Bohm's ontological interpretation and its relations to three formulations of quantum mechanics

Synthese 117 (1):31-52 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The standard mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics is specified. Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics is then shown to be incapable of providing a suitable interpretation of that formulation. It is also shown that Bohm's interpretation may well be viable for two alternative mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics, meaning that the negative result is a significant though not a devastating criticism of Bohm's interpretation. A preliminary case is made for preferring one alternative formulation over the other.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

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

Antidote or Theory?Michael Dickson - 1996 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27 (2):229-238.
The Bohmian Model of Quantum Cosmology.Craig Callender & Robert Weingard - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:218 - 227.
Philosophic foundations of quantum mechanics.Hans Reichenbach - 1944 - Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications.
Bohmian mechanics.Sheldon Goldstein - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
How to interpret quantum mechanics.Jeffrey Bub - 1994 - Erkenntnis 41 (2):253 - 273.
Schwinger and the ontology of quantum field theory.Edward MacKinnon - 2007 - Foundations of Science 12 (4):295-323.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
194 (#99,089)

6 months
5 (#652,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony.James T. Cushing - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (2):317-328.

Add more references