Dear Reinhard,

may i ask you for a clarification of: (A) “Maybe I should remind you that operational QM does not have a measurement problem.“, in conjunction with (B) “It may have one (whatever that means), and at some meta-level describing the apparatus in many body quantum terms (i.e., by statistical mechanics) may be an interesting…[Read more]

Dear Robert,

many thanks for very useful and clear answers. I am note yet sure, but i might get back to you via email, if I follow my own question(s) in the directions suggested by your advices.

Regarding many times [‘local time’], which i believe you’re not interested in, just briefly about motivation and the results obtained so…[Read more]

Dear Dustin,

I find your final words disappointing [“Most of us just don’t see much value in spending too much time and effort to proof a result that we understand / accept anyway and that – to be honest – still wouldn’t convince you or any other critic.”]. I am almost sure that what Reinhard reproaches to BM is manly about the attitude describ…[Read more]

Dear Aurelien and Reinhard,

to me, your answers indicate the possible foundational incompleteness of BM.

When i teach my students why such a strange theory like QM has ever appeared, i have to prove nonstability of the Rutehrford’s model of the hydrogen atom. Like every mastery, physics requires different tools — classical mechanics and…[Read more]

Dear Daniel,

sorry for producing confusion. I’ll need some time to frame the subtleties i am interested in in a form appropriate for this forum.

Best regards,

Miroljub

Dear Robert,

many thanks. May i conclude that on the interpretational side of CH, formal use of density matrices instead of the projectors is not consistent?

btw, i am not sure at which point of ‘multiple time’ you have encountered complications. Technically and also intuitively, the scheme is rather simple [and appears to be useful].

Best…[Read more]

Dear Daniel,

somewhat simplified, my point was: how does your conclusion fit with the fact that quantum observables typically admit smooth transitions from ‘quantum’ to ‘quasi-classical’. In other words: is the ‘quantum side’ implicit to your considerations–that’s what i’d like to learn about?

Best regards,

Miroljub

Dear Robert,

your words “You may be asking whether in place of one (or more) of the properties at a particular time one can use a pre-probability rho, and my immediate response is that I don’t see the physical motivation for it, why it would make sense. The classical analog would be that in some stochastic process in place of a state j at some t…[Read more]

Dear Robert,

if instead of projectors, i [try] to define history via mixed states (density matrices), what might the consistency condition look like? Should i start from the spectral decomposition of the state that should serve analogous role to a choice of the unity decomposition in the standard definition of history?

Best regards,

Miroljub

Dear Reinhard,

I am not a Bohmian. My scientific preferences can be found elsewhere, e.g. in ‘Other topics’ of this forum, which i enjoy and use to learn some new things. My point was just that [like some other theories] Bohm’s theory points out a really important issues which are far from being resolved–as i asked Dustin about. Personally, i do…[Read more]

As a layman in Bohm’s theory, may i ask for a brief explanation of how is it possible for the particles having ontologically definite trajectories not to radiate EM waves?

Dear Reinhard: it cannot be wrong to have e.g. electrodynamics [read: an interpretation] as a theoretical background for electric machines [read: operational QM], can it?

Dear Dustin: theoretical explanations offered by Bohm’s theory, as yet, require a huge leap of faith and only modest benefit–do you agree?

Dear Avshalom,

i like the idea that our perception of Time may be changed. To this end, is the possibility of dynamical change of local time (separate time for single particles) viable within your approach?

Best,

Miroljub

Dear Roderich,

while trying to learn more about Bohm’s theory, i cannot detect Bohmian mechanics in quant-ph/0309021. Could you please help me by pointing out the essential points (conceptual or technical)?

Best regards,

Miroljub

Hi Ruth,

may I say: (i) space and/or time are not physically fundamental, and (ii) there are no ‘particles’ on the fundamental physical level either?

Best regards,

Miroljub

Dear Robert,

many thanks for instructions. Before I deleve into full details, please let me emphasize my point again, while having your Am. J. Phys. 79 (2011) 954. arXiv:1007.4281 in mind.

Any set of consistent histories as per eq. (16) may not be consistent for some alternative TPS. For the sake of illustration, let me refer to the hydrogen…[Read more]

Dear Robert [if i may?]

following “In particular, Equality means that from the point of view of fundamental quantum mechanics there is no reason to prefer one consistent family to another, there is no law of nature that singles out ‘the right family‘.”–from your Am. J. Phys. 79 (2011) 954. arXiv:1007.4281–i have the following question:

If E…[Read more]

Dear Daniel [if I may?]

could you please describe the effects with certain collective variables such as the macromolecules interferometry experiments? It appears to me that in such experiments there is no dependence of the collective-observable (the molecules’ center-of-mass position) standard-deviation on the number of the constituent particles…[Read more]