Re: Postulates for quantum mechanics (was; Is State Vector Reduction

bjflanagan wrote:
>
>
> > >> In order to decrease the risk of confusion, I propose to use the word
> > > "physical result" when we want to attach to a real object a given
> > > property:
> > >
> > > e.g. a ball: we have a ball as a physical result (ball)
> > > e.g. the speed of a ball is x m/s: we have a physical result x m/s
> > > e.g. the colour of a ball is red: we have a physical result red
> > > e.g. the ball is moving ~ we have a physical result path(t)
>
> Notice that all the above depend on the observer's/object's state of
> motion.

I think there may be a misunderstanding concerning this point. These
are simply logical assertions (i.e. atomic propositions in the
beginning of your post). These propositions do not require, nor assume,
to have a validity outside the context where they are used. We do not
question/explain their validity (it is what I call a logical choice).
We are just able to verify their consistency through the results
obtained from a given set of consistent axioms (the physical theory).

Explaining why these properties are logically valid (assuming the
consistency within the associated theory) is outside the scope of this
logical choice. In other words, we are trying to separate the problems
with this procedure.

e.g. a ball may be a property we decide to attach to an "electron"
(logical choice). As long as nothing contradicts this property, it is
logically correct (consistent). For example the 4 previous property
examples are consistent with a classical electron (in the classical
mechanics theory context), but it is not consistent with the QM theory
(we cannot associate a classical path to a quantum object, hence we
cannot define a speed in the sense v=dq/dt). Therefore, I may say a
"classical" electron is a ball, while a "QM" electron is not a ball
(implicitly with the others properties).

Seratend.

.