FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 9:29 am
Interesting paper but I don't see how VI.A disproves number 1. What am I missing?
Number 1 claim is that two slits interference pattern can only be explained if each particle is in a superposition of passing through slits simultaneously. In other words, the claim of 1 is that classical probability theory cannot explain it. Not so, says Ballentine: it can be explained by classical probability theory.
.
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 9:29 am
Interesting paper but I don't see how VI.A disproves number 1. What am I missing?
Number 1 claim is that two slits interference pattern can only be explained if each particle is in a superposition of passing through slits simultaneously. In other words, the claim of 1 is that classical probability theory cannot explain it. Not so, says Ballentine: it can be explained by classical probability theory.
Sorry, I read the section again and don't see how classical probability theory explains it.
.
I think that what you are looking for isn't there in the paper. If Ballentine could have produced the QM formula using classical conditional probabilities and Bayes formulae then he would have done so. But he has pointed to a lesser target in a refutal that the classical formula for the 2-slit is as simple as had been assumed. He is saying that the condition that slit 1 only is open is condition c1, and for slit 2 only to be open is c2, and for both slits to be open together is c3. He is saying that the relationship between c1, c2 and c3 is not straightforward.
I think Fred's question about the existence of superpositions goes to the heart of the problem. A video has Roger Penrose saying (my words) that superposition is not reality. A very recent New Scientist article has Spekkens arguing for a return of reality (which I assume would remove superpositions from reality).
That is not to say that superpositions have no place in QM as they are fundamental to QM. Superpositions are important in statistics and for example the Monty Hall issue, but they exist in the minds or calculations on paper or screen. You can calculate how likely a horse is to win a race, but the reality is found after the race when the horse either won or did not. So you need superpositions but it is wrong to assume they are a reality.
Bell experimental results are, unfortunately, now being used to imply that the reality of superpositions is confirmed.
Quantum Computers do not use reality as when a measurement is made, the calculations are over. But it should be possible to use superpositions in calculations even when you know the reality is Bertlmann's socks with no superpositions. But you do not need a Quantum Computer to do that.
Having said all that, my version of the Bell experiment results is a very exotic idea which by-passes the Bell Inequalities and gives importance to the Bell results as providing an obstacle to be circumvented.
