Several philosophers of science have claimed that the correspondence principle can be generalized from quantum physics to all of (particularly physical) science and that in fact it constitutes one of the major heuristical rules for the construction of new theories. In order to evaluate these claims, first the use of the correspondence principle in (the genesis of) quantum mechanics will be examined in detail. It is concluded from this and from other examples in the history of science that the principle (...) should be qualified with respect to its nature and relativized with respect to its scope of application. At the same time this conclusion implies a qualification and a relativization of the heuristic power of the principle. Generally speaking, intertheoretical correspondence is primarily of a formal-mathematical and empirical but not of a conceptual nature. Moreover, it only applies to certain parts of the theories involved. Finally, a number of philosophical justifications of the principle are discussed and some conclusions are drawn concerning the debates on theory reduction and on the discovery-justification distinction. (shrink)

The concept of quantum transition is critically examined from the perspective of the modern quantum theory of measurement. Historically rooted in the famous quantum jump of the Old Quantum Theory, the transition idea survives today in experimental jargon due to (1) the notion of uncontrollable disturbance of a system by measurement operations and (2) the wave-packet reduction hypothesis in several forms. Explicit counterexamples to both (1) and (2) are presented in terms of quantum measurement theory. It is concluded that the (...) idea of transition, or quantum jump, can no longer be rationally comprehended within the framework of contemporary physical theory. (shrink)

The paper puts forward the proposal to do relativistic quantum theory without a position operator and without a position probability amplitude. The proposed scheme employs space and time in a fundamental manner and treats them equitably as in special relativity by defining the state vectors as functions of configuration spacetime. From a discussion of the conceptual structure and of the problem of measurement of quantum theory, there emerges an understanding which shows that the absence of a satisfactory position probability density (...) in important cases like that of the photon, in the usual scheme of quantum theory, poses a fundamental difficulty, but that the scheme proposed here is free from the same difficulty and promises, instead, to lead in a natural manner to a fundamentally more satisfactory description of the observations. (shrink)

The formula for the differential scattering cross section in quantum mechanics is derived without the usual assumption that the square of the ψ-function is a position probability density for particles. It is argued that position, like time, may be basically a macroscopic parameter rather than a random variable for microparticles.

A unified axiomatic theory that embraces both mechanics and thermodynamics is presented in three parts. It is based on four postulates; three are taken from quantum mechanics, and the fourth is the new disclosure of the existence of quantum states that are stable (Part I). For nonequilibrium and equilibrium states, the theory provides general original results, such as the relation between irreducible density operators and the maximum work that can be extracted adiabatically (Part IIa). For stable equilibrium states, it shows (...) for the first time that the canonical and grand canonical distributions are the only stable distributions (Part IIb). The theory discloses the incompleteness of the equation of motion of quantum mechanics not only for irreversible processes but, more significantly, for reversible processes (Part IIb). It establishes the operational meaning of an irreducible density operator and irreducible dispersions associated with any state, and reveals the relationship between such dispersions and the second law (Part III). (shrink)

The "Ignorance Interpretation" of quantum mechanical mixtures holds, roughly, that whenever a system S belongs to an ensemble, which is represented by a mixed statistical operator U=Σ pi P[ψ i] (0≤ pi≤ 1, Σ ipi=1,P[ψ i] is the projection operator for the state ψ i), then S is in some pure state, although we are ignorant as to which one. It has been concluded, e.g. by van Fraassen, that "the ignorance interpretation is untenable," and he presumably favors adopting "the position (...) that mixtures of pure states are themselves new states...to say that a system is in a proper mixture is to say that it is not in a pure state." I wish to argue in this paper that there are no good grounds for rejecting the ignorance interpretation. (shrink)

It is argued that preparation of a quantum state characterized by density operator ρ not commuting with a superselection operatorQ does not by itself constitute an instance of superselection rule violation. It would, however, be an instance of state restriction violation. It is held that superselection rule violation is only possible with simultaneous observable and state restriction violations. It is shown that it is a priori conceivable to subdivide an ensemble whose ρ satisfies[ρ, Q] = 0 into subensembles whose density (...) operators violate the state restrictions. The dynamics of the subdivision process is not considered. (shrink)

Even those generally skeptical of propensity interpretations of probability must now grant the following two points. First, the above single-case propensity interpretation meets recognized formal conditions for being a genuine interpretation of probability. Second, this interpretation is not logically reducible to a hypothetical relative frequency interpretation, nor is it only vacuously different from such an interpretation.The main objection to this propensity interpretation must be not that it is too vague or vacuous, but that it is metaphysically too extravagant. It asserts (...) not only that there are physical possibilities in nature, but further that nature itself contains innate tendencies toward these possibilities, tendencies which have the logical structure of probabilities. Thus the basic dispute between advocates of an actualist relative frequency interpretation and a single-case propensity interpretation is not a matter of epistemology, but metaphysics. The frequency theorist wishes to maintain that claims about physical probabilities are nothing more than claims about relative frequencies that will occur in the actual history of the world, be it infinite or no. It is a substantial, though hardly conclusive, argument for the propensity view that the mathematical structures commonly employed in studies of stochastic processes and statistical inference are richer than can be accommodated by a relative frequency interpretation. Whether it is possible to bridge this gap without going beyond an actualist metaphysics remains to be seen.38. (shrink)

Scholars concerned with the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) usually think that contextuality (hence nonobjectivity of physical properties, which implies numerous problems and paradoxes) is an unavoidable feature of QM which directly follows from the mathematical apparatus of QM. Based on some previous papers on this issue, we criticize this view and supply a new informal presentation of the extended semantic realism (ESR) model which embodies the formalism of QM into a broader mathematical formalism and reinterprets quantum probabilities as conditional (...) on detection rather than absolute. Because of this reinterpretation a hidden variables theory can be constructed which justifies the assumptions introduced in the ESR model and proves its objectivity. When applied to special cases the ESR model settles long-standing conflicts (it reconciles Bell’s inequalities with QM), provides a general framework in which previous results obtained by other authors (as local interpretations of the GHZ experiment) are recovered and explained, and supports an interpretation of quantum logic which avoids the introduction of the problematic notion of quantum truth. (shrink)

The problem of simultaneous measurement of incompatible observables in quantum mechanics is studied on the one hand from the viewpoint of an axiomatic treatment of quantum mechanics and on the other hand starting from a theory of measurement. It is argued that it is precisely such a theory of measurement that should provide a meaning to the axiomatically introduced concepts, especially to the concept of observable. Defining an observable as a class of measurement procedures yielding a certain prescribed result for (...) the probability distribution of the set of values of some quantity (to be described by the set of eigenvalues of some Hermitian operator), this notion is extended to joint probability distributions of incompatible observables. It is shown that such an extension is possible on the basis of a theory of measurement, under the proviso that in simultaneously measuring such observables there is a disturbance of the measurement results of the one observable, caused by the presence of the measuring instrument of the other observable. This has as a consequence that the joint probability distribution cannot obey the marginal distribution laws usually imposed. This result is of great importance in exposing quantum mechanics as an axiomatized theory, since overlooking it seems to prohibit an axiomatic description of simultaneous measurement of incompatible observables by quantum mechanics. (shrink)

This paper, I am afraid, advocates the philosophy of technology without actually doing it. It can best be seen as a plea for the philosophical importance of technology; in this case, importance to one of the most widely discussed problems in philosophy of physics—the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. What I want to do here is to lay out a point of view that takes the measurement problem out of the abstract mathematical structure of theory, where we discuss questions about (...) unitary operators or conditions for the disappearance of certain inner products supposed to represent interference terms, and locate it elsewhere. Where is the measurement problem? Answer: It had better be found in the quantum technology or it is not to be found at all. My view in many respects follows ideas I have learned from Willis Lamb. (shrink)

This paper, I am afraid, advocates the philosophy of technology without actually doing it. It can best be seen as a plea for the philosophical importance of technology; in this case, importance to one of the most widely discussed problems in philosophy of physics—the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. What I want to do here is to lay out a point of view that takes the measurement problem out of the abstract mathematical structure of theory, where we discuss questions about (...) unitary operators or conditions for the disappearance of certain inner products supposed to represent interference terms, and locate it elsewhere. Where is the measurement problem? Answer: It had better be found in the quantum technology or it is not to be found at all. My view in many respects follows ideas I have learned from Willis Lamb. (shrink)

A common approach to quantum physics is enshrouded in a jargon which treats state vectors as attributes of physical systems and the concept of state preparation as a filtration scheme wherein a process involving measurement selects from a primordial assembly of systems those bearing some prescribed vector of interest. By contrast, the empirical experiences with which quantum theory is actually concerned relate measurement and preparation in quite an opposite manner. Reproducible preparation schemes are logically and temporally anterior to measurement acts. (...) Measurement extracts numbers from systems prepared in a specified manner; these data are then regularized by the theory by means of a state concept which is in turn used to characterize succinctly the given mode of preparation. The present paper offers, in a simple spin model, a method for determining the quantum state that represents any reproducible preparation. (shrink)