Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:59:52.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation: Measurement, Invariance, and Ontology

from Part I - Ontology from Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2019

By
Olimpia Lombardi
Edited by
Olimpia Lombardi ,
Sebastian Fortin ,
Cristian López  and
Federico Holik
Olimpia Lombardi
Affiliation:
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Sebastian Fortin
Affiliation:
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Cristian López
Affiliation:
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Federico Holik
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Quantum Worlds
Perspectives on the Ontology of Quantum Mechanics
 , pp. 32 - 50
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, D. and Loewer, B. (1993). “Non-ideal measurements,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 6: 297–305.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auyang, S. Y. (1995). How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Lombardi, O. (2004). “Self-induced decoherence: A new approach,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35: 73–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castagnino, M. and Lombardi, O. (2005a). “Self-induced decoherence and the classical limit of quantum mechanics,” Philosophy of Science, 72: 764–776.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.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
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinkham, M. (1964). Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Weyl, H. (1952). Symmetry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×