Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physics Bulletin

Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics

Geoffrey L. Price

Published Jan 1, 1983• 254 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Karl R Popper 1982 London: Hutchinson xviii + 228 pp price £15 This final volume of Sir Karl Popper's long-awaited Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery appears through the editorial efforts of W W Bartley III, and constitutes a major addition to Popper's published corpus, of particular interest to theoretical physicists, historians of the quantum revolution, and philosophers of science. In it, a basic theme of Popper's philosophy, that something can come from nothing, is related to the present situation in physical theory.

DOI
10.1088/0031-9112/34/1/040

Related papers

Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics

Karl Popper

Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics is one of the three volumes of Karl Popper’s Postscript to the Logic of scientific Discovery. The Postscript is the culmination of Popper’s work in the philosophy of physics and a new famous attack on subjectivist approaches to philosophy of science. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics is the third volume of the Postscript. It may be read independently, but it also forms part of Popper’s interconnected argument in the Postscript. It presents Popper’s classic statement on quantum physics and offers important insights into his thinking on problems of method within science and physics as a whole.

Routledge eBooks•Apr 15, 2013•50 citations

The great quantum muddle

N. David Mermin

These are volumes II and III of Sir Karl Popper's hitherto unpublished Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery. In addition to the Postscript itself, which was largely completed twenty years after L.S.D. in 1954, about a third of each volume is devoted to more recent writings. Volume II, The Open Universe , subtitled “An argument for Indeterminism”, has three “addenda”: a reprint of Popper's 1973 essay, “Indeterminism is not enough”, a revised version of his 1974 “Scientific Reduction and the essential incompleteness of all science”, and a brief essay, “Further remarks on reduction”, written in 1981. Volume III, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics , has a lengthy 1982 preface, and contains a revised and expanded version of Popper's 1967 “Quantum mechanics without the observer”. It was not Popper's original intent that the work should appear in separate volumes. Volume II, though primarily about classical physics, bears importantly on his views of the quantum theory, and further discussions of classical concepts (notably entropy and irreversibility) are in Volume III. I shall therefore discuss the two books as a single coherent work. (Volume I, Realism and the Aim of Science , was unavailable at the time this review was written.) Popper argues with wit, ingenuity, and passion, that the prevailing “Copenhagen” interpretation of the quantum theory is a mistake. Heisenberg, he says, “led a generation of physicists to accept the absurd view that one can learn from quantum mechanics that ‘objective reality has evaporated’” (III p. 9). According to Popper, there really are particles out there, not “wavicles”, and each particle has both a position and a momentum.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 15, 1990•0 citations

Popper and the Quantum Theory

Michael L. G. Redhead

Popper wrote extensively on the quantum theory. In Logic der Forschung (LSD) he devoted a whole chapter to the topic, while the whole of Volume 3 of the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery is devoted to the quantum theory. This volume entitled Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (QTSP) incorporated a famous earlier essay, ‘Quantum Mechanics without “the Observer”’ (QM). In addition Popper's development of the propensity interpretation of probability was much influenced by his views on the role of probability in quantum theory, and he also wrote an insightful critique of the 1936 paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann on nondistributive quantum logic (BNIQM).

Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement•Sep 1, 1995•12 citations

Popper and the Quantum Theory

Michael L. G. Redhead

Popper wrote extensively on the quantum theory. In Logic der Forschung (LSD) he devoted a whole chapter to the topic, while the whole of Volume 3 of the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery is devoted to the quantum theory. This volume entitled Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics ( QTSP ) incorporated a famous earlier essay, ‘Quantum Mechanics without “the Observer”’ (QM). In addition Popper’s development of the propensity interpretation of probability was much influenced by his views on the role of probability in quantum theory, and he also wrote an insightful critique of the 1936 paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann on nondistributive quantum logic 1 (BNIQM).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 25, 2024•0 citations

Popper and the Quantum Theory

Michael L. G. Redhead

Popper wrote extensively on the quantum theory. In Logic der Forschung (LSD) he devoted a whole chapter to the topic, while the whole of Volume 3 of the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery is devoted to the quantum theory. This volume entitled Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics ( QTSP ) incorporated a famous earlier essay, ‘Quantum Mechanics without “the Observer”’ (QM). In addition Popper's development of the propensity interpretation of probability was much influenced by his views on the rôle of probability in quantum theory, and he also wrote an insightful critique of the 1936 paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann on nondistributive quantum logic (BNIQM). In this paper I will look at some of Popper's arguments in a suitably critical spirit. But he would have applauded this. My great regret is that he cannot respond to this paper with criticisms of my arguments! Thought Experiments In 1934 Popper published a short note in Die Naturwissenschaften entitled ‘Zur Kritik der Ungenauigkeitsrelationen’ (KU). This was actually Popper's scientific debut. It contained what Popper later described as ‘a gross mistake for which I have been deeply sorry and ashamed ever since’ ( QTSP , p. 15). Appendix *XII to the 1959 translation of LSD reproduces a letter from Einstein written in 1935 criticising Popper's proposed thought experiment. Although he tells us in his autobiography ( UQ , p. 92) that he defended his experiment against von Weiszäcker and Heisenberg, he immediately concurred with Einstein's criticism.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 28, 1996•2 citations

Logic and Probability in Physics

C. G. DARWIN

ENERAL philosophy claims to be the critical subject which lays down for all of us what we may be allowed to think, and yet it has played no part whatever in the great revolutions of human thought of the present century-those connected with relativity and the quantum theory. It might have been expected that the scientists would have been constantly consulting the philosophers as to the legitimacy of their various speculations, but nothing of the kind has happened. Since no one can dispense with some sort of metaphysic, each scientist has made one for himself, and no doubt they contain many crudities, but it would seem that a deep interest in metaphysic is a disadvantage rather than an advantage to the physicist-at least I have the impression that those of my friends who are most inclined to speculate on the ultimate things appear to be the ones whose scientific work is most hampered by doing so. Now I propose to risk a similar indiscretion. I want to embody in it the practical philosophy of a physicist, and I do not mean it as an attack on the pure philosophers, who are very reasonable people, only chargeable with the minor offence of not having made me want to read their books! I had better begin by stating shortly the ideas I intend to discuss. There is a notable contrast between the way we think about things and the way we think we ought to think about them.

Science•Aug 19, 1938•2 citations
Karl R Popper 1982 London: Hutchinson xviii + 228 pp price £15 This final volume of Sir Karl Popper's long-awaited Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery appears through the editorial efforts of W W Bartley III, and constitutes a major addition to Popper's published corpus, of particular interest to theoretical physicists, historians of the quantum revolution, and philosophers of science. In it, a basic theme of Popper's philosophy, that something can come from nothing, is related to the present situation in physical theory.
Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics is one of the three volumes of Karl Popper’s Postscript to the Logic of scientific Discovery. The Postscript is the culmination of Popper’s work in the philosophy of physics and a new famous attack on subjectivist approaches to philosophy of science. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics is the third volume of the Postscript. It may be read independently, but it also forms part of Popper’s interconnected argument in the Postscript. It presents Popper’s classic statement on quantum physics and offers important insights into his thinking on problems of method within science and physics as a whole.
These are volumes II and III of Sir Karl Popper's hitherto unpublished Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery. In addition to the Postscript itself, which was largely completed twenty years after L.S.D. in 1954, about a third of each volume is devoted to more recent writings. Volume II, The Open Universe , subtitled “An argument for Indeterminism”, has three “addenda”: a reprint of Popper's 1973 essay, “Indeterminism is not enough”, a revised version of his 1974 “Scientific Reduction and the essential incompleteness of all science”, and a brief essay, “Further remarks on reduction”, written in 1981. Volume III, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics , has a lengthy 1982 preface, and contains a revised and expanded version of Popper's 1967 “Quantum mechanics without the observer”. It was not Popper's original intent that the work should appear in separate volumes. Volume II, though primarily about classical physics, bears importantly on his views of the quantum theory, and further discussions of classical concepts (notably entropy and irreversibility) are in Volume III. I shall therefore discuss the two books as a single coherent work. (Volume I, Realism and the Aim of Science , was unavailable at the time this review was written.) Popper argues with wit, ingenuity, and passion, that the prevailing “Copenhagen” interpretation of the quantum theory is a mistake. Heisenberg, he says, “led a generation of physicists to accept the absurd view that one can learn from quantum mechanics that ‘objective reality has evaporated’” (III p. 9). According to Popper, there really are particles out there, not “wavicles”, and each particle has both a position and a momentum.
Popper wrote extensively on the quantum theory. In Logic der Forschung (LSD) he devoted a whole chapter to the topic, while the whole of Volume 3 of the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery is devoted to the quantum theory. This volume entitled Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (QTSP) incorporated a famous earlier essay, ‘Quantum Mechanics without “the Observer”’ (QM). In addition Popper's development of the propensity interpretation of probability was much influenced by his views on the role of probability in quantum theory, and he also wrote an insightful critique of the 1936 paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann on nondistributive quantum logic (BNIQM).
Popper wrote extensively on the quantum theory. In Logic der Forschung (LSD) he devoted a whole chapter to the topic, while the whole of Volume 3 of the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery is devoted to the quantum theory. This volume entitled Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics ( QTSP ) incorporated a famous earlier essay, ‘Quantum Mechanics without “the Observer”’ (QM). In addition Popper’s development of the propensity interpretation of probability was much influenced by his views on the role of probability in quantum theory, and he also wrote an insightful critique of the 1936 paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann on nondistributive quantum logic 1 (BNIQM).
Popper wrote extensively on the quantum theory. In Logic der Forschung (LSD) he devoted a whole chapter to the topic, while the whole of Volume 3 of the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery is devoted to the quantum theory. This volume entitled Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics ( QTSP ) incorporated a famous earlier essay, ‘Quantum Mechanics without “the Observer”’ (QM). In addition Popper's development of the propensity interpretation of probability was much influenced by his views on the rôle of probability in quantum theory, and he also wrote an insightful critique of the 1936 paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann on nondistributive quantum logic (BNIQM). In this paper I will look at some of Popper's arguments in a suitably critical spirit. But he would have applauded this. My great regret is that he cannot respond to this paper with criticisms of my arguments! Thought Experiments In 1934 Popper published a short note in Die Naturwissenschaften entitled ‘Zur Kritik der Ungenauigkeitsrelationen’ (KU). This was actually Popper's scientific debut. It contained what Popper later described as ‘a gross mistake for which I have been deeply sorry and ashamed ever since’ ( QTSP , p. 15). Appendix *XII to the 1959 translation of LSD reproduces a letter from Einstein written in 1935 criticising Popper's proposed thought experiment. Although he tells us in his autobiography ( UQ , p. 92) that he defended his experiment against von Weiszäcker and Heisenberg, he immediately concurred with Einstein's criticism.
ENERAL philosophy claims to be the critical subject which lays down for all of us what we may be allowed to think, and yet it has played no part whatever in the great revolutions of human thought of the present century-those connected with relativity and the quantum theory. It might have been expected that the scientists would have been constantly consulting the philosophers as to the legitimacy of their various speculations, but nothing of the kind has happened. Since no one can dispense with some sort of metaphysic, each scientist has made one for himself, and no doubt they contain many crudities, but it would seem that a deep interest in metaphysic is a disadvantage rather than an advantage to the physicist-at least I have the impression that those of my friends who are most inclined to speculate on the ultimate things appear to be the ones whose scientific work is most hampered by doing so. Now I propose to risk a similar indiscretion. I want to embody in it the practical philosophy of a physicist, and I do not mean it as an attack on the pure philosophers, who are very reasonable people, only chargeable with the minor offence of not having made me want to read their books! I had better begin by stating shortly the ideas I intend to discuss. There is a notable contrast between the way we think about things and the way we think we ought to think about them.