Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Quantum Foundations
Measurement and Macroscopicity: Overcoming Conceptual Imprecision in Quantum Measurement Theory
arXiv
Authors: Gregg Jaeger
Year
2017
Paper ID
44430
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
182
Citations
N/A
Abstract
John S. Bell is well known for the result now referred to simply as "Bell's theorem," which removed from serious consideration by physics of local hidden-variable theories. Under these circumstances, if quantum theory is to serve as a truly {\em fundamental} theory, conceptual precision in its interpretation is not only even more desirable but paramount. John Bell was accordingly concerned about what he viewed as conceptual imprecision, from the physical point of view, in the standard approaches to the theory. He saw this as most acute in the case of their treatment of {\em measurement at the level of principle}. Bell pointed out that conceptual imprecision is reflected in the terminology of the theory, a great deal of which he deemed worthy of banishment from discussions of principle. For him, it corresponded to a set of what he saw as vague and, in some instances, outright destructive concepts. Here, I consider this critique of standard quantum measurement theory and some alternative treatments wherein he saw greater conceptual precision, and make further suggestions as to how to proceed along the lines he advocated.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.