- #36
Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,877
- 423
OK, new summary. Simplified.
They are comparing two different schools of thought:
Suppose that there's a theory that's at least as good as QM, in which a mathematical object λ represents all the properties of the system. Suppose that view 2 above is the correct one. Then λ doesn't determine the probabilities of all possible results of measurements. Yada-yada-yada. Contradiction! Therefore view 2 is false.
I say that - A state vector represents the properties of the system.
- A state vector represents the statistical properties of an ensemble of identically prepared systems, and does not also represent the properties of a single system.
Suppose that there's a theory that's at least as good as QM, in which a mathematical object λ represents all the properties of the system. Suppose that view 2 above is the correct one. Then λ doesn't determine the probabilities of all possible results of measurements. Yada-yada-yada. Contradiction! Therefore view 2 is false.
- The entire article rests on the validity on the statement in brown, which says that view 2 somehow implies that "all the properties" are insufficient to determine the probabilities. (If that's true, then why would anyone call them "all the properties"?)
- The brown statement is a non sequitur. (A conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise).
- The only argument the article offers in support of the brown claim, doesn't support the brown claim at all.