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 [email protected] ha scritto: > > > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 4:10:30 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4/24/2018 12:03 AM, [email protected] 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 [email protected] > mailto:[email protected] . > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > mailto:[email protected] . > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
