MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121486119 · doi:10.1139/p03-113

An attempt to close the EinsteinPodolskyRosen debate

2004· article· en· W2121486119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tjaart P. J. Krüger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEPR paradoxEinsteinOperator (biology)Theoretical physicsCharacter (mathematics)Point (geometry)Bell's theoremHidden variable theoryBell test experimentsQuantumQuantum mechanicsMathematical economicsQuantum entanglementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on a new rigorous ensemble approach to quantum mechanics, and without stressing any idea or concept of reality, the entire Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) problem can be boiled down to the question of whether the separability principle of the natural sciences is universally valid. To give a precise answer first of all Bell's inequality is deduced from said ensemble point of view and with minimal requirements only. (In the final discussion of the results it turns out that Bell's inequality defines the upper bound for those basic correlations that are due to a mere conservation law.) Then, by use of Wheeler's gedanken experiment with coin halves, I show that the statistical operator representing an ensemble under investigation may be either separable (in a simplified sense) or not. The conceptual consequences of nonseparability are explained, and a general EPR-type experiment is re-examined. Thereby, it is proven that, if and only if, the statistical operator is nonseparable, Bell's inequality may be violated. Experimental evidence demands nonseparable operators. So, if quantum mechanics is assumed to make statistical statements on the results of measurements on ensembles only, there is no way to avoid acceptance of its (operationally) holistic character, and the question posed at the outset must be negated. PACS N os : 03.65.Ta, 03.65.Ud

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207