Philosophy of Science 48 (1):50-64 (1981)
|Abstract||Recent discussions of experimental tests of the Sum Rule have been carried out in the context of the special circumstances attending the Cross-Ramsey experiment. A more general analysis of possible tests is presented. A technical mistake of Fine and Glymour concerned with a misunderstanding of the physics of the Cross-Ramsey experiment is explained and a detailed analysis of a thought experiment based on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen wave function is given. It is concluded, in agreement with Fine, that scattering experiments do not test the Sum Rule as a principle which supplements standard quantum mechanics|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sylvain Moutier, Nathalie Angeard & Olivier Houde (2002). Deductive Reasoning and Matching-Bias Inhibition Training: Evidence From a Debiasing Paradigm. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (3):205 – 224.
D. H. Sanford (2011). Can a Sum Change its Parts? Analysis 71 (2):235-239.
Clark Glymour (1977). The Sum Rule is Well-Confirmed. Philosophy of Science 44 (1):86-94.
Davis Baird (1984). Tests of Significance Violate the Rule of Implication. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:81 - 92.
Arthur Fine (1977). Conservation, the Sum Rule and Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 44 (1):95-106.
Robin Giles (1979). The Concept of a Proposition in Classical and Quantum Physics. Studia Logica 38 (4):337 - 353.
Clark Glymour (1975). Relevant Evidence. Journal of Philosophy 72 (14):403-426.
John McDonald (1992). Is Strong Inference Really Superior to Simple Inference? Synthese 92 (2):261 - 282.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?