اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدComment on Healeys Quantum Theory and the Limits of Objectivity
223
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
In this comment we critically review an argument against the existence of objective physical outcomes, recently proposed by R. Healey [Foundations of Physics, 48(11), 1568-1589]. We show that his gedankenexperiment, based on a combination of Wigners friend scenarios and Bells inequalities, suffers from the main criticism, that the computed correlation functions entering the Bells inequality are in principle experimentally inaccessible, and hence the authors claim is not verifiable. We discuss perspectives for fixing that by adapting the proposed protocol and show that this, however, makes Healeys argument virtually equivalent to other previous, similar proposals that he explicitly criticises.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
In a recent paper (arXiv:2107.04761), Sen critiques a superdeterministic model of quantum physics, Invariant Set Theory, proposed by one of the authors. He concludes that superdeterminism is `unlikely to solve the puzzle posed by the Bell correlation
s. He also claims that the model is neither local nor $psi$-epistemic. We here detail multiple problems with Sens argument.
Why Im not happy with how Relational Quantum Mechanics has addressed the reconstruction of quantum theory, and why you shouldnt be either.
Recently Drummond and Hillery [Phys. Rev.A 59, 691(1999)] presented a quantum theory of dispersion based on the analysis of a coupled system of the electromagnetic field and atoms in the multipolar QED formulation. The theory has led to the explicit
mode-expansions for various field-operators in a homogeneous medium characterized by an arbitrary number of resonant transitions with different frequencies. In this Comment, we drawn attention to a similar multipolar study by Juzeliunas [Phys. Rev.A 53, 3543 (1996); 55, 929 (1997)] on the field quantization in a discrete molecular (or atomic) medium. A comparative analysis of the two approaches is carried out, highlighting both common and distinctive features.
It is argued that the traditional realist methodology of physics, according to which human concepts, laws and theories can grasp the essence of reality, is incompatible with the most fruitful interpretation of quantum formalism. The proof rests on th
e violation by quantum mechanics of the foundational principles of that methodology. An alternative methodology, in which the construction of sciences finishes at the level of human experience, as standard quantum theory strongly suggests, is then conjectured.
In this letter, we point to three widely accepted challenges that the quantum theory, quantum information, and quantum foundations communities are currently facing: indeterminism, the semantics of conditional probabilities, and the spooky action at a
distance. We argue that these issues are fundamentally rooted in conflations commonly made between causal dependencies, counterfactual dependencies, and statistical dependencies. We argue that a simple, albeit somewhat uncomfortable shift of viewpoint leads to a way out of the impossibility to extend the theory beyond indeterminism, and towards the possibility that sound extensions of quantum theory, possibly even deterministic yet not super-deterministic, will emerge in the future. The paradigm shift, which we present here, involves a non-trivial relaxation of the commonly accepted mathematical definition of free choice, leading to non-Nashian free choice, more care with the choice of probabilistic notations, and more rigorous use of vocabulary related to causality, counterfactuals, and correlations, which are three concepts of a fundamentally different nature.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
