Abstract
In this paper I discuss two versions of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics: the modal interpretation as formulated by Kochen and Dieks, and the atomic modal interpretation proposed by Bacciagaluppi and Dickson. I examine whether these interpretations yield a conceptually coherent description of reality and whether they solve the measurement problem.
Modal interpretations ascribe actually possessed properties to quantum systems. I argue that the Kochen-Dieks interpretation cannot simultaneously ascribe properties to many systems, that it does not provide dynamics for the ascribed properties and that it yields an odd though tenable relation between the properties of systems and subsystems. The atomic modal interpretation violates in its turn the assumption that measurements which yield with probability 1 a positive outcome, reveal initially possessed properties.
The Kochen-Dieks and the atomic modal interpretation do not always solve the measurement problem because they do not always ascribe the required readings to the measurement device after a measurement. I define for both interpretations classes of measurements for which they do solve the measurement problem. These classes comprise error-prone measurements and measurements perturbed by environmental influences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Albert, D. Z and B. Loewer (1990), “Wanted Dead or Alive: Two Attemps to Solve Schrödinger’s Paradox”, in Fine, Forbes and Wessels (1990), pp. 277–285.
Albert, D. Z and B. Loewer (1993), “Non-Ideal Measurements”, Foundations of Physics Letters 6, 297–305.
Arntzenius, F. (1990), “Kochen’s Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Fine, Forbes and Wessels (1990), pp. 241–249.
Bacciagaluppi, G. (1995), “A Kochen-Specker Theorem in the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 34, 1205–1216.
Bacciagaluppi, G. (1996), “Delocalised Properties in the Modal Interpretation of a Continuous Model of Decoherence”, University of Cambridge Preprint.
Bacciagaluppi, G. and W. M. Dickson (1996), “Modal Interpretations with Dynamics”, in preparation.
Bacciagaluppi, G., M. J. Donald, and P. E. Vermaas (1995), “Continuity and Discontinuity of Definite Properties in the Modal Interpretation”, Helvetica Physica Acta 68, 679–704.
Bacciagaluppi, G. and M. Hemmo (1996), “Modal Interpretations, Decoherence and Measurements”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modem Physics 27, 239–277.
Bacciagaluppi, G. and P. E. Vermaas (1998), “Virtual Reality: Consequences of No-Go Theorems for the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in M. Dalla Chiara, R. Giuntini, and F. Laudisa (eds.), Philosophy of Science in Florence, 1995 (Kluwer, Dordrecht), forthcoming.
Bub, J. (1992), “Quantum Mechanics without the Projection Postulates”, Foundations of Physics 22, 737–754.
Clifton, R. K. (1995), “Independent Motivation of the Kochen-Dieks Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46, 33–57.
Clifton, R. K. (1996), “The Properties of the Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 371–398.
Dieks, D. (1988), “The Formalism of Quantum Theory: An Objective Description of Reality?”, Annalen der Physik 7, 174–190.
Dieks, D. (1994), “Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Measurements, and Macroscopic Behavior”, Physical Review A 49, 2290–2300.
Dieks, D. (1998), “Preferred Factorizations and Consistent Property Attribution”, in Healey and Hellman (1998), forthcoming.
Elby, A. (1993), “Why “Modal” Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics don’t Solve the Measurement Problem”, Foundations of Physics Letters 6, 5–19.
Fine, A., M. Forbes, and L. Wessels (eds.) (1990), Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 1 (Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan).
Healey, R. (1989), The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Healey, R. and G. Hellman (eds.) (1998), Quantum Measurement: Beyond Paradox, Volume 17 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis), in preparation.
Kochen, S. (1985), “A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in P. J. Lahti and P. Mittelsteadt (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modem Physics (World Scientific, Singapore), pp. 151–169.
Rellich, F. (1969), Perturbation Theory of Eigenvalue Problems (Gordon and Breach, New York).
Ruetsche, L. (1995), “Measurement Error and the Albert-Loewer Problem”, Foundations of Physics Letters 8, 327–344.
Svetlichny, G., M. L. G. Redhead, H. Brown, and J. Butterfield (1988), “Do the Bell Inequalities Require the Existence of Joint Probability Distributions?”, Philosophy of Science 55, 387–401.
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1991), Quantum Mechanics (Clarendon, Oxford).
Vermaas, P. E. (1996), “Unique Transition Probabilities in the Modal Interpretation”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27, 133–159.
Vermaas, P. E. (1997), “A No-Go Theorem for Joint Property Ascriptions in Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics”, Physical Review Letters 78, 2033–2037.
Vermaas, P. E. (1998a), “Expanding the Property Ascriptions in the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, in Healey and Hellman (1998), forthcoming.
Vermaas, P. E. (1998b), Possibilities and Impossibilities of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, Ph. D. thesis, Utrecht University.
Vermaas, P. E. and D. Dieks (1995), “The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Its Generalization to Density Operators”, Foundations of Physics 25, 145–158.
Von Neumann, J. (1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vermaas, P.E. (1998). The Pros and Cons of the Kochen-Dieks and the Atomic Modal Interpretation. In: Dieks, D., Vermaas, P.E. (eds) The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol 60. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5084-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5084-2_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6135-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5084-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive