Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:03:07.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Projection Postulate and the Time-Energy Uncertainty Relation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Frederick M. Kronz
Frederick M. Kronz*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to solve a serious problem for the projection postulate involving the time-energy uncertainty relation. The problem was recently raised by Teller, who believes that the problem is insoluble and, consequently, that the projection postulate should no longer be regarded as a serious focus for interpretive investigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1992

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 am indebted to Paul Teller and to Allen Stairs for several valuable suggestions. I would also like to thank two of my students, Craig Hansen and Ben Schumacher, for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Allcock, G. R. (1969), “The Time of Arrival in Quantum Mechanics: I. Formal Considerations”, Annals of Physics 53: 1–15.Google Scholar
Cohen-Tannoudji, C.; Diu, B.; and Laloë, F. (1977), Quantum Mechanics. Translated from the French by S. R. Hemley, N. Ostrowsky, and D. Ostrowsky. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
D'Espagnat, B. (1976), Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. 2d ed. London: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Fine, A. I. (1969), “On the General Quantum Theory of Measurement”, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 65: 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfried, K. (1979), Quantum Mechanics. 6th printing with revisions. London: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
Kronz, F. M. (1991), “Quantum Entanglement and Nonideal Measurements: A Critique of Margenau's Objections to the Projection Postulate”, Synthese 89: 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, F. and Bauer, E. ([1939] 1983), “The Theory of Observation in Quantum Mechanics”, in Wheeler, J. A. and Zurek, W. H. (eds.), Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 217–259.Google Scholar
Margenau, H. (1937), “Critical Points in Modern Physical Theory”, Philosophy of Science 4: 337–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margenau, H. (1950), The Nature of Physical Reality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Margenau, H. (1958), “Philosophical Problems Concerning the Meaning of Measurement in Physics”, Philosophy of Science 25: 23–33.10.1086/287574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1983), “The Projection Postulate as a Fortuitous Approximation”, Philosophy of Science 50: 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Neumann, J. (1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Translated from the German edition by R. T. Beyer. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar