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

Entropy

Comments on Piero Quarati et al. Negentropy in Many-Body Quantum Systems. Entropy 2016, 18, 63

Jay Lawrence

Published Apr 7, 2016• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The purpose of this note is to express my concerns about the published paper by Quarati et al. (Entropy 2016, 18, 63). It is hoped that these comments will stimulate a constructive discussion of the issues involved.
DOI
10.3390/e18040125

Related papers

Reply to Jay Lawrence. Comments on Piero Quarati et al. Negentropy in Many-Body Quantum Systems. Entropy 2016, 18, 63

P. Quarati, M. Lissia, Antonio Maria Scarfone

The Comments are explicitly related to contents of two published papers: actual [1] and [2].[...]

Entropy•Apr 7, 2016•0 citations

Discussion: comments on comments on comments: a reply to Margenau and Wigner

Hilary Putnam

The Margenau and Wigner ‘Comments’ (1962) on my ‘Comments on the Paper of David Sharp’ (Putnam, 1961; Sharp, 1961) is a strange document. First the authors say, in effect, ‘had anything been wrong (with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics) we should certainly have heard’. Then they issue various obiter dicta (e.g. the ‘cut between observer and object’ is unavoidable in quantum mechanics; the – highly subjectivistic – London-Bauer treatment of quantum mechanics is described, along with von Neumann's book, as ‘the most compact and explicit formulation of the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics’). My assumption 2 (that the whole universe is a system) is described as ‘not supportable’, because ‘the measurement is an interaction between the object and the observer’. The ‘object’ (the closed system) cannot include the observer. The issues involved in this discussion are fundamental ones. I believe that the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics today is as unhealthy as the conceptual structure of the calculus was at the time Berkeley's famous criticism was issued. For this reason – as much to emphasize the seriousness of the present situation in the foundations of quantum mechanics as to remove confusions that may be left in the mind of the general reader upon reading the Margenau and Wigner ‘Comments’ – I intend to restate the main points of my previous ‘Comments’, and to show in detail why the Margenau and Wigner remarks fail completely to meet them.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 30, 1979•18 citations

Comment on "Time-dependent entropy of simple quantum model systems" (2 pages)

Piotr Garbaczewski

Physical Review A•Jan 1, 2005•1 citation

Reply to Professor Leroyer's comment concerning the article "Analytical solution of the 2D classical Heisenberg model"

Jacques Curély

In his comment Professor Leroyer notes that the expression of the zero-field partition function Z N (0) is not proved. In the lines below we briefly explain how to derive it from eq. (3) of my preceding article [ Europhys. Lett. , 32 (1995) 529].

Europhysics Letters (EPL)•May 1, 1996•0 citations

Contribution to the problem of the entropy increase of quantum mechanical many-body systems

J. I. Horváth

Acta Physica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae•Mar 1, 1965•3 citations

Comment on “many-body quantum system in the presence of solvable potential”

Francisco Marcelo Fernández

The European Physical Journal Plus•Apr 3, 2023•2 citations
The Margenau and Wigner ‘Comments’ (1962) on my ‘Comments on the Paper of David Sharp’ (Putnam, 1961; Sharp, 1961) is a strange document. First the authors say, in effect, ‘had anything been wrong (with the fundamentals of quantum mechanics) we should certainly have heard’. Then they issue various obiter dicta (e.g. the ‘cut between observer and object’ is unavoidable in quantum mechanics; the – highly subjectivistic – London-Bauer treatment of quantum mechanics is described, along with von Neumann's book, as ‘the most compact and explicit formulation of the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics’). My assumption 2 (that the whole universe is a system) is described as ‘not supportable’, because ‘the measurement is an interaction between the object and the observer’. The ‘object’ (the closed system) cannot include the observer. The issues involved in this discussion are fundamental ones. I believe that the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics today is as unhealthy as the conceptual structure of the calculus was at the time Berkeley's famous criticism was issued. For this reason – as much to emphasize the seriousness of the present situation in the foundations of quantum mechanics as to remove confusions that may be left in the mind of the general reader upon reading the Margenau and Wigner ‘Comments’ – I intend to restate the main points of my previous ‘Comments’, and to show in detail why the Margenau and Wigner remarks fail completely to meet them.