Non-Ideal Measurements and Physical Possibility in Quantum Mechanics

  • Marco Del Seta
  • Mauricio Suárez
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 281)

Abstract

Albert and Loewer [1,2,3] have posed an important difficulty for the modal interpretations advocated by Kochen [12], Healey [10] and Dieks [20] (KHD interpretations). They have argued that KHD interpretations cannot cope with physically realistic measurement situations. One of us (M.S. in [19]) has contested some of the assumptions underlying Albert and Loewer’s argument. In this paper we review this and other criticisms of Albert and Loewer’s assumptions, and we argue that a sound argument for Albert and Loewer’s conclusion against KHD modal interpretations can be made, without relying on all of Albert and Loewer’s assumptions.

Keywords

Measure Zero Combine System Ideal Measurement Partial Isometry Measurement Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Albert, D.: 1992, Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Albert, D., Loewer, B.: 1990, Wanted Dead or Alive: Two Attempts to Solve Schrödinger’s Paradox, in Fine, A., Forbes, M., Wessels, L., eds., Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Albert, D., Loewer, B.: 1993, ‘Non-Ideal Measurements’, Foundations of Physics Letters, 6, 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Beltrametti, E. Cassinelli, G., Lahti, P.: 1990, ‘Unitary Measurements of Discrete Quantities in Quantum Mechanics’, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 31, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bub, J.: 1993, ‘Measurement: It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over’, Foundations of Physics Letters, 6, 2135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chang, H.: 1997, ‘On the Applicability of the Quantum Measurement Formalism, forthcoming, Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Earman, J.: 1986, A Primer on Determinism. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Fine, A.: 1970, A.: 1970, ‘Insolubility of the Quantum Measurement Problem’, Physical Review, 2, 2783 2787.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Halmos, P.R.: 1974, Measure Theory. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Healey, R.: 1989, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    ‘Why Error-Prone Measurements Have Outcomes’, Foundations of Physics Letters, 6, 37–54.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Kochen, S.: 1987, A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in Lahti, P.J., Mittelstaedt, P., eds., Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics. World Scientific, Singapore; 151–69.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kronz, F.: 1991, ‘Quantum Entanglement and Nonideal Measurements: A Critique of Margenau’s Objections to the Projection Postulate’, Synthese, 89, 229–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Margenau, H.: 1958, ‘Philosophical Problems Concerning the Meaning of Measurement in Physics’, Philosophy of Science, 25, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Margenau, H.: 1977, The Nature of Physical Reality. Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, Conn.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Park, J.L.: 1968, ‘Quantum Theoretical Concepts of Measurement, Parts 1 and 2’, Philosophy of Science, 19, 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Reutsche, L.: ‘Measurement Error and the Albert-Loewer Problem’, Foundations of Physics Letters, 8, 327–44.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Sklar, L.: 1996, Topology Versus Measure in Statistical Mechanics. Talk given at LSE in May, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Suarez, M.: 1996, ‘On the Physical Impossibility of Ideal Quantum Measurements’, Foundations of Physics Letters, 9, 425–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Vermaas, P., Dieks, D.: 1995, ‘The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and its Generalisation to Density Operators’, Foundations of Physics, 25, 145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Del Seta
    • 1
  • Mauricio Suárez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodThe London School of Economics and Political ScienceEngland

Personalised recommendations