On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:14:49 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/24/2018 9:24 AM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Physics isn't mathematics. It's not required to derive everything from a > few axioms. The mathematics is invented to describe the physics, no the > other way around. If you want to understand the use of the tensor product > in quantum mechanics read this: > > > https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_08.pdf > > Equation 1.20 answers your question about singlets. > > Brent >
Thanks. This looks good. 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]. 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.
