3 ms·
The paper is way more nuanced than the abstract suggests. There are huge numbers of papers on the arXiv which try to say, "quantum mechanics is normal and borin
by pjs_ 9y ago
The paper is way more nuanced than the abstract suggests. There are huge numbers of papers on the arXiv which try to say, "quantum mechanics is normal and boring, these fools are trying to dress it up as something special because they don't understand probabilities". This paper is more interesting. Here's a quote:
> In fact, QM is so weird and surprising that even the very esoteric interpretations, such
as the many universes one, can not capture the subtlety normally associated with quantum
paradoxes. For example, theorems such as the Kochen-Specter theorem [23] (essentially,
a generalization of EPR with three particles) imply that during its quantum evolution no
”classical” variables can fully describe the probabilities of a quantum system.
- dbranes 9y agoThe following of course is a comment on the quote not on your comment, but no Kochen Specker is not a generalization of EPR to 3 particles. It's easy to come up with a generalization of EPR in 3 particles - just exhibit a 3-party entangled state! (e.g GHZ state). K-S theorem exhibits something a lot more subtle than entanglement known as contextuality. There are examples of systems which have the K-S property but doesn't have any entanglement.
- n4r9 9y agoI also found the paper to have more depth than I expected. I was going to remark that it gives the EPR paradox too short a shrift, but I realised that it is not arguing against the actual paradox, but rather the paradox as it is most commonly presented/understood and "mystically" explained. If anyone is interested, the original EPR paper is readable and profound in that timeless way that characterises much of what Einstein touched: http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf
- naasking 9y ago> For example, theorems such as the Kochen-Specter theorem [23] (essentially, a generalization of EPR with three particles) imply that during its quantum evolution no ”classical” variables can fully describe the probabilities of a quantum system [...] while preserving these other properties we assume must hold, but don't really know for certain do actually hold.