The concept of individuality in quantum mechanics shows radical differences from the one used in classical physics. In particular, it is not possible to consider the fundamental particles described by quantum theory as individual distinguishable objects. In this paper we present arguments in favor of quantum non-individuality, which -in addition to those based on quantum statistics- relate to the Kochen-Specker theorem and the principle of superposition. Then, we analyze the possibility of referring to 'possible individuals' instead of 'actual individuals', and show that the Modal-Kochen-Specker theorem precludes this interpretational move.
The concept of individuality in quantum mechanics shows radical differences from the one used in classical physics. In particular, it is not possible to consider the fundamental particles described by quantum theory as individual distinguishable objects. In this paper we present arguments in favor of quantum non-individuality, which -in addition to those based on quantum statistics- relate to the Kochen-Specker theorem and the principle of superposition. Then, we analyze the possibility of referring to 'possible individuals' instead of 'actual individuals', and show that the Modal-Kochen-Specker theorem precludes this interpretational move.
In this paper we attempt to discuss what has Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem to say about physical invariance and quantum individuality. In particular, we will discuss the impossibility of making reference to objective physical properties within the orthodox formalism of quantum mechanics. Through an analysis of the meaning of physical invariance and quantum contextuality we will derive a Corollary to KS theorem that proves that a vector in Hilbert space cannot be interpreted coherently as an object possessing (objective) physical properties. As a consequence, the notion of quantum object can be only defined in terms of nomological properties. We conclude the paper by analyzing the consequences of this Corollary to KS theorem for the ongoing debate about quantum individuality.
Quantum indistinguishability directly relates to the philosophical debate on the notions of identity and individuality. They are crucial for our understanding of multipartite quantum systems. Furthermore, the correct interpretation of this feature of quantum theory has implications that transcend fundamental science and philosophy, given that quantum indistinguishability is a resource in quantum information theory. Most of the conceptual analysis of quantum indistinguishability is restricted to studying the permutational invariance of quantum states, the concomitant quantum statistics and their entanglement. Here, we analyse the role of indistinguishability and non-individuality in other areas of quantum theory. We start by analysing how a very peculiar use of indistinguishability underlies Feynman's rules for summing amplitudes in interference phenomena. Next, we study how quantum indistinguishability is underestimated in several topics of debate in the quantum physics literature, such as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument, Bell's inequalities and the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem. Finally, we argue that an ontology of truly indistinguishable entities can serve as a basis for a quantum ontology that can give interesting answers to the interpretational problems of quantum mechanics. We claim that, in addition to superposition, contextuality and entanglement, indistinguishability (understood in a robust ontological sense) is one of the central features of quantum physics. This article is part of the theme issue 'Identity, individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics'.
This doctoral dissertation contains four main elements: \n \n1. We put forward an interpretational map of quantum mechanics in general and of the modal interpretation in particular based on metaphysical and anti-metaphysical stances. \n \n2. In contraposition to what we characterize as the anti-metaphysical and classical metaphysical \n \nstances we collect arguments in favor of a constructive metaphysical stance. \n \n3. We analyze the meaning of contextuality and possibility in quantum theory in general, and in the modal interpretation in particular. \n \n4. Finally, we end up with a proposal for the development of a possible constructive metaphysical scheme based on the notion of potentiality. \n \nAlthough some of these problems are well known in the literature we attempt to cast new light on the discussion through the analysis of the concepts involved and their relation to the formalism. We attempt to make explicit the tension in between the theoretical conditions and the conceptual structure of the theory, in order to discuss and disclose the metaphysical ideas involved within the different interpretational problems of quantum mechanics. We believe that this analysis can help us to understand much of the implicit background of such theoretical conditions. \n \nThe dissertation centers itself on the modal and contextual character of quantum mechanics. On the one hand, we discuss the contextual character of quantum possibility through the development of a Modal Kochen-Specker theorem, and on the other hand, we analyze the contextual character of quantum correlations through the distinction of properties. In the last part we discuss some more speculative ideas related to the possible metaphysical developments of quantum mechanics based on the notion of potentiality.
In contrast to conventional, dynamical entanglement, in which particles with definite identity have uncertain properties, in so-called statistical entanglement, which arises between indistinguishable particles because of quantum symmetry rules, even particle identities are uncertain. The Bell and Kochen-Specker theorems imply that quantum properties either lack realism or possess it with a caveat of contextuality or nonlocality. In the matter of identity of multi-particle states of indistinguishable particles, these contrasting ontological attitudes are mirrored by the "bundle" vs. haecceity views. We offer some arguments aimed at importing the above theorems to the issue of identity in quantum theory, with the conclusion (under certain assumptions) that indistinguishable particles either lack individualism or possess a definite identity with a caveat of contextuality or nonlocality.
In this article we discuss the contextual character of quantum mechanics in the framework of modal interpretations. We investigate its historical origin and relate contemporary modal interpretations to those proposed by M. Born and W. Heisenberg. We present then a general characterization of what we consider to be a modal interpretation. Following previous papers in which we have introduced modalities in the Kochen-Specker theorem, we investigate the consequences of these theorems in relation to the modal interpretations of quantum mechanics.
In this article, we discuss some questions about the nature of elementary particles treated by quantum mechanics, in particular related to the concepts of identity and individuality of these particles. We started briefly exposing the philosophical and formal concepts of the identity and individuality, and then show how these notions are problematic when applied to elementary particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. In particular, we emphasize that both philosophy, logic and set theory (and thus the mathematics) admit the usual assumption that things have a ‘type’ of identity and individuality (i.e., are individuals), in the sense that objects which have all the same properties are the same object (are equal). Nevertheless, we show that in the quantum universe is possible to find objects that share all their properties, but are not just one, constituting in something like “nonindividuals” (thesis defended by many physicists and philosophers of science). In sequence, we show how classical mathematics — which, as we said, assumes an individuality to your entities — handle this situation, in particular admitting assumptions external to the physical theories. To avoid this procedure, and look for a formalism more ‘natural’ and appropriate to work with these quantum characteristics, we suggest the use of a non-classical set theory called the quasi-set theory, based on a non-reflective logics, which admits objects devoid of identity and individuality ab initio. Finally, we show another application of this theory: the search to a quasi-set mathematical structure that describes the ‘behaviour’ of non-relativistic quantum theory, and discuss some advantages of this ‘quasi-structure’ to a classical one.