Book contents
- Quantum Worlds
- Quantum Worlds
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Ontology from Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
- Part II Realism, Wave Function, and Primitive Ontology
- Part III Individuality, Distinguishability, and Locality
- Part IV Symmetries and Structure in Quantum Mechanics
- Part V The Relationship between the Quantum Ontology and the Classical World
- Index
- References
Part I - Ontology from Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 April 2019
Book contents
- Quantum Worlds
- Quantum Worlds
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part I Ontology from Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
- Part II Realism, Wave Function, and Primitive Ontology
- Part III Individuality, Distinguishability, and Locality
- Part IV Symmetries and Structure in Quantum Mechanics
- Part V The Relationship between the Quantum Ontology and the Classical World
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Quantum WorldsPerspectives on the Ontology of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 7 - 118Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Albert, D. Z. (1996). “Elementary quantum metaphysics,” pp. 277–284 in Cushing, J. T., Fine, A., and Goldstein, S. (eds.), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics: An Appraisal. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Albert, D. Z. and Loewer, B. (1991). “Wanted dead or alive: Two attempts to solve Schrödinger’s paradox,” pp. 278–285 in Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), PSA 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume One: Contributed Papers. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Alicki, R. and Lendi, K. (2007). Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Allori, V., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2008). “On the common structure of Bohmian mechanics and the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59: 353–389.Google Scholar
Bassi, A. and Ghirardi, G. C. (2003). “Dynamical reduction models,” Physics Reports, 379: 257–426.Google Scholar
Bassi, A. and Hejazi, K. (2015). “No-faster-than-light-signaling implies linear evolution. A re-derivation.” European Journal of Physics, 36: 055027.Google Scholar
Bassi, A., Lochan, K., Satin, S., Singh, T., and Ulbricht, H. (2013). “Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 85: 471–527.Google Scholar
Bedingham, D. (2011a). “Relativistic state reduction model,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 306: 012034.Google Scholar
Bedingham, D. (2011b). “Relativistic state reduction dynamics,” Foundations of Physics, 41: 686–704.Google Scholar
Bedingham, D., Dürr, D., Ghirardi, G. C., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2014). “Matter density and relativistic models of wave function collapse,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 154: 623–631.Google Scholar
Brun, T., Finkelstein, J., and Mermin, N. D. (2002). “How much state assignments can differ,” Physical Review A, 65: 032315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, R. and Monton, B. (1999). “Losing your marbles in wavefunction collapse theories,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50: 697–717.Google Scholar
Diósi, L. (1989). “Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations,” Physical Review A, 40: 1165–1174.Google Scholar
Dove, C. (1996). Explicit Wavefunction Collapse and Quantum Measurement. PhD thesis. Durham: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Durham.Google Scholar
Dove, C. and Squires, E. J. (1996). “A local model of explicit wavefunction collapse,” arXiv:quant-ph/9605047.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C. (1996). “Properties and events in a relativistic context: Revisiting the dynamical reduction program,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 9: 313–355.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C. (1997a). “Quantum dynamical reduction and reality: Replacing probability densities with densities in real space,” Erkenntnis, 45: 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C. (1997b). “Macroscopic reality and the dynamical reduction program,” pp. 221–240 in Chiara, M. L. D., Doets, K., Mundici, D., and Benthem, J. V. (eds.), Structures and Norms in Science: Volume Two of the Tenth International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C. (1999). “Some lessons from relativistic reduction models,” pp. 117–152 in Breuer, H.-P. and Petruccione, F. (eds.), Open Systems and Measurement in Relativistic Quantum Theory: Proceedings of the Workshop Held at the Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici, Naples, April 3, 1998. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C. (2000). “Local measurements of nonlocal observables and the relativistic reduction process,” Foundations of Physics, 30: 1337–1385.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C. (2016). “Collapse theories,” Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/qm-collapse/Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C. and Grassi, R. (1994). “Outcome predictions and property attribution: The EPR argument reconsidered,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25: 397–423.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C. and Grassi, R. (1996). “Bohm’s theory versus dynamical reduction,” pp. 353–377 in Cushing, J. T., Fine, A., and Goldstein, S. (eds.), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Grassi, R., and Benatti, F. (1995). “Describing the macroscopic world: Closing the circle within the dynamical reduction program,” Foundations of Physics, 25: 5–38.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Grassi, R., Butterfield, J., and Fleming, G. N. (1993). “Parameter dependence and outcome dependence in dynamical models for state vector reduction,” Foundations of Physics, 23: 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Grassi, R., and Pearle, P. (1990). “Relativistic dynamical reduction models: General framework and examples,” Foundations of Physics, 20: 1271–1316.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Grassi, R., and Pearle, P. (1991). “Relativistic dynamical reduction models and nonlocality,” pp. 109–123 in Lahti, P. and Mittelstaedt, P. (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1990. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Pearle, P., and Rimini, A. (1990). “Markov processes in Hilbert space and continuous spontaneous localization of systems of identical particles,” Physical Review A, 42: 78–89.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986). “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems,” Physical Review D, 34: 470–491.Google Scholar
Gisin, N. (1989). “Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity,” Helvetica Physica Acta, 62: 363–371.Google Scholar
Goldstein, S. (1998). “Quantum theory without observers – Part two,” Physics Today, 51: 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, A. (2005). “Nonlinearity without superluminality,” Physical Review A, 72: 012108.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (1996). “Space-time in the quantum world,” pp. 285–307 in Cushing, J. T., Fine, A., and Goldstein, S. (eds.), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2007). “Completeness, supervenience and ontology,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40: 3151–3171.Google Scholar
Myrvold, W. C. (2003). “Relativistic quantum becoming,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53: 475–500.Google Scholar
Myrvold, W. C. (2011). “Nonseparability, classical and quantum,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62: 417–432.Google Scholar
Myrvold, W. C. (2016). “Lessons of Bell’s theorem: Nonlocality, yes; action at a distance, not necessarily,” pp. 238–260 in Gao, S. and Bell, M. (eds.), Quantum Nonlocality and Reality: 50 Years of Bell’s Theorem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myrvold, W. C. (2017). “Relativistic Markovian dynamical collapse theories must employ nonstandard degrees of freedom,” Physical Review A, 96: 062116.Google Scholar
Myrvold, W. C. (2018). “Ontology for collapse theories,” pp. 99–126 in Gao, S. (ed.), Collapse of the Wave Function: Models, Ontology, Origin, and Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ney, A. and Albert, D. Z. (eds.) (2013). The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearle, P. (1989). “Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization,” Physical Review A, 39: 2277–2289.Google Scholar
Pearle, P. (1997). “Tales and tails and stuff and nonsense,” pp. 143–156 in Cohen, R. S., Horne, M., and Stachel, J. (eds.), Experimental Metaphysics: Quantum Mechanical Studies for Abner Shimony, Volume One. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Pearle, P. (2009). “How stands collapse II,” pp. 257–292 in Myrvold, W. C. and Christian, J. (eds.), Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle: Essays in Honour of Abner Shimony. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pearle, P. (2015). “Relativistic dynamical collapse model,” Physical Review D, 91: 105012.Google Scholar
Schweber, S. (1961). An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1991). “Desiderata for a modified quantum mechanics,” pp. 49–59 in Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), PSA 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association. Reprinted in (1993), Search for a Naturalistic Worldview, Volume II: Natural Science and Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, C., Bužek, V., and Gisin, N. (2001). “No-signalling condition and quantum dynamics,” Physical Review Letters, 87: 170405.Google Scholar
Tumulka, R. (2006). “A relativistic version of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber model,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 125: 825–844.Google Scholar
Tumulka, R. (2007). “The unromantic pictures of quantum theory,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40: 3245–3273.Google Scholar
References
Albert, D. and Loewer, B. (1990). “Wanted dead or alive: Two attempts to solve Schrödinger’s paradox,” pp. 277–285 in Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the PSA 1990, Vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Albert, D. and Loewer, B. (1991). “Some alleged solutions to the measurement problem,” Synthese, 88: 87–98.Google Scholar
Albert, D. and Loewer, B. (1993). “Non-ideal measurements,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 6: 297–305.Google Scholar
Ardenghi, J. S., Castagnino, M., and Lombardi, O. (2009). “Quantum mechanics: Modal interpretation and Galilean transformations,” Foundations of Physics, 39: 1023–1045.Google Scholar
Ardenghi, J. S., Castagnino, M., and Lombardi, O. (2011). “Modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics and Casimir operators: The road to quantum field theory,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 50: 774–791.Google Scholar
Ardenghi, J. S., Lombardi, O., and Narvaja, M. (2013). “Modal interpretations and consecutive measurements,” pp. 207–217 in Karakostas, V. and Dieks, D. (eds.), EPSA 2011: Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Auyang, S. Y. (1995). How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. and Dickson, M. (1999). “Dynamics for modal interpretations,” Foundations of Physics, 29: 1165–1201.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. and Hemmo, M. (1996). “Modal interpretations, decoherence and measurements,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27: 239–277.Google Scholar
Ballentine, L. (1998). Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Bene, G. and Dieks, D. (2002). “A perspectival version of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and the origin of macroscopic behavior,” Foundations of Physics, 32: 645–671.Google Scholar
Brown, H., Suárez, M., and Bacciagaluppi, G. (1998). “Are ‘sharp values’ of observables always objective elements of reality?,” pp. 289–306 in Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. E. (eds.), The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M., Fortin, S., and Lombardi, O. (2010). “Is the decoherence of a system the result of its interaction with the environment?,” Modern Physics Letters A, 25: 1431–1439.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M., Fortin, S., and Lombardi, O. (2014). “Decoherence: A closed-system approach,” Brazilian Journal of Physics, 44: 138–153.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M., Laura, R., and Lombardi, O. (2007). “A general conceptual framework for decoherence in closed and open systems,” Philosophy of Science, 74: 968–980.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Lombardi, O. (2004). “Self-induced decoherence: A new approach,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 73–107.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Lombardi, O. (2005a). “Self-induced decoherence and the classical limit of quantum mechanics,” Philosophy of Science, 72: 764–776.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Lombardi, O. (2005b). “Decoherence time in self-induced decoherence,” Physical Review A, 72: #012102.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Lombardi, O. (2008). “The role of the Hamiltonian in the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Journal of Physics, Conferences Series, 28: 012014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., and Lalöe, F. (1977). Quantum Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
da Costa, N. and Lombardi, O. (2014). “Quantum mechanics: Ontology without individuals,” Foundations of Physics, 44: 1246–1257.Google Scholar
da Costa, N., Lombardi, O., and Lastiri, M. (2013). “A modal ontology of properties for quantum mechanics,” Synthese, 190: 3671–3693.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. (1988). “The formalism of quantum theory: An objective description of reality?,” Annalen der Physik, 7: 174–190.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. (1989). “Quantum mechanics without the projection postulate and its realistic interpretation,” Foundations of Physics, 38: 1397–1423.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. (eds.). (1998). The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Elby, A. (1993). “Why ‘modal’ interpretations of quantum mechanics don’t solve the measurement problem,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 6: 5–19.Google Scholar
Elitzur, A. C. and Vaidman, L. (1993). “Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements,” Foundations of Physics, 23: 987–997.Google Scholar
Fock, F. (1935). “Zur Theorie des Wasserstoff Atoms.” Zeitschrift für Physik, 98: 145–154.Google Scholar
Fortin, S. and Lombardi, O. (2014). “Partial traces in decoherence and in interpretation: What do reduced states refer to?,” Foundations of Physics, 44: 426–446.Google Scholar
Fortin, S., Lombardi, O., and Martínez González, J. C. (2018). “A new application of the modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics: The problem of optical isomerism,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 62 : 123–135.Google Scholar
French, S. and Krause, D. (2006). Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical and Formal Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harshman, N. L. and Wickramasekara, S. (2007a). “Galilean and dynamical invariance of entanglement in particle scattering,” Physical Review Letters, 98: 080406.Google Scholar
Harshman, N. L. and Wickramasekara, S. (2007b). “Tensor product structures, entanglement, and particle scattering,” Open Systems and Information Dynamics, 14: 341–351.Google Scholar
Kochen, S. (1985). “A new interpretation of quantum mechanics,” pp. 151–169 in Mittelstaedt, P. and Lahti, P. (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1985. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Kochen, S. and Specker, E. (1967). “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17: 59–87.Google Scholar
Laue, H. (1996). “Space and time translations commute, don’t they?,” American Journal of Physics, 64: 1203–1205.Google Scholar
Lévi-Leblond, J. M. (1974). “The pedagogical role and epistemological significance of group theory in quantum mechanics,” Nuovo Cimento, 4: 99–143.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. (2010). “The central role of the Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics: Decoherence and interpretation,” Manuscrito, 33: 307–349.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O., Ardenghi, J. S., Fortin, S., and Castagnino, M. (2011). “Compatibility between environment-induced decoherence and the modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Philosophy of Science, 78: 1024–1036.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O., Ardenghi, J. S., Fortin, S., and Narvaja, M. (2011). “Foundations of quantum mechanics: Decoherence and interpretation,” International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20: 861–875.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. and Castagnino, M. (2008). “A modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39: 380–443.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O., Castagnino, M., and Ardenghi, J. S. (2010). “The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation and the Galilean covariance of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 93–103.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. and Dieks, D. (2017). “Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/qm-modal/Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. and Dieks, D. (2016). “Particles in a quantum ontology of properties,” pp. 123–143 in Bigaj, T. and Wüthrich, C. (eds.), Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. and Fortin, S. (2015). “The role of symmetry in the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, 12: 255–272.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. and Fortin, S. (2016). “A top-down view of the classical limit of quantum mechanics,” pp. 435–468 in Kastner, R., Jeknić-Dugić, J., and Jaroszkiewicz, G. (eds.), Quantum Structural Studies: Classical Emergence from the Quantum Level. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O., Fortin, S., and Castagnino, M. (2012). “The problem of identifying the system and the environment in the phenomenon of decoherence,” pp. 161–174 in de Regt, H. W., Hartmann, S., and Okasha, S. (eds.), EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O., Fortin, S., and López, C. (2015). “Measurement, interpretation and information,” Entropy, 17: 7310–7330.Google Scholar
Menzel, C. (2007). “Actualism,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2007 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/actualism/Google Scholar
Minkowski, H. (1923). “Space and time,” pp. 75–91 in Perrett, W. and Jeffrey, G. B. (eds.), The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (2001). Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ruetsche, L. (1995). “Measurement error and the Albert-Loewer problem,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 8: 327–344.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1941). “On the calculus of relations,” The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 6: 73–89.Google Scholar
Vaidman, L. (1994). “On the paradoxical aspects of new quantum experiments,” pp. 211–217 in Proceedings of 1994 the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1972). “A formal approach to the philosophy of science,” pp. 303–366 in Colodny, R. (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1974). “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,” Synthese, 29: 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaas, P. and Dieks, D. (1995). “The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and its generalization to density operators,” Foundations of Physics, 25: 145–158.Google Scholar
References
Araújo, M. (2016). “If your interpretation of quantum mechanics has a single world but no collapse, you have a problem,” http://mateusaraujo.info/2016/06/20/if-your-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-has-a-single-world-but-no-collapse-you-have-a-problem/Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. (2002). “Remarks on space-time and locality in Everett’s interpretation,” pp. 105–122 in Placek, T. and Butterfield, J. (eds.), Non-Locality and Modality. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bene, G. and Dieks, D. (2002). “A perspectival version of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and the origin of macroscopic behavior,” Foundations of Physics, 32: 645–671.Google Scholar
Berndl, K., Dür, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N. (1996). “Nonlocality, Lorentz invariance, and Bohmian quantum theory,” Physical Review A, 53: 2062–2073.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1952). “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II,” Physical Review, 85: 166–193.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1928). “The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory,” Nature, 121: 580–590.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1935). “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,” Physical Review, 48: 696–702.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1948). “On the notions of causality and complementarity,” Dialectica, 2: 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dickson, M. and Clifton, R. (1998). “Lorentz invariance in modal interpretations,” pp. 9–47 in Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. (eds.), The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. (1985). “On the covariant description of wave function collapse,” Physics Letters A, 108: 379–383.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. (2009). “Objectivity in perspective: relationism in the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, 39: 760–775.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. (2017). “Niels Bohr and the formalism of quantum mechanics,” pp. 303–333 in Faye, J. and Folse, H. J. (eds.), Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics − Twenty-First-Century Perspectives. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P. (eds.). (1998). The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Everett, H. (1957). “‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 29: 454–462.Google Scholar
Fleming, G. (1996). “Just how radical is hyperplane dependence?,” pp. 11–28 in Clifton, R. (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Fortin, S. and Lombardi, O. (2019). “Wigner and his many friends: a new no-go result?,” http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/15552.Google Scholar
Frauchiger, D. and Renner, R. (2016). “Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent,” arXiv:1604.07422v1 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
Greenberger, D., Horne, M., Shimony, A., and Zeilinger, A. (1990). “Bell’s theorem without inequalities,” American Journal of Physics, 58: 1131–1143.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. (2017). “The consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/qm-consistent-histories/Google Scholar
Johnson, K., Wong-Campos, J., Neyenhuis, B., Mizrahi, J., and Monroe, C. (2017). “Ultrafast creation of large Schrödinger cat states of an atom,” Nature Communications, 8: Article 697. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00682-6.Google Scholar
Laudisa, F. and Rovelli, C. (2013). “Relational quantum mechanics,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/qm-relational/Google Scholar
Leegwater, G. (2018). “When Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger meet Wigner’s Friend,” arXiv:1811.02442 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. and Castagnino, M. (2008). “A modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39: 380–443.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. and Dieks, D. (2017). “Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/qm-modal/Google Scholar
London, F. and Bauer, E. (1939). La Théorie de l’Observation en Mécanique Quantique. Paris: Hermann. English translation, pp. 217–259 in Wheeler, J. A. and Zurek, W. H. (eds.), 1983, Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Myrvold, W. (2002a). “Modal interpretations and relativity,” Foundations of Physics, 32: 1773–1784.Google Scholar
Myrvold, W. (2002b). “On peaceful coexistence: is the collapse postulate incompatible with relativity?,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 33: 435–466.Google Scholar
Rovelli, C. (1996). “Relational quantum mechanics,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35: 1637–1678.Google Scholar
Smerlak, M. and Rovelli, C. (2007). “Relational EPR,” Foundations of Physics, 37: 427–445.Google Scholar
Sudbery, A. (2017). “Single-world theory of the extended Wigner’s friend experiment,” Foundations of Physics, 47: 658–669.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P. and Dieks, D. (1995). “The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and its generalization to density operators,” Foundations of Physics, 25: 145–158.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
References
Allori, V., Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N. (2002). “Seven steps towards the classical world,” Journal of Optics B, 4: 482–488.Google Scholar
Allori, V., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2008). “On the common structure of Bohmian mechanics and the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59: 353–389.Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1964). “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,” Physics, 1: 195–200. Reprinted in Bell (1987).Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1986). “Beables for quantum field theory,” Physics Reports, 137: 49–54. Reprinted in Bell (1987).Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berndl, K., Dürr, S., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N. (1996). “Nonlocality, Lorentz invariance, and Bohmian quantum theory,” Physical Review A, 53: 2062–2073.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1952). “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables: Parts I and II,” Physical Review, 85: 166–193.Google Scholar
Daumer, M., Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N. (1996). “Naive realism about operators,” Erkenntnis, 45: 379–397.Google Scholar
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Norsen, T., Struyve, W., and Zanghì, N. (2014). “Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic?,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 470: 20130699.Google Scholar
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2004). “Bohmian mechanics and quantum field theory,” Physical Review Letters, 93: 090402.Google Scholar
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N. (1992). “Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 67: 843–907.Google Scholar
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N. (2004). “Quantum equilibrium and the role of operators as observables in quantum theory,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 116: 959–1055.Google Scholar
Feynman, R., Morinigo, F., and Wagner, W. (2003). Feynman Lectures On Gravitation. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C. and Weber, T. (1983). “Quantum mechanics and faster-than-light communication: Methodological considerations,” Nuovo Cimento, 78B: 9–20.Google Scholar
Gleason, A. M. (1957). “Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space,” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 6: 885–893.Google Scholar
Kochen, S. and Specker, E. P. (1967). “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17: 59–87.Google Scholar
Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. (1958). Quantum Mechanics: Non-relativistic Theory. J. B. Sykes and J. S. Bell (trans.). Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Schilpp, P. A. (ed.). (1949). Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist. Evanston, IL: The Library of Living Philosophers.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1995). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dublin Seminars (1949–1955) and Other Unpublished Essays. Bitbol, M. (ed.). Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J. (1932/1955). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Beyer, R. T. (trans.), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wooters, W. K. and Zurek, W. H. (1982). “A single quantum cannot be cloned,” Nature, 299: 802–803.Google Scholar
References
Aharonov, Y. and Bohm, D. (1959). “Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,” Physical Review, 115: 485–491.Google Scholar
Albert, D. Z. (2013). “Wave function realism,” pp. 52–57 in Ney, A. and Albert, D. Z. (eds.), The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D. (1986). “Three experimental implications of the Everett interpretation,” pp. 204–214 in Penrose, R. and Isham, C. J. (eds.), Quantum Concepts of Space and Time. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D. (1999). “Quantum theory of probability and decisions,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 455: 3129–3137.Google Scholar
Diósi, L. (1987). “A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics,” Physics Letters A, 120: 377–381.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986). “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems,” Physical Review D, 34: 470–491.Google Scholar
Goldstein, S. (2017). “Bohmian mechanics,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/qm-bohm/Google Scholar
Greaves, H. (2004). “Understanding Deutsch’s probability in a deterministic multiverse,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 423–456.Google Scholar
Groisman, B., Hallakoun, N., and Vaidman, L. (2013). “The measure of existence of a quantum world and the sleeping beauty problem,” Analysis, 73: 695–706.Google Scholar
Kent, A. (2015). “Does it make sense to speak of self-location uncertainty in the universal wave-function? Remarks on Sebens and Carroll,” Foundations of Physics, 45 : 211–217.Google Scholar
Laplace, P. (1820/1951). “Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités,” Introduction to Théorie Analytique des Probabilités. Paris: V Courcier. Truscott, F. W. and Emory, F. L. (trans.), A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2013). “The nature of the quantum state,” pp. 126–153 in Ney, A. and Albert, D. Z. (eds.), The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McQueen, K. and Vaidman, L. (2018). “In defence of the self-location uncertainty account of probability in the many-worlds interpretation,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2018.10.003.Google Scholar
Pearle, P. (1976). “Reduction of statevector by a nonlinear Schrödinger equation,” Physical Review D, 13: 857–868.Google Scholar
Penrose, R. (1996). “On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction,” General Relativity and Gravitation, 28: 581–600.Google Scholar
Saunders, S. and Wallace, D. (2008). “Branching and Uncertainty,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59: 293–305.Google Scholar
Sebens, C. T. and Carroll, C. M. (2018). “Self-locating uncertainty and the origin of probability in Everettian quantum mechanics,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69: 25–74.Google Scholar
Tappenden, P. (2011). “Evidence and uncertainty in Everett’s multiverse,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62: 99–123.Google Scholar
Vaidman, L. (1998). “On schizophrenic experiences of the neutron or why we should believe in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 12: 245–261.Google Scholar
Vaidman, L. (2002). “Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/qm-manyworlds/Google Scholar
Vaidman, L. (2012a). “Role of potentials in the Aharonov-Bohm effect,” Physical Review A, R86: 040101.Google Scholar
Vaidman, L. (2012b). “Probability in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics,” pp. 299–311 in Ben-Menahem, Y. and Hemmo, M. (eds.), Probability in Physics, The Frontiers Collection. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. (2012). The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
References
Castagnino, M., Id Betan, R., Laura, R., Liotta, R. (2002). “Quantum decay processes and Gamov states,” Journal of Physics A, 35: 6055–6074.Google Scholar
Dowker, F. and Kent, A. (1996). “On the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 82: 1575–1646.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. and Hartle, J. B. (1990). “Quantum mechanics in the light of quantum cosmology,” pp. 425–458 in Zurek, W. (ed.), Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. (1984). “Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 36: 219–272.Google Scholar
Laloë, F. (2001). “Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes, and theorems,” American Journal of Physics, 69: 655–701.Google Scholar
Laura, R. and Castagnino, M. (1998). “Functional approach for quantum systems with continuous spectrum,” Physical Review E, 57: 3948–3961.Google Scholar
Laura, R. and Vanni, L. (2009). “Time translation of quantum properties,” Foundations of Physics, 39: 160–173.Google Scholar
Losada, M. and Laura, R. (2013). “The formalism of generalized contexts and decay processes,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 52: 1289–1299.Google Scholar
Losada, M. and Laura, L. (2014a). “Generalized contexts and consistent histories in quantum mechanics,” Annals of Physics, 344: 263–274.Google Scholar
Losada, M. and Laura, R. (2014b). “Quantum histories without contrary inferences,” Annals of Physics, 351: 418–425.Google Scholar
Losada, M. and Lombardi, O. (2018). “Histories in quantum mechanics: distinguishing between formalism and interpretation,” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8: 367–394.Google Scholar
Losada, M., Vanni, L., and Laura, R. (2013). “Probabilities for time-dependent properties in classical and quantum mechanics,” Physical Review A, 87: 052128.Google Scholar
Losada, M., Vanni, L., and Laura, R. (2016). “The measurement process in the generalized contexts formalism for quantum histories,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 55: 817–824.Google Scholar
Okon, E. and Sudarsky, D. (2014). “On the consistency of the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, 44: 19–33.Google Scholar
Omnès, R. (1988). “Logical reformulation of quantum mechanics. I. Foundations,” Journal of Statistical Physics, 53: 893–932.Google Scholar
Vanni, L. and Laura, R. (2010). “Deducción del principio de complementariedad en la teoría cuántica,” Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia. Selección de trabajos de las XX Jornadas, 16: 647–656.Google Scholar
Vanni, L. and Laura, R. (2013). “The logic of quantum measurements,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 52: 2386–2394.Google Scholar