Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:06:45.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Niels Bohr's Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation—Are the Two Incompatible?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Ravi Gomatam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Copenhagen interpretation, which informs the textbook presentation of quantum mechanics, depends fundamentally on the notion of ontological wave-particle duality and a viewpoint called “complementarity.” In this paper, Bohr's own interpretation is traced in detail and is shown to be fundamentally different from and even opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation in virtually all its particulars. In particular, Bohr's interpretation avoids the ad hoc postulate of wave function ‘collapse’ that is central to the Copenhagen interpretation. The strengths and weakness of both interpretations are summarized.

Type
Philosophy of Physics
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2007 , pp. 736 - 748
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I thank Edward Mackinnon, Henry Folse, and Greg Anderson for valuable comments on the penultimate draft. The final responsibility for the paper rests with the author.

References

Bell, John (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels (1934), Atomic Theory and Description of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels ([1949] 1970), “Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics”, in Paul A. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. 3rd ed. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 199–242.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels (1957), Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels (1963), Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Interscience.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert ([1949] 1970), “Remarks Concerning the Essays Brought Together in This Co-operative Volume”, in Schilpp, Paul A. (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. 3rd ed. Lasalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. (1961), “Niels Bohr’s Interpretation of the Quantum Theory”, in Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover (eds.), Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science, Proceedings of Section L of American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1959. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 371–392.Google Scholar
Frank, Philipp (1949), Modern Science and Its Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, Murray (1979), “What Are the Building Blocks of Matter?” in Huff, Douglas and Prewett, Omer (eds.), The Nature of the Physical Universe. New York: Wiley, 29–42.Google Scholar
Gomatam, Ravi (1999), “Quantum Theory and the Observation Problem”, Quantum Theory and the Observation Problem 6:173–190.Google Scholar
Gomatam, Ravi (2004a), “Complementarity—Did Bohr Miss the Boat?”, paper presented at the History of Philosophy of Science Workshop Group biannual meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Gomatam, Ravi (2004b), “Physics and Common Sense—Relearning the Connections in the Light of Quantum Theory”, in Chattopadhyaya, D. P. and Sen Gupta, A. K. (eds.), Philosophical Consciousness and Scientific Knowledge. New Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations, 179–207.Google Scholar
Gomatam, Ravi (2007), “Heisenberg’s Potential Interpretation and Popper’s Propensity Interpretation—a Comparative Assessment”, in Sengupta, Pradip Kumar (ed.), History of Science and Philosophy of Science. New Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Howard, Don (2004), “Who Invented the Copenhagen Interpretation? A Study in Mythology”, Who Invented the Copenhagen Interpretation? A Study in Mythology 71:669–682.Google Scholar
Jammer, Max (1966), The Conceptual Devlopment of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Jammer, Max (1974), The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pauli, Wolfgang (1994), “The Philosophical Significance of the Idea of Complementarity”, in Enz, C. P. and Meyenn, K. van (eds.), Writings on Physics and Philosophy. Berlin: Springer, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A. (1968), Quantum Physics and the Philosophical Tradition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scheibe, Erhard (1973), The Logical Analysis of Quantum Mechanics. Translated by Sykes, J. B.. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Teller, Paul (1980), “The Projection Postulate and Bohr’s Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Asquith, Peter D. and Giere., Ron N. (eds.), PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 201–223.Google Scholar
Weizsäcker, Carl F. (1971), “The Copenhagen Interpretation”, in Bastin, Ted (ed.), Quantum Theory and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 25–31.Google Scholar