Foundations of Physics

, Volume 31, Issue 10, pp 1403–1430 | Cite as

Non-Orthogonal Core Projectors for Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

  • R. W. Spekkens
  • J. E. Sipe
Article

Abstract

Modal interpretations constitute a particular approach to associating dynamical variables with physical systems in quantum mechanics. Given the “quantum logical” constraints that are typically adopted by such interpretations, only certain sets of variables can be taken to be simultaneously definite-valued, and only certain sets of values can be ascribed to these variables at a given time. Moreover, each allowable set of variables and values can be uniquely specified by a single “core” projector in the Hilbert space associated with the system. In general, the core projector can be one of several possibilities at a given time. In most previous modal interpretations, the different possible core projectors have formed an orthogonal set. This paper investigates the possibility of adopting a non-orthogonal set. It is demonstrated that such non-orthogonality is required if measurements for which the outcome can be predicted with probability 1 are to reveal the pre-existing value of the variable measured, an assumption which has traditionally constituted a strong motivation for the modal approach. The existing framework for modal interpretations is generalized to explicitly accommodate non-orthogonal core projectors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of reality be considered complete?” Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993), Chap. 19.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Bub, Interpreting the Quantum World (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    This use of the term “modal interpretation” is consistent with that found in Clifton,(10) but differs from that of van Fraassen (6) for whom a modal interpretation need not be realist.We restrict the scope of the term in this paper for convenience.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. van Fraassen, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Bub and R. Clifton, “A uniqueness theorem for “no collapse” interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 27, 181 (1996).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Bacciagaluppi and M. Dickson, “Dynamics for modal interpretations,” Found. Phys. 29, 1165 (1999).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Healey, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Clifton, “The properties of modal interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 47, 371 (1996).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Dickson, “On the plurality of dynamics: Transition probabilities and modal interpretations,” in Healey and Hellman,(12) p. 160.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Healey and G. Hellman, eds., Quantum Measurement: Beyond Paradox (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1997).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The classic article is G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann, “The logic of quantum mechanics,” Ann. Math. 37, 823 (1936). For an overview, see K. Svozil, Quantum Logic (Springer, Singapore, 1998).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See, e.g., Bub,(4) p. 30.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Clifton, “Independently motivating the Kochen–Dieks modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Brit. Phil. Sci. 46, 33 (1995), p. 37.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. W. Spekkens and J. E. Sipe, “A modal interpretation of quantum mechanics based on a principle of entropy minimization,” Found. Phys. 31, 10 (2001).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Redhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism (Clarendon, Oxford, 1987).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory (Routledge, London, 1993).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See, e.g., Bohm;(18) C. Pagonis and R. Clifton, “Unremarkable contextualism: Dispositions in the Bohm theory,” Found. Phys. 25, 281 (1995). Bacciagalizppi and Hemmo(23). D. Dieks, “Preferred factorizations and consistent property attribution,” in G. Hellman and R. Healey,(12) p. 144. P. Vermaas, “The pros and cons of the Kochen–Dieks and the atomic modal interpretation,” in D. Dieks and P. Vermaas,(27) p. 103.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Kochen, A New interpretation of quantum mechanics, in P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds., Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985), p. 151.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Dieks, “The formalism of quantum theory: An objective description of reality?” Ann. Phys. 7, 174 (1988).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. Vermaas and D. Dieks, “The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and its generalization to density operators,” Found. Phys. 25, 145 (1995).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Bacciagaluppi and M. Hemmo, “State preparation in the modal interpretation,” in Healey and Hellman,(12) p. 95.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. M. Jauch and C. Piron, “On the structure of quantal proposition systems,” Helv. Phys. Acta 43, 842 (1969).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Vermaas, “Expanding the property ascriptions in the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” in Healey and Hellman,(12) p. 115.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Dickson and R. Clifton, “Lorentz invariance in modal interpretations,” in D. Dieks and P. Vermaas,(27) p. 35.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Dieks and P. Vermaas, eds., The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1998).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. Vink, “Quantum mechanics in terms of discrete beables,” Phys. Rev. A 48, 1808 (1993).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    An analogous assumption about the initial conditions is made in Bohm' theory and has been the subject of some discussion. See, e.g., D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghi, “Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty,” J. Stat. Phys 67, 843 (1992); A. Valentini, “Signal-locality, uncertainty, and the subquantum ℋ-theorem. I,” Phys. Lett. A 156, 5 (1991); A. Valentini, “Signal-locality, uncertainty, and the subquantum H-theorem. II,” Phys. Lett. A 158, 1 (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. W. Spekkens
  • J. E. Sipe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations