Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Interpreting Quantum TheoryNon-locality Reconsidered

Interpreting Quantum Theory: Non-locality Reconsidered [Adopting a non-ontic account of quantum states does not address all the challenges raised in the literature concerning the alleged incompatibility between quantum theory and special relativity. According to Bell, for instance, there is ‘an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory’ (Bell [2004], p. 172) (where by the ‘two fundamental pillars’ he means quantum theory and relativity theory), which is not merely due to the difficulty of reconciling collapse with relativity. This difficulty, as Bell acknowledges, is rather easily avoided by ‘not grant[ing] beable status to the wave function’ (Bell [2004], p. 53; for more on Bell’s notion ‘beable’ see Section 10.2), or, in other words, by adopting a non-ontic account of quantum states.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Interpreting Quantum TheoryNon-locality Reconsidered

Download PDF
20 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/interpreting-quantum-theory-non-locality-reconsidered-fLS8GXm0ey

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Palgrave Macmillan UK
Copyright
© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2015
ISBN
978-1-349-49619-8
Pages
125 –145
DOI
10.1057/9781137447159_10
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[Adopting a non-ontic account of quantum states does not address all the challenges raised in the literature concerning the alleged incompatibility between quantum theory and special relativity. According to Bell, for instance, there is ‘an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory’ (Bell [2004], p. 172) (where by the ‘two fundamental pillars’ he means quantum theory and relativity theory), which is not merely due to the difficulty of reconciling collapse with relativity. This difficulty, as Bell acknowledges, is rather easily avoided by ‘not grant[ing] beable status to the wave function’ (Bell [2004], p. 53; for more on Bell’s notion ‘beable’ see Section 10.2), or, in other words, by adopting a non-ontic account of quantum states.]

Published: Oct 24, 2015

Keywords: Quantum Theory; Rational Credence; Light Cone; Objective Probability; Local Causality

There are no references for this article.