1
$\begingroup$

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?

$\endgroup$

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.