Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Simulation
Quantum State Preparation Representation
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Bertlmann's socks from a Viennese perspective
arXiv
Authors: Marcello Poletti
Year
2023
Paper ID
56030
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
115
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Quantum mechanics is a theory that is as effective as it is counterintuitive. While quantum practices operate impeccably, they compel us to embrace enigmatic phenomena like the collapse of the state vector and non-locality, thereby pushing us towards untenable "hypotheses non fingo" stances. However, a century after its inception, we are presented with a promising interpretive key, intimated by Wheeler as early as 1974. The interpretative paradoxes of this theory might be resolved if we discern the relationship between logical undecidability and quantum undecidability. It will be demonstrated how both are intricately linked to an observer/observed relational issue, and how the idiosyncratic behaviours of quantum physics can be reconciled with the normative, following this path.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2023 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Quantum mechanics is a theory that is as effective as it is counterintuitive.
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.