![halliwell superluminal halliwell superluminal](https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fncomms7288/MediaObjects/41467_2015_Article_BFncomms7288_Fig1_HTML.jpg)
Halliwell superluminal series#
In a series of papers, Price has questioned this assumption. Price, “Does Time-Symmetry Imply Retrocausality? How the Quantum World Says ‘Maybe’ ” arXiv:1002.0906v3.Ī fundamental assumption in the derivation of Bell's inequalities is that the value of a hidden variable carried by a particle must be independent of any choice of measurements subsequently made on that particle.
![halliwell superluminal halliwell superluminal](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/2071747_Black_Hole_Information/links/57cae4a008ae3ac722b1ea9e/largepreview.png)
In particular, I argue in Donald 2002 that there are non-trivial ambiguities in how we might describe the observations we make of our own brains because of the varieties of, and the different coarse-grainings of, possible quasi-classical quantities which might underpin our experiences. It is of course important to understand that this can be done, but this does not imply that all real observations involve pointers which are so cleanly delineated. The model Allahverdyan, Balian, and Nieuwenhuizen construct has been carefully designed to cause one unambiguously defined quantity to correlate with another unambiguously defined quantity. They claim to adhere to a subjective interpretation of probability, and yet they deny that the state is a construct of the observer and they also make no attempt to include the states of observers in their model.
![halliwell superluminal halliwell superluminal](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.12942%2Flrr-2008-4/MediaObjects/41114_2016_9093_Fig6.jpg)
In particular, despite the approximations involved in these invocations of stability and of negligibility, they feel able to describe the idea of a branching universe as “superfluous”. They apparently believe that, at least for macroscopic systems, this licenses them to interpret quantum probabilities as if they were classical probabilities once the apparatus registers stable outcomes and the chance of observing interference between distinct outcomes has become negligible. Allahverdyan, Balian, and Nieuwenhuizen adopt what they call a statistical interpretation of quantum states. I am not however persuaded by the authors’ claim that their framework is sufficient to demonstrate the production (as opposed to the apparent production) of a unique answer for the outcome of each run of a measurement. This provides an excellent description of how a microscopic quantum property can be correlated with a stable and detectable macroscopic property. The core of this long paper is a thorough analysis of a model of a quantum measurement in which a single spin is coupled to an apparatus consisting of a magnet formed from a large number of spins in contact with a heat bath. “Understanding Quantum Measurement From the Solution of Dynamical Models” arXiv:1107.2138. Items commenting on papers by the following authors have been added or modified recently:ĩth August 2011: A.E.
Halliwell superluminal archive#
Notes on some papers available from the physics e-print archive which are relevant, or significant,or recommended in the broad context of the many-minds interpretation ofquantum theory presented on my home page: Donald The Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, Great Britain.