Advertisement

Interpreting Quantum Mechanics

  • Edward MackinnonEmail author
Chapter
  • 999 Downloads
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 289)

Abstract

Interpreting quantum mechanics (QM) is taken as the interpretation of a practice involving both experimental and theoretical inferences. The two inference systems rest on mutually incompatible foundations. Thus, the theory disallows sharp particle trajectories. The accelerators and detectors basic to the practice of particle physics rely on sharp trajectories. Orthodox QM includes a projection postulate, allowing for the infusion of experimental inferences into the theory. A replacement for orthodox QM should include an analog of the projection postulate. It should also have a quantum, rather than a semi-classical, foundation and should accommodate virtual processes. The Consistent Histories (CH) formulation/interpretation meets these requirements. Here this is presented in two stages. The first summarizes Griffiths’s formulation of CH and considers the outstanding objections The second treats the Gell-Mann–Hartle project of providing a CH formulation that allows for the emergence of a quasi-classical order, an approximation to the large-scale deterministic laws that characterize the classical realm.

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Large Hadron Collider Compact Muon Solenoid Coarse Graining Copenhagen Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bassi, Angelo, and Gian Carlo Ghirardi. 1999. Decoherent Histories and Realism. arXiv:quant-ph/912031.Google Scholar
  2. Bjorken, James, and Sidney Drell. 1964. Relatiivistic Quantum Mechanics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Bub, Jeffrey. 1997. Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. CMS: The Computing Project; Technical Design Report. 2005. CERN-LHCC-2005-022.Google Scholar
  5. Cowan, G. A., David Pines, and David Meltzer. 1999. Complexity Metaphors, Models, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  6. De Witt, Bryce, and Neill Graham. 1973. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. D’Espagnat, Bernard. 1995. Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Present-Day Quantum Mechanical Concepts. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Dowker, Fay, and Adrian Kent. 1995. Properties of Consistent Histories. Physical Review Letters, 75, 3038–3041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dowker, Fay, and Adrian Kent. 1996. On the Consistent Histories Approach to Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 82, 1575–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Everett, Hugh. 1957. Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foldy, Leslie, and Siegfried Wouthuysen. 1950. On the Dirac Theory of Spin 1/2 Particles and Its Non-Relativistic Limit. The Physical Review, 76, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galison, Peter. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Galison, Peter. 1997. Pure and Hybrid Detectors: Mark I and the Psi. In Lillian Hoddeson, et al. (eds.), The Rise of the Standard Model (pp. 308–337). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gell-Mann, Murray, and James Hartle. 1993. Classical Equations for Quantum Systems. Physical Review D, 47, 3345–3382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gell-Mann, Murray. 1994. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  16. Gell-Mann, Murray, and James B. Hartle. 1995. Strong Decoherence. arXiv:gr-qc/9509054 v4Google Scholar
  17. Gell-Mann, Murray, and James B. Hartle. 1996. Equivalent Sets of Histories and Quasiclassical Realms. arXiv:gr-qc/9404013 v3Google Scholar
  18. Gell-Mann, Murray. 1997. Quarks, Colors, and QCD. In Lillian Hoddeson, Laurie Brown, Michael Riordan, and Max Dresden (eds.), The Rise of the Standard Model (pp. 625–633). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gell-Mann, Murray. 1999. Complex Adaptive Systems. In G. A. Cowan, Pines David, and David Meltzer (eds.), Complexity Metaphors, Models, and Reality (pp. 17–46). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  20. Gell-Mann, Murray, and James Hartle. 1990. Quantum Mechanics in the Light of Quantum Cosmology. In W. H. Zurek (ed.), Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Ghirardi, G., and T. Rimini, A. Weber. 1986. Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems. Physical Review D, 34, 470–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldstein, Sheldon. 1998. Quantum Theory Without Observers–Part One. Physics Today, 51, 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffiths, Robert. 1984. Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 36, 219–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffiths, Robert. 1986. Correlations in Separated Quantum Systems. American Journal of Physics, 55, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffiths, Robert B. 1996. Consistent Histories and Quantum Reasoning. arXiv:quant-ph.Google Scholar
  26. Griffiths, Robert, and James Hartle. 1997. Comment on “Consistent Sets Yield Contrary Inferences in Quantum Theory.” arXiv:gr-qc/9710025 v1.Google Scholar
  27. Griffiths, Robert. 1998. Choice of Consistent Family and Quantum Incompatibility. Physical Review A, 57, 1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffiths, Robert B. 2002a. The Nature and Location of Quantum Information. Physical Review A, 66.Google Scholar
  29. Griffiths, Robert B. (ed.) 2002b. Consistent Quantum Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Halvorson, Hans, and Rob Clifton. 2002. No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Philosophy of Science, 69, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hartle, James B. 1993. The Reduction of the State Vector and Limitations on Measurement in the Quantum Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hartle, James B. 2002a. Theories of Everything and Hawking’s Wave Function of the Universe. In G. Gibons, P. Shellard, and S. Rankin (eds.), The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hartle, James B. 2002b. The State of the Universe. arXiv:gr-qc/02090476 v1.Google Scholar
  34. Healey, Richard. 2004. Gauge Theories and Holism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35, 619–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kent, Adrian. 1998. Consistent Sets and Contrary Inferences: Reply to Griffiths and Hartle. arXiv:gr-qc/9808016v2.Google Scholar
  36. Kent, Adrian. 2000. Quantum Histories and Their Implications. arXiv:gr-qc/9607073v4.Google Scholar
  37. Kirk, G. S., and J. E. Raven 1962. The Pre-Socratic Philosophers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lincoln, Don. 2009. The Quantum Frontier: The Large Hadron Collider. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  39. MacKinnon, Edward. 2009a. The Consistent Histories Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. PhilSciArchcives, # 4549Google Scholar
  40. MacKinnon, Edward. 2009b. The New Reductionism. The Philosophical Forum, 34, 439–462.Google Scholar
  41. Omnès, Roland. 1994. The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Omnès, Roland. 1999. Understanding Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Susskind, Leonard. 2006. The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
  44. ’t Hooft, Gerard. 1997. In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tegmark, Max. 1997. The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds of Many Words? arXiv:quant-ph/9709132v1.Google Scholar
  46. Teller, Paul. 1995. An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wallace, David. 2006. Epistemology Quantized: Circumstances in Which We Should Come to Believe in the Everett Interpretation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 655–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wheeler, John. 1983. Law Without Law. In J. Wheeler, and W. Zurek (eds.), Quantum Theory and Measurement (pp. 182–213). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Wilczek, Frank. 2008. The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether and the Unification of Forces. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Zee, A. 2003. Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State University East BayOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations