观察事件的(非)模糊性 "意味着什么?

IF 1.2 3区 物理与天体物理 Q3 PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Foundations of Physics Pub Date : 2024-01-10 DOI:10.1007/s10701-023-00747-1
Emily Adlam
{"title":"观察事件的(非)模糊性 \"意味着什么?","authors":"Emily Adlam","doi":"10.1007/s10701-023-00747-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recently there have emerged an assortment of theorems relating to the ‘absoluteness of emerged events,’ and these results have sometimes been used to argue that quantum mechanics may involve some kind of metaphysically radical non-absoluteness, such as relationalism or perspectivalism. However, in our view a close examination of these theorems fails to convincingly support such possibilities. In this paper we argue that the Wigner’s friend paradox, the theorem of Bong et al and the theorem of Lawrence et al are all best understood as demonstrating that if quantum mechanics is universal, and if certain auxiliary assumptions hold, then the world inevitably includes various forms of ‘disaccord,’ but this need not be interpreted in a metaphysically radical way; meanwhile, the theorem of Ormrod and Barrett is best understood either as an argument for an interpretation allowing multiple outcomes per observer, such as the Everett approach, or as a proof that quantum mechanics cannot be universal in the sense relevant for this theorem. We also argue that these theorems taken together suggest interesting possibilities for a different kind of relational approach in which <i>interaction</i> states are relativized whilst observed events are absolute, and we show that although something like ‘retrocausality’ might be needed to make such an approach work, this would be a very special kind of retrocausality which would evade a number of common objections against retrocausality. We conclude that the non-absoluteness theorems may have a significant role to play in helping converge towards an acceptable solution to the measurement problem.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":569,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Physics","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10701-023-00747-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Does ‘(Non)-absoluteness of Observed Events’ Mean?\",\"authors\":\"Emily Adlam\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10701-023-00747-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Recently there have emerged an assortment of theorems relating to the ‘absoluteness of emerged events,’ and these results have sometimes been used to argue that quantum mechanics may involve some kind of metaphysically radical non-absoluteness, such as relationalism or perspectivalism. However, in our view a close examination of these theorems fails to convincingly support such possibilities. In this paper we argue that the Wigner’s friend paradox, the theorem of Bong et al and the theorem of Lawrence et al are all best understood as demonstrating that if quantum mechanics is universal, and if certain auxiliary assumptions hold, then the world inevitably includes various forms of ‘disaccord,’ but this need not be interpreted in a metaphysically radical way; meanwhile, the theorem of Ormrod and Barrett is best understood either as an argument for an interpretation allowing multiple outcomes per observer, such as the Everett approach, or as a proof that quantum mechanics cannot be universal in the sense relevant for this theorem. We also argue that these theorems taken together suggest interesting possibilities for a different kind of relational approach in which <i>interaction</i> states are relativized whilst observed events are absolute, and we show that although something like ‘retrocausality’ might be needed to make such an approach work, this would be a very special kind of retrocausality which would evade a number of common objections against retrocausality. We conclude that the non-absoluteness theorems may have a significant role to play in helping converge towards an acceptable solution to the measurement problem.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":569,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foundations of Physics\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10701-023-00747-1.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foundations of Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"101\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-023-00747-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"物理与天体物理\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Physics","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-023-00747-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近出现了一系列与 "出现事件的绝对性 "有关的定理,这些结果有时被用来论证量子力学可能涉及某种形而上学上激进的非绝对性,如关系论或透视论。然而,在我们看来,仔细研究这些定理并不能令人信服地支持这种可能性。在本文中,我们认为维格纳的朋友悖论、邦等人的定理和劳伦斯等人的定理都可以最好地理解为,如果量子力学是普遍的,如果某些辅助假设成立,那么世界就不可避免地包含各种形式的'不协调',但这不必以形而上学的激进方式来解释;与此同时,奥姆罗德和巴雷特的定理最好被理解为对允许每个观察者有多种结果的解释(如埃弗雷特方法)的论证,或者被理解为量子力学不可能在与该定理相关的意义上具有普遍性的证明。我们还认为,这些定理结合在一起,为一种不同的关系式方法提供了有趣的可能性,在这种方法中,相互作用状态是相对化的,而观察到的事件是绝对的。我们还表明,尽管可能需要类似 "逆向性 "的东西来使这种方法奏效,但这将是一种非常特殊的逆向性,它将回避对逆向性的一些常见反对意见。我们的结论是,非可溶性定理在帮助人们找到可接受的测量问题解决方案方面可以发挥重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What Does ‘(Non)-absoluteness of Observed Events’ Mean?

Recently there have emerged an assortment of theorems relating to the ‘absoluteness of emerged events,’ and these results have sometimes been used to argue that quantum mechanics may involve some kind of metaphysically radical non-absoluteness, such as relationalism or perspectivalism. However, in our view a close examination of these theorems fails to convincingly support such possibilities. In this paper we argue that the Wigner’s friend paradox, the theorem of Bong et al and the theorem of Lawrence et al are all best understood as demonstrating that if quantum mechanics is universal, and if certain auxiliary assumptions hold, then the world inevitably includes various forms of ‘disaccord,’ but this need not be interpreted in a metaphysically radical way; meanwhile, the theorem of Ormrod and Barrett is best understood either as an argument for an interpretation allowing multiple outcomes per observer, such as the Everett approach, or as a proof that quantum mechanics cannot be universal in the sense relevant for this theorem. We also argue that these theorems taken together suggest interesting possibilities for a different kind of relational approach in which interaction states are relativized whilst observed events are absolute, and we show that although something like ‘retrocausality’ might be needed to make such an approach work, this would be a very special kind of retrocausality which would evade a number of common objections against retrocausality. We conclude that the non-absoluteness theorems may have a significant role to play in helping converge towards an acceptable solution to the measurement problem.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Foundations of Physics
Foundations of Physics 物理-物理:综合
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
104
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The conceptual foundations of physics have been under constant revision from the outset, and remain so today. Discussion of foundational issues has always been a major source of progress in science, on a par with empirical knowledge and mathematics. Examples include the debates on the nature of space and time involving Newton and later Einstein; on the nature of heat and of energy; on irreversibility and probability due to Boltzmann; on the nature of matter and observation measurement during the early days of quantum theory; on the meaning of renormalisation, and many others. Today, insightful reflection on the conceptual structure utilised in our efforts to understand the physical world is of particular value, given the serious unsolved problems that are likely to demand, once again, modifications of the grammar of our scientific description of the physical world. The quantum properties of gravity, the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics, the primary source of irreversibility, the role of information in physics – all these are examples of questions about which science is still confused and whose solution may well demand more than skilled mathematics and new experiments. Foundations of Physics is a privileged forum for discussing such foundational issues, open to physicists, cosmologists, philosophers and mathematicians. It is devoted to the conceptual bases of the fundamental theories of physics and cosmology, to their logical, methodological, and philosophical premises. The journal welcomes papers on issues such as the foundations of special and general relativity, quantum theory, classical and quantum field theory, quantum gravity, unified theories, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, cosmology, and similar.
期刊最新文献
Dressing vs. Fixing: On How to Extract and Interpret Gauge-Invariant Content The Determinacy Problem in Quantum Mechanics Complementary Detector and State Preparation Error and Classicality in the Spin-j Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm Experiment Conservation Laws in Quantum Database Search Reply to Hofer-Szabó: The PBR Theorem hasn’t been Saved
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1