Max Jammer, on pages 226-227 of his The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics quotes Margenau's "four major reasons for rejection of the projection postulate:"

Henry Margenau's Four Major Reasons for Rejecting the QM Projection Postulate as Enunciated by Max Jammer in His Chapter 6 Extended Discussion of EPR and EPR. Quoted text taken from Max Jammer's 1974 The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics.	Doug's Critical Assessments Unremediated	Doug's Critical Assessments QELRed
1. "It introduces a peculiar asymmetry of time into quantum mechanical description, since according to the postulate the state of the system is completely determined only after the measurement."	Both Henry Margenau and Max Jammer (we'll call them HMMJ) use classical terminology which is bothersome and problematic in Quantonics' version of quantum philosophy and science. They use CTMs and we use QTMs. We show their thelogos in italics. Italicization of 'after' is Jammer's (Margenau's). Note that 'after' (singular, active-passive voice) implies an unitemporal arrow of temporality. Their time is classically homogeneous because they assume that space is a time proxy. But they only allow one temporal 'dimension' attending three space di-mensions. Allow us to mark their CTM words in bold red and comment on them here. Their use of asymmetry regarding time appears related to Margenau's notions of temporally homogeneous a posteriori vis-à-vis a priori. They appear to be saying that the projection postulate insists on classical homogeneous a posteriori, i.e., after, retrospective measurement: measurement based upon historical evidence and hinting classical determinate cause and effect. Also if we take asymmetry to mean classically 'not symmetric,' then we have another issue: classicists, including Margenau and Jammer, assume that classical negation is ideally objective (see also cancel), but it is not. Rather negation is quantum sorso~fractal~subjective (i.e., e.g., -1iei). We should use a more quantum omnisymmetry instead. (Readers should note that a classical dialectical notion of asymmetry is technically a 'form' of a more classically 'general 'disymmetry.' Please compare among classical 'asymmetry,' dissymmetry,' and our "nongrammatical" 'disymmetry.' Some classicists may insist that "there is no such word." Our view is that 'asymmetry,' 'dissymmetry,' and 'nonsymmetry' are similar. A classical notion of 'disymmetry' suggests, for us anyway, dyadic juxtaposition of some 'paired' symmetry relations. Doug - 1Jan2007.) It is fairly easy to see why we call such CTM thing-king "local realism" and "naïve realism." Their use of asymmetry is a dichon, an ideal classical either-or (EOOO). We can only thingk like that in a dialectical homogeneous spatio-temporal extensity. In such cases we tend to visualize probability di-stributions transversely too, like 2D Gaussian distributions. But quantum reality is dimensionality borne of parentally ontological parthenogenetic omniisoflux (AKA QVF). So our quantum probability distributions are dimensional, and better visualized as animate, EIMA omnispherical distributions (a ~fuzz ball of ~fuzz balls, ~fuzz¤ns), with modal subspheres representing most probable position, momentum, etc. distribution ~ surface~locales. HMMJ assume a classical reality which is formal, mechanical, dialectical, etc. HMMJ assume a classical reality which is analytically stoppable and thus has state. HMMJ assume classical completeness means mathematics can represent an assumed physical reality and any physical entity can be completely and objectively represented mechanically using mathematics. (In Quantonics we depict classical completeness otherwise as: classical absoluteness is both classical completeness and classical consistency with completeness saying "states all truths" and consistency saying "always states the truth." Our quantum analogues are completeness means "changes all," and consistency means "always changes.") HMMJ are both aware of enormous issues and problematics surrounding classical determinism. However, when they apply mathematics, they tend to default to classical notions of inductive, i.e., retrospective determinism (assumes a single, unitemporal, state-ic historical, socially-classico-logically-positive-consensual conspective). Readers should absorb Jammer's entire text to gain his sense of determinism. We disclose a modicum of Margenau's views on determinism here. For more on cause and determinism, see our 2003 cause and affectation compared; see our much earlier Aug2001QQA effort on cause-effect. Jammer's entire text paws and prods profound piles of concerns regarding classical vis-à-vis quantum measurement notions and memeos. They pretty much distill to CTMs vis-à-vis QTMs and thingk vis-à-vis think. Of course, in Quantonics, we view measurement as transcending epistemology and thus not anthropocentric. We agree with Henri Bergson, that measurement is quantum processings of monitoring quantum processings and thus nonanalytical, "One may not classically scalar magnitude stop, sample, and classically measure quantum processings." See omnitor. Assessment: we see both HMMJ harboring invalid classical notions and methods regarding time and temporal asymmetry.	Both Henry Margenau and Max Jammer (we'll call them HMMJ) use classical terminology which is bothersome and problematic in Quantonics' værsi¤n ¤f quantum phil¤s¤phy amd scihænce. They use CTMs amd wæ uhsæ QTMs. We show their thelogos in italics. Italicization of 'after' is Jammer's (Margenau's). Note that 'after' (singular, active-passive voice) implies an unitemporal arrow of temporality. Their time is classically homogeneous because they assume that space is a time proxy. But they only allow one temporal 'dimension' attending three space di-mensions. Allow us to mark their CTM words in bold red and comment on them here. Their use of asymmetry regarding time appears related to Margenau's notions of temporally homogeneous a posteriori vis-à-vis a priori. They appear to be saying that the projection postulate insists on classical homogeneous a posteriori, i.e., after, retrospective measurement: measurement based upon historical evidence and hinting classical determinate cause and effect. Also if we take asymmetry to mean classically 'not symmetric,' then we have another issue: classicists, including Margenau and Jammer, assume that classical negation is ideally objective (see also cancel), but iht issi n¤t. Rather nægati¤n issi quantum s¤rs¤~frahctal~subjectihvæ (i.e., e.g., -1iei). Wæ sh¤uld uhsæ a m¤re quantum ¤mnisymmætry ihnstead. (Readers should note that a classical dialectical notion of asymmetry is technically a 'form' of a more classically 'general 'disymmetry.' Please compare among classical 'asymmetry,' dissymmetry,' and our "nongrammatical" 'disymmetry.' Some classicists may insist that "there is no such word." Our view is that 'asymmetry,' 'dissymmetry,' and 'nonsymmetry' are similar. A classical notion of 'disymmetry' suggests, for us anyway, dyadic juxtaposition of some 'paired' symmetry relations.. Doug - 1Jan2007.) It is fairly easy to see why we call such CTM thing-king "local realism" and "naïve realism." Their use of asymmetry is a dichon, an ideal classical either-or (EOOO). We can only thingk like that in a dialectical homogeneous spatio-temporal extensity. In such cases we tend to visualize probability di-stributions transversely too, like 2D Gaussian distributions. But quantum ræhlihty issi ¤mnimænsi¤nalihty b¤rne ¤f paræntahlly ¤nt¤l¤gihcal parthæn¤gænætihc ¤mniis¤flux (AKA QVF). S¤ ¤ur quantum pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns aræ ¤mnimænsi¤nal, amd bættær visualihzæd as anihmatæ, EIMA ¤mnisphærihcal ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns (a ~fuzz bahll ¤f ~fuzz bahlls, ~fuzz¤ns), wihth m¤dal subqsphæræs ræpræsænting m¤st pr¤bable p¤sihti¤n, m¤mæntum, etc. ¤mnistrihbuti¤n ~ surfacæ~l¤cales. HMMJ assume a classical reality which is formal, mechanical, dialectical, etc. HMMJ assume a classical reality which is analytically stoppable and thus has state. HMMJ assume classical completeness means mathematics can represent an assumed physical reality and any physical entity can be completely and objectively represented mechanically using mathematics. (In Quantonics we depict classical completeness otherwise as: classical absoluteness is both classical completeness and classical consistency with completeness saying "states all truths" and consistency saying "always states the truth." Our quantum anahlogues aræ c¤mplætæness mæans "changæs ahll," amd comsistæncy mæans "ahlways changæs.") HMMJ are both aware of enormous issues and problematics surrounding classical determinism. However, when they apply mathematics, they tend to default to classical notions of inductive, i.e., retrospective determinism (assumes a single, unitemporal, state-ic historical, socially-classico-logically-positive-consensual conspective). Readers should absorb Jammer's entire text to gain his sense of determinism. We disclose a modicum of Margenau's views on determinism here. For more on cause and determinism, see our 2003 cause and affectation compared; see our much earlier Aug2001QQA effort on cause-effect. Jammer's entire text paws and prods profound piles of concerns regarding classical vis-à-vis quantum measurement notions and memeos. They pretty much distill to CTMs vis-à-vis QTMs and thingk vis-à-vis thinkq. Of c¤urse, ihn Quantonics, wæ vihew ¤mniht¤rmænt as transcænding epistemology and thus n¤t anthropocentric. We agree with Henri Bergson, that ¤mniht¤rmænt issi quantum pr¤cæssings ¤f ømniht¤ring quantum pr¤cæssings amd thuhs n¤nanahlytihcal, "Onæ may n¤t classically scalar magnitude stop, sample, and classically measure quantum pr¤cæssings." See omnitor. Assessment: we see both HMMJ harboring invalid classical notions and methods regarding time and temporal asymmetry.
2. "It contradicts the more fundamental Schrödinger equation of motion. If, for example, the position of a particle in a definite momentum state is measured by means of the coordinate measurement operator M, the state is suddenly converted into a -function: M=.                      (46) "Since, however, the measurement is undoubtedly a physical operation, the process must be describable as an interaction between physical systems in terms of the ordinary formalism. If Ho denotes the interaction-free Hamiltonian, Hm the interaction with the measuring device, and H=Ho+Hm, then                      (47) "Assuming that the time t of the interaction, transforming into = + is small, we obtain                 (48) "and (49) "or (50) "Since in (46) is unpredictable, M cannot be a unique operator as usually encountered in the formalism. The left-hand side of (50), however, represents a unique operator whatever the specific form of Hm may be."	We have to be rude here. Classical 'equality' is an invalid notion in quantum reality. Ditto, e.g., A=A 'identity.' Momentum and state together is a classical oxymoron. Interaction is an objective, mechanical, physical, substance-based, classical 'force legacy.' Suppose M, , and are absolutely, perpetually, quantum animate and thus unstoppable. Then M!   They treat i as objective. It is, rather, quantum processings subjective. Classically, i is an state-ic either-or. Quantumly, i are both~and EIMA processings interrelationships. t is a quantum process, not a classical scalar magnitude. t assumes t is an independent classical 'variable.' One t fits all classical reality! No quantum phenomena are ideally 'independent' of any~all other quantum phenomena. As Bergson has shown us 'independence' is a classical illusion, a classical self-delusion, a deign to feign. And quantum timings are heterogeneous, by observation and direct experience. They treat '1' as a ubiquitous context-free constant. Physially, in quantum reality, all ones are processes and absolutely context specific. No two quantum 'one' processes are ever identical longer than a few Planck moments. They use '+' as analytic addition, but quantons are not classically synthetic: they are absolutely animate and compenetrate one another. That is what waves do. Waves are compenetrating~superposing animate probability distributions! Classical objects are not waves by definition and do not change by definition (are immutable except by unitemporal motion and reducible, differentiable-integrable mechanically-manufactured intervention). Uses of classical notions of state, stoppability, formal analyticity, objectivity, etc. invalidate their application of mathematics here. Assessment: we cannot use classical mathematics to model, represent, measure, stop, and analyze quantum reality. See our quantum subjective Hamiltonian for one memeotic of a less mechanical approach to mathematics.	We have to be rude here. Classical 'equality' is an invalid notion in quantum reality. Ditto, e.g., A=A 'identity.' Momentum and state together is a classical oxymoron. Interaction is an objective, mechanical, physical, substance-based, classical 'force legacy.' Suhpp¤se M, , and aræ abs¤lutæly, pærpætuahlly, quantum anihmatæ amd thuhs umst¤ppable. Then M!   They treat i as objective. Iht issi, rather, quantum pr¤cæssings subqjæctihvæ. Classically, i is an state-ic either-or. Quantumly, i aræ b¤th~amd EIMA pr¤cæssings ihnterrelati¤nships. t issi a quantum pr¤cæss, n¤t a classical scalar magnitude. t assumes t is an independent classical 'variable.' One t fits all classical reality! N¤ quantum phen¤mæna aræ ideally 'independent' ¤f any~ahll ¤thær quantum phen¤mæna. As Bergson has shown us 'independence' is a classical illusion, a classical self-delusion, a deign to feign. And quantum timings aræ heterogæne¤uhs, by ¤bservati¤n amd diræct epæriænce. They treat '1' as a ubiquitous context-free constant. Physiahlly, ihn quantum ræhlihty, ahll ¤næs aræ pr¤cæsses amd abs¤lutæly comtext spæcihfihc. N¤ tw¤ quantum '¤næ' pr¤cæsses aræ ævær ihdæntihcal l¤nger than a fæw Plahnck m¤mænts. They use '+' as analytic addition, but quantons aræ n¤t classically synthetic: they aræ abs¤lutæly anihmatæ amd c¤mpænetratæ ¤næ an¤thær. That issi what wavæs d¤. Wavæs aræ c¤mpænetrating~supærposing anihmatæ pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns! Classical objects are not waves by definition and do not change by definition (are immutable except by unitemporal motion and reducible, differentiable-integrable mechanically-manufactured intervention). Uses of classical notions of state, stoppability, formal analyticity, objectivity, etc. invalidate their application of mathematics here. Assessment: wæ cann¤t use classical mathematics to model, represent, measure, stop, and analyze quantum ræhlihty. See our quantum subjective Hamiltonian for one memeotic of a less mechanical approach to mathematics.
3. "Since a wave function such as is, strictly speaking, a probability distribution, its determination requires a very large number of observations and cannot be determined by a single measurement as the projection postulate contends."	This is profound! We see Margenau saying, flat out, that quantum and classical measurement are incompatible with one another. In order for quantum reality to work, in general, we may not view it classically. Quantum reality is flux and wave manifestations of that flux. To say reality is classically objective and that properties of objects are analytic scalar magnitudes denies quantum reality. Rather, we must deny reality as classical in any sense other than apparition. When we make a quantum measurement we are measuring waves. Waves are probability distributions! Waves are implicitly, innately, and intrinsically quantum real heterogeneities (quantum stage imagine our dimensional probability distributions above as waves). We cannot measure a classical objective property! Classical objective properties do not exist in quantum reality! Assessment: cease using CTMs and commence using QTMs.	This is profound! We see Margenau saying, flat out, that quantum and classical measurement are incompatible with one another. In order for quantum reality to work, in general, we may not view it classically. Quantum ræhlihty issi flux amd wavæ manihfestati¤ns ¤f that flux. To say reality is classically objective and that properties of objects are analytic scalar magnitudes denies quantum ræhlihty. Rather, we must deny reality as classical in any sense other than apparition. Whæn wæ makæ a quantum ¤mniht¤rmænt wæ aræ ¤mniht¤ring wavæs. Wavæs aræ pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns! Wavæs aræ ihmplihcihtly, ihnnatæly, amd ihntrinsihcahlly quantum ræhl hætær¤gæneihties (quantum stage ihmagine ¤ur ¤mnimænsi¤nal pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns ab¤ve as wavæs). Wæ cann¤t measure a classical objective property! Classical objective properties d¤ n¤t eist ihn quantum ræhlihty! Assessment: cease using CTMs and commence using QTMs.
4. "The postulate is not only undesirable and in conflict with other axioms, it is also unnecessary, for, according to Margenau, no physically significant quantum mechanical calculation requires its validity."	Essentially, quantum mechanics' projection postulate demands collapse, reduction, stoppability of a quantum wave. Some classicists view decoherence as ideal classical collapse, reduction, stoppability of quantum waves. But quantum reality is not stoppable, not reducible, not collapsible. Quantum waves change and tentatively 'latch' patterns which appear as classically ideal objects, but those are only apparitions and thus not quantum real. Assessment: quantum waves and their distributions do not collapse, classically. "...physically significant quantum mechanical calculation..." has no classical means of "...requiring any validity." See Bases of Judgment. Quantum reality is not classically mechanical. We cannot use mechanics to quantum realistically describe quantum reality. Using mechanics to describe quantum reality is like using flatland to describe 3D, 4D, and ND realities. See collodion. See Prince Louis de Broglie on "matter waves." Doug - 17Jul2007	Essentially, quantum mechanics' projection postulate demands collapse, reduction, stoppability of a quantum wave. Some classicists view decoherence as ideal classical collapse, reduction, stoppability of quantum waves. But quantum ræhlihty issi n¤t st¤ppable, n¤t ræducible, n¤t c¤llapsible. Quantum wavæs changæ amd tæntatihvæly 'latch' pattærns which appæar as classically ideal objects, but those are only apparitions amd thuhs n¤t quantum ræhl. Assessment: quantum wavæs amd their ¤mnistrihbuti¤ns d¤ n¤t collapse, classically. "...physically significant quantum mechanical calculation..." has no classical means of "...requiring any validity." See Bases of Judgment. Quantum ræhlihty issi n¤t classihcahlly mæchanihcal. Wæ cann¤t uhsæ mechanics t¤ quantum ræhlistihcahlly ¤mniscrihbæ quantum ræhlihty. Using mechanics to describe quantum ræhlihty issi like using flatland to describe 3D, 4D, and ND realities. See collodion. See Prince Louis de Broglie on "matter waves." Doug - 17Jul2007

Doug - 22May2004.

Notes:

Note 1 -

©Quantonics, Inc., 2004-2026 — Rev. 22Apr2014  PDR — Created 22May2004  PDR
(31May2004 rev - Add item 1 commentary link to 'fuzzon.')
(21Jun2004 rev - Add page top link to our Margenau measurement paper, What is Wrong with Probability as Value?)
(12Jul2004 rev - Remove quantum-sqrt symbol from eⁱ under topic 1 comments.)
(16Aug2004 rev - Fix inappropriate QELR of GIF 'pi' image.)
(25Oct2005 rev - Show both unremediated and QELRed text.)
(12Jan2005 rev - Alter "inductive determinism" as "inductive, i.e., retrospective determinism.")
(14Mar2004 rev - Extend last edit to link to 'affectation,' and Aug2001QQA.)
(10Aug2005 rev - Repair a singular vav plural grammatical issue in our item 4 comments.)
(1Jan2007 rev - Minor typos. Add red text comments on classical notions of 'disymmetry.' Fix an 'omni' EOL-[B][O][L] conjunction problem.)
(17Jul2007 rev - Add 'matter waves' link in last table row. Reset legacy red text.)
(5May2008 rev - Reformat slightly. Reset legacy red text.)
(3Nov2008 rev - Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups.)
(27Mar2009 rev - Add some crucial links which have become available since this treatise was written.)
(22Jun2010 rev - Add item one 'symmetry relations' link to 'equivalence relations' descriptor on another page.)
(22Apr2014 rev - Add Hamiltonian link to Hamiltonian remediations in Doug's Creative Evolution of Quantum Systems web page.)