This series consists of talks in the area of Foundations of Quantum Theory. Seminar and group meetings will alternate.
In deBroglie-Bohm theory the quantum state plays the role of a guiding agent. In this seminar we will explore if this is a universal feature shared by all hidden variable theories or merely a peculiar feature of deBroglie-Bohm theory. We present the bare bones of a model in which the quantum state represents a probability distribution and does not act as a guiding agent. The theory is also psi-epistemic according to Spekken\'s and Harrigan\'s definition. For simplicity we develop the model for a 1D discrete lattice but the generalization to higher dimensions is straightforward.
We investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the Spekkens toy model for quantum states. We axiomatize the Spekkens toy model into a set of five axioms, regarding valid states, transformations, measurements and composition of systems. We present two relaxations of the Spekkens toy model, giving rise to two variant toy theories. By relaxing the axiom regarding valid transformations a group of toy operations is obtained that is equivalent to the projective extended Clifford Group for one and two qubits.
Set theory provides foundations of mathematics in the sense that all the mathematical notions like numbers, functions, relations, structures are defined in the axiomatic set theory called ZFC. Quantum set theory naturally extends ZFC to quantum logic. Hence, we can expect that quantum set theory provides mathematics based on quantum logic. In this talk, I will show a useful application of quantum set theory to quantum mechanics based on the fact that the real numbers constructed in quantum set theory exactly corresponds to the quantum observables.
I will comment on the prevailing atmosphere and attitudes that provoked the CJS theorem, aspects of the theorem itself, some features of the aftermath following the theorem and, finally, a critique of the relevance of the theorem based on my own research on position operators in Lorentz covariant quantum theory.
It is well known that the derivation of the Bell Inequality rests on two major assumptions, usually called outcome independence and parameter independence. Parameter independence seems to have a straightforward motivation: it expresses a non-signalling requirement between space-like separated sites and is thus motivated by locality. The status of outcome independence is much les clear. Many authors have argued that this assumption too expresses a locality requirement, in the form of a \'screening off\' condition.
TBA
The focus of this talk is a particular feature of the statistical behavior of elementary particles, simple composite systems of them and the quantum probability theory to which this behavior gives rise. The standard interpretation of a generalized probability theory of the sort found in quantum mechanics is that its probabilities are probabilities of propositions belonging to particles, where a proposition belongs to a particle if its constituent dynamical property is a possible property of the particle.
Some theoretical physicists, Chris Fuchs among them, take quantum mechanics to go hand in hand with an anti-representationalist account of truth and reality such as that offered by the American pragmatists - William James, Charles Peirce, Richard Rorty, etc. On this view, scientific theories are instruments, rather than mirrors of the real world. In this talk, I’ll suggest that if the quantum physicist is to team up with the pragmatist, he’d do best to join not with James and Rorty, who see the world as radically plastic or malleable.
Consider the quantum predictions for EPR-type measurements on two systems with Hilbert space of dimension at least 3 in any maximally entangled state. I show that the only possible hidden variables model of these probabilities that satisfies both Shimony\'s and Jarrett\'s condition of parameter independence (or `locality\') and Jones and Clifton\'s condition of conditional parameter independence (or `constrained locality\') is trivial, i.e. given by the quantum probabilities themselves. I shall attempt to discuss also the meaning of the conditions and of this result.