Advertisement

A Change in Paradigm: A Realistic Copenhagen Interpretation (Realism Without Hidden Variables)

  • J. Horváth
  • M. Zágoni
Conference paper
Part of the Fundamental Theories of Physics book series (FTPH, volume 24)

Abstract

Quantum mechanics has basically two types of interpretation; an epistemological and an ontological one (1). The epistemological interpretation holds that the statements of quantum mechanics are related to our knowledge, henceforth the probabilistic character, the uncertainty relations and the reduction of the wave packet talk about the boundaries and incompleteness of our theory. On the other hand, the ontological interpretation says that the predicates of quantum mechanics are predicates about reality uncertainty relations express the joint nonexistence of some physical quantities, quantum jumps show the real discontinuity of certain physical processes, and so on.

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Uncertainty Relation Hide Variable Scientific Realism Measuring Interaction 
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.
    See for example Werner Weisenberg: Physics and Philosophy, 1958, p. 48.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For a deterministic version of this view see e.g.: E. Bitsakis: Physique et Materialisme, Appendix, and for an indeterministic one: K.Popper: Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    About the topic of scientific realism see G. Gutting’s Scientific Realism, in: The Philosophy of Wilfrid Sellars, ed.: J.C. Pitt. 1976, D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Aspect, D. Dalibard and G. Roger: Phys.Rev.Lett. 49, 1982, p. 1804.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Shimony: Contextual hidden variables theories and Bell’s inequalities. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35, 1984, p. 25.CrossRefzbMATHADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    As Carl F. V. Weizsacker says: ″Space-time is not the background but a surface aspect of reality.″ Quantum Theory and Space-time, in.: Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics: 50 years of the EPR- Gredankenexperiment. 1985 , p. 223.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sharp and Shanks: Fine’s prism model for quantum correlation statistics. Philosophy of Science 52, 1985, p. 538.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The quantum-logician Peter Mittelstaedt writes: ″Quantum mechanics is compatible with Einstein’s reality principle ... . Quantum mechanics contradicts the strong locality principle, which must be replaced by the weak principle. The weak principle of locality allows for an objectification at a distance and is thus seemingly in contradiction with special relativity. However, it follows that this objectification at a distance cannot be used for the transmission of super-luminal signals, which would violate Einstein causality.″ EPR-paradox, quantum logic and relativity. In: Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics: 50 years of the EPR-Gedankenexperiment. World Scientific, 1985, p. 171.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brent Mundy showed that: ″... contrary to common belief, there is no incompatibility between special relativity and spacelike (faster-than-light) causation.″ Special relativity and quantum measurement. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37, 1986, p.207.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    An argumentation in the same spirit: G. Nerlich: Special relativity is not based on causality. Brit.Journ. for the Phil, of Sci., 33,1982,p.361.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Horváth
    • 1
  • M. Zágoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural PhilosophyLoránd Eötvös UniversityHungary

Personalised recommendations