Advertisement

Ontic Commitments of Quantum Mechanics

  • Edward Mackinnon
Chapter
  • 107 Downloads
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 13)

Abstract

In this paper, we are trying to do two things: to present a general theory about the interpretation of scientific theories, and to use quantum mechanics as a test case for judging the validity of this metatheory. By a metatheory of scientific theories, I mean a general theory concerning the structure, functioning, and interpretation of scientific theories. The construction of such metatheories has been one of the primary concerns of philosophers of science in the twentieth century. A brief historical sketch may serve to show some of the limitations in the results so far obtained. Here, a word of caution is in order. Since this historical sketch is simply intended as a background to make a new interpretation intelligible, we will present a schematic view which necessarily oversimplifies the positions considered.

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Linear Operator Classical Mechanic Scientific Theory Dynamical 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.

Reference

  1. 1.
    Pierre Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (transl. by Philip P. Wiener), Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1956, p. 19.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rudolf Carnap, ‘The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts’, in H. Feigl and M. Scriven (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. I, University of Minnesota press, Minneapolis, 1956, pp. 38–76.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carl G. Hempel and Paul Oppenheim, ‘The Logic of Explanation’, in H. Feigl and M. Brodbeck (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science Appleton Century Crofts, New York, 1953, pp. 319–52. For Hempel’s later views, see his Aspects of Scientific Explanation Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1965, pp. 331–489.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman R. Campbell, Physics: The Elements England, Cambridge, 1920.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. B. Braithwaite, Scientific Explanation (pb. ed. Harper, 1960), esp. Chap. XI.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ernest Nagel, The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1961, Chaps. V and VI.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See, for example, Stephen Toulmin, The Philosophy of Science: An Introduction (Harper pb. ed., 1960), esp. the discussion in Chap. iv on theories as maps or inference mechanisms.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Sellars, ‘Scientific Realism or Irenic Instrumentalism’, in R. Cohen and M. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science II, Humanities Press, New York, 1965, pp. 171–204. See also his essay, ‘The Language of Theories’, in his Science Perception and Reality Humanities Press, New York, 1963, pp. 106–26. The first article cited introduced the idea of the role of second order predicates in the extension of conceptual frameworks, an idea which has been exploited in the present paper.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. V. O. Quine, Word and Object,The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1960. See also his articles ‘On What There Is’, in his From a Logical Point of View (Harper pb. ed., 1963), pp. 1–19; and ‘Ontological Relativity’, The Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968), 185–212.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    His views have been developed in a series of articles: ‘Problems of Empiricism’, in R. Colodny (ed.), Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1965, pp. 145–260; ‘Problems of Microphysics’, in R. Colodny (ed.), Frontiers of Science and Philosophy University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1962, pp. 189–283; ‘Explanation, Reductionism, and Empiricism’, in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Ill, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1963, pp. 28–97.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Putnam, ‘Is Logic Empirical?’, in R. Cohen and M. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. V, 1969, p. 216.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Carnap, ‘Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology’, published as an appendix in his Meaning and Necessity (rev. ed.; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956), pp. 205–21.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edward MacKinnon, Philosophical Problems of Scientific Realism Appleton-Century Crofts, 1969, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quine, Word and Object Chaps. v-vii.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Putnam, op. cit. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A more detailed criticism of Feyerabend’s views on this point may be found in my ‘The New Materialism’, The Heythrop Journal 8 (1967), 5–26.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. R. Hanson, Patterns of Discovery Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng., 1958.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965 (pb. ed.). I believe that the criticisms which D. Shapere has made against the ambiguity in Kuhn’s idea of paradigms (contained in his review in The Philosophical Review 73 (1964), 383–94) would not have the same force against the formulation presented here which links conceptualizations explicitly to language systems.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stanley Jaki, The Relevance of Physics University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1966, esp. Chaps. i-iii.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stephen Toulmin, ‘Conceptual Revolutions in Science’, in R. Cohen and M. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science III, Humanities Press, New York, 1968, pp. 331–47.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marx Wartofsky, ‘Metaphysics as Heuristic for Science’, in Boston Studies (Note 8), pp. 123–72. See also Joseph Agassi, ‘The Nature of Scientific Problems and Their Roots in Metaphysics’, in M. Bunge (ed.), The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy: In Honor of Karl R. Popper Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1964. Both men use ‘metaphysics’ in the context of the type of conceptual analysis practiced here in discussing descriptive metaphysics rather than in the doctrinaire sense of a system to be defended as an elucidation of the really real.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. F. Strawson, Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics (Doubleday pb. ed., 1963).Google Scholar
  23. 23a.
    The relation between a conceptualization of reality embedded in a language and a mathematical formalism is treated by Marx Wartofsky in his Conceptual Foundations of Scientific Thought Macmillan, New York, 1968, Chaps. vi and viiGoogle Scholar
  24. 23b.
    and in Henry Kyburg, Jr., Philosophy of Science: A Formal Approach Macmillan, New York, 1968, Chap. iii.Google Scholar
  25. 23c.
    The idea of theory-dependent and context-dependent conditions of correspondence and the formula for theory-dependent physical inference were developed by Stephan Körner in his Experience and Theory Humanities Press, New York, 1966. The epistemological problems involved in the interpretation given here are discussed in more detail in my forthcoming Truth: The Hecker Lectures, 1968 Paulist-Newman Press, New York, Chaps. ii and iii.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    W. Sellars, ‘Scientific Realism of Irenic Instrumentalism’, op. cit. Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    E. G. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1967, esp. Chaps. i-iii.Google Scholar
  28. 26a.
    B. Inhelder and J. Piaget, The Growth of Logical Thinking From Childhood to Adolescence (transi, by A. Parsons and S. Milgram), Basic Books, New York, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 26b.
    See also Jerome Bruner et al., Studies in Cognitive Growth New York, 1966, esp. Chaps. xi-xiv.Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    This is adapted from an account given in Richard Blackwell, Discovery in the Physical Sciences University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1969, Chap. i.Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    E. Wigner, op. cit. Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (4th ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958.Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    Neils Bohr wrote and spoke on this from 1927 until his death in 1962. One of his clearest presentations is ‘Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics’, in Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist Harper reprint, New York, 1959, pp. 201–41. An excellent summary lf Bohr’s views may be found in Aage Peterson, ‘The Philosophy of Niels Bohr’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist 8 (Sept., 1963), 8–14. For Heisenberg’s views, see his Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science Harper, New York, 1958.Google Scholar
  34. 33a.
    See Jeffrey Bub, ‘Hidden Variables and the Copenhagen Interpretation — A Reconciliation’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1968), 185–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 33b.
    J. Jauch, E. Wigner, and M. Yanase, ‘Some Comments Concerning Measurement in Quantum Mechanics’, Il Nuovo Cimento 48 (1967), 144–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 33c.
    and the summary in R. Schlegel, Completeness in Science Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1967, Chap. x.Google Scholar
  37. 34.
    Henry Margenau, ‘Measurement and Quantum States’, Philosophy of Science 30 (1963), 1–16, 138–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 36.
    In developing his quantum mechanics, Dirac deliberately refrained from using the term ‘Hilbert space’ and simply postulated a space with the properties his development required. The basic difficulty was that the special functions Dirac introduced (MD 14 in the Appendix) could not be considered functions in a Hilbert space. After L. Schwartz reinterpreted these S functions as distributions rather than as functions in the mathematical sense, Dirac’s vector space could be called a complex Hilbert space. See A. R. Marlow, ‘Unified Dirac-Von Neumann Formulation of Quantum Mechanics’, Journal of Mathematical Physics 6 (1965), 919–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 38.
    These ideas have been developed in seminars, some of which have been published as lecture notes and privately circulated: Julian Schwinger, Quantum Mechanics: Lecture Notes from a Course given at the Université de Grenoble, L’École D’Été de Physique Theorique, Juillet, 1955; and (an earlier version of the same ideas) Julian Schwinger, Quantum Dynamics National Bureau of Standards Report, Washington, D.C., 2188, 1952. A general formulation of quantum mechanics on the basis of the transformation principle and the extension of this basis to field theory may be found in his article, ‘The Theory of Quantized Fields, II’, Physical Review 91 (1953), 713–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    Feynman’s original development was in a series of articles in Reviews of Modern Physics 20 (1948), 367ff. for non-relativistic quantum mechanics; and The Physical Review 16 (1949), 749–56, 769–74 for relativistic quantum mechanics. A systematic development of quantum mechanics along these lines is contained in R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Feynman-Hibbs demonstrate this equivalence by showing that the Feynman formalism yields the Schrodinger equation. In this demonstration, plausible physical reasoning plays a large role; e.g., in deciding which terms in a mathematical expansion may be ignored. Earlier, F. J. Dyson had shown that the Schwinger and Feynman formulations of quantum electro-dynamics are practically equivalent in the sense that one can begin with the Tomonaga-Schwinger formalism and derive Feynman’s rules for calculating matrix elements. See his ‘The Radiation Theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman’, Physical Review 75 (1948), 486–502, esp. Sects. vi and vii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    G. Mackey, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1963.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. M. Jauch, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1968.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    A. R. Marlow, ‘Physical Axiomatics’ and ‘Physical Systems and the Quantum Mechanical Model’, Journal of Mathematical Physics (to be published).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stanley P. Gudder, ‘Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics Reconsidered’, Reviews of Modern Physics 40 (1968), 229–31, redevelops the Jauch-Piron axiom system to take account of objections brought by Bohm and Bub.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Patrick Heelan, S.J., [this volume — Ed.].Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    See the discussion on Axiom 7 in Mackey, p. 71ff.Google Scholar
  48. 48a.
    As this contention is developed in Jauch, Chap. v, it is the conclusion from a set of premises. First, a physical law is a condition-effect relation, in quantum mechanics a probability relation, which has the general form: “If a system S is subject to conditions A, B… then the effects X, Y,… can be observed” (p. 71). Secondly, operational definitions are an adequate basis for explaining theoretical terms: “If we wish to determine the physical characteristics of a proton, we must perform a series of experiments which then, in their ensemble, will be a full operational equivalent for the construct proton” (p. 72). Third, a set of idealized measuring apparatuses would reproduce not only the values characterizing states of a system, but also the logical properties of combinations (union and intersection) of propositions. Finally, the structure properties (complete, orthocomplemented modular lattice) of this set of propositions reveal the intrinsic structure of a physical system; i.e., the set of propositions about a physical system which are independent of the state of the system. Each of these contentions is open to serious objections. On the difference between conditional statements and physical laws, see Stephan Körner, Experience and Theory: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, op. cit. On the impossibility of explaining theoretical constructs exclusively by operational definitions, see Arthur Pap, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1962, Chap. iii. The difficulties with the third and fourth premises are discussed by Patrick Heelan, S.J. in ‘Quantum Logic Does not Have to Be Non-Classical’, in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (to be published)Google Scholar
  49. 48b.
    and by D. Bohm and J. Bub in ‘On Hidden Variables — A Reply to Comments by Jauch and Piron and by Gudder’, Rev. Mod. Phys. 40 (1968), 235–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 49.
    H. Putnam, op. cit. Google Scholar
  51. 50a.
    For his doctrine of determinism, see Hilary Putnam, ‘Time and Physical Geometry’, The Journal of Philosophy 64 (April 27, 1967), 240–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 50b.
    A refutation of Putnam’s view is given by Howard Stein in ‘On Einstein-Minkowski Space-Time’, The Journal of Philosophy 65 (January 11, 1968), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 51.
    See my Truth: The Hecker Lectures, op. cit., Chap, iii, Sect. iii.Google Scholar
  54. 52.
    These ideas are based on Julian Schwinger, ‘Field Theory of Particles’, in Lectures on Particles and Fields: Brandeis Summer Institute, 1964 Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 145–288. See especially the introductory remarks to Chap, v, pp. 267–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Mackinnon
    • 1
  1. 1.California State UnivresityHaywardUSA

Personalised recommendations