Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T00:31:08.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Quantum Objects Have Temporal Parts?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Thomas Pashby
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides a new context for an established metaphysical debate regarding the problem of persistence. I contend that perdurance, a popular view about persistence which maintains that objects persist by having temporal parts, can be formulated in quantum mechanics due to the existence of a formal analogy between temporal and spatial location. However, this analogy fails due to a ‘no-go’ result which demonstrates that quantum systems cannot be said to have temporal parts in the same way that they have spatial parts. Therefore, if quantum mechanics describes persisting physical objects then those objects cannot be said to perdure.

Type
General Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 80 , Issue 5 , December 2013 , pp. 1137 - 1147
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank John Earman, John Norton, Jeremy Butterfield, Adam Caulton, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

References

Balashov, Y. 2010. Persistence and Spacetime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. 1985. “Spatial and Temporal Parts.” Philosophical Quarterly 35 (138): 32–44..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2005. “On the Persistence of Particles.” Foundations of Physics 35 (2): 233–69..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2006. “The Rotating Discs Argument Defeated.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1): 1–45..10.1093/bjps/axi150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galapon, E. 2002. “Pauli’s Theorem and Quantum Canonical Pairs.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 458:451–72.Google Scholar
Gilmore, G. 2008. “Persistence and Location in Relativistic Spacetime.” Philosophy Compass 3 (6): 1224–54..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, H. 2010. “Does Quantum Theory Kill Time?” Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University. http://www.princeton.edu/~hhalvors/papers/notime.pdf.Google Scholar
Hawley, K. 2004. How Things Persist. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. K. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rovelli, C. 2004. Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511755804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. 1997. “Four-Dimensionalism.” Philosophical Review 106 (2): 197–231..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivas, M., and Vijayalakshmi, R.. 1981. “The ‘Time of Occurrence’ in Quantum Mechanics.” Pramana 16 (3): 173–99..10.1007/BF02848181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teschl, G. 2009. Mathematical Methods in Quantum Mechanics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wightman, A. S. 1962. “On the Localizability of Quantum Mechanical Systems.” Reviews of Modern Physics 34:845–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar