Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 417–447 | Cite as

Complementarity and Scientific Rationality

  • Simon Saunders
Article

Abstract

Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics has been criticized as incoherent and opportunistic, and based on doubtful philosophical premises. If so Bohr’s influence, in the pre-war period of 1927–1939, is the harder to explain, and the acceptance of his approach to quantum mechanics over de Broglie’s had no reasonable foundation. But Bohr’s interpretation changed little from the time of its first appearance, and stood independent of any philosophical presuppositions. The principle of complementarity is itself best read as a conjecture of unusually wide scope, on the nature and future course of explanations in the sciences (and not only the physical sciences). If it must be judged a failure today, it is not because of any internal inconsistency.

Keywords

Complementarity Scientific rationality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Faye, Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy. An Anti-Realist View of Quantum Mechanics. Science and Philosophy, Vol. 6, N. Nersessian, ed. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murdoch, D. 1987Neils Bohr’s Philosophy of PhysicsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cushing, J. 1993Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen HegemonyUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beller, M. 1999Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a RevolutionUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Valentini, On The Pilot-Wave Theory of Classical, Quantum, and Subquantum Physics, PhD thesis (International School for Advanced Studies, Trieste, 1992).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saunders, S. 1999“The ‘beables’ of relativistic pilot-wave theory”Butterfield, J.Pagonis, C. eds. From Physicsto PhilosophyCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broglie, L. 1951“Remarques sur la theorie de l’onde piloteC. R. Acad. Sci233641642Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broglie, L. 1990Heisenberg’s Uncertainties and the Probabilistic Interpretation of Wave MechanicsKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Brown and D. Wallace, “Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie–Bohm loses out to Everett”, Found. Phys., this volume. Available on-line at http://xxx.lanl.gov/quant-ph/0403094.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howard, D. 1994“What makes a classical concept classical? Toward a reconstruction of Niels Bohr’s philosophy of physics”Faye, J.Folse, H. eds. Niels Bohr and Contemporary PhilosophyKluwerBostonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bohr, N. 1931Atomtheorie und NaturbeschreibungSpringerBerlinTranslated as Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1934)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bohr, N. 1935“Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”Phys. Rev.48696Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bohr, N. 1949“Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics”Schilpp, P. eds. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-ScientistOpen CourtLa Salle, ILGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bohr, N. 1958“Quantum physics and philosophy: causality and complementarity”Klibansky, R. eds. Philosophy at Mid-Century: A SurveyLa Nuova Italia EditriceFlorenceGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bohr, N. 1939“The causality problem in atomic physics”, in New Theories in PhysicsInternational Institute of Intellectual Co-operationParisGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heisenberg, W. 1927“Überden anschaulicken Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik”Z. fur Physik43172Translated as “The physical content of quantum kinematics and mechanics”, in Quantum Theory and Measurement, J. Wheeler and W. Zurek, eds. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. Bohr, Collected Works, Vol. VI, J. Kalckar, ed. (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1985). Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen,  1935“Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”Phys. Rev.47777CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenfeld, L. 1983“Bohr’s reply”Wheeler, J.Zurek, W. eds. Quantum Theory and MeasurementPrinceton University PressPrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bohr, N. 1935“Quantum mechanics and physical reality”Nature13665Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Diósi, “On hybrid dynamics of the Copenhagen dichotomic world”, available on-line at http://xxx.lanl.gov/quant-ph/9903088.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Dickson, “A view from nowhere: quantum reference frames and uncertainty”, Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. forthcoming. Available on line at http://www.mdickson.com/pubs/Quantum\_Reference\_Frames.pdf.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenfeld, L. 1967“Niels Bohr in the thirties”Rozental, S. eds. Niels Bohr---His Life and WorkNorth HollandAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dickson, M. 2001“The EPR experiment: a prelude to Bohr’s reply to EPR”Heidelberger, M.Stadler, F. eds. History and Philosophy of Science---New Trends and PerspectivesKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    N. Bohr, “Chemistry and the quantum theory of atomic constitution”, J. Chem. Soc. 349 (1932).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scheibe, E. 1973The Logical Analysis of Quantum MechanicsPergamon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Rovelli, “Relational quantum mechanics”, in Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics, C. Avshalom, S. Dolev, and N. Kolenda, eds. (Springer, Berlin, forthcoming).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. Fuchs, “Quantum foundations in the light of quantum information”, available on-line at http://xxx.lanl.gov/quant-ph/0106166.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zeilinger, A. 1999“A foundational principle for quantum mechanics”Found. Phys.29631Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    N. Bohr and L. Rosenfeld, “Zur Frage der Messbarkeit der elektromagnetischen Feldgrössen”, Mat.-fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk., 12 (1933). Translated as “On the question of the measurability of electromagnetic field equations”, in Selected Papers of Léon Rosenfeld, R. Cohen and J. Stachel, eds. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bohr, N., Rosenfeld, L. 1950“Field and charge measurements in quantum electrodynamics”Phys. Rev.78794Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bohr, N. 1963“Light and life revisited”, in Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human KnowledgeOx Bow PressWoodbridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saunders, S. 1993“To what physics corresponds”French, S.Kaminga, H. eds. Correspondence, Invariance, and Heuristics; Essays in Honour of Heinz PostKluwerAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Electrons et Photons–-Rapports et Discussions du Cinquième Conseil de Physique tenu à Bruxelles du 24 au 29 Octobre 1927 sous les Auspices de l’Institut International de Physique Solvay (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1928). Translated as Electrons and Photons–-Proceedings of the 5th Solvay Conference, G. Bacciagaluppi and A. Valentini, eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, forthcoming).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brown, H., Dewdney, C., Horton, G. 1995“Bohm particles and their detection in the light of neutron interferometry”Found. Phys.25329Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bohr, N. 1939“Natural philosophy and human culture”Nature143268Reprinted in Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1958)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations