This is the second of two papers responding (somewhat belatedly) to ‘recent’ commentary on various aspects of hyperplane dependence (HD) by several authors. In this paper I focus on the issues of the general need for HD dynamical variables, the identification of physically meaningful localizable properties, the basis vectors representing such properties and the relationship between the concepts of ‘localizable within’ and ‘measureable within’. The authors responded to here are de Koning, Halvorson, Clifton and Wallace. In the first paper of this set (Fleming 2003b) I focused on the issues of the relations of HD to state reduction and unitary evolution and addressed comments of Maudlin and Myrvold. The central conclusion argued for in this second paper (§§ 5, 7) is the non-existence of strictly localizable objects or measurement processes and the consequent undermining of the principle of universal microcausality. This contrasts with the existence of strictly localizable properties and results in the consequent priority of the concept of ‘localizable within’ over ‘measureable within’. The paper opens with discussions of the need for and status of HD dynamical variables which are responses to anonymous queries.
This is the second of two papers responding (somewhat belatedly) to ‘recent’ commentary on various aspects of hyperplane dependence (HD) by several authors. In this paper I focus on the issues of the general need for HD dynamical variables, the identification of physically meaningful localizable properties, the basis vectors representing such properties and the relationship between the concepts of ‘localizable within’ and ‘measureable within’. The authors responded to here are de Koning, Halvorson, Clifton and Wallace. In the first paper of this set (Fleming 2003b) I focused on the issues of the relations of HD to state reduction and unitary evolution and addressed comments of Maudlin and Myrvold. The central conclusion argued for in this second paper (§§ 5, 7) is the non-existence of strictly localizable objects or measurement processes and the consequent undermining of the principle of universal microcausality. This contrasts with the existence of strictly localizable properties and results in the consequent priority of the concept of ‘localizable within’ over ‘measureable within’. The paper opens with discussions of the need for and status of HD dynamical variables which are responses to anonymous queries.
This is the first of two papers responding (somewhat belatedly) to ‘recent’ commentary on various aspects of hyperplane dependence (HD) by several authors. In this paper I focus on the issues of the relations of HD to state reduction and unitary evolution. The authors who’s comments I address here are Maudlin and Myrvold. In the second paper of this set I focus on HD dynamical variables and localizable properties and measurements and address comments of de Koning, Halvorson, Clifton and Wallace. Each paper ends with some reflections on the implications of HD for the ontology of Minkowski space-time. To set the stage for my responses, I begin this paper with some general position statements designed to correct what seem to be widespread and erroneous construals of some of my views. Two central points are argued for in this first paper. First, dynamical evolution occurs not only within foliations of Minkowski space-time. Rather the transition from the physical state of affairs on any one hyperplane to any other, whether the hyperplanes intersect or are parallel, is always an instance of dynamical evolution between them, generated by some active combination of boost-like transformations and/or time-like translations and/or state reductions and ‘reconstructions’. This point gives rise to a generalized conception of a history of dynamical evolution, allowing for the use of parameterized families of hyperplanes that multiply cover some portions of space-time. Nevertheless, and this is the second central point, for any two generalized histories, H and H’, the quantum states for a system on all the hyperplanes of H from the asymptotic past up to some hyperplane, h, determine the quantum states for the system on all the hyperplanes of H’ from the asymptotic past up to any hyperplane, h’, such that h’ lies to the past of all those state reduction regions that lie to the future of all hyperplanes of H that are ‘earlier’ than h. Consideration of these results should defuse concerns that have been voiced about the coherence and consistency of HD. A position closely related to the second point (albeit restricted to the comparison of histories confined to foliations) has already been argued for by Myrvold (2002).
I begin with some reminiscences of my delayed appreciation of the significance of John Bell'swork. Preparatory remarks on my general perspective concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics are presented. I argue against the conflation of hyperplane dependence with frame dependence, which occurs occasionally; and that the ‘elements of reality’ of Hardy's famous gedankenexperiment can retain their Lorentz invariance, i.e., their frame independence, if one recognizes the hyperplane dependence of their localization, which follows. Finally, I criticize a view of the nature of Lorentz transformations presented by Asher Peres and co-workers which conflicts with the view employed here. Initial Reactions to Bell's Work Like many others in the physics community, I was late to come to an appreciation of the significance of John Bell's papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics (QM). But unlike many of those, my indifference to Bell was not due to a dismissive attitude to foundational studies per se or to an intransigent commitment to some version of Copenhagenism. In 1971, for example, I was very much involved in the international conference on QM foundations at my home institution, where Bell presented the paper “On the hypothesis that the Schrödinger equation is exact,” published later as [1], but I paid minimal attention to his presentation. The cause of this poor judgment (as I eventually came to realize it was) was that I was already convinced that the Schrödinger equation was not exact in the sense Bell meant, but must be augmented with primordial state reductions. I was among those who, in the words of Bob Wald, as reported by Roger Penrose [2], were inclined to “take it seriously,” the QM state that is, and, consequently, could not “really believe in it,” i.e., really believe that purely unitary QM is a complete theory. I was delighted when the experimental tests of Bell's inequalities upheld the QM predictions. I was, furthermore, uninterested in hidden variable reconstructions of QM, such as Bohmian mechanics [3] and Many Worlds interpretations [4, 5], that were, in principle, not susceptible to empirical tests of their novel details.
Preface. In defense of dogma: why there cannot be a relativistic quantum mechanics of (localizable) particles D.B. Malament. Just how radical is hyperplane dependence? G. Fleming. Is there superluminal causation in relativistic quantum field theory? M. Redei. EPR, relativity, and the GHZ experiment C. Pagonis, et al. Hidden quantum non-locality N.D. Mermin. Royer's measurements - the rise and fall of (yet another) signalling scheme I. Pitowsky. Tails of Schrodinger's cat D.Z. Albert, B. Loewer. Wavefunction collapse models with nonwhite noise P. Pearle. The emergence of classical properties from quantum mechanics L.E. Ballentine. Relativism S. Saunders. Wave and particle concepts in quantum field theory P. Teller. The conceptual relation between standard quantum mechanics and quantum field theory D. Robinson. What measurement problem? J.T. Cushing. Bovine metaphysics: remarks on the significance of the gravitational phase effect in quantum mechanics H.R. Brown. Exotic (quixotic?) applications of Bohm theory R. Weingard. Complementarity and the orthodox (Dirac-von Neumann) interpretation of quantum mechanics J. Bub. Logical reflections on the Kochen-Specker theorem J.L. Bell. Construction of quantum mechanics via commutative operations S. Kochen.
The localization problem in relativistic quantum theory has persisted for more than seven decades, yet it is largely unknown and continues to perplex even those well-versed in the subject. At the heart of this problem lies a fundamental conflict between localizability and relativistic causality, which can also be construed as part of the broader dichotomy between measurement and unitary dynamics. This article provides a historical review of the localization problem in one-particle relativistic quantum mechanics, clarifying some persistent misconceptions in the literature, and underscoring the antinomy between causal dynamics and localized observables.
Few, if any, issues in physics have engendered as much discussion as the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. It is generally agreed that the `normal' dynamical evolution of the state vector in quantum mechanics is given by a unitary map. The linearity of this map implies that the state vector will, in general, be found in a superposition of eigenstates of a given observable (or, similarly, that the density matrix describing a subsystem will not correspond to a definite value of this observable). However, when we make a measurement of an observable, we always obtain a define value—although it is impossible to predict with certainty which value will be obtained. The traditional response to this issue is to postulate that when a measurement is made, the wavefunction `collapses' to an eigenstate of the observable being measured, perhaps due to the inherent classicality of the measuring apparatus (Bohr), or to the consciousness of the observer (Wigner), or possibly to some modification of quantum dynamics that occurs even when observations are not being made. The main motivation for the Everett (`many worlds') interpretation is to avoid introducing any such collapse postulate. This volume commemorates the 50th anniversary of the publication of Everett's paper in 1957 and contains 20 original articles as well as the transcripts of several discussions that took place at meetings devoted to the Everett interpretation at Oxford University and the Perimeter Institute. The attractiveness of the Everett interpretation is very succinctly summarized by a sentence from Vaidman's contribution (p 582): `The collapse, with its randomness, non-locality and the lack of a well-defined moment of occurrence, is such an ugly scar on quantum theory, that I, along with many others, am ready to follow Everett and deny its existence.' But the main drawback of the interpretation is then equally succinctly stated in the next sentence: `The price is the many worlds interpretation, i.e., the existence of numerous parallel worlds.' In other words, if the state vector evolves to have a non-zero amplitude for two different values of an observable that I `measure' (i.e., interact with in an appropriate way), each of these alternatives remains equally `real', i.e., there is a `branch' of the wavefunction in which the observable takes the first value and I believe that it has this first value and a branch of the wavefunction where it takes the second value and I believe that it has this second value. Each of these `me's' sees a definite value for the observable, thus nicely accounting for what I believe I experience without invoking collapse. But then, it seems that I have to believe that there are many other `me's' around—even if they are very difficult for this particular me to access—and no way I can predict which `me' I will be in the future. Indeed, Saunders writes on p 192, `If Alice is a person (of course she is) then we must say, even prior to branching at tj that there are many Alices present, atom for atom duplicates...Alice should be uncertain after all— each Alice should be uncertain—for each as of tj does not (and as a matter of principle, cannot) know which of these branching persons she is.' Thus, if taken seriously, the Everett viewpoint leads directly to questions like `What determines which ``me'' I am now and/or will feel that I am in the future?' The response `You are all of them' somehow doesn't seem satisfying, and further pursuit of these issues would seem to lead to questions as fruitless as questions like `Why am I ``me'' and not ``you''?' I believe that this accounts for why the Everett interpretation does not have universal appeal. But enough of `me' for now (more later); let's discuss the book. Unlike many edited volumes and conference proceedings in physics—which often consist of hastily slapped-together re-hashes of previous papers—this volume meets very high standards in the choice of topics and authors and in the quality of the writing. Although each of the articles is closely tied in with the Everett interpretation, there are many articles of considerable value and interest in their own right, such as the discussion of quasiclassical realms by Hartle and and the discussion of the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation by Valentini. There is also an excellent introduction by Saunders to the quantum measurement problem and the main issues that arise in the Everett interpretation. A central issue in the Everett interpretation is the status of the `Born rule', which asserts that, for state ψ, the probability of obtaining a particular outcome of a measurement is ||Pψ||2, where P is the projection operator onto the eigensubspace associated with the measurement outcome. In traditional interpretations, the Born rule is simply postulated as part of the collapse hypothesis. In the Everett interpretation, it is far from obvious that the Born rule even has any meaning—if all outcomes occur, how can one talk about the probability of a particular outcome? Given the importance of this issue, it is highly appropriate that four chapters of the book (by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold) are devoted to addressing probability and the Born rule from the Everett viewpoint, and three chapters (by Kent, Albert, and Price) are devoted to criticising these views. As indicated by the above quote from Saunders' article, uncertainty and probability can enter the Everett interpretation via each Alice being uncertain as to which Alice she is or will be. However, in view of the difficulties to which this kind of argumentation will lead, it is perhaps not surprising that in the 123 pages of combined discussion by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold, there are only fleeting references to the use of probability along these lines. Rather, the approach taken is reminiscent of that of adept politicians: if you can't answer a question, then answer a different question, and answer it with conviction and detail. Instead of considering probabilities of outcomes—a highly problematical notion when all of the possible outcomes actually occur—consider only decision theory issues. In particular, Wallace gives a precise and detailed mathematical proof that, under certain hypotheses, the only rational strategy that a quantum observer can follow in making decisions is to weight the possible outcomes by Born rule probabilities. To illustrate this more graphically, suppose tomorrow's weather were determined by some quantum mechanical, Stern–Gerlach-like process. I would like to know whether it is likely to rain tomorrow. However, when I ask an Everett follower (who knows the state vector and has done the Born rule calculation), all she will tell me in direct response to my question is that `it will rain and it won't rain.' Nevertheless, she is willing tell me whether or not it is rational for me to take an umbrella. I suppose that if she tells me that it would be highly irrational for me to take an umbrella, I can take the hint and deduce that it is very unlikely to rain. However, there does seem something wrong with the fact that she is not allowed to say this directly. In any case, if the conclusion of a mathematically correct argument is that rational decision strategies require the Born rule, then there must be quite a bit lying in the assumptions. The articles by Kent, Albert, and Price do a good job of fleshing out these assumptions and pointing out the weaknesses and flaws in the probability and decision theory discussions within the Everett framework. I hope it is clear from what I have written above that this is an outstanding volume, which should be of great interest to anyone interested in the foundations of quantum theory. Indeed, I feel quite fortunate to be the particular `me' that happens to exist in the same branch of the wavefunction of the universe in which this book was published.
Quantum models of concept combinations have been successful in representing various experimental situations that cannot be accommodated by traditional models based on classical probability or fuzzy set theory. In many cases, the focus has been on producing a representation that fits experimental results to validate quantum models. However, these representations are not always consistent with the cognitive modeling principles. Moreover, some important issues related to the representation of concepts such as the dimensionality of the realization space, the uniqueness of solutions, and the compatibility of measurements, have been overlooked. In this paper, we provide a dimensional analysis of the realization space for the two-sector Fock space model for conjunction of concepts focusing on the first and second sectors separately. We then introduce various representation of concepts that arise from the use of unitary operators in the realization space. In these concrete representations, a pair of concepts and their combination are modeled by a single conceptual state, and by a collection of exemplar-dependent operators. Therefore, they are consistent with cognitive modeling principles. This framework not only provides a uniform approach to model an entire data set, but, because all measurement operators are expressed in the same basis, allows us to address the question of compatibility of measurements. In particular, we present evidence that it may be possible to predict non-commutative effects from partial measurements of conceptual combinations.