Jump to content

Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Monkbot (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 12 December 2020 (Task 18 (cosmetic): eval 26 templates: del empty params (9×); hyphenate params (9×);). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For a list of more mainstream theories, see Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

There is a diversity of views that propose interpretations of quantum mechanics. They vary in how many physicists accept or reject them. An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a conceptual scheme that proposes to relate the mathematical formalism to the physical phenomena of interest. The present article is about those interpretations which, independently of their intrinsic value, remain today less known, or are simply less debated by the scientific community, for different reasons.

History

The historical dichotomy between the "orthodox" Copenhagen interpretation and "unorthodox" minority views developed in the 1950s debate surrounding Bohmian mechanics.

During most of the 20th century, collapse theories were clearly the mainstream view, and the question of interpretation of quantum mechanics mostly revolved around how to interpret "collapse". Proponents of either "pilot-wave" (de Broglie-Bohm-like) or "many-worlds" (Everettian) interpretations tend to emphasize how their respective camps were intellectually marginalized throughout 1950s to 1980s. In this (historical) sense, all non-collapse theories are (historically) "minority" interpretations.

The term 'Copenhagen interpretation' suggests some definite set of rules for interpreting the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. However, no such text exists, apart from some informal popular lectures by Bohr and Heisenberg, which contradict each other on several important issues. It appears that the term "Copenhagen interpretation", with its more definite sense, was coined by Heisenberg in the 1950s,[1] while criticizing "unorthodox" interpretations such as that of David Bohm.[2][3][4] Before the book was released for sale, Heisenberg privately expressed regret for having used the term, due to its suggestion of the existence of other interpretations, that he considered to be "nonsense".[5]

Since the 1990s, there has been a resurgence of interest in non-collapse theories. Interpretations of quantum mechanics now mostly fall into the categories of collapse theories (including the Copenhagen interpretation), hidden variables ("Bohm-like"), many-worlds ("Everettian") and quantum information approaches. While collapse theories continue to be seen as the default or mainstream position, there is no longer any clear dichotomy between "orthodox" and "unorthodox" views. The Stanford Encyclopedia as of 2015 groups interpretations of quantum mechanics into five classes (all of which contain further divisions): "Bohmian mechanics" (pilot-wave theories),[6] "collapse theories",[7] "many-worlds interpretations",[8] "modal interpretations"[9] and "relational interpretations".[10]

Some of the historically relevant approaches to quantum mechanics have now themselves become "minority interpretations", or widely seen as obsolete. In this sense, there is a variety of reasons for why a specific approach may be considered marginal: because it is a very specialized sub-variant of a more widely known class of interpretations, because it is seen as obsolete (in spite of possible historical significance), because it is a very recent suggestion that has not received wide attention, or because it is rejected as flawed.

As a rough guide to a picture of what are the relevant "minority" views, consider the "snapshot" of opinions collected in a poll by Schlosshauer et al. at the 2011 "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" conference of July 2011.[11] The authors reference a similarly informal poll carried out by Max Tegmark at the "Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory" conference in August 1997. In both polls, the Copenhagen interpretation received the largest number of votes. In Tegmark's poll, many-worlds interpretations came in second place, while in the 2011 poll, many-worlds was at third place (18%), behind quantum information approaches in second place (24%). Other options given as "interpretation of quantum mechanics" in the 2011 poll were: objective collapse theories (9% support), Quantum Bayesianism (6% support) and Relational quantum mechanics (6% support), besides consistent histories, de Broglie–Bohm theory, modal interpretation, ensemble interpretation and transactional interpretation which received no votes.

List of interpretations

Many-worlds

Main article: Many-worlds interpretation

"Everettian" (many-worlds) interpretations as a whole were long a "minority" field in general, but they have grown in popularity. Multiple variants and offshoots of Everett's original proposal exist, which have sometimes developed the basic ideas in contradictory ways.[12][13] Interpretations of an Everettian type include the following.

Quantum information

Main article: Quantum information

Hidden variables

Main articles: Hidden variable theory and Bohmian mechanics

"Bohm-like" (hidden variable) theories as a whole are a "minority view" as compared to Copenhagen-type or many-worlds (Everettian) interpretations.

Collapse theories

Other

  • The ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation can be viewed as a minimalist approach;[29] The wave function in this interpretation is not a property of any individual system, it is by its nature a statistical description of a hypothetical "ensemble" of similar systems. This is the interpretation historically advocated by Albert Einstein.[30]
  • Modal interpretation (van Fraassen 1972)[31] Van Fraassen's proposal is "modal" because it leads to a modal logic of quantum propositions. Since the 1980s, a number of authors have developed other "realist" proposals which can in retrospect be classed with van Fraassen's "modal" proposal.
  • Superdeterminism (Bell 1977),[32] the idea that the universe is completely deterministic, and thus Bell's theorem does not apply, as observers are not free to make independent choices in their measurements, rather everything is predetermined from the Big Bang.
  • Consistent histories (Dowker and Kent 1995),[33] based on a consistency criterion that then allows probabilities to be assigned to various alternative histories of a system.
  • "Montevideo interpretation" (Gambini and Pullin 2009),[34][35] suggesting that quantum gravity makes for fundamental limitations on the accuracy of clocks, which imply a type of decoherence.[36]
  • "Pondicherry interpretation" (Mohrhoff 2000–2005),[37] based on the idea of objective probability and "supervenience of the microscopic on the macroscopic".[38]
  • Quantum mysticism

References

  1. ^ Howard, Don (2004). "Who invented the Copenhagen Interpretation? A study in mythology". Philosophy of Science. 71 (5): 669–682. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.164.9141. doi:10.1086/425941. JSTOR 10.1086/425941.
  2. ^ Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden" Variables. I & II". Physical Review. 85 (2): 166–193. Bibcode:1952PhRv...85..166B. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166.
  3. ^ H. Kragh, Quantum generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century, Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 210. ("the term 'Copenhagen interpretation' was not used in the 1930s but first entered the physicist’s vocabulary in 1955 when Heisenberg used it in criticizing certain unorthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics.")
  4. ^ Lectures with the titles 'The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory' and 'Criticisms and Counterproposals to the Copenhagen Interpretation', that Heisenberg delivered in 1955, are reprinted in the collection Physics and Philosophy.
  5. ^ Olival Freire Jr., "Science and exile: David Bohm, the hot times of the Cold War, and his struggle for a new interpretation of quantum mechanics", Historical Studies on the Physical and Biological Sciences, Volume 36, Number 1, 2005, pp. 31–35. ("I avow that the term ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ is not happy since it could suggest that there are other interpretations, like Bohm assumes. We agree, of course, that the other interpretations are nonsense, and I believe that this is clear in my book, and in previous papers. Anyway, I cannot now, unfortunately, change the book since the printing began enough time ago.")
  6. ^ Goldstein, Sheldon, "Bohmian Mechanics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition).
  7. ^ Ghirardi, Giancarlo, "Collapse Theories", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition).
  8. ^ Vaidman, Lev, "Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition)
  9. ^ Lombardi, Olimpia and Dieks, Dennis, "Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition).
  10. ^ Laudisa, Federico and Rovelli, Carlo, "Relational Quantum Mechanics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition)
  11. ^ Schlosshauer, Maximilian; Kofler, Johannes; Zeilinger, Anton (2013-01-06). "A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 44 (3): 222–230. arXiv:1301.1069. Bibcode:2013SHPMP..44..222S. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004.
  12. ^ Marchildon, Louis (2015). "Multiplicity in Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 52 (B): 274–284. arXiv:1504.04835. Bibcode:2015SHPMP..52..274M. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.08.010.
  13. ^ a b Kent, Adrian (2015-02-01). "Does it make sense to speak of self-locating uncertainty in the universal wave function? Remarks on Sebens and Carroll". Foundations of Physics. 45 (2): 211–217. arXiv:1408.1944. Bibcode:2015FoPh...45..211K. doi:10.1007/s10701-014-9862-5.
  14. ^ Zeh, H. D. (1970-03-01). "On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory". Foundations of Physics. 1 (1): 69–76. Bibcode:1970FoPh....1...69Z. doi:10.1007/BF00708656. ISSN 0015-9018.
  15. ^ Albert, David; Loewer, Barry (1988-01-01). "Interpreting the Many-Worlds Interpretation". Synthese. 77 (November): 195–213. doi:10.1007/bf00869434.
  16. ^ Aguirre, Anthony; Tegmark, Max (2011). "Born in an Infinite Universe: a Cosmological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Physical Review D. 84 (10). arXiv:1008.1066. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.105002.
  17. ^ Jammer, Max (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-43958-5. OCLC 463216139.
  18. ^ Wheeler, J. A.: "Information, physics, quantum: The search for links"; in Zurek, W., ed.: "Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information"; pp 3–28; Addison-Wesley; 1990, p. 3.
  19. ^ Combourieu, Marie-Christine; Popper, Karl R. (1992). "About the EPR controversy". Foundations of Physics. 22 (10): 1303–1323. Bibcode:1992FoPh...22.1303C. doi:10.1007/bf01889715.
  20. ^ Watanabe, Satosi (1955). "Symmetry of physical laws. Part III. Prediction and retrodiction" (PDF). Reviews of Modern Physics. 27 (2): 179. Bibcode:1955RvMP...27..179W. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.27.179. hdl:10945/47584.
  21. ^ Davidon, W.C. (1976). "Quantum Physics of Single Systems". Il Nuovo Cimento. 36B (1): 34–40. Bibcode:1976NCimB..36...34D. doi:10.1007/bf02749419.
  22. ^ Aharonov, Y.; Vaidman, L. (1998). "On the Two-State Vector Reformulation of Quantum Mechanics". Physica Scripta. T76: 85–92. Bibcode:1998PhST...76...85A. doi:10.1238/physica.topical.076a00085.
  23. ^ Wharton, K. B. (2007). "Time-Symmetric Quantum Mechanics". Foundations of Physics. 37 (1): 159–168. Bibcode:2007FoPh...37..159W. doi:10.1007/s10701-006-9089-1.
  24. ^ Wharton, K. B. (2010). "A Novel Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Equation". Foundations of Physics. 40 (3): 313–332. arXiv:0706.4075. Bibcode:2010FoPh...40..313W. doi:10.1007/s10701-009-9398-2.
  25. ^ Heaney, M. B. (2013). "A Symmetrical Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Equation". Foundations of Physics. 43 (6): 733–746. arXiv:1211.4645. Bibcode:2013FoPh...43..733H. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.762.8767. doi:10.1007/s10701-013-9713-9.
  26. ^ Hestenes, David (1990). "The zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum mechanics". Foundations of Physics. 20 (10): 1213–1232. Bibcode:1990FoPh...20.1213H. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.412.3589. doi:10.1007/BF01889466.
  27. ^ Sutherland, R. (2008). "Causally symmetric Bohm model". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 39: 782–805.
  28. ^ Cabello, Adán (2017). "Interpretations of quantum theory: A map of madness". In Lombardi, Olimpia; Fortin, Sebastian; Holik, Federico; López, Cristian (eds.). What is Quantum Information?. Cambridge University Press. pp. 138–143. arXiv:1509.04711. Bibcode:2015arXiv150904711C. doi:10.1017/9781316494233.009. ISBN 9781107142114.
  29. ^ "The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics" (PDF). Nobel Lecture. December 11, 1954.
  30. ^ "The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems." Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. P.A. Schilpp (Harper & Row, New York)
  31. ^ Olimpia Lombardi, Dennis Dieks (2012). Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  32. ^ J. S. Bell, Free variables and local causality, Epistemological Letters, Feb. 1977. Reprinted as Chapter 12 of J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press 1987)
  33. ^ Dowker, F.; Kent, A. (1995). "Properties of Consistent Histories". Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (17): 3038–3041. arXiv:gr-qc/9409037. Bibcode:1995PhRvL..75.3038D. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.3038. PMID 10059479.
  34. ^ Gambini, Rodolfo; Pullin, Jorge (2009). "The Montevideo interpretation of quantum mechanics: frequently asked questions". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 174 (1): 012003. arXiv:0905.4402. Bibcode:2009JPhCS.174a2003G. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/174/1/012003.
  35. ^ Jorge Pullin. "The Montevideo Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Retrieved 27 April 2012.
  36. ^ Jeremy Butterfield, Assessing the Montevideo Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (2014) arXiv:1406.4351v1
  37. ^ Mohrhoff, U. (2005). "The Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics: An overview". Pramana. 64 (2): 171–185. arXiv:quant-ph/0412182. Bibcode:2005Prama..64..171M. doi:10.1007/BF02704872.
  38. ^ Shafieea, Afshin; Jafar-Aghdamib, Maryam; Golshanic, Mehdi (2006). "A critique of Mohrhoff's interpretation of quantum mechanics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 37 (2): 316–329. Bibcode:2006SHPMP..37..316S. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2005.10.003.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics&oldid=993865910"