So I asked GPT5 about Barandes Minimal Modal interpretation. This
is what it said:
🧠 MMI (Minimal Modal Interpretation): Core Ideas
Barandes’ *Minimal Modal Interpretation* is a /realist/, /minimalistic/,
and /dynamically robust/ interpretation that avoids many of the
traditional problems with other modal interpretations. Key features:
1.
*Ontic states*: The actual state of a quantum system is one of the
eigenstates of its density matrix — this is the system’s *real,
definite state* (ontic state).
2.
*No collapse*: MMI maintains *unitary evolution* (no special
collapse process) — but identifies one of the possible states as
"actually real."
3.
*Contextual ontology*: The real state is relative to the *system's
entanglement context*, meaning: what is "real" depends on the
system's interaction with its environment.
4.
*Probabilistic realism*: The interpretation accepts that we may not
know the ontic state, but one of them is real — governed by
probabilities from the density matrix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
🎯 Applying MMI to the Two-Slit Experiment
🟢 1. *Before any measurement (no which-way info)*
*
The particle's wavefunction includes a *superposition* of both slits.
*
The *density matrix* represents this superposed state.
*
In MMI, *no definite slit-path ontic state* is assigned because
there's *no interaction* that entangles the particle with a
measuring device or environment that distinguishes the slits.
*
The *interference pattern* results because the system evolves
*unitarily* and the real ontic state encompasses both paths.
✅ *No which-way information → interference appears*, because the
real ontic state reflects a coherent superposition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
🔴 2. *When which-way information is obtained*
*
Placing a detector near the slits *entangles* the particle with the
measurement apparatus (or environment).
*
This changes the *reduced density matrix* of the particle into a
*mixed state* — corresponding to a classical probability mixture of
“went through slit A” or “slit B.”
*
Now, in MMI, *one of these eigenstates is the ontic state*: the
particle actually went through *one slit* or the other, even if we
don’t know which.
*
Because coherence is lost (off-diagonal terms in the density matrix
vanish), *no interference pattern* forms.
✅ *Which-way information → definite ontic state assigned to one
slit*, destroying interference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
🔑 Key Role of "Which-Way" Information in MMI
*
*Which-way detection entangles* the particle with a system that
decoheres the superposition.
*
This shifts the density matrix from a *pure superposed state* to a
*mixed state*, forcing MMI to assign a *definite (ontic) slit-path
state*.
*
The availability of which-way information (even if unobserved!)
changes the *context* and alters what ontic states can be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
🧩 Summary
*Barandes’ MMI explains the two-slit experiment* by focusing on how the
*quantum system’s ontic state depends on entanglement and decoherence*:
*
No which-way info → ontic state reflects *superposition* →
*interference* occurs.
*
Which-way info → ontic state reflects *definite slit path* → *no
interference*.
It preserves realism by saying the particle always has a real state, but
that state depends on the system’s *quantum correlations*, not on
subjective observation.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/242027cd-6438-4e5e-9f47-b4ea667e98fa%40gmail.com.
