# UnfinishedWork: A Bequest

- 1 Citations
- 985 Downloads

The following is a list of projects on which some results have been achieved but are still incomplete. Participants in this Conference and their students and colleagues are invited to carry investigations further: (1) A quantum mechanical limitation upon the possibility of exact measurement due to the existence of additive conserved quantities; (2) The apparent impossibility of achieving a quantum mechanical mixture of definite measurement outcomes by means of a measurement procedure that is reliable or even approximately reliable if the initial state of the object is a superposition of eigenstates with different eigenvalues; (3) The extension to a system of n particles, with n greater than two, of an established complementarity relation between one-particle and two-particle interferometric visibilities in a two-particle system; (4) The refinement and performance of a proposed experiment for testing the hypothesis that the validity of the Pauli Exclusion Principle is a time dependent phenomenon, holding with increasing accuracy with the aging of an ensemble of fermions; (5) The resolution of the conflict between the locality implied by the special theory of relativity and the non-locality exhibited by violations of Bell's Inequalities in entangled quantum mechanical systems.

## Keywords

Complete State Pauli Exclusion Principle Standard Quantum Mechanic Fringe Visibility Versus Pair## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.E.P. Wigner, “Die Messung quantenmechanischer Operatoren,”
*Zeitschrift f. Physik***133**, 101–108 (1952).zbMATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 2.H. Araki and M. Yanase, “Measurement of quantum mechanical operators,”
*Physical Review***120**, 622–626 (1960).zbMATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 3.H. Stein and A. Shimony, “Limitations on measurement,” in B. d'Espagnat (ed.)
*Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*(Academic, New York/London, 1971), 56–76.Google Scholar - 4.A. Shimony and H. Stein, “A problem in Hilbert space theory arising from the quantum theory of measurement,”
*American Mathematical Monthly***86**, 292–293 (1979).zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 5.E.P. Wigner, “The problem of measurement,”
*American Journal of Physics***31**, 6–15 (1963).zbMATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 6.A. Shimony, “Approximate measurement in quantum mechanics—II,”
*Physical Review D***9**, 2321–2323 (1974). Reprinted in*Search for a Naturalistic World View*, vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993), 41–47.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 7.H. Stein, “Maximal extension of an impossibility theorem concerning quantum measurement,” in R.S. Cohen, M. Horne, and J. Stachel (eds.)
*Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance*(Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1997), 231–243. Theoretical Physics**64**, 719 (1980).Google Scholar - 8.P. Busch, P. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt,
*The Quantum Theory of Measurement*, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, 1996), 6.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 9.P. Busch and A. Shimony, “Insolubility of the quantum measurement problem for unsharp observables,”
*Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics***27B**, 399 (1997).Google Scholar - 10.S. Machida and M. Namiki, “Theory of measurement of quantum mechanics—mechanism of reduction of wave packet” I, II,
*Progress in Theoretical Physics***63**, 1457–1473, 1833– 1843 (1980).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 11.H. Araki, “A remark on Machida-Namiki theory of measurement,”
*Progress in Theoretical Physics***64**, 719–730 (1980).zbMATHADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 12.M. Namiki and S. Pascazio “Quantum theory of measurement based on the many-Hilbert-space approach,”
*Physics Reports***232**, 302–411 (1993).CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 13.R.B. Griffiths,
*Consistent Quantum Theory*(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002).zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 14.R. Omnès,
*Quantum Philosophy*(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1999).Google Scholar - 15.M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, “Two particle interferometry,”
*Physical Review Letters***62**, 2209–2212 (1988).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 16.A.F. Abouraddy, M.B. Nasr, B.E.A. Saleh, A.V. Sergienko, and M.C. Teich, “Demonstration of the complementarity of one- and two-photon interference,”
*Physical Review A***63**, 8031– 8036 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.R.B. Griffiths,
*Consistent Quantum Theory*(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002), 85.zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 18.G. Jaeger, A. Shimony, and L. Vaidman, “Two interferometric complementarities,”
*Physical Review A***51**, 63 (1995).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 19.M. Horne, “Complementarity of fringe visibilities in three-particle quantum mechanics,” in D. Greenberger, W. Reiter, and A. Zeilinger (eds.)
*Epistemological and Experimental Perspectives on Quantum Physics*(Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1999), 211–219.Google Scholar - 20.E. Corinaldesi, “Model of a dynamical theory of the Pauli Principle,”
*Supplemento al Nuovo Cimento serie I***5**, 937–943 (1967).Google Scholar - 21.A. Shimony, “Proposed experiment to test the possible time dependence of the onset of the Pauli Exclusion Principle,”
*Quantum Information Processing***5**, 277–286 (2006).zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 22.W. Pauli, “The connection between spin and statistics,”
*Physical Review***58**, 716–722 (1940).zbMATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 23.J.S. Bell, “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,”
*Physics***1**, 195–200 1964. Reprinted in J.S. Bell,*Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics*, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004), 14–21.Google Scholar - 24.J. Clauser, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R.A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,”
*Physical Review Letters***23**, 880–884 (1969).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 25.J.S. Bell, “The theory of local beables,” in
*Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics*, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004), 56–57, 64–65.Google Scholar - 26.J. Jarrett, “On the physical significance of the locality conditions in the Bell arguments,”
*Noû s***18**, 569 (1984).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 27.N. Gisin, “Bell's inequality holds [note: should read “is violated”] for all non-product states,”
*Physics Letters A***154**, 201–202 (1991).CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 28.S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, “Generic quantum nonlocality,”
*Physics Letters A***166**, 293–297 (1992).CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 29.P. Eberhard, “Bell's theorem and the different conceptions of locality,”
*Nuovo Cimento B***46**, 392–419 (1978).CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 30.G.-C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, “A general argument against super-luminal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process,”
*Lettere al Nuovo Cimento***27**, 293–298 (1980).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 31.D. Page, “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen physical reality is completely described by quantum mechanics,”
*Physics Letters A***91**, 57–60 (1982).CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 32.J. S. Bell, “La Nouvelle Cuisine,” in
*Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics*, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004).Google Scholar - 33.M. Heller, “Cosmological singularity and the creation of the universe,”
*Zygon***35**, 665–685 (2000); M. Heller, W. Sasin, and D. Lambert, “Groupoid approach to noncommutative quantization of gravity,”*Journal of Mathematical Physics***38**, 5840–5853 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 34.A. Connes,
*Noncommutative Geometry*(Academic, New York, 1994).zbMATHGoogle Scholar