Foundations of Physics 35 (3):417-447 (2005)
|Abstract||Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics has been criticized as incoherent and opportunistic, and based on doubtful philosophical premises. If so Bohr’s influence, in the pre-war period of 1927–1939, is the harder to explain, and the acceptance of his approach to quantum mechanics over de Broglie’s had no reasonable foundation. But Bohr’s interpretation changed little from the time of its first appearance, and stood independent of any philosophical presuppositions. The principle of complementarity is itself best read as a conjecture of unusually wide scope, on the nature and future course of explanations in the sciences (and not only the physical sciences). If it must be judged a failure today, it is not because of any internal inconsistency|
|Keywords||Complementarity Scientific rationality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Cuffaro (2010). The Kantian Framework of Complementarity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 41 (4):309-317.
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.
Klaus Meyer-Abich (2004). Bohr's Complementarity and Goldstein's Holism in Reflective Pragmatism. Mind and Matter 2 (2):91-103.
Matthew J. Brown (forthcoming). Quantum Frames. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics.
S. Müller‐Markus (1966). Niels Bohr in the Darkness and Light of Soviet Philosophy∗. Inquiry 9 (1-4):73-93.
M. S. (1966). Niels Bohr in the Darkness and Light of Soviet Philosophy. Inquiry 9 (1-4):73 – 93.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #122,367 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?