- #1
StevieTNZ
- 1,944
- 837
Hi there,
I came across http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1001.1777" ('Addressing the clumsiness loophole in a Leggett-Garg test of macrorealism') where a solution to the loophole is adroit measurements.
Before this paper (even version 1) was published http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609079" appeared ('Classical world arising out of quantum physics under the restriction of coarse-grained measurements'). I'm not sure, but does this paper use adroit measurements to come to their conclusions? I looked at the mathematics on page 2, and tried to make some sense of it, and compare it to the criteria for determining if a measurement is adroit on page 2 of the loophole paper, but because of my limited Maths skills failed at the attempt.
I'd be interested to know if the Brukner paper uses adroit measurements (not necessarily determined through the description in the loophole paper, but equivalent)?
Also, in 'Sneaking a Look at God's Cards', the author argued that macrorealism doesn't imply noninvasive measurement, whereas the authors of these two papers use those premises in conjunction (macrorealism implies noninvasive measurement) to derieve the inequality. I've later found out that whether the two propositions are logically independent or logically dependent has no affect on the final inequality, but if the adroit measurement is used to replace noninvasive measurement (see loophole paper and explanation on why a device might not always be noninvasive), by just using adroit measurement would that violate both premises? I'd see that if macrorealism implies noninvasive, and you change noninvasive to adroit, then both premises would be violated if the inequality is violated. But if macrorealism doesn't imply noninvasive, and you're replacing noninvasive measurement with adroit measurement, then are you really violating both premises?
Be interesting to see what replies I get to this. :)
I came across http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1001.1777" ('Addressing the clumsiness loophole in a Leggett-Garg test of macrorealism') where a solution to the loophole is adroit measurements.
Before this paper (even version 1) was published http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609079" appeared ('Classical world arising out of quantum physics under the restriction of coarse-grained measurements'). I'm not sure, but does this paper use adroit measurements to come to their conclusions? I looked at the mathematics on page 2, and tried to make some sense of it, and compare it to the criteria for determining if a measurement is adroit on page 2 of the loophole paper, but because of my limited Maths skills failed at the attempt.
I'd be interested to know if the Brukner paper uses adroit measurements (not necessarily determined through the description in the loophole paper, but equivalent)?
Also, in 'Sneaking a Look at God's Cards', the author argued that macrorealism doesn't imply noninvasive measurement, whereas the authors of these two papers use those premises in conjunction (macrorealism implies noninvasive measurement) to derieve the inequality. I've later found out that whether the two propositions are logically independent or logically dependent has no affect on the final inequality, but if the adroit measurement is used to replace noninvasive measurement (see loophole paper and explanation on why a device might not always be noninvasive), by just using adroit measurement would that violate both premises? I'd see that if macrorealism implies noninvasive, and you change noninvasive to adroit, then both premises would be violated if the inequality is violated. But if macrorealism doesn't imply noninvasive, and you're replacing noninvasive measurement with adroit measurement, then are you really violating both premises?
Be interesting to see what replies I get to this. :)
Last edited by a moderator: