Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:38:53.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Extended Latency Interpretation of Quantum Mechanical Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

John Lacy McKnight
John Lacy McKnight*
Affiliation:
The College of William and Mary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

(1) the author has outlined several of the more important interpretations of measurement in quantum mechanics and discussed the problems arising from them. Particular attention was paid to the work of Bohr, Heisenberg and von Neumann and a tentative proposal was made for a possible interpretation which would mitigate some of the problems and dilemmas. This interpretation was essentially that proposed by Margenau (2) in terms of latent variables. He defines measurement to be any operation with physical apparatus which results in a number, including in this, of course, yes and no answers as well as conventional numerical answers. Further he makes the distinction between the preparation of a state and the measurement of the state (3). A preparation puts the quantum system into a particular state whereas the measurement frequently destroys the state in question. This paper presents several criteria to help in the evaluation of the alternatives presented in the first paper and carries further the suggested interpretation mentioned at the end of that paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 1958 , pp. 209 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1958

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

†

Part of a dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Yale University. The research was assisted by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

References

1.McKnight, J., Phil. Sci. 24, 321, (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Margenau, H., Physics Today 7, 190, (1955).Google Scholar
3.Margenau, H., Phil. Sci. 4, 337, (1937).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Margenau, H., The Nature of Physical Reality, (McGraw-Hill, New York 1950), Ch. 5.Google Scholar
5.Margenau, H. and Murphy, G., The Mathematics of Physics and Chemistry, (Van Nostrand, New York, 1943), Ch. 11.Google Scholar
6.von Neumann, J., The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955).Google Scholar
7.Harris, E., Nature, Mind, and Modern Science, (Macmillan, New York, 1954).Google Scholar
8.Margenau, H., The Nature of Physical Reality, Ch. 6.Google Scholar
9.Caws, P., Phil. Sci. 24, 221, (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.ibid., p. 229.Google Scholar
11.Margenau, H., The Nature of Physical Reality, p. 55.Google Scholar
12.Northrop, F., The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities, (Macmillan, New York, 1948), p. 94.Google Scholar
13.Heisenberg, W., Philosophic Problems of Nuclear Science, (Pantheon, New York, 1952), p. 38f.Google Scholar
14.Margenau, H., Phil. Sci. 2, 48 & 164, (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.von Neumann, J., op. cit., Ch. 4.Google Scholar
16.Statement made during a discussion of this problem with Professor Fitch during the spring of 1957.Google Scholar
17.Bohr, N., Nature 121, 580, (1928).CrossRefGoogle Scholar