Source author record

N. David Mermin

N. David Mermin appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

9works
3topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

9 published item(s)

preprint2018arXiv

Making better sense of quantum mechanics

We still lack any consensus about what one is actually talking about as one uses quantum mechanics. There is a gap between the abstract terms in which the theory is couched and the phenomena the theory enables each of us to account for so well. Because it has no practical consequences for how we each use quantum mechanics to deal with physical problems, this cognitive dissonance has managed to coexist with the quantum theory from the very beginning. The absence of conceptual clarity for almost a century suggests that the problem might lie in some implicit misconceptions about the nature of scientific explanation that are deeply held by virtually all physicists, but are rarely explicitly acknowledged. I describe here such unvoiced but widely shared assumptions. Rejecting them clarifies and unifies a range of obscure remarks about quantum mechanics made almost from the beginning by some of the giants of physics, many of whom are held to be in deep disagreement. This new view of physics requires physicists to think about science in an unfamiliar way. My primary purpose is to explain the new perspective and urge that it be taken seriously. My secondary aims are to explain why this perspective differs significantly from what Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli had been saying from the very beginning, and why it is not solipsism, as some have maintained. To emphasize that this is a general view of science, and not just of quantum mechanics, I apply it to a long-standing puzzle in classical physics: the apparent inability of physics to give any meaning to "Now" --- the present moment.

preprint2014arXiv

Why QBism is not the Copenhagen interpretation and what John Bell might have thought of it

Christopher Fuchs and RĂ¼diger Schack have developed a way of understanding science, which, among other things, resolves many of the conceptual puzzles of quantum mechanics that have vexed people for the past nine decades. They call it QBism. I speculate on how John Bell might have reacted to QBism, and I explain the many ways in which QBism differs importantly from the orthodox ways of thinking about quantum mechanics associated with the term "Copenhagen interpretation."

preprint2013arXiv

Annotated Interview with a QBist in the Making

These are my published answers to the seventeen questions posed by Max Schlosshauer in his 2011 book "Elegance and Enigma: the Quantum Interviews". I have inserted thirty footnotes into those answers, commenting on them from the perspective of subsequent insights I acquired during six weeks in March and April of 2012 with Chris Fuchs and Ruediger Schack at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study. Aside from the footnotes and a few introductory paragraphs, the text is identical to my contributions to the Schlosshauer volume.

preprint1998arXiv

What Do These Correlations Know About Reality? Nonlocality and the Absurd

In honor of Daniel Greenberger's 65th birthday I record for posterity two superb examples of his wit, offer a proof of an important theorem on quantum correlations that even those of us over 60 can understand, and suggest, by trying to make it look silly, that invoking ``quantum nonlocality'' as an explanation for such correlations may be too cheap a way out of the dilemma they pose.

preprint1996arXiv

The Ithaca Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

I list several strong requirements for what I would consider a sensible interpretation of quantum mechanics and I discuss two simple theorems. One, as far as I know, is new; the other was only noted a few years ago. Both have important implications for such a sensible interpretation. My talk will not clear everything up; indeed, you may conclude that it has not cleared anything up. But I hope it will provide a different perspective from which to view some old and vexing puzzles (or, if you believe nothing needs to be cleared up, some ancient verities.)