Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A critique of the disturbance theory of indeterminacy in quantum mechanics

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Heisenberg'sgendanken experiments in quantum mechanics have given rise to a widespread belief that the indeterminacy relations holding for the variables of a quantal system can be explained quasiclassically in terms of a disturbance suffered by the system in interaction with a quantal measurement, or state preparation, agent. There are a number of criticisms of this doctrine in the literature, which are critically examined in this article and found to be ininconclusive, the chief error being the conflation of this disturbance with the projection postulate. We present a critique of the disturbance theory based on the fact that the required disturbance will in general depend on the interaction time of the system and state-preparer. This point is exploited in the construction of a spin-interaction model which acts as a counterexample to the disturbance doctrine, while remaining faithful to the spirit of Heisenberg'sgedanken experiments. Several consequences of this result are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. W. Heisenberg,The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (Dover, New York, 1949).

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Jammer,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective (John Wiley, New York, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Roychoudhuri,Found. Phys. 8, 845 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, inAlbert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist, P. A. Schilpp, ed. (Tudor Publishing Co, New York, 1949), p. 199. [Reprinted in N. Bohr,Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1958), p. 32.]

    Google Scholar 

  5. N. Bohr,Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).

    Google Scholar 

  6. E. Scheibe,The Logical Analysis of Quantum Mechanics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. Bohr and L. Rosenfeld,Kgl. Dan. Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Medd. 12, No. 8 (1933).

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. Robertson,Phys. Rev. 29, 163 (1929).

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. Schrödinger,Berliner Berichte 1930, 296.

  10. J. Synge,Proc. Roy. Soc. (Lond.) A, 151 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  11. H. Margenau,Phil. Sci. 30, 1, 138 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  12. K. Popper, inQuantum Theory and Reality, M. Bunge, ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1967), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. L. Ballentine,Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Messiah,Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 1 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Bub, inLogic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics, P. Suppes, ed. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976), p. 397.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Park,Found. Phys. 1, 23 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen,Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).

    Google Scholar 

  18. D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov,Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Renninger,Z. Phys. 158, 417 (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Y. Yoshihuku,Mem. Chubu. Inst. Technol. (Japan) 13-A, 173 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  21. H. Reichenbach,Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1944).

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Feyerabend,Philosophical Studies 9, 47 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  23. C. Hooker,Australasian J. Phil. 49, 262 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. Bohm,Buantum Theory (Prentice Hall, New York, 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  25. P. Fong,Elementary Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  26. M. Gardner,Phil. Sci. 38, 508 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  27. H. Jeffreys and B. Jeffreys,Methods of Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, London, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  28. E. Henley and W. Thirring,Elementary Quantum Field Theory, (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  29. L. Rosenfeld,Nucl. Phys. 40, 353 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  30. W. Heitler,The Quantum Theory of Radiation (Oxford University Press, London, 1954).

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. Kalckar, inFoundations of Quantum Mechanics (International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Course 49), B. d'Espagnat, ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1971), p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  32. K. Eppley and E. Hannah,Found. Phys. 7, 51 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  33. F. Herbut,Int. J. Theor. Phys. 11, 193 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciênca, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Brazil

    Harvey R. Brown

  2. Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Chelsea College, University of London, London, England

    Michael L. G. Redhead

Authors
  1. Harvey R. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael L. G. Redhead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This work formed part of a thesis submitted by one of us (HRB) in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of London.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, H.R., Redhead, M.L.G. A critique of the disturbance theory of indeterminacy in quantum mechanics. Found Phys 11, 1–20 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00715192

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00715192

Keywords

Search

Navigation