Quantum Foundations Resources

8 Responses to Quantum Foundations Resources

1. Ponder Stibbons | 14 May, 2007 at 5:31 pm |

   Thanks for this resource.

2. Pingback: Quantum Foundations Resources

3. Mukul Patel | 15 March, 2012 at 10:50 pm |

   You have any links to websites with lists of research groups or departments where one can go to do work in quantum foundations at Ph.D. level?

4. mleifer | 16 March, 2012 at 6:23 pm |

   A while ago I started compiling a list of quantum foundations researchers, but I never really finished it. It is quite difficult to keep such lists up-to-date, which is why I have avoided posting anything like that. However, if you tell me a bit about which sorts of approaches to quantum foundations you are interested in, and whereabouts in the world you would be prepared to go for a Ph.D., then I can recommend some places to apply.

5. Mukul Patel | 17 March, 2012 at 9:55 am |

   I am convinced that none of the current approaches are going anywhere. Among other things, none of the approaches have anything sensible to say about systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom.

   My concern is more about what is called ‘experimental metaphysics’ by a physicist recently, i.e., actual experiments resolving (or raising) foundational issues. There seems to be too much jumping to foundational conclusions when unwarranted. I wish to look at all the experiments in this field with an ultra-critical eye and then, hopefully, catalog everything that these experiments *are* absolutely telling us, *then* think about what exactly it is that they are telling us. For instance, QFT has finally admitted (in the form of Wilsonian renormalisation paradigm), that there are things that we don’t know, although this ignorance can often be renormalized away. Until we remove this ignorance by knowing—rather than by renormalizing—how can we know what is going on? Also, what is spin-1/2 ? Obviously there is a whole lot of geometry which we simply don’t know there. For that matter, what *is* an electron (when it does indeed ‘behave like a particle’)? Of course, i consider string ‘theory’ a nontheory. What is the relationship between nonlocality, entanglement, contextuality, and wave-particle ‘duality’? Even though i think most of the current theoretical approaches to the quantum quandary are failing to provide a big picture, i have a soft corner for Everett’s thinking, and that of Bohm-De-Broglie , and for Hestenes’ attempts to incorporate geometry via Clifford-Algebras.

   I am willing to go almost anywhere, but have very strong desire to go to Europe if i can find a suitable place there. My background is in Mathematics and some dabbling in theoretical physics. For instance, I am very much at home with thinking of quantum things in terms of toposes or in terms of noncommutative geometry, or pseudo-differential operators and Weyl correspondence.

6. mleifer | 17 March, 2012 at 12:28 pm |

   OK, it sounds like you would fit in well somewhere where people study the foundations of QFT as well as quantum mechanics. Although you mentioned experiments, I am assuming that you don’t actually want to do experiments yourself, but rather that you want to analyse them theoretically. In the UK, I think Imperial College Theoretical Physics group might be a good fit for you and you may want to try Andreas Doering at Oxford. It may also be worth trying Cambridge because they recently renamed their quantum information group to “quantum information and foundations” and there is also a lot of QFT expertise within the same department. As for the rest of Europe, I am less well acquainted with the people doing the type of foundations that interests you there, although the Institute of Theoretical Physics in Utrecht comes to mind because ‘t Hooft has a foundational bent.

   If you actually want to work on Everett, then I would recommend the philosophy of physics group at Oxford. If you want to work on Bohm then I would recommend contacting Sheldon Goldstein at Rutgers in the first instance, and he could refer you to colleagues in Europe if he is not taking students himself. However, it sounds to me like you don’t really want to work on these approaches specifically.

   Generally speaking, it seems like you already have a fairly clear idea of what you want to do and that you might be quite independent as a Ph.D. student. Therefore, it is mainly a question of finding a good advisor who would be willing to support you, even if they are not working on exactly the same thing as you. The suggestions I have given should be good for a start, but let me know if you want a more comprehensive list of groups in the UK at least.

7. Mukul Patel | 17 March, 2012 at 2:02 pm |

   Thanks a lot, Matt, for this kind informative reply.
   Yes, I will certainly follow up on the leads you have provided.
   I wouldn’t mind even *performing* experiments, and even coming up with new experiments as required, and then, if possible, perform those. However, you are right; my main concern is to discern truth, and I am assuming that the truth here is sufficiently complex that it will require new conceptual/theoretical breakthroughs, for which, my mind is perhaps more suitable than the experimental side. At any rate, my motto in this case is ‘whatever it takes’. And hence, i think it is necessary to think from scratch about all the quantum ‘wierdness’ experiments carried out so far, and then some. I am not particularly interested in QFT and/or Quantum Mechanics—both being quasi-theoretical constructs woefully lacking in basic fundamental conceptual content. What I am interested in, though, is quantum *phenomena* and whatever theoretical contribution i might end up making towards a comprehensive understanding thereof, as opposed to the Copenhagen Capitulation and other curiosities such as strings etc.

   Again, I thank you sincerely, and wish you well in your quest, too.

8. mleifer | 17 March, 2012 at 3:21 pm |

   Well, if you are interested in being an experimentalist then you should definitely look up Anton Zeilinger’s group in Vienna and Nicholas Gisin’s group in Geneva. In an experimental Ph.D. you would likely have to work on whatever projects are going on in the lab, and would have less freedom to explore your own ideas, at least initially. However, it can be a good thing to be focussed on a very definite project at the beginning, as it gives you solid training in how to do research before you jump into the deep end. Both groups also have good theoretical research, and I know that Vienna has received a fair bit of funding for foundations Ph.D. students recently, so it is worth contacting them. In particular, you might want to ask Caslav Brukner about theory Ph.D. positions in Vienna, although I suspect his approach might be a bit too Copenhagenish for your liking.

   Although you mentioned that you wanted to be in Europe, I would also recommend looking at Perimeter Institute in Canada for theoretical Ph.D’s. They have one of the strongest foundations groups in the world and the advantage is that there are lots of courses, conferences and workshops held there, so you would likely get exposed to more different approaches than anywhere else. I used to work there myself and have the greatest respect for my colleagues Lucien Hardy and Rob Spekkens in the foundations group. Again, I am not sure whether their research programs will be to your taste, but it is the sort of place where you will be encouraged to pursue your own ideas if they are concrete enough and you show the ability to do so. The nearby Institute for Quantum Computing also has some foundations theory in Joseph Emerson’s group and they also do the occasional foundations experiment there. The institute as a whole is more focussed on quantum information and computing, but Perimeter is only a 20min walk away, so you still get the benefit of all the activities going on there.