Advertisement

Topoi

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 339–348 | Cite as

The Mathematical Description of a Generic Physical System

  • Federico Zalamea
Article
  • 176 Downloads

Abstract

When dealing with a certain class of physical systems, the mathematical characterization of a generic system aims to describe the phase portrait of all its possible states. Because they are defined only up to isomorphism, the mathematical objects involved are “schematic structures”. If one imposes the condition that these mathematical definitions completely capture the physical information of a given system, one is led to a strong requirement of individuation for physical states. However, we show there are not enough qualitatively distinct properties in an abstract Hilbert space to fulfill such a requirement. It thus appears there is a fundamental tension between the physicist’s purpose in providing a mathematical definition of a mechanical system and a feature of the basic formalism used in the theory. We will show how group theory provides tools to overcome this tension and to define physical properties.

Keywords

Group theory Individuation Quantum mechanics Structuralism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013 Grant Agreement No 263523). I also want to thank Gabriel Catren, Julien Page, Christine Cachot, Michael Wright and Fernando Zalamea for helpful discussions and comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Abraham R, Marsden J (1978) Foundations of mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams RM (1979) Primitive thisness and primitive identity. J Philos 76:5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashtekar A, Lewandowski J (2004) Background independent quantum gravity: a status report. Class Quantum Grav 21:53–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashtekar A, Schilling TA (1997) Geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics. In: Harvey A (ed) On Einstein’s path: essays in honor of Engelbert Schücking. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Awodey S (2004) An answer to Hellman’s Question: ‘does category theory provide a framework for mathematical structuralism?’. Philos Math 12:54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Awodey S (2013) Structuralism, invariance, and univalence. Philos Math 22(1):nkt030Google Scholar
  7. Black M (1952) The identity of indiscernibles. Mind 61(242):153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castellani E (1998) Galilean particles: an example of constitution of objects. In: Castellani E (ed) Interpreting bodies: classical and quantum objects in modern physics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Catren G (2009) A throw of the quantum dice will never abolish the Copernican revolution. Collapse Philos Res Dev 5:453–500Google Scholar
  10. Catren G (2014) On the relation between gauge and phase symmetries. Found Phys 44:1317–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dieks D (2014) Weak discernibility and the identity of spacetime points. In: Fano V, Orilia F, Macchia G (eds) Space and time: a priori and a posteriori studies. De Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorato M, Laudisa F (2015) Realism and instrumentalism about the wave function: how should we choose? In: Gao S (ed) Protective measurements and quantum reality: toward a new understanding of quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Eddington AS (1939) The philosophy of physical science. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Esfeld M, Lam V (2009) Structures as the objects of fundamental physics. In: Feest U, Rheinberger H-J (eds) Epistemic objects. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, preprint 374Google Scholar
  15. Gazeau JP (2009) Coherent states in quantum physics. Wiley, WanheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haag R (1996) Local quantum physics. Fields, particles, algebras. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landsman NP (1998) Lecture notes on C*-algebras, Hilbert C*-modules, and quantum mechanics. arXiv:math-ph/9807030Google Scholar
  18. Landsman NP (2006) Lie groupoids and lie algebroids in physics and non-commutative geometry. J Geom Phys 56:24–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Quine WV (1960) Word and object. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Quine WV (1976) Grades of discriminability. J Philos 73(5):113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rédei M (1997) Why John von Neumann did not like the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics (and what he liked instead). Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 27:493–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Resnik MD (1990) Between mathematics and physics. In: Proceedings of the Biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodin A (2011) Categories without structures. Philos Math 19:20–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rovelli C (2004) Quantum gravity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saunders S (2006) Are quantum particles objects? Analysis 66(289):52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Souriau J-M (2005) Les groupes comme Universaux. In: Kouneiher J et al (eds) Géométrie au XXe siècle, 1930–2000. Histoire et horizons. Hermann, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Strocchi F (2005) An introduction to the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Varadarajan VS (2008) George Mackey and his work on representation theory and foundations of physics. Contemp Math 449:417–446Google Scholar
  29. von Neumann J (1955) Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Trans. by R.T. Beyer. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. Weyl H (1949) Philosophy of mathematics and natural science. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Weyl H (1950) The theory of groups and quantum mechanics. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Wigner E (1939) On unitary representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group. Ann Math 40:149–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wigner E (1959) Group theory and its application to the quantum mechanics of atomic spectra. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire SPHERE, UMR 7219CNRS—Université Paris DiderotParis Cedex 13France

Personalised recommendations