Skip to main content
Log in

Statistical explanation in physics: The Copenhagen interpretation

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The statistical aspects of quantum explanation are intrinsic to quantum physics; individual quantum events are created in the interactions associated with observation and are not describable by predictive theory. The superposition principle shows the essential difference between quantum and non-quantum physics, and the principle is exemplified in the classic single-photon two-slit interference experiment. Recently Mandel and Pfleegor have done an experiment somewhat similar to the optical single-photon experiment but with two independently operated lasers; interference is obtained even with beam intensity so small that only one photon is in the apparatus at a time. The result can be understood in terms of the superposition of states; or, in terms of the Uncertainty Principle, which is found to forbid the determination of which of the two lasers is the source of a given photon (if conditions for interference are to obtain). The Mandel-Pfleegor experiment gives a physical argument against the continuous localization of a photon that is assumed in the ‘hidden variable’ theories and therefore gives further support for the generally accepted view that an observed entity (observed state) is created in the observation event. This aspect of quantum physics implies a subjectivism on the level of individual quantum-level occurrences, since there is in quantum theory no basis for asserting the existence of the event independently of observation of it. Extension of this subjectivism to large scale, non-quantum phenomena falls within the principles of quantum theory; counter considerations that argue against such an extension are noted.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. It has been argued, however, that there is no need in the calculation of probabilities in quantum theory for the introduction of a probability theory other than the classical probability theory. See A. I. Fine, ‘Logic, Probability, and Quantum Theory’, Philosophy of Science 35 (1968), 101.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Niels Bohr, Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, Cambridge University Press, 1934, esp. pp. 100, 115, 119.

  3. W. Heisenberg, The Physicist's Conception of Nature (trans. by A. J. Pomerans), Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1958, p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E. P. Wigner, ‘The Problem of Measurement’, American Journal of Physics 31 (1963), 6; ‘Two Kinds of Reality’, The Monist 48 (1964), 248. These essays are reprinted in Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner (ed. by W. J. Moore and Michael Scriven), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. von Neumann, Mathematical Principles of Quantum Theory (transl. by R. T. Beyer), Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1955, Chap. V.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Henry Margenau, Philosophy of Science 30 (1963), 1, 138; Annals of Physics 23 (1963), 469. Also, H. Margenau and E. P. Wigner, Philosophy of Science 31 (1964), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  7. For further review discussions see Abner Shimony, American Journal of Physics 31 (1963), 755, and R. Schlegel, Completeness in Science, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1967, Chaps. 10 and 11.

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. I. Taylor, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 15 (1909), 114.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. J. Dempster and H. F. Batho, Physical Rev. 30 (1927), 644; an echelette grating was used in place of the double-slit arrangement, with an extremely weak source.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. Biberman, N. Sushkin, and V. Fabrikant, Doklady Academii Nauk S.S.S.R. 60 (1949), 185.

    Google Scholar 

  11. For discussion and references see R. Schlegel, Ref. 7, Chap. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. L. Pfleegor and L. Mandel, ‘Interference of Independent Photon Beams’, Physical Rev. 159 (1967), 1084; also, ‘Interference Effects at the Single Photon Level’, Physics Letters 24A (1967), 766.

    Google Scholar 

  13. First paper, preceding Reference, p. 1088. The statement by P. A. M. Dirac is given in his Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press., 1958, 4th ed., p. 9.

  14. See L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Reviews Mod. Physics 37 (1965), 231.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ref. 12, first paper cited.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Louis de Broglie and J. Andrade E Silva, ‘Interpretation of a Recent Experiment on Interference of Photons’, Physical Rev. 172 (1968), 1284.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Sneed, Philosophy of Science 33 (1966), 22.

    Google Scholar 

  18. N. Rosen, “The Relation between Classical and Quantum Mechanics”, American Journal of Physics 32 (1964), 597. See also R. Schlegel, Ref. 7, Chap. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ref. 4, Symmetries and Reflections, Section III, esp. ‘Two Kinds of Reality’.

  20. For discussion and references see R. Schlegel, Ref. 7, Chap. 10.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schlegel, R. Statistical explanation in physics: The Copenhagen interpretation. Synthese 21, 65–82 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00414188

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00414188

Keywords

Navigation