Skip to main content
Log in

Logical anomalies of quantum objects. A survey

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We discuss some aspects of the concept of “object” and “objectuation” as suggested by the articulation of modern physics. In particular we analyze the new ontological thickness of the notion ofobject in quantum mechanics and in relativistic quantum mechanics.

At the end we try to formulate some modifications of the logical approach to quantum theory in order to grasp the new situation connected with relativistic quantum theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. L. B. Abbott and M. B. Wise, “Dimension of quantum mechanical path,”Am. J. Phys. 49, 37 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. Accardi, “Foundations of quantum mechanics: a quantum probabilistic approach,” Università di Roma, Preprint 17, 1986.

  3. T. Arecchi, “Caos e Ordine nella Fisica,”Il Saggiatore 3, 35 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Y. Aharonov and D. L. Albert, “Is the usual notion...?”,Phys. Rev. D 29, 223 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  5. V. B. Berestetski351-1, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevski351-2,Relativistic Quantum Theory (Pergamon, New York, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. I. Blokintseev,Space and Time in Microworld (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. N. Bogoliubov,Introduction to Axiomatic Quantum Field Theory (Benjamin, New York, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. Busch, “On the time-energy uncertainty relation,” Institut für Theoretische Physik Universität zu Köln, preprint, 1989.

  9. P. Caldirola and E. Recami, “The concept of time in physics,”Epistemologia I, 263 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  10. E. Celeghini, L. Lusanna, and E. Sorace, “Galilean invariance, Gauge invariance, and spin-dependent Hamiltonians,”Nuovo Cimento A 31, 89 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. L. Dalla Chiara, “Quantum logic and physical modalities,”J. Philos. Logic 6, 391 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. L. Dalla Chiara, “Physical implications in a Kripkian semantical approach to physical theories,”Scientia, Logic in the 20th Century, 1983.

  13. M. L. Dalla Chiara, “Names and descriptions in quantum (Logic,” in P. Mittelstaedt and E. W. Stachow, eds.,Recent Developments in Quantum Logic (Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. L. Dalla Chiara, “Istanti e Individui nelle Logische Temporali,”Riv. Filosofia LXIV, 95 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. L. Dalla Chiara and G. Toraldo di Francia, “‘Individuals,’ ‘Properties,’ and ‘Truths’ in the EPR Paradox,” in P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt eds.,Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. L. Dalla Chiara and G. Toraldo di Francia, “Time, possible worlds and intentions in the logical analysis of microphysics,” preprint.

  17. N. Cocchiarella, “Tense and modal logic: a study in the topology of tempotal reference,” PhD Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1965?

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Costantini, “The relevance quotient,”Erkenntnis 14, 149 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Costantini, M. C. Galavotti, and R. Rosa, “A rational reconstruction of elementary particle statistics,”Scientia 117, 137 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  20. D. Costantini, M. C. Galavotti, and R. Rosa, “A set of ground hypotheses for elementary particle statistics,”Nuovo Cimento B 74, 151 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  21. D'Espagnat,Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin, New York, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  22. G. G. Emch,Mathematical and Conceptual Foundations of 20th-Century Physics (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs,Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. S. Green,A generalised method of field quantization, Phys. Rev. 90, 270 (1953).

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten,Superstring Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  26. A. B. Kraemmer, H. B. Nielsen, and H. C. Tse, “On the scale dependence of the dimension of hadronic matter,”Nucl. Phys. B 81, 145 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  27. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Quantum Mechanics (Pergamon Press, New York, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. M. Lévy-Leblond, “Galilei group and Galilean invariance,” in E. M. Loebl, ed.,Group Theory and Applications, Vol. II (Academic Press, New York, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  29. G. Longhi and L. Lusanna. “Bound state solutions...,” Preprint DFF 86, No. 30, 1986.

  30. E. Nelson, “Derivation of Schrödinger equation from Newtonian mechanics,”Phys. Rev. 150, 1079 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  31. P. Mittelstaedt, “Relativistic quantum logic,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 22, 293 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  32. P. Mittelstaedt, “Constituting, naming and identity in quantum logic,” in P. Mittelstaedt and E. W. Stachow eds.,Recent Developments in Quantum Logic (Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  33. P. Mittelstaedt and E. W. Stachow, “Analysis of the EPR experiment by relativistic quantum logic,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 22, 517 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  34. W. Pauli, “The connection between spin and statistics,”Phys. Rev. 58, 716 (1940).

    Google Scholar 

  35. I. Pitowsky, “Resolution of the EPR paradoxes,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1299 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. Prior,Past, Present and Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. Rayski and J. M. Rayski, Jr., “On the meaning of the time-energy uncertainty relation,” in W. C. Price and S. S. Chissick, eds.,The Uncertainty Principle and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  38. R. S. Streater and A. S. Wightmann,PCT, Spin and Statistics and All That (Benjamin, New York, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  39. J. Tersoff and D. Bayer, “Quantum statistics of distinguishable particles,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 553 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  40. R. Thom,Modèles Mathématiques de la Morphogénèse (Christian Bourgois, Paris, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  41. G. Toraldo di Francia,Le cose e i loro nomi (Laterza, Bari, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  42. G. Toraldo di Francia, “Connotation and denotation in microphysics,” in P. Mittelstaedt and E. W. Stachow, eds.,Recent Developments in Quantum Logic (Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  43. G. Toraldo di Francia and M. L. Dalla Chiara, “Individual, kinds and names in physics,”Versus 40, 29 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  44. B. Van Fraassen, “Statistical behavior of indistinguishable particles: problems of interpretation,” in P. Mittelstaedt and E. W. Stachov, eds.,Recent Developments in Quantum Logic (Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  45. G. H. von Wright,Time, Change and Contradiction (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peruzzi, G. Logical anomalies of quantum objects. A survey. Found Phys 20, 337–352 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00731696

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00731696

Keywords

Navigation