Lewis et al. recently demonstrated that additional assumptions such as preparation independence are always necessary to rule out a psi-epistemic model, in which the quantum state is not uniquely determined by the underlying physical state. Here we point out that these authors ignored the important work of Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman on protective measurements, and their conclusion, which is based only on an analysis of conventional projective measurements, is not true
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Quantum Mechanics and Reality: An Interpretation of Everett's Theory.Christoph Albert Lehner - 1997 - Dissertation, Stanford University
Fluctuations in the Dynamics of Single Quantum Systems.A. Amann & H. Atmanspacher - 1998 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 29 (2):151-182.
A Priori Probability and Localized Observers.Matthew Donald - 1992 - Foundations of Physics 22 (9):1111-1172.
Explanation and the Quantum State.John Forge - 1996 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (3):203 – 215.
What It Feels Like to Be in a Superposition, and Why: Consciousness and the Interpretation of Everett's Quantum Mechanics.C. Lehner - 1997 - Synthese 110 (2):191-216.
Dynamical Reduction Theories: Changing Quantum Theory so the Statevector Represents Reality.GianCarlo Ghirardi & Philip Pearle - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:19 - 33.
Added to index2012-11-25
Total downloads46 ( #111,865 of 2,158,887 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #354,157 of 2,158,887 )
How can I increase my downloads?