2013/08/26 by Shiro Ishikawa, Ishikawa, Shiro · 1 citation
Chemistry · Computer Science · Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #Advanced Algebra and Logic #Consistent histories #Copenhagen interpretation #EPR paradox #FOS: Physical sciences #History and advancements in chemistry #Interpretation (philosophy) #Interpretations of quantum mechanics #Linguistics #Mathematics #Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics #Open quantum system #Philosophy #Physics #Quantum #Quantum Mechanics and Applications #Quantum Physics (quant-ph) #Quantum Zeno effect #Quantum dynamics #Quantum entanglement #Quantum mechanics #Quantum process #Relational quantum mechanics #Theoretical physics #Uncertainty principle #quant-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1308.5469
published in arXiv (Cornell University) (Cornell University) · arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1205.1290, arXiv:1207.0407, arXiv:1204.3892. substantial text overlap with arXiv:1205.1290, arXiv:1207.0407, arXiv:1204.3892
openalex publication_date 2013/08/26 · arxiv created 2013/08/28 · arxiv updated 2013/08/29 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/06
Recently we proposed measurement theory (i.e., quantum language, or the linguistic interpretation of quantum mechanics), which is characterized as the linguistic turn of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This turn from physics to language does not only extend quantum theory to classical theory but also yield the quantum mechanical world view (i.e., the (quantum) linguistic world view). Thus, we believe that the linguistic interpretation is the most powerful in all interpretations. Our purpose is to examine the power of measurement theory, that is, to try to formulate Heisenberg uncertainty principle (particulary, the relation between Ishikawa's formulation and so called Ozawa's inequality) and quantum Zeno effects in the linguistic interpretation. As our conclusions, we must say that our trials do not completely succeed. However, we want to believe that this does not imply that we must abandon our linguistic interpretation.