Advertisement

Quantum Ontology and Context Dependence

  • Sisir RoyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Recent advances in understanding quantum reality lead to the proposal of quantum ontology. Here, as such, there is no distinction between the classical and the non-classical world. This is based on the abstract framework of propositional calculus which gives rise to Hilbert space structure, in which case, the framework is devoid of any material content like the concept of elementary particles and their localizations. The fundamental constants such as the Planck constant (h), speed of light (c) and gravitational constant (G), which have definite numerical values, need to be interpreted in this abstract framework. This is known as contextualization in the arena of modern physics. Some attempts have been made by Mittlestaed and his collaborators (Mittlestaedt et al. 2011) in this direction. They tried to understand this type of contextualization based on the idea of POVM (positive-operator valued measure) and unsharp observables. The Planck constant has been shown to be the degree of unsharpness in the observability of complementary variables like position and momentum in the context of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. To apply the concepts of quantum ontology and quantum probability in other branches of knowledge such as the cognitive domain, it is necessary to make a prescription for contextualization.

Keywords

Quantum ontology Fundamental constants Contextuality Unsharp observables 

References

  1. Aerts, D. and Steirteghem, B. Von (1999) Int. Journ. Theor. Phys.; 39(3), 497-502.Google Scholar
  2. Asano, Masanari et al (2013) Found. Phys. 43(7);895-911.Google Scholar
  3. Birkhopf, G. & von Neumann, J. (1936) Annals of Mathematics, 37, pp 823-843.Google Scholar
  4. Boole George, Frier (1854) An Investigation of Laws of Thought: on which are founded the Mathematical theories of Logic and Probabilities; Google.co.in.Google Scholar
  5. Constantin, Piron. (1976) Foundations of Quantum Physics, Reading MA; W.A. Benjamin Inc., Massachusettes.Google Scholar
  6. Cushing, J.T. (1967) American Journal of Physics; 35 : 858–862. Google Scholar
  7. Giulini, Domenico (2001); “Das Problem der Tragheit (PDF)”; Preprint; Max-Planck InstitutfürWissenschaftsgeschichte; 190: 11–12, 25–26.Google Scholar
  8. Griffiths R.B. (2009) Consistent Histories. In Daniel Greenberger; Klaus Hentschel, and Friedel Weinert, editors, Compendium of Quantum Physics, pages 117–122. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Griffiths, R.B. (2011) A Consistent Quantum Ontology; arXiv:1105.3932v2
  10. Heelan, Patrick, A. (1970); Foundation of Physics, 1 (2):95-110.Google Scholar
  11. Kenny, A. (1976) Thomas D”Aquinas- Logic and Metaphysics; University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lange, Ludwig (1885) Ueber die wissenschaftilicheFassung des GalilichenBeharrungsgesetzes ;  Philosophische Studien; 2: 266–297.Google Scholar
  13. Mach, Ernst (1883/1912) Die Mechanik in ihrerEntwicklung (PDF); Leipzig: Brockhaus,(first English translation in 1893).Google Scholar
  14. Mittlesteadt, Peter (2011); Rational Reconstructions of Modern Physics; Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Poincaré, Henri (1889) Théoriemathématique de la lumière; 1; Paris: G. Carré& C. Naud Preface partly reprinted in “Science and Hypothesis”, Ch. 12; (1901a); “Sur les principes de la mécanique”, Bibliothèque du Congrès international de philosophie: 457–494.Google Scholar
  16. Quinne, W. V.O. (1951) The philosophical Review; 60;1(Jan 1951), 20-43; (1976); “TwoDogmas of Empiricism: Can Theories be Refuted”? in “The ways of paradox and other essays”; books.google.comGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Advanced Studies, IISc CampusBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations