David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 30 (3):403-431 (1999)
Modal interpretations take quantum mechanics as a theory which assigns at all times definite values to magnitudes of quantum systems. In the case of single systems, modal interpretations manage to do so without falling prey to the Kochen and Specker no-go theorem, because they assign values only to a limited set of magnitudes. In this paper I present two further no-go theorems which prove that two modal interpretations become nevertheless problematic when applied to more than one system. The first theorem proves that the modal interpretation proposed by Kochen and by Dieks cannot correlate the values simultaneously assigned to three systems. The second and new theorem proves that the atomic modal interpretation proposed by Bacciagaluppi and Dickson and by Dieks cannot correlate the values simultaneously and sequentially assigned to two systems if one assumes that these correlations are uniquely related to the dynamics of the state of the systems
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
A. Sudbery (2002). Diese Verdammte Quantenspringerei. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 33 (3):387-411.
Similar books and articles
Pieter E. Vermaas (1999). A Philosopher's Understanding of Quantum Mechanics: Possibilities and Impossibilities of a Modal Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
Joseph Berkovitz & Meir Hemmo (2005). Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity: A Reconsideration. [REVIEW] Foundations of Physics 35 (3):373-397.
Graciela Domenech, Hector Freytes & Christian de Ronde, The Contextual Character of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.
E. P. (1999). Two No-Go Theorems for Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 30 (3):403-431.
Joseph Berkovitz & Meir Hemmo, How to Reconcile Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics with Relativity.
Michael Dickson (1996). Logical Foundations for Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):329.
Rob Clifton (1996). The Properties of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (3):371-398.
Dennis Dieks (2007). Probability in Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (2):292-310.
B. D'Espagnat (2001). The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Dennis Dieks and Pieter E. Vermaas (Eds), the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1998), VIII+377 Pp., ISBN 0-7923-5207-. [REVIEW] Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (1):121-125.
Pieter E. Vermaas (2005). Technology and the Conditions on Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4):635-661.
Elio Conte (2011). On the Logical Origins of Quantum Mechanics Demonstrated By Using Clifford Algebra. Neuroquantology 9 (2):231-242.
Nicholas Maxwell (1976). Towards a Micro Realistic Version of Quantum Mechanics, Part I. Foundations of Physics 6 (3):275-292.
Franck Laloë (2012). Do We Really Understand Quantum Mechanics? Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2010-09-01
Total downloads25 ( #108,415 of 1,699,594 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #362,609 of 1,699,594 )
How can I increase my downloads?