There are claims that the Ross-Littlewood paradox could be simulated in physics.

See https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/315502/ and in particular Paul's answer there.

Also a solution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox using extended probabilities as invented by Dirac, Bartlett, and Wigner has been considered.

W. Mückenheim: "A resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox", Lett. Nuovo Cim. 35 (1982) 300-304. W. Mückenheim et al.: "A review of extended probabilities", Phys. Rep. 133 (1986) pp. 337-401.

But are they really physical? An opinion refusing this is:

'If nontrivial set theory, non-constructive mathematics or a non-measurable set is used in an essential way, it cannot be physically relevant'.

Jakob Kellner: "Pitowsky's Kolmogorovian models and super-determinism", arXiv:1606.06849.

My question: Are there genuine physical examples supporting or contradicting this opinion?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.