Linked bibliography for the SEP article "Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics" by Olimpia Lombardi and Dennis Dieks

This is an automatically generated and experimental page

If everything goes well, this page should display the bibliography of the aforementioned article as it appears in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but with links added to PhilPapers records and Google Scholar for your convenience. Some bibliographies are not going to be represented correctly or fully up to date. In general, bibliographies of recent works are going to be much better linked than bibliographies of primary literature and older works. Entries with PhilPapers records have links on their titles. A green link indicates that the item is available online at least partially.

This experiment has been authorized by the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The original article and bibliography can be found here.

  • Albert, D., and B. Loewer, 1990, “Wanted dead or alive: two attempts to solve Schrödinger’s paradox,” in Proceedings of the PSA 1990, Vol. 1, A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. Wessels (eds.), East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 277–285. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1991, “Some alleged solutions to the measurement problem,” Synthese, 88: 87–98. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1993, “Non-ideal measurements,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 6: 297–305. (Scholar)
  • Ardenghi, J. S., M. Castagnino, and O. Lombardi, 2009, “Quantum mechanics: modal interpretation and Galilean transformations,” Foundations of Physics, 39: 1023–1045. (Scholar)
  • Ardenghi, J. S., and O. Lombardi, 2011, “The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation of quantum mechanics as a kind of ‘atomic’ interpretation,” Physics Research International, 2011: 379604. (Scholar)
  • Ardenghi, J. S., O. Lombardi, and M. Narvaja, 2013, “Modal interpretations and consecutive measurements,” in EPSA 2011: Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science, V. Karakostas, and D. Dieks (eds.), Berlin: Springer, pp. 207–217. (Scholar)
  • Arntzenius, F., 1990, “Kochen’s interpretation of quantum mechanics,” in Proceedings of the PSA 1990, Vol. 1, A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. Wessels (eds.), East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 241–249. (Scholar)
  • Bacciagaluppi, G., 1995, “A Kochen-Specker theorem in the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34: 1205–1216. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1996, Topics in the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dissertation, Cambridge University. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1998, “Bohm-Bell dynamics in the modal interpretation,” in The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, D. Dieks, and P. Vermaas (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 177–211. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2000, “Delocalized properties in the modal interpretation of a continuous model of decoherence,” Foundations of Physics, 30: 1431–1444. (Scholar)
  • Bacciagaluppi, G., and M. Dickson, 1999, “Dynamics for modal interpretations,” Foundations of Physics, 29: 1165–1201. (Scholar)
  • Bacciagaluppi, G., M. Donald, and P. Vermaas, 1995, “Continuity and discontinuity of definite properties in the modal interpretation,” Helvetica Physica Acta, 68: 679–704. (Scholar)
  • Bacciagaluppi, G., and M. Hemmo, 1994, “Making sense of approximate decoherence,” in Proceedings of the PSA 1994, Vol. 1, D. Hull, M. Forbes, and R. Burian (eds.), East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 345–354. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1996, “Modal interpretations, decoherence and measurements,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27: 239–277. (Scholar)
  • Ballentine, L., 1998, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development, Singapore: World Scientific. (Scholar)
  • Barandes, J., and D. Kagan, 2014a, “A synopsis of the minimal modal interpretation of quantum theory,” arXiv: 1405.6754v3.
  • Barandes, J., and D. Kagan, 2014b, “The minimal modal interpretation of quantum theory,” arXiv: 1405.6755v3. (Scholar)
  • Bell, J. S., 1984, “Beables for quantum field theory,” in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (1987), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–180. (Scholar)
  • Bene, G., 1997, “Quantum reference systems: A new framework for quantum mechanics,” Physica A, 242: 529–565. (Scholar)
  • Bene, G., and D. Dieks, 2002, “A perspectival version of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and the origin of macroscopic behavior,” Foundations of Physics, 32: 645–671.
  • Berkovitz, J., and M. Hemmo, 2005, “Can modal interpretations of quantum mechanics be reconciled with relativity?,” Philosophy of Science, 72: 789–801. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2006, “A new modal interpretation in terms of relational properties,” in Physical Theory and its Interpretation: Essays in honor of Jeffrey Bub, W. Demopoulos, and I. Pitowsky (eds.), New York: Springer, pp.1–28.
  • Bohm, D., 1952, “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II,” Physical Review, 85: 166–193.
  • Brown, H., M. Suárez, and G. Bacciagaluppi, 1998, “Are ‘sharp values’ of observables always objective elements of reality?,” in The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, D. Dieks, and P. Vermaas (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 69–101. (Scholar)
  • Bub, J., 1992, “Quantum mechanics without the projection postulate,” Foundations of Physics, 22: 737–754. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1994, “On the structure of quantal proposition systems,” Foundations of Physics, 24: 1261–1279. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1997, Interpreting the Quantum World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
  • Bub, J., and R. Clifton, 1996, “A uniqueness theorem for interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27: 181–219.
  • Bub, J., R. Clifton, and S. Goldstein, 2000, “Revised proof of the uniqueness theorem for ‘no collapse’ interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 31: 95–98. (Scholar)
  • Bueno, O., 2014, “Constructive empiricism, partial structures and the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Quanta, 3: 1–15. (Scholar)
  • Castagnino, M., S. Fortin, and O. Lombardi, 2010, “Is the decoherence of a system the result of its interaction with the environment?,” Modern Physics Letters A, 25: 1431–1439. (Scholar)
  • Castagnino, M., R. Laura, and O. Lombardi, 2007, “A general conceptual framework for decoherence in closed and open systems,” Philosophy of Science, 74: 968–980.
  • Clifton, R., 1995a, “Independently motivating the Kochen-Dieks modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46: 33–57. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1995b, “Making sense of the Kochen-Dieks ‘no-collapse’ interpretation of quantum mechanics independent of the measurement problem,” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 755: 570–578. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1995c, “Why modal interpretations of quantum mechanics must abandon classical reasoning about the physical properties,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34: 1302–1312. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1996, “The properties of modal interpretations of quantum mechanics,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47: 371–398. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2000, “The modal interpretation of algebraic quantum field theory,” Physics Letters A, 271: 167–177. (Scholar)
  • Cohen, D. W., 1989, An Introduction to Hilbert Space and Quantum Logic, New York: Springer-Verlag. (Scholar)
  • Da Costa, N., and O. Lombardi, 2014, “Quantum mechanics: ontology without individuals,” Foundations of Physics, 44: 1246–1257. (Scholar)
  • Da Costa, N., O. Lombardi, and M. Lastiri, 2013, “A modal ontology of properties for quantum mechanics,” Synthese, 190: 3671–3693.
  • De Witt, B. S. M., 1970, “Quantum mechanics and reality,” Physics Today, 23: 30–35. (Scholar)
  • Dickson, M., 1994, “Wavefunction tails in the modal interpretation,” in D. Hull, M. Forbes, and R. Burian (eds.), Proceedings of the PSA 1994, Vol. 1, East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 366–376. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1995a, “Faux-Boolean algebras, classical probability, and determinism,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 8: 231–242. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1995b, “Faux-Boolean algebras and classical models,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 8: 401–415. (Scholar)
  • Dickson, M., and R. Clifton, 1998, “Lorentz-invariance in modal interpretations,” in The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, D. Dieks, and P. Vermaas (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 9–48. (Scholar)
  • Dieks, D., 1988, “The formalism of quantum theory: an objective description of reality?,” Annalen der Physik, 7: 174–190. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1989a, “Quantum mechanics without the projection postulate and its realistic interpretation,” Foundations of Physics, 38: 1397–1423. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1989b, “Resolution of the measurement problem through decoherence of the quantum state,” Physics Letters A, 142: 439–446. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1994a, “Objectification, measurement and classical limit according to the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” in P. Busch, P. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 160–167. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1994b, “Modal interpretation of quantum mechanics, measurements, and macroscopic behaviour,” Physical Review A, 49: 2290–2300. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1995, “Physical motivation of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Physics Letters A, 197: 367–371. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1998, “Preferred factorizations and consistent property attribution”, in Quantum Measurement: Beyond Paradox, R. Healey, and G. Hellman (eds.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 144–160. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2002, “Events and covariance in the interpretation of quantum field theory,” in Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory, M. Kuhlmann, H. Lyre, and A. Wayne (eds.), Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 215–234. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2005, “Quantum mechanics: an intelligible description of objective reality?,” Foundations of Physics, 35: 399–415. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2007, “Probability in modal interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38: 292–310. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2009, “Objectivity in perspective: relationism in the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Foundations of Physics, 39: 760–775. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2010, “Quantum mechanics, chance and modality,” Philosophica, 83: 117–137. (Scholar)
  • Dieks, D., and P. Vermaas (eds.), 1998, The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Scholar)
  • Donald, M., 1998, “Discontinuity and continuity of definite properties in the modal interpretation,” in The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, D. Dieks, and P. Vermaas (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 213–222. (Scholar)
  • Earman, J., and L. Ruetsche, 2005, “Relativistic invariance and modal interpretations,” Philosophy of Science, 72: 557–583. (Scholar)
  • Elby, A., 1993, “Why ‘modal’ interpretations of quantum mechanics don’t solve the measurement problem,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 6: 5–19. (Scholar)
  • Everett, H., 1957, “Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics,” Review of Modern Physics, 29: 454–462. (Scholar)
  • Fortin, S., and O. Lombardi, 2014, “Partial traces in decoherence and in interpretation: What do reduced states refer to?,” Foundations of Physics, 44: 426–446. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2016, “A top-down view of the classical limit of quantum mechanics,” in Quantum Structural Studies: Classical Emergence from the Quantum Level, R. Kastner, J. Jeknić-Dugić, and G. Jaroszkiewicz (eds.), Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 435–468.
  • Fortin, S., O. Lombardi, and J. C. Martínez González, 2016a, “Isomerism and decoherence,” Foundations of Chemistry, 18: 225–240. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2016b, “A new application of the modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics: the problem of optical isomerism,” PhilSci-Archive, ID: 12672. (Scholar)
  • French, S., and D. Krause, 2006, Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical and Formal Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
  • Gambetta, J., and H. M. Wiseman, 2003, “Interpretation of non-Markovian stochastic Schrödinger equations as a hidden-variable theory,” Physical Review A, 68: 062104. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2004, “Modal dynamics for positive operator measures,” Foundations of Physics, 34: 419–448. (Scholar)
  • Healey, R., 1989, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1995, “Dissipating the quantum measurement problem,” Topoi, 14: 55–65. (Scholar)
  • Hemmo, M., and J. Berkovitz, 2005, “Modal interpretations of quantum mechanics and relativity: a reconsideration,” Foundations of Physics, 35: 373–397. (Scholar)
  • Hollowood, T., 2013a, “The Copenhagen interpretation as an emergent phenomenon,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 46: 325302. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2013b, “New modal quantum mechanics,” arXiv: 1312.4751v1. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2014, “The emergent Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47: 18530. (Scholar)
  • Hughes, R. I. G., 1989, The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Scholar)
  • Kitajima, Y., 2004, “A remark on the modal interpretation of algebraic quantum field theory,” Physics Letters A, 331: 181–186.
  • Kochen, S., 1985, “A new interpretation of quantum mechanics,” in Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1985, P. Mittelstaedt, and P. Lahti (eds.), Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 151–169.
  • Kochen, S., and E. Specker, 1967, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17: 59–87. (Scholar)
  • Laudisa, F., and C. Rovelli, 2008, “Relational quantum mechanics,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-relational/>. (Scholar)
  • Lombardi, O., 2010, “The central role of the Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics: decoherence and interpretation,” Manuscrito, 33: 307–349. (Scholar)
  • Lombardi, O., and M. Castagnino, 2008, “A modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39: 380–443. (Scholar)
  • Lombardi, O., M. Castagnino, and J. S. Ardenghi, 2010, “The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation and the Galilean covariance of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41: 93–103. (Scholar)
  • Lombardi, O., and D. Dieks, 2016, “Particles in a quantum ontology of properties,” in Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics, T. Bigaj, and C. Wüthrich (eds.), Leiden: Brill-Rodopi, pp. 123–143. (Scholar)
  • Lombardi, O., and S. Fortin, 2015, “The role of symmetry in the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, 12: 255–272. (Scholar)
  • Lombardi, O., S. Fortin, and M. Castagnino, 2012, “The problem of identifying the system and the environment in the phenomenon of decoherence,” in EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009, H. W. de Regt, S. Hartmann, and S. Okasha (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 161–174. (Scholar)
  • Lombardi, O., S. Fortin, M. Castagnino, and J. S. Ardenghi, 2011, “Compatibility between environment-induced decoherence and the modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Philosophy of Science, 78: 1024–1036. (Scholar)
  • Lombardi, O., S. Fortin, and C. López, 2015, “Measurement, interpretation and information,” Entropy, 17: 7310–7330. (Scholar)
  • Menzel, C., 2007, “Actualism,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2007 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=<Actualism/" target="other">https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/Actualism/>). (Scholar)
  • Myrvold, W., 2002, “Modal interpretations and relativity,” Foundations of Physics, 32: 1773–1784. (Scholar)
  • Nakayama, K., 2008a, “Reformulation of a modal interpretation of quantum mechanics in the topos M-set,” Ryokoku Journal of Humanities and Sciences, 29: 159–168. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2008b, “Topos-theoretic extension of a modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 47: 2065–2094. (Scholar)
  • Reeder, N., and R. Clifton, 1995, “Uniqueness of prime factorizations of linear operators in quantum mechanics,” Physics Letters A, 204: 198–204. (Scholar)
  • Rovelli, C., 1996, “Relational quantum mechanics,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35: 1637–1678. (Scholar)
  • Rovelli, C., and M. Smerlak, 2007, “Relational EPR,” Foundations of Physics, 37: 427–445. (Scholar)
  • Ruetsche, L., 1995, “Measurement error and the Albert-Loewer problem,” Foundations of Physics Letters, 8: 327–344. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1996, “Van Fraassen on preparation and measurement,” Philosophy of Science, 63: S338-S346. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2003, “Modal semantics, modal dynamics and the problem of state preparation,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17: 25–41. (Scholar)
  • Schlosshauer, M., 2007, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer. (Scholar)
  • Schrödinger, E., 1935, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31: 555–563. (Scholar)
  • Suárez, M., 2004, “Quantum selections, propensities and the problem of measurement,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55: 219–255. (Scholar)
  • Sudbery, A., 2002, “Diese verdammte Quantenspringerei,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 33: 387–411. (Scholar)
  • van Fraassen, B. C., 1972, “A formal approach to the philosophy of science,” in Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain, R. Colodny (ed.), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 303–366..
  • –––, 1974, “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,” Synthese, 29: 291–309. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1991, Quantum Mechanics, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2010, “Rovelli’s world,” Foundations of Physics, 40: 390–417. (Scholar)
  • Vermaas, P., 1996, “Unique transition probabilities in the modal interpretation,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27: 133–159. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1997, “A no-go theorem for joint property ascriptions in modal interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Physical Review Letters, 78: 2033–2037.
  • –––, 1998, “The pros and cons of the Kochen-Dieks and the atomic modal interpretation,” in The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, D. Dieks, and P. Vermaas (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 103–148. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1999, A Philosopher’s Understanding of Quantum Mechanics: Possibilities and Impossibilities of a Modal Interpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
  • Vermaas, P., and D. Dieks, 1995, “The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and its generalization to density operators,” Foundations of Physics, 25: 145–158. (Scholar)
  • Vink, J., 1993, “Quantum mechanics in terms of discrete beables,” Physical Review A, 48: 1808–1818. (Scholar)
  • Zurek, W. H., 1981, “Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: into what mixtures does the wave packet collapse?,” Physical Review D, 24: 1516–1525. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2003, “Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 75: 715–776. (Scholar)

Generated Sun Jun 25 09:27:21 2017