Foundations of Physics最新文献

We introduce a new structure, the critical multi-cubic lattice. Notably the critical multi-cubic lattice is the first true generalization of the cubic lattice to higher dimensional spaces. We then introduce the notion of a homomorphism in the category of critical multi-cubic lattices, compute its automorphism group, and construct a Hilbert space over which we represent the group. With this unitary representation, we re-derive the generalized Pauli matrices common in quantum computation while also defining an algebraic framework for an infinite system of qudits. We also briefly explore the critical multi-cubic lattice as a novel implication algebra serving as a logical framework for qudit gates.

This short note addresses the criticisms recently proposed by Shan Gao against our article “On the Reality of the Quantum State Once Again: A No-Go Theorem for (psi)-Ontic Models” (Found. Phys. 54:14). The essay aims to respond to such objections and to show once again that the theorem proved in our paper is correct, and therefore true—contrary to Gao’s claims. Philosophical consequences of this fact are briefly discussed.

The minimal ingredients to describe a quantum system are a Hamiltonian, an initial state, and a preferred tensor product structure that encodes a decomposition into subsystems. We explore a top-down approach in which the subsystems emerge from the spectrum of the whole system. This approach has been referred to as quantum mereology. First we show that decomposing a system into subsystems is equivalent to decomposing a spectrum into other spectra. Then we argue that the number of subsystems (the volume of the system) can be inferred from the spectrum itself. In local models, this information is encoded in finite size corrections to the Gaussian density of states.

In conceptual debates involving the quantum gravity community, the literature discusses the so-called “emergence of space–time”. However, which interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) could be coherent with such claim? We show that a modification of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is compatible with the claim that space–time is emergent for the macroscopic world of measurements. In other words, pure quantum states do not admit space–time properties until we measure them. We call this approach “Achronotopic” (ACT) Interpretation of QM, which yields a simple and natural interpretation of the most puzzling aspects of QM, such as particle-wave duality, wave function collapse, entanglement, and quantum superposition. Our interpretation yields the same results in all measurements as the Copenhagen Interpretation, but provides clues toward the sub-Planckian physics. In particular, it suggests the non-existence of quantum gravity in the conventional sense understood as the quantization of a classical theory.

We consider the question of whether thermodynamic macrostates are objective consequences of dynamics, or subjective reflections of our ignorance of a physical system. We argue that they are both; more specifically, that the set of macrostates forms the unique maximal partition of phase space which (1) is consistent with our observations (a subjective fact about our ability to observe the system) and (2) obeys a Markov process (an objective fact about the system’s dynamics). We review the ideas of computational mechanics, an information-theoretic method for finding optimal causal models of stochastic processes, and argue that macrostates coincide with the “causal states” of computational mechanics. Defining a set of macrostates thus consists of an inductive process where we start with a given set of observables, and then refine our partition of phase space until we reach a set of states which predict their own future, i.e. which are Markovian. Macrostates arrived at in this way are provably optimal statistical predictors of the future values of our observables.

In a recent paper as an alternative to models based on the notion of ideal mathematical point, characterized by a property of separatedness, we considered a viewpoint based on the notion of continuous change, making use of elements of a non-classical logic, in particular the fuzzy sets theory, with events represented as spatiotemporally blurred blobs. Here we point out and discuss a number of aspects of this imperfect symbolic description that might potentially be misleading. Besides that, we analyze its relation to various concepts used commonly to model physical systems, denoted by terms like: point, set, continuous, discrete, infinite, or local, clarifying further how our viewpoint is different and asking whether, in light of our main postulate, any of these notions, or their opposites, if exist, are in their usual meanings suitable to accurately describe the natural phenomena.

Over the past decade, the physics literature on torsionful non-relativistic gravity has burgeoned; more recently, philosophers have also begun to explore this topic. As of yet, however, the connections between the writings of physicists and philosophers on torsionful non-relativistic gravity remain unclear. In this article, we seek to bridge the gap, in particular by situating within the context of the existing physics literature a recent theory of non-relativistic torsionful gravity developed by philosophers Meskhidze and Weatherall (Philos Sci, https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.136, 2023) we also discuss the philosophical significance of that theory.

Of the many ways of getting at the core of the weirdnesses in quantum mechanics, there’s one which traces back to Schrödinger’s seminal 1935 paper, and has to do with the apparent fuzzy nature of the reality described by the formalism through the wavefunction (psi). This issue, which I will be calling the Determinacy Problem, is distinct from the standard measurement problem of quantum mechanics, despite Schrödinger himself ends up conflating the two. I will argue that the Determinacy Problem is an exquisitely philosophical problem, for as it is standard when facing any phenomenon which appears to have indeterminate or fuzzy characteristics, the solutions available are to either blame the deficiencies of our language, or our lack of knowledge, or to blame the world itself. These three attitudes can already be found in the literature on quantum mechanics, either explicitly or implicitly, and they appear to motivate three very distinct research programs: high-dimensional realism, primitive ontology, and quantum indeterminacy.

There is solid consensus among physicists and philosophers that, in gauge field theory, for a quantity to be physically meaningful or real, it must be gauge-invariant. Yet, every “elementary” field in the Standard Model of particle physics is actually gauge-variant. This has led a number of researchers to insist that new manifestly gauge-invariant approaches must be established. Indeed, in the foundational literature, dissatisfaction with standard methods for reducing gauge symmetries has been expressed: Spontaneous symmetry breaking is deemed conceptually dubious, while gauge fixing suffers the same limitations and is subject to the same criticisms as coordinate choices in General Relativity. An alternative gauge-invariant proposal was recently introduced in the literature, the so-called “dressing field method” (DFM). It is a mathematically subtle tool, and unfortunately prone to be confused with simple gauge transformations, hence with standard gauge fixings. As a matter of fact, in the physics literature the two are often conflated, and in the philosophy community some doubts have been raised about whether there is any substantial difference between them. Clarifying this issue is of special significance for anyone interested in both the foundational issues of gauge theories and their invariant formulation. It is thus our objective to establish as precisely as possible the technical and conceptual distinctions between the DFM and gauge fixing.