Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 26 (4):325-337 (1959)
|Abstract||Within the past decade there has grown an acute and highly articulate group of critics of the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory,--the so-called "Copenhagen Interpretation." The writings of people like Bopp, Janossy, and particularly Bohm and Feyerabend, must be taken very seriously indeed. The future of some important discussions in the philosophy and the logic of science rests with these individuals. But they have, in their own writings, occasionally matched the inelegancies of Bohr and Heisenberg with as many inelegancies of their own. The present paper is meant to present a quintet of considerations which may possibly lead to a reassessment of the issues between Bohr, Heisenberg, and their critics, especially Bohm and Feyerabend|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John G. Cramer (1988). An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 27 (227):1-5.
Derek Lovejoy (1999). Objectivity, Causality and Ideology in Modern Physics. Science and Society 63 (4):433 - 458.
Ravi Gomatam (2007). Niels Bohr's Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation—Are the Two Incompatible? Philosophy of Science 74 (5):736-748.
John G. Cramer (1986). The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 58 (3):647-687.
Paul K. Feyerabend (1968). On a Recent Critique of Complementarity: Part I. Philosophy of Science 35 (4):309-331.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #101,187 of 739,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,030 of 739,303 )
How can I increase my downloads?