Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:40:13.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fine's Prism Models for Quantum Correlation Statistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

W. D. Sharp  and
N. Shanks
W. D. Sharp
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta
N. Shanks
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Arthur Fine's use of prism models to provide local and deterministic accounts of quantum correlation experiments is presented and analyzed in some detail. Fine's claim that “there is … no question of the consistency of prism models … with the quantum theory“ (forthcoming, p. 16) is disputed. Our criticisms are threefold: (1) consideration of the possibility of additional analyzer positions shows that prism models entail unacceptably high rejection rates in the relevant experiments; (2) similar considerations show that the models are at best only superficially local and deterministic; and (3) in any case, Fine extracts the quantum correlation statistics from prism models only by resurrecting conceptual problems similar to those that his models were to designed to solve.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 538 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

We are grateful to Nancy Cartwright and Sarah Foster of Stanford University for the helpful discussions they had with one of us (N. S.) about earlier versions of some of the arguments presented in this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Aspect, A.; Dalibard, J.; and Roger, G. (1982), “Experimental Tests of Bell's Inequality Using Time-Varying Analyzers”, Physics Review Letters 49: 1804–1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1964), “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1: 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D. (1952), “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables”, Physics Review 85: 166–93.Google Scholar
Clauser, J., and Horne, M. (1974), “Experimental Consequences of Objective Local Theories”, Physics Review D 10: 526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauser, J., and Shimony, A. (1978), “Bell's Theorem: Experiment Tests and Implications”, Reports on Progress in Physics 41: 1883–1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can the Quantum Mechanical Description of Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physics Review 47: 777–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1973), “Probability and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1981), “Correlations and Physical Locality”, in PSA 1980, vol. 2, Peter D. Asquith and Ronald N. Giere (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 535–62.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1982a), “Some Local Models for Correlation Experiments”, Synthese 50: 279–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1982b), “Antinomies of Entanglement”, Journal of Philosophy 79: 733–47.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1982c), “Joint Distributions, Quantum Correlations, and Commuting Observables”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 23: 1306–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (forthcoming), “What Is Einstein's Statistical Interpretation, or, Is It Einstein for Whom Bell's Theorem Tolls?”, Topoi. (Mimeograph.)Google Scholar
Furry, W. H. (1936), “Note on the Quantum Mechanical Theory of Measurement”, Physics Review 49: 393–99.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. W.; Santos, E.; and Selleri, F. (1983), “Local Realism Has Not Been Refuted by Atomic Cascade Experiments”, Physics Letters 98 A: 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar