Abstract
It is widely held that quantum mechanics is the first scientific theory to present scientifically internal, fundamental difficulties for a realistic interpretation (in the philosophical sense). The standard (Copenhagen) interpretation of the quantum theory is often described as the inevitable instrumentalistic response. It is the purpose of the present article to argue that quantum theory doesnot present fundamental new problems to a realistic interpretation. The formalism of quantum theory has the same states—it will be argued—as the formalisms of older physical theories and is capable of the same kinds of philosophical interpretation. This result is reached via an analysis of what it means to give a realistic interpretation to a theory. The main point of difference between quantum mechanics and other theories—as far as the possibilities of interpretation are concerned—is the special treatment given tomeasurement by the “projection postulate.” But it is possible to do without this postulate. Moreover, rejection of the projection postulate does not, in spite of what is often maintained in the literature, automatically lead to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. A realistic interpretation is possible in which only the reality ofone (our) world is recognized. It is argued that the Copenhagen interpretation as expounded by Bohr is not in conflict with the here proposed realistic interpretation of quantum theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
D. Bohm, “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables,”Phys. Rev. 85, 166–179, 180–193 (1952).
N. Bohr, “The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory,”Nature (Suppl. 121, 580–590 (1928).
A. Daneri, A. Loinger, and G. M. Prosperi, “Quantum theory of measurement and ergodicity conditions,”Nucl. Phys. 33, 297–319 (1962).
D. Dieks, “On the covariant description of wave function collapse,”Phys. Lett. 108, 379–383 (1985).
D. Dieks, “The formalism of quantum theory: an objective description of reality?”Ann. Phys. 7, 174–190 (1988).
H. J. Folse,The Philosophy of Niels Bohr (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985).
A. J. Leggett, “Reflections on the quantum measurement paradox,” in B. J. Hiley and F. D. Peat, eds.,Quantum Implications (Routledge Kegan Paul, 1987), pp. 85–104.
A. J. Leggett, “Experimental approaches to the quantum measurement paradox,”Found. Phys. 18, 939–952 (1988).
E. Mach,Die Analyse der Empfindungen und das Verhältniss des Physischen zum Psychischen (Fischer, Jena, 1900).
H. Reichenbach,The Philosophy of Space and Time (Dover, New York, 1957).
P. A. Schilpp, ed.,Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (Open Court, La Salle, 1949).
E. Schrödinger, “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik,”Naturwissenschaften 23, 807–812, 823–828, 844–849 (1935).
P. Suppes,Studies in the Methodology and Foundations of Science (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1969).
J. P. Van den Brink, J. Van Eck, and H. G. M. Heideman, “Interference between scattered and ejected electrons in e-He collisions: a new Probe for coherence studies,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2106–2109 (1988).
B. C. van Fraassen,The Scientific Image (Clarendon, Oxford, 1980).
B. C. van Fraassen, “A modal interpretation of quantum mechanics,” in E. G. Beltrametti and B. C. van Fraassen, eds.,Current Issues in Quantum Logic (Plenum, New York and London, 1986), pp. 229–258.
N. G. Van Kampen, “Quantum statistics of irreversible processes,”Physica 20, 603–622 (1954).
N. G. Van Kampen, “The collapse of the wave function,”Philips Res. Rep. 30, 65–73 (1975); “Ten theorems about quantum mechanical measurements,”Physica A 153, 97–113 (1988).
C. F. Von Weizsäcker, “Quantum theory and space-time,” in P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds.,Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics (World Scientific, Singapore), pp. 223–237.
W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonseparability and a quantitative statement of Bohr's principle,”Phys. Rev. D 19, 473–484 (1979).
W. H. Zurek, “Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?”Phys. Rev. D 24, 1516–1525 (1981).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dieks, D. Quantum mechanics without the projection postulate and its realistic interpretation. Found Phys 19, 1397–1423 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732760
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732760