Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution
Roland L. Omnes
`Science is rooted in conversations.' The word is from Heisenberg but it becomes with Mara Beller a thesis for reconsidering the philosophy and history of science: how conversations were a cradle for the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the main topic of this book. This `dialogical' approach is moreover assumed to be quite general and it is proposed as a guideline for future investigations in the history of science. This work will certainly be important among historians of science. Its most valuable content is a wealth of information picked up from many sources, including the correspondence between the actors and later registered commentaries by many witnesses. There will be also undoubtedly much discussion of its conclusions and theses. They are extremely strong since, to mention but a few, one is told that the success of the Copenhagen interpretation is the result of a `fierce' propaganda strategy, and that Bohr could not really master physics (because of a weakness in mathematics), while the idea of complementarity, after a long discussion, is dismissed as `mythology'. Such new ideas will certainly find an enthusiastic approval from the adeherents of `new is beautiful', and will give rise to much discussion. What is missing most, however, in this book is a consideration of recent intensive renewals of interpretation arising from advances in both experiments and theory. The resulting conclusions are clearly different from Beller's: now that there are demonstrative versions of interpretation, one can fully appreciate why it was so difficult to justify logically and philosophically the Copenhagen interpretation (accordingly Bohr's stature would be enhanced rather than slighted). Mara Beller's inclination towards excessive statements is finally crowned when she says that her philosophical analysis `demonstrates the possibility and the need of a viable alternative to the orthodox interpretation' (most probably Bohmian mechanics). To have such an Aristotelian confidence in the power of philosophy and to be so assertive in a book where neither the word or notion of `decoherence' is mentioned indicate in my opinion the real nature of that book: too provocative to be wise.
European Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 2000•65 citations