Identity in Physics: Properties, Statistics and the (Non-)Individuality of Quantum Particles

  • Matteo Morganti
Conference paper
Part of the The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings book series (EPSP, volume 1)


The issue whether or not the most fundamental entities described by non-relativistic quantum mechanics are individual objects is of interest for both philosophers and metaphyiscians, and has received a great deal of attention lately. Even though there is no universal consensus, the most popular view seems to be that quantum particles are not individual objects. This paper offers a critical analysis of recent arguments in support of this position, and a defence of the more traditional alternative.


Quantum Statistic Entangle State Quantum Particle Primitive Identity Counterpart Theory 
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.


  1. Belousek, D.W. 2000. Statistics, symmetry, and the conventionality of indistinguishability in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics 30: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brighouse, C. 1994. Spacetime and holes. In Proceedings of the 1994 biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (2 volumes), eds. D. Hull, M. Forbes, and R.M. Burian, 117–125. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  3. Butterfield, J. 1989. The hole truth. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. French, S., and D. Krause. 2006. Identity in physics: A historical, philosophical, and formal analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. French, S., and M. Redhead. 1988. Quantum mechanics and the identity of the indiscernibles. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39: 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Healey, R. 1991. Holism and nonseparability. Journal of Philosophy 88: 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ladyman, J. 2007. Scientific structuralism: On the identity and diversity of objects in a structure. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Suppl.)81: 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ladyman, J., and T. Bigaj. 2010. The principle of the identity of indiscernibles and quantum mechanics. Philosophy of Science 77: 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Morganti, M. 2009. Inherent properties and statistics with individual particles in quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40: 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Muller, F.A., and S. Saunders 2008. Discerning Fermions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59: 499–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Muller, F.A., and M.P. Seevinck. 2009. Discerning elementary particles. Philosophy of Science 76: 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Saunders, S. 2006a. Are quantum particles objects? Analysis 66: 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Saunders, S. 2006b. On the explanation for quantum statistics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37: 192–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Seevinck, M.P. 2004. Holism, physical theories and quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35: 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stachel, J. 2004. Structural realism and contextual individuality. In Hilary Putnam, ed. Y. Ben-Menahem, 203–219. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Teller, P. 1986. Relational holism and quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37: 71–81.Google Scholar
  17. Teller, P. 1989. Relativity, relational holism, and the Bell inequalities. In Philosophical consequences of quantum theory: Reflections on Bell’s theorem, eds. J. Cushing and E. McMullin, 208–223. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  18. Teller, P. 2001. The ins and outs of counterfactual switching. Noûs 35: 365–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Roma TRERomeItaly

Personalised recommendations