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

arXiv:quant-ph/0204006 · Physical Review A

Comment on “How macroscopic properties dictate microscopic probabilities”

J. Finkelstein

Published Feb 10, 2003• 11 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Aharonov and Reznik have argued [in Phys. Rev A 65, 052116 (2002)] that the form of the probabilistic predictions of quantum theory can be seen to follow from properties of macroscopic systems. An error in their argument is identified.
DOI
10.1103/physreva.67.026101

Related papers

How macroscopic properties dictate microscopic probabilities

Yakir Aharonov, Benni Reznik

We argue that the quantum probability law follows, in the large N limit, from the compatibility of quantum mechanics with classical-like properties of macroscopic objects. For a finite sample, we find that likely and unlikely measurement outcomes are associated with distinct interference effects in a sample weakly coupled to an environment.

arXiv:quant-ph/0110093•Physical Review A•May 7, 2002•27 citations

Comment on ‘‘Quantum effects in a macroscopic system’’

Axel Schenzle, Ralph G. DeVoe, John A. Hoffnagle +1 more

A Comment on the Letter by J. R. Cary, P. Rusu, and R. T. Skodje, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 292 (1987).Received 29 May 1987DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.942©1987 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Aug 24, 1987•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1999•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics’ ”

Robert B. Griffiths

In Phys. Rev. A 101, 022117 (2020), it was argued that Bell inequalities are based on classical not quantum physics, and, hence, their violation in experiments provides no support for the claimed existence of peculiar nonlocal and superluminal influences in the real (quantum) world. This Reply to Lambare's Comment, Phys. Rev. A 104, 066201 (2021), on that paper seeks to clarify some issues related to the correct use of Hilbert space quantum mechanics for identifying the microscopic causes of later macroscopic measurement outcomes, a matter not properly addressed by Bell, who used classical hidden variables in place of the Hilbert subspaces (equivalently, their projectors) employed by von Neumann in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

arXiv:2106.09824•Physical Review A•Dec 20, 2021•11 citations

Some critical considerations on the curious new statistical prediction of quantum mechanics by Albert, Aharonov and D'Amato

Willy De Baere

Physics Letters A•Jul 1, 1986•0 citations

Reply to “Validity of the Aharonov Bergmann-Lebowitz rule”

Oliver Cohen

It is argued that the proofs [W. D. Sharp and N. Shanks, Philos. Sci. 60, 488 (1993); O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 51, 4373 (1995); D. J. Miller, Phys. Lett. A 222, 31 (1996)] of the general nonvalidity of the counterfactual interpretation of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule [Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. 134, B1410 (1964)] are perfectly valid, and that Vaidman's rejection of these proofs [L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A (Comment for which this paper is the Reply)] is unsustainable. It is demonstrated that Vaidman's proposed formulation of ``counterfactual probability,'' on which his rejection of these proofs depends, is problematic and inconsistent in several respects.

Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1998•4 citations
In Phys. Rev. A 101, 022117 (2020), it was argued that Bell inequalities are based on classical not quantum physics, and, hence, their violation in experiments provides no support for the claimed existence of peculiar nonlocal and superluminal influences in the real (quantum) world. This Reply to Lambare's Comment, Phys. Rev. A 104, 066201 (2021), on that paper seeks to clarify some issues related to the correct use of Hilbert space quantum mechanics for identifying the microscopic causes of later macroscopic measurement outcomes, a matter not properly addressed by Bell, who used classical hidden variables in place of the Hilbert subspaces (equivalently, their projectors) employed by von Neumann in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
It is argued that the proofs [W. D. Sharp and N. Shanks, Philos. Sci. 60, 488 (1993); O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 51, 4373 (1995); D. J. Miller, Phys. Lett. A 222, 31 (1996)] of the general nonvalidity of the counterfactual interpretation of the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule [Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. 134, B1410 (1964)] are perfectly valid, and that Vaidman's rejection of these proofs [L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. A (Comment for which this paper is the Reply)] is unsustainable. It is demonstrated that Vaidman's proposed formulation of ``counterfactual probability,'' on which his rejection of these proofs depends, is problematic and inconsistent in several respects.