Foundations of Physics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 399–415 | Cite as

Quantum Mechanics: An Intelligible Description of Objective Reality?

  • Dennis Dieks


Jim Cushing emphasized that physical theory should tell us an intelligible and objective story about the world, and concluded that the Bohm theory is to be preferred over the Copenhagen interpretation. We argue here, however, that the Bohm theory is only one member of a wider class of interpretations that can be said to fulfill Cushing’s desiderata. We discuss how the pictures provided by these interpretations differ from the classical one. In particular, it seems that a rather drastic form of perspectivalism is needed if accordance with special relativity is to be achieved.


quantum mechanics objective reality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cushing, J. 1994Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen HegemonyUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. De Regt, and D. Dieks, “A Contextual Approach to Scientific Understanding,Synthese, to appear 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Von Neumann, J. 1932Mathematische Grundlagen der QuantenmechanikSpringer VerlagBerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohm, D. 1952“A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden Variables’, I; II”Phys. Rev185166179Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fraassen, B. 1981“A Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”Beltrametti, E.Fraassen, B. eds. Current Issues in Quantum Logic.PlenumNew York229258Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Fraassen, B. 1991Quantum MechanicsClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kochen, S. 1985“A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”Lahti, P.Mittelstaedt, P. eds. Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics(World ScientificSingapore151169Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dieks, D. 1998“Quantum Mechanics Without the Projection Postulate and its Realistic Interpretation”Found. Physl1913951423Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dieks, D. 1989of the Measurement Problem Through Decoherence of the Quantum State”Phys.LettA142439446Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Healey, R. 1988The Philosophy of Quantum MechanicsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bub, J., Clifton, R. 1996“A Uniqueness Theorem for ‘No Collapse’ Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics”Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys27181219Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bub, J. 1997Interpreting the Quantum WorldCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bub, J., Clifton, R., Goldstein, S. 2000Proof of the Uniqueness Theorem for ‘No Collapse’ Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics”Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys319598Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vermaas, P.E., Dieks, D. 1995“The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Its Generalization to Density Operators”Found. Phys25145158Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dieks, D. 1995“Physical motivation of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics”Phys. Lett A197367371Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fine A.(1982). “Hidden Variables, Joint probability and the Bell Inequalities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 291–295 1982; “Joint Distributions, Quantum Correlations, and Commuting Observables,” J. Math. Phys. 23, 1306–1310 .Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dieks, D. 1994“The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics, measurement and macroscopic behaviour”Phys. Rev. D4922902300Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Myrvold, W. 2002Interpretations and Relativity”Found. Phys3217731784Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bene, G., Dieks, D. 2002“A Perspectival Version of the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Origin of Macroscopic Behavior”Found. Phys32645671Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berkovitz, J., Hemmo, M. 2005“Modal Interpretations and Relativity: A Reconsideration”Found.Phys35373398Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for History and Foundations of ScienceUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations