Search

Many agree that the pilot-wave theory is to be understood as a first-order theory, in which the law constrains the velocity of the particles. However, while Dürr, Goldstein and Zanghì maintain that the pilot-wave theory is Galilei invariant, Valentini argues that such a symmetry is mathematical but it has no physical significance. Moreover, some wavefunction realists insist that the pilot-wave theory is not Galilei invariant in any sense. It has been maintained by some that this disagreement originates in the disagreement about ontology, as Valentini, contrary to Dürr, Goldstein and Zanghì, has been taken to endorse wavefunction realism. In this paper I argue that Valentini’s argument is independent of the choice of the ontology of matter: it is based of the notion of natural kinematics for a theory, and the idea that the kinematics should match the dynamics. If so, I also argue that there are several reasons to dispute Valentini’s claim that the kinematical symmetries should constrain dynamical ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The violation of Bell’s inequality has shown that quantum theory and relativity are in tension: reality is nonlocal. Nonetheless, many have argued that GRW-type theories are to be preferred to pilot-wave theories as they are more compatible with relativity: while relativistic pilot-wave theories require a preferred slicing of space-time, foliation-free relativistic GRW-type theories have been proposed. In this paper I discuss various meanings of ‘relativistic invariance,’ and I show how GRW-type theories, while being more relativistic in one sense, are less relativistic in another. If so, the initial claim that GRW-type theories have a greater compatibility with relativity is unwarranted: both type of theories violate relativity, one way or another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to investigate the so-called paradox of deterministic probabilities: in a deterministic world, all probabilities should be subjective; however, they also seem to play important explanatory and predictive roles which suggest they are objective. The problem is then to understand what these deterministic probabilities are. Recent proposed solutions of this paradox are the Mentaculus vision, the range account of probability and a version of frequentism based on typicality. All these approaches aim at defining deterministic objective probabilities as to make them compatible with determinism. In this paper, I argue that one can think of the equivalent of subjective and objective deterministic probabilities in terms of typicality. Also, I show that only what I identify with objective probabilities plays the necessary explanatory and predictive roles, while the subjective components essentially guide beliefs. In this way, the paradox is solved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When discussing quantum ontology, the debate has recently focused on comparing and contrasting wavefunction realism and its rivals. Among them one finds the primitive ontology approach, which is often conflated with the local beables program. In this paper I wish to clarify what I take to be the distinction between the notion of primitive ontology and the one of local beable. I argue that the primitive ontology is the local beable which allows for a dynamical, constructive explanation which preserves symmetries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against what is commonly accepted in many contexts, it has been recently suggested that both deterministic and indeterministic quantum theories are not time-reversal invariant, and thus time is handed in a quantum world. In this paper, I analyze these arguments and evaluate possible reactions to them. In the context of deterministic theories, first I show that this conclusion depends on the controversial assumption that the wave-function is a physically real scalar field in configuration space. Then I argue that answers which restore invariance by assuming the wave-function is a ray in Hilbert space fall short. Instead, I propose that one should deny that the wave-function represents physical systems, along the lines proposed by the so-called primitive ontology approach. Moreover, in the context of indeterministic theories, I argue that time-reversal invariance can be restored suitably redefining its meaning. • Rewritten abstract, introduction, and conclusion. • Expanded sections 4, 5 and 6. • Slightly cut sections 2, 3. • Added references. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I investigate, within the framework of realistic interpretations of the wave function in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the mathematical and physical nature of the wave function. I argue against the view that mathematically the wave function is a two-component scalar field on configuration space. First, I review how this view makes quantum mechanics non-Galilei invariant and yields the wrong classical limit. Moreover, I argue that interpreting the wave function as a ray, in agreement with many physicists, ensures that Galilei invariance is preserved. In addition, I discuss how the wave function behaves more similarly to a gauge potential than to a field. Finally, I show how this favours a nomological rather than an ontological view of the wave function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a response by the author to the reaction of Meir Hemmo and Orly Shenker to the review he made for the book "The Road to Maxwell's Demon: Conceptual Foundations of Statistical Mechanics." He discusses the concern of Hemmo and Shenker on the review, passage from which Hemmo and Shenker quote in their response to the review, and clarification of issues in the foundations of statistical mechanics.

A major disagreement between different views about the foundations of quantum mechanics concerns whether for a theory to be intelligible as a fundamental physical theory it must involve a ‘primitive ontology’ (PO), i.e. variables describing the distribution of matter in four-dimensional space–time. In this article, we illustrate the value of having a PO. We do so by focussing on the role that the PO plays for extracting predictions from a given theory and discuss valid and invalid derivations of predictions. To this end, we investigate a number of examples based on toy models built from the elements of familiar interpretations of quantum theory.11 Introduction2 The GRWm and GRWf Theories 2.1 The GRW process 2.2 GRWm 2.3 GRWf3 Predictions and Primitive Ontology 3.1 Calibration functions 3.2 Taking the PO seriously 3.3 Examples from the literature 3.4 The main theorem about operators in the GRW formalism 3.5 The GRW formalism4 A Set of Examples 4.1 Bohmian mechanics 4.2 Bohmian trajectories and GRW collapses 4.2.1 Bohm’s law and GRW’s law 4.2.2 Bohm’s law and a modified GRW law 4.2.3 Trajectories from the GRW wave function 4.2.4 Configuration jumps and GRW law 4.2.5 Another way of configuration jumps and GRW law 4.3 MBM: Bohm-like trajectories from the master equation 4.3.1 Empirical equivalence of MBM with GRWm and GRWf4.4 Master equation and matter density4.5 Master equation and flashes5 Conclusions [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Schrödinger’s first proposal for the interpretation of quantum mechanics was based on a postulate relating the wave function on configuration space to charge density in physical space. Schrödinger apparently later thought that his proposal was empirically wrong. We argue here that this is not the case, at least for a very similar proposal with charge density replaced by mass density. We argue that when analyzed carefully, this theory is seen to be an empirically adequate many-worlds theory and not an empirically inadequate theory describing a single world. Moreover, this formulation—Schrödinger’s first quantum theory—can be regarded as a formulation of the many-worlds view of quantum mechanics that is ontologically clearer than Everett’s. 1Monstrosity2Duality3Parallelity4Reality5Nonlocality6Relativity7Probability8Typicality9Uncertainty10Summary [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Contrary to the widespread belief, the problem of the emergence of classical mechanics from quantum mechanics is still open. In spite of many results of the standard approach, it is not yet clear how to explain within standard quantum mechanics the classical motion of macroscopic bodies. In this paper, we shall formulate the classical limit as a scaling limit in terms of an adimensional parameter ε. We shall take the first steps toward a comprehensive understanding of the classical limit, analyzing special cases of classical behavior in the framework of a precise formulation of quantum mechanics called Bohmian mechanics which contains in its own structure the possibility of describing real objects in an observer-independent way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bohmian mechanics and the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory provide opposite resolutions of the quantum measurement problem: the former postulates additional variables (the particle positions) besides the wave function, whereas the latter implements spontaneous collapses of the wave function by a nonlinear and stochastic modification of Schrâdinger's equation. Still, both theories, when understood appropriately, share the following structure: They are ultimately not about wave functions but about 'matter' moving in space, represented by either particle trajectories, fields on space-time, or a discrete set of space-time points. The role of the wave function then is to govern the motion of the matter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bohmian mechanics is a quantum theory with a clear ontology. To make clear what we mean by this, we shall proceed by recalling first what are the problems of quantum mechanics. We shall then briefly sketch the basics of Bohmian mechanics and indicate how Bohmian mechanics solves these problems and clarifies the status and the role of the quantum formalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]