Abstract
After more than 70 years of debate about the difficulties that one encounters in working out a coherent view of physical processes based on the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, there is now a widespread belief that such difficulties do not arise from philosophical prejudices (as has been repeatedly asserted by many of the supporters of textbook quantum mechanics) but represent precise mathematical and physical challenges which call for a physical solution. As J.S. Bell appropriately stated1 “the way ahead is unromantic in that it requires mathematical work by theoretical physicists, rather than interpretations by philosophers”. It is also encouraging, for those who share this position, to see that now there are explicit proposals indicating possible ways out in which the process of measurement (and more generally all those measurement-like processes2 “we are obliged to admit ... are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere”) is analysed not in terms of vague assertions or resorting to ill-defined and/or contradictory dualistic evolution processes (the linear and deterministic evolution for microsystems and the nonlinear and stochastic wave packet reduction for the macroscopic ones) but in terms of more fundamental physical concepts. In particular, approaches of this kind, which S. Goldstein3 has appropriately denoted as “observer-free formulations of quantum mechanics”, can be grouped in three categories: the pilot-wave theories: the decoherent histories and the spontaneous localization models.
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
John Stewart Bell, “Six possible worlds of quantum mechanics”, in: Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium 65: Possible Worlds in Arts and Sciences, Stockholm, 1986.
John Stewart Bell, “Against measurement”, in: Arthur Miller (Ed.), Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty,, New York, Plenum Press, 1990, pp. 17–31.
Sheldon Goldstein “Quantum Theory without Observers”, in: Physics Today,March 1998, pp.4246, ibid. April 1998, pp.38–42.
GianCarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini and Tullio Weber, “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems”, in: Physical Review, D 34, 1986, pp. 470–491.
To be precise in the original GRW theory the frequency of the hittings has been assumed to be the same for all elementary particles. However, subsequent investigations6–9 have put into evidence the appropriateness of making the frequency of the spontaneous localizations proportional to the mass.
GianCarlo Ghirardi, Renata Grassi and Alberto Rimini, “Continuous-spontaneous-reduction model involving gravity”, in: Physical Review A, 42, 1990, pp.1057–1064.
P. Pearle, and E. Squires, `Bound state excitation, nucleon decay experiments, and models of wave function collapse“, in: Physical Review Letters,73, 1994, pp.1–5
GianCarlo Ghirardi, Renata Grassi and Fabio Benatti, “Describing the Macroscopic World: Closing the Circle within the Dynamical Reduction Program”, in: Foundations of Physics,25, 1995, pp.5–38.
Alberto Rimini, “Spontaneous localization and superconductivity”, in: Enrico Beltrametti and Jean Marc Levy-Leblond (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Course on Advances in Quantum Phenomena, New York: Plenum Press 1997, pp. 321–333.
John Stewart Bell, “Are there quantum jumps?”, in: C.W. Kilmister (Ed.), Schrödinger. Centenary celebration of a polymath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987, pp. 41–52.
Philip Penile, “Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localizations”, in: Physical Review,A 39, 1989, pp.2277–2289.
GianCarlo Ghirardi, Philip Pearle and Alberto Rimini, “Markov processes in Hilbert space and continuous spontaneous localization of systems of identical particles”, in: Physical Review, A 42, 1990, pp. 78–89.
Philip Pearle, “Tales and Tails and Stuff and Nonsense”, in: R.S. Cohen et al. (Eds.), Experimental Metaphysics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997, pp. 143–156.
Philip Pearle, “Reduction of the state vector by a nonlinear Schrödinger equation”, in: Physical Review D, 13, 1976, pp. 857–868.
Philip Pearle, “Toward explaining why events occur”, in International Journal of Theoretical Physics,18, 1979, pp.489–518.
GianCarlo Ghirardi, “Macroscopic reality and the dynamical reduction program”, in: M.L. Dalla Chiara et al.,(Eds.), Structures and Norms in Science,Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic 1997, pp.221–240.
Abner Shimony, “Desiderata for a Modified Quantum Dynamics”, in: A. Fine, M. Forbes and L. Wessel eds., PSA 1990, Vol. 2, East Leasing: Philosophy of Science Association 1991, pp. 49–59.
Abner Shimony, “Events and processes in the quantum world”, in: Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, R. Penrose and C. Isham eds., Oxford University Press 1986, pp. 182–203.
John Stewart Bell, “Towards An Exact Quantum Mechanics”, in: S. Deser and R.J. Finkelstein (Eds.), Themes in Contemporary Physics 11., Singapore: World Scientific 1989, pp. 1–26.
Detlef Dürr, Sheldon Goldstein and Nino Zanghì, “Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty”, in: Journal of Statistical Physics,67, 1992, pp.843–907 and references therein.
This makes evident the appropriateness of Bell’s remark in the above quoted letter that “even for one particle I think one would have problems with the” matter density interpretation.
Franca Aicardi, Antonio Borsellino, GianCarlo Ghirardi and Renata Grassi, “Dynamical models for state-vector reduction: do they ensure that measurements have outcomes”, in: Foundations of Physics Letters, 4, 1991, pp. 109–128.
Erwin Schrödinger, “Quantisierung als Eigenwertprohlem”, in: Annalen der Physik,79, 1926, pp.489–527.
Albert Einstein, “Reply to Criticisms”, in: P.A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1949, pp. 663–688.
Max Born, Briefwechsel, München: Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung GmbH., 1969.
Philip Pearle, “Toward a relativistic theory of statevector reduction” in: A.I. Miller (Ed.), Sixly-two Years of Uncertainity. New York: Plenum Press, 1990, pp.193–214, “Relativistic model for statevector reduction” in: P. Cvitanovic, I. Percival and A. Wirzba (Eds.), Quantum Chaos–Quantum Measurement, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992, pp. 283–297.
GianCarlo Ghirardi, Renata Grassi and Philip Pearle, `Relativistic dynamical reduction models: general framework and examples: in: Foundations of Physics,20, 1990, pp.1271–1316; “Relativistic dynamical reduction models and nonlocality” in: P. Lahti and P Mittelstaedt (Eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1990,Singapore: World Scientific 1991, pp. 109–123.
GianCarlo Ghirardi and Renata Grassi, “Outcome predictions and property attribution: the EPR argument reconsidered”, in: Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science,25, 1994, pp.397423.
GianCarlo Ghirardi, “Properties and events in a relativistic context: revisiting the dynamical reduction program”, in: Foundations of Physics Letters,9, 1996, pp.313–355.
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
Ghirardi, G. (1999). The Dynamical Reduction Program: An Example of a Quantum Theory without Observers. In: Greenberger, D., Reiter, W.L., Zeilinger, A. (eds) Epistemological and Experimental Perspectives on Quantum Physics. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook [1999], vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1454-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1454-9_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5354-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1454-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive