Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T15:42:08.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Measurement and metaphysics

from Part II - Meanings and implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2015

By
Peter J. Lewis
Edited by
Shan Gao
Peter J. Lewis
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Shan Gao
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Get access

Summary

Introduction

It is a prima facie reasonable assumption that if a physical quantity is measurable, then it corresponds to a genuine physical property of the measured system. You can measure a person's mass because human beings have such a property. You can measure the average mass of a group of people because groups of people have such a collective property. And so on.

Now it would be truly surprising – miraculous, perhaps – if you could determine the average mass of a group of people by making measurements on just one of them. To ascribe such a statistical property to an individual looks like a category mistake. At first glance, protective measurements seem to pull off just such a miracle, determining, for example, the expectation value of position for an ensemble of particles via a measurement performed on one of them. The lesson we are supposed to draw, of course, is that expectation values are not statistical properties at all, despite their name. Rather than being an average over an ensemble of systems, the expectation value of position for a particle is a physical property of the individual system, and the wave function, as the bearer of these properties, is a physical entity (Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman, 1993).

The protective measurement procedure has been challenged (Uffink, 1999; Gao, 2013; Uffink, 2013), but for present purposes I will assume that protective measurements exist, at least in principle, that are capable of revealing “statistical” properties like expectation values in a single measurement. My aim here is not to challenge the existence of such a physical procedure, but rather to explore the arguments that connect the existence of protective measurements with conclusions concerning the nature of physical reality. What protective measurements are sup- posed to show is that “epistemological” interpretations of the quantum state are untenable – that the wave function of a system must instead be interpreted “onto- logically” (Aharonov, Anandan and Vaidman, 1993: 4617).

Type
Chapter
Information
Protective Measurement and Quantum Reality
Towards a New Understanding of Quantum Mechanics
 , pp. 93 - 106
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J. and Vaidman, L. (1993). Meaning of the wave function. Physical Review A, 47, 4616–1626.Google Scholar
Aharonov, Y., Englert, B. G. and Scully, M. O. (1999). Protective measurements and Bohm trajectories. Physics Letters A, 263, 137–146.Google Scholar
Albert, D. Z. (1992). Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200. Reprinted in Bell (1987).Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1971). Introduction to the hidden-variable question. Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: Proceedings of the 49th International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”. New York: Academic, pp. 171–181. Reprinted in Bell (1987).
Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics:Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. R. and Wallace, D. (2005). Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie–Bohm loses out to Everett. Foundations of Physics, 35, 517–540.Google Scholar
Cramer, J. G. (1986). The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 647–687.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D. (1999). Quantum theory of probability and decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A455, 3129–3137.Google Scholar
Dickson, M. (1995). An empirical reply to empiricism: protective measurement opens the door for quantum realism. Philosophy of Science, 62, 122–140.Google Scholar
Dorato, M. and Esfeld, M. (2010). GRW as an ontology of dispositions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41, 41–49.Google Scholar
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S. and Zanghi, N. (1996). Bohmian mechanics and the meaning of the wave function. In Experimental Metaphysics: Quantum Mechanical Studies in Honour of Abner Shimony, R. S., Cohen, M., Horne and J., Stachel (eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 25–38.
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?Physical Review, 47, 777–780.Google Scholar
Gao, S. (2013). On Uffink's criticism of protective measurements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 513–518.Google Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2013). The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kochen, S. and Specker, E. P. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal ofMathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.Google Scholar
Price, H. (1994). A neglected route to realism about quantum mechanics. Mind, 103, 303–336.Google Scholar
Price, H. and Wharton, K. (2013). Dispelling the quantum spooks – a clue that Einstein missed? arXiv:1307.7744.
Sutherland, R. I. (2008). Causally symmetric Bohm model. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39, 782–805.Google Scholar
Uffink, J. (1999). How to protect the interpretation of the wave function against protective measurements. Physical Review A, 60, 3474–3481.Google Scholar
Uffink, J. (2013), Reply to Gao's “On Uffink's criticism of protective measurements”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 519–523.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. (2012). The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wharton, K. (2010). A novel interpretation of the Klein–Gordon equation. Foundations of Physics, 40, 313–332.Google Scholar
Wharton, K. B., Miller, D. J. and Price, H. (2011). Action duality: a constructive principle for quantum foundations. Symmetry, 3, 524–540.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×