2013/03/04 by Miguel Ferrero, M. Ferrero, Victor Gómez-Pin +9
Arts and Humanities · Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #Appeal #Computer science #Epistemology #FOS: Physical sciences #Formalism (music) #History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph) #Interpretation (philosophy) #Law #Mathematics #Philosophy #Philosophy and History of Science #Physics #Political science #Quantum #Quantum Mechanics and Applications #Quantum Physics (quant-ph) #Quantum mechanics #Relevance (law) #Statistical Mechanics and Entropy #Theoretical physics #physics.hist-ph #quant-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1303.0694
published in arXiv (Cornell University) (Cornell University) · Updated version. 12 pages, 2 figures
openalex publication_date 2013/03/04 · arxiv created 2013/04/22 · arxiv updated 2013/04/23 · openalex created_date 2019/06/27 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
The preparation procedure, an undefined notion in quantum theory, has not had the relevance that it deserves in the interpretation of quantum mechanical formalism. Here we utilize the concepts of identical and similar preparation procedures to show the conceptual differences and mutual interconnections between the statistical and the conventional interpretation of quantum formalism. Although the statistical understanding, and its final logical consequence, hidden variables theories (this connexion being explained in the text), have a great intuitive appeal due to its fewer ontological difficulties, both recent experimental results and some theoretical developments seem to support an epistemic alternative closer to the conventional one. Nevertheless, we must not rule out the possibility that new theorems or new explanatory principles may modify the reigning supremacy of this interpretation.