Skip to main content
Log in

Pure Quantum Interpretations Are not Viable

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pure interpretations of quantum theory, which throw away the classical part of the Copenhagen interpretation without adding new structure to its quantum part, are not viable. This is a consequence of a non-uniqueness result for the canonical operators.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schmelzer, I.: Why the Hamilton operator alone is not enough. Found. Phys. 39, 486–498 (2009). arXiv:0901.3262

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ablowitz, M.J., Clarkson, P.A.: Solitons, nonlinear evolution equations and inverse scattering. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 149. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bell, J.S.: Beables for quantum field theory. Phys. Rep. 137, 49–54 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bohm, D.: A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables. Phys. Rev. 85, 166–193 (1952)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. de Broglie, L.: La nouvelle dynamique des quanta, in Electrons et Photons: Rapports et Discussions du Cinquieme Conseil de Physique, ed. J. Bordet, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, pp. 105–132 (1928). English translation in: Bacciagaluppi, G., Valentini, A.: Quantum theory at the crossroads: reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference, Cambridge University Press. arXiv:quant-ph/0609184 (2006)

  6. Brown, H.R.: Comment on Valentini “De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory: many worlds in denial?” arXiv:0901.1278

  7. Brown, H.R., Wallace, D.: Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie-Bohm loses out to Everett. Found. Phys. 35(4), 517 (2005). arXiv:quant-ph/0403094

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Deutsch, D.: Comment on Lockwood. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 47, 222–228 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Everett, H.: “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29(3), 454–462 (1957)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghirardi, G.C.: Collapse theories. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2002 edition), available online at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2002/entries/qm-collapse, 2002

  11. Ghirardi, G., Rimini, A., Weber, T.: Unified dynamics for micro and macro systems. Phys. Rev. D 34, 470–491 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Griffiths, R.B.: Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. J. Stat. Phys. 36(12), 219–272 (1984)

    Article  MATH  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Griffiths, R.B.: Quantum mechanics without measurements. arXiv:quant-ph/0612065 (2006)

  14. Kent, A.: Real world interpretations of quantum theory. arXiv:0708.3710 (2007)

  15. Mermin, N.D.: The Ithaca interpretation of quantum mechanics. Pramana 51, 549–565 (1998). arXiv:quant-ph/9609013

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nelson, E.: Derivation of the Schrödinger equation from Newtonian mechanics. Phys. Rev. 150, 1079–1085 (1966)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Saunders, S.: Time, decoherence and quantum mechanics. Synthese 102, 235–266 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmelzer, I.: A condensed matter interpretation of sm fermions and gauge fields. Found. Phys. 39(1), 73 (2009). arXiv:0908.0591

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tegmark, M.: The mathematical universe. Found. Phys. 38, 101–150 (2008)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Valentini, A.: De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory: many worlds in denial? In: [22]. arXiv:0811.0810

  21. Brown, H.R.: Comment on Valentini “De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory: many worlds in denial?” In: [22]. arXiv:0901.1278

  22. Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., Wallace, D. (eds.) Many Worlds? Realism, Everett, and Quantum Mechanics. University Press, Oxford (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wallace, D.: Worlds in the Everett interpretation, studies in the history and philosophy of modern. Physics 33, 637–661 (2002). arXiv:quant-ph/0103092

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Weinberg, S.: Living in the multiverse. arXiv:hep-th/0511037v1

  25. Zeh, H.D.: Why Bohms quantum theory? arXiv:quant-ph/9812059

  26. An exchange of letters in Physics Today on “Quantum theory without observers”, February 1999. www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qtwoe/qtwoe.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Schmelzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmelzer, I. Pure Quantum Interpretations Are not Viable. Found Phys 41, 159–177 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9484-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9484-5

Keywords

Navigation