Showing papers in "arXiv: Quantum Physics in 1989"
TL;DR: In this paper, it was shown that even in this simple case where one can make definite predictions, one still cannot generally introduce deterministic, local models to explain the results, even if one can predict with certainty a definite outcome for an experiment.
Abstract: Bell’s Theorem proved that one cannot in general reproduce the results of quantum theory with a classical, deterministic local model. However, Einstein originally considered the case where one could define an “element of reality”, namely for the much simpler case where one could predict with certainty a definite outcome for an experiment For this simple case, Bell’s Theorem says nothing. But by using a slightly more complicated model than Bell, one can show that even in this simple case where one can make definite predictions, one still cannot generally introduce deterministic, local models to explain the results.
1,437 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the importance of this question has increased much in connection with the effort to detect gravitational radiation, and rigorous treatment of the question on what measurement there is seems the key point.
Abstract: What measurement is there? It is a difficult question but the importance of this question has increased much in connection with the effort to detect gravitational radiation. For monitoring the position of a free mass such as the gravitational-wave interferometer [1], it is usually supposed that the sensitivity is limited by the so called standard quantum limit (SQL) [2,3]. In the recent controversy [4]–[8], started with Yuen’s proposal [4] of a measurement which beats the SQL, the meaning of the SQL has been much clarified. In order to settle this controversy, rigorous treatment of the question on what measurement there is seems the key point.
43 citations