There is no new problem for quantum mechanics: a comment on Meehan (2020)

Lev Vaidman A

Published Oct 12, 2020• 0 citations

Abstract

We examine Meehan’s [2020] claim that quantum mechanics has a new “control problem” that puts limits on our ability to prepare quantum states and revises our understanding of the no-cloning theorem. We identify flaws in Meehan’s analysis and argue that such problem does not exist.

Related papers

A New Problem for Quantum Mechanics

Alexander Meehan

In this article I raise a new problem for quantum mechanics, which I call the control problem. Like the measurement problem, the control problem places a fundamental constraint on quantum theories. The characteristic feature of the problem is its focus on state preparation. In particular, whereas the measurement problem turns on a premise about the completeness of the quantum state (‘no hidden variables’), the control problem turns on a premise about our ability to prepare or control quantum states. After raising the problem, I discuss some applications. I suggest that it provides a useful new lens through which to view existing theories or interpretations, in part because it draws attention to aspects of those theories that the measurement problem does not (such as the role of conditional and relative states). I suggest that it also helps clarify the physical significance of the well-known no-go result—the no-cloning theorem—on which it is based.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of ScienceDec 2, 20194 citations

Limitations on cloning in classical mechanics

Aaron Fenyes

In this paper, we show that a result precisely analogous to the traditional quantum no-cloning theorem holds in classical mechanics. This classical no-cloning theorem does not prohibit classical cloning, we argue, because it is based on a too-restrictive definition of cloning. Using a less popular, more inclusive definition of cloning, we give examples of classical cloning processes. We also prove that a cloning machine must be at least as complicated as the object it is supposed to clone.

Journal of Mathematical PhysicsJan 1, 20127 citations

Comment on ``Quantum Entanglement and the Nonexistence of Superluminal Signals''

Vladimir S. Mashkevich

We argue that the claim given in quant-ph/9801014 is untenable. The fallacy in the proof is a misinterpretation of the no-cloning theorem, which does not allow quantum jumps, specifically measurements.

arXiv:quant-ph/9801062Jan 27, 19981 citation

Quantum copying: Beyond the no-cloning theorem

Vladimír Bužek, Mark S. Hillery

We analyze the possibility of copying (that is, cloning) arbitrary states of a quantum-mechanical spin-1/2 system. We show that there exists a ``universal quantum-copying machine'' (i.e., transformation) which approximately copies quantum-mechanical states such that the quality of its output does not depend on the input. We also examine a machine which combines a unitary transformation and a selective measurement to produce good copies of states in the neighborhood of a particular state. We discuss the problem of measurement of the output states. \textcopyright{} 1996 The American Physical Society.

arXiv:quant-ph/9607018Physical Review ASep 1, 19961,124 citations

Comment on "How the No-Cloning Theorem Got its Name"

Alexander Yu. Vlasov

A review by A. Peres [quant-ph/0205076] appears recently. It is difficult to add something to such kind of fundamental themes, but here is briefly presented some ideas about challenges of the no-cloning theorem and imaginary modifications of quantum mechanics, that could make precise cloning possible.

arXiv:quant-ph/0205195May 31, 20020 citations

Another Comment on ``Quantum Entanglement and Nonexistence of Superluminal Signals''

Vladimir S. Mashkevich

We argue that the claim given in quant-ph/9801014 remains untenable in the revised version. The fallacy in the proof is a misinterpretation of the no-cloning and teleportation theorems, which do not involve time and reference frames.

arXiv:quant-ph/9803027Mar 12, 19980 citations