Ontology Of Quantum Mechanics Research Articles

How many properties of spin does a particle have?

A common assumption in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is that self-adjoint operators mathematically represent properties of quantum systems. Focusing on spin, we argue that a natural view considers observables as determinable properties and their eigenvalues as their corresponding determinates. We provide a taxonomy of the different views that one can hold, once it is accepted that spin can be modelled with the determinable-determinate relation. In particular, we present the two main families of views, dubbed Spin Monism and Pluralism, and we show that the current literature does not take a stance between the two. Then we put forward two arguments in favour of the former. Finally, we present a new account of Spin Monism, that is absent in current literature; such a view is worth discussing, or so we contend, because several compelling considerations support it, and it opens new ways of thinking about the ontology of quantum mechanics.

Quantum ontology without speculation

Existing proposals concerning the ontology of quantum mechanics (QM) either involve speculation that goes beyond the scientific evidence or abandon realism about large parts of QM. This paper proposes a way out of this dilemma, by showing that QM as it is formulated in standard textbooks allows for a much more substantive ontological commitment than is usually acknowledged. For this purpose, I defend a non-fundamentalist approach to ontology, which is then applied to various aspects of QM. In particular, I will defend realism about spin, which has been viewed as a particularly hard case for the ontology of QM.

Онтологические основания познания в квантовой физике

The aim of the article is to analyze the ontological foundations of quantum mechanics and the relationship of various interpretations of quantum mechanics with the question of truth in scientific knowledge. The theoretical material (various interpretations of quantum mechanics) was analyzed. The research methods were analysis, comparative-historical and institutional approaches. On the basis of the study, it can be concluded that physicists are only able to predict the probabilities of physical phenomena or processes, without any knowledge of the structure of entity in itself. The study helps to complement the theoretical picture of the ontology of quantum mechanics and to get an idea about the development prospects of the methodology of physical sciences. We should not ascribe properties that are unobservable in experience to the entity because science can truly interpret only the representation of entity in itself in experience and the ways of dealing with it, not future events or possible states of the entity. Otherwise, science “slides” down to the level of dialectical (rhetorical) exercises based not on true premises, but on generally accepted or “authoritative” biases, which gives room to extreme forms of relativism and takes natural scientists away from studying nature to inventing empirically unsupported hypotheses. When, in accordance with the Cartesian ontology, the scientist assumes that the entity is as the “subject” observes it (that is, the “reflection” of the entity in consciousness is identified with entity in itself), this assumption leads the scientist to attempts to “scientifically” describe the future events or the possible states of the entity. The criterion for the truth of a scientific theory put forward by Einstein in his dispute with Bohr remains a fundamentally unattainable ideal. Cognition of nature is probabilistically and fundamentally incomplete since a person can consciously comprehend natural phenomena only within the framework of their representation in the existing being. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is due to the impossibility of knowing things as they exist by themselves, that is, as they exist outside of representation in the mind of the observer. This does not mean that physical entities did not exist before their knowledge: they existed potentially, but were not valid for the observer, that is, conscious. Quantum physics is as incomplete as any other physical theory when compared with an unattainable ideal, but this fact does not negate its truth for modern scientists since quantum theory is based on the results of verified experiments.

The End of a Classical Ontology for Quantum Mechanics?

In this paper, I argue that the Shrapnel–Costa no-go theorem undermines the last remaining viability of the view that the fundamental ontology of quantum mechanics is essentially classical: that is, the view that physical reality is underpinned by objectively real, counterfactually definite, uniquely spatiotemporally defined, local, dynamical entities with determinate valued properties, and where typically ‘quantum’ behaviour emerges as a function of our own in-principle ignorance of such entities. Call this view Einstein–Bell realism. One can show that the causally symmetric local hidden variable approach to interpreting quantum theory is the most natural interpretation that follows from Einstein–Bell realism, where causal symmetry plays a significant role in circumventing the nonclassical consequences of the traditional no-go theorems. However, Shrapnel and Costa argue that exotic causal structures, such as causal symmetry, are incapable of explaining quantum behaviour as arising as a result of noncontextual ontological properties of the world. This is particularly worrying for Einstein–Bell realism and classical ontology. In the first instance, the obvious consequence of the theorem is a straightforward rejection of Einstein–Bell realism. However, more than this, I argue that, even where there looks to be a possibility of accounting for contextual ontic variables within a causally symmetric framework, the cost of such an account undermines a key advantage of causal symmetry: that accepting causal symmetry is more economical than rejecting a classical ontology. Either way, it looks like we should give up on classical ontology.

What is unsharp quantum reality? A conceptual analysis

In their paper Unsharp Quantum Reality, Paul Busch and Gregg Jaeger explain the conception of unsharp reality in terms of Positive Operator Valued (POV) measures, potentiality, and single-case probabilities. The present paper discusses their conception from a philosophical point of view, focusing on the ontological interpretation of POV measures employed in it and on its relation to Peter Mittelstaedt’s work on the semantics and ontology of quantum mechanics. Busch and Jaeger extend Mittelstaedt’s approach by adding a realistic interpretation of unsharp quantum properties to it. Their account of unsharp quantum reality generalizes Heisenberg’s potentiality interpretation of quantum states. In order to explain the transition from potential to actual quantum properties, they suggest a Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) collapse theory. Their approach comes close to recent work on quantum propensities. However, the question remains what unsharp quantum reality means when no measurement takes place, as for example claimed in the quark model of the subatomic constitution of matter.

From time asymmetry to quantum entanglement: The Humean unification

AbstractTwo of the most difficult problems in the foundations of physics are (1) what gives rise to the arrow of time and (2) what the ontology of quantum mechanics is. I propose a unified ‘Humean’ solution to the two problems. Humeanism allows us to incorporate the Past Hypothesis and the Statistical Postulate into the best system, which we then use to simplify the quantum state of the universe. This enables us to confer the nomological status to the quantum state in a way that adds no significant complexity to the best system and solves the “supervenient‐kind problem” facing the original version of the Past Hypothesis. We call the resultant theory the Humean unification. It provides a unified explanation of time asymmetry and quantum entanglement. On this theory, what gives rise to time's arrow is also responsible for quantum phenomena. The new theory has a separable mosaic, a best system that is simple and non‐vague, less tension between quantum mechanics and special relativity, and a higher degree of theoretical and dynamical unity. The Humean unification leads to new insights that can be useful to Humeans and non‐Humeans alike.

Aristotle and Quantum Mechanics: Potentiality and Actuality, Spontaneous Events and Final Causes

Aristotelian ideas have in the past been applied with mixed fortunes to quantum mechanics. One of the most persistent criticisms is that Aristotle’s notions of potentiality and actuality are burdened with a teleological character long ago abandoned in the natural sciences. Recently this criticism has been met with a model of the actualization of quantum potentialities in light of Aristotle’s doctrine of ‘spontaneous events’. This presumably restores the nowadays acceptable idea of efficient causation in place of Aristotle’s original doctrine of the ‘four causes’. In this article I challenge the model by arguing that when properly scrutinized Aristotle’s final cause poses no problems for an Aristotelian reading of quantum mechanics. Final causes in fact provide a better ontology for quantum mechanics than spontaneous causation. The idea of ‘spontaneity’ is unanalyzable and therefore of little use in quantum mechanics. In addition, it is ontologically sterile in the context of quantum measurement, as shown by a historical and conceptual review of the role of efficient causation in experimental physics.

Putting Mind Back into Nature: a Tribute to Henry P. Stapp

Henry P. Stapp has for 60 years been a leader—perhaps the leader—in exploring the role of mind/psyche/consciousness/experience in the ontology of quantum mechanics. Henry’s contention is that the very structure of quantum mechanics implies a central and irreducible role for mind: an experiential aspect of nature distinct from that of the physical matter and energy described by the dynamical equations of physics. The task then becomes to generate trans-disciplinary interest in exploring this thesis, and in particular to seek connections with neuroscience and with empirical psychology.

Lessons from realistic physics for the metaphysics of quantum theory

Quantum mechanics, and classical mechanics, are framework theories that incorporate many different concrete theories which in general cannot be arranged in a neat hierarchy, but discussion of ‘the ontology of quantum mechanics’ tends to proceed as if quantum mechanics were a single concrete theory, specifically the physics of nonrelativistically moving point particles interacting by long-range forces. I survey the problems this causes and make some suggestions for how a more physically realistic perspective ought to influence the metaphysics of quantum mechanics.

Contexts, Systems and Modalities: A New Ontology for Quantum Mechanics

In this article we present a possible way to make usual quantum mechanics fully compatible with physical realism, defined as the statement that the goal of physics is to study entities of the natural world, existing independently from any particular observer's perception, and obeying universal and intelligible rules. Rather than elaborating on the quantum formalism itself, we propose to modify the quantum ontology, by requiring that physical properties are attributed jointly to the system, and to the context in which it is embedded. In combination with a quantization principle, this non-classical definition of physical reality sheds new light on counter-intuitive features of quantum mechanics such as the origin of probabilities, non-locality, and the quantum-classical boundary.

Events and the Ontology of Quantum Mechanics

In the first part of the paper I argue that an ontology of events is precise, flexible and general enough so as to cover the three main alternative formulations of quantum mechanics as well as theories advocating an antirealistic view of the wave function. Since these formulations advocate a primitive ontology of entities living in four-dimensional spacetime, they are good candidates to connect that quantum image with the manifest image of the world. However, to the extent that some form of realism about the wave function is also necessary, one needs to endorse also the idea that the wave function refers to some kind of power. In the second part, I discuss some difficulties raised by the recent proposal that in Bohmian mechanics this power is holistically possessed by all the particles in the universe.

From Wave-Particle to Features-Event Complementarity

The terms wave and particle are of classical origin and are inadequate in dealing with the novelties of quantum mechanics with respect to classical physics. In this paper we propose to substitute the wave-particle terminology with that of features-event complementarity. This approach aims at solving some of the problems affecting quantum-mechanics since its birth. In our terminology, features are what is responsible for one of the most characterizing aspects of quantum mechanics: quantum correlations. We suggest that an (uninterpreted) basic ontology for quantum mechanics should be thought of as constituted by events, features and their dynamical interplay, and that its (interpreted) theoretical ontology (made up by three classes of theoretical entities: states, observables and properties) does not isomorphically correspond to the uninterpreted ontology. Operations, i.e. concrete interventions within the physical world, like preparation, premeasurement and measurement, together with reliable inferences, assure the bridge between interpreted and uninterpreted ontology.

The Status of our Ordinary Three Dimensions in a Quantum Universe1

AbstractThere are now several, realist versions of quantum mechanics on offer. On their most straightforward, ontological interpretation, these theories require the existence of an object, the wavefunction, which inhabits an extremely high‐dimensional space known as configuration space. This raises the question of how the ordinary three‐dimensional space of our acquaintance fits into the ontology of quantum mechanics. Recently, two strategies to address this question have emerged. First, Tim Maudlin, Valia Allori, and her collaborators argue that what I have just called the ‘most straightforward’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the correct one. Rather, the correct interpretation of realist quantum mechanics has it describing the world as containing objects that inhabit the ordinary three‐dimensional space of our manifest image. By contrast, David Albert and Barry Loewer maintain the straightforward, wavefunction ontology of quantum mechanics, but attempt to show how ordinary, three‐dimensional space may in a sense be contained within the high‐dimensional configuration space the wavefunction inhabits. This paper critically examines these attempts to locate the ordinary, three‐dimensional space of our manifest image “within” the ontology of quantum mechanics. I argue that we can recover most of our manifest image, even if we cannot recover our familiar three‐dimensional space.

Facing Quantum Mechanical Reality

Two recent precision experiments provide conclusive evidence against any local hidden variables theory and in favor of standard quantum mechanics. Therefore the epistemology and the ontology of quantum mechanics must now be taken more seriously than ever before. The consequences of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics are summarized in nontechnical language. The implications of the finiteness of Planck's constant (h > 0) for the quantum world are as strange as the implications of the finiteness of the speed of light (c < infinity for space and time in relativity theory. Both lead to realities beyond our common experience that cannot be rejected.