Synthese

pp 1–38 | Cite as

A pragmatist view of the metaphysics of entanglement

S.I. The Metaphysics of Entanglement

Abstract

Quantum entanglement is widely believed to be a feature of physical reality with undoubted (though debated) metaphysical implications. But Schrödinger introduced entanglement as a theoretical relation between representatives of the quantum states of two systems. Entanglement represents a physical relation only if quantum states are elements of physical reality. So arguments for metaphysical holism or nonseparability from entanglement rest on a questionable view of quantum theory. Assignment of entangled quantum states predicts experimentally confirmed violation of Bell inequalities. Can one use these experimental results to argue directly for metaphysical conclusions? No. Quantum theory itself gives us our best explanation of violations of Bell inequalities, with no superluminal causal influences and no metaphysical holism or nonseparability—but only if quantum states are understood as objective and relational, though prescriptive rather than ontic. Correct quantum state assignments are backed by true physical magnitude claims: but backing is not grounding. Quantum theory supports no general metaphysical holism or nonseparability; though a claim about a compound physical system may be significant and true while similar claims about its components are neither. Entanglement may well have have few, if any, first-order metaphysical implications. But the quantum theory of entanglement has much to teach the metaphysician about the roles of chance, causation, modality and explanation in the epistemic and practical concerns of a physically situated agent.

Keywords

Entanglement Metaphysical holism Quantum theory Quantum state Chance Causation Nonseparability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited from discussions with Jenann Ismael and David Glick and helpful suggestions from two reviewers. I thank the Yetadel Foundation for support during the time it was written.

References

  1. Beisbart, C., & Hartmann, S. (2011). Probabilities in physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 447–452.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, J. S. (1966). On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 447–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, J. S. (2004). Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohr, N. (1927). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature, 121, 580–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohr, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 48, 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohr, N. (1958). Unity of knowledge. Reprinted in The philosophical writings of Niels Bohr volume II. Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
  8. Caulton, A. (2014) Physical entanglement in permutation–invariant quantum mechanics. arXiv:1409.0246v1 [quant-ph] 31 Aug.
  9. Clauser, J. F., Holt, R. A., Horne, M. A., & Shimony, A. (1969). Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Physical Review Letters, 23, 880–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickson, M., & Clifton, R. (1998). Lorentz-invariance in modal interpretations. In D. Dieks & P. Vermaas (Eds.), The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics (pp. 9–48). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). The principles of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Earman, J. (2015). Some puzzles and unresolved issues about quantum entanglement. Erkenntnis, 80, 303–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eberhard, P. (1978). Bell’s theorem and the different conceptions of locality. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 46, 392–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Einstein, A. (1948). Quanten-mechanik und Wirklichkeit. Dialectica, 2, 320–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Einstein, A. (1949). Autobiographical notes; Reply to Criticisms. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  16. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fine, A. (1982). Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 23, 1306–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fine, A. (1986). The shaky game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fine, A. (2014). The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen argument. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/qt-epr/.
  20. Friederich, S. (2015). Rethinking local causality. Synthese, 192, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghirardi, G.-C. (2013). The parts and the whole. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ghirardi, G.-C., Marinatto, L., & Weber, T. (2002). Entanglement and properties of composite systems. Journal of Statistical Physics, 108, 49–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giustina, M., et al. (2015). Significant-loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons. Physical Review Letters, 115, 250401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gisin, N. (1991). Bell’s inequality holds for all non-product states. Physics Letters A, 154, 201–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gleason, A. M. (1957). Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 6, 885–893.Google Scholar
  26. Healey, R. (1989). The philosophy of quantum mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Healey, R. (1991). Holism and nonseparability. Journal of Philosophy, 88, 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Healey, R. (1994). Nonseparable processes and causal explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25, 337–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Healey, R. (2009). Holism and nonseparabiity in physics. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/physics-holism/.
  30. Healey, R. (2012). Quantum theory: A pragmatist approach. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 729–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Healey, R. (2012). Quantum decoherence in a pragmatist view: Dispelling Feynman’s mystery. Foundations of Physics, 42, 1534–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Healey, R. (2013). Observation and quantum objectivity. Philosophy of Science, 80, 434–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Healey, R. (2015). How quantum theory helps us explain. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Healey, R. (2016). Local causality, probability and explanation. In M. Bell & S. Gao (Eds.), Quantum nonlocality and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Henson, J. (2013). Non-separability does not relieve the problem of Bell’s theorem. Foundations of Physics, 43, 1008–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howard, D. (1985). Einstein on locality and separability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16, 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holism, Howard D. (1989). Separability and the metaphysical implications of the Bell experiments. In J. Cushing & E. McMullin (Eds.), Philosophical consequences of quantum theory: Reflections on Bell’s theorem (pp. 224–253). Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ismael, J. (2008). Raid! Dissolving the big, bad bug. Nous, 4, 292–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ismael, J. & Schaffer, J. (2016). Quantum holism: Nonseparability as common ground. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1201-2.
  40. Juffman, T., et al. (2009). Wave and particle in molecular interference lithography. Physical Review Letters, 103, 263601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kochen, S., & Specker, E. P. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.Google Scholar
  42. Ladyman, J., Linnebo, Ø., & Bigaj, T. (2013). Entanglement and non-factorizability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 215–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lévy–Leblond, J.-M. (1990). In K. V. Laurikainen & J. Viiri (Eds.) Discussion Sections of the Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1990. University of Turku.Google Scholar
  44. Leifer, M. (2014). Is the quantum state real?”. Quanta, 3, 67–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewis, D. K. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In R. C. Jeffrey (Ed.), Studies in inductive logic and probability, Volume II. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lewis, D. K. (1986). Causal explanation. In Philosophical papers (Vol. II, pp. 214–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Maudlin, T. (2011). Quantum non-locality and relativity (3rd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Myrvold, W. (2001). Modal interpretations and relativity. Foundations of Physics, 32, 1773–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Myrvold, W. (2003). Relativistic quantum becoming. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53, 475–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mermin, N. D. (2007). Quantum computer science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. The Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286–302.Google Scholar
  52. Price, H. (1996). Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Price, H. (2011). Naturalism without mirrors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Price, H. (2012). Causation, chance and the rational significance of supernatural evidence. Philosophical Review, 121, 483–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schrödinger, E. (1935). Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Vol. 31, pp. 63–555).Google Scholar
  56. Schrödinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. In Die Naturwissenschaften 48, 807–812; 49, 823–8; 50, 844–849.Google Scholar
  57. Schrödinger, E. (1936). Probability relations between separated systems. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Vol. 32, pp. 446–452).Google Scholar
  58. Seevinck, M. (2010). Monogamy of correlations vs. monogamy of entanglement. Quantum Information Processing, 9, 273–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Wallace, D., & Timpson, C. (2010). Quantum mechanics on spacetime I: Spacetime state realism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 697–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wheeler, J. A., & Zurek, W. H. (Eds.). (1983). Quantum theory and measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wigner, E. (1963). The problem of measurement. American Journal of Physics, 31, 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations