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/0604173 · AIP conference proceedings

The Message of the Quantum?

Martin Däumer

Published Jan 1, 2006• 13 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We criticize speculations to the effect that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about information. We do this by pointing out how unfounded such speculations in fact are. Our analysis focuses on the dubious claims of this kind recently made by Anton Zeilinger.
DOI
10.1063/1.2219357

Related papers

Comments on some recently proposed experiments that should distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

Ward Struyve, Willy De Baere

Recently Ghose (quant-ph/0001024,quant-ph/0003037,quant-ph/0103126) and Golshani and Akhavan (quant-ph/0009040,quant-ph/0103100,quant-ph/0103101) claimed to have found experiments that should be able to distinguish between Standard Quantum Mechanics and Bohmian Mechanics. It is our aim to show that the claims made by Ghose, Golshani and Akhavan are unfounded.

arXiv:quant-ph/0108038•Aug 8, 2001•5 citations

Quantum Information in the Foundational and Philosophical Debates About Quantum Theory

María Luisa Dalla Chiara, Roberto Giuntini, Roberto Leporini +1 more

Trends in logic•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations

Quantum theory is not only about information

Laura Felline

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Jun 22, 2018•17 citations

Can a falling tree make a noise in two forests at the same time?

Aephraim M. Steinberg

It is a commonplace to claim that quantum mechanics supports the old idea that a tree falling in a forest makes no sound unless there is a listener present. In fact, this conclusion is far from obvious. Furthermore, if a tunnelling particle is observed in the barrier region, it collapses to a state in which it is no longer tunnelling. Does this imply that while tunnelling, the particle can not have any physical effects? I argue that this is not the case, and moreover, speculate that it may be possible for a particle to have effects on two spacelike separate apparatuses simultaneously. I discuss the measurable consequences of such a feat, and speculate about possible statistical tests which could distinguish this view of quantum mechanics from a ``corpuscular'' one. Brief remarks are made about an experiment underway at Toronto to investigate these issues.

arXiv:quant-ph/9710046•Oct 21, 1997•5 citations

Quantum Mechanics is About Quantum Information

Jeffrey Bub

arXiv:quant-ph/0408020•Foundations of Physics•Apr 1, 2005•94 citations

The ‘Self-Aware’ ‘Emptiness’ of the Quantum-Epiontic Universe

Graham P. Smetham

A recent encounter with a quantum physicist has prompted me to examine the claims made by some interpreters of the work of Wojciech H. Zurek, and perhaps by Zurek himself – he does not seem to be clear on this point, that the quantum Darwinian approach to decoherence provides a means to establish the ‘objectivity’ of the classical world through the quantum ‘epiontic’ mechanism. A detailed and rigorous philosophical analysis of Zurek’s perspective indicates that the kind of objectivity provided by the quantum Darwinian physical-metaphysical perspective corresponds to what Bernard d’Espagnat terms ‘weak objectivity’, which is in fact a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity. Some of Zurek’s remarks seem to indicate that he thinks that his analysis undermines the ‘ultimate evidence’ that the classical world is entangled and dependent upon consciousness. However, a rigorous analysis shows that the opposite is the case; Zurek’s epiontic quantum Darwinian classical universe is ultimately dependent upon consciousness. I also indicate some remarkable points of contact with Buddhist metaphysics.

•Jan 31, 2012•0 citations
It is a commonplace to claim that quantum mechanics supports the old idea that a tree falling in a forest makes no sound unless there is a listener present. In fact, this conclusion is far from obvious. Furthermore, if a tunnelling particle is observed in the barrier region, it collapses to a state in which it is no longer tunnelling. Does this imply that while tunnelling, the particle can not have any physical effects? I argue that this is not the case, and moreover, speculate that it may be possible for a particle to have effects on two spacelike separate apparatuses simultaneously. I discuss the measurable consequences of such a feat, and speculate about possible statistical tests which could distinguish this view of quantum mechanics from a ``corpuscular'' one. Brief remarks are made about an experiment underway at Toronto to investigate these issues.
A recent encounter with a quantum physicist has prompted me to examine the claims made by some interpreters of the work of Wojciech H. Zurek, and perhaps by Zurek himself – he does not seem to be clear on this point, that the quantum Darwinian approach to decoherence provides a means to establish the ‘objectivity’ of the classical world through the quantum ‘epiontic’ mechanism. A detailed and rigorous philosophical analysis of Zurek’s perspective indicates that the kind of objectivity provided by the quantum Darwinian physical-metaphysical perspective corresponds to what Bernard d’Espagnat terms ‘weak objectivity’, which is in fact a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity. Some of Zurek’s remarks seem to indicate that he thinks that his analysis undermines the ‘ultimate evidence’ that the classical world is entangled and dependent upon consciousness. However, a rigorous analysis shows that the opposite is the case; Zurek’s epiontic quantum Darwinian classical universe is ultimately dependent upon consciousness. I also indicate some remarkable points of contact with Buddhist metaphysics.