Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2311.06904

A Critical, But Hopefully Cordial, QBist Reply to Ballentine

Blake C. Stacey

Published Nov 12, 2023• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

L. E. Ballentine's remarks in Physics Today about the QBist interpretation of quantum mechanics are generally wide of the mark.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2311.06904

Related papers

Comment on ‘‘Probability theory in quantum mechanics’’ [L.E. Ballentine, Am. J. Phys. 5 4, 883 (1986)]

Lazar Mayants

American Journal of Physics•Jul 1, 1987•3 citations

Reply to Ernest Nagel's Criticism of My Views on Quantum Mechanics

Hans Reichenbach

The Journal of Philosophy•Apr 25, 1946•8 citations

Classicality without Decoherence: A Reply to Schlosshauer

L. E. Ballentine

Schlosshauer has criticized the conclusion of Wiebe and Ballentine (Phys. Rev. A 72:022109, 2005 ) that decoherence is not essential for the emergence of classicality from quantum mechanics. I reply to the issues raised in his critique, which range from the interpretation of quantum mechanics to the criterion for classicality, and conclude that the role of decoherence in these issues is much more restricted than is often claimed.

Foundations of Physics•Oct 1, 2008•19 citations

Reviews of quantum foundations

David Peter Divincenzo, Christopher A. Fuchs

DiVincenzo and Fuchs reply: We deeply regret our oversight of Leslie Ballentine’s influential 1970 Reviews of Modern Physics article on the ensemble interpretation. We were well aware of the paper but had not realized that it appeared in RMP so as to be appropriate for the retrospective. We apologize to Ballentine and to our readership. Section:ChooseTop of page <<© 2020 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Jun 1, 2020•0 citations

A note on the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics

Paul A. Benioff

Foundations of Physics•Oct 1, 1978•5 citations

On probabilities in quantum mechanics

Inge Svein Helland

This is an attempt to clarify certain concepts related to a debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, a debate between Khrennikov on the one hand and Stacey and Schack on the other hand. Central to this debate is the notion of quantum probabilities. I first take up the probability concept in the QBist school, as seen from my point of view, and then give my own arguments for the Born formula for calculating quantum probabilities. In that connection, I also sketch some consequences of my approach toward the foundation and interpretation of quantum theory. I discuss my general views on QBism as a possible alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics before I give some final remarks.

APL Quantum•Aug 21, 2024•8 citations
This is an attempt to clarify certain concepts related to a debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, a debate between Khrennikov on the one hand and Stacey and Schack on the other hand. Central to this debate is the notion of quantum probabilities. I first take up the probability concept in the QBist school, as seen from my point of view, and then give my own arguments for the Born formula for calculating quantum probabilities. In that connection, I also sketch some consequences of my approach toward the foundation and interpretation of quantum theory. I discuss my general views on QBism as a possible alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics before I give some final remarks.