Non-integrability and mixing in quantum systems: On the way to quantum chaos

In spite of the increasing attention that quantum chaos has received from physicists in recent times, when the subject is considered from a conceptual viewpoint the usual opinion is that there is some kind of conflict between quantum mechanics and chaos. In this paper we follow the program of Belot and Earman, who propose to analyze the problem of quantum chaos as a particular case of the classical limit of quantum mechanics. In particular, we address the problem on the basis of our account of the classical limit, which in turn is grounded on the self-induced approach to decoherence. This strategy allows us to identify the conditions that a quantum system must satisfy to lead to non-integrability and to mixing in the classical limit.     

Stable regularities without governing laws?

Can stable regularities be explained without appealing to governing laws or any other modal notion? In this paper, I consider what I will call a ‘Humean system’—a generic dynamical system without guiding laws—and assess whether it could display stable regularities. First, I present what can be interpreted as an account of the rise of stable regularities, following from Strevens (2003), which has been applied to explain the patterns of complex systems (such as those from meteorology and statistical mechanics). Second, since this account presupposes that the underlying dynamics displays deterministic chaos, I assess whether it can be adapted to cases where the underlying dynamics is not chaotic but truly random—that is, cases where there is no dynamics guiding the time evolution of the system. If this is so, the resulting stable, apparently non-accidental regularities are the fruit of what can be called statistical necessity rather than of a primitive physical necessity.     

Quantum sidelights on The Material Theory of Induction

John Norton's The Material Theory of Induction bristles with fresh insights and provocative ideas that provide a much needed stimulus to a stodgy if not moribund field. I use quantum mechanics (QM) as a medium for exploring some of these ideas. First, I note that QM offers more predictability than Newtonian mechanics for the Norton dome and other cases where classical determinism falters. But this ability of QM to partially cure the ills of classical determinism depends on facts about the quantum Hamiltonian operator that vary from case to case, providing an illustration of Norton's theme of the importance of contingent facts for inductive reasoning. Second, I agree with Norton that Bayesianism as developed for classical probability theory does not constitute a universal inference machine, and I use QM to explain the sense in which this is so. But at the same time I defend a brand of quantum Bayesianism as providing an illuminating account of how physicists' reasoning about quantum events. Third, I argue that if the probabilities induced by quantum states are regarded as objective chances then there are strong reasons to think that fair infinite lotteries are impossible in a quantum world.     

The primitive ontology of quantum physics: Guidelines for an assessment of the proposals

The paper seeks to make progress from stating primitive ontology theories of quantum physics—notably Bohmian mechanics, the GRW matter density theory and the GRW flash theory—to assessing these theories. Four criteria are set out: (a) internal coherence; (b) empirical adequacy; (c) relationship to other theories; and (d) explanatory value. The paper argues that the stock objections against these theories do not withstand scrutiny. Its focus then is on their explanatory value: they pursue different strategies to ground the textbook formalism of quantum mechanics, and they develop different explanations of quantum non-locality. In conclusion, it is argued that Bohmian mechanics offers a better prospect for making quantum non-locality intelligible than the GRW matter density theory and the GRW flash theory.     

Does time-symmetry imply retrocausality? How the quantum world says “Maybe”?

It has often been suggested that retrocausality offers a solution to some of the puzzles of quantum mechanics: e.g., that it allows a Lorentz-invariant explanation of Bell correlations, and other manifestations of quantum nonlocality, without action-at-a-distance. Some writers have argued that time-symmetry counts in favour of such a view, in the sense that retrocausality would be a natural consequence of a truly time-symmetric theory of the quantum world. Critics object that there is complete time-symmetry in classical physics, and yet no apparent retrocausality. Why should the quantum world be any different?This note throws some new light on these matters. I call attention to a respect in which quantum mechanics is different, under some assumptions about quantum ontology. Under these assumptions, the combination of time-symmetry without retrocausality is unavailable in quantum mechanics, for reasons intimately connected with the differences between classical and quantum physics (especially the role of discreteness in the latter). Not all interpretations of quantum mechanics share these assumptions, however, and in those that do not, time-symmetry does not entail retrocausality.     

Determinism and Chance

It is generally thought that objective chances for particular events different from 1 and 0 and determinism are incompatible. However, there are important scientific theories whose laws are deterministic but which also assign non-trivial probabilities to events. The most important of these is statistical mechanics whose probabilities are essential to the explanations of thermodynamic phenomena. These probabilities are often construed as ‘ignorance’ probabilities representing our lack of knowledge concerning the microstate. I argue that this construal is incompatible with the role of probability in explanation and laws. This is the ‘paradox of deterministic probabilities’. After surveying the usual list of accounts of objective chance and finding them inadequate I argue that an account of chance sketched by David Lewis can be modified to solve the paradox of deterministic probabilities and provide an adequate account of the probabilities in deterministic theories like statistical mechanics.     

Uncertainty and probability for branching selves

Everettian accounts of quantum mechanics entail that people branch; every possible result of a measurement actually occurs, and I have one successor for each result. Is there room for probability in such an account? The prima facie answer is no; there are no ontic chances here, and no ignorance about what will happen. But since any adequate quantum mechanical theory must make probabilistic predictions, much recent philosophical labor has gone into trying to construct an account of probability for branching selves. One popular strategy involves arguing that branching selves introduce a new kind of subjective uncertainty. I argue here that the variants of this strategy in the literature all fail, either because the uncertainty is spurious, or because it is in the wrong place to yield probabilistic predictions. I conclude that uncertainty cannot be the ground for probability in Everettian quantum mechanics.     

On the borderline between Science and Philosophy: A debate on determinism in France around 1880

In the second half of the nineteenth century, a new interest in explosive chemical reactions, sudden release of energy in living beings, physical instabilities, and bifurcations in the solutions of differential equations drew the attention of some scholars. New concepts like triggering actions and guiding principles also emerged. Mathematicians, physicists, physiologists, and philosophers were attracted by this kind of phenomena since they raised a question about the actual existence of a strict determinism in science. In 1878 the mathematical physicist Joseph Boussinesq pointed out a structural analogy among physical instabilities, some essential features of living beings, and singular solutions of differential equations. These developments revived long-lasting philosophical debates on the problematic link between deterministic physical laws and free will. We find in Boussinesq an original and almost isolated attempt to merge mathematical, physical, biological, and philosophical issues into a complex intellectual framework. In the last decades, some philosophers of science rediscovered the connection between physical instabilities and determinism, both in the context of chaos theory, and in the debates on the Norton dome. I put forward a consistent historical reconstruction of the main issues and characters involved.     

Typical worlds

Hugh Everett III presented pure wave mechanics, sometimes referred to as the many-worlds interpretation, as a solution to the quantum measurement problem. While pure wave mechanics is an objectively deterministic physical theory with no probabilities, Everett sought to show how the theory might be understood as making the standard quantum statistical predictions as appearances to observers who were themselves described by the theory. We will consider his argument and how it depends on a particular notion of branch typicality. We will also consider responses to Everett and the relationship between typicality and probability. The suggestion will be that pure wave mechanics requires a number of significant auxiliary assumptions in order to make anything like the standard quantum predictions.     

What could be objective about probabilities?

The basic notion of an objective probability is that of a probability determined by the physical structure of the world. On this understanding, there are subjective credences that do not correspond to objective probabilities, such as credences concerning rival physical theories. The main question for objective probabilities is how they are determined by the physical structure.In this paper, I survey three ways of understanding objective probability: stochastic dynamics, humean chances, and deterministic chances (typicality). The first is the obvious way to understand the probabilities of quantum mechanics via a collapse theory such as GRW, the last is the way to understand the probabilities in the context of a deterministic theory such as Bohmian mechanics. Humean chances provide a more abstract and general account of chances locutions that are independent of dynamical considerations.     

On classical cloning and no-cloning

It is part of information theory folklore that, while quantum theory prohibits the generic (or universal) cloning of states, such cloning is allowed by classical information theory. Indeed, many take the phenomenon of no-cloning to be one of the features that distinguishes quantum mechanics from classical mechanics. In this paper, we argue that pace conventional wisdom, in the case where one does not include a machine system, there is an analog of the no-cloning theorem for classical systems. However, upon adjoining a non-trivial machine system (or ancilla) one finds that, pace the quantum case, the obstruction to cloning disappears for pure states. We begin by discussing some conceptual points and category-theoretic generalities having to do with cloning, and proceed to discuss no-cloning in both the case of (non-statistical) classical mechanics and classical statistical mechanics.     

Weyling the time away: the non-unitary implementability of quantum field dynamics on curved spacetime

The simplest case of quantum field theory on curved spacetime—that of the Klein–Gordon field on a globally hyperbolic spacetime—reveals a dilemma: In generic circumstances, either there is no dynamics for this quantum field, or else there is a dynamics that is not unitarily implementable. We do not try to resolve the dilemma here, but endeavour to spell out the consequences of seizing one or the other horn of the dilemma.     

Unprincipled microgravity

I argue that the key principle of microgravity is what I have called elsewhere the Lorentzian strategy. This strategy may be seen as either a reverse-engineering approach or a descent with modification approach, but however one sees if the method works neither by attempting to propound a theory that is the quantum version of either an extant or generalized gravitation theory nor by attempting to propound a theory that is the final version of quantum mechanics and finding gravity within it. Instead the method works by beginning with what we are pretty sure is a good approximation to the low-energy limit of whatever the real microprocesses are that generate what we experience as gravitation. This method is powerful, fruitful, and not committed to principles for which we have, as yet, only scant evidence; the method begins with what we do know and teases out what we can know next. The principle is methodological, not ontological.     

Spin: All is not what it seems

Spin is typically thought to be a fundamental property of the electron and other elementary particles. Although it is defined as an internal angular momentum much of our understanding of it is bound up with the mathematics of group theory. This paper traces the development of the concept of spin paying particular attention to the way that quantum mechanics has influenced its interpretation in both theoretical and experimental contexts. The received view is that electron spin was discovered experimentally by Stern and Gerlach in 1921, 5 years prior to its theoretical formulation by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck. However, neither Goudsmit nor Uhlenbeck, nor any others involved in the debate about spin cited the Stern–Gerlach experiment as corroborating evidence. In fact, Bohr and Pauli were emphatic that the spin of a single electron could not be measured in classical experiments. In recent years experiments designed to refute the Bohr–Pauli thesis and measure electron spin have been carried out. However, a number of ambiguities surround these results—ambiguities that relate not only to the measurements themselves but to the interpretation of the experiments. After discussing these various issues I raise some philosophical questions about the ontological and epistemic status of spin. Because it is a curious hybrid of the mathematical and the physical these questions are relatively complex, and while I do not pretend to have answered them here, the goal of the paper is to uncover and isolate how spin presents problems for traditional realism and to illustrate the power that theories like quantum mechanics have for shaping both philosophical questions and answers.     

A remark on Fuchs’ Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics

Quantum mechanics is a theory whose foundations spark controversy to this day. Although many attempts to explain the underpinnings of the theory have been made, none has been unanimously accepted as satisfactory. Fuchs has recently claimed that the foundational issues can be resolved by interpreting quantum mechanics in the light of quantum information. The view proposed is that quantum mechanics should be interpreted along the lines of the subjective Bayesian approach to probability theory. The quantum state is not the physical state of a microscopic object. It is an epistemic state of an observer; it represents subjective degrees of belief about outcomes of measurements. The interpretation gives an elegant solution to the infamous measurement problem: measurement is nothing but Bayesian belief updating in a analogy to belief updating in a classical setting. In this paper, we analyze an argument that Fuchs gives in support of this latter claim. We suggest that the argument is not convincing since it rests on an ad hoc construction. We close with some remarks on the options left for Fuchs’ quantum Bayesian project.     

在非线性系统中的微观粒子的特性和非线性量子力学理论(下)

在非线性系统中由于存在着与粒子状态相关的非线性相互作用，微观粒子的状态和特征相对于线性系统而发生了很大变化。原有的线性型的量子力学理论不能很好地描述这些微观粒子的状态和特征。至此，必然要发展新的理论。本文研究了微观粒子在非线性作用下的运动特性和本性的变化，说明了在线性作用和非线性场中微观粒子的性质是明显不同的，启示我们必须建立微观粒子在非线性场中运动的新理论。接着我们研究了与微观量子效应迥然不同的宏观量子效应与非线性作用的孤立子运动的紧密关系，结合现代孤立子理论和超导与超流理论，我们首先提出了非线性量子力学的基本原理及在此基础上建立了系统、完整的非线性量子力学理论体系，并得到的一些新结论。最后我们还论证了这个理论的正确性和自洽性，它的运用范围以及它的重大意义。     

The operational framework for quantum theories is both epistemologically and ontologically neutral

Operational frameworks are very useful to study the foundations of quantum mechanics, and are sometimes used to promote antirealist attitudes towards the theory. The aim of this paper is to review three arguments aiming at defending an antirealist reading of quantum physics based on various developments of standard quantum mechanics appealing to notions such as quantum information, non-causal correlations and indefinite causal orders. Those arguments will be discussed in order to show that they are not convincing. Instead, it is argued that there is conceptually no argument that could favour realist or antirealist attitudes towards quantum mechanics based solely on some features of some formalism. In particular, both realist and antirealist views are well accomodable within operational formulations of the theory. The reason for this is that the realist/antirealist debate is located at a purely epistemic level, which is not engaged by formal aspects of theories. As such, operational formulations of quantum mechanics are epistmologically and ontologically neutral. This discussion aims at clarifying the limits of the historical and methodological affinities between scientific antirealism and operational physics while engaging with recent discoveries in quantum foundations. It also aims at presenting various realist strategies to account for those developments.     

The emergence and interpretation of probability in Bohmian mechanics

A persistent question about the deBroglie–Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics concerns the understanding of Born's rule in the theory. Where do the quantum mechanical probabilities come from? How are they to be interpreted? These are the problems of emergence and interpretation. In more than 50 years no consensus regarding the answers has been achieved. Indeed, mirroring the foundational disputes in statistical mechanics, the answers to each question are surprisingly diverse. This paper is an opinionated survey of this literature. While acknowledging the pros and cons of various positions, it defends particular answers to how the probabilities emerge from Bohmian mechanics and how they ought to be interpreted.