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 V - The Relationship between the Quantum Ontology and the Classical World
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. 343 - 392Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Ardenghi, J. S., Castagnino, M., and Lombardi, O. (2009). “Quantum mechanics: Modal interpretation and Galilean transformations,” Foundations of Physics, 39: 1023–1045.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, M., Jeknić-Dugić, J., and Dugić, M. (2016). “A top-down versus a bottom-up hidden-variables description of the Stern-Gerlach experiment,” pp. 469–484 in Kastner, R. E., Jeknić-Dugić, J., and Jaroszkiewicz, G. (eds.), Quantum Structural Studies: Classical Emergence from the Quantum Level. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. (2016). “The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/qm-decoherence/Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. and Dickson, M. (1999). “Dynamics for modal interpretations,” Foundations of Physics, 29: 1165–1201.Google Scholar
Balachandran, A. P., Govindarajan, T. R., de Queiroz, A. R., and Reyes-Lega, A. F. (2013a). “Algebraic approach to entanglement and entropy,” Physical Review A, 88: 022301.Google Scholar
Balachandran, A. P., Govindarajan, T. R., de Queiroz, A. R., and Reyes-Lega, A. F. (2013b). “Entanglement and particle identity: A unifying approach,” Physical Review Letters, 110: 080503Google Scholar
Barnum, H., Knill, E., Ortiz, G., Somma, R., and Viola, L. (2003). “Generalizations of entanglement based on coherent states and convex sets,” Physical Review A, 68: 032308.Google Scholar
Barnum, H., Knill, E., Ortiz, G., Somma, R., and Viola, L. (2004). “A subsystem-independent generalization of entanglement,” Physical Review Letters, 92: 107902.Google Scholar
Bratteli, O., and Robinson, D. W. (1987). Operator algebras and quantum statistical mechanics 1, 2nd edition. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calzetta, E., Hu, B. L., and Mazzitelli, F. (2001). “Coarse-grained effective action and renormalization group theory in semiclassical gravity and cosmology,” Physics Reports, 352: 459–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Fortin, S. (2011). “New bases for a general definition for the moving preferred basis,” Modern Physics Letters A, 26: 2365–2373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castagnino, M., Fortin, S., and Lombardi, O. (2010). “Suppression of decoherence in a generalization of the spin-bath model,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 43: 065304.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. (2005). “Decoherence time in self-induced decoherence,” Physical Review A, 72: 012102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Costa, N. and Lombardi, O. (2014). “Quantum mechanics: Ontology without individuals,” Foundations of Physics, 44: 1246–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Costa, N., Lombardi, O., and Lastiri, M. (2013). “A modal ontology of properties for quantum mechanics,” Synthese, 190: 3671–3693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneri, A., Loinger, A., and Prosperi, G. (1962). “Quantum theory of measurement and ergodicity conditions,” Nuclear Physics, 33: 297–319.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (2015). “Some puzzles and unresolved issues about quantum entanglement,” Erkenntnis, 80: 303–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elby, A. (1994). “The ‘decoherence’ approach to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics,” Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1: 355–365.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 Castagnino, M. (2014). “Decoherence: A closed-system approach,” Brazilian Journal of Physics, 44: 138–153.Google Scholar
Haag, R. (1992). Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Harshman, N. (2016). “Symmetry and natural quantum structures for three-particles in one-dimension,” pp. 373–400 in Kastner, R. E., Jeknić-Dugić, J., and Jaroszkiewicz, G. (eds.), Quantum Structural Studies: Classical Emergence from the Quantum Level. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Harshman, N. and Ranade, K. (2011). “Observables can be tailored to change the entanglement of any pure state,” Physical Review A, 84: 012303.Google Scholar
Harshman, N. and Wickramasekara, S. (2007a). “Galilean and dynamical invariance of entanglement in particle scattering,” Physical Review Letters, 98: 080406.Google Scholar
Harshman, N. and Wickramasekara, S. (2007b). “Tensor product structures, entanglement, and particle scattering,” Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 14: 341–351.Google Scholar
Jeknić-Dugić, J., Arsenijević, M., and Dugić, M. (2013). Quantum Structures: A View of the Quantum World. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.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. (2016). “Particles in a quantum ontology of properties,” pp. 123–143 in Bigaj, T. and Wüthrich, C. (eds.), Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics. Leiden: Brill-Rodopi.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.), Philosophical Issues in the Sciences Vol. 3. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Lychkovskiy, O. (2013). “Dependence of decoherence-assisted classicality on the way a system is partitioned into subsystems,” Physical Review A, 87: 022112.Google Scholar
Paz, J. P. and Zurek, W. H. (2002). “Environment-induced decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical,” pp. 77–148, in Heiss, D. (ed.), Fundamentals of Quantum Information: Quantum Computation, Communication, Decoherence and All That. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1935). “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31: 555–563.Google Scholar
van Kampen, N. G. (1954). “Quantum statistics of irreversible processes,” Physica, 20: 603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viola, L. and Barnum, H. (2010). “Entanglement and subsystems, entanglement beyond subsystems, and all that,” pp. 16–43 in Bokulich, A. and Jaeger, G. (eds.), Philosophy of Quantum Information and Entanglement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Viola, L., Barnum, H., Knill, E., Ortiz, G., and Somma, R. (2005). “Entanglement beyond subsystems,” Contemporary Mathematics, 381: 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurek, W. H. (1982). “Environment-induced superselection rules,” Physical Review D, 26: 1862–1880.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. H. (1993). “Preferred states, predictability, classicality and the environment-induced decoherence,” Progress of Theoretical Physics, 89: 281–312.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. H. (1998). “Decoherence, einselection, and the existential interpretation,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 356: 1793–1820.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. H. (2000). “Decoherence and einselection,” pp. 309–342 in Blanchard, P., Giulini, D., Joos, E., Kiefer, C., and Stamatescu, I.-O. (eds.), Decoherence: Theoretical, Experimental, and Conceptual Problems. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. H. (2003). “Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 75: 715–776.Google Scholar
References
Antoine, J. P. (1969). “Dirac formalism and symmetry problems in quantum mechanics I: General Dirac formalism,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 10: 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balslev, E. and Combes, J. M. (1971). “Spectral properties of many body Schrödinger operators with dilation analytic intercations,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, 22: 280–294.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G. and von Neumann, J. (1936). “The logic of quantum mechanics,” Annals of Mathematics, 37: 823–843.Google Scholar
Bohm, A. (1978). The Rigged Hilbert Space and Quantum Mechanics, Springer Lecture Notes in Physics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Bohm, A. (1993). Quantum Mechanics: Foundations and Applications. Berlin and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Bohm, A. and Gadella, M. (1989). Dirac Kets, Gamow Vectors, and Gel’fand Triplets: The Rigged Hilbert Space Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Casati, G. and Chirikov, B. (1995a). “Comment on ‘Decoherence, chaos, and the second Law’,” Physical Review Letters, 75: 350.Google Scholar
Casati, G. and Chirikov, B. (1995b). “Quantum chaos: Unexpected complexity,” Physical Review D, 86: 220–237.Google Scholar
Casati, G., and Prosen, T. (2005). “Quantum chaos and the double-slit experiment,” Physical Review A, 72: 032111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Fortin, S. (2012). “Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians in decoherence and equilibrium theory,” Journal of Physics A, 45: 444009.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Fortin, S. (2013). “Formal features of a general theoretical framework for decoherence in open and closed systems,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 52: 1379–1398.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M., Fortin, S., Laura, R., and Lombardi, O. (2008). “A general theoretical framework for decoherence in open and closed systems,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25: 154002.Google Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Gadella, M. (2006). “The problem of the classical limit of quantum mechanics and the role of self-induced decoherence,” Foundations of Physics, 36: 920–952.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
Celeghini, E., Gadella, M., and del Olmo, M. A. (2016). “Applications of rigged Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics and signal processing,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 57: 072105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celeghini, E., Gadella, M., and del Olmo, M. A. (2017). “Lie algebra representations and rigged Hilbert spaces: The SO(2) case,” Acta Polytechnica, 57: 379–384.Google Scholar
Celeghini, E., Gadella, M., and del Olmo, M. A. (2018). “Spherical harmonics and rigged Hilbert spaces,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 59: 053502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Civitarese, O. and Gadella, M. (2004). “Physical and mathematical aspects of Gamow states,” Physics Reports, 396: 41–113.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. (1989). An Introduction to Hilbert Space and Quantum Logic. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Dirac, P. A. M. (1933). “The Lagrangian in quantum mechanics,” Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion, 3: 64–72.Google Scholar
Domenech, G., Holik, F., and Massri, C. (2010). “A quantum logical and geometrical approach to the study of improper mixtures,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 51: 052108.Google Scholar
Eleuch, H. and Rotter, I. (2017). “Resonances in open quantum systems,” Physical Review A, 98: 0221117.Google Scholar
Feynman, R. P. (1942). The Principle of Least Action in Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University. Reproduced in Feynman, R. P. and Brown, L. M. (eds.). (2005). Feynman’s Thesis: a New Approach to Quantum Theory. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. C., Gutierrez-Medina, B., and Raizen, M. G. (2001). “Observation of the quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects in an unstable system,” Physical Review Letters, 87: 40402.Google Scholar
Fonda, L., Ghirardi, G. C., and Rimini, A. (1978). “Decay theory of unstable quantum systems,” Reports on Progress in Physics, 41: 587–631.Google Scholar
Ford, G. W. and O’Connel, R. F. (2001). “Decoherence without dissipation,” Physics Letters A, 286: 87–90.Google Scholar
Fortin, S., Holik, F., and Vanni, L. (2016). “Non-unitary evolution of quantum logics,” Springer Proceedings in Physics, 184: 219–234.Google Scholar
Fortin, S. and Vanni, L. (2014). “Quantum decoherence: A logical perspective,” Foundations of Physics, 44: 1258–1268.Google Scholar
Frasca, M. (2003). “General theorems on decoherence in the thermodynamic limit,” Physics Letters A, 308: 135–139.Google Scholar
Gadella, M. and Gómez, F. (2002). “A unified mathematical formalism for the Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, 32: 815–869.Google Scholar
Gadella, M. and Gómez, F. (2003). “On the mathematical basis of the Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, 42: 2225–2254.Google Scholar
Gambini, R., Porto, R. A., and Pulin, J. (2007). “Fundamental decoherence from quantum gravity: A pedagogical review,” General Relativity and Gravitation, 39: 1143–1156.Google Scholar
Gambini, R. and Pulin, J. (2007). “Relational physics with real rods and clocks and the measurement problem of quantum mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, 37: 1074–1092.Google Scholar
Gambini, R. and Pulin, J. (2010). “Modern space-time and undecidability,” pp. 149–161 in Petkov, V. (ed.), Minkowski Spacetime: A Hundred Years Later. Fundamental Theories of Physics 165. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Griffiths, R. B. (2014). “The new quantum logic,” Foundations of Physics, 44: 610–640.Google Scholar
Holik, F., Massri, C., and Ciancaglini, N. (2012). “Convex quantum logic,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 51: 1600–1620.Google Scholar
Holik, F., Massri, C., Plastino, A., and Zuberman, L. (2013). “On the lattice structure of probability spaces in quantum mechanics,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 52: 1836–1876.Google Scholar
Holik, F. and Plastino, A. (2015). “Quantum mechanics: A new turn in probability theory,” pp. 399–414 in Ezziane, Z. (ed.), Contemporary Research in Quantum Systems. New York: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
Holik, F., Plastino, A., and Sáenz, M. (2014). “A discussion on the origin of quantum probabilities,” Annals of Physics, 340: 293–310.Google Scholar
Landsman, N. P. (1993). “Deformation of algebras of observables and the classical limit of quantum mechanics,” Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 5: 775–806.Google Scholar
Losada, M., Fortin, F., Gadella, M., and Holik, F. (2018). “Dynamical algebras in quantum unstable systems,” International Journal of Modern Physics A, 33: 1850109.Google Scholar
Losada, M., Fortin, S., and Holik, F. (2018). “Classical limit and quantum logic,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 57: 465–475.Google Scholar
Losada, M. and Laura, R. (2014a). “Quantum histories without contrary inferences,” Annals of Physics, 351: 418–425.Google Scholar
Losada, M. and Laura, R. (2014b). “Generalized contexts and consistent histories in quantum mechanics,” Annals of Physics, 344: 263–274.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
Melsheimer, O. (1974). “Rigged Hilbert space formalism as an extended mathematical formalism for quantum systems. 1. General theory,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 15: 902–916.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, N. (1958). “A theory of clothed unstable particles,” Progress of Theoretical Physics, 19: 607–621.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. and Chuang, I. (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Omnès, R. (1994). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Omnès, R. (2005). “Results and problems in decoherence theory,” Brazilian Journal of Physics, 35: 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. E. (1966). “Rigged Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, 3: 98–119.Google Scholar
Rothe, C., Hintschich, S. L., and Monkman, A. P. (2006). “Violation of the exponential-decay law at long times,” Physical Review Letters, 96: 163601.Google Scholar
Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Heidelberg: University Press.Google Scholar
Zeh, H. D. (1970). “On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory,” Foundations of Physics, 1: 69–76.Google Scholar
Zeh, H. D. (1973). “Toward a quantum theory of observation,” Foundations of Physics, 3: 109–116.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. (1982). “Environment-induced superselection rules,” Physical Review D, 26: 1862–1880.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. (1991). “Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical,” Physics Today, 44: 36–44.Google Scholar
References
Adler, S. (2003). “Why decoherence has not solved the measurement problem: A response to P. W. Anderson,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34: 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, R. F. W. (1994). Atoms in Molecules: A Quantum Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bader, R. F. W. (2010a). “The density in density functional theory,” Journal of Molecular Structure: TEOCHEM, 943: 2–18.Google Scholar
Bader, R. F. W. (2010b). “Definition of molecular structure: By choice or by appeal to observation,” Journal Physical Chemistry A, 114: 7431–7444.Google Scholar
Bader, R. F. W. (2011). “On the non-existence of parallel universes in chemistry,” Foundations of Chemistry, 13: 11–37.Google Scholar
Berlin, Y., Burin, A., and Goldanskii, V. (1996). “The Hund paradox and stabilization of molecular chiral states,” Zeitschrift für Physik D, 37: 333–339.Google Scholar
Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crull, E. (2015). “Less interpretation and more decoherence in quantum gravity and inflationary cosmology,” Foundations of Physics, 45: 1019–1045.Google Scholar
d’Espagnat, B. (1966). “An elementary note about mixtures,” pp. 185–191 in de-Shalit, A., Feshbach, H., and van Hove, L. (eds.), Preludes in Theoretical Physics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
d’Espagnat, B. (1976). Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Reading, MA: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Dirac, P. A. M. (1929). “Quantum mechanics of many-electron systems,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 123: 714–733.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
Gavroglu, K. and Simões, A. (2012). Neither Physics nor Chemistry: A History of Quantum Chemistry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, R. and Stodolsky, L. (1981). “Time dependence of optical activity,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, 74: 2145–2155.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. (2004). “The physicists, the chemists, and the pragmatics of explanation,” Philosophy of Science, 71: 1048–1059.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. (2008). “Two conceptions of the chemical bond,” Philosophy of Science, 75: 909–920.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. (2010). “Ontological reduction and molecular structure,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 183–191.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. (2012). “The chemical bond,” pp. 293–308 in Woody, A., Hendry, R., and Needham, P. (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Volume 6: Philosophy of Chemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hettema, H. (2009). “Explanation and theory foundation in quantum chemistry,” Foundations of Chemistry, 11: 145–174.Google Scholar
Hettema, H. (2012). Reducing Chemistry to Physics. Limits, Models, Consequences. Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Hund, F. (1927). “Zur Deutung der Molekelspektren. III,” Zeitschrift für Physik, 43: 805–826.Google Scholar
Labarca, M. and Lombardi, O. (2010). “Why orbitals do not exist?”, Foundations of Chemistry, 12: 149–157.Google Scholar
Leach, M. (2013). “Concerning electronegativity as a basic elemental property and why the periodic table is usually represented in its medium form,” Foundations of Chemistry, 15: 13–29.Google Scholar
Leggett, A. (1987). “Reflections on the quantum measurement paradox,” pp. 85–104 in Hiley, B. and Peat, F. (eds.), Quantum Implications. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Llored, J. -P. (2010). “Mereology and quantum chemistry: The approximation of molecular orbital,” Foundations of Chemistry, 12: 203–221.Google Scholar
Lombardi, O. (2014). “Linking chemistry with physics: Arguments and counterarguments,” Foundations of Chemistry, 16: 181–192.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 Castagnino, M. (2010). “Matters are not so clear on the physical side,” Foundations of Chemistry, 12: 159–166.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., Fortin, S., and López, L. (2015). “Measurement, interpretation and information,” Entropy, 17: 7310–7330.Google Scholar
Quack, M. and Stohner, J. (2005). “Parity violation in chiral molecules,” International Journal for Chemistry, 59: 530–538.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. (2013). “Philosophy of chemistry: Where has it been and where is it going,” pp. 208–225 in Llored, J.-P. (ed.), The Philosophy of Chemistry: Practices, Methodologies, and Concepts. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Shao, J. and Hänggi, P. (1997). “Control of molecular chirality,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, 107: 9935–9941.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, B. and Woolley, G. (2011). “A comment on Editorial 37,” Foundations of Chemistry, 13: 93–95.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, B. and Woolley, G. (2012). “Atoms and molecules in classical chemistry and quantum mechanics,” pp. 387–426 in Woody, A., Hendry, R., and Needham, P. (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Volume 6: Philosophy of Chemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Vassallo, A. and Esfeld, M. (2015). “On the importance of interpretation in quantum physics: A reply to Elise Crull,” Foundations of Physics, 45: 1533–1536.Google Scholar
Vemulapalli, K. (2008). “Theories of the chemical bond and its true nature,” Foundations of Chemistry, 10: 167–176.Google Scholar
Wolley, G. (1978). “Must a molecule have a shape?”, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 100: 1073–1078.Google Scholar
Wolley, G. (1982). “Natural optical activity and the molecular hypothesis,” Structure and Bonding, 52: 1–35.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. (1981). “Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?”, Physical Review D, 24: 1516–1525.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. (1993). “Preferred states, predictability, classicality and the environment-induced decoherence,” Progress of Theoretical Physics, 89: 281–312.Google Scholar
Zurek, W. (2003). “Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 75: 715–776.Google Scholar