In Bohr's view, what ontological significance does measurement have in quantum physics? How, exactly, are we to conceive of the physical properties which we attribute to microphysical objects on the basis of measurement? As we have seen, Bohr regards such properties as objective in the sense that in general they characterise the object immediately before the measurement. But what exactly is their ontological status? In order to answer this question, we shall have to consider in detail Bohr's view of the ontological significance of kinematic-dynamic complementarity. It is generally believed that Bohr held that in quantum physics an object cannot meaningfully be said to possess simultaneously an exact position and an exact momentum. Did he, and if so, why did he? The interactive-properties theory Some hold that the process of measurement does not so much create the value of the measured observable as disturb a pre-existing value. On this view the measured value characterises the observable only after the measurement, and not before: the measured value may be said to be a ‘created’ or ‘disturbed’ value. Bohr, as I have already said, seems to have toyed with this view in his earlier years: even as late as 1933 he says: Indeed, even in a position or momentum measurement on the electron in a hydrogen atom in a given stationary state one can assert with a certain right that the measuring result is produced only by the measurement itself.
In Bohr's view, what ontological significance does measurement have in quantum physics? How, exactly, are we to conceive of the physical properties which we attribute to microphysical objects on the basis of measurement? As we have seen, Bohr regards such properties as objective in the sense that in general they characterise the object immediately before the measurement. But what exactly is their ontological status? In order to answer this question, we shall have to consider in detail Bohr's view of the ontological significance of kinematic-dynamic complementarity. It is generally believed that Bohr held that in quantum physics an object cannot meaningfully be said to possess simultaneously an exact position and an exact momentum. Did he, and if so, why did he? The interactive-properties theory Some hold that the process of measurement does not so much create the value of the measured observable as disturb a pre-existing value. On this view the measured value characterises the observable only after the measurement, and not before: the measured value may be said to be a ‘created’ or ‘disturbed’ value. Bohr, as I have already said, seems to have toyed with this view in his earlier years: even as late as 1933 he says: Indeed, even in a position or momentum measurement on the electron in a hydrogen atom in a given stationary state one can assert with a certain right that the measuring result is produced only by the measurement itself.
Having discussed the meaning of complementarity in general and wave particle complementarity in particular, I wish now to explicate Bohr's subtle argument for the thesis that certain pairs of classical concepts which are mutually compatible in classical physics are mutually exclusive in quantum physics, i.e. the thesis of kinematic–dynamic complementarity. It is generally held that Bohr regarded the mutual exclusiveness in question as being not only epistemic but also ontic or semantic, in the sense that the uncertainty principle expresses a restriction not only on the joint measurability of canonically conjugate observables but also on the joint instantiation of the properties corresponding to these observables. I shall consider the question of the ontic or semantic construal of kinematic–dynamic complementarity in Chapter 7. Bohr's argument for complementarity in the epistemic sense is, however, more fundamental: it goes to the heart of his theory of observation and measurement in quantum physics. What, then, is Bohr's argument? The mutual exclusiveness of kinematic and dynamic properties Kinematic and dynamic attributes in quantum mechanics are mutually exclusive in the sense that they cannot be simultaneously measured; they are, in this sense, epistemically incompatible. Why did Bohr think this? His reasons may seem intricate, but they are basically quite simple. Two main factors, he maintains, account for the epistemic incompatibility: ( a ) measurements of these two different sorts of properties require mutually exclusive experimental arrangements, incompatible measurement procedures; ( b ) the indeterminability of the interaction between the object and the instrument of measurement precludes extrapolation of the different measurement results to one and the same time.
Now that Bohr's philosophy of quantum physics has been surveyed in detail, it is time to provide a general description of his philosophy that illuminates the details. The question which I wish to address, then is: what is the general philosophy, or philosophical point of view, that underlies Bohr's philosophy of physics? Can his philosophy be neatly categorised in terms of any well known philosophical position? Apropos his philosophy of physics in particular, the question of primary interest is: to what extent, if any, is Bohr's philosophy of physics realist? No simple answer to this question can be given: indeed, certain realist and non-realist components are subtly interwoven in his philosophy, and to unravel them we shall need a fairly refined conception of what constitutes a realist interpretation of physics. Realism in the interpretation of physics The basis of realism is the view that statements of a certain class predicate properties of real objects, the truth-values of these statements being determined by reality as it is independently of how it appears to us to be. This notion is captured in the following characterisation of what constitutes the adoption of a realist interpretation of a physical theory.
This article reconsiders the concept of physical reality in quantum theory and the concept of quantum measurement, following Bohr, whose analysis of quantum measurement led him to his concept of a (quantum) "phenomenon," referring to "the observations obtained under the specified circumstances," in the interaction between quantum objects and measuring instruments. This situation makes the terms "observation" and "measurement," as conventionally understood, inapplicable. These terms are remnants of classical physics or still earlier history, from which classical physics inherited it. As defined here, a quantum measurement does not measure any preexisting property of the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena. An act of measurement establishes a quantum phenomenon by an interaction between the instrument and the quantum object or in the present view the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena and, at the time of measurement, also quantum objects. In the view advanced in this article, in contrast to that of Bohr, quantum objects, such as electrons or photons, are assumed to exist only at the time of measurement and not independently, a view that redefines the concept of quantum object as well. This redefinition becomes especially important in high-energy quantum regimes and quantum field theory and allows this article to define a new concept of quantum field. The article also considers, now following Bohr, the quantum measurement as the entanglement between quantum objects and measurement instruments. The argument of the article is grounded in the concept "reality without realism" (RWR), as underlying quantum measurement thus understood, and the view, the RWR view, of quantum theory defined by this concept. The RWR view places a stratum of physical reality thus designated, here the reality ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena, beyond representation or knowledge, or even conception, and defines the corresponding set of interpretations quantum mechanics or quantum field theory, such as the one assumed in this article, in which, again, not only quantum phenomena but also quantum objects are (idealizations) defined by measurement. As such, the article also offers a broadly conceived response to J. Bell's argument "against 'measurement'".
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.
What is a physical object according to the theory of quantum mechanics? The first answer to be considered is that given by Bohr in terms of the concept of complementarity. This interpretation is illustrated by way of an example, the two slit experiment, which highlights some of the associated problems of ontology. One such problem is the so-called problem of measurement or observation. Various interpretations of measurement in Quantum Theory, including those of Heisenberg, von Neumann, Everett and Bohr, are compared and contrasted. A second problem concerns whether or not QT can be considered complete and therefore satisfactory as a basis for physics. Various attempts to complete QT by means of the addition of ‘hidden variables’ to the quantum mechanical state function are considered and their aims and achievements assessed. Finally, we investigate some of the characteristic ontological problems for the orthodox interpretation of Relativistic Quantum Theory.
Niels Bohr asserted both that (i) the properties of quantum systems are specifiable, in general, only in relation to mutually exclusive experimental arrangements which may be freely chosen by experimenters, and that (ii) observed physical behavior is objective. In a move that reduces the apparent tension between those two assertions, Bohr put forward an analogy between quantum complementarity (in effect, the dependence of property values on measurement apparatus configuration in quantum mechanics) and the principle of relativity (in effect, the dependence of property values on the inertial reference frame in special relativity). Here, Bohr's analogy is considered in a theoretical context. The elements of quantum mechanics and special relativity involved are set side by side, the analogous elements are identified with their roles in the analogy spelled out, and a number of dissimilarities that impact the force of the analogy are indicated-for example, quantum value determination, in general, requires an uncontrollable interaction during measurement, whereas non-quantum relativistic value determination does not. These dissimilarities point to weaknesses in the analogy, which he did not highly develop, and suggest that any stronger such analogy involving the two theories must take these differences more fully into account.