{"title":"两个代理何时才能就量子测量结果达成一致?QBism 中的主体间协议。","authors":"Rüdiger Schack","doi":"10.1007/s10773-024-05790-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the QBist approach to quantum mechanics, a measurement is an action an agent takes on the world external to herself. A measurement device is an extension of the agent and both measurement outcomes and their probabilities are personal to the agent. According to QBism, nothing in the quantum formalism implies that the quantum state assignments of two agents or their respective measurement outcomes need to be mutually consistent. Recently, Khrennikov has claimed that QBism’s personalist theory of quantum measurement is invalidated by Ozawa’s so-called intersubjectivity theorem. Here, following Stacey, we refute Khrennikov’s claim by showing that it is not Ozawa’s mathematical theorem but an additional assumption made by Khrennikov that QBism is incompatible with. We then address the question of intersubjective agreement in QBism more generally. Even though there is never a necessity for two agents to agree on their respective measurement outcomes, a QBist agent can strive to create conditions under which she would expect another agent’s reported measurement outcome to agree with hers. It turns out that the assumptions of Ozawa’s theorem provide an example for just such a condition.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":597,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Theoretical Physics","volume":"63 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11455726/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When will Two Agents Agree on a Quantum Measurement Outcome? Intersubjective Agreement in QBism\",\"authors\":\"Rüdiger Schack\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10773-024-05790-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In the QBist approach to quantum mechanics, a measurement is an action an agent takes on the world external to herself. A measurement device is an extension of the agent and both measurement outcomes and their probabilities are personal to the agent. According to QBism, nothing in the quantum formalism implies that the quantum state assignments of two agents or their respective measurement outcomes need to be mutually consistent. Recently, Khrennikov has claimed that QBism’s personalist theory of quantum measurement is invalidated by Ozawa’s so-called intersubjectivity theorem. Here, following Stacey, we refute Khrennikov’s claim by showing that it is not Ozawa’s mathematical theorem but an additional assumption made by Khrennikov that QBism is incompatible with. We then address the question of intersubjective agreement in QBism more generally. Even though there is never a necessity for two agents to agree on their respective measurement outcomes, a QBist agent can strive to create conditions under which she would expect another agent’s reported measurement outcome to agree with hers. It turns out that the assumptions of Ozawa’s theorem provide an example for just such a condition.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Theoretical Physics\",\"volume\":\"63 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11455726/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Theoretical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"101\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-024-05790-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"物理与天体物理\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Theoretical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-024-05790-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
When will Two Agents Agree on a Quantum Measurement Outcome? Intersubjective Agreement in QBism
In the QBist approach to quantum mechanics, a measurement is an action an agent takes on the world external to herself. A measurement device is an extension of the agent and both measurement outcomes and their probabilities are personal to the agent. According to QBism, nothing in the quantum formalism implies that the quantum state assignments of two agents or their respective measurement outcomes need to be mutually consistent. Recently, Khrennikov has claimed that QBism’s personalist theory of quantum measurement is invalidated by Ozawa’s so-called intersubjectivity theorem. Here, following Stacey, we refute Khrennikov’s claim by showing that it is not Ozawa’s mathematical theorem but an additional assumption made by Khrennikov that QBism is incompatible with. We then address the question of intersubjective agreement in QBism more generally. Even though there is never a necessity for two agents to agree on their respective measurement outcomes, a QBist agent can strive to create conditions under which she would expect another agent’s reported measurement outcome to agree with hers. It turns out that the assumptions of Ozawa’s theorem provide an example for just such a condition.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Theoretical Physics publishes original research and reviews in theoretical physics and neighboring fields. Dedicated to the unification of the latest physics research, this journal seeks to map the direction of future research by original work in traditional physics like general relativity, quantum theory with relativistic quantum field theory,as used in particle physics, and by fresh inquiry into quantum measurement theory, and other similarly fundamental areas, e.g. quantum geometry and quantum logic, etc.