Markus Bier
It is shown that ''Theorem 1'' of the article ''Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Incorrect'' by G.-L. Li and V.O.K. Li (see quant-ph/0509089) is false. Therefore the assertion expressed in the title of that article is untenable.
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。
继续探索
(A point-by-point response to a comment (quant-ph/0509130) on our paper (quant-ph/0509089) is added as Appendix C. We find the comment incorrect.) Einstein's criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is an important part of his legacy. Although most physicists consider Einstein's criticism technically unfounded, we show that the Copenhagen interpretation is actually incorrect, since Born's probability explanation of the wave function is incorrect due to a false assumption on "continuous probabilities" in modern probability theory. "Continuous probability" means a "probabi…
Recently, Frauchiger and Renner proposed a Gedankenexperiment, which was claimed to be able to prove that quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Here we show that the conclusions of Frauchiger and Renner actually came from their incorrect description of some quantum states. With the correct description there will be no inconsistent results, no matter which quantum interpretation theory is used. Especially, the Copenhagen interpretation can satisfy all the three assumptions (C), (Q), and (S) of Frauchiger and Renner simultaneously, thus it has no problem consistently des…
The main assumptions the Copenhagen quantum mechanics has been based on will be summarized and the known (not yet decided) contradiction between Einstein and Bohr will be newly analyzed. The given assumptions have been represented basically by time-dependent Schroedinger equation, to which some further assumptions have been added. Some critical comments have been raised against the given mathematical model structure by Pauli (1933) and by Susskind and Glogover (1964). They may be removed if only the Schroedinger equation is conserved and the additional assumptions are abandoned, as shown recen…
This is an analysis of the recently published article `Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself' by D. Frauchiger and R. Renner~\cite{1}. Here I decipher the paradox and analyze it from the point of view of de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable theory (i.e., Bohmian mechanics). I also analyze the problem from the perspective obtained by the Copenhagen interpretation (i.e., the Bohrian interpretation) and show that both views are self consistent and do not lead to any contradiction with a `single-world' description of quantum theory.
It is shown in detail why the arguments put forward by Struyve and Baere (quant-ph/0108038) against my conclusions are incorrect.
Recently, in Sci. Rep. \textbf{6} (2016) 28767, Li et al., have proposed a scheme for quantum key distribution using Bell states. This comment provides a proof that the proposed scheme of Li et al., is insecure as it involves leakage of information. Further, it is also shown that all the error rates computed in the Li et al.'s paper are incorrect as the authors failed to recognize the fact that any eavesdropping effort will lead to entanglement swapping. Finally, it is established that Li et al.'s scheme can be viewed as an incrementally (but incorrectly)modified version of the existing scheme…
Vaidman's analysis of the photon's past is based on incorrect interpretation of quantum probability amplitudes. The confusion stems from his original work [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{60}, 1351 (1988)], which missed the connection between the amplitudes and the "weak values" introduced therein.
First, a misconception about the spectrum of a confined particle is evidentiated. Then, the results are shown to be incorrect by means of a counter-example, an explicit preparation for the probe is given that yields an arbitrary amplification, and the source of the error is pointed out.
In this work we analyse critically Griffiths's example of the classical superluminal motion of a bug shadow. Griffiths considers that this example is conceptually very close to quantum nonlocality or superluminality,i.e. quantum breaking of the famous Bell inequality. Or, generally, he suggests implicitly an absolute asymmetric duality (subluminality vs. superluminality) principle in any fundamental physical theory.It, he hopes, can be used for a natural interpretation of the quantum mechanics too. But we explain that such Griffiths's interpretation retires implicitly but significantly from us…
In a recent article [Phys. Rev. A 86, 024302 (2012)], the authors have derived some hierarchy relations between geometric discord and entanglement (measured by negativity and its square). We point out that these results are incorrect and give analytic counterexamples. We also discuss briefly the reason for such violations.
In the paper by M. Hotta and M. Morikawa [Phys. Rev. A 69, 052114 (2004)] the non-existence of the quantum Zeno effect caused by indirect measurements has been claimed. It is shown here that the pertinent proof is incorrect, and the claim unfounded.
We comment on several incorrect results given in a recent paper by Lo and Wong. In particular, it is pointed out that their evaluation of the propagator for two coupled general driven time-dependent oscillators is not satisfactory. The correct expression can be obtained by applying an appropriate time-dependent canonical transformation.
We investigate the quantum signature scheme proposed by Zeng and Keitel [Phys. Rev. A 65, 042312 (2002)]. It uses Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states and the availability of a trusted arbitrator. However, in our opinion the protocol is not clearly operationally defined and several steps are ambiguous. Moreover, we argue that the security statements claimed by the authors are incorrect.
We show in this Comment that the interpretation of experimental data as well as the theory presented in Atatüre et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 618 (2000)] are incorrect and discuss why such a scheme cannot be used to "recover" high-visibility quantum interference.
Marinatto claims that in the proof of Bell's theorem without inequalities and without alignments [A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 230403 (2003)], local observables cannot be measured by means of tests on individual qubits. Marinatto's claim is incorrect. To support this, the proof is explicitly rewritten in terms of tests on individual qubits.
In a recent paper, Eisert et al. presented a quantum mechanical generalization of Prisoner's Dilemma. They asserted that the maximally entangled game exhibits a unique Nash equilibrium which yields a pay-off equivalent to cooperative behaviour. In this comment we show that their observation is incorrect: there is no Nash equilibrium in the space of deterministic quantum strategies.
In a couple of articles (Ford G W and O'Connell R F 1996 Nature 380 113 and 2002 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35 4183) it was argued that the standard result for the derivative of the hyperbolic cotangent in the literature, d \coth y/dy = -{csch}^2 y is incomplete and the correct expression should have an additional term proportional to the Dirac delta function. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that this claim is incorrect.
In a recent paper (arXiv:1701.04298 [quant-ph]) Toroš, Großardt and Bassi claim that the potential necessary to support a composite particle in a gravitational field must necessarily cancel the relativistic coupling between internal and external degrees of freedom. As such a coupling is responsible for the gravitational redshift measured in numerous experiments, the above statement is clearly incorrect. We identify the simple mistake in the paper responsible for the incorrect claim.
In an effort to challenge the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, Karl Popper proposed an experiment involving spatially separated entangled particles. In this experiment, one of the particles passes through a very narrow slit, and thereby its position becomes well-defined. This particle therefore diffracts into a large divergence angle; this effect can be understood as a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Popper further argued that its entangled partner would become comparably localized in position, and that, according to his understanding of the Copenhagen inter…
In quant-ph/9812017v2 M.B. Mensky reviewed our application of the restricted path integral approach to quantum measurements of energy. In this comment we point out that Mensky's assessment of our results is incorrect.
It is shown that the principal results of a recent work by Khalilov are incorrect. These errors are attributable to the author's insistence that wave functions must be regular at the origin even when the relevant potential is singular at that point.
This is a comment on recent paper by T.M. Stace and S.D. Barrett, PRL 92, 136802 (2004). We show that the main result of the paper, absence of the spectral peak for continuous weak measurement of coherent oscillations in a qubit, is incorrect.
It is shown that the paper `Energy spectrum of a Dirac particle with position-dependent mass under the influence of the Aharonov-Casher effect', by Oliveira, Borges and Sousa [Braz. J. Phys. 49, 801 (2019)], is based on a series of ingredients clearly incorrect.
In this comment we bring attention to the fact that when we apply the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, we must be sure to use it in the coordinate representation. This is particularly important when canonical tranformations that mix momenta and coordinates are present. This implies that some of the results obtained by A. Błaut and J. Kowalski-Glikman are incorrect.
扫码添加微信好友，提出您的宝贵建议 👇
💡 备注请填写：网站反馈
发表机构由 AI 从论文文本抽取，如发现错误，欢迎反馈修正建议。