Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T00:54:19.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Objectivity and Invariance of Quantum Predictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Gordon N. Fleming
Gordon N. Fleming*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article Itamar Pitowsky (1991) has analyzed some measurement possibilities presented by an entangled state of three spin ½ particles. From that analysis he has concluded that the valid predictions of results of possible future measurements, made by observers who actually carry out mutually space-like separated measurements, can be incompatible with one another in the sense that their conjunction contradicts the quantum theory. From this result Pitowsky infers the inherently observer specific, or relative, character of quantum predictions as opposed to the results of actual observations or measurements, which, he claims, are covariant; i.e. (I take it) compatibly translatable from one observer to another.

Type
Part III. Quantum Theory I
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1992 , 1992 , pp. 104 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

1

I wish to thank Jeremy Butterfield, Robert Cifton and Constantin Pagonis for extensive discussion which led to considerable clarification of an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Clifton, R., Pagonis, G, and Pitowsky, I. (1992), “Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and EPR”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G.N. (1965a), “Covariant Position Operators, Spin and Locality”, Physical Review 137: B188-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G.N. (1965b), “Nonlocal Properties of Stable Particles”, Physical Review 139:B963-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G.N.. (1966), “A Manifestly Covariant Description of Arbitrary Dynamical Variables in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 7: 1959-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G.N.. (1987), “Towards a Lorentz Invariant Quantum Theory of Measurement”, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fundamental Physics at the University of Puerto Rico, Rueda, A. (ed.). University of Puerto Rico, pp. 8-114. (revised version available as Penn State University preprint).Google Scholar
Fleming, G.N.. (1989), “Lorentz Invariant State Reduction and Localization”, Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings l988 volume 2, Fine, A. and Forbes, M. (eds.), pp. 112-26.Google Scholar
Fleming, G.N.. and Bennett, H. (1989), “Hyperplane Dependence in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics”, Foundations of Physics 19: 231-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G.N.. and Butterfield, J. (forthcoming), “Is There Superluminal Causation in the Bell Experiment?”, in the proceedings of the 1991 international conferance on Bell's Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics. Cesena, Italy.Google Scholar
Hegerfeldt, G.C. (1974), “Remark on Causality and Particle Localisation”, Physical Review D10: 3320-2.Google Scholar
Hegerfeldt, G.C.. (1985), “Violation of Causality in Relativistic Quantum Theory”, Physical Review Letters 54: 2395-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkowski, H. (1908), Address to the 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians, Cologne. English translation as “Space and Time.” in (1964) Problems of Space and Time, Smart, J.J. (ed.). New York: MacMillan, pp. 297-312.Google Scholar
Penrose, R. (1989), The Emporers New Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitowsky, I. (1991), “The Relativity of Quantum Predictions”. Physics Letters A 156: 137-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. (1987), Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ruijsenaars, S.N.M. (1981), “On Newton-Wigner Localization and Superluminal Propagation Speeds”, Annals of Physics 137: 33-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1986), “Events and Processes in the Quantum World.” Quantum Concepts in Space and Time Penrose, R. and Isham, C. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 182-203.Google Scholar
Shimony, A.. (1989), “Search for a Worldview Which can Accomodate our Knowledge of Microphysics.” Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, Cushing, J.T and McMullin, E. (eds.). South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 25-7.Google Scholar
Wightman, A. S. (1960), “L'Invariance dans la Mecanique Quantique Relativiste”, Dispersion Relations and Elementary Particles, Wit, C.de and Omnes, R. (eds.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 160-226.Google Scholar