Abstract
In de Ronde and Massri (Against ‘particle metaphysics’ and ‘collapses’ within the definition of quantum entanglement, submitted, 2019b) it was argued against the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement in terms of pure and separable states. In this paper we attempt to discuss how the logos categorical approach to quantum mechanics (de Ronde and Massri in Int J Theor Phys, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-018-3914-0; in Int J Theor Phys 58:1968–1988, 2019a) is able to provide an objective formal account of the notion of entanglement—completely independent of both purity and separability—in terms of the potential coding of intensive relations and effective relations. We will show how our novel redefinition allows us to provide an anschaulich content to the notion of entanglement, erasing in this way the “spookiness” still present within its orthodox understanding in terms of space-time separated collapse particles.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It should be remarked that even though this notion of objectivity relates directly to its original reference to an object as a moment of unity; it differs drastically from its contemporary mainstream Bohrian and positivist understanding of objectivity as the intersubjective account of observations by a community of agents or—even—as making reference to the way in which subjects collect information Dieks (2009, 2018). Making this shift explicit, Richard Healey remarks in a recent paper (Healey 2018): “Quantum theory is taken to be fundamental to contemporary physics in large part because countless measurements have yielded outcomes that conform to its predictions. Experimenters take great care to ensure that each quantum measurement has an outcome that is not just a subjective impression but an objective, physical event.”
Let us notice, firstly, that “physical” should not be understood as a given “material reality”, but rather as a procedure for representing reality in theoretical—both formal and conceptual—terms. And secondly, that the relation between such physical representation and reality is not something “self evident”. The naive realist account according to which representation “discovers” an already “fixed” reality is not the only possibility that can be considered. A one-to-one correspondence relation between theory and reality is a very naive solution to the deep problem of relating theory and physis.
The problem exposed by Borges is in fact, the same problem which positivists like Carnap, Nagel, Popper between many others tried to resolve without any success: the difficult relation between, on the one hand, phenomenological experience or observations, and on the other, concepts and theories. An interesting detailed and historical recognition of the many failures of this positivist project is (Hempel 1965, Chap. 8).
The anschaulich aspect of physical theories was something repeatedly discussed by the founding fathers of QM. More recently David Deutsch, taking distance from empiricists viewpoints which argue that theories are created from observations, has also stressed the importance of their explanatory aspect (Deutsch 2004, 2016).
A prohibition which Deutsch (2004) has rightly characterized as “bad philosophy”, namely, “[a] philosophy that is not merely false, but actively prevents the growth of other knowledge.”
As recalled by Pauli (1994, p. 122): “Einstein’s opposition to [quantum mechanics] is again reflected in his papers which he published, at first in collaboration with Rosen and Podolsky, and later alone, as a critique of the concept of reality in quantum mechanics. We often discussed these questions together, and I invariably profited very greatly even when I could not agree with Einstein’s view. ‘Physics is after all the description of reality’ he said to me, continuing, with a sarcastic glance in my direction ‘or should I perhaps say physics is the description of what one merely imagines?’ This question clearly shows Einstein’s concern that the objective character of physics might be lost through a theory of the type of quantum mechanics, in that as a consequence of a wider conception of the objectivity of an explanation of nature the difference between physical reality and dream or hallucination might become blurred.”
We might talk here of a shift from a binary understanding of certainty to an intensive certainty.
It is commonly argued that when we measure in QM, we always influence the quantum object under study—which is just another way of making reference to the famous “collapse” of the quantum wave function. This idea, mainly due to Bohr’s account of QM, implies that subjects define reality in an explicit manner; or as Bohr himself used to say: “that in the great drama of [quantum] existence we are not only spectators but also actors.”
This same scrambling takes place in the case of quantum contextuality and the so called “basis problem”. See for a detailed analysis: (de Ronde 2019b).
References
Adámek, J., & Herrlich, H. (1986). Cartesian closed categories, quasitopoi and topological universes. Commentationes Mathaticae Universitatis Carolinae, 27, 235–257.
Aerts, D. (1984). How do we have to change quantum mechanics in order to describe separated systems. In S. Diner, D. Fargue, G. Lochak, & F. Selerri (Eds.), The wave–particle dualism (pp. 419–431). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bokulich, P., & Bokulich, A. (2005). Niels Bohr’s generalization of classical mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 35, 347–371.
Borges, J. L. (1989). Obras completas: Tomo I, María Kodama y Emecé (Eds.), Barcelona. Translated by James Irby from Labyrinths, 1962.
Born, M. (1971). The Born-Einstein Letters. New York: Walker and Company.
Clifton, R. K. (1995). Why modal interpretations of quantum mechanics must abandon classical reasoning about physical properties. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34, 1302–1312.
Clifton, R. K. (1996). The properties of modal interpretations of quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, 371–398.
de la Torre, A. C., Goyeneche, D., & Leitao, L. (2010). Entanglement for all quantum states. European Journal of Physics, 31, 325–332.
de Ronde, C. (2016a). Probabilistic knowledge as objective knowledge in quantum mechanics: Potential immanent powers instead of actual properties. In D. Aerts, C. de Ronde, H. Freytes, & R. Giuntini (Eds.), Probing the meaning of quantum mechanics: Superpositions, semantics, dynamics and identity (pp. 141–178). Singapore: World Scientific.
de Ronde, C. (2016b). Representational realism, closed theories and the quantum to classical limit. In R. E. Kastner, J. Jeknic-Dugic, & G. Jaroszkiewicz (Eds.), Quantum structural studies (pp. 105–135). Singapore: World Scientific.
de Ronde, C. (2017). Causality and the modeling of the measurement process in quantum theory. Disputatio, 9, 657–690.
de Ronde, C. (2018). Quantum superpositions and the representation of physical reality beyond measurement outcomes and mathematical structures. Foundations of Science, 23, 621–648.
de Ronde, C. (2019a). Immanent powers versus causal powers (propensities, latencies and dispositions) in quantum mechanics. In D. Aerts, M. L. Dalla Chiara, C. de Ronde, & D. Krause (Eds.), Probing the meaning of quantum mechanics: Information, contextuality, relationalism and entanglement (pp. 121–157). Singapore: World Scientific.
de Ronde, C. (2019b). Unscrambling the omelette of quantum contextuality (part I): Preexistent properties or measurement outcomes? Foundations of Science,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-019-09578-8.
de Ronde, C., & Bontems, V. (2011). La notion d’entité en tant qu’obstacle épistémologique: Bachelard, la mécanique quantique et la logique. Bulletin des Amis de Gaston Bachelard, 13, 12–38.
de Ronde, C., & Massri, C. (2019a). Against ‘particle metaphysics’ and ‘collapses’ within the definition of quantum entanglement. arXiv:1808.10030 [quant-ph]. (submitted).
de Ronde, C., Freytes, H., & Sergioli, G. (2019b). Quantum probability: A reliable tool for an agent or a source of reality. Synthese,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02177-x.
de Ronde, C., & Massri, C. (2017). Kochen–Specker theorem, physical invariance and quantum individuality. Cadernos da Filosofia da Ciencia, 2, 107–130.
de Ronde, C., & Massri, C. (2018). The logos categorical approach to quantum mechanics: I. Kochen–Specker contextuality and global intensive valuations. International Journal of Theoretical Physics,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-018-3914-0.
de Ronde, C., & Massri, C. (2019a). The logos categorical approach to quantum mechanics: II. Quantum superpositions. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 58, 1968–1988.
de Ronde, C., Fernandez Moujan, R., & Massri, C. (2019b). Taking Mermin’s relational interpretation beyond Cabello’s and Seevincks’ no-go theorems. arXiv:1810.10125 [physics.hist-ph]. (submitted).
Deutsch, D. (2004). The beginning of infinity. Explanations that transform the world. Toronto, ON: Viking.
Deutsch, D. (2016). The logic of experimental tests, particularly of Everettian quantum theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 55, 24–33.
Dieks, D. (1988). The formalism of quantum theory: An objective description of reality. Annalen der Physik, 7, 174–190.
Dieks, D. (2009). Objectivity in perspective: Relationism in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 39, 760–775.
Dieks, D. (2010). Quantum mechanics, chance and modality. Philosophica, 83, 117–137.
Dieks, D. (2018). Quantum mechanics and perspectivalism. In O. Lombardi, S. Fortín, C. López, & F. Holik (Eds.), Quantum worlds perspectives on the ontology of quantum mechanics (pp. 51–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diestel, R. (2010). Graph theory. Heidelberg: Springer.
Einstein, A. (1949). Remarks concerning the essays brought together in this co-operative volume. In P. A. Schlipp (Ed.), Albert Einstein. Philosopher-Scientist (pp. 665–689). New York: MJF Books.
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777–780.
Healey, R. (2018). Quantum theory and the limits of objectivity. Foundations of Physics, 48, 1568–1589.
Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and beyond. New York: Harper & Row.
Heisenberg, W. (1973). Development of concepts in the history of quantum theory. In J. Mehra (Ed.), The Physicist’s conception of nature (pp. 264–275). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Scientific explanation. Essays in Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press.
Hughes, R. I. G. (1992). The structure and interpretation of quantum mechanics. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Jauch, J.-M. (1968). Foundations of quantum mechanics. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Jaynes, E. T. (1990). Probability in quantum theory. In W. H. Zurek (Ed.), Complexity, entropy, and the physics of information (pp. 381–404). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Laurikainen, K. V. (1988). Beyond the atom, the philosophical thought of Wolfgang Pauli. Berlin: Springer.
Li, J.-L., & Qiao, C.-F. (2018). A necessary and sufficient criterion for the separability of quantum state. Scientific Reports, 8, 1442.
Osnaghi, S., Freitas, F., & Freire, O. (2009). The origin of the Everettian heresy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40, 97–123.
Pauli, W. (1994). Albert Einstein and the development of physics. In C. Enz & K. von Meyenn (Eds.), Writings on physics and philosophy (Chapter 13). Berlin: Springer.
Popper, K. (1962). Conjectures and refutations. New York: Basic Books.
Przibram, K. (Ed.). (1967). Letters on wave mechanics. New York: Philosophical Library.
Schrödinger, E. (1935a). The present situation in quantum mechanics. Naturwiss, 23, 807–812. Translated to English in Quantum Theory and Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek (Eds.), 1983, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Schrödinger, E. (1935b). Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31, 555–563.
Schrödinger, E. (1935c). Probability relations between separated systems. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 32, 446–452.
Weinberg, S. (2011). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap (3 of 4), science documentary television series NOVA for PBS, Original air. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z8Ma2YT8vY30:07. Accessed 16 Nov 2011.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank an anonymous referee for her/his insightful remarks and comments. This work was partially supported by the following grants: FWO Project G.0405.08 and FWO-research community W0.030.06. CONICET RES. 4541-12 and the Project PIO-CONICET-UNAJ (15520150100008CO) “Quantum Superpositions in Quantum Information Processing”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Ronde, C., Massri, C. A new objective definition of quantum entanglement as potential coding of intensive and effective relations. Synthese 198, 6661–6688 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02482-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02482-5