Table of Contents
Physics Research International
Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 379604, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/379604
Research Article

The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as a Kind of “Atomic” Interpretation

1CONICET-Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio, Ciudad Universitaria, CP 1429, Buenos Aires, Argentina
2CONICET-Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Ciudad Universitaria, CP 1429, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Received 6 May 2011; Accepted 5 August 2011

Academic Editor: Weitao Yang

Copyright © 2011 Juan Sebastián Ardenghi and Olimpia Lombardi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. B. C. van Fraassen, “A formal approach to the philosophy of science,” in Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain, R. Colodny, Ed., University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa, USA, 1972. View at Google Scholar
  2. B. C. van Fraassen, “Semantic analysis of quantum logic,” in Contemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory, C. A. Hooker, Ed., Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1973. View at Google Scholar
  3. B. C. Van Fraassen, “The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,” Synthese, vol. 29, no. 1–4, pp. 291–309, 1974. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. G. Bacciagaluppi and M. Dickson, “Dynamics for modal interpretations,” Foundations of Physics, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1165–1201, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. O. Lombardi and M. Castagnino, “A modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 380–443, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. Castagnino and O. Lombardi, “The role of the Hamiltonian in the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Journal of Physics, vol. 128, Article ID 012014, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. J. S. Ardenghi, M. Castagnino, and O. Lombardi, “Quantum mechanics: Modal interpretation and Galilean transformations,” Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 1023–1045, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. O. Lombardi, M. Castagnino, and J. S. Ardenghi, “Quantum mechanics: Interpretation and invariance,” Theoria: Revista de Teoria Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 5–28, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. O. Lombardi, M. Castagnino, and J. S. Ardenghi, “The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation and the Galilean covariance of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 93–103, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. O. Lombardi, S. Fortin, J. S. Ardenghi, and M. Castagnino, Introduction to the Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Nova Science, New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  11. S. Kochen and E. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, vol. 17, pp. 59–87, 1967. View at Google Scholar
  12. D. Dieks and P. E. Vermaas, The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998.
  13. R. Clifton, “The Properties of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 371–398, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. D. Dieks, “Preferred factorizations and consistent property attribution,” in Quantum Measurement: Beyond Paradox, R. Healey and G. Hellman, Eds., University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Mo, USA, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  15. N. L. Harshman and S. Wickramasekara, “Galilean and dynamical invariance of entanglement in particle scattering,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 98, no. 8, Article ID 080406, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. N. L. Harshman and S. Wickramasekara, “Tensor product structures, entanglement, and particle scattering,” Open Systems and Information Dynamics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 341–351, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  17. P. E. Vermaas, “Unique transition probabilities in the modal interpretation,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 133–159, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  18. A. Elby, “Why “modal“ interpretations of quantum mechanics don't solve the measurement problem,” Foundations of Physics Letters, vol. 6, pp. 5–19, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  19. D. Albert and B. Loewer, “Non-ideal measurements,” Foundations of Physics Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 297–305, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  20. O. Lombardi, “The central role of the Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics: decoherence and interpretation,” Manuscrito, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 307–349, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  21. O. Lombardi, S. Fortin, M. Castagnino, and J. S. Ardenghi, “Compatibility between environment-induced decoherence and the modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Philosophy of Science. In press.
  22. K. Brading and E. Castellani, “Symmetries and invariances in classical physics,” in Philosophy of Physics, J. Butterfield and J. Earman, Eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  23. H. Minkowski, “Space and time,” in The Principle of Relativity. A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity, W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffrey, Eds., Dover, New York, NY, USA, 1923. View at Google Scholar
  24. H. Weyl, Symmetry, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1952.
  25. K. Brading and E. Castellani, Eds., Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.
  26. J. Earman, “Gauge matters,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 69, pp. S209–S220, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  27. J. Earman, “Laws, symmetry, and symmetry breaking: Invariance, conservation principles, and objectivity,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 1227–1241, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics (Fields, Particles, Algebras), Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1993.
  29. J. M. Lévi-Leblond, “The pedagogical role and epistemological significance of group theory in quantum mechanics,” Nuovo Cimento, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 99–143, 1974. View at Google Scholar
  30. L. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development, World Scientific, Singapore, 1998.
  31. J. S. Ardenghi, M. Castagnino, and R. Campoamor-Stursberg, “The nonrelativistic limit of (central-extended) Poincaŕ group and some consequences for quantum actualization,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 50, no. 10, Article ID 103526, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. J. S. Ardenghi, M. Castagnino, and O. Lombardi, “Modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of quantum mechanics and Casimir operators: the road toward quantum field theory,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 774–791, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. H. Georgi, Lie Algebras in Particle Physics: From Isospin to Unified Theories, Benjamin-Cummings, Reading, Mass, USA, 1982.