Abstract
We argue that Bohrian complementarity is a framework for making new ontological sense of scientific findings. It provides a conceptual pattern for making sense of the results of an empirical investigation into new realms or fields of natural properties. The idea of “formation length” engenders this mutual attunement of evidence and reality. Physicists want to be able to ascribe ontological features to atomic constituents and atomic processes such as “emission”, “impact”, or “change of energy-state”. These expressions supposedly refer to “local” forms of physical change that in sum constitute the possibility of there being a “global” (for example an atomic) system of possible states. We argue that it is only because we can act it out in the design of experiments that we can make sense of the link between classical and quantum theoretical systems. We need the notion of formation length in order to express the principle that the atom is a causal unity. This not in the sense of being the ground for a particular kind of causality, but in the sense of unifying the grounds for the variety of causal manifestations that constitutes the atom.
References
Andersen, K.K, Brock, S., Esbjerg, J., Thomsen, H.D., and Uggerhøj, U.I. (2013), “Radiation Emission as a Virtually Exact Realization of Heisenberg’s Microscope.” In: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics. Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 315, 278–82.10.1016/j.nimb.2013.03.041Search in Google Scholar
Bhaskar, R. (1990), (ed.) Harré and His critics. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Bitbol, M., Kerszberg, P., and Petotot, J. (eds.) (2009), Constituting Objectivity. Transcendental Perspectives on Modern Physics. Berlin, New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-9510-8Search in Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1928), “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory.” Nature 121, 580.10.1038/121580a0Search in Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1939), “The Causality Problem in Atomic Physics.” In: New Theories in Physics. Paris: International Institute of intellectual Collaboration, 121–45.Search in Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1957), Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley and Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1963), Essays 58–63 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley and Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1986), Niels Bohr’s Collected Works, Vol. VI. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Search in Google Scholar
Brock, S. (2003), Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Quantum Physics in the Light of the Helmholtzian Tradition of theoretical Physics. Berlin: Logos.Search in Google Scholar
Brock, S. (2009), “Old Wine Enriched in New Bottles. Kantian Flavors in Bohr’s Viewpoint of Complementarity.” In: Bitbol, M., Kerszberg, P., and Petotot, J. (eds.), Constituting Objectivity. Transcendental Perspectives on Modern Physics, 301–16, NewYork, Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-9510-8_18Search in Google Scholar
Feinberg, E.L. (1994), Priroda 11, 30 (English translation available at http://www.phys.au.dk/ulrik/lpm/Nature.doc).Search in Google Scholar
Harre, R. (1986), Varieties of Realism. A Rational for the Natural Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1990), Exploring the human umwelt in (Bhaskar 1990), 297–362.Search in Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1998), “Recovering the Experiment.” Philosophy 73, 353–77.10.1017/S003181919800014XSearch in Google Scholar
Harre, R. & Krausz, M. (1996), Varieties of Relativism, Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Heisenberg, W. “Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mekanik.” reproduced in (Zurek & Wheeler 1983)10.1007/978-3-663-14179-2_6Search in Google Scholar
Ter-Mikaelian, M.L. (1953), ETP, 25, 289–96.10.1108/eb032337Search in Google Scholar
Zurek, W.H. & Wheeler, J.A. (eds.) (1983), Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400854554Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
