Thinking of Bell and Bohr

Henry J. Folse

D. R. Murdoch

This book gives a clear and comprehensive exposition of Niels Bohr's philosophy of physics. Bohr's ideas are of major importance, for they are the source of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics; yet they are obscure, and call for the sort of close analysis that this book provides. The book describes the historical background of the physics from which Bohr's ideas grew. The core of the book is a detailed analysis of Bohr's arguments for complementarity and of the interpretation which he put upon it. Special emphasis is placed throughout on the contrasting views of Einstein, and the great debate between Bohr and Einstein is thoroughly examined. The book traces the philosophical influences on Bohr, and unravels the realist and anti-realist strands in his thinking. Bohr's philosophy is critically assessed in the light of recent developments in the foundations of quantum physics (the work of Bell and others) and in philosophy (the realism-anti-realism debate) and it is revealed as being much more subtle and sophisticated than it is generally taken to be. While the book will be of interest to specialists, it is written in a style that will make it accessible to those who have no specialist knowledge of the relevant physics and philosophy.

U. Klein

We analyze the question whether or not quantum theory should be used to describe single particles. Our final result is that a rational basis for such an 'individuality interpretation' does not exist. A critical examination of three principles, supporting the individuality interpretation, leads to the result that no one of these principles seems to be realized in nature. The well-known controversy characterized by the names of Einstein (EPR), Bohr and Bell is analyzed. EPR proved 'predictive incompleteness' of quantum theory, which implies that no individuality interpretation exists. Contrary to the common opinion, Bell's proof of 'metaphysical completeness' does not invalidate EPR's proof because two crucially different meanings of 'completeness' are involved. The failure to distinguish between these two meanings is closely related to a fundamentally deterministic world view, which dominated the thinking of the 19th century and determines our thinking even today.

Wolfgang W. Osterhage

N. David Mermin

If you ask Google to search for “no quantum world,” you will get nearly 300 hits. They all give the following quotation (or recognizable corruptions of it): There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature. Over 90% of them attribute the statement to Niels Bohr, with phrases like “Bohr's dictum …,” “Bohr insisted that …,” “Bohr proclaimed …,” “Niels Bohr said, in a frequently quoted passage …,” “Niels Bohr wrote [my emphasis] …,” and even “Explain and evaluate Bohr's philosophy of quantum theory with reference to his assertion ….” Here is yet another example of the power of the internet to enrich our knowledge. There is only one problem. Bohr, who took writing very seriously indeed, never published such an assertion in any of his writings, although he repeatedly refined, reformulated, and often simply repeated his position on the philosophical foundations of the quantum theory. The statement actually comes from an essay by Aage Petersen, “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr” [1], which he published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists shortly after Bohr's death. Petersen introduced the words with When asked whether the algorithm of quantum mechanics could be considered as somehow mirroring an underlying quantum world, Bohr would answer … So what may now be the most celebrated of all Bohr quotations on the nature of the quantum theory is at best an attempt by a close associate to characterize Bohr's general response to the highly problematic notion of a “quantum world,” written too late for Bohr to respond. When you ask Google to list only those pages that also mention the actual author of the words, Petersen, the number of hits drops from 286 to 18. The status of this “quotation” as hearsay is in danger of being lost. I'm particularly sensitive to this risk because in the 1980s I used to enjoy giving physics colloquia on Bell's theorem and its implications for our understanding of quantum mechanics. I was always fond of Petersen's recollection of what Bohr used to say, and I felt that his formulation captured something important about the situation revealed by Bell's theorem.