Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T17:17:29.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Bohm's Theory Solves the Measurement Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Peter J. Lewis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I examine recent arguments based on functionalism that claim to show that Bohm's theory fails to solve the measurement problem, or if it does so, it is only because it reduces to a form of the many-worlds theory. While these arguments reveal some interesting features of Bohm's theory, I contend that they do not undermine the distinctive Bohmian solution to the measurement problem.

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. 749 - 760
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 would like to thank Harvey Brown, Martin Thomson-Jones, and David Wallace for helpful discussions.

References

Albert, David Z. (1992), Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Harvey R. and Wallace, David (2005), “Solving the Measurement Problem: de BroglieBohm Loses Out to Everett”, Solving the Measurement Problem: de BroglieBohm Loses Out to Everett 35:517–540.Google Scholar
Cordero, Alberto (1999), “Are GRW Tails as Bad as They Say?” Philosophy of Science 66:S59–S71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, David (1996), “Comment on Lockwood”, Comment on Lockwood 47:222–228.Google Scholar
Dürr, Detlef, Goldstein, Sheldon and Zanghì, Nino, (1997), “Bohmian Mechanics and the Meaning of the Wave Function”, in Cohen, R. S., Horne, M., and Stachel, J. (eds.), Experimental Metaphysics: Quantum Mechanical Studies for Abner Shimony, Volume One, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 193. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 25–38.Google Scholar
Greaves, Hilary (2004), “Understanding Deutsch’s Probability in a Deterministic Multiverse”, Understanding Deutsch’s Probability in a Deterministic Multiverse 35:423–456.Google Scholar
Lewis, Peter J. (2007), “Empty Waves in Bohmian Quantum Mechanics”, Empty Waves in Bohmian Quantum Mechanics 58:787–803.Google Scholar
Maudlin, Tim (1995), “Why Bohm’s Theory Solves the Measurement Problem”, Why Bohm’s Theory Solves the Measurement Problem 62:479–483.Google Scholar
Stone, Abraham D. (1994), “Does the Bohm Theory Solve the Measurement Problem?” Philosophy of Science 61:250–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentini, Antony (1992), On the Pilot-Wave Theory of Classical, Quantum and Subquantum Physics. Ph.D. Dissertation. Trieste: International School for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Wallace, David (2003), “Everett and Structure”, Everett and Structure 34:87–105.Google Scholar
Wallace, David (2006), “Epistemology Quantized: Circumstances in Which We Should Come to Believe in the Everett Interpretation”, Epistemology Quantized: Circumstances in Which We Should Come to Believe in the Everett Interpretation 57:655–689.Google Scholar
Zeh, H. Dieter (1999), “Why Bohm’s Quantum Theory?” Foundations of Physics Letters 12:197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar