Advertisement

Is Information the Key?

  • Jeffrey Bub
Chapter
Part of the The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science book series (WONS, volume 78)

Abstract

The difference between classical and quantum information arises because of the different distinguishability properties of classical and quantum pure states: only orthogonal quantum states are reliably distinguishable with zero probability of error. Classical information is that sort of information represented in a set of distinguishable states and so can be regarded as a subcategory of quantum information. The transition from classical to relativistic physics rests on the recognition that space-time structurally different than we thought. In the transition from classical to quantum physics, what we have discovered is that information in the physical sense is structurally different than we thought. The claim about information and quantum mechanics is that the puzzling and seemingly paradoxical features of the theory, including the measurement problem, are to be understood as arising from this structural difference.

Keywords

Quantum Correlation Credence Function Deterministic State Hide Variable Theory Stochastic Source 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was written during the tenure of a University of Maryland RASA semester research award.

References

  1. Bell, John Stuart. 1964. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics 1: 195–200. Reprinted in Bell, John Stuart. 1989. Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, John Stuart. 1966. On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 38(3): 447–452. Reprinted in Bell, John Stuart. 1989. Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, John Stuart. 1990. Against measurement. Physics World, 8: 33–40. Reprinted in Sixty-two years of uncertainty: historical, philosophical and physical inquiries into the foundations of quantum mechanics, ed. Arthur Miller, 17–31. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  4. Bohm, David. 1952. A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables. I and II. Physical Review 85:166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohr, Niels. 1935. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 48:696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Born, Max. 1971. The Born-Einstein Letters. London: Walker and Co.Google Scholar
  7. Brassard, Gilles. 2000. Quantum foundations in the light of quantum cryptography. Workshop on Quantum foundations in the light of quantum information and cryptography. Université de Montréal, 17–19 May, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Bub, Jeffrey. 2009. Bub-Clifton theorem. In Compendium of quantum physics, eds. D. Greenberger, K. Hentschel, and F. Weinert, 84–86. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clauser, John F., Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A. Holt. 1969. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters 23:880–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Einsten, Albert, Boris Podolosky, and Nathan Rosen. 1935. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47: 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frigg, Roman, and Carl Hoefer. 2010. Determinism and chance from a Humean perspective. In The present situation in the philosophy of science, eds. Friedrich Stadler, Dennis Dieks, Wenceslao J. González, Stephan Hartmann, Thomas Uebel, and Marcel Weber, 351–372. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghirardi, Gian-Carlo. 2008. Collapse theories. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-collapse/ . Accessed 12 June 2011.
  13. Hoefer, Carl. 2007. The third way on objective probability: a sceptic’s guide to objective chance. Mind 116(463): 549–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Popescu, Sandu, and Daniel Rohrlich. 1994. Quantum non-locality as an axiom. Foundations of Physics 24(3): 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Saunders, Simon, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent, and David Wallace. 2010. Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Short, Anthony J., and Stephanie Wehner. 2010. Entropy in general physical theories. New Journal of Physics 12: 033023–033057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. von Neumann, John. 1955. Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations