Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

"Charge without Charge" in the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Mark F. Sharlow

Published Dec 1, 2007• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

In this note I examine some implications of stochastic interpretations of quantum mechanics for the concept of "charge without charge" presented by Wheeler and Misner. I argue that if a stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics were correct, then certain shortcomings of the "charge without charge" concept could be overcome.

Related papers

On the Interpretation and Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

Anton Zeilinger

When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical

•Jan 1, 2008•26 citations

Non-locality in the stochastic interpretation of the quantum theory

David Böhm

This article reviews the stochastic interpretation of the quantum theory and shows in detail how it implies non-locality On presente une revue de l'interpretation stochastique de la theorie quantique et on montre en detail en quoi elle implique une non-localite

Annales De L Institut Henri Poincare-physique Theorique•Jan 1, 1988•3 citations

Decoherence and its Role in Interpretations of Quantum Physics

Simon Matthew Thomas Newey

The purpose of this thesis is to examine different conceptions of decoherence and their significance within interpretations of quantum mechanics. I set out three different conceptions of decoherence found in the literature and examine the relations between them. I argue that only the weakest of these conceptions is empirically well supported, and that the other two rely on claims about the structure of the histories (robust patterns within the wavefunction) which we occupy which require justification. \n \nI also examine the ways in which conceptions of decoherence are used to solve aspects of the quantum measurement problem and support modern interpretations of quantum mechanics. I focus particularly on Wallace's Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics. I argue that while decoherence is generally successful in supporting this interpretation in a variety of ways, the very strong conception of decoherence on which he relies is itself difficult to justify. \n \nI consider a variety of possible approaches to justifying the use of this strong conception of decoherence and argue that many of them are either unconvincing, or rely on controversial cosmological claims. Finally, I suggest that the best way to justify the use of this strong conception of decoherence is by appealing directly to its indispensability to an otherwise very attractive interpretation of quantum mechanics.

•Feb 1, 2019•1 citation

Probability and quantum mechanics

Daniel J. Velleman

We discuss the use of probability theory in quantum mechanics, and suggest that there are some interpretations of quantum mechanics in which probabilities may be used inappropriately.

American Journal of Physics•Nov 1, 1998•4 citations

Causal Symmetry and the Transactional Interpretation

Evans, Peter W.

Cramer's (1986) transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics posits retrocausal influences in quantum processes in an attempt to alleviate some of the interpretational difficulties of the Copenhagen interpretation. In response to Cramer's theory, Maudlin (2002) has levelled a significant objection against any retrocausal model of quantum mechanics. I present here an examination of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics and an analysis of Maudlin's critique. I claim that, although Maudlin correctly isolates the weaknesses of Cramer's theory, his justification for this weakness is off the mark. The cardinal vice of the transactional interpretation is its failure to provide a sufficient causal structure to constrain uniquely the behaviour of quantum systems and I contend that this is due to a lack of causal symmetry in the theory. In contrast, Maudlin attributes this shortcoming to retrocausality itself and emphasises an apparently fundamental incongruence between retrocausality and his own metaphysical picture of reality. I conclude by arguing that the problematic aspect of this incongruence is Maudlin's assumptions about what is appropriate for such a metaphysical picture.

arXiv:1011.2287•Nov 10, 2010•1 citation

John Wheeler letter to Max Jammer, 19-March-1972

JOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER

In the early 1970s, physicist and philosopher of physics Max Jammer began working on a follow up to his classic 1966 book, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. Jammer hoped that the new book, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective (1974), could contain some additional information on the Everett interpretation. This letter is Wheeler's reply to a letter from Jammer seeking Everett's contact information. It is interesting to note that the address Wheeler provides is incorrect – which explains why the letter in the archive from Jammer to Everett is dated almost 18 months later, with Jammer attributing Everett's correct address to DeWitt. It seems that Wheeler and Everett were largely not in contact by this time, though they would meet and correspond periodically over the next five or six years.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations
In this note I examine some implications of stochastic interpretations of quantum mechanics for the concept of "charge without charge" presented by Wheeler and Misner. I argue that if a stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics were correct, then certain shortcomings of the "charge without charge" concept could be overcome.
When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical
The purpose of this thesis is to examine different conceptions of decoherence and their significance within interpretations of quantum mechanics. I set out three different conceptions of decoherence found in the literature and examine the relations between them. I argue that only the weakest of these conceptions is empirically well supported, and that the other two rely on claims about the structure of the histories (robust patterns within the wavefunction) which we occupy which require justification. \n \nI also examine the ways in which conceptions of decoherence are used to solve aspects of the quantum measurement problem and support modern interpretations of quantum mechanics. I focus particularly on Wallace's Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics. I argue that while decoherence is generally successful in supporting this interpretation in a variety of ways, the very strong conception of decoherence on which he relies is itself difficult to justify. \n \nI consider a variety of possible approaches to justifying the use of this strong conception of decoherence and argue that many of them are either unconvincing, or rely on controversial cosmological claims. Finally, I suggest that the best way to justify the use of this strong conception of decoherence is by appealing directly to its indispensability to an otherwise very attractive interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Cramer's (1986) transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics posits retrocausal influences in quantum processes in an attempt to alleviate some of the interpretational difficulties of the Copenhagen interpretation. In response to Cramer's theory, Maudlin (2002) has levelled a significant objection against any retrocausal model of quantum mechanics. I present here an examination of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics and an analysis of Maudlin's critique. I claim that, although Maudlin correctly isolates the weaknesses of Cramer's theory, his justification for this weakness is off the mark. The cardinal vice of the transactional interpretation is its failure to provide a sufficient causal structure to constrain uniquely the behaviour of quantum systems and I contend that this is due to a lack of causal symmetry in the theory. In contrast, Maudlin attributes this shortcoming to retrocausality itself and emphasises an apparently fundamental incongruence between retrocausality and his own metaphysical picture of reality. I conclude by arguing that the problematic aspect of this incongruence is Maudlin's assumptions about what is appropriate for such a metaphysical picture.
In the early 1970s, physicist and philosopher of physics Max Jammer began working on a follow up to his classic 1966 book, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. Jammer hoped that the new book, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective (1974), could contain some additional information on the Everett interpretation. This letter is Wheeler's reply to a letter from Jammer seeking Everett's contact information. It is interesting to note that the address Wheeler provides is incorrect – which explains why the letter in the archive from Jammer to Everett is dated almost 18 months later, with Jammer attributing Everett's correct address to DeWitt. It seems that Wheeler and Everett were largely not in contact by this time, though they would meet and correspond periodically over the next five or six years.