Again, look at how you would measure the interference pattern. I think that one would throw one photon at a time. And for each photon, one would need to know both the slit size and the place where it lands. Effectively measuring both x and p.
-
I might be wrong, but I think thats the key point of our disagreement. Repeting experiments so that we can reconstruct known asymptotic stated may be inherently frequentists. While imagining paths from the particles point of view sounds very Bayesian to me.
Well I’m not sure about that, I try to keep my statements about QM independent of interpretation If I had to refine I would say: ‘there is no meaningful way to say a fundamental particle is in the state (x,p).’ Implying that it does not follow any trajectory
-
-
I am sure that you're familiar with the positive electron. Looking at fig1 of the Discovery paper I may be biased but that looks a while lot like a trajectory. And they understood their own magnets so well that they even measured the momentum of itpic.twitter.com/PSiWNHaPcs
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.