In the philosophy of science, we are to assess critically and on their intrinsic merits various proposals for a consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, including resolutions of the measurement problem and accounts of the long-range Bell correlations. In this paper I suggest that the terms of debate may have been so severely and unduly constrained by the reigning orthodoxy that we labor unproductively with an unhelpful vocabulary and set of definitions and distinctions. I first review this situation and how we arrived there. Then I present an alternative conceptual framework, free of many of the standard conundrums, and ask why we seem unwilling to pursue it as a serious possibility. I begin by sampling how some of the central tenets of the standard, or “Copenhagen”, theory of quantum mechanics came to be formulated. As is typical for his writing on broader philosophical issues, Niels Bohr's pronouncements on the interpretation of quantum mechanics are often difficult to understand and at times just plain opaque.
In the philosophy of science, we are to assess critically and on their intrinsic merits various proposals for a consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, including resolutions of the measurement problem and accounts of the long-range Bell correlations. In this paper I suggest that the terms of debate may have been so severely and unduly constrained by the reigning orthodoxy that we labor unproductively with an unhelpful vocabulary and set of definitions and distinctions. I first review this situation and how we arrived there. Then I present an alternative conceptual framework, free of many of the standard conundrums, and ask why we seem unwilling to pursue it as a serious possibility. I begin by sampling how some of the central tenets of the standard, or “Copenhagen”, theory of quantum mechanics came to be formulated. As is typical for his writing on broader philosophical issues, Niels Bohr's pronouncements on the interpretation of quantum mechanics are often difficult to understand and at times just plain opaque.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become the standard way of explaining the physical philosophical meaning of the mathematics of microscopic behavior. It developed from the thought of people who attended the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Copenhagen during the 40 years that Niels Bohr directed it, from 1920 to 1962. Bohr took a large part in developing the Copenhagen Interpretation, he didn't escape all controversy over it (although the quote above is a bit of an exaggeration). Bohr did die before the experimental theoretical developments that have transposed the debate over the appropriateness adequacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation into a new key, he may well have been lucky to have escaped when he did. There is no authoritative codification of CI [the Copenhagen Interpretation], write T Gornitz C. E von Weizsacker of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg, West Germany in' their formal presentation to the recent Loyola Conference on Mathematical Interpretational Problems in Relativistic Quantum Theory, and under the conditions of its origin there probably could not be one.... All prominent authors of the time who wrote on these questions, like Bohr, [Werner] Heisenberg, [Wolfgang] Pauli, J[ohn] v[on] Neumann on one side, [Albert] Einstein [Erwin] Schrodinger on the other, fell, so we feel, into some stammering when they tried to express their own positions. Nevertheless there is what might be called a Copenhagen attitude. It concentrates on observable phenomena, makes statistics probability central to its understanding, considers quantum mechanics primarily a theory of knowledge or information becomes a kind of physica negativa (analogous to a theologia negativa) in trying not to say too much about things that can't be seen or felt. For example, it doesn't much care whether the orbits of electrons in atoms are real or not and, in fact, tends to regard them as unreal. It appears in most textbooks as the standard way of looking at things.
Within the past decade there has grown an acute and highly articulate group of critics of the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory,—the so-called “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The writings of people like Bopp, Janossy, and particularly Bohm and Feyerabend, must be taken very seriously indeed. The future of some important discussions in the philosophy and the logic of science rests with these individuals. But they have, in their own writings, occasionally matched the inelegancies of Bohr and Heisenberg with as many inelegancies of their own. The present paper is meant to present a quintet of considerations which may possibly lead to a reassessment of the issues between Bohr, Heisenberg, and their critics, especially Bohm and Feyerabend.
I argue here that progress in understanding the lessons of quantum physics has been hindered by the tendency to cast Niels Bohr as a villain. Building on the work of Favrholdt, Faye, and Howard, I present a more accurate view of Bohr's proposal for the "epistemological lesson" of quantum physics. I then argue that several interpretive programs -- often presented as alternatives to Copenhagen -- are, after substantial conceptual work, arriving at a view that is notably similar to Bohr's. Using Maudlin’s formulation of the measurement problem as a foil, I argue that it relies on a notion of wave-function completeness that is inappropriate for a genuinely indeterministic theory, and one that Bohr consistently rejected. On Bohr's view, quantum theory permits concrete agents, situated within specific experimental contexts, to make objective descriptions, while refusing the demand for a single, context-free "description from nowhere".
Quantum mechanics under the Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most experimentally well verified formalisms. However, it is known that the interpretation makes explicit reference to external observation or "measurement." One says that the Copenhagen interpretation suffers from the measurement problem. This deficiency of the interpretation excludes it as a viable fundamental formalism and prevents the use of standard quantum mechanics in discussions of quantum cosmology. Numerous alternative interpretations have been developed with the goals of reproducing its predictive success while obviating the measurement problem. While several interpretations make distinct, falsifiable, predictions, many claim to precisely reproduce the results of standard quantum mechanics. The sheer number of interpretations raises several issues. If the experimental predictions are identical, how are they to be assessed? On what grounds can an interpretation be said to trump another? Without recourse to experimental findings, one may continue to assess an interpretation on its logical structure, self-consistency, and simplicity (number and plausibility of its assumptions). We argue, and where possible, demonstrate, that all common interpretations have unresolved deficiencies. Among these deficiencies are failures to resolve the measurement problem, fine-tuning problems, logical/mathematical inconsistencies, disagreement with experiment, and others. Shortcomings as severe as these call into question the viability of any of the common interpretations. When appropriate, we indicate where future work may resolve some of these issues.
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics first cropped up during the 1930s during a famous series of debates between Einstein and Bohr concerning the physical adequacy – or ‘completeness’ – of the orthodox (Copenhagen) theory.1 As we have seen, it is a topic central to Hanson’s thinking not only with regard to quantum mechanics but also for its wider bearing on the scope and limits of scientific knowledge, the theory-laden character of observations, and the underdetermination of theory by evidence.2 Thus it is frequently adduced in support of his proto-Kuhnian claim that scientists working within different paradigms must be thought of as observing different things or inhabiting ‘different worlds’.3 What I propose to do now is look in more detail at the arguments surrounding this topic and, especially, at various proposals – from Einstein down – for a realist construal of the quantum data (i.e., the empirical measurement-results) that would offer an alternative to Hanson’s idea of the uncertainty principle as placing an absolute limit on our knowledge of objects and events in the microphysical domain. Having set out his arguments already in chapters 4 and 5, I shall not make any further detailed reference to Hanson’s work but assume that the reader who has come this far will have them clearly in mind. Thus my purpose in the remainder of this book is to raise the question: what becomes of the paradigm-relativist approach to issues in the history and philosophy of science if it derives so much of its suasive force from an interpretation of quantum mechanics that has proved increasingly open to challenge?
Now that my account of Bohr's philosophy of physics has been completed, it remains for me to give a general assessment of it. What value should we assign to Bohr's main ideas – the notions of correspondence and complementarity? How does his interpretation of quantum physics fare in comparison with some of its rivals? What should our assessment of the Bohr–Einstein debate be? I shall take up these questions in the reverse order. Einstein or Bohr? The final verdict The Bohr–Einstein debate is primarily a dispute about the philosophical foundations in terms of which the interpretation of quantum mechanics should be based: specifically it is a dispute about the intrinsic-properties theory, i.e. about the scope of a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein wished to maintain the two realist theses, the intrinsic-properties theory and the objective-values theory, whereas Bohr wished to hold only the latter. My own philosophical leanings are in the direction of realism. To my mind the notion of a physical reality the existence and constitution of which are independent of human thought and perception is coherent and plausible: what physical objects there are, and what properties they have, is not determined by human thought or perception, or by human practical interests. I have sympathy, therefore, with Einstein's position concerning the indefinability thesis and the question of the completeness of quantum mechanics.