Advertisement

Modal Interpretations

A General Framework to Interpret Quantum Mechanics
  • Pieter E. Vermaas
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 320)

Abstract

One of the questions that is haunting the theory of quantum mechanics since its very first beginnings is what the world would be like if this theory were true. And since those beginnings physicists and philosophers have tried to answer this question, which has become known as the question of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. These attempts have led to mixed results. They have generated candidate answers such as the De Broglie-Bohm theory and the consistent histories approach. But they also have led to constraints: the Bell inequalities and the KochenSpecker no-go theorem, for instance, clearly limit what an interpretation of quantum mechanics can offer. Moreover, research has not yet resulted in one generally accepted answer: physicists and philosophers are still divided about the tenability of the De Broglie-Bohm theory, of the consistent histories approach or of any other proposal to interpret quantum mechanics. Hence, the present-day situation is that it is undecided how quantum mechanics should be interpreted. Research is thus still developing and generating new proposals.

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Dynamical State Standard Account Schrodinger Equation Empirical Adequacy 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albert, D. Z. and Loewer, B. (1993). Non-ideal measurements. Foundations of Physics Letters, 6: 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arntzenius, F. (1998). Curiouser and curiouser: a personal evaluation of modal interpretations. In Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. E., editors, The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, volume 60 of The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, pp. 337–377. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. Bacciagaluppi, G. (1995). A Kochen-Specker theorem in the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34: 1205–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacciagaluppi, G. (2002). The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Me-chanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  5. Bacciagaluppi, G. and Dickson, W. M. (1999). Dynamics for modal in-terpretations. Foundations of Physics, 29: 1165–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bacciagaluppi, G., Donald, M. J., and Vermaas, P. E. (1995). Continuity and discontinuity of definite properties in the modal interpretation. Helvetica Physica Acta, 68: 679–705.Google Scholar
  7. Bacciagaluppi, G. and Hemmo, M. (1996). Modal interpretations, de-coherence and measurements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27: 239–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bub, J. (1992). Quantum mechanics without the projection postulate. Foundations of Physics, 22: 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Bub, J. and Clifton, R. K. (1996). A uniqueness theorem for “no collapse” interpretations of quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27: 181–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bub, J., Clifton, R. K., and Goldstein, S. (2000). Revised proof of the uniqueness theorem for “no collapse” interpretations of quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 31: 95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Clifton, R. K. (1996). The properties of modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47: 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clifton, R. K. (2000). The modal interpretation of algebraic quantum field theory. Physics Letters A, 271: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickson, W. M. (1998). Quantum Chance and Non-Locality: Probability and Non-Locality in the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickson, W. M. and Clifton, R. K. (1998). Lorentz-invariance in modal interpretations. In Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. E., editors, The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,volume 60 of The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, pp. 9-47. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Dieks, D. (1988). The formalism of quantum theory: an objective description of reality? Annalen der Physik, 7: 174–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dieks, D. (1998a). Locality and Lorentz-covariance in the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. E., editors, The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, volume 60 of The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, pp. 49–67. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dieks, D. (1998b). Preferred factorizations and consistent property attribution. In Healey, R. A. and Hellman, G., editors, Quantum Measurement: Beyond Paradox, volume 17 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of of Science, pp. 144–159. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  20. Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. E., editors. (1998). The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, volume 60 of The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Healey, R. A. (1989). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Healey, R. A. and Hellman, G., editors. (1998). Quantum Measurement: Beyond Paradox, volume 17 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of of Science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  23. Kochen, S. (1995). A new interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Lahti, P. J. and Mittelstead, P., editors, Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, pp. 151–169. World Scientific, Singapore.Google Scholar
  24. Fraassen, B. C. (1972). A formal approach to the philosophy of science. In Colodny, R., editor, Paradigms and Paradoxes: Philosophical Challenges of the Quantum Domain, pp. 303–366. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  25. Fraassen, B. C. (1973). Semantic analysis of quantum logic. In Hooker, C. A., editor, Contemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory, pp. 80–113. Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fraassen, B. C. (1991). Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Clarendon, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fraassen, B. C. (1994). Interpretations of science; science as interpretation. In Hilgevoord, J., editor, Physics and Our View of the World, pp. 169–187. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vermaas, P. E. (1997). A no-go theorem for joint property ascriptions in modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. Physical Review Letters, 78: 2033–2037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vermaas, P. E. (1998). Expanding the property ascription in modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. In Healey, R. A. and Hellman, G., editors, Quantum, Measurement: Beyond Paradox, volume 17 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, pp. 115–143. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  30. Vermaas, P. E. (1999). A Philosopher’s Understanding of Quantum Mechanics: Possibilities and Impossibilities of a Modal Interpretation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Vermaas, P. E. and Dieks, D. (1995). The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and its generalization to density operators. Foundations of Physics, 25: 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter E. Vermaas
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of Technologythe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations