Independently Motivating the Kochen—Dieks Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

The distinguishing feature of ‘modal’ interpretations of quantum mechanics is their abandonment of the orthodox eigenstate–eigenvalue rule, which says that an observable possesses a definite value if and only if the system is in an eigenstate of that observable. Kochen's and Dieks' new biorthogonal decomposition rule for picking out which observables have definite values is designed specifically to overcome the chief problem generated by orthodoxy's rule, the measurement problem, while avoiding the no-hidden-variable theorems. Otherwise, their new rule seems completely ad hoc. The ad hoc charge can only be laid to rest if there is some way to give Kochen's and Dieks' rule for picking out which observables have definite values some independent motivation. And there is, or so I will argue here. Specifically, I shall show that theirs is the only rule able to save Schrödinger's cat from a fate worse than death, and sidestep the Bell–Kochen–Specker no-hidden-variables theorem, once we impose four independently natural conditions on such rules

[1]  Weber,et al.  Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. , 1986, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[2]  D. Dieks Resolution of the measurement problem through decoherence of the quantum state , 1989 .

[3]  D. Bohm A SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION OF THE QUANTUM THEORY IN TERMS OF "HIDDEN" VARIABLES. II , 1952 .

[4]  B. Loewer,et al.  Wanted Dead or Alive: Two Attempts to Solve Schrodinger's Paradox , 1990, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[5]  J. Neumann Mathematische grundlagen der Quantenmechanik , 1935 .

[6]  Richard Healey,et al.  The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation , 1991 .

[7]  Making Sense of the Kochen‐Dieks “No‐Collapse” Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Independent of the Measurement Problem , 1995 .

[8]  E. Specker,et al.  The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , 1967 .

[9]  Measurement and “beables” in quantum mechanics , 1991 .

[10]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics and its generalization to density operators , 1995 .

[11]  S. Barnett,et al.  Bell's inequality and the Schmidt decomposition , 1992 .

[12]  Rob Clifton,et al.  Getting contextual and nonlocal elements‐of‐reality the easy way , 1993 .

[13]  Frank Arntzenius Kochen's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics , 1990, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[14]  Paul Teller,et al.  Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View , 1991 .

[15]  J. Bell On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , 1966 .

[16]  M. Dickson Wavefunction Tails in the Modal Interpretation , 1994, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[17]  Dieks Modal interpretation of quantum mechanics, measurements, and macroscopic behavior. , 1994, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[18]  Making Sense of Approximate Decoherence , 1994, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[19]  B. D'espagnat Conceptual Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics , 1971 .