Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:36:47.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against Krips' Resolution of Two Paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

C. A. Hooker
C. A. Hooker*
Affiliation:
The University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Once upon a time the well-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics (one might even say the “traditional” paradoxes of quantum mechanics!—I refer here to paradoxes such as the Schrödinger cat and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox) seemed especially difficult because of the rather bizarre behavior of the wave packet under the von Neumann theory of measurement, to which behavior these paradoxical situations seemed to draw especial attention. Quite recently quantum theoretical accounts of the measurement process have been appearing which sidestep direct reference to such things as “contraction” of the wave packet (see, for example, Krips and Jauch). With this development it has become increasingly popular to take a “cool” approach to these paradoxes, arguing that the new approach to measurement provides a consistent, nonbizarre account of the physical situations and that the paradoxicality was due largely to intuitive blunders—even plausible intuitive blunders—accentuated (but also disguised) by the unfortunate features of the von Neumann approach to measurement. Both Krips and Jauch, for example, adopt this approach.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 1971 , pp. 418 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 by 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.)

References

[1] Bohm, D., and Aharanov, Y., “Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen,” Physical Review, vol. 108, 1957, p. 1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Bub, J., “The Danieri–Loinger–Prosperi Quantum Theory of Measurement,” Il Nuovo Cimento, Series X, vol. LVIIB, 1968, pp. 503–519.10.1007/BF02710216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Danieri, A., Loinger, A., and Prosperi, G. M., “Further Remarks on the Relations Between Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Theory of Measurement,” Il Nuovo Cimento, vol. 44, 1966, pp. 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Feyerabend, P. K., “Problems of Microphysics,” Beyond the Edge of Certainty, (ed. Colodny, R. G.), Pittsburgh, Pa.; University of Pittsburgh Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[5] Furry, W. H., “Note on the Quantum-Mechanical Theory of Measurement,” Physical Review, vol. 49, 1936, p. 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Furry, W. H., “Remarks on Measurements in Quantum Theory,” Physical Review, vol. 49, 1936, p. 476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Hooker, C. A., “Professor Jauch and Einstein's (EPR) Objection to Quantum Theory,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 38, 1970, pp. 851–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Hooker, C. A., “Sharp and the Refutation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, No. 2, (June), 1971.10.1086/288357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Hooker, C. A., “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality: Einstein Versus Bohr,” in Paradox and Paradigm, (ed. R. G. Colodny), to be published by University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
[10] Jauch, J. M., Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. New York; Addison-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
[11] Jauch, J. M., Wigner, E. P., and Yanese, M. M., “Some Comments Concerning Measurements in Quantum Mechanics,” Il Nuovo Cimento, vol. 48B, 1967, pp. 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Krips, H. P., “Two Paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 36, 1969, p. 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Krips, H. P., “Fundamentals of Measurement Theory,” Il Nuovo Cimento, Series 10B, vol. 60, 1969, p. 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Sharp, D., “The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox Re-Examined,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 28, No. 3, 1961, p. 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar