The Mathematical Intelligencer

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 18–22 | Cite as

Social influences on quantum mechanics?-II

Department Mathematical communities

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Quantum Theory Uncertainty Principle Mathematical Intelligencer Hide Variable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Bohm,Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1951; see p. 614.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of hidden variables, I and II,Physical Re-view 85 (1952), 165 and 180.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Bohm and Y. Aharanov, Discussion of experimental proof for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podol-sky, Physical Review 108 (1957), 1072.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Bohm and J. B. Hiley,The Undivided Universe, Routledge, London, 1993; p. 149.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. de Broglie, Nouvelle dynamique des quanta,Comptes Rendus du Congrès Solvay, 1927, see pp. 114-116.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. S. Bell,Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1987, p. 160.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Quantum Theory, p, 114Google Scholar
  8. 1.
    8There is a tendency in many texts to label the Fourier transform property as “the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” without mentioning the restrictions from quantum theory for this label to apply.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Bohm,loc. cit. fn. 2, p. 374.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Wiley, 1974, p. 289.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Bohm,loc. cit. fn. 2, p. 391.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. S. Bell,Phys. Reports 137 (1986), 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    There, Behm strongly disputed the possibility of hidden variables in many sections, Only at the very end does he accord them a very doubtful credence. See the dis-cussion below.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    David Peat, Infinite Potential, Addison-Wesley, 1997, the chapter “Brazil and Exile”; personal communication from Bohm and others at the time.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenfeld (quoted in Max Jammer,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Wiley, 1974, pp. 279, 294) called Bohm’s theories “empty talk” and “a short lived de-cay product of the mechanistic philosophy of the 19th century.” Pauli said, “Old stuff dealt with tong ago.” A particularly scathing attack is in Heisenberg’s essay inNiets Bohr and the Development of Physics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955, p. 18: “This objective ‘description’ reveals itself as a kind of ‘ideological superstructure’ which has little to do with immediate physical reality; for the ‘hidden parameters’ of Bohm’s interpretation are of such a kind that they can never occur in the descrip-tion of real processes if the quantum theory remains unchanged. In order to escape this difficulty, Bohm does in fact express the hope that in future experiments (e.g., in the range beyond 10-13) the hidden parameters may yet play a physical part, and that the quantum theory may thus be false. Bohr, however, is wont to say, when such hopes are expressed, that they are similar in structure to the sentence: ‘We may hope, that it will later turn out that sometimes 2 + 2 = 5, for this would be ofGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    See fn. 14.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Bell,loc. cit., p. 160.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heisenberg,loc. cit. fn. 15, p. 19.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The posthumously published book by Bohm and Hiley, cited in fn. 4, testifies that Bohm was fully informed on the latest experimental results relating to hidden vari-ables theories.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See in this connection the return to the attitude “quantum mechanics works” in the article by Christopher A. Fuchs and Asher Peres, “Quantum mechanics needs no interpretation,”Physics Today, March 2000. “What it does,” these authors write, “is provide an algorithm for computing theprobabilities for the macroscopic events that are the consequences of our experimental interventions.” Bohm, like many of the early generation of discoverers of quantum mechanics, was searching for an “un-derstanding” beyond merely correct predictions of experiments based on algorithms.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhäuser, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See, for instance, the chapter on Chance in Poincaré,Science and Method, Dover, N.Y. 1952; Miriam Lipschütz-Yevick, “Probability and determinism,”American Journal of Physics (1957), p. 570.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations