Skip to main content

Can Classical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?

  • Chapter
Constituting Objectivity

Part of the book series: The Western Ontario Series In Philosophy of Science ((WONS,volume 74))

Abstract

We propose a definition of physical objects that aims to clarify some in-terpretational problems in quantum mechanics. We claim that the transformations induced by an objective property of a physical system must leave invariant all the other objective properties of the same system. The uncertainty principle is understood as a natural consequence of the imbrication between objective properties and non-objective properties. It follows from the proposed definition that in classical mechanics non-objective properties are wrongly considered objective. We conclude that, unlike classical mechanics, quantum mechanics provides a complete objective description of physical systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abraham, R. and Marsden, J.E. [1978]: Foundations of Mechanics, second ed., Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auyang, S.Y. [1995]: How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible?, Oxford/New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergson, H. [1938]: La pensée et le mouvant, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Born, M. [1998]: ‘Physical Reality’, in E. Castellani (ed.), Interpreting Bodies. Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brylinski, J.-L. [1993]: Loop Spaces, Characteristic Classes, and Geometric Quantization, Progr. Math. 107, Boston, MA: Birkhäuser Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castagnino, M., Catren, G. and Ferraro, R. [2002]: ‘Time Asymmetries in Quantum Cosmology and Boundary Conditions to the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation’, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Vol. 19, No. 18, pp. 4729–4746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catren, G. [2008]: ‘On Classical and Quantum Objectivity’, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 470–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. [1935]: ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’, Physical Review, Vol. 47, pp. 777–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. [1981]: Classical Mechanics, Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heelan, P. [2004]: ‘The Phenomenological Role of Consciousness in Measurement’, Mind and Matter, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgevoord, J. and Uffink, J. [2008]: ‘The Uncertainty Principle’, The stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://palto.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2008/entries/qt-uncertainty.

  • Kostant, B. [1970]: ‘Quantization and Unitary Representations’, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 170, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanczos, C. [1986]: The Variational Principles of Mechanics, New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libermann, P. and Marle, C.-M. [1987]: Symplectic Geometry and Analytical Mechanics, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, J.E. and Ratiu, T.S. [1999]: Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry, second ed., New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelsteadt, P. [2006]: ‘Einstein's Objections Against Quantum Mechanics’, Physics and Philosophy, http://hdl.handle.net/2003/22995.

  • Nozick, R. [1998]: ‘Invariance and Objectivity’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 21–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souriau, J.-M. [1997]: Structure of Dynamical Systems. A Symplectic View of Physics, Cambridge, MA: Birkhäuser Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyl, H. [1952]: Symmetry, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A.N. [1978]: Process and Reality, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, N. [1992]: Geometric Quantization, second ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Catren, G. (2009). Can Classical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?. In: Bitbol, M., Kerszberg, P., Petitot, J. (eds) Constituting Objectivity. The Western Ontario Series In Philosophy of Science, vol 74. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9510-8_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics