I have a copy of that paper (Kennedy, 1995). You can, perhaps, download it here https://files.fm/u/4atdpe6p
I can also send the pdf privately, by email -serafino > Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 18.24 agrayson2...@gmail.com ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:14:25 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to Kennedy tensor product (in QM) has a very > > > > interesting story. > > > > > > > > https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE > > > > https://philpapers.org/rec/KENOTE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the empirical foundations of the quantum no-signalling > > > proofs > > > https://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=KENOTE&proxyId=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1086%2F289885 > > > > > > > > > J. B. Kennedy https://philpapers.org/s/J.%20B.%20Kennedy > > > Philosophy of Science > > > https://philpapers.org/asearch.pl?pub=827 62 (4):543-560 ( 1995) > > > Abstract > > > I analyze a number of the quantum no-signalling proofs > > > (Ghirardi et al. 1980, Bussey 1982, Jordan 1983, Shimony 1985, Redhead > > > 1987, Eberhard and Ross 1989, Sherer and Busch 1993). These purport to > > > show that the EPR correlations cannot be exploited for transmitting > > > signals, i.e., are not causal. First, I show that these proofs can be > > > mathematically unified; they are disguised versions of a single theorem. > > > Second, I argue that these proofs are circular. The essential theorem > > > relies upon the tensor product representation for combined systems, which > > > has no physical basis in the von Neumann axioms. Historically, the > > > construction of this representation scheme by von Neumann and Weyl built > > > no-signalling assumptions into the quantum theory. Signalling between the > > > wings of the EPR-Bell experiments is unlikely but is not ruled out > > > empirically by the class of proofs considered > > > > > > Wow! Thank you. It costs $10 to get a copy for a non-member, > > > but very likely well worth it IMO. AG > > > > > > > > I wouldn't pay $0.01 for a paper written by a guy who > > > says something is not ruled out empirically by some mathematical proofs, > > > and says something has no physical basis in axioms. He seems very > > > confused about the difference between mathematics and empiricism. > > > > Brent > > > > > > I'll pay the money and see what he has to say. He's saying the tensor > product states do not follow from the axioms of QM. Seems pretty clear even > if wrong. But you can save me the fee if you can clearly state how the tensor > product states follow from First Principles, that is, from the postulates of > QM. AG > > > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
