Against “Paradoxes”: A New Quantum Philosophy for Quantum Mechanics

  • Claudio Garola
Part of the Einstein Meets Magritte: An Interdisciplinary Reflection on Science, Nature, Art, Human Action and Society book series (EMMA, volume 7)


It is a commonplace that XXth century physics has produced powerful new theories, such as Relativity and quantum mechanics, that upset the world view provided by XIXth century physics. But every physicist knows how difficult it may be to explain the basic aspects of these theories to people having a non-physical professional training. The main reason of this is that both Relativity and quantum mechanics are based on fundamental ideas that are not hard to grasp in themselves, but deeply contrast the primary categories on which our everyday thinking is based, so that it is impossible to place relativistic and quantum results within the framework suggested by ordinary intuition and common sense. Yet, despite this similarity, there are some relevant differences between the difficulties arising in Relativity and in quantum mechanics. In order to understand this point better, let us focus our attention on Special Relativity first (analogous arguments can be forwarded by considering General Relativity). Here, the strange links between space and time following from the even more strange assumption that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the observer conflict with the very simple conception of space and time implicit in our daily practice (and explicitly stated in classical Physics, think of Newton’s “absolute space” and “absolute time”): but this conflict regards geometrical space-time models, not the very roots of our language, hence our thought. Then, let us consider quantum mechanics. Here it is a basic notion that properties of physical systems are nonobjective, in the sense that a property cannot be thought of as existing if a measurement of it is not performed. As Mermin [30] writes,

“it is a fundamental quantum doctrine that a measurement does not, in general, reveal a preexisting value of the measured property”.


Quantum Mechanic Physical Object Quantum Logic Intuitionistic Logic Testable Property 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Bell, J.S., “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox”, Physics, 1, 1964, p. 195.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bell, J.S., “On the Problem of hidden variables in quantum me-chanics”, Rev. Mod. Phys, 38, 1966, p. 447.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bohm, D., Quantum Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (N.J. ), 1951.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bohm, D. and Aharonov, Y., “Discussion of experimental Proofs for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky”, Phys. Rev, 108, 1957, p. 1070.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bohr, N., “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Reality be Considered Complete?”, Phys. Rev, 48, 1935, p. 696.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Braithwaite, R.B., Scientific Explanation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1953.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Busch, P., Lahti, P.J., and Mittelstaedt, P., The Quantum Theory of measurement, Springer, Berlin, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Dalla Pozza, C. and Garola, C., “A Pragmatic Interpretation of Intuitionistic Propositional logic”, Erkenntnis, 43, 1995, p. 81.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., “Can quantum mechanical description of reality be considered complete?”, Phys. Rev, 47, 1935, p. 777.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Finkelstein, D., “Matter, space and logic”, in: Hooker, C. A. (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to quantum mechanics, Vol II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Finkelstein, D., “The physics of logic”, in: Hooker, C. A. (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to quantum mechanics, Vol II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Furry, W.H., “Note on the quantum mechanical theory of measurement”, Phys. Rev, 49, 1936, p. 393.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Furry, W.H., “Remarks on measurements in quantum theory”, Phys. Rev, 49, 1936, p. 476.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Garola, C., “Embedding of posets into lattices in quantum logic”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 24, 1985, p. 423.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Garola, C., “classical foundations of quantum logic”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 30, 1991, p. 1.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Garola, C., “Semantic incompleteness of quantum physics”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 31, 1992, p. 809.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Garola, C., “Truth versus testability in quantum logic”, Erkenntnis, 37, 1992, p. 197.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Garola, C., “Reconciling local realism and quantum physics: a critique to Bell”, Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika, 99, 1994, p. 285.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Garola, C., “Criticizing Bell: Local realism and quantum physics reconciled”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 34, 1995, p. 269.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Garola, C., “An operational Critique to Bell’s Theorem”, in: Garola, C. and Rossi, A. (eds.), The Foundations of quantum mechanics. Historical Analysis and Open Questions, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Garola, C., “Pragmatic versus semantic contextuality in quantum physics”, Int. Journ. of Theor. Phys, 34, 1995, p. 1383.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Garola, C. and Solombrino, L., “The theoretical apparatus of semantic realism: A new language for classical and quantum physics”, Found. of Phys, 26, 1996, p. 1121.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Garola, C. and Solombrino, L., “Semantic realism versus EPRlike paradoxes: the Furry, Bohm-Aharonov and Bell paradoxes”, Found. of Phys, 26, 1996, p. 1329.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Shimony A., and Zeilinger, A., “Bell’s theorem without Inequalities”, Am. Journ. of Phys, 58, 1990, p. 1131.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Hempel, C.C., Aspects of Scientific Explanation, Free Press, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Kochen, S. and Specker, E.P., “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Journ. of Math. Mech, 17, 1967, p. 59.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Jauch, J.M., Foundations of quantum mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading (Mass. ), 1968.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Ludwig, G., Foundations of quantum mechanics I, Springer Verlag, New York, 1983.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Mackey, G.W., The Mathematical Foundations of quantum mechanics, Benjamin, New York, 1963.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Mermin, N.D., “Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 65, 1993, p. 803.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Piron, C., Foundations of Quantum Physics, Benjamin, Reading, ( Mass. ), 1976.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Popper, K.R., Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1969.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Putnam, H., “Is logic empirical?”, in: Hooker, C.A. (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to quantum mechanics, Vol II, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Russell, B., An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, Allen Unwin, London, 1940.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Sakurai, J.J., Modern quantum mechanics, W.A. Benjamin, Reading (Mass. ), 1985.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Sellerl, F., “Even local probabilities lead to the paradox”, in: Sellerl, F. (ed.), quantum mechanics Versus Local Realism, Plenum Press, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Tarski, A., Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1956.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Tarski, A., “The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics”, in: Linsky, L. (ed.), Semantics and the Philosophy of Language, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1952.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Wigner, E.P., “On hidden variables and quantum mechanical probabilities”, Am. Journ. of Phys, 38, 1970, p. 1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio Garola
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Fisica dell’ UniversitàLecceItaly

Personalised recommendations