Abstract
In his book The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics Max Jammer writes: “The double nature of the macroscopic apparatus (on the one hand a classical object and on the other hand obeying quantum mechanical laws) remained a somewhat questionable or at least obscure feature in Bohr's conception of quantum mechanical measurements.” [1] It is fair to say that this ambiguity is still with us, after more than seventy years. Two related questions are still discussed within the small community of physicists who want to understand better the nature and the meaning of our fundamental theory of matter. On the one hand, one may ask: (a) How is it possible that classical objects with definite and context independent values of their dynamical variables exist, given that the laws of Quantum Mechanics forbid this possibility? On the other hand one may reverse the question and ask: (b) How is it possible that macroscopic objects, which, according to our everyday experience usually behave classically, may show, under suitable circumstances, the bizarre behaviour predicted by Quantum Mechanics?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum. Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974, p. 109
M. Cini, M. De Maria, G. Mattioli, and F. Nicolo, Found, of Phys. 9, 479 (1979)
M. Cini, Nuovo Cim. 73B, 27 (1983)
K. Gottfried, Quantum Mechanics, J.Wiley, New York, 1966, sect. 20.
W. Zurek, Phys.Rev. D24, 1516 (1981)
H.D. Zeh, in: M. Ferrero and A. van der Merwe (eds.) New Developments on Fundamental Problems in Quantum Physics, Kluwer Acad. Press, Dordrecht, 1997
R. Omnes, J.Stat.Phys. 53, 893, 933, 957 (1988)
M. Gell-Mann and J.B. Hartle, Phys.Rev. D47,(8) 3345, 1993
C. Presilla, R. Onofrio, and M. Tombini, Ann.Phys (N.Y.) 248, 95 (1996)
F. Haake, Report to this Conference
C. Presilla, R. Onofrio, and M. Pariorca, J.Phys. A30 7385 (1997)
B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Phys.Rev.Lett. 57, 13 (1986)
M. Brune, S. Haroche, J.M. Raimond, L. Davidovich, N. Zagury. Phys.Rev. A45, 5193 (1992)
R.G. Hulet, D. Kleppner, Phys.Rev.Lett. 51, 1430 (1983)
G.C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, T. Weber, Phys.Rev. D34, 470 (1986)
P.S. de Laplace, Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, Gauthier Villars, Paris 1921, p.2.
M. Cini and M. Serva, Found, of Phys. Lett. 3, 129 (1990).
M. Cini and M. Serva, Phys.Lett. A 167, 319, (1992).
Ph. Blanchard, M. Cini and M. Serva, in: Ideas and methods in quantum and statistical physics. In memory of Raphael Hoegh-Krohn (S. Albeverio et al. eds.) Cambridge University Press, 1992
A. Einstein, Phys. Zeit. 10, 185 (1909)
E. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 40, 479 (1932)
R.P. Feynman, in: Quantum Implications (B.J. Hiley, F.D. Peats eds) Routledge & Kegan, London 1987, p.285
M. Cini, Annals of Phys. in press, 1st March 1999 issue.
J.E. Moyal, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 45, 99 (1945).
M.O. Scully, H. Walther and W. Schleich, Phys. Rev. A, 49, 182 (1994).
T.S. Kuhn The structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cini, M. (2000). Quantum Theory Without Waves: A Way of Eliminating Quantum Mechanical Paradoxes?. In: Blanchard, P., Joos, E., Giulini, D., Kiefer, C., Stamatescu, IO. (eds) Decoherence: Theoretical, Experimental, and Conceptual Problems. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 538. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46657-6_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46657-6_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66899-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46657-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive