The mathematical rules used to handle systems of identical quantum particles bring into question whether the elementary constituents of matter, such as electrons, have the fundamental characteristics of persistence and reidentifiability that are usually attributed to classical particles. However, despite considerable philosophical debate, the metaphysical profile of these entities remains elusive.
Previous debates have taken the mathematical rules, and the language in which these are usually couched, as a starting point. Here, we argue that this methodology is inherently limited, and develop a new conception of identical particles based on a recent mathematical reconstruction of these rules. Using this reconstruction, we demonstrate that the special behaviour of identical particles originates in the confluence of identicality and the active nature of the quantum measurements. We propose that identical particles are appropriately viewed as potential parts of a whole, and show how this leads to striking consequences such as restricted transtemporal identity.
The mathematical rules used to handle systems of identical quantum particles bring into question whether the elementary constituents of matter, such as electrons, have the fundamental characteristics of persistence and reidentifiability that are usually attributed to classical particles. However, despite considerable philosophical debate, the metaphysical profile of these entities remains elusive.
Previous debates have taken the mathematical rules, and the language in which these are usually couched, as a starting point. Here, we argue that this methodology is inherently limited, and develop a new conception of identical particles based on a recent mathematical reconstruction of these rules. Using this reconstruction, we demonstrate that the special behaviour of identical particles originates in the confluence of identicality and the active nature of the quantum measurements. We propose that identical particles are appropriately viewed as potential parts of a whole, and show how this leads to striking consequences such as restricted transtemporal identity.
According to our understanding of the everyday physical world, observable phenomena are underpinned by persistent objects that can be reidentified (or tracked) across time by observation of their distinctive properties. This understanding is reflected in classical mechanics, which posits that matter consists of persistent, reidentifiable particles. However, the mathematical symmetrization procedures used to describe identical particles within the quantum formalism have led to the widespread belief that identical quantum particles lack either persistence or reidentifiability. However, it has proved difficult to reconcile these assertions with the fact that identical particles are routinely assumed to be reidentifiable in particular circumstances. For example, when two electrons move through a bubble chamber, each is said to generate a sequence of bubbles (a 'track') that is caused by one and the same particle. Moreover, neither of these assertions accounts for the mathematical form of the symmetrization procedures used to describe identical particles within the quantum framework, leaving open theoretical possibilities other than bosonic and fermionic behavior, such as paraparticles, which do not appear to be realized in nature. Here we propose the novel idea that both persistence and nonpersistence models must be employed in order to fully account for the behaviour of identical particles. Thus, identical particles are neither persistent nor nonpersistent. We prove the viability of this viewpoint by showing how Feynman's and Dirac's symmetrization procedures arise through a synthesis of a quantum treatment of these models, and by showing how reidentifiability emerges in a context-dependent manner. We further show that the persistence and nonpersistence models satisfy the key characteristics of Bohr's concept of complementarity, and thereby propose that the behavior of identical particles is a manifestation of a persistence-nonpersistence complementarity, analogous to Bohr's wave-particle complementarity for individual particles. Finally, we construct a precise parallel between these two complementarities, and detail their conceptual similarities and dissimilarities.
One hundred years after the creation of quantum theory, there is no consensus on the kind of reality that is described by the theory. Here, I attribute the lack of progress to the prevailing interpretative methodology, which invariably takes the quantum formalism as the starting point for philosophical reflection and analysis. I argue that this methodology is particularly inappropriate, for it invariably marginalizes much of the theory's content, both that implicit in modelling heuristics and experimental practices, and that encapsulated in the mathematical structures of its formalism. In addition, the prevailing methodology offers little protection against undue influence by metaphysically-laden language which invariably accompanies the formalism.
Here, I summarize an alternative methodology whose goal is to ensure that an interpretational project take into account all forms of theoretic content. The methodology harnesses the recent results of the quantum reconstruction program. These results distil the mathematical content of the quantum formalism into physical principles and assumptions, which are more readily philosophically digestible than the formalism itself, and bracket much of its metaphysically-laden language.
As a case study of reconstruction-based interpretation, I describe the reconstruction of the identical particle formalism, and its step-by-step interpretation, highlighting the key questions that drive the interpretation forwards and the techniques and stances that are employed in each step. The interpretation yields a novel metaphysical profile for systems of identical particles as potential parts of a whole, which can be traced step-by-step to elementary experimental data and the reconstruction's physical postulates and assumptions. I also describe some of the pitfalls that one faces in any attempt to directly interpret the identical particle formalism.
Abstract Classical mechanics is based on the notion that matter consists of persistent particles that can be reidentified (or tracked) across time. However, the mathematical symmetrization procedures (due to Dirac (1926 Proc. R. Soc. A 112 661) and Heisenberg (1926 Z. Phys. 38 411) and Feynman (1965 Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals 1st edn (New York: McGraw-Hill))) used to describe identical particles within the quantum formalism are widely interpreted as implying that identical quantum particles are not persistent (so that the concept of ‘the same particle’ is not meaningful) or are persistent but not reidentifiable. However, it has not proved possible to rigorously reconcile these interpretations with the fact that identical particles are routinely assumed to be reidentifiable in particular circumstances—for example, a track in a bubble chamber is interpreted as a sequence of bubbles generated by one and the same particle (Mirman 1973 Il Nuovo Cimento 18B 110; de Muynck 1975 Int. J. Theor. Phys. 14 327; Dieks and Lubberdink 2011 Found. Phys. 41 1051; Jantzen 2011 Phil. Sci. 78 39). Moreover, these interpretations do not account for the mathematical form of the symmetrization procedures, leaving open theoretical possibilities other than bosonic and fermionic behavior, such as paraparticles (Messiah and Greenberg 1964 Phys. Rev. 136), which however do not appear to be realized in nature. Here we propose that the quantum mechanical behavior of identical particles is a manifestation of a novel kind of complementarity, a complementarity of persistence and nonpersistence. Accordingly, identical ‘particles’ are neither persistent nor nonpersistent; rather, these terms are to be understood as descriptors of different models of the same experimental data. We prove the viability of this viewpoint by showing how Feynman’s and Dirac’s symmetrization procedures arise through a synthesis of a quantum treatment of persistence and nonpersistence models of identical particle-like events, and by showing how reidentifiability emerges in a context-dependent manner. Finally, by drawing on a reconstruction of Feynman’s formulation of quantum theory (Goyal et al 2010 Phys. Rev. A 81 022109), we construct a precise parallel between the proposed persistence–nonpersistence complementary and Bohr’s wave–particle complementarity for individual particles, and detail their conceptual similarities and dissimilarities.
According to classical physics, particles are basic constituents of the physical world. Quantum theory is much less friendly to particles; in particular, relativistic quantum field theory (RQFT) creates serious obstacles for the idea that particles are fundamental. Apparently, when moving from the domain of RQFT to that of classical mechanics (CM), particles have to emerge at some stage. It is standard to assume that this emergence has been completed at the level of quantum mechanics, halfway between RQFT and CM, even though particles of the same kind in many-particle quantum mechanics have the curious feature of being ‘entities without identity’. Against this ‘Received View’ about the nature of quantum particles we outline and defend an Alternative View (AV), in which the emergent character of particles is emphasized. According to this AV, the step to a particle theory has not yet been made in quantum mechanics: conditions have still to be satisfied in order to make the particle concept applicable. If these conditions are met, the quantum particles that emerge are distinguishable individuals possessing physically defined identities, in stark contrast to what the Received View asserts. We will compare and contrast the two Views, both from a physical and a logical/conceptual point of view. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Identity, individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics’.
One recent debate in philosophy of physics has centered whether quantum particles are individuals or not. The received view is that particles are not individuals and the standard methodology is to approach the question via the structure of quantum theory. I challenge both the received view and the standard methodology. I contend not only that the structure of quantum theory is not the right place to look for conditions of individuality that quantum particles may or may not satisfy, but also that there is an important role for traditional metaphysics to play. Consequently, my work brings together the philosophy of physics and traditional metaphysics literatures to shed new light on the debate over the individuality of quantum particles. I defend a set of conditions of individuality and argue that quantum particles satisfy these conditions thereby defending the view that particles are individuals in opposition to the received view. I also challenge a second feature of the standard methodology insofar as I challenge the significance of the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles in terms of which much discussion in the philosophy of physics literature is framed. My work is significant in a number of additional ways as well. My work implies that the dominant explanation for quantum statistics in terms of non-individuality is incorrect and it also undermines the ontic-structural realists metaphysical underdetermination challenge to the scientific realist.
The symmetrization postulates of quantum mechanics (symmetry for bosons, antisymmetry for fermions) are usually taken to entail that quantum particles of the same kind (e.g., electrons) are all in exactly the same state and therefore indistinguishable in the strongest possible sense. These symmetrization postulates possess a general validity that survives the classical limit, and the conclusion seems therefore unavoidable that even classical particles of the same kind must all be in the same state—in clear conflict with what we know about classical particles. In this article we analyze the origin of this paradox. We shall argue that in the classical limit classical particles emerge , as new entities that do not correspond to the “particle indices” defined in quantum mechanics. Put differently, we show that the quantum mechanical symmetrization postulates do not pertain to particles , as we know them from classical physics, but rather to indices that have a merely formal significance. This conclusion raises the question of whether many discussions in the literature about the status of identical quantum particles have not been misguided.