Measurement Mechanics — Resolves QM Measurement Discrepancies

2024 · doi:10.32388/efjp80.2
preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-24 · read from full text ⓘ

The provided text does not contain any scientific content about a biomedical study: it includes only templated metadata (publication type, fields, copyright/licensing, and a note about a newer version). Because there are no methods, results, or stated limitations in the excerpt, the key finding cannot be determined from the available material. The paper also cannot be meaningfully summarized without the full body text or an abstract. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Measurement Mechanics proposes a major modification to the current understanding of measurement. This modification adds a unit standard as axiomatic to measurement theory. Currently, measurement theory (representational) defines the result of a measurement comparison to be a ratio of quantities (numerical value and unit) where the unit terms are equal and cancel. When the units cancel such a ratio is local to one measurement system, i.e., probabilistic. Thus all QM measurement results, based upon current measurement theory are local, as J. S. Bell confirmed. However, the units of each metrology measurement result are correlated by calibration to an independent unit standard. Then measurement result comparisons are a ratio of quantities each correlated to a common unit standard, which allows independent measurement result comparisons that are non-local and deterministic. When unit standards are included in measurement theory all the apparent discrepancies between QM and classic measurements are resolved.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0