The thermal interpretation of quantum physics

[A. Neumaier]

The book

• A. Neumaier, Coherent Quantum Physics: A Reinterpretation of the Tradition, de Gruyter, Berlin 2019.

just appeared and gives a polished, now authoritative exposition of the thermal interpretation.

 

[mattt]

The book

• A. Neumaier, Coherent Quantum Physics: A Reinterpretation of the Tradition, de Gruyter, Berlin 2019.

just appeared and gives a polished, now authoritative exposition of the thermal interpretation.

Is there a free draft? Thanks.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Is there a free draft? Thanks.

The book is mainly based on the five free preprints mentioned in the edited post #1 (together with a preprint on coherent spaces). These cover the general content of the book, and in particular the essence of the thermal interpretation, but in a less final form. In particular, some arguments were improved or polished based on the feedback from the discussion here on PF.

 

[Demystifier]

authoritative exposition of the thermal interpretation.

What do you mean by "authoritative"? Isn't that a qualification that only readers can give?

 

[vanhees71]

I would rather say, "authorative" means that's the version the author declares to be complete, expressing the subject according to his intention (at least at the time of publication).

 

[A. Neumaier]

What do you mean by "authoritative"? Isn't that a qualification that only readers can give?

It means that this is the officially published definition of the thermal interpretation. Only the author of an interpretation can say whether it is authoritative. This is in contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation, whose content is different dependent on whom you ask, since there is no unique defining document.

 

[Demystifier]

I would rather say, "authorative" means that's the version the author declares to be complete, expressing the subject according to his intention (at least at the time of publication).

According to google, that word doesn't exist.

 

[Demystifier]

It means that this is the officially published definition of the thermal interpretation. Only the author of an interpretation can say whether it is authoritative. This is in contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds interpretation, whose content is different dependent on whom you ask, since there is no unique defining document.

Searching on google, I couldn't find such a meaning of the word "authoritative". But I found this: https://piedmont.libanswers.com/faq/135714

 

[A. Neumaier]

Searching on google, I couldn't find such a meaning of the word "authoritative".

Well, google is not a dictionary. You should consult for example

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authoritative, where the intended meaning is the first one listed:

authoritative (comparative more authoritative, superlative most authoritative)

1. Arising or originating from a figure of authority The authoritative rules in this school come not from the headmaster but from the aged matron.

Clearly the creator of a concept is a figure of authority for this concept. Or look at

https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/authoritative, where one can read an example sentence with a similar usage as mine:

• The results provide the most authoritative and conclusive evidence to date of some enduring inequities in participation in such facilities.

 

[Demystifier]

Arising or originating from a figure of authority

According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authority#English authority refers to a book or quotation that settles an argument. Now what does "settles" mean? If it means settles as far as the author is concerned, then it's OK.

 

[A. Neumaier]

According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authority#English authority refers to a book or quotation that settles an argument. Now what does "settles" mean? If it means settles as far as the author is concerned, then it's OK.

The word authority has not a single, narrow meaning, so taking just one of its uses as ''the'' meaning is ill-advised. According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authority#English, authority refers to

1. (uncountable) The power to enforce rules or give orders.

Surely, the creator of a concept has the power to enforce the rules of usage of the concept; in a scientific context, this is called a definition.

In the present case I used the word to express that the book defines (and in this sense settles) the meaning of the term ''thermal interpretation''.

At least in more detail than the meaning of the terms ''Copenhagen interpretation'' or ''Many Worlds interpretation'' is settled. I didn't want that the thermal interpretation suffers the same fate as these ill-circumscribed interpretations.

 

[Demystifier]

In the present case I used the word to express that the book defines (and in this sense settles) the meaning of the term ''thermal interpretation''.

At least in more detail than the meaning of the terms ''Copenhagen interpretation'' or ''Many Worlds interpretation'' is settled. I didn't want that the thermal interpretation suffers the same fate as these ill-circumscribed interpretations.

Well, if the thermal interpretation will become popular in the future (which is certainly something that you want) then it will be hard to avoid some modifications and distortions by other writers.

 

[vanhees71]

According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authority#English authority refers to a book or quotation that settles an argument. Now what does "settles" mean? If it means settles as far as the author is concerned, then it's OK.

It settles an issue for the author first. In extreme cases it settles the issue only for the author ;-).

 

[A. Neumaier]

Well, if the thermal interpretation will become popular in the future (which is certainly something that you want) then it will be hard to avoid some modifications and distortions by other writers.

Yes, but anyone can go back to the authoritative source. There things are specified precisely. Anything in science can be misunderstood, but if the definitions are useful and clear enough they will survive this.

 

[ftr]

This has been in the news today
https://gizmodo.com/first-look-at-sycamore-googles-quantum-computer-1839305635
Do you think it is fake since there is no probability in TI?

 

[Demystifier]

This has been in the news today
https://gizmodo.com/first-look-at-sycamore-googles-quantum-computer-1839305635
Do you think it is fake since there is no probability in TI?

I have no idea how is that related to TI, but the existence of a sufficiently powerful quantum computer might be an argument against GRW-like collapse theories.

 

[A. Neumaier]

There is no probability in TI?

There is probability in TI, just no fundamental one.

 

[ftr]

There is probability in TI, just no fundamental one.

Yes, that is what I meant "no fundamental". I believe (you can correct me) that the quantum computers are based on the notion of fundamental property of QM.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I believe (you can correct me) that the quantum computers are based on the notion of fundamental property of QM.

No. All past work on quantum computers assumes the standard machinery of quantum mechanics and is independent of interpretation issues.

 

[ftr]

No. All past work on quantum computers assumes the standard machinery of quantum mechanics and is independent of interpretation issues.

Are you saying that TI is just plain old interpretation and has no significant practical value of any sort other than "explaining".

 

[A. Neumaier]

Are you saying that TI is just plain old interpretation and has no significant practical value of any sort other than "explaining".

No. It is a new interpretation that explains the measurement problem. But (like any other interpretation of quantum mechanics) it does not change any of the predictions that could be relevant for quantum computers.

 

[ftr]

No. It is a new interpretation that explains the measurement problem. But (like any other interpretation of quantum mechanics) it does not change any of the predictions that could be relevant for quantum computers.

So do you think all other interpretations also only try to explain the measurement problem but not "ontology" to any level.

 

[A. Neumaier]

So do you think all other interpretations also only try to explain the measurement problem but not "ontology" to any level.

Well, some interpretations, including the thermal interpretation, also specify an ontology. But ontology is also explanation only, not prediction.

Some interpretations (Bohm, Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber) make in principle different predictions but below current limits of observability. But the thermal interpretation does not change anything in the quantum formalism hence does not change a single prediction.

 

[ftr]

In what sense it specifies an ontology. My guess is that you say there are fields(numbers representing whatever) and the expectation value is the characterestic and that is that. Is that correct.

 

[A. Neumaier]

In what sense it specifies an ontology. My guess is that you say there are fields(numbers representing whatever) and the expectation value is the characterestic and that is that. Is that correct.

The ontology of the thermal interpretation is defined by stating that everything computable from the collection of all q-expectations of a quantum system is an objective property of the system. Thus in quantum field theory, field expectations define local properties and $n$-point functions define for $n>1$ nonlocal properties. Intuitively, field expectations specify properties like densities and currents in small open regions.

 

[ftr]

@A. Neumaier, does TI imply that all other interpretations are highly misguided (not to use a stronger language) since all of them try to explain the probability point of view which they take as the correct starting point.

 

[A. Neumaier]

@A. Neumaier, does TI imply that all other interpretations are highly misguided (not to use a stronger language) since all of them try to explain the probability point of view which they take as the correct starting point.

The thermal interpretation explains probability in a different way than the other interpretations. Therefore there are no direct implications for interpretations with a different starting point.

 

[ftr]

The thermal interpretation explains probability in a different way than the other interpretations. Therefore there are no direct implications for interpretations with a different starting point.

Thanks, although I am not convinced, but I may try to elaborate and clarify my question later.

The book

• A. Neumaier, Coherent Quantum Physics: A Reinterpretation of the Tradition, de Gruyter, Berlin 2019.

just appeared and gives a polished, now authoritative exposition of the thermal interpretation.

Do you think that your book might be considered as peer reviewed since the editorial board consists of heavy duty people.
Is the e-book printable or not?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Do you think that your book might be considered as peer reviewed

Yes.

Is the e-book printable or not?

I don't know. It is probably like any other e-book?

 

[ftr]

@A. Neumaier, thanks. One more question if you don't mind. Early on I read as you were writing about TI, I remember that you said that the photon responsible for the electrostatic force is real photon, does that stand now or is it that my memory is not so good.

 

[A. Neumaier]

you said that the photon responsible for the electrostatic force is a real photon.

No. The Coulomb force is mediated by virtual photos, real photons necessarily oscillate, hence cannot be static. But this has nothing to do with the TI.

 

[ftr]

@A. Neumaier, I hope you don't get sick of my questions.

1. What does TI imply about the value of a property of a particle before measurement is it still undefined?
2. what does TI imply anything about the path of a particle. I mean is it possible to compute it?
Thanks.

 

[A. Neumaier]

@A. Neumaier, I hope you don't get sick of my questions.

1. What does TI imply about the value of a property of a particle before measurement is it still undefined?
2. what does TI imply anything about the path of a particle. I mean is it possible to compute it?

Independent of any measurement, a particle has at all times lots of objectve but numerically uncertain properties. It moves along a fuzzy world tube centered around the path given by the q-expectations of the position, with a width given approximately by the square root of the sum of the q-variances. All properties including their uncertainties are in principle computable. Measuments reveal approximatioms of the theoretical values.

 

[timmdeeg]

It moves along a fuzzy world tube centered around the path given by the q-expectations of the position, with a width given approximately by the square root of the sum of the q-variances.

Is in the case of say a C60 molecule its geometrical structure maintained or fuzzy too?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Is in the case of say a C60 molecule its geometrical structure maintained or fuzzy too?

In a frame where 4 nuclei have positions with fixed q-expectations, the nuclei have quite definite locations (uncertainty tiny). But the electrons are delocalized over the whole molecule, and have the shape of the whole geometry.