Talk by Michael Cuffaro and Gábor Hofer-Szabó at the MCMP (Thu 28th)

[Dardashti, Radin]

Speaker: Michael Cuffaro (MCMP)
Date: Thu., May 28
Location: Ludwigstr. 31, ground floor, room 021
Time: 12:15 -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 13:45

Title: How Do Quantum Systems Evolve?

Abstract: There are excellent physical reasons for believing that 
quantum systems evolve `completely positively' through time (i.e. that 
their dynamical evolution can be described exclusively using CP `maps'). 
Despite these reasons, there has nevertheless been a long-standing and 
sometimes passionate debate between physicists over whether some 
evolutions require that they be described using /not/ completely 
positive (NCP) maps. In my talk I will attempt to diffuse this debate by 
arguing that we should side with the minority opinion, but with a 
qualification: NCP maps should be understood, not as reflecting `not 
completely positive' evolution, but rather as /partially defined/ CP 
maps, and that the debate over the properties one should ascribe to the 
/extension/ of such a partially-defined map is akin to a debate over the 
properties one should ascribe to a phantom. I close by speculating on 
some of the implications of incorporating such `NCP' maps into a quantum 
dynamical framework.
*Note: although this talk will be on a specialised topic, every effort 
will be made to motivate it for and make it accessible to a 
non-specialist audience.*


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker: Gábor Hofer-Szabó (Hungarian Academy of Sciences)
Date: Thu., May 28
Location: Ludwigstr. 31, ground floor, room 021
Time: 16:15 -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 17:45

Title: On Einstein's Reality Criterion

Abstract: In the talk we characterize the different interpretations of 
QM in an operationalist-frequentist framework and show what entities the 
different interpretations posit. We define completeness and correctness 
of an interpretation in terms of how this posited ontology relates to 
the "real world ontology" posited by principles independent of the 
interpretations. We argue that the Reality Criterion is just such a 
principle. We also argue that the EPR argument, making use of the 
Reality Criterion, is devised to show that certain interpretations of QM 
are incomplete, whereas Einstein's latter arguments, making no use of 
the Reality Criterion, are devised to show that the Copenhagen 
interpretation is simply wrong. Next, investigating the nature of 
prediction, an essential part of the Reality Criterion, we formulate two 
hypothesis: (i) the Reality Criterion is a special case of Reichenbach's 
Common Cause Principle; (ii) it is a special case of Bell's Local 
Causality Principle.