arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 1111.5364quant-ph
收藏

量子定域性?

Quantum Locality?

Henry P. Stapp

摘要:

罗伯特·格里菲思(Robert Griffiths)最近在他发展的“一致量子理论”的框架内提出了一个问题,即量子力学是否像人们常说的那样,需要在长距离上进行比光速更快的信息传输。他认为,这个性质的假定证明涉及隐变量,在其前提中包括一些基本上经典物理学类型的假设,这些假设与量子物理学的规则根本不相容。人们不能通过建立一个系统的属性来逻辑地证明一个系统的属性,相反,通过添加与原始系统不同的属性来修改系统的属性。因此,格里菲斯对基于隐藏变量的证明的拒绝在逻辑上是合理的。格里菲思提到存在某种替代证明,它不涉及隐变量,只使用宏观描述的可观察属性。他指出,他在他的书中检查了这种一般性的证据,并得出结论,他们没有提供证据的非本地影响。但他没有检查他引用的具体证据。用他的“相容的量子理论”所规定的方法来检验这个特殊的证明,就会发现所引用的证明在那个限制性版本的量子理论中是有效的。增加的一节回应格里菲斯的答复,其中列举了模糊的一般可能性,使什么是被证明是不明确的,因此使有关的“一致的框架”不明确的。但是他所引用的这些奇怪的现象并没有打乱我们所讨论的证明,因为这个证明通过物理公式和明确的标识,指定了要使用的框架。格里菲思证实了证明的有效性,只要使用该框架。本节还显示,在回应格里菲斯的挑战,为什么一个假定的证明,他所描述的地方是有缺陷的。

英文摘要:

Robert Griffiths has recently addressed, within the framework of a 'consistent quantum theory' that he has developed, the issue of whether, as is often claimed, quantum mechanics entails a need for faster-than-light transfers of information over long distances. He argues that the putative proofs of this property that involve hidden variables include in their premises some essentially classical-physics-type assumptions that are fundamentally incompatible with the precepts of quantum physics. One cannot logically prove properties of a system by establishing, instead, properties of a system modified by adding properties alien to the original system. Hence Griffiths' rejection of hidden-variable-based proofs is logically warranted. Griffiths mentions the existence of a certain alternative proof that does not involve hidden variables, and that uses only macroscopically described observable properties. He notes that he had examined in his book proofs of this general kind, and concluded that they provide no evidence for nonlocal influences. But he did not examine the particular proof that he cites. An examination of that particular proof by the method specified by his 'consistent quantum theory' shows that the cited proof is valid within that restrictive version of quantum theory. An added section responds to Griffiths' reply, which cites general possibilities of ambiguities that make what is to be proved ill-defined, and hence render the pertinent 'consistent framework' ill defined. But the vagaries that he cites do not upset the proof in question, which, both by its physical formulation and by explicit identification, specify the framework to be used. Griffiths confirms the validity of the proof insofar as that framework is used. The section also shows, in response to Griffiths' challenge, why a putative proof of locality that he has described is flawed.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑