[ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link BetweenQuantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty.

scerir scerir at alice.it
Tue Dec 7 17:43:22 UTC 2010

> QM is the ultimate pragmatist's theory: we disdain it, we don't understand it, but we
> use it, and it works great.  If QM didn't work so well, no one would take it seriously.
> spike

I can only add few, but salty, quotes!

The underlying error may be the conviction that the system itself has to be represented in
order to represent our actions upon it. In quantum theory we represent actual operations
and the relations among them, not a hypothetical reality on which they act. Quantum theory
is a theory of actuality, not reality. I have taken this term from Whitehead's writings.
-David Finkelstein, in 'The State of Quantum Physics'.

Unfortunately, quantum theory is incompatible with the proposition that "measurements" are
processes by means of which we discover some unknown but preexisting reality.
-Asher Peres, "What is a state vector?" , Am. J. Phys. 52 (7), July 1984

We are thus led to the conclusion that the _psi_ symbol (the so-called "state" or
"wavefunction") is not an attribute of a _system_ but of a _procedure_. A single physical
system has no state. One might be tempted to say that a system prepared by procedure _psi_
"is in state _psi_". However, this seemingly innocuous phrase leads to paradoxes whenever
a measurement is performed and the state "collapses", as shown in Sec.II.
-Asher Peres, "What is a state vector?" , Am. J. Phys. 52 (7), July 1984

Schrödinger was wrong. Entanglement is not the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics.
Entanglement is a symptom. It points to a deeper mystery. This mystery is the fact that no
property is a possessed property unless it is measured.
-Ulrich Mohrhoff

In an experiment the state reflects not what is actually known about the system, but
rather what is knowable, in principle, with the help of auxiliary measurements that do not
disturb the original experiment. By focusing on what is knowable in principle, and
treating what is known as largely irrelevant, one completely avoids the anthropomorphism
and any reference to consciousness that some physicists have tried to inject into quantum
-Leonard Mandel (Rev. Mod. Phys.,1999, p.S-274)

The superposition of amplitudes is only valid if there is no way to know, even in
principle, which path the particle took. It is important to realize that this does not
imply that an observer actually takes note of what happens. It is sufficient to destroy
the interference pattern, if the path information is accessible in principle from the
experiment or even if it is dispersed in the environment and beyond any technical
possibility to be recovered, but in principle 'still out there'.
-Anton Zeilinger, (Rev. Mod. Phys., 1999, p. S-288)

Either the wavefunction, as given by the Schroedinger equation, is not everything, or it
is not right.
-J.S.Bell, 'Are there quantum jumps', in 'Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics'

Years ago [1993], I once argued that the many-worlds doesn't seem compatible with Occam's
razor principle. As answer I got the following: "Occam's razor should not be applied to
the physical world, but be applied to the Schroedinger equation; don't add any term to
this beautiful equation" [D. Zeh]. The linearity of the Schroedinger equation was assumed
more real than our physical Universe!
-Nicolas Gisin

Interpretations of quantum mechanics, unlike Gods, are not jealous, and thus it is safe to
believe in more than one at the same time. So if the many-worlds interpretation makes it
easier to think about the research you're doing in April, and the Copenhagen
interpretation makes it easier to think about the research you're doing in June, the
Copenhagen interpretation is not going to smite you for praying to the many-worlds
interpretation. At least I hope it won't, because otherwise I'm in big trouble.
-Peter Shor

>From these two basic ideas alone -- indefiniteness and the superposition principle -- it
should be clear already that quantum mechanics conflicts sharply with common sense. If the
quantum state of a system is a complete description of the system, then a quantity that
has an indefinite value in that quantum state is objectively indefinite; its value is not
merely unknown by the scientist who seeks to describe the system. Furthermore, since the
outcome of a measurement of an objectively indefinite quantity is not determined by the
quantum state, and yet the quantum state is the complete bearer of information about the
system, the outcome is strictly a matter of objective chance -- not just a matter of
chance in the sense of unpredictability by the scientist. Finally, the probability of each
possible outcome of the measurement is an objective probability. Classical physics did not
conflict with common sense in these fundamental ways.
-Abner Shimony

Basically, quantum mechanics is the operating system that other physical theories run on
as application software (with the exception of general relativity, which hasn't yet been
successfully ported to this particular OS).
-Scott Aaronson

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list