Ok, thanks for clarifying! Then I think I see your perspective and logic. I think its nice but It still leaves many questions in my perspective unanswererd though. My take on objectivity and inference seems different. And your view IS the more consesus one.A. Neumaier said:The only agent that matters in an objective approach to physics is the scientific community as a whole. This community has access to all data (available at a given time) and makes decisions on what is true based on accepted statistical reasoning. This makes it objective to the extent that science can be objective
Nice summary!A. Neumaier said:The point of my paper is a proper conceptual foundation of quantum physics with the same characteristic features as classical physics - except that the density operator takes the place of the phase space coordinates.
Morbert said:explain the electrical characteristics in terms of quantities like local densities of states...
Definitely explaining. E.g. we might observe some undesired electrical characteristic like a poor subthreshold swing, or a high off-state current, or early onset of ambipolar current. We learn why this is happening by studying quantities and processes in the FET (Maybe electrons are tunnelling across the short-channel barrier, or into the valence band due to a poorly tuned band gap. Or maybe inelastic phonon scattering assists band-to-band tunnelling etc). And we anticipate which devices won't suffer from these problems based on these insights.physika said:Explain or describing ?
Demystifier said:Is there a simplified version of your theory for "dummies"?
The Christmas holidays helped a lot to finally get the task done...A. Neumaier said:Not yet, but I'll try to create something. It will take some time since simplification is hard work...
I just put a revised version (v3) of the paper on the arXiv, which will appear there tomorrow. In addition I created the requested/promised Ariadne's thread as an Insight article which is currently on Review. Unfortunately, to maintain understandability, I haven't managed to completely avoid formulas in the Ariadne's thread, but the text/formula ratio is very large, probably ##>100##.A. Neumaier said:What I'll add is a formula-free Ariadne's thread for dummies.
Done. To make the paper a pleasure to read for philosophobists like you, the philosophical part has been completely separated from the physics and is placed in the revised v3 at the very end!vanhees71 said:What would help a lot were a clear statement of what you call "first principles" and then a derivation of the POVM and the more conventional special case of projective measurements without too much philosophy in between.
You can now find it here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.05294A. Neumaier said:I just put a revised version (v3) of the paper on the arXiv, which will appear there tomorrow.