric down conversion using a laser and a BBO crystal, using the idler photon as the "herald" and then doing experiments with the signal photon).

I discussed a different single photon scenario, that of ''photons on demand'', in a lecture given some time ago:

• A. Neumaier, Classical models for quantum light, Slides of a lecture given on April 7, 2016 at the University of Linz.

 

[vanhees71]

I was talking about the textbook by Peres, quoted in the posting you quote. Of course, Brown and Gabrielse use just standard quantum theory to discuss the physics, and obviously it works. There's no need for alternative interpretations than standard QT.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I do not conflate the two. I'm talking about the meaning of the formalism, and that's probabilistic via Born's rule. All concepts related with the statistical meaning of the formalism are derived from Born's rule, including the trace rule for expectation values of observables.

I am also talking about the meaning of the formalism, but using more careful language. I do this without invoking Born's rule, which you take to be a blanket phrase covering everything probabilistic, independent of its origin. This blurs the conceptual distinctions and makes it impossible to discuss details with you.

Of course in measurements there is no Hilbert space, no operators, no trace rule, no Born's rule.

In the mathematical formalism there is also no Born's rule, but only the trace rule defining quantum expectations. Born's rule only relates the trace rule to measurements, and it does so only in special cases - namely when measurements are made on independent and identically prepared ensembles.

As long as there are no measurements - and this includes everything in books on quantum mechanics or quantum field theory when they derive formulas for scattering amplitudes or N-point functions -, everything is independent of Born's rule. The formula $\langle A\rangle:=$Tr$\rho A$ is just a definition of the meaning of the string on the left in terms of that on the right. It has a priori nothing to do with measurement, and hence with Born's rule.

But it seems to me that you simply equate Born's rule with the trace rule, independent of its relation to measurement. Equating this makes trivially everything dependent on Born's rule. But this makes Born's rule vacuous, and its application to measurements invalid in contexts where no ensemble of independent and identically prepared ensembles. exist.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I was talking about the textbook by Peres, quoted in the posting you quote.

Please give a page number. If I remember correctly, Peres never mentions the notion of weak measurement. A search in scholar.google.com for

• author:Peres "weak measurement"

gives no hits at all.

 

[vanhees71]

It's simply not true! As shown in the book by Peres in a very clear way the Born rule is underlying also the more general cases of POVMs. All the experiments, leading to several Nobel prizes (Dehmelt, Wineland, Haroche,...), with single electrons, atoms, ions, etc. in traps has been analyzed in the standard way of quantum theory. The trace formula to calculate expectation values is a direct consequence of the probabilities predicted in the formalism of QT using Born's rule.

Once more the citation of Peres's book:

A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London,
Moscow (2002).

I don't know, whether he uses the phrase "weak measurement", but he discusses POVMs and gives a very concise description of what's predicted by QT. It seems to be very much along the lines you propose in your paper (as far as I think I understand it).

 

[A. Neumaier]

I discussed a different single photon scenario, that of ''photons on demand'', in a lecture given some time ago.

I forgot to give the link:

• A. Neumaier, Classical models for quantum light, Slides of a lecture given on April 7, 2016 at the University of Linz.

 

[A. Neumaier]

It's simply not true! As shown in the book by Peres in a very clear way the Born rule is underlying also the more general cases of POVMs.

Yes, but he assumes everywhere stationary sources, i.e., ensembles of identically prepared systems. Moreover, he assumes unphysical mathematical constructs called ancillas to reduce POVM measurements on these ensembles to Born's rule.

All the experiments, leading to several Nobel prizes (Dehmelt, Wineland, Haroche,...), with single electrons, atoms, ions, etc. in traps have been analyzed in the standard way of quantum theory.

They use for their analysis a pragmatic approach (i.e., whatever gives agreement with experiments serves as interpretation), not one strictly based on Born's rule. The latter has essential restrictions to apply!

Once more the citation of Peres's book:

I don't know, whether he uses the phrase "weak measurement", but he discusses POVMs and gives a very concise description of what's predicted by QT. It seems to be very much along the lines you propose in your paper (as far as I think I understand it).

Yes, he discusses POVM in the usual, very abstract terms. But everywhere he assumes stationary sources, i.e., ensembles of identically prepared systems. Under this condition he gets the same as what I propose (with different assumptions, not assuming Born's rule).

Peres never discusses single quantum systems and does not use the term "weak measurement". In the Wikipedia reference I cited, the (standard) derivation of the quantum trajectories describing weak measurements only tells what the state is after a sequence of POVM measurements and what is the probability distribution for getting the whole sequence of results. To give meaning to this probability distribution via Born's rule one needs an ensemble of identically prepared systems giving an ensemble of sequences of measurement results! Otherwise one has only a single sequence of measurement results and the probability of getting this single one is 100%!

As we had discussed some years ago, Peres noticed (and does not resolve) this conflict when he enters philosophical discussions in the last chapter of his book (if I recall correctly, don't have the book at hand).

 

[vanhees71]

I forgot to give the link:

• A. Neumaier, Classical models for quantum light, Slides of a lecture given on April 7, 2016 at the University of Linz.

Yes, and I don't see anything contradicting the standard way to relate the formalism of QED to observations. I also think that the idea that $|\psi(t,\vec{x})|^2$ refers to some kind of intensity in Schrödingers first interpretation of the wave function was in analogy to the intensity of light, where it was known to be measured in terms of the energy density. This was however very soon be realized not to be in accordance with the detection of particles (particularly electrons) which indeed leave a single point on a photo plate and not a smeared distribution, and this brought Born to his probabilistic interpretation (in a footnote of his paper on scattering theory of 1926). Today we can use QED to derive that for the em. field the detection probability is indeed proportional to the expectation value of the energy density: It's just following from the first-order perturbation theory and the dipole approximation to describe the photo effect. The formula to evaluate these expectation values is of course based on Born's rule (or postulate). That's all in the standard textbooks about quantum optics and used also in the papers referring to experiments with single photons and/or entangled photon pairs, including all kinds of Bell tests, entanglement swapping, teleportation, and all that.

I still also don't see, why you think that collecting statistics by coupling a single quantum in a trap to a electrical circuit or repeated excitation-dexcitation events via the emitted photons, etc. cannot be understood with standard quantum theory although that's done for decades. Indeed, the many excitation-relaxation processes via an external laser field is defining the ensemble in this example. How else should you get statistics with a single quantum?

The realization of "weak measurements" and the description with the more general concept of POVMs is pretty recent, and as far as I can see, it's not something contradicting the fundamental Born postulate, how QT probabilities and expectation values are related to the formalism (statistical operators to represent the state and self-adjoint (or unitary) operators for observables).

 

[A. Neumaier]

All the experiments, leading to several Nobel prizes (Dehmelt, Wineland, Haroche,...), with single electrons, atoms, ions, etc. in traps have been analyzed in the standard way of quantum theory.

There is no standard way beyond pragmatism (anything successful goes) to do the matching of formalism to complex experiments.

From

• K. Gottfried, Does quantum mechanics carry the seeds of its own destruction? Physics World 4 (1991), 34--40.

My 'orthodoxy' is not identical to that of Bohr, nor to that of Peierls, to mention two especially eminent examples. Hence I must state my definition of 'orthodoxy'.

From

• D. Wallace, What is orthodox quantum mechanics? (2016).

Orthodox QM, I am suggesting, consists of shifting between two different ways of understanding the quantum state according to context: interpreting quantum mechanics realistically in contexts where interference matters, and probabilistically in contexts where it does not. Obviously this is conceptually unsatisfactory (at least on any remotely realist construal of QM) -- it is more a description of a practice than it is a stable interpretation. [...] The ad hoc, opportunistic approach that physics takes to the interpretation of the quantum state, and the lack, in physical practice, of a clear and unequivocal understanding of the state -- this is the quantum measurement problem.

The realization of "weak measurements" and the description with the more general concept of POVMs is pretty recent, and as far as I can see, it's not something contradicting the fundamental Born postulate

I never claimed a contradiction, just a non-applicability. One cannot derive from a postulate that only applies to large ensembles of independent and identically prepared systems any statement about a single system!

the many excitation-relaxation processes via an external laser field is defining the ensemble in this example.

If the processes are carried out identically, this indeed gives an ensemble of identically prepared photons. But if one only sends a handful of photons on demand to transmit a message (the primary reason why one would want to produce them on demand), one only gets an ensemble of not-identically prepared photons!

How else should you get statistics with a single quantum?

Through repeated measurements, with stochasticity induced by the unmodelled interaction with the environment. Just like in classical stochastic processes!

 

[vanhees71]

I don't know what you mean by sending a handful of photons on demand to transmit a message.

Usually one uses heralded photons to prepare single-photon states, which are in fact not so easy to produce (in contradistinction to "dimmed down coherent states", which however are not equivalent to true single-photon states but consist largely of the vacuum state). One way, nowadays kind of standard, is to shine with a laser on a BBO crystal and use the entangled photon pairs from parametric down conversion. Then you use one photon ("idler") to "herald" the other photon ("signal"), which you then use for experiments. This gives an ensemble of identically prepared single photons.

In the experiments with single atoms in a trap you usually use an external em. field to excite these atoms many times an measure the emitted photons. Another example with a single electron in a Penning trap is to measure the currents of the "mirror charges" in response to the motion of the electron in the trap, which also provides the statistics you need (see Dehmelt's or Brown's review papers quoted above).

 

[A. Neumaier]

Then you use one photon ("idler") to "herald" the other photon ("signal"), which you then use for experiments. This gives an ensemble of identically prepared single photons.

I agree. In this version nothing needs to be explained.

I was thinking of potential applications in quantum information processing, where the situation is different.

Another example with a single electron in a Penning trap is to measure the currents of the "mirror charges" in response to the motion of the electron in the trap

Which quantum observables of the electrons are measured by these currents? If Born's rule were involved, you should be able to point to the operators to which Born's rule is applied in this case.

 

[vanhees71]

You measure the energy differences via repeated spin flips of the electron in the trap via repeated two-photon excitations through a coherent rf field + thermal excitation (Fig. 5 +6 of Dehmelt's paper).

 

[A. Neumaier]

You measure the energy differences via repeated spin flips of the electron in the trap via repeated two-photon excitations through a coherent rf field + thermal excitation (Fig. 5 +6 of Dehmelt's paper).

This measurement recipe is not covered by Born's rule since there is no operator on the electron Hilbert space whose eigenvalues are the energy differences.

So how do you think Born's rule applies in this case?

 

[vanhees71]

Well, perhaps you should read the paper more carefully (or the relevant original papers quoted in that review). Here it's Ref. [18]:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.310

 

[A. Neumaier]

All the experiments, leading to several Nobel prizes (Dehmelt, Wineland, Haroche,...), with single electrons, atoms, ions, etc. in traps has been analyzed in the standard way of quantum theory. The trace formula to calculate expectation values is a direct consequence of the probabilities predicted in the formalism of QT using Born's rule.

I still also don't see, why you think that collecting statistics by coupling a single quantum in a trap to a electrical circuit or repeated excitation-dexcitation events via the emitted photons, etc. cannot be understood with standard quantum theory although that's done for decades. Indeed, the many excitation-relaxation processes via an external laser field is defining the ensemble in this example.

Another example with a single electron in a Penning trap is to measure the currents of the "mirror charges" in response to the motion of the electron in the trap

Which quantum observables of the electrons are measured by these currents? If Born's rule were involved, you should be able to point to the operators to which Born's rule is applied in this case.

You measure the energy differences via repeated spin flips of the electron in the trap via repeated two-photon excitations through a coherent rf field + thermal excitation (Fig. 5 +6 of Dehmelt's paper).

This measurement recipe is not covered by Born's rule since there is no operator on the electron Hilbert space whose eigenvalues are the energy differences.

So how do you think Born's rule applies in this case?

Well, perhaps you should read the paper more carefully (or the relevant original papers quoted in that review). Here it's Ref. [18]:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.310

I have my own interpretation of what is going on, and it does not involve Born's rule.

But you claimed that the experiment is (like all experiments with ion traps) explained by Born's rule. For your convenience and those of the other readers I collected the whole train of your arguments.

I am challenging you to provide a proof of your claim in this particular instance. If you can't do it in the simple case of measuring energy differences, your claim is without any substance!

 

[vanhees71]

It's on you to show that your bold claim that standard QT cannot be used to understand these experimental results explained usually by standard QT. Spectoscopy, i.e. the measurement of energy differences is the topic since day 1 of modern QT, described by standard QT (prediction of the frequencies and intensities of the em. radiation through transitions between atomic energy levels).

 

[Fra]

Through repeated measurements, with stochasticity induced by the unmodelled interaction with the environment. Just like in classical stochastic processes!

This is similar to other "inverse problems". For example i neuroscience, how can you get statistics from a single neuron, when you put an electrode into neural tissue? Then one basic method is clustering, where while the collected signal is influenced by many nearby single neurons, each single neurons (like each quantum state) has it's own "signature", which by clustering one can classify spikes that originate from the same neuron. But that's not an exact mathematical inverse though, it's always theoretically possible that you fail to resolve two neurons that just happened to have very similar signatures. But once clustereted, one collects statstics for single neurons.

/Fredrik

 

[A. Neumaier]

It's on you to show that your bold claim that standard QT cannot be used to understand these experimental results explained usually by standard QT. Spectoscopy, i.e. the measurement of energy differences is the topic since day 1 of modern QT, described by standard QT (prediction of the frequencies and intensities of the em. radiation through transitions between atomic energy levels).

So you finally agree that standard quantum theory involves more than Born's rule in order to relate the mathematical formalism to experiment!.

Indeed, standard quantum physics has a most pragmatic approach to the interpretation of the formalism: Anything goes that gives agreement with experiment, and Born's rule is just a tool applicable in some situations, whereas other tools (such as resonance observations or POVMs) apply in other situations.

Can we agree on that?

 

[A. Neumaier]

This is similar to other "inverse problems". For example i neuroscience, how can you get statistics from a single neuron, when you put an electrode into neural tissue? Then one basic method is clustering, where while the collected signal is influenced by many nearby single neurons, each single neurons (like each quantum state) has it's own "signature", which by clustering one can classify spikes that originate from the same neuron. But that's not an exact mathematical inverse though, it's always theoretically possible that you fail to resolve two neurons that just happened to have very similar signatures. But once clustered, one collects statistics for single neurons.

Yes. The estimation of constants in mathematical models of reality (whether a growth parameter in a biological model or a gyrofactor in a model of a Penning trap) from noisy measurements is always an inverse problem.