Further remarks on the relations between statistical mechanics and quantum theory of measurement-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Further remarks on the relations between statistical mechanics and quantum theory of measurement

Published:1966-07 Issue:1 Volume:44 Page:119-128
ISSN:0369-3554
Container-title:Il Nuovo Cimento B Series 10
language:en
Short-container-title:Nuov Cim B

Author:

Daneri A.,Loinger A.,Prosperi G. M.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Medicine

Link

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02710429.pdf

Reference10 articles.

1. A. Daneri, A. Loinger andG. M. Prosperi:Nucl. Phys.,33, 297 (1962). For a qualitative discussion, seeP. Caldirola:Scientia,58 (Nov. 1964).

2. J. von Neumann:Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Chapts. V and VI (Princeton, 1955).

3. L. Rosenfeld:Suppl. Progr. Theor. Phys., extra n., (1965), p. 222.

4. E. P. Wigner:Am. Journ. Phys.,31, 6 (1963). This article is essentially devoted to a discussion of the merits and defects of von Neumann’s approach.

5. A. Shimony:Am. Journ. Phys.,31, 755 (1963). In this review article, the Author raises the following objections to our approach: i) The existence of large-scale quantal behaviours, as,e.g., the spin echoes and the Mössbauer effect, in which unexpected coherent contributions are obtained from the parts of macrosystems, is a caution against underestimating the ingenuity of the experimenters regarding phase relations in macrosystems; ii) from the fact that two macro-observers use the same mixture to describe the system composed of the micro-object and the measuring (macro-) apparatus prior to their respective readings, one can infer only that they make the same statistical predictions correctly characterizing an ensemble of similar situations. However, the agreement of the two observers in aspecific reading of the apparatus would be a mere coincidence. Our answers are as follows:Adv. i). — The states involved in large-scale quantal phenomena have nothing to do with themacroscopic states, which serve as final states of a measuring (macro-) apparatus. See, in particular, the examples discussed byA. Peres andN. Rosen:Phys. Rev.,135, B 1486 (1964).Adv. ii). — We think—withBohr, Jordan andLudwig (cf.e.g. Ludwig’s bookDie Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Berlin, 1954))—that quantum mechanics describes the microsystems only through their interactions with the macrosystems, which are the only systems interesting the common experience of the daily life. In our opinion, all the statements concerning the macroscopic state of a large body have a meaning independently of its observation. Weassume that two persons who look at a macroscopic body, or who perform, in particular, a reading of an apparatus, do always «see the same thing». Accordingly, the problem is only to prove that the actual reading of an apparatus may be consistently interpreted as resulting simply in an increase of information (transition from the mixture to one of the composing elements). (Shimony’s objections have also been criticized byM. N. Hack:Am. Journ. Phys.,32, 890 (1964)).

Cited by 62 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Folder C130. Correspondence with Loinger, Rosenfeld, Schumacher and Bub. October–December 1966;David Bohm's Critique of Modern Physics;2020

2. Josephson Devices as Tests of Quantum Mechanics Towards the Everyday Level;Fundamentals and Frontiers of the Josephson Effect;2019

3. A heuristic approach to the quantum measurement problem: How to distinguish particle detectors from ordinary objects;International Journal of Modern Physics B;2015-09-07

4. The Tausk Controversy on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: Physics, Philosophy, and Politics;The Quantum Dissidents;2014-09-20

5. The Monocracy is Broken: Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Wigner’s Case;The Quantum Dissidents;2014-09-20