Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-25T16:54:37.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Possible Worlds in the Modal Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Meir Hemmo
Meir Hemmo*
Affiliation:
Cambridge University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An outline for a modal interpretation in terms of possible worlds is presented. The so-called Schmidt histories are taken to correspond to the physically possible worlds. The decoherence function defined in the histories formulation of quantum theory is taken to prescribe a non-classical probability measure over the set of the possible worlds. This is shown to yield dynamics in the form of transition probabilities for occurrent events in each world. The role of the consistency condition is discussed.

Type
Modal Interpretations of Quantum Theory
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue S3 , 1996 , pp. S330 - S337
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1996

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.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Jeremy Butterfield, Itamar Pitowsky, Pieter Vermaas, and especially, Guido Bacciagaluppi for many discussions and valuable comments.

‡

Department of Philosophy, Cambridge University, Wolfson College, Cambridge, England CB3 9BB.

References

Albrecht, Α. (1993), “Following a ‘Collapsing' Wave Function”, Physical Review D 48: 3768–3778.Google ScholarPubMed
Bacciagaluppi, G. and Dickson, M. (1995), “Modal Interpretations with Dynamics”, preprint.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. and Hemmo, M. (1995), “State Preparation in the Modal Interpretation”, Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Bacciagaluppi, G. and Hemmo, M. (1996), “Modal Interpretations, Decoherence and Measurements”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. (1981), “Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists”, in Isham, C., Penrose, R. and Sciama, D. (eds.) Quantum Gravity 2. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 611–637.Google Scholar
Bub, J. (1994), “How to Interpret Quantum Mechanics”, Erkenntnis 41: 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, D. (1985), “Quantum Theory as a Universal Physical Theory”, International Journal for Theoretical Physics 24: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. and Hartle, J. (1993), “Classical Equations for Quantum Systems”, Physical Review D 47: 3345–3382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliwell, J. (1994), “Aspects of the Decoherent Histories Approach to Quantum Mechanics”, in Diósi, L. and Lukacs, B. (eds.), Stochastic Evolution of Quantum States in Open Systems and in Measurement Processes. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 54–68.Google Scholar
Hartle, J. (1989), “The Quantum Mechanics of Cosmology”, lectures delivered at the Winter School on Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes, The Hebrew University.Google Scholar
Healey, R. (1984), “How Many Worlds”, Nous 18: 591–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M. (1996), Doctoral Thesis, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Hemmo, M. and Bacciagaluppi, G. (1995), “Many Worlds are Possible in Quantum Theory”, Cambridge University preprint.Google Scholar
Kent, A. (1995), “A Note on Schmidt States and Consistency”, Physics Letters A 196: 313–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochen, S. (1985), “A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Lahti, P. and Mittelstaedt, P. (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 151–169.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986), On the Plurality of Worlds, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (1994), “The Unbuttoned Empiricist: Van Fraassen Speculates About the Quantum World”, Philosophical Books 35: 94–101.Google Scholar
Saunders, S. (1993), “Decoherence, Relative States, and Evolutionary Adaptation”, Foundations of Physics 23: 1553–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaas, P. (1995), “Unique Transition Probabilities in the Modal Interpretation”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P. and Dieks, D. (1995), “The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Its Generalization to Density Operators”, Foundations of Physics 25: 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeh, H. (1973), “Toward a Quantum Theory of Observation”, Foundations of Physics 3: 109–116.10.1007/BF00708603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurek, W. (1993), “Preferred States, Predictability, Classicality, and the Environment-Induced Decoherence”, Progress in Theoretical Physics 89: 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar