Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:29:21.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics Be Reconciled with Relativity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Joseph Berkovitz  and
Meir Hemmo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modal interpretations are hidden-variable, no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics that were designed to solve the measurement problem and reconcile this theory with relativity. Yet, as no-go theorems by Dickson and Clifton (1998), Arntzenius (1998) and Myrvold (2002) demonstrate, current modal interpretations are incompatible with relativity. In the mainstream modal interpretations, properties of composite systems are generally unrelated to the properties of their subsystems. We propose holistic and relational interpretations of properties to explain this failure of property composition. Based on these interpretations, we consider strategies for circumventing Myrvold's theorem, which are also effective against the other two theorems.

Type
Quantum Mechanics
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 789 - 801
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

For comments and discussions, we are grateful to Wayne Myrvold and especially Itamar Pitowsky. For support, JB would like to thank the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, UMBC, the PPM Group, Konstanz University and the LSE Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science.

References

Arntzenius, Frank (1998), “Curiouser and Curiouser: Problems for Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics”, in Dieks, Dennis and Vermaas, Pieter (eds.), The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science 60. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 337–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkovitz, Joseph, and Hemmo, Meir (2005), “Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity: A Reconsideration”, Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity: A Reconsideration 35:373–397.Google Scholar
Berkovitz, Joseph, and Hemmo, Meir (2006), “A New Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in Terms of Relational Properties”, in Demopoulos, W. and Pitowsky, I. (eds.), Physical Theory and Its Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Bub, Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Clifton, Robert (1996), “The Properties of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics”, The Properties of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics 47:371–398.Google Scholar
Dickson, Michael, and Clifton, Robert (1998), “Lorentz Invariance in Modal Interpretations”, in Dieks, Dennis and Vermaas, Pieter (eds.), The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science 60. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 9–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myrvold, Wayne (2002), “Modal Interpretations and Relativity”, Modal Interpretations and Relativity 32:1773–1784.Google Scholar
Shimony, Abner (1995), “The Degree of Entanglement”, The Degree of Entanglement 755: 675.Google Scholar