This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
As currently organized the page mixes up different ideas about "ensemble". As a reader I can't tell what 'it' is.
A clearer approach would view the topic as "ensemble interpretations", plural, and proceed to enumerate, compare, and contrast them. Johnjbarton ( talk) 19:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Ballentine's 1970 paper contains a long section on measurement. He says the measurement problem and collapse (state reduction) are artifacts of non-ensemble interpretation. For example: The discussion of the analysis of measurement according to the Statistical Interpretation was so simple and natural that further comment almost seems redundant.
The summary in this article seems completely at odds with the paper. Rather than a summary, the section appears to be a length incoherent criticism.
The separate subsection labeled Criticism reference a paper by Mermin which does not reference any specific ensemble papers or interpretations. Mermin simply says he is working on an interpretation which does not rely on ensembles (for reasons that seem puzzling but that is beside the point). Mermin's paper is certainly not a study the in any way refutes Ballentine. Johnjbarton ( talk) 23:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The section "Schrödinger's cat" has no references. It starts out with a claim about ensemble interpretation "superpositions are nothing but subensembles", then critiques the very subject it has incorrectly summarized, also without attribution.
Ballentine did address the "Schrödinger's cat" and he does consider it trivial. I'll try to find that reference before deleting this section. Johnjbarton ( talk) 00:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The section "Preparative and observing devices as origins of quantum randomness" has numerous references in the first and last paragraphs. In between is an essay without attribution.
I don't think the material is all incorrect but some of it reads like extrapolation or wishful thinking. The last paragraph in particular is incorrect about Einstein (he viewed QM as incomplete because it was an ensemble theory) and the vague criticism of Ballentine is unreferenced. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)