Of the many counter intuitive quirks of quantum mechanics, the strangest quirk is perhaps the notion of quantum entanglement. Very roughly, quantum entanglement a phenomenon where the state of a large system cannot be described by the state of the smaller systems that compose it. On the standard metaphysical interpretation of quantum entanglement, this is taken to show that there exists emergent properties1. If this standard interpretation is correct, it seems that physics paints a far different picture of the world then commonsense leads one to believe.
In An Introduction to The Philosophy of Physics, Marc Lange offers a novel interpretation of entangled quantum systems, a view that may not have these consequences. However, this interpretation seems to have interesting consequences of its own. In this paper I will formulate and examine Lange interpretation of quantum entanglement, and attempt to motivate it. In section I, I will give a brief sketch of quantum entanglement and what it's standard taken to mean. In section II, I'll discuss Lange's interpretation, and how it commits one to the existence of multiply located objects, and reasons one might not be happy with this conclusion. Finally, In section III, I'll argue that one might find motivation for Lange's view on other grounds, namely, as Lange's view preserves the notion of the ontological priority of parts to their wholes.
I. Quantum Entanglement
In quantum mechanics the state of physical systems2 can be represented by a vector |Ψ>, in a vector space, V.3 Each measurable property of a system corresponds to an orthonormal basis of V, where each basis vector corresponds to a possible value of the property. The sums and differences of vectors...
... middle of paper ...
...of prior to the whole, it seems that the best way to avoid this argument is to adopt an alternative interpretation of entanglement. And insofar as one might be motivated to defend that thesis, one can be motivated to adopt the entensional intrepretation.
At the end of the day, there certainty is something intuitively strange about admitting into our ontology objects that entend. On the other hand, thinking that composite objects are more fundamental than the parts they are composed of is intuitively strange. The only apparent way out of endorsing the latter thesis is the former. It's up to one's own philosophical conscience how to weigh these two considerations. However at bare minimum, there is at least some reason to adopt the entensional interpretation of quantum entanglement, and that makes this alternative worthy of serious consideration.
... succeed, what are the consequences of such freedom? Will we get trapped in a plethora of paradoxes and multiple universes that will destroy the fabric of the universe? Einstein said that nothing travels faster than the speed of light, but Khalili negates this statement, using the behavior of entangled particles to counter Einstein.
Holtzman, Jack M. "A note on Schrodinger's cat and the unexpected hanging paradox." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science v39. 1988. 397-401.
The amazing transformation the study of physics underwent in the two decades following the turn of the 20th century is a well-known story. Physicists, on the verge of declaring the physical world “understood”, discovered that existing theories failed to describe the behavior of the atom. In a very short time, a more fundamental theory of the ...
That the world is, is apparent, but what the world is, is neither evident, nor easy to comprehend. The theoretical analysis of the universe has still been the hardest problem for metaphysics the object of which is to determine the nature of things and relations and to discover the ultimate principle ordering all things and changes into one world.
When it first appeared on the scene in the philosophy of mind, the concept of supervenience was warmly embraced. Supervenience was thought to capture the idea of dependence without reduction and thus promised to provide a useful framework for discussions of mental causation, phenomenal experience, and, more generally, the relation between the mental and the physical. Since then a great deal has changed. Much careful work has been done to show that philosophical applications of supervenience do not, in fact, achieve what they were thought to. For example, Jaegwon Kim, whose name is closely associated with the concept, has shown convincingly that the standard formulations of supervenience in the philosophy of mind (weak, strong, and global) do not capture the idea of psychophysical dependence. (1) Many philosophers believed that supervenience could express a form of physicalism, but since the concept of dependence is a minimal req...
“All manner of nonphysical phenomena may coexist with [physical phenomena], even to the extent of sharing the same space-time, provided only that the nonphysical phenomena are entirely inefficacious with respect to the physical phenomena.” (p. 24)
...hes. In Alice and Quantumland, the principles or concepts of quantum mechanics are compared with the macro world; one can find great similarities and even greater dissimilarities between the world wherein electrons rule, and the world wherein human beings live. The author, Robert Gilmore, creates an allegory based off the principles of quantum mechanics using the original story of Alice in Wonderland. Through Alice’s adventure in Quantumland she comes across some ideas or features that contradict real world ideas. These ideas are the following: Electrons have no distinguishing spin, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, Superposition, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and . All of these features are comprised essentially of the same universal concept--that the quantum world does not require definity whereas the macro world uses it as a pillar of society and civilization.
In this paper I will present an argument I have found in the Second Analogy for the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event. I will begin by briefly describing Robert Paul W...
Despite the detail and thought that went into both Pereboom and Kanes’ work, the debate of free will is nowhere near being settled. Regardless, it is the possible ideas and theories such as these that allow us to explore and understand the concepts that make up our universe.
I will commence by defining what makes a mental state conscious. This will be done aiming to distinguish what type of state we are addressing when we speak of a mental phenomenon and how is it, that can have a plausible explanation. By taking this first approach, we are able to build a base for our main argument to be clear enough and so that we can remain committed to.
Quantum Mechanics This chapter compares the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics. It shows that relativity mainly concerns that microscopic world, while quantum mechanics deals with the microscopic world.
One question about the QBT comes when reality itself is considered; "why can't reality be a quantum system?" Well, there are a few explanations. One is that quantum systems are usually very small. Quantum mechanics cannot be used to explain the universe as a whole in all venues, however, can explain the movements of an electron, or the actions of a black hole. Another reason why reality cannot be explained by quantum mechanics is that quantum mechanics call for a holistic interpretation of the system. Reality, then, is much too large for all of it to be encompassed in one interpretation. Non-locality, another feature of quantum mechanics, prevents reality from being explained by quantum mechanics. Non-locality means that distance is not an issue in the effects of one part of a system on another. For example, curtains might not be blowing because your window is open and there is a wind, they might be blowing because somewhere in Russia, a woman is beating her rugs.
1. The world, including man, at its most essential level is composed of quanta in motion
Quantum thermodynamic scientists are aiming to explore the behavior outside the lines of conventional thermodynamics. This exploration could be used for functional cases, which include “improving lab-based refrigeration techniques, creating batteries with enhanced capabilities and refining technology of quantum computing.” (Merali P.1). However, this field is still in an early state of exploration. Experiments, including the one that is being performed at Oxford University, are just beginning to test these predictions. “A flurry of attempts has been made to calculate how thermodynamics and the quantum theory might combine” (Merali P. 1). However, quantum physicist Peter Hänggi stated that “there is far too much theory and not enough experiment” (Merali P.1) in this field of study, which is why its credibility is undermined. Nevertheless, people are starting to put more effort into understanding quantum thermodynamics in order to make
Stemming from the first years of the 20th century, quantum mechanics has had a monumental influence on modern science. First explored by Max Planck in the 1900s, Einstein modified and applied much of the research in this field. This begs the question, “how did Einstein contribute to the development and research of quantum mechanics?” Before studying how Einstein’s research contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, it is important to examine the origins of the science itself. Einstein took much of Planck’s experimental “quantum theory” research and applied it in usable ways to existing science. He also greatly contributed to the establishment of the base for quantum mechanics research today. Along with establishing base research in the field, Einstein’s discoveries have been modified and updated to apply to our more advanced understanding of this science today. Einstein greatly contributed to the foundation of quantum mechanics through his research, and his theories and discoveries remain relevant to science even today.