Skip to main content
Log in

The paradox of two bottles in quantum mechanics

  • Part II. Invited Papers Dedicated To The Memory Of Charles H. Randall (1928–1987)
  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A class of retrospective measurements analogous to the “delayed choice experiments” of Wheeler and Greenberger is considered. A new argument shows that the reduction of the wave packet must affect the past states of the system. As a side product, our argument implies that the axiom about the reduction of the wave packet in relativistic space-time cannot be consistently introduced.

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. R. Haag and D. Kastler,J. Math. Phys. 5, 848 (1964).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. J. P. Antoine and A. Gleit,Int. J. Theor. Phys. 4, 197 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Kijowski,Rep. Math. Phys. 6, 361 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. A. M. Dirac,The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1947).

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, (1955).

    Google Scholar 

  6. N. Bohr,Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Science Editions, New York, 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  7. F. London and E. Bauer,La theorie de l'observation en mécanique quantique (Hermann & Cie, Paris, 1939).

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen,Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov,Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. S. Bell,Physics 1, 195 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony,Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1881 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. A. Aspect, P. H. Grangier, and G. Roger,Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981);49, 91 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger,Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  14. C. D. Cantrell and M. O. Scully,Phys. Rep. 43, 499 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  15. H. Margenau and J. L. Park,Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1, 211 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  16. K. R. Popper, Quantum mechanics without an observer,” inQuantum Theory and Reality, M. Bunge, ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. S. Bell, “Are there quantum jumps?” inSpeakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. L. Park,Found. Phys. 1, 23 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. R. Croca, inProblems in Quantum Physics; Gdańsk 87 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1988), pp. 24–42.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. P. Vigier, inOpen Questions in Quantum Physics (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1985), pp. 297–322; inProblems in Quantum Physics; Gdańsk 87, pp. 317–346.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Posiewnik and J. Pykacz,Phys. Lett. A 128, 5 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  22. D. Home and M. Whitaker,Phys. Lett. A 128, 1 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. A. Wheeler, inMathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, R. A. Marlow, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. M. Greenberger,Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 875 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  25. D. M. Greenberger and A. YaSin,Found. Phys. 19, 679 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. H. Dicke,Am. J. Phys. 49, 925 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. V. Berry,Proc. R. Soc. London A 392, 45 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  28. W. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  29. E. Schrödinger,Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 31, 555 (1935).

    Google Scholar 

  30. W. H. Furry,Phys. Rev. 49, 393 (1936).

    Google Scholar 

  31. G. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber,Phys. Rev. D 34, 479 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  32. A. Kent,Mod. Phys. Lett. A,4, 1839 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Scully,Phys. Rev. D,28, 2477 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  34. K. Wodkiewicz,Phys. Lett. A 112, 276 (1985);A 129, 415 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  35. C. H. Randall and D. J. Foulis, “The operational approach to quantum mechanics,” inPhysical Theory as a Logico-Algebraic Structure, C. A. Hooker, ed. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  36. J. L. Park,Am. J. Phys. 36, 211 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  37. A. Shimony,Am. J. Phys. 31, 755 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  38. H. Primas,Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism (Springer, Berlin, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  39. E. P. Wigner,Am. J. Phys. 31, 6 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  40. H. D. Zeh,Found. Phys. 1, 1969 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  41. K. Hepp,Helv. Phys. Acta 45, 237 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  42. G. Ludwig,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics II, W. Beiglböcket al., eds. (Springer, New York, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  43. B. Mielnik, “Is the reduction of the wave packet indeed necessary in quantum mechanics?” inProblems in Quantum Physics, Gdánsk 89. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mielnik, B. The paradox of two bottles in quantum mechanics. Found Phys 20, 745–755 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889459

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889459

Keywords

Navigation