Timeline for Does QM unequivocally violate the law of bivalence?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2016 at 20:29 | comment | added | CuriousOne | @StéphaneRollandin: I don't know about the current state of "quantum logic", but when I was following it some twenty years ago the overwhelming sentiment seems to have been that capturing the full richness of quantum mechanical dynamics in logical equations was not possible. I would conclude with that and it's not even surprising. No such thing can be done in Newtonian physics, either, where non-integrability prevents any non-trivial sampled statements (except maybe about energy and momentum conservation) about the future solution to be absolutely true. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 15:13 | comment | added | Luboš Motl | I would bet that the conclusion of many of you that the original person who made a similar statement was deeply confused about QM is just wrong. The statement was probably just a provocative, but rather rigorous formulation of the usual principle of quantum mechanics that one can't assume that observables have one of the well-defined values even in the absence of an observation. E.g. one can't assume that a particle in the double slit experiment went through one slit or the other slit, with the classical implication of this assumption on the calculation: the assumption neglects interference | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 12:50 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 29, 2016 at 0:14 | |||||
| Apr 28, 2016 at 12:45 | comment | added | Stéphane Rollandin | @ACuriousMind. Saying that the OP question does not make sense is a bit harsh, since works about "quantum logic" actually do exist, for whatever their worth. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 12:30 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | Standard quantum mechanics is not a logic, it is a physical theory expressed within the realm of standard logic. All statements that you can phrase in formal quantum mechanical terms obey the standard rules of logic. this question does not make sense unless you say how you want to interpret quantum mechanics as defining a new logical system. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 12:19 | answer | added | Stéphane Rollandin | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 12:13 | answer | added | Luboš Motl | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 9:51 | comment | added | lemon | Not even formal logic systems are constrained to the law of bivalence. Anyway, an apparent violation of bivalence only seems to occur when you artificially impose classical notions onto quantum mechanics. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 9:47 | history | edited | user85068 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 23 characters in body
|
| Apr 28, 2016 at 9:46 | comment | added | user85068 | i was misreading something i skim read (putnam) based on an idiot friend. | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 9:38 | history | asked | user85068 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |