Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Czechoslovak Journal of Physics

Answer to Knittl's critical remarks

Antonín Vašíček

Published Jan 1, 1958• 1 citation
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf01688769

Related papers

Ghost-like action-at-a-distance in quantum mechanics: an elementary introduction to the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox

R. D. Mattuck

The remarkable quantum phenomenon of 'non-locality' discovered by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) is the centre of considerable experimental and theoretical activity these days. Nevertheless, many (perhaps most) physicists do not feel the phenomenon is especially paradoxical, or even worthy of interest. This article attempts to reveal, in a simple way, just where the fascination of the EPR paradox lies, and to answer some of the arguments invoked by critics to 'explain away' the paradox.

European Journal of Physics•Apr 1, 1982•3 citations

Answer to Selleri and Vigier

O. Costa de Beauregard

Lettere al nuovo cimento della societa italiana di fisica/Lettere al nuovo cimento•Dec 1, 1980•4 citations

Further Comments and Observations

Marco Giliberti, Luisa Lovisetti

SpringerBriefs in history of science and technology•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

FAQBism

John B. DeBrota, Blake C. Stacey

We answer several questions that have been Frequently Asked about QBism. These remarks (many of them lighthearted) should be considered supplements to more systematic treatments by the authors and others.

arXiv:1810.13401•Oct 31, 2018•2 citations

Remarks on the geometric quantization of a class of harmonic oscillator type potentials

Iacob, Felix

The conditions that must be fulfilled by a certain physical system to apply geometric quantization prescription on it are investigated. These terms are sought as mathematical requirements, which can be traced in an analysis of integrable systems, from the perspective of both potential function and Hamiltonian vector field. The answer is found in momentum map critical points. Basically, a certain disposal of points that allow a momentum map $C^*$ isomorphism, of observables, with harmonic oscillator momentum map enforce geometric quantization rules. Following the general theory, two newly presented examples, which exhibits these properties, are quantified through geometric quantization prescription. The Lennard-Jones' type potential is one of the examples, it is known as describing molecules in interaction. We end with a third example that shows the local isomorphism of potentials do not induce $C^*$ isomorphism of observables.

arXiv:1607.06630•Jul 22, 2016•0 citations

Reply to Żukowski's comment

Lucién Hardy

Physics Letters A•Apr 1, 1993•3 citations
The remarkable quantum phenomenon of 'non-locality' discovered by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) is the centre of considerable experimental and theoretical activity these days. Nevertheless, many (perhaps most) physicists do not feel the phenomenon is especially paradoxical, or even worthy of interest. This article attempts to reveal, in a simple way, just where the fascination of the EPR paradox lies, and to answer some of the arguments invoked by critics to 'explain away' the paradox.
The conditions that must be fulfilled by a certain physical system to apply geometric quantization prescription on it are investigated. These terms are sought as mathematical requirements, which can be traced in an analysis of integrable systems, from the perspective of both potential function and Hamiltonian vector field. The answer is found in momentum map critical points. Basically, a certain disposal of points that allow a momentum map C∗C^*C∗ isomorphism, of observables, with harmonic oscillator momentum map enforce geometric quantization rules. Following the general theory, two newly presented examples, which exhibits these properties, are quantified through geometric quantization prescription. The Lennard-Jones' type potential is one of the examples, it is known as describing molecules in interaction. We end with a third example that shows the local isomorphism of potentials do not induce C∗C^*C∗ isomorphism of observables.