Several arguments are considered which purport to demonstrate the impossibility of theory-neutral observation. The most important of these infers the continuity of observation with theory from the presumed continuity of perception with cognition, a doctrine widely espoused in recent cognitive psychology. An alternative psychological account of the relation between cognition and perception is proposed and its epistemological consequences for the observation/theory distinction are then explored.

This note explores the possibility that observable physical properties arise from the representation of an underlying mathematical reality. Space, time, and physical observables are considered not as fundamental features of nature, but as aspects of a representational framework through which a deeper mathematical description becomes accessible. The central assumption is that reality admits a mathematical description that is more fundamental than its observable manifestations. If observable descriptions correspond to representations of such an underlying mathematical reality, then information loss may (...) be an intrinsic feature of the representational process. No single representation should therefore be expected to preserve the entirety of what it represents. Within this framework, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation may be interpreted not as evidence of incompleteness in the underlying reality itself, but as a signature of the limitations inherent to any individual representation. More generally, observable physical properties may provide information about what is lost, preserved, or transformed when a deeper mathematical reality becomes accessible through representation. This perspective does not challenge the formalism of quantum mechanics. Rather, it proposes a shift in interpretation: uncertainty, conservation laws, and potentially other observable regularities may be understood as consequences of the relationship between an underlying mathematical reality and its observable representations. Whether such a view can be developed into a rigorous formal framework remains an open question. (shrink)

Is change missing in Hamiltonian Einstein–Maxwell theory? Given the most common definition of observables, observables are constants of the motion and nonlocal. Unfortunately this definition also implies that the observables for massive electromagnetism with gauge freedom are inequivalent to those of massive electromagnetism without gauge freedom. The alternative Pons–Salisbury–Sundermeyer definition of observables, aiming for Hamiltonian–Lagrangian equivalence, uses the gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first-class constraints, rather than each first-class constraint separately, and implies equivalent (...) class='Hi'>observables for equivalent massive electromagnetisms. For General Relativity, G generates 4-dimensional Lie derivatives for solutions. The Lie derivative compares different space-time points with the same coordinate value in different coordinate systems, like 1 a.m. summer time versus 1 a.m. standard time, so a vanishing Lie derivative implies constancy rather than covariance. Requiring equivalent observables for equivalent formulations of massive gravity confirms that G must generate the 4-dimensional Lie derivative for observables. These separate results indicate that observables are invariant under internal gauge symmetries but covariant under external gauge symmetries, but can this bifurcated definition work for mixed theories such as Einstein–Maxwell theory? Pons, Salisbury and Shepley have studied G for Einstein–Yang–Mills. For Einstein–Maxwell, both \ and \ are invariant under electromagnetic gauge transformations and covariant under 4-dimensional coordinate transformations. Using the bifurcated definition, these quantities count as observables, as one would expect on non-Hamiltonian grounds. (shrink)

Some authors have defended the claim that one needs to be able to define ‘physical coordinate systems’ and ‘observables’ in order to make sense of general relativity. Moreover, in Rovelli (Physical Review D,65(4), 044017 2002), Rovelli proposes a way of implementing these ideas by making use of a system of satellites that allows defining a set of ‘physical coordinates’, the GPS coordinates. In this article I oppose these views in four ways. First, I defend an alternative way of understanding (...) general relativity which implies that we have a perfectly fine interpretation of the models of the theory even in the absence of ‘physical coordinate systems’. Second, I analyze and challenge the motivations behind the ‘observable’ view. Third, I analyze Rovelli’s proposal and I conclude that it does not allow extracting any physical information from our models that wasn’t available before. Fourth, I draw an analogy between general relativistic spacetimes and Newtonian spacetimes, which allows me to argue that as ‘physical observables’ are not needed in Newtonian spacetime, then neither are they in general relativity. In this sense, I conclude that the ‘observable’ view of general relativity is unmotivated. (shrink)

We address the problem of observables in generally invariant spacetime theories such as Einstein’s general relativity. Using the refined notion of an event as a “point-coincidence” between scalar fields that completely characterise a spacetime model, we propose a generalisation of the relational local observables that does not require the existence of four everywhere invertible scalar fields. The collection of all point-coincidences forms in generic situations a four-dimensional manifold, that is naturally identified with the physical spacetime.

Modern quantum theory describes physical systems by means of complex-valued state structures whose full dynamical content cannot be reduced to directly observable quantities. While observables are necessarily real-valued, they arise from a richer formal organization that includes phase-sensitive and non-directly accessible structure. This paper argues that the distinction between “real” and “imaginary” components is therefore best understood as epistemic rather than ontological. What appears in measurement is not a separate domain of being, but a selective disclosure of a unified (...) physical reality. -/- On this basis, the “space of possibilities” is reinterpreted not as a second world beyond the real, but as the non-reduced domain of dynamically admissible structure encoded in the state description of a system. Recent results reported in measuring spin correlation between quarks during QCD confinement provide an empirical illustration of this view by showing that correlations which later become directly observable may originate in non-directly accessible structures and remain dynamically effective across transformation. -/- The observable is thus not the whole of the real, but one mode through which it becomes accessible. (shrink)

Observables have a dual nature in both classical and quantum kinematics: they are at the same time quantities, allowing to separate states by means of their numerical values, and generators of transformations, establishing relations between different states. In this work, we show how this twofold role of observables constitutes a key feature in the conceptual analysis of classical and quantum kinematics, shedding a new light on the distinguishing feature of the quantum at the kinematical level. We first take (...) a look at the algebraic description of both classical and quantum observables in terms of Jordan–Lie algebras and show how the two algebraic structures are the precise mathematical manifestation of the twofold role of observables. Then, we turn to the geometric reformulation of quantum kinematics in terms of Kähler manifolds. A key achievement of this reformulation is to show that the twofold role of observables is the constitutive ingredient defining what an observable is. Moreover, it points to the fact that, from the restricted point of view of the transformational role of observables, classical and quantum kinematics behave in exactly the same way. Finally, we present Landsman’s general framework of Poisson spaces with transition probability, which highlights with unmatched clarity that the crucial difference between the two kinematics lies in the way the two roles of observables are related to each other. (shrink)

Change and local spatial variation are missing in canonical General Relativity's observables as usually defined, an aspect of the problem of time. Definitions can be tested using equivalent formulations of a theory, non-gauge and gauge, because they must have equivalent observables and everything is observable in the non-gauge formulation. Taking an observable from the non-gauge formulation and finding the equivalent in the gauge formulation, one requires that the equivalent be an observable, thus constraining definitions. For massive photons, the (...) de Broglie-Proca non-gauge formulation observable A_{\mu} is equivalent to the Stueckelberg-Utiyama gauge formulation quantity A_{\mu} + \partial_{\mu} \phi, which must therefore be an observable. To achieve that result, observables must have 0 Poisson bracket not with each first-class constraint, but with the Rosenfeld-Anderson-Bergmann-Castellani gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first-class constraints, in accord with the Pons-Salisbury-Sundermeyer definition of observables. The definition for external gauge symmetries can be tested using massive gravity, where one can install gauge freedom by parametrization with clock fields X^A. The non-gauge observable g^{\mu\nu} has the gauge equivalent X^A,_{\mu} g^{\mu\nu} X^B,_{\nu}. The Poisson bracket of X^A,_{\mu} g^{\mu\nu} X^B,_{\nu} with G turns out to be not 0 but a Lie derivative. This non-zero Poisson bracket refines and systematizes Kuchař's proposal to relax the 0 Poisson bracket condition with the Hamiltonian constraint. Thus observables need covariance, not invariance, in relation to external gauge symmetries. The Lagrangian and Hamiltonian for massive gravity are those of General Relativity + \Lambda + 4 scalars, so the same definition of observables applies to General Relativity. Local fields such as g_{\mu\nu} are observables. Thus observables change. Requiring equivalent observables for equivalent theories also recovers Hamiltonian-Lagrangian equivalence. (shrink)

In this paper we reconsider the constraints which are imposed by relativistic requirements to any model of dynamical reduction. We review the debate on the subject and we call attention on the fundamental contributions by Aharonov and Albert. Having done this we present a new formulation, which is much simpler and more apt for our analysis, of the proposal put forward by these authors to perform measurements of nonlocal observables by means of local interactions and detections. We take into (...) account recently proposed relativistic models of dynamical reduction and we show that, in spite of some mathematical difficulties related to the appearence of divergences, they represent a perfectly appropriate conceptual framework which meets all necessary requirements for a relativistic account of wave packet reduction. Subtle questions like the appropriate way to deal with counterfactual reasoning in a relativistic and nonlocal context are also analyzed in detail. (shrink)

This article takes up a suggestion that the reason we cannot find certain hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, as in Bell’s theorem, is that we require them to assign joint probability distributions on incompatible observables. These joint distributions are problematic because they are empirically meaningless on one standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some have proposed getting around this problem by using generalized probability spaces. I present a theorem to show a sense in which generalized probability spaces can’t serve (...) as hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, so the proposal for getting around Bell’s theorem fails. 1 Introduction2 Bell’s Theorem and Classical Probability Spaces2.1 Bell’s derivation of the Bell inequalities2.2 Pitowsky’s derivation of the Bell inequalities3 Incompatible Observables4 Generalized Probability Spaces5 A ‘No-Go’ Theorem6 Conclusions. (shrink)

This paper is devoted to clarification of the notion of entanglement through decoupling it from the tensor product structure and treating as a constraint posed by probabilistic dependence of quantum observable _A_ and _B_. In our framework, it is meaningless to speak about entanglement without pointing to the fixed observables _A_ and _B_, so this is _AB_-entanglement. Dependence of quantum observables is formalized as non-coincidence of conditional probabilities. Starting with this probabilistic definition, we achieve the Hilbert space characterization (...) of the _AB_-entangled states as amplitude non-factorisable states. In the tensor product case, _AB_-entanglement implies standard entanglement, but not vise verse. _AB_-entanglement for dichotomous observables is equivalent to their correlation, i.e., \(\langle AB\rangle _{\psi} \not = \langle A\rangle _{\psi} \langle B\rangle _{\psi}.\) We describe the class of quantum states that are \(A_{u} B_{u}\) -entangled for a family of unitary operators (_u_). Finally, observables entanglement is compared with dependence of random variables in classical probability theory. (shrink)

This paper challenges a central tenet of constructive empiricism, namely that empirical adequacy has a privileged epistemic status. I argue that perceptions of observables are theory-wrought, and theory-wrought in the same ways as the observation sentences we use to describe those perceptions, van Fraassen can draw no privileged or fundamental distinction between what we observe and interpreting those observations through theory. Since empirical adequacy depends upon accurately describing what we observe, and we have no theory-independent reason to believe that (...) what we ‘observe’ is a reflection of what is true, then empirical adequacy can inherit no special connection to what is real via what we observe. The epistemological significance of empirical adequacy is thereby reduced. (shrink)

Two postulates concerning observables on a quantum logic are formulated. By Postulate 1 compatibility of observables is defined by the strong topology on the set of observables. Postulate 2 requires that the range of the sum of observables ought to be contained in the smallestC-closed sublogic generated by their ranges. It is shown that the Hilbert space logicL(H) satisfies the two postulates. A theorem on the connection between joint distributions of types 1 and 2 on the (...) logic satisfying Postulate 2 is proved. (shrink)

This paper examines a methodological question arising in orbital mechanics and the foundations of physical modeling: does successful prediction of a relativistic observable uniquely determine the underlying dynamics? -/- Using Mercury perihelion precession as a representative case, several dynamically non-equivalent orbital systems are constructed that reproduce essentially identical relativistic-scale perihelion advance while differing in local temporal structure, phase-space evolution, and orbital timing diagnostics. -/- The results suggest that integrated observables may be dynamically degenerate: observational agreement alone does not guarantee (...) uniqueness of the underlying dynamical reconstruction. This distinction motivates a broader separation between geometric uniqueness and reconstruction uniqueness and raises questions concerning the informational role of geometric descriptions in physics. -/- The paper does not challenge the internal consistency of General Relativity and does not propose an alternative gravitational theory. Instead, it investigates the non-uniqueness of inverse reconstruction from integrated observables and its implications for scientific modeling, explanation, and physical interpretation. (shrink)

Change and local spatial variation are missing in Hamiltonian general relativity according to the most common definition of observables as having 0 Poisson bracket with all first-class constraints. But other definitions of observables have been proposed. In pursuit of Hamiltonian–Lagrangian equivalence, Pons, Salisbury and Sundermeyer use the Anderson–Bergmann–Castellani gauge generator G, a tuned sum of first-class constraints. Kuchař waived the 0 Poisson bracket condition for the Hamiltonian constraint to achieve changing observables. A systematic combination of the two (...) reforms might use the gauge generator but permit non-zero Lie derivative Poisson brackets for the external gauge symmetry of General Relativity. Fortunately one can test definitions of observables by calculation using two formulations of a theory, one without gauge freedom and one with gauge freedom. The formulations, being empirically equivalent, must have equivalent observables. For de Broglie-Proca non-gauge massive electromagnetism, all constraints are second-class, so everything is observable. Demanding equivalent observables from gauge Stueckelberg–Utiyama electromagnetism, one finds that the usual definition fails while the Pons–Salisbury–Sundermeyer definition with G succeeds. This definition does not readily yield change in GR, however. Should GR’s external gauge freedom of general relativity share with internal gauge symmetries the 0 Poisson bracket, or is covariance sufficient? A graviton mass breaks the gauge symmetry, but it can be restored by parametrization with clock fields. By requiring equivalent observables, one can test whether observables should have 0 or the Lie derivative as the Poisson bracket with the gauge generator G. The latter definition is vindicated by calculation. While this conclusion has been reported previously, here the calculation is given in some detail. (shrink)

This is a comment on J. A. Barrett's article 'The Preferred-Basis Problem and the Quantum Mechanics of Everything' ([2005]), which concerns theories postulating that certain quantum observables have determinate values, corresponding to additional (often called 'hidden') variables. I point out that it is far from clear, for most observables, what such a postulate is supposed to mean, unless the postulated additional variable is related to a clear ontology in space-time, such as particle world lines, string world sheets, or (...) fields. (shrink)

A relation ≺ϕ between noncommuting 1-0 quantum observables (i.e., projections) is introduced, ϕ being the state vector of the system. This relation extends the empirical implication between commuting projections. An operational interpretation of the new relation is given, which can be expressed also in counterfactual terms. It is shown that a relation proposed some years ago by Hardegree, namely the Sasaki arrow ↪ϕ, can be interpreted in terms of the relation ≺ϕ; furthermore, this new relation turns out to be (...) successful also in cases in which the Sasaki arrow fails. (shrink)

In this paper we review some properties of fuzzy observables, mainly as realized by commutative positive operator valued measures. In this context we discuss two representation theorems for commutative positive operator valued measures in terms of projection valued measures and describe, in some detail, the general notion of fuzzification. We also make some related observations on joint measurements.

Change seems missing in Hamiltonian General Relativity's observables. The typical definition takes observables to have $0$ Poisson bracket with \emph{each} first-class constraint. Another definition aims to recover Lagrangian-equivalence: observables have $0$ Poisson bracket with the gauge generator $G$, a \emph{tuned sum} of first-class constraints. Empirically equivalent theories have equivalent observables. That platitude provides a test of definitions using de Broglie's massive electromagnetism. The non-gauge ``Proca'' formulation has no first-class constraints, so everything is observable. The gauge ``Stueckelberg'' (...) formulation has first-class constraints, so observables vary with the definition. Which satisfies the platitude? The team definition does; the individual definition does not. Subsequent work using the gravitational analog has shown that observables have not a 0 Poisson bracket, but a Lie derivative for the Poisson bracket with the gauge generator $G$. The same should hold for General Relativity, so observables change locally and correspond to 4-dimensional tensor calculus. Thus requiring equivalent observables for empirically equivalent formulations helps to address the problem of time. (shrink)

We describe a particular class of pairs of quantum observables which are extremal in the convex set of all pairs of compatible quantum observables. The pairs in this class are constructed as uniformly noisy versions of two mutually unbiased bases with possibly different noise intensities affecting each basis. We show that not all pairs of MUB can be used in this construction, and we provide a criterion for determining those MUB that actually do yield extremal compatible observables. (...) We apply our criterion to all pairs of Fourier conjugate MUB, and we prove that in this case extremality is achieved if and only if the quantum system Hilbert space is odd-dimensional. Remarkably, this fact is no longer true for general non-Fourier conjugate MUB, as we show in an example. Therefore, the presence or the absence of extremality is a concrete geometric manifestation of MUB inequivalence, that already materializes by comparing sets of no more than two bases at a time. (shrink)

The structure of covariant observables—normalized positive operator measures (POMs)—is studied in the case of a type I symmetry group. Such measures are completely determined by kernels which are measurable fields of positive semidefinite sesquilinear forms. We produce the minimal Kolmogorov decompositions for the kernels and determine those which correspond to the extreme covariant observables. Illustrative examples of the extremals in the case of the Abelian symmetry group are given.

It is shown that stochastic observables defined by an instrument need not, and generally do not, commute.

We define two types of convergence for observables on a quantum logic which we call M-weak and uniform M-weak convergence. These convergence modes correspond to weak convergence of probability measures. They are motivated by the idea that two (in general unbounded) observables are “close” if bounded functions of them are “close.” We show that M-weak and uniform M-weak convergence generalize strong resolvent and norm resolvent convergence for self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space. Also, these types of convergence strengthen (...) the weak operator convergence and operator norm convergence of bounded self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space. Finally, we consider spectral perturbation by showing that the spectra of approximating observables approach the spectrum of the limit in a certain sense. (shrink)

We start from the assumption that the real valued observables of a quantum system form a Jordan algebra which is equipped with a compatible Lie product characterizing infinitesimal symmetries, and ask whether two such systems can be considered as independent subsystems of a larger system. We show that this is possible if and only if the associator of the Jordan product is a fixed multiple of the associator of the Lie product. In this case it is known that the (...) two products can be combined to an associative product in the Jordan algebra or its complexification, depending on the sign of the multiple. (shrink)

The aim of this note is to complete the discussion on the possibility of creation of quantum-like (QL) representation for the question order effect which was presented by Wang and Busemeyer (2013). We analyze the role of a fundamental feature of mental operators (given, e.g., by questions), namely, their complementarity.

In this paper we investigate the coupling properties of pairs of quadrature observables, showing that, apart from the Weyl relation, they share the same coupling properties as the position-momentum pair. In particular, they are complementary. We determine the marginal observables of a covariant phase space observable with respect to an arbitrary rotated reference frame, and observe that these marginal observables are unsharp quadrature observables. The related distributions constitute the Radon transform of a phase space distribution of (...) the covariant phase space observable. Since the quadrature distributions are the Radon transform of the Wigner function of a state, we also exhibit the relation between the quadrature observables and the tomography observable, and show how to construct the phase space observable from the quadrature observables. Finally, we give a method to measure together with a single measurement scheme any complementary pair of quadrature observables. (shrink)

In attempting to derive irreversible macroscopic thermodynamics from reversible microscopic dynamics, Boltzmann inadvertently smuggled in a premise that assumed the very irreversibility he was trying to prove: ‘molecular chaos.’ The program of ‘Einselection’ within Everettian approaches faces a similar ‘Loschmidt’s Paradox’: the universe, according to the Everettian picture, is a closed system obeying only unitary dynamics, and it therefore contains no distinguishable environmental subsystems with the necessary ‘phase randomness’ to effect einselection of a pointer observable. The theoretically unjustified assumption of (...) distinguishable environmental subsystems is the hidden premise that makes the derivation of einselection circular. In effect, it presupposes the ‘emergent’ structures from the beginning. Thus the problem of basis ambiguity remains unsolved in Everettian interpretations. (shrink)

Bohmian mechanics is arguably the most naively obvious embedding imaginable of Schr¨ odinger’s equation into a completely coherent physical theory. It describes a world in which particles move in a highly non-Newtonian sort of way, one which may at first appear to have little to do with the spectrum of predictions of quantum mechanics. It turns out, however, that as a consequence of the defining dynamical equations of Bohmian mechanics, when a system has wave function ψ its configuration is typically (...) random, with probability density ρ given by |ψ|2, the quantum equilibrium distribution. It also turns out that the entire quantum formalism, operators as observables and all the rest, naturally emerges in Bohmian mechanics from the analysis of “measurements.” This analysis reveals the status of operators as observables in the description of quantum phenomena, and facilitates a clear view of the range of applicability of the usual quantum mechanical formulas. (shrink)

Noncommuting quantum observables, if considered asunsharp observables, are simultaneously measurable. This fact is exemplified for complementary observables in two-dimensional state spaces. Two proposals of experimentally feasible joint measurements are presented for pairs of photon or neutron polarization observables and for path and interference observables in a photon split-beam experiment. A recent experiment proposed and performed by Mittelstaedt, Prieur, and Schieder in Cologne is interpreted as a partial version of the latter example.

We investigate the theory of finite observables, i.e., resolutions of the finite-dimensional identity by means of positive operators, that have a physical interpretation in terms of measurement schemes. We focus on extremal and rank-one observables and consider various constructions that reduce observables to simpler ones. However, these constructions do not suffice to generate all finite extremal observables, as we show by means of counter-examples.

ABSTRACT Ruetsche claims that an abstract C*-algebra of observables will not contain all of the physically significant observables for a quantum system with infinitely many degrees of freedom. This would signal that in addition to the abstract algebra, one must use Hilbert space representations for some purposes. I argue to the contrary that there is a way to recover all of the physically significant observables by purely algebraic methods. 1Introduction 2Preliminaries 3Three Extremist Interpretations 3.1Algebraic imperialism 3.2Hilbert space (...) conservatism 3.3Universalism 4Parochial Observables 4.1Parochial observables for the imperialist 4.2Parochial observables for the universalist 5Conclusion. (shrink)

Ruetsche claims that an abstract C*-algebra of observables will not contain all of the physically significant observables for a quantum system with infinitely many degrees of freedom. This would signal that in addition to the abstract algebra, one must use Hilbert space representations for some purposes. I argue to the contrary that there is a way to recover all of the physically significant observables by purely algebraic methods. 1 Introduction2 Preliminaries3 Three Extremist Interpretations3.1 Algebraic imperialism3.2 Hilbert space (...) conservatism3.3 Universalism4 Parochial Observables4.1 Parochial observables for the imperialist4.2 Parochial observables for the universalist5 Conclusion. (shrink)

The centerpiece of Jeffrey Bub's book Interpreting the Quantum World is a theorem (Bub and Clifton 1996) which correlates each member of a large class of no-collapse interpretations with some 'privileged observable'. In particular, the Bub-Clifton theorem determines the unique maximal sublattice L(R,e) of propositions such that (a) elements of L(R,e) can be simultaneously determinate in state e, (b) L(R,e) contains the spectral projections of the privileged observable R, and (c) L(R,e) is picked out by R and e alone. In (...) this paper, we explore the issue of maximal determinate sets of observables using the tools provided by the algebraic approach to quantum theory; and we call the resulting algebras of determinate observables, "maximal *beable* subalgebras". The capstone of our exploration is a generalized version of Bub and Clifton's theorem that applies to arbitrary (i.e., both mixed and pure) quantum states, to Hilbert spaces of arbitrary (i.e., both finite and infinite) dimension, and to arbitrary observables (including those with a continuous spectrum). Moreover, in the special case covered by the original Bub-Clifton theorem, our theorem reproduces their result under strictly weaker assumptions. This added level of generality permits us to treat several topics that were beyond the reach of the original Bub-Clifton result. In particular: (a) We show explicitly that a (non-dynamical) version of the Bohm theory can be obtained by granting privileged status to the position observable. (b) We show that Clifton's (1995) characterization of the Kochen-Dieks modal interpretation is a corollary of our theorem in the special case when the density operator is taken as the privileged observable. (c) We show that the 'uniqueness' demonstrated by Bub and Clifton is only guaranteed in certain special cases -- viz., when the quantum state is pure, or if the privileged observable is compatible with the density operator. We also use our results to articulate a solid mathematical foundation for certain tenets of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. For example, the uncertainty principle asserts that there are strict limits on the precision with which we can know, simultaneously, the position and momentum of a quantum-mechanical particle. However, the Copenhagen interpretation of this fact is not simply that a precision momentum measurement necessarily and uncontrollably disturbs the value of position, and vice-versa; but that position and momentum can never in reality be thought of as simultaneously determinate. We provide warrant for this stronger 'indeterminacy principle' by showing that there is no quantum state that assigns a sharp value to both position and momentum; and, a fortiori, that it is mathematically impossible to construct a beable algebra that contains both the position observable and the momentum observable. We also prove a generalized version of the Bub-Clifton theorem that applies to "singular" states (i.e., states that arise from non-countably-additive probability measures, such as Dirac delta functions). This result allows us to provide a mathematically rigorous reconstruction of Bohr's response to the original EPR argument -- which makes use of a singular state. In particular, we show that if the position of the first particle is privileged (e.g., as Bohr would do in a position measuring context), the position of the second particle acquires a definite value by virtue of lying in the corresponding maximal beable subalgebra. But then (by the indeterminacy principle) the momentum of the second particle is not a beable; and EPR's argument for the simultaneous reality of both position and momentum is undercut. (shrink)

In theories with a diffeomorphism symmetry, such as general relativity and canonical quantum gravity, it is often proposed that the empirical content is encoded in relational observables. But how do relational observables actually make contact with experience? I argue that this question can only be answered by providing a schematization of the observer which is appropriate for the context of a diffeomorphism-invariant theory. I suggest that this may require us to move away from a ‘passive awareness’ conception of (...) consciousness towards a more agential conception, because there is a clear sense in which an embodied agent must experience herself as localised at a time. Finally, I consider what this means for the prospects of using quantum reference frames to address the problem of time, arguing that the way in which quantum reference frames are standardly described does not give us adequate resources to model agency, so some other kind of internal reference frame may be required to fully explain how we observe relational observables in the quantum context. (shrink)

In this paper, aspects of observable and non-observable based models are discussed. A survey of recent literature was done to show how using non-observable-based language carelessly may cause disagreement, even in professional research programs and incorrect assertions, even in prestigious journals. The relation between physical measurements and observables is discussed and it is shown that, in contrast to general belief, this relation may be complicated and not always straightforward. The decomposition of the system into basic subsystems (physical or conceptual) (...) is traced as the origin of non-observable-based languages. The possibility of defining new quantum mechanical observables for open quantum subsystems and of replacing them with non-observable-based concepts has been mentioned and the AIM theory is explained as an example. An account of some current non-observable-based models for molecular geometry is discussed and it is shown that not all non-observable-based languages possess the same effectiveness. In the end, the need to develop a clear chemical language is stressed. (shrink)

I propose a general geometric framework in which to discuss the existence of time observables. This framework allows one to describe a local sense in which time observables always exist, and a global sense in which they can sometimes exist subject to a restriction on the vector fields that they generate. Pauli׳s prohibition on quantum time observables is derived as a corollary to this result. I will then discuss how time observables can be regained in modest (...) extensions of quantum theory beyond its standard formulation. (shrink)

In this article I reply to Fleming׳s response to my ‘Time and quantum theory: a history and a prospectus.’ I take issue with two of his claims: (i) that quantum theory concerns the (potential) properties of eternally persisting objects; (ii) that there is an underdetermination problem for Positive Operator Valued Measures (POVMs). I advocate an event-first view which regards the probabilities supplied by quantum theory as probabilities for the occurrence of physical events rather than the possession of properties by persisting (...) objects. (shrink)

For sharp quantum observables the following facts hold: (i) if we have a collection of sharp observables and each pair of them is jointly measurable, then they are jointly measurable all together; (ii) if two sharp observables are jointly measurable, then their joint observable is unique and it gives the greatest lower bound for the effects corresponding to the observables; (iii) if we have two sharp observables and their every possible two outcome partitionings are jointly (...) measurable, then the observables themselves are jointly measurable. We show that, in general, these properties do not hold. Also some possible candidates which would accompany joint measurability and generalize these apparently useful properties are discussed. (shrink)