The modes of physical properties in the logical foundations of physics

Smets, Sonja

doi:10.12775/llp.2005.004

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 Continuing Heisenberg's considerations in the new physics, Con-stantin Piron has been one of the leading figures in developing the notion of potentiality within the logical structure of quantum mechanics [27,28]. Following [32], a physical property, never mind whether a classical or quantum one, is specified as what corresponds to a set of definite experimental projects. A definite experimental project (DEP) is an experimental procedure (in fact, an equivalence class of experimental procedures) consisting in a list of actions and a rule that specifies in advance what has to be considered as a positive result, in correspondence with the yes answer to a dichotomic question.…”

Section: The Multiple Interpretations Of Quantum Superpositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Paraconsistent Logic of Quantum Superpositions

Costa

Ronde

2013

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical superpositions exist both in classical and in quantum physics. However, what is exactly meant by 'superposition' in each case is extremely different. In this paper we discuss some of the multiple interpretations which exist in the literature regarding superpositions in quantum mechanics. We argue that all these interpretations have something in common: they all attempt to avoid 'contradiction'. We argue in this paper, in favor of the importance of developing a new interpretation of superpositions which takes into account contradiction, as a key element of the formal structure of the theory, "right from the start". In order to show the feasibility of our interpretational project we present an outline of a paraconsistent approach to quantum superpositions which attempts to account for the contradictory properties present in general within quantum superpositions. This approach must not be understood as a closed formal and conceptual scheme but rather as a first step towards a different type of understanding regarding quantum superpositions.

show abstract

Section: The Multiple Interpretations Of Quantum Superpositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Paraconsistent Logic of Quantum Superpositions

Costa

Ronde

2013

Found Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But when we do possess a complete knowledge of the entity, then, by definition, we are able to predict with certainty all that is predictable about it, and therefore what cannot be predicted is by definition a nonexisting (potential, uncreated) aspect of reality. To put it in different terms, to have a complete knowledge about an entity is to have full knowledge about its state, which represents what the entity is, its reality at a given time, given by the set of all its actual properties (see the above mentioned references of Piron and Aerts, as well as the interesting conceptual analysis in Smets 2005).…”

Section: Existence Criterionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ephemeral Properties and the Illusion of Microscopic Particles

Bianchi¹

2011

Found Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Founding our analysis on the Geneva-Brussels approach to quantum mechanics, we use conventional macroscopic objects as guiding examples to clarify the content of two important results of the beginning of twentieth century: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen's reality criterion and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We then use them in combination to show that our widespread belief in the existence of microscopic particles is only the result of a cognitive illusion, as microscopic particles are not particles, but are instead the ephemeral spatial and local manifestations of non-spatial and non-local entities.

show abstract

“…The explicit reference to "our knowledge" is strictly related to the following operational definition of pure states: 'If a quantum system is prepared in such way that one can devise a maximal test yielding with certainty (probability = 1) a particular outcome, then it is said that the quantum system is in a pure state.' In turn, the notion of maximal test allows to interpret a quantum observable as being an actual property -i.e., a property that will yield the answer yes when being measured [36]. It is then stated that the pure state of a quantum system is described by a unit vector in a Hilbert space which in Dirac's notation is written as |ψ .…”

Section: Pure States In Quantum Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Against the Tyranny of ‘Pure States’ in Quantum Theory

Ronde

Massri

2021

Found Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we provide arguments against the dominant role played by the notion of pure sate within the orthodox account of quantum theory. Firstly, we will argue that the origin of this notion is intrinsically related to the widespread empirical-positivist understanding of physics according to which 'theories describe actual observations of subjects (or agents)'. Secondly, we will show how within the notion of pure state there is a scrambling of two mutually incompatible definitions. On the one hand, a contextual definition which attempts to provide an intuitive physical grasp in terms of the certain prediction of a measurement outcome; and on the other hand, a noncontextual purely abstract mathematical definition which has no clear physical content. We will then turn our attention to the way in which pure states and mixtures have been considered by two categorical approaches to QM, namely, the topos approach originally presented by Chris Isham and Jeremy Butterfield [27, 28, 29] and the more recent logos categorical approach presented by the authors of this article [11, 12]. While the first approach presents serious difficulties in order to produce an orthodox understanding of pure states and mixtures, the latter presents a new scheme in which the distinction between pure states and mixtures becomes completely irrelevant.

show abstract

The modes of physical properties in the logical foundations of physics

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

The Paraconsistent Logic of Quantum Superpositions

The Paraconsistent Logic of Quantum Superpositions

Ephemeral Properties and the Illusion of Microscopic Particles

Against the Tyranny of ‘Pure States’ in Quantum Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About