Bohr's generalization of classical mechanics

Massri

2019

Synthese

In this paper we consider the notion of quantum entanglement from the perspective of the logos categorical approach [13,14]. In [16] we argued that the widespread distinction between separable states and entangled states is completely superfluous from a purely mathematical perspective. In this paper we attempt to discuss how the logos approach is able to provide not only an objective formal account of the notion of entanglement -completely independent of separability-in terms of potential coding. For this purpose we will introduce the necessary distinction between intensive relations and effective relations. Finally we will argue that our logos redefinition of entanglement allows to provide an anschaulich content to this supposedly "spooky" quantum relational feature. This paper is an extended version of the arguments and definitions presented in the second part of [15]. arXiv:1809.00202v1 [quant-ph] 1 Sep 2018 the impact of Bohr's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) in the physics community. "In 1927 Niels Bohr, one of the greatest thinkers in the field of atomic physics, introduced the socalled principle of complementarity into atomic physics, which amounted to a 'renunciation' of the attempt to interpret atomic theory as a description of anything." But while pointing his finger to Bohr, the neo-Kantian, Popper seems to have overlooked the deep influence of his own tradition within the instrumentalist path. In fact, logical and empirical positivism -just like Bohr-had also shifted the center of analysis from the theory to the subject, from thought to experience, from explanation to prediction. Positivism was born from a riot against Kantian metaphysics and its a priori concepts. The revolution had begun through an attack commanded by Ernst Mach to the Kantian forms of intuition founded explicitly in Newtonian classical space and time. The criticisms produced by positivism to Newton's space-time physics and atomist metaphysics at the end of the 19th Century might be regarded as the very condition of possibility for the creation of the two main physical theories of the 20th Century, namely, Relativity and QM. However, Mach's ideas regarding physics -which understood the discipline as an economy of experience (or observations)-, even though allowed to expand the limits of the theoretical consideration of experience -beyond classical space-time-also contained within the seed of instrumentalism itself.The other reason mentioned by Popper for the triumph of instrumentalism makes explicit use of a pragmatic viewpoint stressing the "the spectacular practical success of [quantum mechanical] applications." According to Popper: "Instead of results due to the principle of complementarity other and more practical results of atomic theory were obtained, some of them with a big bang. No doubt physicists were perfectly right in interpreting these successful applications as corroborating their theories. But strangely enough they took them as confirming the instrumentalist creed."The deep influence of positivism within QM c...

Section: In Search Of Theoretical Objectivitymentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: A New Objective Path For Quantum Entanglementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new objective definition of quantum entanglement as potential coding of intensive and effective relations

Massri

2019

Synthese

“…In this respect, we remark that Borhian contextuality does not make reference to the quantum formalism itself. Since Bohr attempted to understand QM as a rational generalization of classical physics [10], the focus of his analysis was centered in the description of complementary classical experimental situations and measurement results (see also for discussion [6,41]). His main idea was that the effect of the measurement apparatus is to "create a value" (of an observable), which did not exist before the measurement interaction.…”

Section: Quantum Contextuality and The Representation Of Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Messi Both the non-contextual existence of the powers P i and their potentia, together with the contextual character of measurements of such powers can be clearly visualized through a single graph. 10 Within our approach quantum contexts appear as an epistemic constrain to the possibility of measuring powers simultaneously. Notice that a Stern Gerlach apparatus in a lab can be also considered as a situation where there exists, in the potential realm, a set of ontological non-contextual powers some of which are epistemically incompatible or contextual.…”

Section: Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Logos Categorical Approach to Quantum Mechanics: I. Kochen-Specker Contextuality and Global Intensive Valuations

Massri

2018

Int J Theor Phys

In this paper we present a new categorical approach which attempts to provide an original understanding of QM. Our logos categorical approach attempts to consider the main features of the quantum formalism as the standpoint to develop a conceptual representation that explains what the theory is really talking about -rather than as problems that need to be bypassed in order to allow a restoration of a classical "common sense" understanding of what there is. In particular, we discuss a solution to Kochen-Specker contextuality through the generalization of the meaning of global valuation. This idea has been already addressed by the so called topos approach to QM -originally proposed by Isham, Butterfiled and Döring-in terms of sievevalued valuations. The logos approach to QM presents a different solution in terms of the notion of intensive valuation. This new solution stresses an ontological (rather than epistemic) reading of the quantum formalism and the need to restore an objective (rather than classical) conceptual representation and understanding of quantum physical reality.

“…In general the projections resulting from these subsystems will not be commensurable and it will be not possible to obtain a classical distribution for joint probabilities. 8 As remarked by Vermaas the impossibility to define joint property ascriptions does diminish -at least from a realist viewpoint-the attractiveness of such interpretations. Kochen (1985), the joint probabilities give the correlations between all the properties one can consider simultaneously.…”

Section: Modal and Perspectival Relationalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemological vs. Ontological Relationalism in Quantum Mechanics: Relativism or Realism?

Probing the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics

Mouján

2018

In this paper we investigate the history of relationalism and its present use in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the first part of this article we will provide a conceptual analysis of the relation between substantivalism, relationalism and relativism in the history of both physics and philosophy. In the second part, we will address some relational interpretations of quantum mechanics, namely, Bohr's relational approach, the modal interpretation by Kochen, the perspectival modal version by Bene and Dieks and the relational interpretation by Rovelli. We will argue that all these interpretations ground their understanding of relations in epistemological terms. By taking into account the analysis on the first part of our work, we intend to highlight the fact that there is a different possibility for understanding quantum mechanics in relational terms which has not been yet considered within the foundational literature. This possibility is to consider relations in (non-relativist) ontological terms. We will argue that such an understanding might be capable of providing a novel approach to the problem of representing what quantum mechanics is really talking about.Keywords: relationalism, relativism, epistemic view, ontic view, quantum mechanics. * Fellow Researcher of the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas.1 Philosophy, Physics and Sophistry: Realism or Relativism?Let us remember once again the Greek moment, the origin of both physics and philosophy. And let's remember, to emphasize this common origin, the name that Aristotle uses to refer to the first philosophers: the "physicists". This denomination comes from the object that, according to multiple sources, they all intended to describe: phúsis. A term that is unanimously translated as "nature" and whose meaning covers what we refer to when we talk about "the nature of reality" (its essence), as well as what we commonly, broadly and in an extensive way refer to as nature: the reality in which we take part. Phúsis is, for physicists, something dynamic which -at the same time-responds to some sort of internal order or formula. Some of these first philosophers proposed an "element" (or a series of them) from which -and according to which-all reality develops and can be explained. But among them there are also others who didn't follow this strategy. In particular, there are two of them who are particularly important for our analysis: Heraclitus of Ephesus and Parmenides of Elea.Heraclitus redirected the search for the fundament of phúsis no longer to an "element" but to the description of a formula, an internal order that rules phúsis. He described this formula and called it lógos. This denomination is very significant for the development of philosophy. Until Heraclitus' use of the word, logos had a meaning exclusively related to language: discourse, argumentation, account, even tale. In all of those translations we can see already something that will be essential to all meanings and nuances of logos, even when it doesn't refer to l...