Skip to main content

Against “Paradoxes”: A New Quantum Philosophy for Quantum Mechanics

  • Chapter
Quantum Structures and the Nature of Reality

Abstract

It is a commonplace that XXth century physics has produced powerful new theories, such as Relativity and quantum mechanics, that upset the world view provided by XIXth century physics. But every physicist knows how difficult it may be to explain the basic aspects of these theories to people having a non-physical professional training. The main reason of this is that both Relativity and quantum mechanics are based on fundamental ideas that are not hard to grasp in themselves, but deeply contrast the primary categories on which our everyday thinking is based, so that it is impossible to place relativistic and quantum results within the framework suggested by ordinary intuition and common sense. Yet, despite this similarity, there are some relevant differences between the difficulties arising in Relativity and in quantum mechanics. In order to understand this point better, let us focus our attention on Special Relativity first (analogous arguments can be forwarded by considering General Relativity). Here, the strange links between space and time following from the even more strange assumption that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the observer conflict with the very simple conception of space and time implicit in our daily practice (and explicitly stated in classical Physics, think of Newton’s “absolute space” and “absolute time”): but this conflict regards geometrical space-time models, not the very roots of our language, hence our thought. Then, let us consider quantum mechanics. Here it is a basic notion that properties of physical systems are nonobjective, in the sense that a property cannot be thought of as existing if a measurement of it is not performed. As Mermin [30] writes,

“it is a fundamental quantum doctrine that a measurement does not, in general, reveal a preexisting value of the measured property”.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

  1. Bell, J.S., “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox”, Physics, 1, 1964, p. 195.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bell, J.S., “On the Problem of hidden variables in quantum me-chanics”, Rev. Mod. Phys, 38, 1966, p. 447.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bohm, D., Quantum Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (N.J. ), 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bohm, D. and Aharonov, Y., “Discussion of experimental Proofs for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky”, Phys. Rev, 108, 1957, p. 1070.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Bohr, N., “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Reality be Considered Complete?”, Phys. Rev, 48, 1935, p. 696.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Braithwaite, R.B., Scientific Explanation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1953.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Busch, P., Lahti, P.J., and Mittelstaedt, P., The Quantum Theory of measurement, Springer, Berlin, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dalla Pozza, C. and Garola, C., “A Pragmatic Interpretation of Intuitionistic Propositional logic”, Erkenntnis, 43, 1995, p. 81.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., “Can quantum mechanical description of reality be considered complete?”, Phys. Rev, 47, 1935, p. 777.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Finkelstein, D., “Matter, space and logic”, in: Hooker, C. A. (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to quantum mechanics, Vol II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Finkelstein, D., “The physics of logic”, in: Hooker, C. A. (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to quantum mechanics, Vol II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Furry, W.H., “Note on the quantum mechanical theory of measurement”, Phys. Rev, 49, 1936, p. 393.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Furry, W.H., “Remarks on measurements in quantum theory”, Phys. Rev, 49, 1936, p. 476.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Garola, C., “Embedding of posets into lattices in quantum logic”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 24, 1985, p. 423.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Garola, C., “classical foundations of quantum logic”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 30, 1991, p. 1.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Garola, C., “Semantic incompleteness of quantum physics”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 31, 1992, p. 809.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Garola, C., “Truth versus testability in quantum logic”, Erkenntnis, 37, 1992, p. 197.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Garola, C., “Reconciling local realism and quantum physics: a critique to Bell”, Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika, 99, 1994, p. 285.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Garola, C., “Criticizing Bell: Local realism and quantum physics reconciled”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 34, 1995, p. 269.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Garola, C., “An operational Critique to Bell’s Theorem”, in: Garola, C. and Rossi, A. (eds.), The Foundations of quantum mechanics. Historical Analysis and Open Questions, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Garola, C., “Pragmatic versus semantic contextuality in quantum physics”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 34, 1995, p. 1383.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Garola, C. and Solombrino, L., “The theoretical apparatus of semantic realism: A new language for classical and quantum physics”, Found. of Phys, 26, 1996, p. 1121.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Garola, C. and Solombrino, L., “Semantic realism versus EPRlike paradoxes: the Furry, Bohm-Aharonov and Bell paradoxes”, Found. of Phys, 26, 1996, p. 1329.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Shimony A., and Zeilinger, A., “Bell’s theorem without Inequalities”, Am. Journ. of Phys, 58, 1990, p. 1131.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Hempel, C.C., Aspects of Scientific Explanation, Free Press, New York, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kochen, S. and Specker, E.P., “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journ. of Math. Mech, 17, 1967, p. 59.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Jauch, J.M., Foundations of quantum mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading (Mass. ), 1968.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Ludwig, G., Foundations of quantum mechanics I, Springer Verlag, New York, 1983.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Mackey, G.W., The Mathematical Foundations of quantum mechanics, Benjamin, New York, 1963.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Mermin, N.D., “Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 65, 1993, p. 803.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Piron, C., Foundations of Quantum Physics, Benjamin, Reading, ( Mass. ), 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Popper, K.R., Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Putnam, H., “Is logic empirical?”, in: Hooker, C.A. (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to quantum mechanics, Vol II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Russell, B., An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, Allen Unwin, London, 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sakurai, J.J., Modern quantum mechanics, W.A. Benjamin, Reading (Mass. ), 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sellerl, F., “Even local probabilities lead to the paradox”, in: Sellerl, F. (ed.), quantum mechanics Versus Local Realism, Plenum Press, New York, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tarski, A., Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tarski, A., “The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics”, in: Linsky, L. (ed.), Semantics and the Philosophy of Language, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wigner, E.P., “On hidden variables and quantum mechanical probabilities”, Am. Journ. of Phys, 38, 1970, p. 1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Garola, C. (1999). Against “Paradoxes”: A New Quantum Philosophy for Quantum Mechanics. In: Aerts, D., Pykacz, J. (eds) Quantum Structures and the Nature of Reality. Einstein Meets Magritte: An Interdisciplinary Reflection on Science, Nature, Art, Human Action and Society, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2834-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2834-8_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5243-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2834-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics