Against the empirical viability of the Deutsch–Wallace–Everett approach to quantum mechanics

The subjective Everettian approach to quantum mechanics presented by Deutsch and Wallace fails to constitute an empirically viable theory of quantum phenomena. The decision theoretic implementation of the Born rule realized in this approach provides no basis for rejecting Everettian quantum mechanics in the face of empirical data that contradicts the Born rule. The approach of Greaves and Myrvold, which provides a subjective implementation of the Born rule as well but derives it from empirical data rather than decision theoretic arguments, avoids the problem faced by Deutsch and Wallace and is empirically viable. However, there is good reason to cast doubts on its scientific value.     

Foundations of quantum gravity: The role of principles grounded in empirical reality

When attempting to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various principles in their potential role of guiding the formulation of a theory of quantum gravity, it is crucial to distinguish between principles which are strongly supported by empirical data – either directly or indirectly – and principles which instead (merely) rely heavily on theoretical arguments for their justification. Principles in the latter category are not necessarily invalid, but their a priori foundational significance should be regarded with due caution. These remarks are illustrated in terms of the current standard models of cosmology and particle physics, as well as their respective underlying theories, i.e., essentially general relativity and quantum (field) theory. For instance, it is clear that both standard models are severely constrained by symmetry principles: an effective homogeneity and isotropy of the known universe on the largest scales in the case of cosmology and an underlying exact gauge symmetry of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions in the case of particle physics. However, in sharp contrast to the cosmological situation, where the relevant symmetry structure is more or less established directly on observational grounds, all known, nontrivial arguments for the “gauge principle” are purely theoretical (and far less conclusive than usually advocated). Similar remarks apply to the larger theoretical structures represented by general relativity and quantum (field) theory, where – actual or potential – empirical principles, such as the (Einstein) equivalence principle or EPR-type nonlocality, should be clearly differentiated from theoretical ones, such as general covariance or renormalizability. It is argued that if history is to be of any guidance, the best chance to obtain the key structural features of a putative quantum gravity theory is by deducing them, in some form, from the appropriate empirical principles (analogous to the manner in which, say, the idea that gravitation is a curved spacetime phenomenon is arguably implied by the equivalence principle). Theoretical principles may still be useful however in formulating a concrete theory (analogous to the manner in which, say, a suitable form of general covariance can still act as a sieve for separating theories of gravity from one another). It is subsequently argued that the appropriate empirical principles for deducing the key structural features of quantum gravity should at least include (i) quantum nonlocality, (ii) irreducible indeterminacy (or, essentially equivalently, given (i), relativistic causality), (iii) the thermodynamic arrow of time, (iv) homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe on the largest scales. In each case, it is explained – when appropriate – how the principle in question could be implemented mathematically in a theory of quantum gravity, why it is considered to be of fundamental significance and also why contemporary accounts of it are insufficient. For instance, the high degree of uniformity observed in the Cosmic Microwave Background is usually regarded as theoretically problematic because of the existence of particle horizons, whereas the currently popular attempts to resolve this situation in terms of inflationary models are, for a number of reasons, less than satisfactory. However, rather than trying to account for the required empirical features dynamically, an arguably much more fruitful approach consists in attempting to account for these features directly, in the form of a lawlike initial condition within a theory of quantum gravity.     

The problem of confirmation in the Everett interpretation

I argue that the Oxford school Everett interpretation is internally incoherent, because we cannot claim that in an Everettian universe the kinds of reasoning we have used to arrive at our beliefs about quantum mechanics would lead us to form true beliefs. I show that in an Everettian context, the experimental evidence that we have available could not provide empirical confirmation for quantum mechanics, and moreover that we would not even be able to establish reference to the theoretical entities of quantum mechanics. I then consider a range of existing Everettian approaches to the probability problem and show that they do not succeed in overcoming this incoherence.     

Experimental : The double standard in the quantum-information approach to the foundations of quantum theory

Among the alternatives of non-relativistic quantum mechanics (NRQM) there are those that give different predictions than quantum mechanics in yet-untested circumstances, while remaining compatible with current empirical findings. In order to test these predictions, one must isolate one's system from environmental induced decoherence, which, on the standard view of NRQM, is the dynamical mechanism that is responsible for the ‘apparent’ collapse in open quantum systems. But while recent advances in condensed-matter physics may lead in the near future to experimental setups that will allow one to test the two hypotheses, namely genuine collapse vs. decoherence, hence make progress toward a solution to the quantum measurement problem, those philosophers and physicists who are advocating an information-theoretic approach to the foundations of quantum mechanics are still unwilling to acknowledge the empirical character of the issue at stake. Here I argue that in doing so they are displaying an unwarranted double standard.     

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.     

Dissolving the measurement problem is not an option for the realist

This paper critically assesses the proposal that scientific realists do not need to search for a solution of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, but should instead dismiss the problem as ill-posed. James Ladyman and Don Ross have sought to support this proposal with arguments drawn from their naturalized metaphysics and from a Bohr-inspired approach to quantum mechanics. I show that the first class of arguments is unsuccessful, because formulating the measurement problem does not depend on the metaphysical commitments which are undermined by ontic structural realism, rainforest realism, or naturalism in general. The second class of arguments is problematic due to its refusal to provide an analysis of the term “measurement”. It turns out that the proposed dissolution of the measurement problem is in conflict not only with traditional forms of scientific realism but even with the rather minimal realism that Ladyman and Ross themselves defend. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of two related proposals: Healey's pragmatist approach and Bub's information-theoretic interpretation.     

In defence of Copenhagenism

We rebut the objections to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics presented by Park [9,10], Margenau [10], and Popper [11]. It seems to us that these authors, having adopted different interpretations of quantum mechanics, have been unable to grasp the perspective of the Copenhagenist. They therefore miss the points which the Copenhagenist is making when he: (a) accords a special status to observations in quantum theory; (b) attributes a state vector to an individual system; (c) places restrictions on the simultaneous measurability of non-commuting observables; (d) hesitates to use his measurements for retrodictions. In our opinion, the arguments of the above authors reflect their incomprehension of Copenhagenism. Elsewhere [5,6] we have discussed two alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics which we have called Copenhagenism and Popperism. We have there shown how the dispute between the schools stems from disparate uses of the word ‘state’. We continue the discussion here within the context of the above points and show how these disparate notions of state are related to diverse notions of ‘behaviour’.     

Von Neumann’s impossibility proof: Mathematics in the service of rhetorics

According to what has become a standard history of quantum mechanics, in 1932 von Neumann persuaded the physics community that hidden variables are impossible as a matter of principle, after which leading proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation put the situation to good use by arguing that the completeness of quantum mechanics was undeniable. This state of affairs lasted, so the story continues, until Bell in 1966 exposed von Neumann’s proof as obviously wrong. The realization that von Neumann’s proof was fallacious then rehabilitated hidden variables and made serious foundational research possible again. It is often added in recent accounts that von Neumann’s error had been spotted almost immediately by Grete Hermann, but that her discovery was of no effect due to the dominant Copenhagen Zeitgeist.We shall attempt to tell a story that is more historically accurate and less ideologically charged. Most importantly, von Neumann never claimed to have shown the impossibility of hidden variables tout court, but argued that hidden-variable theories must possess a structure that deviates fundamentally from that of quantum mechanics. Both Hermann and Bell appear to have missed this point; moreover, both raised unjustified technical objections to the proof. Von Neumann’s argument was basically that hidden-variables schemes must violate the “quantum principle” that physical quantities are to be represented by operators in a Hilbert space. As a consequence, hidden-variables schemes, though possible in principle, necessarily exhibit a certain kind of contextuality.As we shall illustrate, early reactions to Bohm’s theory are in agreement with this account. Leading physicists pointed out that Bohm’s theory has the strange feature that pre-existing particle properties do not generally reveal themselves in measurements, in accordance with von Neumann’s result. They did not conclude that the “impossible was done” and that von Neumann had been shown wrong.     

The case for black hole thermodynamics part II: Statistical mechanics

I present in detail the case for regarding black hole thermodynamics as having a statistical-mechanical explanation in exact parallel with the statistical-mechanical explanation believed to underlie the thermodynamics of other systems. (Here I presume that black holes are indeed thermodynamic systems in the fullest sense; I review the evidence for that conclusion in the prequel to this paper.) I focus on three lines of argument: (i) zero-loop and one-loop calculations in quantum general relativity understood as a quantum field theory, using the path-integral formalism; (ii) calculations in string theory of the leading-order terms, higher-derivative corrections, and quantum corrections, in the black hole entropy formula for extremal and near-extremal black holes; (iii) recovery of the qualitative and (in some cases) quantitative structure of black hole statistical mechanics via the AdS/CFT correspondence. In each case I briefly review the content of, and arguments for, the form of quantum gravity being used (effective field theory; string theory; AdS/CFT) at a (relatively) introductory level: the paper is aimed at readers with some familiarity with thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and general relativity but does not presume advanced knowledge of quantum gravity. My conclusion is that the evidence for black hole statistical mechanics is as solid as we could reasonably expect it to be in the absence of a directly-empirically-verified theory of quantum gravity.     

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。     

A simplified genesis of quantum mechanics

The bewildering complexity of the history of quantum theory tends to discourage its use as a means to understand or teach the foundations of quantum mechanics. The present paper is an attempt at simplifying this history so as to make it more helpful to physicists and philosophers. In particular, Heisenberg's notoriously difficult derivation of the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics, or later derivations of its statistical interpretation are replaced with shorter and more direct arguments to the same purpose. As the implied amputations and distortions do not imply major anachronisms, they should facilitate the grasping of the main historical steps without excluding a reasonable assessment of their historical or logical necessity.     

Pluralism and anarchism in quantum physics: Paul Feyerabend's writings on quantum physics in relation to his general philosophy of science

This paper aims to show that the development of Feyerabend's philosophical ideas in the 1950s and 1960s largely took place in the context of debates on quantum mechanics.In particular, he developed his influential arguments for pluralism in science in discussions with the quantum physicist David Bohm, who had developed an alternative approach to quantum physics which (in Feyerabend's perception) was met with a dogmatic dismissal by some of the leading quantum physicists. I argue that Feyerabend's arguments for theoretical pluralism and for challenging established theories were connected to his objections to the dogmatism and conservatism he observed in quantum physics.However, as Feyerabend gained insight into the physical details and historical complexities which led to the development of quantum mechanics, he gradually became more modest in his criticisms. His writings on quantum mechanics especially engaged with Niels Bohr; initially, he was critical of Bohr's work in quantum mechanics, but in the late 1960s, he completely withdrew his criticism and even praised Bohr as a model scientist. He became convinced that however puzzling quantum mechanics seemed, it was methodologically unobjectionable – and this was crucial for his move towards ‘anarchism’ in philosophy of science.     

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.     

The emergence of selection rules and their encounter with group theory, 1913–1927

In today's quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, the observable signature of a symmetry is often sought in the form of a selection rule: a missing radiation frequency, a particle that does not decay in another one, a scattering process which fails to take place. The connection between selection rules and symmetries is effected thanks to the mathematical discipline of group theory. In the present paper, I will offer an overview of how the productive synergy between selection rules and group theory came to be. The first half of the work will be devoted to the emergence of the idea of spectroscopic selection rules in the context of the old quantum theory, showing how this notion was linked with an interpretive scheme of theoretical nature which, once combined with group theory, would bear many fruits. In the second part of the paper, I will focus on the actual encounter between selection rules and group theory, and on the person largely responsible for it: Eugene Wigner. I will attempt to reconstruct the path which led Wigner, of all people, to be the agent effecting this connection.     

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(上)

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 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.     

Situated observation in Bohmian mechanics

Here we investigate what it might mean for a formulation of quantum mechanics to be empirically adequate. We begin by considering the measurement problem as an empirical problem and distinguishing between stronger and weaker varieties of empirical adequacy. A strongly adequate theory is one that explains the experiences of a physically situated observer. A formulation of quantum mechanics that provides such situated empirical adequacy also provides a particularly compelling response to the measurement problem. As a concrete example we consider how Bohmian mechanics explains the experience of a physically situated observer.     

Can We Explain Thermodynamics By Quantum Decoherence?

Can we explain the laws of thermodynamics, in particular the irreversible increase of entropy, from the underlying quantum mechanical dynamics? Attempts based on classical dynamics have all failed. Albert (1994a,b; 2000) proposed a way to recover thermodynamics on a purely dynamical basis, using the quantum theory of the collapse of the wavefunction of Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber (1986). In this paper we propose an alternative way to explain thermodynamics within no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics. Our approach relies on the standard quantum mechanical models of environmental decoherence of open systems, e.g. Joos and Zeh (1985) and Zurek and Paz (1994).     

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.