Abstract
Jim Cushing emphasized that physical theory should tell us an intelligible and objective story about the world, and concluded that the Bohm theory is to be preferred over the Copenhagen interpretation. We argue here, however, that the Bohm theory is only one member of a wider class of interpretations that can be said to fulfill Cushing’s desiderata. We discuss how the pictures provided by these interpretations differ from the classical one. In particular, it seems that a rather drastic form of perspectivalism is needed if accordance with special relativity is to be achieved.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. Cushing (1994) Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony University of Chicago Press Chicago
H. De Regt, and D. Dieks, “A Contextual Approach to Scientific Understanding,Synthese, to appear 2005
J. Von Neumann (1932) Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik Springer Verlag Berlin
D. Bohm (1952) ArticleTitle“A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden Variables’, I; II” Phys. Rev 185 166–179
B. Fraassen ParticleVan (1981) “A Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” E. Beltrametti B. Fraassen Particlevan (Eds) Current Issues in Quantum Logic. Plenum New York 229–258
B. Van Fraassen (1991) Quantum Mechanics Clarendon Press Oxford
S. Kochen (1985) “A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” P. Lahti P. Mittelstaedt (Eds) Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics (World Scientific Singapore 151–169
D. Dieks (1998) ArticleTitle“Quantum Mechanics Without the Projection Postulate and its Realistic Interpretation” Found. Phys l19 1395–1423
D. Dieks (1989) ArticleTitleof the Measurement Problem Through Decoherence of the Quantum State” Phys.Lett A142 439–446
R. Healey (1988) The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics Cambridge University Press Cambridge
J. Bub R. Clifton (1996) ArticleTitle“A Uniqueness Theorem for ‘No Collapse’ Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics” Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys 27 181–219
J. Bub (1997) Interpreting the Quantum World Cambridge University Press Cambridge
J. Bub R. Clifton S. Goldstein (2000) ArticleTitleProof of the Uniqueness Theorem for ‘No Collapse’ Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics” Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys 31 95–98
P.E. Vermaas D. Dieks (1995) ArticleTitle“The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Its Generalization to Density Operators” Found. Phys 25 145–158
D. Dieks (1995) ArticleTitle“Physical motivation of the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics” Phys. Lett A 197 367–371
Fine A.(1982). “Hidden Variables, Joint probability and the Bell Inequalities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 291–295 1982; “Joint Distributions, Quantum Correlations, and Commuting Observables,” J. Math. Phys. 23, 1306–1310 .
D. Dieks (1994) ArticleTitle“The modal interpretation of quantum mechanics, measurement and macroscopic behaviour” Phys. Rev. D 49 2290–2300
W. Myrvold (2002) ArticleTitleInterpretations and Relativity” Found. Phys 32 1773–1784
G. Bene D. Dieks (2002) ArticleTitle“A Perspectival Version of the Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Origin of Macroscopic Behavior” Found. Phys 32 645–671
J. Berkovitz M. Hemmo (2005) ArticleTitle“Modal Interpretations and Relativity: A Reconsideration” Found.Phys 35 373–398
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dieks, D. Quantum Mechanics: An Intelligible Description of Objective Reality?. Found Phys 35, 399–415 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1981-y
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1981-y