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”.
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
Bell, J.S., “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox”, Physics, 1, 1964, p. 195.
Bell, J.S., “On the Problem of hidden variables in quantum me-chanics”, Rev. Mod. Phys, 38, 1966, p. 447.
Bohm, D., Quantum Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (N.J. ), 1951.
Bohm, D. and Aharonov, Y., “Discussion of experimental Proofs for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky”, Phys. Rev, 108, 1957, p. 1070.
Bohr, N., “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Reality be Considered Complete?”, Phys. Rev, 48, 1935, p. 696.
Braithwaite, R.B., Scientific Explanation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1953.
Busch, P., Lahti, P.J., and Mittelstaedt, P., The Quantum Theory of measurement, Springer, Berlin, 1991.
Dalla Pozza, C. and Garola, C., “A Pragmatic Interpretation of Intuitionistic Propositional logic”, Erkenntnis, 43, 1995, p. 81.
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., “Can quantum mechanical description of reality be considered complete?”, Phys. Rev, 47, 1935, p. 777.
Finkelstein, D., “Matter, space and logic”, in: Hooker, C. A. (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to quantum mechanics, Vol II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.
Finkelstein, D., “The physics of logic”, in: Hooker, C. A. (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to quantum mechanics, Vol II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.
Furry, W.H., “Note on the quantum mechanical theory of measurement”, Phys. Rev, 49, 1936, p. 393.
Furry, W.H., “Remarks on measurements in quantum theory”, Phys. Rev, 49, 1936, p. 476.
Garola, C., “Embedding of posets into lattices in quantum logic”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 24, 1985, p. 423.
Garola, C., “classical foundations of quantum logic”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 30, 1991, p. 1.
Garola, C., “Semantic incompleteness of quantum physics”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 31, 1992, p. 809.
Garola, C., “Truth versus testability in quantum logic”, Erkenntnis, 37, 1992, p. 197.
Garola, C., “Reconciling local realism and quantum physics: a critique to Bell”, Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika, 99, 1994, p. 285.
Garola, C., “Criticizing Bell: Local realism and quantum physics reconciled”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 34, 1995, p. 269.
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.
Garola, C., “Pragmatic versus semantic contextuality in quantum physics”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 34, 1995, p. 1383.
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.
Garola, C. and Solombrino, L., “Semantic realism versus EPRlike paradoxes: the Furry, Bohm-Aharonov and Bell paradoxes”, Found. of Phys, 26, 1996, p. 1329.
Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Shimony A., and Zeilinger, A., “Bell’s theorem without Inequalities”, Am. Journ. of Phys, 58, 1990, p. 1131.
Hempel, C.C., Aspects of Scientific Explanation, Free Press, New York, 1965.
Kochen, S. and Specker, E.P., “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journ. of Math. Mech, 17, 1967, p. 59.
Jauch, J.M., Foundations of quantum mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading (Mass. ), 1968.
Ludwig, G., Foundations of quantum mechanics I, Springer Verlag, New York, 1983.
Mackey, G.W., The Mathematical Foundations of quantum mechanics, Benjamin, New York, 1963.
Mermin, N.D., “Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 65, 1993, p. 803.
Piron, C., Foundations of Quantum Physics, Benjamin, Reading, ( Mass. ), 1976.
Popper, K.R., Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1969.
Putnam, H., “Is logic empirical?”, in: Hooker, C.A. (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to quantum mechanics, Vol II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.
Russell, B., An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, Allen Unwin, London, 1940.
Sakurai, J.J., Modern quantum mechanics, W.A. Benjamin, Reading (Mass. ), 1985.
Sellerl, F., “Even local probabilities lead to the paradox”, in: Sellerl, F. (ed.), quantum mechanics Versus Local Realism, Plenum Press, New York, 1988.
Tarski, A., Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1956.
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.
Wigner, E.P., “On hidden variables and quantum mechanical probabilities”, Am. Journ. of Phys, 38, 1970, p. 1005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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