Philoophical Consequences of Quantum Theory

University of Notre Dame Press (1989)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

From the beginning, the implications of quantum theory for our most general understanding of the world have been a matter of intense debate. Einstein argues that the theory had to be regarded as fundamentally incomplete. Its inability, for example, to predict the exact time of decay of a single radioactive atom had to be due to a failure of the theory and not due to a permanent inability on our part or a fundamental indeterminism in nature itself. In 1964, John Bell derived a theorem which showed that any deterministic theory which preserved locality would have certain consequences for measurements performed at a distance from one another. An experimental check seems to show that these consequences are not, in fact, realized. The correlation between the sets of events is much stronger than any local deterministic theory could allow. What is more, this stronger correlation is precisely that which is predicted by quantum theory. The astonishing result is that local deterministic theories of the classical sort seem to be permanently excluded. Not only can the individual decay not be predicted, but no future theory can ever predict it. The contributors in this volume wrestle with this conclusion. Some welcome it; others leave open a return to at lease some kind of deterministic world, one which must however allow something like action-at-a distance. How much lit it? And how can one avoid violating relativity theory, which excludes action-at-a-distance? How can a clash between the two fundamental theories of modern physics, relativity and quantum theory, be avoided? What are the consequences for the traditional philosophic issue of causality explanation and objectivity? One thing is certain; we can never return to the comfortable Newtonian world where everything that happened was, in principle, predictable and where what happened at one measurement site could not affect another set of measurements being performed light-years away, at a distance that a light-signal could not bridge. Contributors: James T. Cushing, Abner Shimony, N. David Mermin, Jon P. Jarrett, Linda Wessels, Bas C. van Fraassen, Jeremy Butterfield, Michael L. G. Redhead, Henry P. Stapp, Arthur Fine, R. I. G. Hughes, Paul Teller, Don Howard, Henry J. Folse, and Ernan McMullin.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,164

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Do Correlations Need to be Explained?Arthur Fine - 1989 - In James T. Cushing & Ernan McMullin (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. University of Notre Dame Press. pp. 175--194.
Explanation and theory formation in quantum chemistry.Hinne Hettema - 2009 - Foundations of Chemistry 11 (3):145-174.
Comments on the Papers of Cushing and Redhead: "Models, High-Energy Theoretical Physics and Realism" and "Quantum Field Theory for Philosophers".Paul Teller - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:100 - 111.
The price of insisting that quantum mechanics is complete.P. D. Magnus - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):257-267.
Can Quantum Theory be Applied to the Universe as a Whole?Claus Kiefer - 2010 - Foundations of Physics 40 (9-10):1410-1418.
Quantum Theory Without Hilbert Spaces.C. Anastopoulos - 2001 - Foundations of Physics 31 (11):1545-1580.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-16

Downloads
40 (#375,657)

6 months
17 (#128,771)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references