Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T07:33:26.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impossibility of Accurate State Self-Measurements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Thomas Breuer
Thomas Breuer*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is shown that it is impossible for an observer to distinguish all present states of a system in which he or she is contained, irrespective of whether this system is a classical or a quantum mechanical one and irrespective of whether the time evolution is deterministic or stochastic. As a corollary, this implies that it is impossible for an observer to measure the EPR-correlations between himself or herself and an outside system. Implications of the main result are discussed for how we have to conceive of universally valid theories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 197 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to Jeremy Butterfield, Dennis Dieks, Joseph Melia, Peter Mittelstaedt, Michael Redhead, and an anonymous referee for comments on drafts of this paper.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, Peterhouse, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1RD, England.

References

Albert, D. Z. (1983), “On Quantum-mechanical Automata”, Physics Letters A 98: 249–25210.1016/0375-9601(83)90863-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, D. Z. (1987), “A Quantum Mechanical Automation”, Philosophy of Science 57: 577–58510.1086/289406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D. (1951), Quantum Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
Busch, P. (1982), “Indeterminacy Relations and Simultaneous Measurements in Quantum Theory”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 24: 63–9210.1007/BF00670074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalla Chiara, M. L. (1977), “Logical Self-Reference, Set Theoretical Paradoxes and the Measurement Problem”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 6: 331–34710.1007/BF00262066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47: 777–78010.1103/PhysRev.47.777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, D. (1988), “Finite Physics”, in Herken, R. (ed.): The Universal Turing Machine. A Half-Century Survey, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 349–375Google Scholar
Komar, A. (1964), “Undecidability of Macroscopically Distinguishable States in Quantum Field Theory”, Physical Review 133B: 542–54410.1103/PhysRev.133.B542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelstaedt, P. (1993), “Measurement induced interrelations between quantum theory and its interpretation”, in P. Busch, P. Mittelstaedt, and P. Lahti: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1993, Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 269–280Google Scholar
Mittelstaedt, P., Prieur, A., and Schieder, R. (1987), “Unsharp Particle Wave Duality in a Photon Split-Beam Experiment”, Foundations of Physics 17: 891–90310.1007/BF00734319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrose, R. (1989), The Emperor's New Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press 10.1093/oso/9780198519737.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peres, A. and Zurek, W. H. (1982), “Is Quantum Mechanics Universally Valid?”, American Journal of Physics 50: 807–81010.1119/1.13086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1950), “Indeterminism in Classical Physics and Quantum Physics”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1: 173–19510.1093/bjps/I.3.173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primas, H. (1979), “Foundations of Theoretical Chemistry”, in Quantum Dynamics of Molecules: The new Experimental Challenge to the Theorist, NATO Advanced Studies Series Vol. 57, New York: Plenum Press, pp. 41–113Google Scholar
Primas, H. (1990), “Mathematical and Philosophical Questions in the Theory of Open Quantum Systems”, in Miller, A. I. (ed.): Sixty-two Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical and Physics Inquiries into the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, New York: Plenum10.1007/978-1-4684-8771-8_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roessler, O. E. (1987), “Endophysics”, in Casti, J. L. and Karlqvist, A. (eds.): Real Brains—Artificial Minds, New York: North-Holland, pp. 25–46Google Scholar
Rothstein, J. (1964), “Thermodynamics and Some Undecidable Physical Questions”, Philosophy of Science 31: 40–4810.1086/287976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, E. (1908), “Zur Theorie der linearen und nichtlinearen Integralgleichungen”, Mathematische Annalen 63: 433–476, and 64: 161–17410.1007/BF01449770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A. (1956), Logics, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: ClarendonGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A. (1969), “Truth and Proof”, Scientific American 220: 63–7710.1038/scientificamerican0669-63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed