On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 5:57:53 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > 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 >
I was able to download it, but already paid the 10 bucks. *:- ( *How is your special problem doing? AG > Il 24 aprile 2018 alle 18.24 [email protected] <javascript:> 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 > > > > > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
