Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 1539–1565 | Cite as

Objectivity versus Nonobjectivity in Quantum Mechanics

  • Claudio Garola
Article

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.

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Quantum Logic Standard Interpretation Classical Language Physical Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    N. D. Mermin, “Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803 (1993).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Busch, P. J. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt, The Quantum Theory of Measurement (Springer, Berlin, 1991).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Z. Albert, Quantum Mechanics and Experience (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Selleri, “History of the Einstein–Podolski-Rosen paradox,” in Quantum Mechanics Versus Local Realism, F. Selleri, ed. (Plenum, New York, 1988), p. 1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Einstein, B. Podolski, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum mechanical description of reality be considered complete?,” Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Garola, “Classical foundations of quantum logic,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 30, 1 (1991).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Garola and L. Solombrino, “The theoretical apparatus of Semantic Realism: A new language for classical and quantum physics,” Found. Phys. 26, 1121 (1996).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Garola and L. Solombrino, “Semantic realism versus EPR-like paradoxes: The Furry, Bohm–Aharonov and Bell paradoxes,” Found. Phys. 26, 1329 (1996).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Ludwig, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics I (Springer, New York, 1983).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Dalla Chiara, Logica (ISEDI, Milan, 1974).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1969).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (Allen & Unwin, London, 1940).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Dalla Pozza and C. Garola, “A pragmatic interpretation of intuitionistic propositional logic,” Erkenntnis 43, 81 (1995).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. D'Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Benjamin, Reading, Massachussets, 1976).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Dieu, and F. Laloë, Méchanique Quantique (Hermann, Paris, 1977).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Piron, Foundations of Quantum Physics (Benjamin, Reading, 1976).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics,” J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. C. Calude, P. H. Hertling, and K. Svozil, “Embedding quantum universes into classical ones,” Found. Phys. 29, 349 (1999).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Garola, “Truth versus testability in quantum logic,” Erkenntnis 37, 197 (1992).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. Busch and P. Mittelstaedt, “The problem of objectification in quantum mechanics,” Found. Phys. 21, 889 (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio Garola
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Fisica dell'UniversitàLecceItaly

Personalised recommendations