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

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

Principle theories, constructive theories, and explanation in modern physics

Wesley Van Camp

Published Jan 23, 2011• 22 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/j.shpsb.2010.12.002

Related papers

What Feynman could not yet use: the generalised Hong–Ou–Mandel experiment to improve the QED explanation of the Pauli exclusion principle

Massimiliano Malgieri, Antonio Tenni, Pasquale Onorato +1 more

Abstract In this paper we present a reasoning line for introducing the Pauli exclusion principle in the context of an introductory course on quantum theory based on the sum over paths approach. We start from the argument originally introduced by Feynman in ‘ QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter ’ and improve it by discussing with students modern experimental evidence from the famous Hong–Ou–Mandel experiment with indistinguishable photons and its generalised version using electrons. The experiments can be analysed in a rather simple way using Feynman’s method of ‘arrow multiplication’ for treating processes involving more than one quantum object. The approach described is especially relevant in the formation of high school physics teachers to the basics of modern physics.

Physics Education•Jul 11, 2016•5 citations

Interpretations of Modern Physics

Peter Mittelstaedt

Springer eBooks•Oct 4, 2012•0 citations

Interpretations of Modern Physics

Peter Mittelstaedt

Springer eBooks•Oct 9, 2010•0 citations

Einstein's Entanglement

W. M. Stuckey, Michael Silberstein, Timothy J. McDevitt

Abstract Einstein introduced quantum entanglement in 1935 and referred to it as “spooky actions at a distance” because it seemed to conflict with his theory of special relativity. Today, some refer to it as “the greatest mystery in physics,” and the 2022 Physics Nobel Prize was even awarded for experimental confirmation of the “spookiness.” While the mystery is experimentally well established, its solution remains elusive because it is commonly believed that quantum entanglement entails one or more of the following: In this book, a rigorous solution to the mystery of quantum entanglement is provided that entails none of those things. The key to this seemingly impossible feat is—to use Einstein’s own language—a “principle” explanation that foregoes the need for any “constructive” explanation of quantum entanglement, such as those listed above. Ironically, the proposed principle explanation is Einstein’s own relativity principle as grounded in quantum information theory. So, contrary to popular belief, quantum mechanics and special relativity are far from inconsistent, as both are a consequence of the exact same relativity principle.

•Jul 26, 2024•2 citations

Explanations from contemporary quantum theories: some ontological characteristics

Mladen Domazet

We begin by surveying the historical positions in different attempts to understand the material world since the rise of modern science, with specific focus on the role of Cartesian primary qualities in explanatory conceptualisation. Moreover the opening chapter argues that although explanatory narratives are essentially epistemological constructions, they require a general metaphysical backing through the explainer's and explainee's commitments to take the concepts and higher structures composed of them as directly referential. Two methodological perspectives on theory construction, Einstein's division into principle and constructive theories, are then delineated along the lines of their metaphysical and explanatory potential, and presented as the research instrument with which to approach the specific-case-study instances of quantum theory reconstruction. A specific strategy of arguing for scientific realism ('the simple transcendental strategy') is then presented and connected to the challenges that the phenomena (EPR correlations and 'teleportation') from the domain of contemporary quantum theory pose for it. The opening chapter concludes with a survey of the general models of explanation and their position with respect to the principle-constructive dichotomy introduced above. Finally, an explanatory model containing extended material-like entities along with further primitives, universal laws of temporal evolution, is argued for. Consequently, in the interest of a wholesome realistic response to the sceptical challenge about the explanatory aims of science, we recommend that even the common sense conceptual framework replaces the extended material structure with 'generalised things' as re-identifiable invariants through change as the fundamental unit of the realist ontology.

arXiv:1103.0879•Mar 4, 2011•0 citations

The philosophy of physics

Max Planck, Walter Henry Johnston

•Nov 13, 2019•40 citations
Abstract In this paper we present a reasoning line for introducing the Pauli exclusion principle in the context of an introductory course on quantum theory based on the sum over paths approach. We start from the argument originally introduced by Feynman in ‘ QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter ’ and improve it by discussing with students modern experimental evidence from the famous Hong–Ou–Mandel experiment with indistinguishable photons and its generalised version using electrons. The experiments can be analysed in a rather simple way using Feynman’s method of ‘arrow multiplication’ for treating processes involving more than one quantum object. The approach described is especially relevant in the formation of high school physics teachers to the basics of modern physics.
Abstract Einstein introduced quantum entanglement in 1935 and referred to it as “spooky actions at a distance” because it seemed to conflict with his theory of special relativity. Today, some refer to it as “the greatest mystery in physics,” and the 2022 Physics Nobel Prize was even awarded for experimental confirmation of the “spookiness.” While the mystery is experimentally well established, its solution remains elusive because it is commonly believed that quantum entanglement entails one or more of the following: In this book, a rigorous solution to the mystery of quantum entanglement is provided that entails none of those things. The key to this seemingly impossible feat is—to use Einstein’s own language—a “principle” explanation that foregoes the need for any “constructive” explanation of quantum entanglement, such as those listed above. Ironically, the proposed principle explanation is Einstein’s own relativity principle as grounded in quantum information theory. So, contrary to popular belief, quantum mechanics and special relativity are far from inconsistent, as both are a consequence of the exact same relativity principle.
We begin by surveying the historical positions in different attempts to understand the material world since the rise of modern science, with specific focus on the role of Cartesian primary qualities in explanatory conceptualisation. Moreover the opening chapter argues that although explanatory narratives are essentially epistemological constructions, they require a general metaphysical backing through the explainer's and explainee's commitments to take the concepts and higher structures composed of them as directly referential. Two methodological perspectives on theory construction, Einstein's division into principle and constructive theories, are then delineated along the lines of their metaphysical and explanatory potential, and presented as the research instrument with which to approach the specific-case-study instances of quantum theory reconstruction. A specific strategy of arguing for scientific realism ('the simple transcendental strategy') is then presented and connected to the challenges that the phenomena (EPR correlations and 'teleportation') from the domain of contemporary quantum theory pose for it. The opening chapter concludes with a survey of the general models of explanation and their position with respect to the principle-constructive dichotomy introduced above. Finally, an explanatory model containing extended material-like entities along with further primitives, universal laws of temporal evolution, is argued for. Consequently, in the interest of a wholesome realistic response to the sceptical challenge about the explanatory aims of science, we recommend that even the common sense conceptual framework replaces the extended material structure with 'generalised things' as re-identifiable invariants through change as the fundamental unit of the realist ontology.