Abstract
Nonobjectivity of physical properties enters physics with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM), and a number of paradoxes of this theory follow from it. It seems, however, based on sound physical arguments (double slit experiment, Heisenberg's principle, Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem, etc.), so that most physicists think that avoiding it is impossible. We discuss these arguments here and show that they can be criticized from a physical viewpoint. Our criticism proves that nonobjectivity must be considered an epistemological choice rather than an unavoidable feature of QM, so that an objective interpretation of QM is not a priori impossible, which justifies our attempt at providing it in some previous papers. This interpretation is based on a classical language in which the language of the standard interpretation (Quantum Logic) is embedded as a subset of statements that are directly testable according to QM.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
N. D. Mermin, “Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803 (1993).
P. Busch, P. J. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt, The Quantum Theory of Measurement (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
D. Z. Albert, Quantum Mechanics and Experience (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994).
F. Selleri, “History of the Einstein–Podolski-Rosen paradox,” in Quantum Mechanics Versus Local Realism, F. Selleri, ed. (Plenum, New York, 1988), p. 1.
A. Einstein, B. Podolski, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum mechanical description of reality be considered complete?,” Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
C. Garola, “Classical foundations of quantum logic,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 30, 1 (1991).
C. Garola and L. Solombrino, “The theoretical apparatus of Semantic Realism: A new language for classical and quantum physics,” Found. Phys. 26, 1121 (1996).
C. Garola and L. Solombrino, “Semantic realism versus EPR-like paradoxes: The Furry, Bohm–Aharonov and Bell paradoxes,” Found. Phys. 26, 1329 (1996).
C. Garola, “Against ‘paradoxes’: A new quantum philosophy for quantum mechanics,” in Quantum Structures and the Nature of Reality, D. Aerts and J. Pykacz, eds. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1999), p. 103.
G. Ludwig, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics I (Springer, New York, 1983).
P. Mittelstaedt, “Individual objects, kinds and the identity of indiscernibles in physics,” in Waves, Information and Foundations of Physics, R. Pratesi and L. Ronchi, eds. (Editrice Compositori, Bologna, 1998), p. 239.
M. Dalla Chiara, Logica (ISEDI, Milan, 1974).
K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1969).
B. Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (Allen & Unwin, London, 1940).
C. Dalla Pozza and C. Garola, “A pragmatic interpretation of intuitionistic propositional logic,” Erkenntnis 43, 81 (1995).
B. D'Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin, Reading, Massachussets, 1976).
C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Dieu, and F. Laloë, Méchanique Quantique (Hermann, Paris, 1977).
C. Piron, Foundations of Quantum Physics (Benjamin, Reading, 1976).
S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,” J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967).
S. C. Calude, P. H. Hertling, and K. Svozil, “Embedding quantum universes into classical ones,” Found. Phys. 29, 349 (1999).
C. Garola, “Truth versus testability in quantum logic,” Erkenntnis 37, 197 (1992).
P. Busch and P. Mittelstaedt, “The problem of objectification in quantum mechanics,” Found. Phys. 21, 889 (1991).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garola, C. Objectivity versus Nonobjectivity in Quantum Mechanics. Foundations of Physics 30, 1539–1565 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026466120178
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026466120178