Abstract
In classical physics, mechanical systems are thought of as fully determined entities in two prominent senses. First, they always have sharply defined values of position, momentum, and all the so-called dynamical properties (angular momentum, energy, etc.). Second, the evolution of the values in question follows a deterministic law. According to classical mechanics, therefore, a measurement of a dynamical property on a system o yields a value which one can attribute to a retroactively, at least in principle. None of this is clearly the case in quantum mechanics [QM], a theory in which the standard dynamical properties split into incompatible subsets. For example, simultaneous specification of position and momentum is not straightforward in QM. On the most influential interpretation of the theory among practicing physicists, the so-called “Copenhagen Interpretation” [CI], this incompatibility is of an ontological character and rooted in the quantum world. Within the framework of CI, all physical entities are subject to some degree of property-indeterminateness, ontological entanglement, and objective chance, all of which traits are completely alien to the traditional conception of physical objects. Refusing to regard the mentioned oddities as shortcomings of the theory, defenders of CI maintain that QM provides a complete description of mechanical systems, and that the measurement process plays an active role in the very generation of property values(i.e., measurement fails to to reflect prior reality).
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
Albert, D. (1989), “On Theories of the Collapse of the Wave-Function”, in M. Kafatos (ed.), Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.
Albert, D. and B. Loewer (1989), “Two No-Collapse Interpretations of Quantum Theory”, Noûs 23, 169.
Barchielli, A., L. Lanz and G. M. Prosperi (1982), “A Model for the Macroscopic Description and Continual Observations in Quantum Mechanics”, Nuovo Cimento 72B, 79.
Bell, J. S. (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics,Ch. 22. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bell, J. S. (1989), Sixty Years of Uncertainty, A. Miller (ed.), New York: Plenum, pp. 17–32.
Bohr, N. (1934), Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bohr, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review 48, 696.
Bohr, N. (1948), “On the Notion of Causality and Complementarity”, Dialectica II, 312. Bohm, D. (1951), Quantum Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bub, J. (1968), “The DLP Quantum Theory of Measurement”, Nuovo Cimento 57B, 503.
Bub, J. (1987), “How to Solve the Measurement Problem of Quantum Mechanics”, Read at the 8th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Phil. Sc., Moscow 1987.Short version in Abstracts, 8th Int. Congress LMPS, Vol. 5, part 2: 62.
Cordero, A. (1988), “Probability and the Mystery of Quantum Mechanics”, in E. Agazzi (ed.), Probability and the Sciences, Dordrecht: Kluwer, p. 217.
Cordero, A. (1989a), “Quantum Measurement, Physics and Philosophy”, Proc. 13th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg: 1989.
Cordero, A. (1989b), “Non-Linearity and Post-Bell Quantum Mechanics”, in M. Kafatos (ed.),Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.
Cordero, A. (1989c), “Can we Distinguish Between Science and Metaphysics?”, Epistemologia XI (Science and Metaphysics): 65.
Cushing, J. T.and E. McMullin (eds.) (1989), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Daneri, A., A. Loinger and G. M. Prosperi (1962), “Quantum Theory of Measurement and Ergodicity Conditions”, Nuclear Physics 33, 297.
Einstein, A., B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (1935), “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review 47, 777.
Everett III, H. (1957), “ `Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics”, Rev. Mod. Phys 29, 454.
DeWitt, B.and N. Graham (eds.) (1973), The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fine, A. (1970), “Insolubility of the Quantum Measurement Problem”, Phys. Rev. D2, 2783.
Folse, H. J. (1985), The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Complementarity, Amsterdam- North Holland.
Ghirardi, G. C. et al. (1986), “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems”, Physical Review D 34, 470.
Ghisin, N. (1989), “Stochastic Quantum Dynamics and Relativity”, Helvetica Physica Acta 62, 363–371.
Gleanson, A. M. (1957), “Measures on the closed sub-spaces of Hilbert spaces”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 6, 885.
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawking, S. W. (1975), “Particle creation by black holes”, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199.
Hawking, S. W. (1982), “The Unpredictability of Quantum Gravity”, Common. Math. Phys.87, 395.
Heisenberg, W. (1971), Physics and Beyond, New York: Harper & Row.
Howard, D. (1985), “Realism and Conventionalism in Einstein’s Philosophy and Science: The Einstein-Schlik Correspondence”, Philosophia Naturalis 21, 616.
Howard, D. (1985), “Einstein on Locality and Separability”, Studies in Hist. and Phil. of Sc. 16, 171.
Jammer, M. (1974), The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, New York: Wiley. Jauch, J. M. (1964), Hell/. Phys. Acta 37, 293.
Jauch, J. M. (1968), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Jenkin, F. (1887), Papers, edited by S. Colvin and J. A. Ewing. London.
Joos, E. and H. D. Zeh (1985), “The Emergence of Classical Properties Through Interaction with the Environment”, Z. Phys. B. 59, 223.
Jordan, P. (1944), Physics in the 20th Century, New York: Philosophical Library.
Kelvin,W. T. (1894), Popular Lectures and Addresses,London.
Kraus, K. (1983), States, Effects, and Operators, Heidelberg: Springer.
Ludwig, G. (1967), 1234 Commun. Math. Phys. 4, 331.
Ludwig, G. (1968), 1234 Commun. Math. Phys. 9, 1.
Ludwig, G. (1983), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics I,New York: Springer.
Machida, S. and M. Namiki (1983), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in The Light of New Technology, S. Kamefuchi (ed.), Tokyo: Physics Society of Japan, p. 127.
Murdoch, D. (1987), Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Physics,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rozental, S. (ed.) (1967), Niels Bohr: His Life and Work as Seen by his Friends and Colleagues, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Shapere, D. (1982), “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy”, Phil. Sc. 49, 485.
Shapere, D. (1989), “Modern Physics and the Philosophy of Science”, in A. Fine and J. Leplin (eds.), PSA 1988, Vol. 2, East Lansing: Phil. Sc. Association.
Shimony, A. (1974), Phys. Rev. D9, 2321.
Shimony, A. (1989), “Search for a Worldview Which Can Accommodate Our Knowledge of Microphysics”, in Cushing and McMullin (1989): 25.
Von Neumann, J. (1932/1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955.
Wigner, E. P. (1963), “The Problem of Measurement”, Am. J. Phys. 31, 6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cordero, A. (1995). Prior Information and the Development of New Ideas: The Copenhagen Family of Theories. In: Leplin, J. (eds) The Creation of Ideas in Physics. The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol 55. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0037-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0037-3_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4021-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0037-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive