On the property structure of realist collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics and the so-called "counting anomaly"

The aim of this article is twofold. Recently, Lewis has presented an argument, now known as the "counting anomaly", that the spontaneous localization approach to quantum mechanics, suggested by Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, implies that arithmetic does not apply to ordinary macroscopic objects. I will take this argument as the starting point for a discussion of the property structure of realist collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics in general. At the end of this I present a proof of the fact that the composition principle, which holds true in standard quantum mechanics, fails in all realist collapse interpretations. On the basis of this result I reconsider the counting anomaly and show that what lies at the heart of the anomaly is the failure to appreciate the peculiarities of the property structure of such interpretations. Once this flaw is uncovered, the anomaly vanishes.     

The suggestive properties of quantum mechanics without the collapse postulate

Everett proposed resolving the quantum measurement problem by dropping the nonlinear collapse dynamics from quantum mechanics and taking what is left as a complete physical theory. If one takes such a proposal seriously, then the question becomes how much of the predictive and explanatory power of the standard theory can one recover without the collapse postulate and without adding anything else. Quantum mechanics without the collapse postulate has several suggestive properties, which we will consider in some detail. While these properties are not enough to make it acceptable given the usual standards for a satisfactory physical theory, one might want to exploit these properties to cook up a satisfactory no-collapse formulation of quantum mechanics. In considering how this might work, we will see why any no-collapse theory must generally fail to satisfy at least one of two plausible-sounding conditions.     

Systemic strategies for dealing with problem children in institutional settings

Family therapy when a problem child enters residential treatment is complicated and treacherous because of the need to coordinate what may often be competing hierarchies (parental, residential, school). If the goal of residential treatment truly is one of deinstitutionalization, of reintegrating the child into his/her home, school, and community, the family therapist must see to it that the parental hierarchy is the primary one and that all institutional hierarchies are kept secondary. This paper presents, through a discussion of the forces that operate as institutionalization of children progresses and through case illustrations, a framework in which family therapy can be conducted within a residential treatment setting.The author expresses appreciation to Barbara DiCocco, MSW, Phyllis Stern, MA, John Rhead, PhD, and Karen Meckler, MD, for their helpful comments on the initial draft of this article and to Linda McClure, MSW, and Larry McAvoy for their administrative support.     

Family/school strategies in dealing with the troubled child

Often a troubled child will exhibit problem behaviors in school. In many cases, these behaviors can be controlled and quickly curtailed by the teacher. In other cases, parents may have to intervene with rules and consequences. Sometimes, however, both teacher and parents fail, and the child's school problems escalate until they have reached crisis proportions. At this point, a therapist often becomes involved. The therapist can greatly enhance his or her range of possible therapeutic strategies by temporarily including the child's teacher in the hierarchical reorganization of the family. The expansion of the family hierarchy to include the teacher expedites the problem-solving process. The phases of problem escalation and proposed hierarchical reorganization are offered by way of clinical principles and case illustrations to demonstrate this viewpoint.Barbara E. DiCocco, L.C.S.W., is the Clinical Coordinator of the RICA II Satellite Program, a bio-psycho-educational day program in Frederick, Maryland and is a private practicing fmaily therapist. Ellen B. Lott, Ph.D., Counseling Psychology, is a family therapist and psychometrician in the RICA II Satellite Program. Boththerapists are grateful to Jay Haley for his suggestions and support of this work.     

On the nature of quantum mechanics

Summary It is argued that the EPR paradox cannot be resolved in the context of quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is shown to be equivalent to a Belinfante theory of zero type. It is concluded therefore that it cannot have as wide a range of applicability in excluding Hidden Variable Theories as commonly alleged. It follows that standard quantum mechanics should not be regarded as a complete theory in Einstein's sense. Indeed, it is argued that a purely probabilistic theory cannot be the basis of a comprehensive understanding of physics. An attempt is made to formulate a deterministic, local Hidden Variable Theory to account for the Bohm-Einstein thought experiment reproducing quantum mechanical predictions.     

A modal ontology of properties for quantum mechanics

Our purpose in this paper is to delineate an ontology for quantum mechanics that results adequate to the formalism of the theory. We will restrict our aim to the search of an ontology that expresses the conceptual content of the recently proposed modal-Hamiltonian interpretation, according to which the domain referred to by non-relativistic quantum mechanics is an ontology of properties. The usual strategy in the literature has been to focus on only one of the interpretive problems of the theory and to design an interpretation to solve it, leaving aside the remaining difficulties. On the contrary, our aim in the present work is to formulate a “global” solution, according to which different problems can be adequately tackled in terms of a single ontology populated of properties, in which systems are bundles of properties. In particular, we will conceive indistinguishability between bundles as a relation derived from indistinguishability between properties, and we will show that states, when operating on combinations of indistinguishable bundles, act as if they were symmetric with no need of a symmetrization postulate.     

The problem of properties in quantum mechanics

The properties of classical and quantum systems are characterized by different algebraic structures. We know that the properties of a quantum mechanical system form a partial Boolean algebra not embeddable into a Boolean algebra, and so cannot all be co-determinate. We also know that maximal Boolean subalgebras of properties can be (separately) co-determinate. Are there larger subsets of properties that can be co-determinate without contradiction? Following an analysis of Bohrs response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen objection to the complementarity interpretation of quantum mechanics, a principled argument is developed justifying the selection of particular subsets of properties as co-determinate for a quantum system in particular physical contexts. These subsets are generated by sets of maximal Boolean subalgebras, defined in each case by the relation between the quantum state and a measurement (possibly, but not necessarily, the measurement in terms of which we seek to establish whether or not a particular property of the system in question obtains). If we are required to interpret quantum mechanics in this way, then predication for quantum systems is quite unlike the corresponding notion for classical systems.     

Mandelstam's interpretation of quantum mechanics in comparative perspective

In his 1939 Lectures, the prominent Soviet physicist L. I. Mandelstam proposed an interpretation of quantum mechanics that was understood in different ways. To assess Mandelstam's interpretation, we classify contemporary interpretations of quantum mechanics and compare his interpretation with others developed in the 1930s (the Copenhagen interpretation and the statistical interpretations proposed by K. R. Popper, H. Margenau, and E. C. Kemble). We conclude that Mandelstam's interpretation belongs to the family of minimal statistical interpretations and has much in common with interpretations developed by American physicists. Mandelstam's characteristic message was his theory of indirect measurement, which influenced his discussion of the “reduction of the wave packet” and the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argument. This article also reconstructs what lay behind Mandelstam's interpretation of quantum mechanics. This was his operationalism, by virtue of which his interpretation resembled Kemble's, in which the statistical and Copenhagen views had been combined. Like Popper and Margenau, Mandelstam followed R. von Mises's empirical conception of probability. Mandelstam, like the other proponents of the statistical approach to quantum mechanics, was affected by the culture of macroscopic experimentation with its emphasis on statistical (collective) measurement.