Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-54gsr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-04T04:40:46.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discerning “Indistinguishable” Quantum Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Adam Caulton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a series of recent papers, Simon Saunders, Fred Muller, and Michael Seevinck have collectively argued, against the folklore, that some nontrivial version of Leibniz’s principle of the identity of indiscernibles is upheld in quantum mechanics. They argue that all particles—fermions, paraparticles, anyons, even bosons—may be weakly discerned by some physical relation. Here I show that their arguments make illegitimate appeal to nonsymmetric, that is, permutation-noninvariant, quantities and that therefore their conclusions do not go through. However, I show that alternative, symmetric quantities may be found to do the required work. I conclude that the Saunders-Muller-Seevinck heterodoxy can be saved.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 49 - 72
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Many thanks to Simon Saunders, Fred Muller, and Michael Seevinck for several illuminating conversations on this topic. I am also grateful to Steven French, James Ladyman, and audiences in Paris, Bristol, and Cambridge. A large debt of gratitude is owed to Nick Huggett and Jeremy Butterfield for extensive comments, conversation, and encouragement. Finally, I am grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Jacobsen Trust for their financial support during the writing of this article.

References

Butterfield, J. N. 1993. “Interpretation and Identity in Quantum Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 24:443–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caulton, A., and Butterfield, J. N.. 2012. “Kinds of Discernibility in Logic and Metaphysics.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63:27–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, D., and Lubberdink, A.. 2011. “How Classical Particles Emerge from the Quantum World.” Foundations of Physics 41:1051–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. 2010. “Understanding Permutation Invariance in Quantum Mechanics.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N.. 1935. “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47:777–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S., and Krause, D.. 2006. Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical, and Formal Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S., and Redhead, M.. 1988. “Quantum Physics and the Identity of Indiscernibles.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39:233–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbert, D., and Bernays, P.. 1934. Grundlagen der Mathematik. Vol. 1. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Huggett, N. 1999. “On the Significance of Permutation Symmetry.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50:325–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, N. 2003. “Quarticles and the Identity of Indiscernibles.” In Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, ed. Brading, K. and Castellani, E., 239–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Margenau, H. 1944. “The Exclusion Principle and Its Philosophical Importance.” Philosophy of Science 11:187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massimi, M. 2001. “Exclusion Principle and the Identity of Indiscernibles: A Response to Margenau’s Argument.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52:303–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messiah, A., and Greenberg, O. W.. 1964. “The Symmetrization Postulate and Its Experimental Foundation.” Physical Review 136:248–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, F. A., and Saunders, S.. 2008. “Discerning Fermions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59:499–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, F. A., and Saunders, S. 2009. “Discerning Elementary Particles.” Philosophy of Science 76:179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, S. 2003a. “Indiscernibles, Covariance, and Other Symmetries: The Case for Nonreductive Relationism.” In Revisiting the Foundations of Relativistic Physics: Festschrift in Honour of John Stachel, ed. Ashtkar, A., Howard, D., Renn, J., Sarkar, S., and Shimony, A., 151–74. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Saunders, S. 2003b. “Physics and Leibniz’s Principles.” In Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, ed. Brading, K. and Castellani, E., 289–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, S. 2006. “Are Quantum Particles Objects?” Analysis 66:52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, H. 1928/1928. The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar