Is there a stability problem for Bayesian noncommutative probabilities?

A stability condition for Bayesian statistical inference, which Redei [(1992). When can non-commutative statistical inference be Bayesian? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 6, 129–132; (1998). Quantum logic in algebraic approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers] formulated as a rationality constraint holding in classical probability theory, is shown to fail in quantum mechanics. That allegedly challenges a Bayesian interpretation of quantum probabilities. In this paper we demonstrate that Redei's argument does not apply to quantum mechanics. Moreover, we provide a solution to the problem of Bayesian noncommutative statistical inference arising from the violation of stability condition in general probability spaces.     

Klein-Weyl's program and the ontology of gauge and quantum systems

We distinguish two orientations in Weyl's analysis of the fundamental role played by the notion of symmetry in physics, namely an orientation inspired by Klein's Erlangen program and a phenomenological-transcendental orientation. By privileging the former to the detriment of the latter, we sketch a group(oid)-theoretical program—that we call the Klein-Weyl program—for the interpretation of both gauge theories and quantum mechanics in a single conceptual framework. This program is based on Weyl's notion of a “structure-endowed entity” equipped with a “group of automorphisms”. First, we analyze what Weyl calls the “problem of relativity” in the frameworks provided by special relativity, general relativity, and Yang-Mills theories. We argue that both general relativity and Yang-Mills theories can be understood in terms of a localization of Klein's Erlangen program: while the latter describes the group-theoretical automorphisms of a single structure (such as homogenous geometries), local gauge symmetries and the corresponding gauge fields (Ehresmann connections) can be naturally understood in terms of the groupoid-theoretical isomorphisms in a family of identical structures. Second, we argue that quantum mechanics can be understood in terms of a linearization of Klein's Erlangen program. This stance leads us to an interpretation of the fact that quantum numbers are “indices characterizing representations of groups” ((Weyl, 1931a), p.xxi) in terms of a correspondence between the ontological categories of identity and determinateness.     

Quantum Mechanics as a Principle Theory

I show how quantum mechanics, like the theory of relativity, can be understood as a ‘principle theory’ in Einstein's sense, and I use this notion to explore the approach to the problem of interpretation developed in my book Interpreting the Quantum World.     

From canonical transformations to transformation theory, 1926–1927: The road to Jordan's Neue Begründung

We sketch the development from matrix mechanics as formulated in the Dreimännerarbeit of Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan, completed in late 1925, to transformation theory developed independently by Jordan and Dirac in late 1926. Focusing on Jordan, we distinguish three strands in this development: the implementation of canonical transformations in matrix mechanics (the main focus of our paper), the clarification of the relation between the different forms of the new quantum theory (matrix mechanics, wave mechanics, q-numbers, and operator calculus), and the generalization of Born's probability interpretation of the Schrödinger wave function. These three strands come together in a two-part paper by Jordan published in 1927, “On a new foundation [neue Begründung] of quantum mechanics.”     

A history of entanglement: Decoherence and the interpretation problem

This paper examines the interweaving of the history of quantum decoherence and the interpretation problem in quantum mechanics through the work of two physicists—H. Dieter Zeh and Wojciech Zurek. In the early 1970s Zeh anticipated many of the important concepts of decoherence, framing it within an Everett-type interpretation. Zeh has since remained committed to this view; however, Zurek, whose papers in the 1980s were crucial in the treatment of the preferred basis problem and the subsequent development of density matrix formalism, has argued that decoherence leads to what he terms the ‘existential interpretation’, compatible with certain aspects of both Everett's relative-state formulation and the Bohr's ‘Copenhagen interpretation’. I argue that these different interpretations can be traced back to the different early approaches to the study of environment-induced decoherence in quantum systems, evident in the early work of Zeh and Zurek. I also show how Zurek's work has contributed to the tendency to see decoherence as contributing to a ‘new orthodoxy’ or a reconstruction of the original Copenhagen interpretation.     

Subjective probability and quantum certainty

In the Bayesian approach to quantum mechanics, probabilities—and thus quantum states—represent an agent's degrees of belief, rather than corresponding to objective properties of physical systems. In this paper we investigate the concept of certainty in quantum mechanics. Particularly, we show how the probability-1 predictions derived from pure quantum states highlight a fundamental difference between our Bayesian approach, on the one hand, and Copenhagen and similar interpretations on the other. We first review the main arguments for the general claim that probabilities always represent degrees of belief. We then argue that a quantum state prepared by some physical device always depends on an agent's prior beliefs, implying that the probability-1 predictions derived from that state also depend on the agent's prior beliefs. Quantum certainty is therefore always some agent's certainty. Conversely, if facts about an experimental setup could imply agent-independent certainty for a measurement outcome, as in many Copenhagen-like interpretations, that outcome would effectively correspond to a preexisting system property. The idea that measurement outcomes occurring with certainty correspond to preexisting system properties is, however, in conflict with locality. We emphasize this by giving a version of an argument of Stairs [(1983). Quantum logic, realism, and value-definiteness. Philosophy of Science, 50, 578], which applies the Kochen–Specker theorem to an entangled bipartite system.     

Quantum metaphysical indeterminacy and the ontological foundations of orthodoxy

This paper develops quantum state individualism, a fundamental ontology for what is usually known as ‘orthodox quantum mechanics.’ The central import of this ontology is that allows for a systematic evaluation of some of the main conclusions of the recent literature on quantum metaphysical indeterminacy. In particular, quantum state individualism supports the ‘gappy’ version of Jessica Wilson's determinable-based account of metaphysical indeterminacy; it implies that fundamental reality is perfectly precise; and third, it provides a non-disjunctive definition of determinables and thereby shields Wilson's account against the charge that it requires either a departure from classical logic or a revision of the quantum formalism.     

Objective probability and the mind-body relation

Objectiveprobability in quantum mechanics is often thought to involve a stochastic process whereby an actual future is selected from a range of possibilities. Everett's seminal idea is that all possible definite futures on the pointer basis exist as components of a macroscopic linear superposition. I demonstrate that these two conceptions of what is involved in quantum processes are linked via two alternative interpretations of the mind-body relation. This leads to a fission, rather than divergence, interpretation of Everettian theory and to a novel explanation of why a principle of indifference does not apply to self-location uncertainty for a post-measurement, pre-observation subject, just as Sebens and Carroll claim. Their Epistemic Separability Principle is shown to arise out of this explanation and the derivation of the Born rule for Everettian theory is thereby put on a firmer footing.     

Introduction to the special issue Hermann Weyl and the philosophy of the ‘New Physics’

This Special Issue Hermann Weyl and the Philosophy of the ‘New Physics’ has two main objectives: first, to shed fresh light on the relevance of Weyl's work for modern physics and, second, to evaluate the importance of Weyl's work and ideas for contemporary philosophy of physics. Regarding the first objective, this Special Issue emphasizes aspects of Weyl's work (e.g. his work on spinors in n dimensions) whose importance has recently been emerging in research fields across both mathematical and experimental physics, as well as in the history and philosophy of physics. Regarding the second objective, this Special Issue addresses the relevance of Weyl's ideas regarding important open problems in the philosophy of physics, such as the problem of characterizing scientific objectivity and the problem of providing a satisfactory interpretation of fundamental symmetries in gauge theories and quantum mechanics. In this Introduction, we sketch the state of the art in Weyl studies and we summarize the content of the contributions to the present volume.     

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.     

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 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.     

Quantum probability and many worlds

We discuss the meaning of probabilities in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. We start by presenting very briefly the many worlds theory, how the problem of probability arises, and some unsuccessful attempts to solve it in the past. Then we criticize a recent attempt by Deutsch to derive the quantum mechanical probabilities from the non-probabilistic parts of quantum mechanics and classical decision theory. We further argue that the Born probability does not make sense even as an additional probability rule in the many worlds theory. Our conclusion is that the many worlds theory fails to account for the probabilistic statements of standard (collapse) quantum mechanics.     

Hertz's Mechanics and a unitary notion of force

Heinrich Hertz dedicated the last four years of his life to a systematic reformulation of mechanics. One of the main issues that troubled Hertz in the customary formulation of mechanics was a ‘logical obscurity’ in the notion of force. However, it is unclear what this logical obscurity was, hence it is unclear how Hertz took himself to have avoided it.In this paper, I argue that a subtle ambiguity in Newton's original laws of motion lay at the basis of Hertz's concerns; an ambiguity which led to the development of two slightly different notions of force. I then show how Hertz avoided this ambiguity by deriving a unitary notion of force, thus dispelling the obscurity that lurked in the customary representation of mechanics.     

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’.     

Zweideutigkeit about “Zweideutigkeit”: Sommerfeld,Pauli, and the methodological origins of quantum mechanics

In early 1925, Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958) published the paper for which he is now most famous and for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1945. The paper detailed what we now know as his “exclusion principle.” This essay situates the work leading up to Pauli's principle within the traditions of the “Sommerfeld School,” led by Munich University's renowned theorist and teacher, Arnold Sommerfeld (1868–1951). Offering a substantial corrective to previous accounts of the birth of quantum mechanics, which have tended to sideline Sommerfeld's work, it is suggested here that both the method and the content of Pauli's paper drew substantially on the work of the Sommerfeld School in the early 1920s. Part One describes Sommerfeld's turn away from a faith in the power of model-based (modellmässig) methods in his early career towards the use of a more phenomenological emphasis on empirical regularities (Gesetzmässigkeiten) during precisely the period that both Pauli and Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976), among others, were his students. Part two delineates the importance of Sommerfeld's phenomenology to Pauli's methods in the exclusion principle paper, a paper that also eschewed modellmässig approaches in favour of a stress on Gesetzmässigkeiten. In terms of content, a focus on Sommerfeld's work reveals the roots of Pauli's understanding of the fundamental Zweideutigkeit (ambiguity) involving the quantum number of electrons within the atom. The conclusion points to the significance of these results to an improved historical understanding of the origin of aspects of Heisenberg's 1925 paper on the “Quantum-theoretical Reformulation (Umdeutung) of Kinematical and Mechanical Relations.”     

In defence of the self-location uncertainty account of probability in the many-worlds interpretation

We defend the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (MWI) against the objection that it cannot explain why measurement outcomes are predicted by the Born probability rule. We understand quantum probabilities in terms of an observer's self-location probabilities. We formulate a probability postulate for the MWI: the probability of self-location in a world with a given set of outcomes is the absolute square of that world's amplitude. We provide a proof of this postulate, which assumes the quantum formalism and two principles concerning symmetry and locality. We also show how a structurally similar proof of the Born rule is available for collapse theories. We conclude by comparing our account to the recent account offered by Sebens and Carroll.     

Everettian quantum mechanics and physical probability: Against the principle of “State Supervenience”

Everettian quantum mechanics faces the challenge of how to make sense of probability and probabilistic reasoning in a setting where there is typically no unique outcome of measurements. Wallace has built on a proof by Deutsch to argue that a notion of probability can be recovered in the many worlds setting. In particular, Wallace argues that a rational agent has to assign probabilities in accordance with the Born rule. This argument relies on a rationality constraint that Wallace calls state supervenience. I argue that state supervenience is not defensible as a rationality constraint for Everettian agents unless we already invoke probabilistic notions.     

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.