What Interpretation for Probability in Physics?

Sachkov Vi

Kirill Mikhaylov

The article discusses approaches to understanding the nature of probability in mathematics and physics with the consequences of these approaches, as well as the difficulties that arise. The ontological status of probability is discussed. It is shown that probability theory, contrary to R. Mises, should be classified as a mathematical science, using the definition formulated by A.N. Kolmogorov. The application of this definition in practice is provided within the framework of the classical approach, provided that the connection with physical reality is defined through the concept of equal opportunity. To do this, the concepts of simple and complex events are introduced, and the method of decomposing complex events into simple ones is explained. The point of view is substantiated, according to which a mathematical probability determined and related to physical reality in this way can be considered an objective probability, that is, existing independently of any tests. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics and approaches to understanding probability are also revealed. It is shown that in physics today the existing approaches to understanding the nature of probability contradict each other. In the Bohm interpretation, probability is an analogue of the classical approach – statistical objective probability, which has a mathematical formalization, and in quantum Bayesianism, probability quantifies the degree of reliability and depends on the subject conducting the experiment. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tries to eliminate the difficulties associated with combining the wave and corpuscular properties of light and electron beams into a single picture by giving the ontological status of probability, which leads to the problem of understanding physical reality. The article argues for the need for a new connection between the mathematical description of probability and physical reality. The empirical (frequency) approach of R. Mises is analyzed, which causes a lot of criticism, as it does not have a clear consistent formalization. The article argues that this approach is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. The probability given by M. Born in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is also considered, which formulates a new definition of probability, which does not exclude the difficulties associated with the physical interpretation of probability. Born’s approach is based on the classical approach and is reduced to a formal axiomatic definition, which assumes the interpretation of probability as a mathematical construct. The connection of probability with physical reality and the consistency of the statistical method of finding probability values remain unresolved problems, which creates a dualism of understanding probability: in mathematics – one thing, in physics – another. If in the mathematical approach, the solution of these problems is carried out through the connection of probability with physical properties, then in quantum mechanics, in the Copenhagen interpretation, problems persist, which is caused by giving the wave function an ontological status.

Romano Scozzafava

In this expository paper we discuss the role of probability in statistical physics: it should be that of a general tool guiding induction and must not be restricted only to the empirical interpretation coming from its evaluation by an observed frequency. It is true that in many cases the value of a probability can be sensibly expressed by a suitable frequency, but this does not entails that the latter can be taken as definition of probability. Moreover, in each situation in which one thinks that probabilities are physically real things and believes that something which is only “very probable” can be regarded as being “practically certain”, some “small” probabilities are actually ignored: this attitude of mind may render illegitimate also the probabilistic interpretation of the relevant physical laws. A “law” which is based on a probabilistic interpretation cannot aim at explaining why a fact that we forecast will occur, but rather at explaining why we forecast that this fact will occur. Finally, we emphasize the role of conditional probability, and we show that looking at it from the right perspective allows to avoids also classic paradoxical aspects of quantum mechanics, without the need to resort to the interpretation based on the dualism “particle-wave”.

G. Boffetta, Angelo Vulpiani

F.G. Perey

We analyze the notion that physical theories are quantitative and testable by observations in experiments. This leads us to propose a new, Bayesian, interpretation of probabilities in physics that unifies their current use in classical physical theories, experimental physics and quantum mechanics. Probabilities are the result of quantifying the domain of possibilities that results when we interpret observations within the framework of a physical theory. They could also be said to be measures of information used to make predictions based upon a physical theory.

Andy Lawrence