Results 1  10
of
56
Quantum Information Theory and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
, 2004
"... This thesis is a contribution to the debate on the implications of quantum information theory for the foundational problems of quantum mechanics. In Part I an attempt is made to shed some light on the nature of information and quantum information theory. It is emphasized that the everyday notion of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This thesis is a contribution to the debate on the implications of quantum information theory for the foundational problems of quantum mechanics. In Part I an attempt is made to shed some light on the nature of information and quantum information theory. It is emphasized that the everyday notion of information is to be firmly distinguished from the technical notions arising in information theory; noun, hence does not refer to a particular or substance. The popular claim ‘Information is Physical ’ is assessed and it is argued that this proposition faces a destructive dilemma. Accordingly, the slogan may not be understood as an ontological claim, but at best, as a methodological one. A novel argument is provided against Dretske’s (1981) attempt to base a semantic notion of information on ideas from information theory. The function of various measures of information content for quantum systems is explored and the applicability of the Shannon information in the quantum context maintained against the challenge of Brukner and Zeilinger (2001). The phenomenon of quantum teleportation is then explored as a case study serving to emphasize the value of
PROBABILISTIC THEORIES: WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS?
, 2009
"... Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a very special probabilistic theory, yet we don’t know which operational principles make it so. All axiomatization attempts suffer at least one postulate of a mathematical nature. Here I will analyze the possibility of deriving QM as the mathematical representation of a fa ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Quantum Mechanics (QM) is a very special probabilistic theory, yet we don’t know which operational principles make it so. All axiomatization attempts suffer at least one postulate of a mathematical nature. Here I will analyze the possibility of deriving QM as the mathematical representation of a fair operational framework, i.e. a set of rules which allows the experimenter to make predictions on future events on the basis of suitable tests, e.g. without interference from uncontrollable sources. Two postulates need to be satisfied by any fair operational framework: NSF: nosignaling from the future—for the possibility of making predictions on the basis of past tests; PFAITH: existence of a preparationally faithful state—for the possibility of preparing any state and calibrating any test. I will show that all theories satisfying NSF admit a C ∗algebra representation of events as linear transformations of effects. Based on a very general notion of dynamical independence, it is easy to see that all such probabilistic theories are nonsignaling without interaction (nonsignaling for short)—another requirement for a fair operational framework. Postulate
Quantum Bayesianism: A study
 Studies Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys
"... The Bayesian approach to quantum mechanics of Caves, Fuchs and Schack is presented. Its conjunction of realism about physics along with antirealism about much of the structure of quantum theory is elaborated; and the position defended from common objections: that it is solipsist; that it is too inst ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The Bayesian approach to quantum mechanics of Caves, Fuchs and Schack is presented. Its conjunction of realism about physics along with antirealism about much of the structure of quantum theory is elaborated; and the position defended from common objections: that it is solipsist; that it is too instrumentalist; that it cannot deal with Wigner’s friend scenarios. Three more substantive problems are raised: Can a reasonable ontology be found for the approach? Can it account for explanation in quantum theory? Are subjective probabilities on their own adequate in the quantum domain? The first question is answered in the affirmative, drawing on elements from Nancy Cartwright’s philosophy of science. The second two are not: it is argued that these present outstanding difficulties for the project. A quantum Bayesian version of Moore’s paradox is developed to illustrate difficulties with the subjectivist account of pure state
Parts and Wholes  An Inquiry into Quantum and Classical Correlations
, 2008
"... ..."
(Show Context)
When champions meet: Rethinking the Bohr–Einstein debate
, 2006
"... Einstein’s philosophy of physics (as clarified by Fine and Howard) was predicated on his Trennungsprinzip, a combination of separability and locality, without which he believed “physical thought ” and “physical laws ” to be impossible. Bohr’s philosophy (as elucidated by Hooker, Scheibe, Folse, Howa ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Einstein’s philosophy of physics (as clarified by Fine and Howard) was predicated on his Trennungsprinzip, a combination of separability and locality, without which he believed “physical thought ” and “physical laws ” to be impossible. Bohr’s philosophy (as elucidated by Hooker, Scheibe, Folse, Howard, and others), on the other hand, was grounded in a seemingly different doctrine about the possibility of objective knowledge, namely the necessity of classical concepts. In fact, it follows from Raggio’s Theorem in algebraic quantum theory that within a suitable class of physical theories Einstein’s doctrine is mathematically equivalent to Bohr’s, so that quantum mechanics accommodates Einstein’s Trennungsprinzip if and only if it is interpreted à la Bohr through classical physics. Unfortunately, the protagonists themselves failed to discuss their differences in a constructive way, since in its early phase their debate was blurred by an undue emphasis on the uncertainty relations, whereas in its second stage it was dominated by Einstein’s flawed attempts to establish the “incompleteness ” of quantum mechanics. These two aspects of their debate may still be understood and appreciated, however, as reflecting a much deeper and insurmountable disagreement between Bohr and Einstein on the knowability of Nature. Using the theological controversy on the knowability of God as a analogy, Einstein was a Spinozist, whereas Bohr could be said to be on the side of Maimonides. Thus Einstein’s offthecuff characterization of Bohr as a ‘Talmudic philosopher ’ was spoton.
Reconstruction of Quantum Theory
"... What belongs to quantum theory is no more than what is needed for its derivation. Keeping to this maxim, we record a paradigmatic shift in the foundations of quantum mechanics, where the focus has recently moved from interpreting to reconstructing quantum theory. Several historic and contemporary re ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
What belongs to quantum theory is no more than what is needed for its derivation. Keeping to this maxim, we record a paradigmatic shift in the foundations of quantum mechanics, where the focus has recently moved from interpreting to reconstructing quantum theory. Several historic and contemporary reconstructions are analyzed, including the work of Hardy, Rovelli, and Clifton, Bub and Halvorson. We conclude by discussing the importance of a novel concept of intentionally incomplete reconstruction.