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.     

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.     

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.     

Holism, physical theories and quantum mechanics

Motivated by the question what it is that makes quantum mechanics a holistic theory (if so), I try to define for general physical theories what we mean by `holism'. For this purpose I propose an epistemological criterion to decide whether or not a physical theory is holistic, namely: a physical theory is holistic if and only if it is impossible in principle to infer the global properties, as assigned in the theory, by local resources available to an agent. I propose that these resources include at least all local operations and classical communication. This approach is contrasted with the well-known approaches to holism in terms of supervenience. The criterion for holism proposed here involves a shift in emphasis from ontology to epistemology. I apply this epistemological criterion to classical physics and Bohmian mechanics as represented on a phase and configuration space respectively, and for quantum mechanics (in the orthodox interpretation) using the formalism of general quantum operations as completely positive trace non-increasing maps. Furthermore, I provide an interesting example from which one can conclude that quantum mechanics is holistic in the above mentioned sense, although, perhaps surprisingly, no entanglement is needed.     

Uncomfortable bedfellows: Objective quantum Bayesianism and the von Neumann–Lüders projection postulate

In this paper I critically evaluate the justification of the von Neumann–Lüders projection postulate for state changes in projective measurement contexts from the objective quantum Bayesian perspective. I point out that the justification provided so far for the von Neumann–Lüders projection postulate is insufficient. I argue that the best way to correct this problem is to make an assumption, Benign Realism, which is contradictory to the objective quantum Bayesian interpretation of quantum states.     

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.     

An axiomatic formulation of the Montevideo interpretation of quantum mechanics

We make a first attempt to axiomatically formulate the Montevideo interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this interpretation environmental decoherence is supplemented with loss of coherence due to the use of realistic clocks to measure time to solve the measurement problem. The resulting formulation is framed entirely in terms of quantum objects. Unlike in ordinary quantum mechanics, classical time only plays the role of an unobservable parameter. The formulation eliminates any privileged role of the measurement process giving an objective definition of when an event occurs in a system.     

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.     

The origin of the Everettian heresy

In 1956, Hugh Everett, then a PhD student at Princeton, proposed his “relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. John Wheeler, who was Everett's advisor, recognized the originality and importance of such a proposal, but he denied that its non-conventional approach to measurement questioned the orthodox view. Indeed, Wheeler made serious efforts to obtain the blessing of Niels Bohr for Everett's ideas. These efforts gave rise to a lively debate with the Copenhagen group, the existence and content of which have been only recently disclosed by the discovery of unpublished documents. The analysis of such documents opens a window on the conceptual background of Everett's proposal, and illuminates at the same time some crucial aspects of the Copenhagen view of the measurement problem. Also, it provides an original insight into the interplay between philosophical and social factors which underlay the postwar controversies on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.     

Multiplicity in Everett׳s interpretation of quantum mechanics

Everett׳s interpretation of quantum mechanics was proposed to avoid problems inherent in the prevailing interpretational frame. It assumes that quantum mechanics can be applied to any system and that the state vector always evolves unitarily. It then claims that whenever an observable is measured, all possible results of the measurement exist. This notion of multiplicity has been understood in different ways by proponents of Everett׳s theory. In fact the spectrum of opinions on various ontological questions raised by Everett׳s approach is rather large, as we attempt to document in this critical review. We conclude that much remains to be done to clarify and specify Everett׳s approach.     

Whence the eigenstate–eigenvalue link?

David Wallace has recently argued that the eigenstate–eigenvalue (E–E) link has no place in serious discussions of quantum mechanics on the grounds that, as he claims, the E–E link is an invention of philosophers rather than the community of practicing physicists. This raises an historical question regarding the origin of the link. This paper aims to answer this question by tracing the historical development of the link through six key textbooks of quantum mechanics. In light of the historical evidence from these textbooks, it is argued that Wallace provides insufficient grounds for dismissing the E–E link from discussions of quantum mechanics.     

‘Shut up and contemplate!’: Lucien Hardy׳s reasonable axioms for quantum theory

Since the beginning of quantum mechanics, attempts were made to derive it from simple natural axioms or assumptions. These reconstructions suffered from various defects, including the questionable naturalness or the overabundance of the axioms, the mathematical difficulty of the derivation, and the inclusion of a wider range of theories than just quantum mechanics. Recently, in 2001, Lucien Hardy propounded “five reasonable axioms” that seem to elude such criticism. The present paper purports to give a simplified version of this new foundation, to discuss Hardy׳s original version and subsequent variants by others authors, and to investigate the nature of the relevant axioms in light of their possible connection with correspondence arguments.     

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.     

Quantum decoherence and the approach to equilibrium (II)

In a previous paper [Hemmo, M & Shenker, O (2003). Quantum decoherence and the approach to equilibrium I. Philosophy of Science, 70, 330–358] we discussed a recent proposal by Albert [(2000). Time and chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapter 7] to recover thermodynamics on a purely dynamical basis, using the quantum theory of the collapse of the quantum state of [Ghirardi, G, Rimini, A and Weber, T., (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review, D 34, 470–479]. We proposed an alternative way to explain thermodynamics within no collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics. In this paper some difficulties faced by both approaches are discussed and solved: the spin echo experiments, and the problem of extremely light gases. In these contexts, we point out several ways in which the above quantum mechanical approaches as well as some other classical approaches to the foundations of statistical mechanics may be distinguished experimentally.     

Fritz London and the scale of quantum mechanisms

Fritz London's seminal idea of “quantum mechanisms of macroscopic scale”, first articulated in 1946, was the unanticipated result of two decades of research, during which London pursued quantum-mechanical explanations of various kinds of systems of particles at different scales. He started at the microphysical scale with the hydrogen molecule, generalized his approach to chemical bonds and intermolecular forces, then turned to macrophysical systems like superconductors and superfluid helium. Along this path, he formulated a set of concepts—the quantum mechanism of exchange, the rigidity of the wave function, the role of quantum statistics in multi-particle systems, the possibility of order in momentum space—that eventually coalesced into a new conception of systems of equal particles. In particular, it was London's clarification of Bose-Einstein condensation that enabled him to formulate the notion of superfluids, and led him to the recognition that quantum mechanics was not, as it was commonly assumed, relevant exclusively as a micromechanics.     

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.