preprints.org > physical sciences > general & theoretical physics > doi: 10.20944/preprints202302.0264.v1

Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Version 1 : Received: 9 February 2023 / Approved: 16 February 2023 / Online: 16 February 2023 (03:22:45 CET)

This paper is a response to the EPR paper titled: "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?", published in Physical Review in 1935. A quantum-mechanical (QM) measurement function describes a distribution of local results, while each empirical measurement process produces one result as exact as allowed by a measuring instrument calibrated to a non-local unit standard. Repeating these empirical measurements produces a Gaussian distribution of measurement results. The QM and empirical measurement result distributions can be compared. To precisely compare a QM measurement function describing a distribution of eigenvectors to a distribution of repetitive empirical measurement results, it is necessary to determine, by calibration, the precision of the eigenvectors to the same standard as the empirical results, because each eigenvector evidences uncertainty relative to a standard. When the calibration process is recognized as formal as well as empirical, QM measurement function results and metrology measurement process results are unified.

uncertainty; metrology; wave function collapse; entanglement; calibration; standard; reference frame

PHYSICAL SCIENCES, General & Theoretical Physics