Abstract
The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics is a no-collapse interpretation that provides a rule for assigning properties to quantum mechanical systems, depending on their (reduced) quantum state, whether this state be pure or mixed. The modal interpretation was originally developed by Kochen (1985), Dieks (1989) and Healey (1989) (with slight differences) modifying ideas by Van Fraassen (1973, 1991), and was further developed by Vermaas and Dieks (1995) and Clifton (1995). In the original version, the rule for assigning properties is applied to all quantum systems. However, a recent series of no-go theorems by Bacciagaluppi (1995), Clifton (1996) and Vermaas (1997) has shown that this unrestricted application of the rule leads to contradictions. This has prompted some authors (Bacciagaluppi and Dickson, 1999; Dieks, 1998) to restrict application of the rule only to ‘elementary’ or ‘atomic’ systems. We call this version the atomic modal interpretation. In this paper, we shall describe the no-go results, and discuss the picture yielded by the atomic modal interpretation. We shall proceed as follows.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bacciagaluppi, G.: 1995, ‘Kochen-Specker Theorem in the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34, 1206–1215.
Bacciagaluppi, G.: 1999, Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.
Bacciagaluppi, G., Dickson, M.: 1999, ‘Dynamics for Modal Interpretations’, forthcoming in Foundations of Physics.
Bacciagaluppi, G., Donald, M.J., Vermaas, P.E.: 1995, ‘Continuity and Discontinuity of Definite Properties in the Modal Interpretation’, Helvetica Physica Acta, 68, 679–704.
Bacciagaluppi, G., Hemmo, M.: 1996, ‘Modal Interpretations, Decoherence and Measurements’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27, 239–277.
Bacciagaluppi, G., Hemmo, M.: 1998, ‘State Preparation in the Modal Interpretation’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17, 95–114.
Clifton, R.: 1995, ‘Independently Motivating the Kochen-Dieks Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46, 33–57.
Clifton, R.: 1996, ‘The Properties of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, 371–398.
Dickson, M.: 1995, `Faux-Boolean Algebras, Classical Probability, and Determinism’, Foundations of Physics, 8, 231–242.
Dieks, D.: 1989, ‘Resolution of the Measurement Problem Through Decoherence of the Quantum State’, Physics Letters, 142, 439–446.
Dieks, D.: 1998, ‘Preferred Factorizations and Consistent Property Attribution’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17, 144–159.
Donald, M.J.: 1998, ‘Discontinuity and Continuity of Definite Properties in the Modal Interpretation’, in D. Dieks and P.E. Vermaas, eds, The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 213–222.
Fraassen, B.: 1973, ‘Semantic Analysis of Quantum Logic’ in C.A. Hooker, ed., Contemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel, 180–213.
Fraassen, B.: 1991, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Healey, R.: 1989, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kernaghan, R.: 1994, ‘Bell-Kochen-Specker Theorem with 20 Vectors’, Journal of Physic, A 27, L829–L830.
Kochen, S.: 1985, ‘A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’, in P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds, Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1985: 50 Years of the Einstein-PodolskiRosen Gedankenexperiment. Singapore: World Scientific, 151–169.
Kochen, S., Specker, E.P.: 1967, ‘On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics’, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.
Pagonis, C., Clifton, R.: 1995, ‘Unremarkable Contextualism: Dispositions in the Bohm Theory’, Foundations of Physics, 25, 281–296.
Pitowsky, I.: 1989, Quantum Probability-Quantum Logic. Berlin: Springer.
Ruetsche, L.: 1995, ‘Measurement Error and the Albert-Loewer Problem’, Foundations of Physics Letters, 8, 327–344.
Vermaas, P.E.: 1997, ‘A No-Go Theorem for Joint Property Ascriptions in the Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics’, Physical Review Letters, 78, 2033–2037.
Vermaas, P.E.: 1998a, ‘Expanding the Property Ascriptions in Modal Interpretations of Quantum Theory’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17, 115–143.
Vermaas, P.E.: 19986, P.E.: 19986, ‘The Pros and Cons of the Kochen—Dieks and the Atomic Modal Interpretation’, in D. Dieks and P.E. Vermaas, eds, The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 103–148.
Vermaas, P.E., Dieks, D.: 1995, ‘The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Its Generalization to Density Operators’, Foundations of Physics, 25, 145–158.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bacciagaluppi, G., Vermaas, P.E. (1999). Virtual Reality: Consequences of No-Go Theorems for the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In: Chiara, M.L.D., Giuntini, R., Laudisa, F. (eds) Language, Quantum, Music. Synthese Library, vol 281. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2043-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2043-4_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5229-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2043-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive