Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T08:27:00.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rhetoric of Antirealism and the Copenhagen Spirit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Mara Beller
Mara Beller*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
*
†Send reprint requests to the author, Philosophy Department, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues against the possibility of presenting a consistent version of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics, characterizing its founders' philosophical pronouncements including those on the realism-antirealism issue, as a contingent collection of local, often contradictory, moves in changing theoretical and sociopolitical circumstances. The paper analyzes the fundamental differences of opinion between Bohr and the mathematical physicists, Heisenberg and Born, concerning the foundational doctrine of the “indispensability of classical concepts”, and their related disagreements on “quantum reality.” The paper concludes with an explanation of how the appearance of consensus was achieved despite fundamental disagreements among the proponents. The paper undermines the adequacy of the notion of a general conceptual framework to describe the philosophical endeavors of working scientists.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 183 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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

AHQP = Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Assembled and edited by T. S. Kuhn, J. Heilbron, and P. Forman.Google Scholar
Beller, M. (1988), “Experimental Accuracy, Operationalism, and the Limits of Knowledge—1925 to 1935”, Science in Context 2: 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beller, M. (1990), “Born Probabilistic Interpretation—A Case Study ‘Concepts in Flux’ ”, in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science: 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beller, M. (1992), “Schrödinger's Dialogue with Göttingen-Copenhagen Physicists: ‘Quantum Jumps’ and ‘Realism’”, in Bitbol and Darrigol 1992, pp. 277–308.Google Scholar
Beller, M. (1993), “Einstein and Bohr's Rhetoric of Complementarity”, Science in Context 6: 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beller, M. (1996), “Bohm and ‘Inevitability’ of Acausality,” in Cushing, J.T., Fine, A. and Goldstein, S. (ed.), Bohmian Mechanics: An Appraisal. Dordrecht: Kluwer, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Beller, M., and Fine, A., (1994), “Bohr's Response to E-P-R”, in Faye and Folse 1994, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Ben-Menahem, Y. (1990), “Equivalent Descriptions”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41: 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitbol, M., and Darrigol, O. (ed.) (1992), Erwin Schrödinger, Philosophy and the Birth of Quantum Mechanics.: Editions Frontieres.Google Scholar
Blaedel, N. 1988, Harmony and Unity. The Life of Niels Bohr Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex.: Madison, WI Science Tech Publishers.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1927), “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory”, in Atti del Congresso Internazionale del Fisici, 11–20 Settembre 1927. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli, 565–588.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1928), “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory,” Nature 121:580–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. (1935), “Space and Time in Nuclear Physics”, AHQP, MSS 13, 21 March 1935.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1938), “The Epistemological Problems of Atomic Theory”, AHQP, MSS, 2 May 1938.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1955), “Atoms and Human Knowledge”, lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, Copenhagen, October 1955; reprinted in Bohr 1958, pp. 83–93.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1958), Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1958a), “Quantum Physics and Philosophy: Causality and Complementarity”, in Klibansky, R. (ed.), Philosophy in the Mid-Century. Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice; reprinted in Bohr 1963, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1963), Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Born, M. (1928), “On the Meaning of Physical Theories”, Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Reprinted and translated in Born 1956.Google Scholar
Born, M. (1936), “Some Philosophical Aspects of Modern Physics”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. LVII. Part I: 1–18. Reprinted in Bohr 1956.Google Scholar
Born, M. (1950), “Physics and Metaphysics”, Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, Vol. 91. Reprinted in Born 1945, pp. 93–108.Google Scholar
Born, M. (1953), “Physical Reality”, Philosophical Quarterly Philosophical Quarterly: 3–139. Reprinted in Born 1956, pp. 151–163.Google Scholar
Born, M. (1953), “The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4, 13:95–106. Reprinted in Born 1956, pp. 140–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, M. (1956), Physics in My Generation. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Born, M. (1962), Physics and Politics. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Born, M. (1964), Natural Philosophy of Cause and Change. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Bridgman, W. P. (1930), “Permanent Elements in the Flux of Present-Day Physics”, Science 71: 21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chevalley, C. (1994), “Niels Bohr's Words and the Atlantis of Kantianism”, in Faye and Folse 1994, pp. 33–55.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. Y. (1939), An Autobiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H. (1982), Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Beverley Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T. (1994a), Quantum Mechanics, Historical Contingency and the “Copenhagen” Hegemony. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T. (1994b), “A Bohmian Response to Bohr's Complementarity”, in Faye and Folse 1994, pp. 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darrigol, O. (1992), From c-Numbers to q-Numbers. The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, P. (1991), The Aim and the Structure of the Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Faye, J. (1991), Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy. An Antirealism View of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Faye, J., and Folse, H. (ed.) (1994), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerbend, P. (1981), “Niels Bohr's World View”, In Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method; Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, pp. 247–293. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M. (1969), The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1986), The Shaky Game, Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1993), “Einstein's, Interpretations of the Quantum Theory”, Science in Context 6(1):257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. (1987), How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1992), “Statistical Language, Statistical Truth and Statistical Reason: The Self Authentification of a Style of Scientific Reasoning”, in McMullin 1992, pp. 130–157.Google Scholar
Heilbron, T. L. (1982), “Fin-de-Siécle Physics”, in Bernhard, C. G., Crawford, E., and Sörbom, P. (ed.), Science, Technology and Society in the Time of Alfred Nobel. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Heilbron, T. L. (1988), “The Earliest Missionaries of the Copenhagen Spirit”, in Ullman-Margalit, E. (ed.), Science in Reflection. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (1927), “Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematic und Mechanik”, Zeitschrift für Physik 43:172–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (1930), The Physical Principles of Quantum Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (1958), Physics and Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. (1972), “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality: Einstein vs. Bohr”, in Colodny, R. G. (ed.), The Pittsburgh Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. V. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 67–302.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. (1991), “Physical Intelligibility, Projection and Objectivity: The Divergent Ideals of Einstein and Bohr”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42:491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krips, H. (1987), The Metaphysics of Quantum Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Lahti, P., and Mittelstaedt, P. (ed.) (1987), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, 1987. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Lande, A. (1967), New Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, E. M. (1977), “Heisenberg, Models and the Rise of the Matrix Mechanics”, Historical Studies in Physical Sciences 8:137–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, E. M. (1982), Scientific Explanation and Atomic Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (ed.) (1992), The Social Dimension of Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Moore, W. (1989), Schrödinger, Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, D. (1987), Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pais, A. (1991), Niels Bohr's Times, in Physics, Philosophy and Polity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pauli, W. (1945), “Niels Bohr on his 60th Birthday”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17:97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauli, W. (1954), “Wahrscheinlichkeit und Physik”, Dialectica 8:112–124.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1992), Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1963), “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge,” in K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge, pp. 97–119.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1979), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, L. (1961), “Foundations of Quantum Theory and Complementarity”, Nature 190:384–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1952), “Are There Quantum Jumps?”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3, 10: 109–123; 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S., and Schaffer, S. (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. (1989), “The Evolving Structure of Newton's Theory of Color”, Isis 71: 197–210.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q. (1969), “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”, History and Theory 8: 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Weizsäcker, C. F. (1987), “Heisenberg's Philosophy,” in Lahti and Mittelstaedt 1987, pp. 277–293.Google Scholar
Wheeler, T., and Zurek, W. H. (eds.) (1983), Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953), Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar