The Pros and Cons of the Kochen-Dieks and the Atomic Modal Interpretation
In this paper I discuss two versions of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics: the modal interpretation as formulated by Kochen and Dieks, and the atomic modal interpretation proposed by Bacciagaluppi and Dickson. I examine whether these interpretations yield a conceptually coherent description of reality and whether they solve the measurement problem.
Modal interpretations ascribe actually possessed properties to quantum systems. I argue that the Kochen-Dieks interpretation cannot simultaneously ascribe properties to many systems, that it does not provide dynamics for the ascribed properties and that it yields an odd though tenable relation between the properties of systems and subsystems. The atomic modal interpretation violates in its turn the assumption that measurements which yield with probability 1 a positive outcome, reveal initially possessed properties.
The Kochen-Dieks and the atomic modal interpretation do not always solve the measurement problem because they do not always ascribe the required readings to the measurement device after a measurement. I define for both interpretations classes of measurements for which they do solve the measurement problem. These classes comprise error-prone measurements and measurements perturbed by environmental influences.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Albert, D. Z and B. Loewer (1990), “Wanted Dead or Alive: Two Attemps to Solve Schrödinger’s Paradox”, in Fine, Forbes and Wessels (1990), pp. 277–285.Google Scholar
- Arntzenius, F. (1990), “Kochen’s Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Fine, Forbes and Wessels (1990), pp. 241–249.Google Scholar
- Bacciagaluppi, G. (1996), “Delocalised Properties in the Modal Interpretation of a Continuous Model of Decoherence”, University of Cambridge Preprint.Google Scholar
- Bacciagaluppi, G. and W. M. Dickson (1996), “Modal Interpretations with Dynamics”, in preparation.Google Scholar
- Bacciagaluppi, G., M. J. Donald, and P. E. Vermaas (1995), “Continuity and Discontinuity of Definite Properties in the Modal Interpretation”, Helvetica Physica Acta 68, 679–704.Google Scholar
- Bacciagaluppi, G. and P. E. Vermaas (1998), “Virtual Reality: Consequences of No-Go Theorems for the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in M. Dalla Chiara, R. Giuntini, and F. Laudisa (eds.), Philosophy of Science in Florence, 1995 (Kluwer, Dordrecht), forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Dieks, D. (1998), “Preferred Factorizations and Consistent Property Attribution”, in Healey and Hellman (1998), forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Fine, A., M. Forbes, and L. Wessels (eds.) (1990), Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 1 (Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan).Google Scholar
- Healey, R. and G. Hellman (eds.) (1998), Quantum Measurement: Beyond Paradox, Volume 17 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis), in preparation.Google Scholar
- Kochen, S. (1985), “A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in P. J. Lahti and P. Mittelsteadt (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modem Physics (World Scientific, Singapore), pp. 151–169.Google Scholar
- Rellich, F. (1969), Perturbation Theory of Eigenvalue Problems (Gordon and Breach, New York).Google Scholar
- Vermaas, P. E. (1998a), “Expanding the Property Ascriptions in the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, in Healey and Hellman (1998), forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Vermaas, P. E. (1998b), Possibilities and Impossibilities of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, Ph. D. thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
- Von Neumann, J. (1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton).Google Scholar