History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph)

  • PDF
    The paper argues that far from challenging - or even refuting - Bohm's quantum theory, the no-hidden-variables theorems in fact support the Bohmian ontology for quantum mechanics. The reason is that (i) all measurements come down to position measurements and (ii) Bohm's theory provides a clear and coherent explanation of the measurement outcome statistics based on an ontology of particle positions, a law for their evolution and a probability measure linked with that law. What the no-hidden-variables theorems teach us is that (i) one cannot infer the properties that the physical systems possess from observables and that (ii) measurements, being an interaction like other interactions, change the state of the measured system.

Recent comments

Christopher A. Fuchs May 15 2017 22:36 UTC

Dear Joel,

We are indeed "fielded questions like this a hundred times over." That's why I try to write some papers to allay it: It never works. Anyway, here's one example that's relevant for your queries: https://scirate.com/arxiv/1601.04360. My own view is that taking first-person elements

...(continued)
Joel Klassen May 15 2017 22:01 UTC

Dear Ruediger,

Thanks for your prompt and cordial response. I hope you'll forgive the absence of address and signoff in my previous comment, my excitement got the better of my internet etiquette.

I think I understand what you are saying. The notion is that by making a statement like "a rubidiu

...(continued)
Ruediger Schack May 15 2017 14:00 UTC

Dear Joel,

Thank you for this question about Fuchs's paper. As you suggest, if taken out of context, the tenet "My probabilities cannot tell nature what to do" is a little mystifying. No serious thinker should believe that *his* probabilities tell nature what to do. The actual content of the tene

...(continued)
Joel Klassen May 13 2017 19:20 UTC

At the end of page 19, section 2.2 you introduce the tenet

"My Probabilities Cannot Tell Nature What To Do"

Can you elaborate on why it is necessary to include this tenet in QBism? Or more precisely, in what way is QBism unique in having this tenet? Are there any serious thinkers that are pro

...(continued)
Christopher A. Fuchs May 12 2017 17:14 UTC

Dear Michel,

1. It was just a goofy thing that I thought would get the readers to smile. But Wolfgang Pauli did have quite a mystical interest in 137 precisely because of its connection to the fine structure constant. This is documented in quite a number of places; the book by Suzanne Gieser,

...(continued)
Planat May 11 2017 09:03 UTC

Dear Christopher,

1. Could you comment on the connection to the fine structure constant in footnote 15 in which you write "Implicit in it is the number 137!"?

2. Would the Qbism philosophy be destroyed by restricting to IC's instead of SICs as in https://scirate.com/arxiv/1704.02749#807?

Thanks.

Mohammad Bavarian Sep 08 2016 03:58 UTC

So beautifully written!

Māris Ozols Sep 07 2016 13:03 UTC

John also has an excellent series of 7 blog posts covering this material:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/struggles-continuum-part-1/

Joel Klassen Feb 07 2016 17:57 UTC

The conversation amongst philosophers about the notion of free will and its relationship to determinism has a rich and nuanced history. It's disappointing to see someone who should know better be so flippantly dismissive of that conversation.

Niel de Beaudrap Apr 03 2015 18:42 UTC

I put this on my reading list after the recent update, having a casual interest in foundations. While I don't have quite enough physics background to see if anything is being swept under the rug, I found it an interesting point of view, written clearly and without mysticism. In particular, I now un

...(continued)