Identifying »continuum« as a key concept in history, the author establishes a physicist’s view of this term, with a generally broader scope. However, when focusing on quantum physics, he produces a strong criticism both of basic theory building in quantum theory and in the historiography of this very field of scientific research. This criticism involves the fatal distinctions between the concepts of the digital and the analogue, respectively, the maintenance of a strictly reductionist, or »atomistic«, approach – as opposed to possible, more general and systemic view-points, and, consequently, the preference of research purely focussing on the particle-like rather than both the particle- and the wave-like »behaviours« on the quantum-level. It is argued that the dominant pattern of interpretation, the orthodox Kopenhagen inter- pretation, includes a highly metaphysical dimension, thereby hindering the solution of puzzles provided by quantum theory. The article pleads for a re-thinking, and re-working of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum phenomena, which draws on a ›hidden variables‹ approach in full agreement with present experimental evidence. Furthermore, the dominance of the Kopenhagen interpretation is kept up not only by means of lobbying but also by means of historiography of science. The last chapter offers alternative viewpoints, avoiding the reductionism of the orthodox school, pleading for a more complex, multi-faceted view, and including both wave and particle aspects on an equal footing.
Identifying »continuum« as a key concept in history, the author establishes a physicist’s view of this term, with a generally broader scope. However, when focusing on quantum physics, he produces a strong criticism both of basic theory building in quantum theory and in the historiography of this very field of scientific research. This criticism involves the fatal distinctions between the concepts of the digital and the analogue, respectively, the maintenance of a strictly reductionist, or »atomistic«, approach – as opposed to possible, more general and systemic view-points, and, consequently, the preference of research purely focussing on the particle-like rather than both the particle- and the wave-like »behaviours« on the quantum-level. It is argued that the dominant pattern of interpretation, the orthodox Kopenhagen inter- pretation, includes a highly metaphysical dimension, thereby hindering the solution of puzzles provided by quantum theory. The article pleads for a re-thinking, and re-working of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum phenomena, which draws on a ›hidden variables‹ approach in full agreement with present experimental evidence. Furthermore, the dominance of the Kopenhagen interpretation is kept up not only by means of lobbying but also by means of historiography of science. The last chapter offers alternative viewpoints, avoiding the reductionism of the orthodox school, pleading for a more complex, multi-faceted view, and including both wave and particle aspects on an equal footing.
Identifying »continuum« as a key concept in history, the author establishes a physicist’s view of this term, with a generally broader scope. However, when focusing on quantum physics, he produces a strong criticism both of basic theory building in quantum theory and in the historiography of this very field of scientific research. This criticism involves the fatal distinctions between the concepts of the digital and the analogue, respectively, the maintenance of a strictly reductionist, or »atomistic«, approach – as opposed to possible, more general and systemic view-points, and, consequently, the preference of research purely focussing on the particle-like rather than both the particle- and the wave-like »behaviours« on the quantum-level. It is argued that the dominant pattern of interpretation, the orthodox Kopenhagen inter- pretation, includes a highly metaphysical dimension, thereby hindering the solution of puzzles provided by quantum theory. The article pleads for a re-thinking, and re-working of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum phenomena, which draws on a ›hidden variables‹ approach in full agreement with present experimental evidence. Furthermore, the dominance of the Kopenhagen interpretation is kept up not only by means of lobbying but also by means of historiography of science. The last chapter offers alternative viewpoints, avoiding the reductionism of the orthodox school, pleading for a more complex, multi-faceted view, and including both wave and particle aspects on an equal footing.
The centenary of quantum mechanics brings into focus the question of the accuracy of established terminology for describing the radical transformations that occurred. Critical analysis reveals that the term “quantum revolution” fosters a simplified perception of a single, pivotal turn in physics during the 1920s and 1930s and provides a superficial account of the actual changes over the past 100 years. This article critically re-examines the established term “quantum revolution” from the perspective of its conceptual limitations in describing the real changes of the last century. Arguments are presented for its partial replacement with the more flexible concept of “revolutionary transformations in quantum theory and its interpretations”, which emphasises the processual and multifaceted nature of these changes. The methodological foundation of this research is the distinction between two types of interpretations of quantum theory: “pragmatic” interpretations, which focus on connecting the formalism with experiment, and “explanatory” interpretations, which aim to form conceptions of quantum reality. The application of the concept of a quantum revolution is justified for the pragmatic interpretation, which was formed in 1925–1927 and later became established as the orthodox view, but not for interpretations of the explanatory type. Three initial strategies for preserving classical language in the description of quantum phenomena are identified: classical realism, quantum dualism, and instrumentalism. The analysis addresses persistent historiographical myths surrounding the Copenhagen interpretation – namely, that it is inherent in the postulates of quantum theory, and that it is inherently instrumentalist and subjectivist. A distinction is shown between the orthodox (pragmatic) and the Copenhagen (explanatory) interpretations. Particular attention is paid to the realistic turn in explanatory interpretations (1952–1958), largely associated with the later works of Heisenberg. It is concluded that the development of quantum theory is characterised not by a single revolution, but by a series of transformations of varying revolutionary intensity, many of which occurred in parallel and are still far from complete.
For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.
Abstract The pilot-wave theory of de Broglie and Bohm has a special place in the history of contemporary physics, being it the very first alternative formulation of quantum mechanics. As is well-known, such a framework established itself as a leading interpretation of the quantum formalism in virtue of the solutions provided to the major technical and conceptual challenges affecting the orthodox view. The de Broglie-Bohm theory in fact not only solves the famous measurement problem, one of the most cogent issues faced by standard quantum mechanics, but also it clarifies the formal structure of the latter theory as a consequence of a consistent set of principles and an precise, unambiguous ontology. This volume aims to provide the reader with a discussion of the pilot-wave perspective which is as informative, comprehensive and accessible as possible, while at the same time clarifying confusions and misunderstandings that are unfortunately still common in literature despite the long history of this theoretical framework. The book features chapters about the various perspectives on the pilot-wave theory, its extensions to relativity and quantum field theory, and its experimental applications to various branches of physics, as for instance quantum electrodynamics, quantum chemistry, and quantum engineering. Moreover, the volume includes essays on the history and philosophy of de Broglie-Bohm theory in order to delineate its developments and the vicissitudes of its pioneers, as well as to understand the scientific image of the universe it provides.
Since its inception Bohmian mechanics has been generally regarded as a hidden-variable theory aimed at providing an objective description of quantum phenomena. To date, this rather narrow conception of Bohm’s proposal has caused it more rejection than acceptance. Now, after 65 years of Bohmian mechanics, should still be such an interpretational aspect the prevailing appraisal? Why not favoring a more pragmatic view, as a legitimate picture of quantum mechanics, on equal footing in all respects with any other more conventional quantum picture? These questions are used here to introduce a discussion on an alternative way to deal with Bohmian mechanics at present, enhancing its aspect as an efficient and useful picture or formulation to tackle, explore, describe and explain quantum phenomena where phase and correlation ( entanglement ) are key elements. This discussion is presented through two complementary blocks. The first block is aimed at briefly revisiting the historical context that gave rise to the appearance of Bohmian mechanics, and how this approach or analogous ones have been used in different physical contexts. This discussion is used to emphasize a more pragmatic view to the detriment of the more conventional hidden-variable (ontological) approach that has been a leitmotif within the quantum foundations. The second block focuses on some particular formal aspects of Bohmian mechanics supporting the view presented here, with special emphasis on the physical meaning of the local phase field and the associated velocity field encoded within the wave function. As an illustration, a simple model of Young’s two-slit experiment is considered. The simplicity of this model allows to understand in an easy manner how the information conveyed by the Bohmian formulation relates to other more conventional concepts in quantum mechanics. This sort of pedagogical application is also aimed at showing the potential interest to introduce Bohmian mechanics in undergraduate quantum mechanics courses as a working tool rather than merely an alternative interpretation.
Beginning in 1900 with 1-iax Planck's hypothesis of quanta, physics has been embarked on a course which has raised serious questions about the true nature of physical reality, about the foundational assumptions and structures of science, and about the relationships between physical reality and physical theory. In particular, attempts to give a physical interpretation to quantum theory seem to result in "pictures" of nature which are paradoxical. A subatomic entity is described by the theory as exhibiting the properties and behavior of both particle-like phenomena and wavelike phenomena. Since it seems unreasonable that a single entity could be both a point-like mass and a wave spread out through a region of space, quantum theory would seem to be less than satisfactory or less than complete at the interpretational level. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the underlying causes of this paradox. The dissertation proceeds by reviewing the development of quantum theory and the emergence of the paradox. Next, the problem of physical interpretation is examined and several of the more significant existing interpretations are discussed and analyzed. Finally, the foundations of science and the general structure of scientific theory are examined in a search for the origins of the paradox. As a result of these investigations and analyses, it is concluded that the paradoxical nature of the physical interpretation of quantum theory is the consequence of certain paradigms and preconceptualizations about physical reality which have been incorporated into the theory at the foundational level. These fundamental assU14ptions produce, within quantum theory, a forced marriage of the plenum and atomic views of physical reality. They also produce an ambiguity with respect to the nature of causality which is charaeteristic of the theory. These problems are reflected in the mathematical formalisms and physical concepts of the theory as well as in its metaphysical foundations. Lastly, methods of resoling the paradox are discussed. It is argued that a successful solution is possible, but that it would involve the creation of a new metaphor-an extension of the present language--which would lead science to a deeper, subquantum level in terms of which the present paradox would vanish.