Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 7, Issue 9–10, pp 759–767 | Cite as

Wave-packet reduction as a medium of communication

  • Joseph Hall
  • Christopher Kim
  • Brien McElroy
  • Abner Shimony
Article

Abstract

Using an apparatus in which two scalers register decays from a radioactive source, an observer located near one of the scalers attempted to convey a message to an observer located near the other one by choosing to look or to refrain from looking at his scaler. The results indicate that no message was conveyed. Doubt is thereby thrown upon the hypothesis that the reduction of the wave packet is due to the interaction of the physical apparatus with the psyche of an observer.

A. Einstein(1)

Keywords

Scaler Register Wave Packet Radioactive Source Physical Apparatus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Einstein, inAlbert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, P. A. Schilpp, ed. (The Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, Illinois, 1949), p. 683.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Schrödinger,Naturwiss. 23, 807, 823, 844 (1935).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. P. Wigner,Am. J. Phys. 31, 6 (1963).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. H. Furry, Some Aspects of the Quantum Theory of Measurement, inLectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol. VIII-A, W. Britten, ed. (Univ. of Colorado Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1965).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. d'Espagnat,Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin, Menlo Park, 1971).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Bohr, On the Notions of Complementarity and Causality,Dialectica 2, 312 (1948); reprinted in N. Bohr,Essays, 1958–1962, on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley, London, 1963).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. F. von Weizsäcker, The Copenhagen Interpretation, inQuantum Theory and Beyond, T. Bastin, ed. (University Press, Cambridge, 1971), p. 25.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. J. Groenwold,Proc. Amsterdam Academy (B) 55, 219 (1952).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Shimony,Am. J. Phys. 31, 755 (1963).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Stein, On the Conceptual Structure of Quantum Mechanics, inParadigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain, Vol. 5 in the University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, R. Colodny, ed. (Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1972).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. A. Hooker, The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality: Einstein versus Bohr, inParadigms and Paradoxes, R. Colodny, ed. (Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1972).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Costa de Beauregard, Du Paradoxe au Paradigme,Epistemological Letters of the Institut de la Méthode, 2nd issue (May 1974).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O. Costa de Beauregard,Found. Phys. 6, 539 (1976).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. London and E. Bauer,La Théorie de l'Observation en Mécanique Quantique (Hermann, Paris, 1939).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. P. Wigner, Two Kinds of Reality, inSymmetries and Reflections (Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington, 1967).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ron Smith, unpublished, MIT (1968).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corp 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Hall
    • 1
  • Christopher Kim
    • 1
  • Brien McElroy
    • 1
  • Abner Shimony
    • 2
  1. 1.Physics DepartmentBoston UniversityBoston
  2. 2.Philosophy and Physics DepartmentsBoston UniversityBoston

Personalised recommendations