Rethinking Causality In Quantum Mechanics

Causality is central to understanding the mechanisms of nature: some event "A" is the cause of another event “B”. Surprisingly, causality does not follow this simple rule in quantum physics: due to to quantum superposition we might be led to believe that "A causes B” and that "B causes A”. This idea is not only important to the foundations of physics but also leads to practical advantages: a quantum circuit with such indefinite causality performs computationally better than one with definite causality. This thesis provides one of the first comprehensive introductions to quantum causality, and presents a number of advances. It provides an extension and generalization of a framework that enables us to study causality within quantum mechanics, thereby setting the stage for the rest of the work. This comprises: mathematical tools to define causality in terms of probabilities; computational tools to prove indefinite causality in an experiment; means to experimentally test particular causal structures; and finally an algorithm that detects the exact causal structure in an quantum experiment.

There is no sharp dividing line between the foundations of physics and philosophy of physics. This is especially true for quantum mechanics. The debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics has raged in both the scientific and philosophical communities since the 1920s and continues to this day. (We shall understand the unqualified term ‘quantum mechanics’ to mean the mathematical formalism, i. e. laws and rules by which empirical predictions and theoretical advances are made. ) There is a popular rendering of quantum mechanics which has been publicly endorsed by some well known physicists which says that quantum mechanics is not only 1 more weird than we imagine but is weirder than we can imagine. Although it is readily granted that quantum mechanics has produced some strange and counter-intuitive results, the case will be presented in this book that quantum mechanics is not as weird as we might have been led to believe! The prevailing theory of quantum mechanics is called Orthodox Quantum Theory (also known as the Copenhagen Interpretation). Orthodox Quantum Theory endows a special status on measurement processes by requiring an intervention of an observer or an observer’s proxy (e. g. a measuring apparatus). The placement of the observer (or proxy) is somewhat arbitrary which introduces a degree of subjectivity. Orthodox Quantum Theory only predicts probabilities for measured values of physical quantities. It is essentially an instrumental theory, i. e.

​This book summarizes the results of research the authors have pursued in the past years on the problem of implementing Bell's notion of local causality in local physical theories and relating it to other important concepts and principles in the foundations of physics such as the Common Cause Principle, Bell's inequalities, the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) scenario, and various other locality and causality concepts. The book is intended for philosophers of science with an interest in the formal background of sciences, philosophers of physics and physicists working in foundation of physics.

Should we rethink growth? Is the abundance of the western world still ethical? Growth, social responsibility and sustainable development are indeed deeply entangled. This book aims to provide the reader with a transversal, holistic view on these issues, and a real understanding of corporate growth, along with its possible alternatives.

The book considers foundational thinking in quantum theory, focusing on the role the fundamental principles and principle thinking there, including thinking that leads to the invention of new principles, which is, the book contends, one of the ultimate achievements of theoretical thinking in physics and beyond. The focus on principles, prominent during the rise and in the immediate aftermath of quantum theory, has been uncommon in more recent discussions and debates concerning it. The book argues, however, that exploring the fundamental principles and principle thinking is exceptionally helpful in addressing the key issues at stake in quantum foundations and the seemingly interminable debates concerning them. Principle thinking led to major breakthroughs throughout the history of quantum theory, beginning with the old quantum theory and quantum mechanics, the first definitive quantum theory, which it remains within its proper (nonrelativistic) scope. It has, the book also argues, been equally important in quantum field theory, which has been the frontier of quantum theory for quite a while now, and more recently, in quantum information theory, where principle thinking was given new prominence. The approach allows the book to develop a new understanding of both the history and philosophy of quantum theory, from Planck’s quantum to the Higgs boson, and beyond, and of the thinking the key founding figures, such as Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Dirac, as well as some among more recent theorists. The book also extensively considers the nature of quantum probability, and contains a new interpretation of quantum mechanics, “the statistical Copenhagen interpretation.” Overall, the book’s argument is guided by what Heisenberg called “the spirit of Copenhagen,” which is defined by three great divorces from the preceding foundational thinking in physics—reality from realism, probability from causality, and locality from relativity—and defined the fundamental principles of quantum theory accordingly.

In this classic, David Bohm was the first to offer us his causal interpretation of the quantum theory. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics continues to make possible further insight into the meaning of the quantum theory and to suggest ways of extending the theory into new directions.

This book provides a description of the evolution of the concepts of causality and time through modern physics considering first relativity theories and them quantum mechanics. Relativity, at least in the form given by Einstein, denies reality of past, present and future and does not indicate a time direction. On the other hand a time direction is indicated by all the phenomena we observe including our own existence. Quantum mechanics seems to indicate a different story. It is argued that, because of its non deterministic character, it is capable to indicate an objective time direction. This occurs through the phenomena of wave function collapse and entanglement which are discussed at length.