Epistemology of Wave Function Collapse in Quantum Physics

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67 (2):405-434 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Among several possibilities for what reality could be like in view of the empirical facts of quantum mechanics, one is provided by theories of spontaneous wave function collapse, the best known of which is the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory. We show mathematically that in GRW theory there are limitations to knowledge, that is, inhabitants of a GRW universe cannot find out all the facts true of their universe. As a specific example, they cannot accurately measure the number of collapses that a given physical system undergoes during a given time interval; in fact, they cannot reliably measure whether one or zero collapses occur. Put differently, in a GRW universe certain meaningful, factual questions are empirically undecidable. We discuss several types of limitations to knowledge and compare them with those in other versions of quantum mechanics, such as Bohmian mechanics. Most of our results also apply to observer-induced collapses as in orthodox quantum mechanics. 1 Introduction1.1 Known examples of limitations to knowledge1.2 Remarks2 Brief Review of GRW Theories2.1 The GRW process2.2 GRWm2.3 GRWf3 First Examples of Limitations to Knowledge in GRW Theories4 Measurements of Flashes in GRWf, or of Collapses in GRWm4.1 An example in which ψ is known4.2 Other choices of ψ4.3 Experiments beginning before t24.4 If ψ is random4.5 Optimal way of distinguishing two density matrices4.6 If ψ is unknown5 Measurements of m in GRWmAppendix.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Decoherence and Wave Function Collapse.Roland Omnès - 2011 - Foundations of Physics 41 (12):1857-1880.
Quantum Mechanics and the Nature of Reality.Thomas Greenlee - 2010 - In Melville Y. Stewart (ed.), Science and Religion in Dialogue. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 97--104.
Statistical mechanics and the ontological interpretation.D. Bohm & B. J. Hiley - 1996 - Foundations of Physics 26 (6):823-846.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-12-23

Downloads
49 (#316,480)

6 months
4 (#818,853)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Fundamental Nomic Vagueness.Eddy Keming Chen - 2022 - Philosophical Review 131 (1):1-49.
Leibnizian relationalism for general relativistic physics.Antonio Vassallo & Michael Esfeld - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (C):101-107.
Individuality and the Account of Nonlocality: The Case for the Particle Ontology in Quantum Physics.Michael Esfeld - 2019 - In O. Lombardi, S. Fortin, C. L’Opez & F. Holik (eds.), Quantum Worlds: Perspectives on the Ontology of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 222--244.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations