Newsgroups: sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!yale!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!ftpbox!mothost!schbbs!bhv
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Bohm vs Bohr
Organization: Motorola CCRD
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 15:47:13 GMT
Message-ID: <1995Aug1.154713.21237@schbbs.mot.com>
References: <3v4eog$5re@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <3v7pm2$f3b@belfort.daimi.aau.dk> <3vabr8$ut@toves.cs.city.ac.uk>
Sender: news@schbbs.mot.com (SCHBBS News Account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 182.1.17.13
Lines: 26
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:132411 comp.ai:32070 comp.ai.philosophy:31170

In article <3vabr8$ut@toves.cs.city.ac.uk>,
Michael Jampel <jampel@cs.city.ac.uk> wrote:
)Carsten Kalles| Agger <agger@daimi.aau.dk> wrote:
)
)>It is important to notice that the uncertainty principle imposes 
)>limitations on which physical quantities may be defined, which observation
)>ultimately leads to the conclusion, that the observed phenomenon depends
)>upon the experimental situation, i.e. conditions fixed by the observer.
)
)I thought that the proof of the uncertainty principle talked about
)standard deviations of statistical measurements on _ensembles_ i.e.
)collections of `identically prepared entities'. It is not at all clear
)that it is even coherent to talk about the uncertainty in two
)measurements of a _single_ particle. Or is there a more recent proof,
)which actaually proves what everyone misleading calls the uncertainty
)principle?
)
)Michael

Hmm - well, in some sense I think you may be right, QM is about ensembles
in that it makes statistical predictions.

However, it's pretty common nowadays to think of pure states as not
really being about ensembles, and this is more-or-less a coherent 
interpretation AFAIK.

