Download the poster
(see also https://sites.google.com/site/witherquantum2)
ON THE FOUNDATIONS
|11:00||JULIEN PAGE and GABRIEL CATREN (ERC-Philoquantumgravity) On the Galoisian structure of the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle [Abstract] [Slides]|
|11:30||SANDRO SOZZO and DIEDERIK AERTS (University of Leicester) Modeling Concept Combinations in a Quantum-theoretic Framework [Abstract] [Slides]|
|12:30||Lunch at CLEA|
|14:00||JORT BERGFELD (University of Amsterdam) Duality for the logic of quantum action [Abstract] [Slides]|
|14:30||SHENGYANG ZHONG (University of Amsterdam) On a Connection between Piron Lattices and Kripke Frames [Abstract] [Slides]|
|15:00||GIOVANNI CINA (University of Amsterdam) Connecting the categorical and the modal logic approaches to Quantum Mechanics [Abstract] [Slides]|
|15:30||BOB COECKE (University of Oxford) The logic of Quantum Mechanics - Take II [Abstract] [Slides]|
|16:20||ALEKS KISSINGER (University of Oxford) Categories of quantum and classical channels [Abstract]|
|17:10||CHRIS HEUNEN (University of Oxford) The many classical faces of quantum structures [Slides]|
|18:00||Cofee + Discussion session I: Compund Quantum Systems|
|21:00||Dinner in Restaurant|
|10:30||WIM CHRISTIAENS (Center Leo Apostel)|
|11:20||FEDERICO HOLIK (Center Leo Apostel) Logic, geometry and probability theory [Abstract] [Slides]|
|12:10||CLAUDIO GAROLA (Università del Salento) Recovering Quantum Logic Within A Non-Contextual Extension Of Quantum Mechanics [Abstract]|
|13:20||Lunch at CLEA + Discussion Session II: Whither Quantum Structures In The XXIth Century?|
|15:00||KARIN VERELST (Center Leo Apostel) Quantum Structures and Causation [Slides]|
|15:50||ISAR STUBBE (Université du Littoral Côtte d'Oppale) Local elements, partial metrics [Slides]|
|16:40||NAHUEL SZNAJDERHAUS (University of Leeds) An Historical and Philosophical Account of the Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics [Abstract] [Slides]|
|17:10||SELMA DUNDAR-COECKE (University of Oxford) A quest for new quantum words [Abstract] [Slides]|
Many would agree with E. Schrodinger that “…entanglement is THE characteristic trait of quantum mechanics” [1-2, his capitals]. However, even with so many refined experimental techniques and a deeper mathematical understanding of the formalism, there is no agreement on the physical meaning of superposition and entanglement. Worse, it would seem we still need to answer really basic questions:
Notice that the answers one gives, even the order in which one answers these questions, reveal global orientations: about the nature of the object, of objectivity, of physics with respect to the compound problem of realism and objectivity, of mathematics with respect to similar epistemic and ontic issues ...
Here is one way to gather all of that together. The manner in which physics has been able to fix its attention, isolate an object, constitute that object according to its objectivity, might not be ideal, it does serve as an ideal for any of the other sciences that grew to maturity in its wake. The problem quantum mechanics confronts us with is this: the most advanced description of an exactly defined object, reveals that a separated, individualized, clearly fixed object, is only contextually possible, not in principle, not in general. In other words, to give a general characterization of physical reality, one has to let go of the idea of physical objects that seem to be the foundation of the worldview that came about together with physics.
Lately the attitude has been to either bracket such discussions (so as to concentrate on applications: quantum information, the possibility of quantum computing) or lose oneself in a conceptual 'cottage industry' (the proliferation of kinds of locality, separability, factorizability ...). In other words, one simply passes over the fact that a satisfactory description of compound quantum entities remains as problematic today as when Diederik Aerts (1982) or Randall and Foullis (1981) proved their NO GO theorems. More generally, having studied tensor products of quantum logics in various approaches, we now know that there does not exist a satisfactory theory of tensor products of orthomodular posets and lattices.
Our intention should be clear: instead of making the lack of a 'well-behaved' quantum logical treatment of quantum compound systems into an objection against the approach, it should be construed as an indication of the nature of the problem, the framework that tells us the boundary conditions, the degrees of freedom of the problem. The Geneva school in quantum logic in particular gathers most of the presuppositions, concepts, problems, intuitions and strong formal results, - enough of them to allow for a fruitful interchange between physicists, philosophers and mathematicians on physical meaning (of superposition, of entanglement) and the meaning of physics.
We will hold two such discussion sessions: (1) on the problem of the quantum logical approach to compound quantum entities, (2) and a general discussion about the future of quantum structures, their perspectives and their role in the wake of present developments in the domain quantum mechanics.
In both sessions we hope for a debate about these problems and encourage the researchers and students as well to give their opinions for possible solutions and developments.