- Submit
-
Browse
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- More
Switch to: Citations
References in:
Add references
You must login to add references.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notion of relative compability is introduced, according to which compatibility is construed as relative to individual quantum states. The compatibility domain of two observablesA, B is defined to be the set com(A, B) of states relative to whichA andB are compatible. Three basic categories of relative compatibility are then defined according to the character of com(A, B): absolute compatibility (ordinary compatibility), absolute incompatibility, and partial compatibility. Then com(A, B) is seen to be a subspace of Hilbert space invariant underA (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
In a recent paper, Prugovečki offered a theory of simultaneous measurements based upon an axiomatic description of the measurement act which excludes certain illustrations of simultaneous measurement previously discussed by the present writers. In this article, the fundamental conceptions of state preparation, state determination, and measurement which underlie our research are compared to Prugovečki's interpretations of the analogous constructs in his theory of measurement. |
|
|
|
|
|
The projection postulate is the source of a long standing controversy in the interpretation of the axiomatic foundations of quantum mechanics. In a sense which is made precise in chapter II the projection postulate is a mathematical theorem easily derivable within the mathematical framework of the theory. This theorem receives a clear and straightforward interpretation if Luders' rule is given only statistical significance. Under the assumption that an interpretation of quantum mechanics has to provide an account of the process of (...) |
|
|
If we take the state function of quantum mechanics to describe belief states, arguments by Stairs and Friedman-Putnam show that the projection postulate may be justified as a kind of minimal change. But if the state function takes on a physical interpretation, it provides no more than what I call a fortuitous approximation of physical measurement processes, that is, an unsystematic form of approximation which should not be taken to correspond to some one univocal "measurement process" in nature. This fact (...) |
|
|
Usual derivations of Lilders's projection rule show that Liuders's rule is the rule required by quantum statistics to calculate the final state after an ideal (minimally disturbing) measurement. These derivations are at best inconclusive, however, when it comes to interpreting Liuders's rule as a description of individual state transformations. In this paper, I show a natural way of deriving Liiders's rule from well-motivated and explicit physical assumptions referring to individual systems. This requires, however, the introduction of a concept of individual (...) |
|
|
In a recent paper, Michael Friedman and Hilary Putnam argued that the Luders rule is ad hoc from the point of view of the Copenhagen interpretation but that it receives a natural explanation within realist quantum logic as a probability conditionalization rule. Geoffrey Hellman maintains that quantum logic cannot give a non-circular explanation of the rule, while Jeffrey Bub argues that the rule is not ad hoc within the Copenhagen interpretation. As I see it, all four are wrong. Given that (...) |
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-7674574dd6-42nkg uwo