Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T12:03:34.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpreting State Reduction from the Practices-up

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Alberto Cordero
Alberto Cordero*
Affiliation:
CUNY—Queens
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The search for a coherent and fertile interpretation of quantum mechanics [QM] with collapse of the wave function is currently a hot topic. This paper focuses on the following sets of related issues: 1) In what sense, if any, do collapse theories constitute a view of the quantum world induced “from the practices-up”? [Here and throughout the paper the term “a view from the practices-up” will mean a view induced from the practices of scientists working on specific problems.] 2) What general description does a collapse variant of QM yield of the physical world? What interpretative problems, if any, does it solve? How exactly does it differ from current mainstream versions of QM? What problems does it face? How serious are these problems in light of current background knowledge?. 3) In our present scientific and philosophical circumstances, what, if anything, makes the search for collapse theories an attractive program?

Type
Part IV. Quantum Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 263 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1990

Footnotes

1

I wish to thank Dudley Shapere and Abner Shimony for many kind and helpful comments.

References

Aharanov, Y. and Albert, D.Z. (1984), Physical Review 29: 223–228.Google Scholar
Albert, D.Z. & Vaidman, L. (1989), “On Theories of the Collapse of the Wave Function”, in Kafatos, M. (ed.), Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Alonso, M. & Finn, E.J. (1968), Quantum and Statistical Physics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Barchielli, A., Lanz, L. and Prosperi, G.M. (1982), “A Model for the Macroscopic Description and Continual Observations in Quantum Mechanics”, Nuovo Cimento 72B: 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J.S. (1987), The Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. & Hiley, B. (1984), “Quantum Potential Model for the Quantum Theory.” Foundations of Physics 14: 255–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollinger, J.J., Heinzen, D.J., Itano, W.M., Gilbert, S.L., and Wineland, D.J. Bulletin American Physics Society 34:1361.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B.L. (1971), Concepts of Nuclear Physics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cordero, A. (1988), “Probability and the Mystery of Quantum Mechanics”, in Probability in the Sciences, Agazzi, E. (Ed.). Kluwer/Springer.Google Scholar
Cordero, A. (1989a), “Quantum Measurement, Physics and Philosophy”, in Philosophy of the Natural Sciences. Weingartner, P. & Schurz, G. (eds.). Vienna: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky, pp. 161.Google Scholar
Cordero, A. (1989b), “Non-linearity and Post-Bell Quantum Mechanics”, inBell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe. Kafatos, M. (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Cordero, A. (1989c), “Can we Distinguish Between Science and Metaphysics?”. In Science and Metaphysics, special volume: Epistemologia XI: 65.Google Scholar
Cushing, J.T. & McMullin, E. (1989), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1970), Physical Review, D2: 2783-87.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1989), “Interpreting Science”, in PSA 1988, Vol. 2, Fine, A. & Leplin, J. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 2–11.Google Scholar
Fleming, G.N. (1989), “Lorentz Invariant State Reduction and Localization”, in PSA 1988, Vol 2: 112–126. Fine, A. and Leplin, J. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 112-126.Google Scholar
French, A.P. and Taylor, E.F. (1978), An Introduction to Quantum Physics. New York: Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Ghaler, R., Klein, A.G., and Zeilinger, A. (1981), “Neuton Optical Tests of Non-Linear Wave-mechanics,” Physical Review 23:1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardi, G.C. et al. (1986), “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems”. Physical Review D 34:470.Google ScholarPubMed
Howard, D. (1985), “Einstein on Locality and Separability”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, D. (1989), “Holism, Separability, and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments”. In Cushing & McMullin pp. 224–253.Google Scholar
Hughes, R.I.G. (1989), The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarrett, J. (1984), “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments”. Nous 18:569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauch, J.M. (1968), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading (Mass.).Google Scholar
Kamefuchi, S. et al. (1985), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology. (1st Symposium) Physical Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Kraus, K. (1983), States, Effects, and Operators, Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Ludwig, G. (1967), “Attempt of an Axiomatic Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and More General Theories.” Communication Mathematical Physics 4: 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, G. (1963), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Benjamin, New York.Google Scholar
Namiki, M. et al. (1986), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology. (2nd Symposium) Physical Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981), “Quantum Mechanics and the Observer”. Erkenntnis 16: 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. (1983), “Relativity, Causality and the Einstein- Podolski-Rosen Paradox: Nonlocality and Peaceful Coexistence”, in Swinburne, R. (ed.) Space, Time and Causality, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. (1987), Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, Oxford.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1985), “Objectivity, Rationality, and Scientific Change”, in, PSA 1984, Vol 2, Kitcher, P. & Asquith, P (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 637–647.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1989), “Modern Physics and the Philosophy of Science”, in A. Fine & J. Leplin (eds.), PSA 1988, Vol 2: 201–210.Google Scholar
Schleich, W. and Walther, H. (1986), “Single-Atom and Single- Photon Experiments”, in Namiki et al. (1986)Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1974),“Approximate Measurement in Quantum Mechanics”, Physical Review, D9: 2321.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1989a), “Search for a Worldview Which Can Accomodate Our Knowledge of Microphysics”, in Cushing & McMullin, pp. 25–37.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1989b), “Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, in P. Davies, New Physics: 373.Google Scholar
Teller, P. (1989), “Relativity, Relational Holism, and the Bell Inequalities”. In Cushing & McMullin (1989): 208-223.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B.C. (1980), The Scientific Image, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B.C. (1982), “The Charybdis of Realism”. Synthese 52: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B.C. (1985), “EPR: When is a Correlation not a Mystery?”. Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, edited by Lahti, P. & Mittelstaedt, P. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. (1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1989a),“Precision Tests of Quantum Mechanics,” Physical Review Letters 62:485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinberg, S. (1989b), “Testing Quantum Mechanics”. Pre-print, Univ. of Texas, Theory Group: UTTG-30-87/08-89.Google Scholar
Wessels, Linda (1985), “Locality, Factorability and the Bell Inequalities”, Nous 19: 481–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessels, Linda (1989), “The Way the World Isn’t”. In Cushing & McMullin, pp. 80–96.Google Scholar
Wigner, E.P. (1963),“The Problem of Measurement,” American Journal of Physics, 31: 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar