Foundations of Physics最新文献

In a recent article, Halvorson and Manchak (Br J Philos Sci, Forthcoming) claim that there is no basis for the Hole Argument, because (in a certain sense) hole isometries are unique. This raises two important questions: (a) does their argument succeed?; (b) how does this formalist response to the Hole Argument relate to other recent responses to the Hole Argument in the same tradition—in particular, that of Weatherall (Br J Philos Sci 69(2):329–350, 2018)? In this article, ad (a), we argue that Halvorson and Manchak’s claim does not go through; ad (b), we argue that although one prima facie plausible reading would see Halvorson and Manchak as filling an important hole (no pun intended) in Weatherall’s argument, in fact this reading is implausible; there is no need to supplement Weatherall’s work with Halvorson and Manchak’s results.

A new approach to quantum theory is proposed in this paper. The basis is taken to be theoretical variables, variables that may be accessible or inaccessible, i.e., it may be possible or impossible for an observer to assign arbitrarily sharp numerical values to them. In an epistemic process, the accessible variables are just ideal observations connected to an observer or to some communicating observers. Group actions are defined on these variables, and group representation theory is the basis for developing the Hilbert space formalism here. Operators corresponding to accessible theoretical variables are derived, and in the discrete case, it is proved that the possible physical values are the eigenvalues of these operators. The focus of the paper is some mathematical theorems paving the ground for the proposed foundation of quantum theory. It is shown here that the groups and transformations needed in this approach can be constructed explicitly in the case where the accessible variables are finite-dimensional. This simplifies the theory considerably: To reproduce the Hilbert space formulation, it is enough to assume the existence of two complementary variables. The interpretation inferred from the proposed foundation here may be called a general epistemic interpretation of quantum theory. A special case of this interpretation is QBism; it also has a relationship to several other interpretations.

Atoms and molecules are particular kinds of restricted n-body systems, which generally behave as quasi-separable, unlike other n-body systems, e.g., Newtonian ones. The Coulomb repulsion and the Pauli exclusion principle in atoms and molecules are responsible for that separability. Additionally, chemical bonds, especially covalent bonds, enhance the separability of molecules. Independent particle models do not describe atoms and molecules since first-order energy corrections are high. However, these corrections obtained by the first-order perturbation or mean-field strongly converge, implying a one-electron effective potential description. Consequently, stable states of atoms and molecules can be reasonably described by one-electron effective potentials, which strongly differ from other n-body problems. We discuss the peculiarities of the correlation motion of generic systems in the context of the four fundamental forces. In particular, we have shown that the two components (attraction and repulsion) of the electromagnetic force confer a relatively low correlation motion to atoms and molecules. We discuss the physical and chemical nature of atoms and molecules, comparing the degrees of separability between different systems. For example, the separability of Newtonian systems is generally possible in particular classes of restricted systems due to relative mass differences. However, for atoms and molecules, the separability is much broader.

Spontaneous collapse models are modifications of standard quantum mechanics in which a physical mechanism is responsible for the collapse of the wavefunction, thus providing a way to solve the so-called “measurement problem”. The two most famous of these models are the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) model and the Continuous Spontaneous Localisation (CSL) models. Here, we propose a new kind of non-relativistic spontaneous collapse model based on the idea of collapse points situated at fixed spacetime coordinates. This model shares properties of both GRW and CSL models, while starting from different assumptions. We show that it can lead to a dynamics quite similar to that of the GRW model while also naturally solving the problem of indistinguishable particles. On the other hand, we can also obtain the same master equation of the CSL models. Then, we show how our proposed model solves the measurement problem in a manner conceptually similar to the GRW model. Finally, we show how the proposed model can also accommodate for Newtonian gravity by treating the collapses as gravitational sources.

This paper is a comment on both Bunamano and Rovelli (Bridging the neuroscience and physics of time arXiv:2110.01976. (2022)) and Gruber et al. (in Front. Psychol. Hypothesis Theory, 2022) and which discuss the relation between physical time and human time. I claim here, contrary to many views discussed there, that there is no foundational conflict between the way physics views the passage of time and the way the mind/brain perceives it. The problem rather resides in a number of misconceptions leading either to the representation of spacetime as a timeless Block Universe, or at least that physically relevant universe models cannot have preferred spatial sections. The physical expanding universe can be claimed to be an Evolving Block Universe with a time-dependent future boundary, representing the dynamic nature of the way spacetime develops as matter curves spacetime and spacetime tells matter how to move. This context establishes a global direction of time that determines the various local arrows of time. Furthermore time passes when quantum wave function collapse takes place to an eigenstate; during this process, information is lost. The mind/brain acts as an imperfect clock, which coarse-grains the physical passage of time along a world line to determine the experienced passage of time, because neural processes take time to occur. This happens in a contextual way, so experienced time is not linearly related to physical time in general. Finally I point out that the Universe is never infinitely old: its future endpoint always lies infinitely faraway in the future.

Tsang and Caves suggested the idea of a quantum-mechanics-free subsystem in 2012. We contend that Sudarshan’s viewpoint on Koopman-von Neumann mechanics is realized in the quantum-mechanics-free subsystem. Since quantum-mechanics-free subsystems are being experimentally realized, Koopman-von Neumann mechanics is essentially transformed into an engineering science.

Few topics in cosmology are as hotly debated as the Multiverse: for some it is untestable and hence unscientific; for others it is unavoidable and a natural extension of previous science. A third position is that it is seen to follow from other theories, but those other theories might themselves be seen as too speculative. The idea of fine-tuning has a similar status. Some of this disagreement might be due to misunderstanding, in particular the degree to which probability distributions are necessary to interpret conclusions based on the Multiverse, especially with regard to the Anthropic Principle. I present undisputed facts, discuss some common misunderstandings, and investigate the role played by probability. The Multiverse is perhaps an important component necessary for interpreting cosmological and other physical parameters.

The meaning of the wave function is an important unresolved issue in Bohmian mechanics. On the one hand, according to the nomological view, the wave function of the universe or the universal wave function is nomological, like a law of nature. On the other hand, the PBR theorem proves that the wave function in quantum mechanics or the effective wave function in Bohmian mechanics is ontic, representing the ontic state of a physical system in the universe. It is usually thought that the nomological view of the universal wave function is compatible with the ontic view of the effective wave function, and thus the PBR theorem has no implications for the nomological view. In this paper, I argue that this is not the case, and these two views are in fact incompatible. This means that if the effective wave function is ontic as the PBR theorem proves, then the universal wave function cannot be nomological, and the ontology of Bohmian mechanics cannot consist only in particles. This incompatibility result holds true not only for Humeanism and dispositionalism but also for primitivism about laws of nature, which attributes a fundamental ontic role to the universal wave function. Moreover, I argue that although the nomological view can be held by rejecting one key assumption of the PBR theorem, the rejection will lead to serious problems, such as that the results of measurements and their probabilities cannot be explained in ontology in Bohmian mechanics. Finally, I briefly discuss three (psi)-ontologies, namely a physical field in a fundamental high-dimensional space, a multi-field in three-dimensional space, and RDMP (Random Discontinuous Motion of Particles) in three-dimensional space, and argue that the RDMP ontology can answer the objections to the (psi)-ontology raised by the proponents of the nomological view.

I propose a version of quantum mechanics featuring a discrete and finite number of states that is plausibly a model of the real world. The model is based on standard unitary quantum theory of a closed system with a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Given certain simple conditions on the spectrum of the Hamiltonian, Schrödinger evolution is periodic, and it is straightforward to replace continuous time with a discrete version, with the result that the system only visits a discrete and finite set of state vectors. The biggest challenges to the viability of such a model come from cosmological considerations. The theory may have implications for questions of mathematical realism and finitism.

Nelson’s stochastic quantum mechanics provides an ideal arena to test how the Born rule is established from an initial probability distribution that is not identical to the square modulus of the wavefunction. Here, we investigate numerically this problem for three relevant cases: a double-slit interference setup, a harmonic oscillator, and a quantum particle in a uniform gravitational field. For all cases, Nelson’s stochastic trajectories are initially localized at a definite position, thereby violating the Born rule. For the double slit and harmonic oscillator, typical quantum phenomena, such as interferences, always occur well after the establishment of the Born rule. In contrast, for the case of quantum particles free-falling in the gravity field of the Earth, an interference pattern is observed before the completion of the quantum relaxation. This finding may pave the way to experiments able to discriminate standard quantum mechanics, where the Born rule is always satisfied, from Nelson’s theory, for which an early subquantum dynamics may be present before full quantum relaxation has occurred. Although the mechanism through which a quantum particle might violate the Born rule remains unknown to date, we speculate that this may occur during fundamental processes, such as beta decay or particle-antiparticle pair production.