Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T14:28:03.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discerning Elementary Particles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

F. A. Muller  and
M. P. Seevinck
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We maximally extend the quantum-mechanical results of Muller and Saunders (2008) establishing the ‘weak discernibility’ of an arbitrary number of similar fermions in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. This confutes the currently dominant view that (A) the quantum-mechanical description of similar particles conflicts with Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII); and that (B) the only way to save PII is by adopting some heavy metaphysical notion such as Scotusian haecceitas or Adamsian primitive thisness. We take sides with Muller and Saunders (2008) against this currently dominant view, which has been expounded and defended by many.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 179 - 200
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.)

References

Barnette, R. L. (1978), “Does Quantum Mechanics Disprove the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles?”, Does Quantum Mechanics Disprove the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles? 45:466–470.Google Scholar
Butterfield, J. N. (1993), “Interpretation and Identity in Quantum Theory”, Interpretation and Identity in Quantum Theory 24:443–476.Google Scholar
Castellani, E., and Mittelstaedt, P. (1998), “Leibniz's Principle: Physics and the Language of Physics”, Leibniz's Principle: Physics and the Language of Physics 30:1587–1604.Google Scholar
Cohen-Tannoudji, C., et al. (1977), Quantum Mechanics, vol. 2. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cortes, A. (1976), “Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles: A False Principle”, Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles: A False Principle 43:491–505.Google Scholar
French, S. (1989a), “Identity and Indiscernibility in Classical and Quantum Physics”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67:432–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S. (1989b), “Why the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles Is Not Contingently True Either”, Why the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles Is Not Contingently True Either 78:141–166.Google Scholar
French, S. (1998), “On the Withering Away of Physical Objects”, in Castellani, E. (ed.), Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 93–113.Google Scholar
French, S. (2006), “Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2006/entries/qt-idind/.Google Scholar
French, S., and Krause, D. (2006), Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical and Formal Analysis. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S., and Redhead, M. L. G. (1988), “Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles”, Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles 39:233–246.Google Scholar
French, S., and Rickles, D. (2003), “Understanding Permutation Symmetry”, in Brading, K. and Castellani, E. (eds.), Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 212–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giuntini, R., and Mittelstaedt, P. (1989), “The Leibniz Principle in Quantum Logic”, The Leibniz Principle in Quantum Logic 28:159–168.Google Scholar
Huggett, N. (2003), “Quarticles and the Identity of Indiscernibles”, in Brading, K. and Castellani, E. (eds.), Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J. (2007), “On the Identity and Diversity of Objects in a Structure”, On the Identity and Diversity of Objects in a Structure 81 (Supplementary Volume): 23–43.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J., and Ross, D. (2007), Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margenau, H. (1944), “The Exclusion Principle and Its Philosophical Importance”, The Exclusion Principle and Its Philosophical Importance 11:187–208.Google Scholar
Massimi, M. (2001), “The Exclusion Principle and the Identity of Indiscernibles: A Response to Margenau's Argument”, The Exclusion Principle and the Identity of Indiscernibles: A Response to Margenau's Argument 52:303–330.Google Scholar
Muller, F. A. (2009), “Withering Away, Weakly”, Synthese, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, F. A., and Saunders, S. W. (2008), “Discerning Fermions”, Discerning Fermions 59:499–548.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1981), Theories and Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G., and Teller, P. (1992), “Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles”, Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles 43:201–218.Google Scholar
Sakurai, J. J. (1995), Modern Quantum Mechanics, revised edition. New York: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Saunders, S. (2006), “Are Quantum Particles Objects?”, Are Quantum Particles Objects? 66:52–63.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1952), Science and Humanism: Physics in Our Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1995), The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow.Google Scholar
Teller, P. (1998), “Quantum Mechanics and Haecceities”, in Castellani, E. (ed.), Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 114–141.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1991), Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, H. (1931), The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar