Philosophy of Science 74 (5):736-748 (2007)
|Abstract||The Copenhagen interpretation, which informs the textbook presentation of quantum mechanics, depends fundamentally on the notion of ontological wave-particle duality and a viewpoint called “complementarity.” In this paper, Bohr's own interpretation is traced in detail and is shown to be fundamentally different from and even opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation in virtually all its particulars. In particular, Bohr's interpretation avoids the ad hoc postulate of wave function ‘collapse' that is central to the Copenhagen interpretation. The strengths and weakness of both interpretations are summarized. ‡I thank Edward Mackinnon, Henry Folse, and Greg Anderson for valuable comments on the penultimate draft. The final responsibility for the paper rests with the author. †To contact the author, please write to: Bhaktivedanta Institute, 2334 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA; e-mail: email@example.com. I have been unable to achieve a sharp formulation of Bohr's principle of complementarity despite much effort I have expended on it. (Einstein 1949, 674) While imagining that I understand the position of Einstein, as regards the EPR correlations, I have very little understanding of his principal opponent, Bohr. (Bell 1987, 155) Niels Bohr brain-washed a generation of physicists into believing that the problem had been solved fifty years ago. (Gell-Mann 1979, 29) Every sentence I say must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question. (Niels Bohr, quoted in Jammer 1966, 175) Bohr's interpretation has never been fully clarified. It needs an interpretation itself, and only that will be its defense. (Weizsäcker 1971, 25).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Slobodan Perovic (2006). Schrödinger's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Relevance of Bohr's Experimental Critique. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 37 (2):275-297.
Kristian Camilleri (2009). Constructing the Myth of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Perspectives on Science 17 (1):pp. 26-57.
Don Howard (2004). Who Invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A Study in Mythology. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):669-682.
Michael Cuffaro (2010). The Kantian Framework of Complementarity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 41 (4):309-317.
M. S. (1966). Niels Bohr in the Darkness and Light of Soviet Philosophy. Inquiry 9 (1-4):73 – 93.
S. Müller‐Markus (1966). Niels Bohr in the Darkness and Light of Soviet Philosophy∗. Inquiry 9 (1-4):73-93.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads38 ( #35,831 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?