What is Orthodox Quantum Mechanics?
What is called “orthodox” quantum mechanics, as presented in standard foundational discussions, relies on two substantive assumptions—the projection postulate and the eigenvalue-eigenvector link—that do not in fact play any part in practical applications of quantum mechanics. I argue for this conclusion on a number of grounds, but primarily on the grounds that the projection postulate fails correctly to account for repeated, continuous and unsharp measurements (all of which are standard in contemporary physics) and that the eigenvalue-eigenvector link implies that virtually all interesting properties are maximally indefinite pretty much always. I present an alternative way of conceptualising quantum mechanics that does a better job of representing quantum mechanics as it is actually used, and in particular that eliminates use of either the projection postulate or the eigenvalue-eigenvector link, and I reformulate the measurement problem within this new presentation of orthodoxy.
This paper has benefitted greatly from conversations with Simon Saunders and Chris Timpson, and from feedback when it was presented at the 2016 Michigan Foundations of Modern Physics workshop, especially from Jeff Barrett, Gordon Belot, and Antony Leggett.
- Albert, D. Z. (1992). Quantum mechanics and experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Barrett, J. A. (1999). The quantum mechanics of minds and worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the quantum world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Busch, P., Lahti, P. J., & Mittelstaedt, P. (1996). The quantum theory of measurement (2nd revised ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Cushing, J. T. (1994). Quantum mechanics: Historical contingency and the Copenhagen hegemony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- DeWitt, B., & Graham, N. (Eds.) (1973). The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Dirac, Paul (1930): The principles of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Everett, H. I. (1957). Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Review of Modern Physics, 29, 454–462. Reprinted in DeWitt and Graham ( 1973).
- Gleason, A. (1957). Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 6, 885–893.Google Scholar
- Hegerfeldt, G. A. (1998a). Causality, particle localization and positivity of the energy. In A. Böhm (Ed.), Irreversibility and causality (pp. 238–245). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Kochen, S., & Specker, E. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.Google Scholar
- Mermin, N. D. (2004). Could Feynman have said this? Physics Today, 57, 10.Google Scholar
- Page, D. (1994). Black hole information. In R. Mann & R. McLenaghan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Canadian conference on general relativity and relativistic astrophysics (pp. 1–41). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
- Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor’s new mind: Concerning computers, brains and the laws of physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Peres, A. (1993). Quantum theory: Concepts and methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Pusey, M. F., Barrett, J., & Rudolph, T. (2011). On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Physics, 8, 476. arXiv:1111.3328v2.Google Scholar
- Redhead, M. (1987). Incompleteness, nonlocality and realism: A prolegomenon to the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rudin, W. (1991). Functional analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Timpson, C. (2010). Quantum information theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- von Neumann, J. (1955). Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Wallace, D. (2013). Inferential vs. dynamical conceptions of physics. Available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4907.
- Wallace, D. (2016, forthcoming). Interpreting the quantum mechanics of cosmology. In A. Ijjas & B. Loewer (Eds.), Introduction to the philosophy of cosmology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Weinberg, S. (2008). Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wilson, J. (2016). Quantum metaphysical indeterminacy. Talk to the Jowett Society, Oxford, 26 Feb 2016.Google Scholar
- Zurek, W. H. (1998). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical: The rough guide. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A356, 1793–1820. Available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/98050.