Quantum reference systems: A new framework for quantum mechanics

Bene, Gyula

doi:10.1016/s0378-4371(97)00254-9

Cited by 15 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course broadly speaking such an attitude is not new: Bohr emphasised very early the epistemological view that quantum phenomena must be understood only in relation to the "whole experimental arrangement" [2] and therefore pertain to both system and measuring apparatus combined -one cannot speak of system without apparatus. There are many other forms of quantum "relationalism" which are morally in harmony with what we are advocating, for instance the relational quantum mechanics of Rovelli [3] and the perspectival approach of Bene and Dieks [4,5,6]. However, the specific form of relationalism presented here and in our other works (e.g., [7,8]) is founded on symmetry in a fundamental way, and in that respect has more in common with the large body of work on quantum frames of reference [9,10,11] -a topic which also forms a major part of the current investigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 65%

A relational perspective on the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem

Loveridge

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a novel interpretation of the Wigner-Araki-Yanase (WAY) theorem based on a relational view of quantum mechanics. Several models are analysed in detail, backed up by general considerations, which serve to illustrate that the moral of the WAY theorem may be that in the presence of symmetry, a measuring apparatus must fulfil the dual purpose of both reflecting the statistical behaviour of the system under investigation, and acting as a physical reference system serving to define those quantities which must be understood as relative.In this way quantum theory reminds us, as Bohr has put it, of the old wisdom that when searching for harmony in life one must never forget that in the drama of existence we are ourselves both players and spectators.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 65%

A relational perspective on the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem

Loveridge

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given this claim and that Einstein was a supporter of the statistical view of the quantum state, Harrigan and Spekkens conclude that such an interpretation must be considered -epistemic. 4 In this section we will argue for the following theses: (i) to maintain that Einstein held a -epistemic view misrepresents his thoughts on QM, and (ii) that it is not correct to conceive the statistical interpretation of QM as a -epistemic model (at least without making further assumptions). Hence, we here underline an important limitation of Harrigan and Spekkens' classification, which can also have negative consequences for their account of Einstein's position with respect to the interpretation of QM.…”

Section: The Statistical Interpretation Of Qm: ã -Ontic or ã -Epistemic?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This chiefly means that any description of the state of a quantum system can be only given by relational properties, defined with respect to another physical system serving as ‘witness’ (borrowing Kochen’s expression [ 28 ]) or ‘reference system’ [ 4 ]. In this context, a quantum system S can thus be represented by different quantum states relative to different reference systems.…”

Section: On the Perspective Independency Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Classification Between $$\psi$$-Ontic and $$\psi$$-Epistemic Ontological Models

Oldofredi

López

2020

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harrigan and Spekkens (Found Phys 40:125-157, 2010) provided a categorization of quantum ontological models classifying them as-ontic or-epistemic if the quantum state describes respectively either a physical reality or mere observers' knowledge. Moreover, they claimed that Einstein-who was a supporter of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics-endorsed an epistemic view of. In this essay we critically assess such a classification and some of its consequences by proposing a twofold argumentation. Firstly, we show that Harrigan and Spekkens' categorization implicitly assumes that a complete description of a quantum system (its ontic state,) only concerns single, individual systems instantiating absolute, intrinsic properties. Secondly, we argue that such assumptions conflict with some current interpretations of quantum mechanics, which employ different ontic states as a complete description of quantum systems. In particular, we will show that, since in the statistical interpretation ontic states describe ensembles rather than individuals, such a view cannot be considered-epistemic. As a consequence, the authors misinterpreted Einstein's view concerning the nature of the quantum state. Next, we will focus on relational quantum mechanics and perspectival quantum mechanics, which in virtue of their relational and perspectival metaphysics employ ontic states dealing with relational properties. We conclude that Harrigan and Spekkens' categorization is too narrow and entails an inadequate classification of the mentioned interpretations of quantum theory. Hence, any satisfactory classification of quantum ontological models ought to take into account the variations of across different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

show abstract

“…Quantum Mechanics may be made consistent if the quantum state of a system (such as SA) is at least partially a function of which quantum system is describing it. 3 Before using this idea it is possible to look at (7) terms of more general conditions on physical theories. In fundamental theories of physics physical reality ought to form an equivalence class, namely (8) if a is physical relative to a, then a is physical relative to a (9) if a is physical relative to b, then b is physical relative to a (10) if a is physical relative to b, and b is physical relative to c, then a is physical relative to c Define a relation xQy = 'y is in a superposition relative to x', then the problem is that according to (7) (11) EQA and AQE do not imply EQE Therefore, unless quantum states are understood as relative to quantum system quantum mechanics is incomplete or inconsistent as a fundamental physical theory, since (11) does not describe an equivalence class.…”

Section: Intransitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical Laws Must Be Invariant over Quantum Systems.

Merriam¹

2006

phys essays

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decoherence may not solve all of the measurement problems of quantum mechanics. It is proposed that a solution to these problems may be to allow that superpositions describe physically real systems in the following sense. Each quantum system "carries" around a local spacetime in whose terms other quantum systems may take on nonlocal states. Each quantum system forms a physically valid coordinate frame. The laws of physics should be formulated to be invariant under the group of allowed transformations among such frames. A transformation of relatively superposed spatial coordinates that allows an electron system to preserve the de Broglie Relation in describing a double-slit laboratory system-in analogy to a Minkowskian Transformation-is proposed. In general, "quantum relativity" says is invariant under transformations among quantum reference frames. Some conjectures on how this impacts gravity and gauge invariance are made. 2 1 1 2 1 1 J J J J J J − − = 2 the invariant quantum interval υ is

show abstract

Quantum reference systems: A new framework for quantum mechanics

Cited by 15 publications

References 32 publications

A relational perspective on the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem

A relational perspective on the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem

On the Classification Between $$\psi$$-Ontic and $$\psi$$-Epistemic Ontological Models

Physical Laws Must Be Invariant over Quantum Systems.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About