Feynman’s Interpretation of Quantum Theory

  • H. Dieter Zeh
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

A historically important but little known debate regarding the necessity and meaning of macroscopic superpositions, in particular those containing different gravitational fields, is reviewed and discussed from a modern perspective.

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

Notes

Acknowledgment

I wish to thank Claus Kiefer for drawing my attention to the Chapel Hill report, and in particular to Feynman’s remarks on the meaning of quantization. I am also grateful to Charles Misner for correcting two of my comments concerning the relation of the discussion to Everett’s work in an early version of the manuscript, and to Wolf Beiglböck for suggesting some additional comments.

References

  1. 1.
    R.P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 20, 367 (1948).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 75, 486 (1949).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D72, 084013 (2005).MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.M. DeWitt, edt., Conference on the Role of Gravitation in Physics, Wright Air Development Center Report WADC TR 57–216 (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1957) – Public Stinet Acc. Number AD0118180, pp. 135–140, 149, 150, 154. Fortunately, the proceedings are now also available in a slightly revised form (ordered by chapters rather than sessions), in C.M. DeWitt and D. Rickles (edts.), The Role of Gravitation in Physics: Report from the 1957 Chapel Hill Conference (Edition Open Access, Berlin, 2011, Sources of Max Planck Research Library for the History and Development of Knowledge; 5) – see http://www.edition-open-access.de/downloads/files/Sources_5_published_V1.pdf. My quotations can be found therein on pp. 249–256, 270, 272, 278.
  5. 5.
    F.J. Belinfante, A Survey of Hidden Variables Theories (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1973).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.v. Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Springer, Berlin, 1932),  Chap. 6.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Schlosshauer and K. Camilleri, Report arxiv:0804.1609; G. Bacciagaluppi and E. Crull, Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 40, 374 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 160, 1113 (1967).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.A. Wheeler, in: B.S. DeWitt and J.A. Wheeler (edts.), Battelle Recontres (Benjamin, New York, 1968).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Penrose, in: C.J. Isham and R. Penrose, (edts.), Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Clarenden Press, Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Joos, Phys. Lett. 116, 6 (1986).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Kiefer, Quantum Gravity, 2nd edn. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2007).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Joos, H.D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. Giulini, J. Kupsch, and I.O. Stamatescu, The Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory (Springer, Berlin, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    H.D. Zeh, The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time, 5th edn. (Springer, Berlin, 2007) – see also http://www.time-direction.de.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.P. Feynman and F.L. Vernon, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 24, 118 (1963).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Everett III, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Giulini, C. Kiefer, and H.D. Zeh, Phys. Lett. A199, 291 (1995).MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Poincaré, La science et l´hypothèse (Flammarion, Paris, 1902).MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Dieter Zeh
    • 1
  1. 1.WaldhilsbachDeutschland

Personalised recommendations