Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T09:28:03.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Projection Postulate and Bohr's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2022

Paul Teller
Paul Teller*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Why does Bohr nowhere discuss the projection postulate? He has the courtesy to cast at least a few disparaging words at some other notions for which he has no use, such as quantum logic. But he will not even admit the projection postulate as a subject for discussion. Another way to raise the puzzle is to point out that, although Bohr has a lot to say about measurement, he won't even recognize the existence of what has come to be called the “problem of measurement”.

I have exaggerated slightly. We have one relevant comment, in the report of the discussion after Bohr's talk at the 1938 Warsaw conference:

Professor Bohr wished to say, relative to the question propounded by the president, that the duality he noticed in the interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics was, in his opinion, a question of choosing the most adequate description of the experiment.

Type
Part III. Quantum Theory in Historical Perspective
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1980 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1980 , 1980 , pp. 201 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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.)

Footnotes

1

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant NSF 79 05574. Many thanks for the helpful comments from colleagues too numerous to mention, even supposing I could remember who they all were!

References

Ballentine, L.E. (1970). “The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” Review of Modern Physics. 43: 358-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bel infante, F.J. (1975). Measurements and Time Reversal In Objective Quantum Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Blokhintsev, D.T. (1961). Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1951). Quantum Theory. Englewood Clifs , N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1932). “Chemistry and the Quantum Theory of Atomic Constitution.” Journal of the Chemical Society Part I: 349-384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. (1935). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Descriptions of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” Physical Review. 48: 696-702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N (1937). “Causality and Complementarity.” Philosophy of Science 4: 289-298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. (1939). “The Causality Problem in Atomic Physics.” In New Theories in Physics. Paris: International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation. Pages 11-45.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1948). “On the Notions of Causality and Complementarity.”. Dialectica 2: 312-319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N . (1956). “Mathematics and Natural Philosophy.” Scientific Monthly 82: 85-88.Google Scholar
Bohr, N . (1958). Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bohr, N . (1961). Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1963). Essays 1958-19626 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Interscience.Google Scholar
Bub, J. (1968). “The Daneri-Loinger-Prosperi Quantum Theory of Measurement.” Nuoyo Cimento 57B: 503-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N.D. (1974). “Superposition and Macroscopic Observation.” Synthese 29: 229-242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneri, A., Loinger, A., and Prosperi, G.M. (1963). “Quantum Theory of Measurement and Ergodicity Conditions.” Nuclear Physics 33: 297-319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Espagnat, B. (1976). Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. London: W. A. Benjamin, Inc.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K. (1957). “On the Quantum Theory of Measurement.” In Observation and Interpretation In the Philosophy of Physics. Edited by S., Körner. London: Butterworth Publications, Ltd. Pages 121-130.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K.. (1962). “Problems of Microphysics.” In Frontiers of Science and Philosophy. (University of Pittsburgh Series In the Philosophy of Science. Volume 1.) Edited by Colodny, R.G.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pages 189-283.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K.. (1968). “On a Recent Critique of Complementarity, Part I.” Philosophy of Science 35;. 309-331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K.. (1969). “On a Recent Critique of Complementarity, Part II.” Philosophy of Science 36: 82-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1970). “Insolubility of the Measurement Problem.” Physical Review D 2: 2783-2787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, H.S. (1958). “Observation in Quantum Mechanics.” Il Nuovo Cimento 9: 880-889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenewold, H.J. (1957). “Objective and Subjective Aspects of Statistics in Quantum Description.” In Obervation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics. Edited by Körner, S.. London: Butterworth Publications, Ltd. Pages 197-203.Google Scholar
Groenewold, H.J. . (1971). “Quantal Observation in Statistical Interpretation.” In Quantum Theory and Beyond. Edited by Bastin, T. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 43-54.Google Scholar
Haake, F. and Weldlich, W. (1968). “A Model for the Measuring Process in Quantum Theory.” Zeltsohrift für Physik 27: 1-15.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. (1972). “The Nature of Quantum Mechanical Reality.” In Paradigms and Paradoxes. (University of Pittsburgh Series. Volume 5). Edited by Colodny, R.G.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pages 67-302.Google Scholar
Jammer, M. (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jordan, P. (1949). “On the Process of Measurement in Quantum Mechanics.” Philosophy of Science 15: 269-278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemble, E.C. (1937). The Fundamental Principles of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
London, F. and Bauer, E. (1939). La Théorle de l'Observation en Mecanique Quantioue. Paris: Hermann and Cie.Google Scholar
Ludwig, G. (1954). Die Grundlagen der Quantenmeohanik. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, E. (1981). “Niels Bohr on the Unity of Science.” In PSA 1980, Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Giere, R.N.. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 224-244.Google Scholar
Margenau, H. (1936). “Quantum Mechanical Description.” Physical Review. 49: 240-242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margenau, H.. (1958). “Philosophical Problems Concerning the Meaning of Measurement in Physics.” Philosophy of Science 25: 23-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margenau, H. (1963a). “Measurements in Quantum Mechanics.” Annals of Physics 23: 469-485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margenau, H. (1963b). “Measurements in Quantum States.” Philosophy of Science 30: 1-16 and 138-157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margenau, H. and Hill, R. (1961). “Correlation Between Measurements in Quantum Theory.” Progress of Theoretical Physics 26: 722-738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margenau, H. and Park, J.L. (1967). “Objectivity in Quantum Mechanics.” In Delaware Seminar in the Foundations of Physics. Volume 1. Edited by Bunge, M. . New York: Springer. Pages 161-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moldauer, P.A. (1972). “Is There a Quantum Measurement Problem?” Physical Review D 5: 1028-1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A. (1963). “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 19(7): 8-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A.. (1968). Quantum Physics and the Philosophic Tradition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1965). “A Philosopher Looks At Quantum Mechanics.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty. (University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 2.) Edited by Colodny, R.G.. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Pages 75-101.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, L. (1953). “Strife About Complementarity.” Science Progress 41: 393-410.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, L.. (1957). “Misunderstandings about the Foundations of Quantum Theory.” In Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics. Edited by Körner, S.. London: Butterworth Publications, Ltd. Pages 41-45.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, L.. (1958). “Physics and Metaphysics.” Nature 181: 658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, L. (1961). “Foundations of Quantum Theory and Complementarity.” Nature 190: 364-388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, L. (1965). “The Measuring Process in Quantum Mechanics.” Progress in Theoretical Physics. Supplement. Commemorative issue for the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Meson Theory by Dr.Yukawa, H.. Pages 222-231.Google Scholar
Rozental, S. (ed.). (1967). Niels Bohr; His Life and Work as Seen by his Friends and Colleagues. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Scheibe, Erhard. (1973). The Logical Analysis of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1963). “The Role of the Observer in Quantum Theory.” American Journal of Physics 31: 755-773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapp, H. (1972). “The Copenhagen Interpretation.” American Journal of Physics 40: 1098-1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1974). “The Ein3tein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.” Synthese 29: 291-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
C.F., von Weizsacker (1952). The World View3 of Physics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
C.F., von Weizsacker. (1971). “The Copenhagen Interpretation.” In Quantum Theory and Beyond. Edited by Bastin, T. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 25-32.Google Scholar