DOCSLIB.ORG

Indeterminacy and the Limits of Classical Concepts: the Transformation of Heisenberg’S Thought

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Indeterminacy and the Limits of Classical Concepts: the Transformation of Heisenberg’S Thought Indeterminacy and the Limits of Classical Concepts: The Transformation of Heisenberg’s Thought Kristian Camilleri University of Melbourne This paper examines the transformation which occurs in Heisenberg’s under- standing of indeterminacy in quantum mechanics between 1926 and 1928. After his initial but unsuccessful attempt to construct new quantum concepts of space and time, in 1927 Heisenberg presented an operational deªnition of concepts such as ‘position’ and ‘velocity’. Yet, after discussions with Bohr, he came to the realisation that classical concepts such as position and momentum are indispensable in quantum mechanics in spite of their limited applicabil- ity. This transformation in Heisenberg’s thought, which centres on his theory of meaning, marks the critical turning point in his interpretation of quan- tum mechanics. 1. Introduction The publication of Heisenberg’s paper ‘The Physical Content of Quantum Kinematics and Mechanics’ in March 1927 is widely regarded as having made a major contribution to the development of the orthodox interpreta- tion of quantum mechanics (Heisenberg, [1927] 1983). In the paper Heisenberg argued that the accuracy with which we can know both the position and momentum of a particle, such as an electron, is subject to an in principle limitation. The more precisely we can determine the particle’s position, the less precisely we know its momentum, and vice versa. The uncertainty or indeterminacy principle, as it is commonly known, has been the subject of detailed historical and philosophical investigation (Beller 1985; Beller 1999:65–101; Jammer 1974:56–84). However, it has gone largely unnoticed that at the time when Heisenberg was formulating his thoughts on indeterminacy, his own philosophical view was in a state of transformation, particularly with regard to the use of concepts like ‘po- sition’ and ‘momentum’ in quantum mechanics. In this paper I show that Perspectives on Science 2007, vol. 15, no. 2 ©2007 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 178 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/posc.2007.15.2.178 by guest on 28 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 179 in the critical period between 1926 and 1928 Heisenberg’s thought passes through three phases, each of which constitutes a different approach to the development of a new conceptual framework for quantum mechanics, where it was recognized that the concepts ‘position’ and ‘momentum’ have only limited applicability. After the development of matrix mechanics in 1925, Heisenberg be- came convinced that quantum mechanics demanded a fundamentally new conception of space and time. This was made explicit in his correspon- dence with Pauli in the second half of 1926, during which time Heisen- berg expressed the view that space and time may be statistical concepts, or alternatively that space-time might have a discontinuous structure. Nev- ertheless, by February 1927 he had abandoned this line of thought and in- stead turned his attention to a redeªnition of the concepts of position and velocity through an operational analysis.1 This approach, which is the one we ªnd in his uncertainty principle paper, represents a conscious attempt on Heisenberg’s part to employ the same method of analysis to quantum mechanics as Einstein had in redeªning the concept of simultaneity in the special theory of relativity. However, Heisenberg’s commitment to opera- tional viewpoint was short lived. After fractious discussions with Bohr in 1927, Heisenberg gradually came to realize that this method of deªning concepts was untenable, and he subsequently abandoned the operational theory of meaning which had characterized his 1927 paper. This realiza- tion signiªes an important turning point in Heisenberg’s philosophy, in which he abandoned a veriªcation theory of meaning, and ªnally accepted Bohr’s doctrine concerning the indispensability of classical concepts. In bringing to light the shift that occurs in Heisenberg’s thinking dur- ing this period, this paper serves to draw attention to two important points which have often been ignored or misunderstood in the secondary literature. First, Heisenberg’s introduction of the imaginary gamma-ray microscope was not intended primarily to demonstrate the limits of preci- sion in measurement. Though it certainly did this, its real purpose was to deªne the concept of position through an operational analysis. This be- comes evident once we situate Heisenberg’s use of imaginary gamma-ray microscope within the context of his concerns over the meaning of con- cepts in quantum theory. Secondly, this paper offers a different perspective on the Bohr- Heisenberg dialogue in Copenhagen in 1927 to the one usually presented. 1. It should be noted that Heisenberg did return to the idea of discontinuous space- time in 1930, but these later speculations must be seen in the context of his efforts to build a new quantum ªeld theory, and did not form part of his understanding of quantum me- chanics, with which we are concerned here (Carazza & Kragh, 1995). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/posc.2007.15.2.178 by guest on 28 September 2021 180 Indeterminacy and the Limits of Classical Concepts Much of the literature takes the view that the discussions between Bohr and Heisenberg over the gamma-ray microscope centred on the sig- niªcance of wave-particle duality. This is primarily because the wave- particle dilemma of light and matter appears to have been Bohr’s central concern at this time, in contrast to Heisenberg emphasis on discontinuity (Stepansky 1997; Jammer 1974:66; Tanona 2004). Recent scholarship has shown, however, that Bohr and Heisenberg never reached agreement on this issue (Beller, 1999:226–7; Camilleri, 2005:69–94; Camilleri, 2006). Yet the discussions with Bohr did leave a lasting impression on Heisen- berg for another reason—they convinced him that classical concepts such as ‘position’ and ‘momentum’ were indispensable in quantum mechanics despite the limitations on their applicability. This marks a crucial turning point in Heisenberg’s thought. In order to see more clearly the overall shift in Heisenberg’s thinking, it is necessary to turn ªrst to his attempts to ªnd an interpretation of quantum concepts through new concepts of space and time. 2. New Concepts of Space and Time in Quantum Theory In the period between 1925 and 1927, the concept of a particle in quan- tum mechanics underwent a radical transformation. In the three-man pa- per on matrix mechanics, Born, Heisenberg and Jordan agued that “the motion of electrons cannot be described in terms of the familiar concepts of space and time” (Born, Heisenberg & Jordan [1926] 1967: 322). Schrö- dinger rejected this view, preferring to think of the electron as a matter wave spread throughout space (Schrödinger 1928). Though physicists dis- agreed on whether the electron was in reality a particle or a wave, a num- ber of them shared the view that quantum mechanics would require an entirely new conceptual framework, in which concepts such as ‘position’ and ‘velocity’ would no longer occupy a central place.2 Writing a decade later, the philosopher Ernst Cassirer gave clear expression to this line of thought: We must squarely face the problems thus created. There seems to be no return to the lost paradise of classical concepts; physics has to undertake the construction of a new methodological path...Ifit appears that certain concepts, such as those of position, velocity, or of the mass of an individual electron can no longer be ªlled with deªnite empirical content, we have to exclude them from the theo- retical system of physics, important and fruitful though their func- tion may have been (Cassirer [1936] 1956:194–5). 2. His view continued to be expressed by physicists such as Max von Laue and Erwin Schrödinger well into the 1930s (Beller 1988:159–161). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/posc.2007.15.2.178 by guest on 28 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 181 The view here expressed by Cassirer stands in sharp contrast to the inter- pretation of quantum mechanics developed by Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli in the late 1920s, according to which classical concepts such as position and momentum remain indispensable—even in quantum mechanics. Yet, if we look closely at Heisenberg’s efforts to develop new conceptual foun- dations for quantum mechanics prior to 1927, we ªnd that his point of view shares much in common with the one expressed in the passage quoted above. Indeed, the attempt to ªnd new quantum concepts was in- tegral to Heisenberg’s project of reconstructing the foundations of quan- tum mechanics between 1925 and 1927. As his correspondence with Pauli during this period shows, Heisenberg’s early efforts to resolve the difªculties associated with quantum theory took the form of an attempt to construct a new conception of space and time in quantum theory. Throughout 1926, Heisenberg had repeatedly emphasized the restric- tions imposed by quantum theory for a space-time description. In his pa- per on the many-body problem published in June that year he argued that while electrons behave as thought they were particles in the sense that they possess mass and electric charge, it is not possible to give “a descrip- tion of the motion of the corpuscles in our familiar space-time concepts” (Heisenberg 1926:412). Here Heisenberg argued that the new quantum mechanics forces to abandon all hope of describing the motion of an elec- tron in space and time “unless one were to consider a space, whose struc- ture [Maßbestimmung] differs substantially from the Euclidean one, as rep- resenting ‘ordinary’ space” (Heisenberg 1926:412–3). In a letter to Pauli written on 28 October, Heisenberg set out his thoughts on the problem: [In quantum theory] it makes no sense, for example to speak about the position of a particle with deªnite velocity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the Lattice Structure of Quantum Logic
    BULL. AUSTRAL. MATH. SOC. MOS 8106, *8IOI, 0242 VOL. I (1969), 333-340 On the lattice structure of quantum logic P. D. Finch A weak logical structure is defined as a set of boolean propositional logics in which one can define common operations of negation and implication. The set union of the boolean components of a weak logical structure is a logic of propositions which is an orthocomplemented poset, where orthocomplementation is interpreted as negation and the partial order as implication. It is shown that if one can define on this logic an operation of logical conjunction which has certain plausible properties, then the logic has the structure of an orthomodular lattice. Conversely, if the logic is an orthomodular lattice then the conjunction operation may be defined on it. 1. Introduction The axiomatic development of non-relativistic quantum mechanics leads to a quantum logic which has the structure of an orthomodular poset. Such a structure can be derived from physical considerations in a number of ways, for example, as in Gunson [7], Mackey [77], Piron [72], Varadarajan [73] and Zierler [74]. Mackey [77] has given heuristic arguments indicating that this quantum logic is, in fact, not just a poset but a lattice and that, in particular, it is isomorphic to the lattice of closed subspaces of a separable infinite dimensional Hilbert space. If one assumes that the quantum logic does have the structure of a lattice, and not just that of a poset, it is not difficult to ascertain what sort of further assumptions lead to a "coordinatisation" of the logic as the lattice of closed subspaces of Hilbert space, details will be found in Jauch [8], Piron [72], Varadarajan [73] and Zierler [74], Received 13 May 1969.
    [Show full text]
  • Relational Quantum Mechanics
    Relational Quantum Mechanics Matteo Smerlak† September 17, 2006 †Ecole normale sup´erieure de Lyon, F-69364 Lyon, EU E-mail: [email protected] Abstract In this internship report, we present Carlo Rovelli’s relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, focusing on its historical and conceptual roots. A critical analysis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument is then put forward, which suggests that the phenomenon of ‘quantum non-locality’ is an artifact of the orthodox interpretation, and not a physical effect. A speculative discussion of the potential import of the relational view for quantum-logic is finally proposed. Figure 0.1: Composition X, W. Kandinski (1939) 1 Acknowledgements Beyond its strictly scientific value, this Master 1 internship has been rich of encounters. Let me express hereupon my gratitude to the great people I have met. First, and foremost, I want to thank Carlo Rovelli1 for his warm welcome in Marseille, and for the unexpected trust he showed me during these six months. Thanks to his rare openness, I have had the opportunity to humbly but truly take part in active research and, what is more, to glimpse the vivid landscape of scientific creativity. One more thing: I have an immense respect for Carlo’s plainness, unaltered in spite of his renown achievements in physics. I am very grateful to Antony Valentini2, who invited me, together with Frank Hellmann, to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Canada. We spent there an incredible week, meeting world-class physicists such as Lee Smolin, Jeffrey Bub or John Baez, and enthusiastic postdocs such as Etera Livine or Simone Speziale.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Feynman Path Integration?
    Journal of Uncertain Systems Vol.5, No.x, pp.xx-xx, 2011 Online at: www.jus.org.uk Why Feynman Path Integration? Jaime Nava1;∗, Juan Ferret2, Vladik Kreinovich1, Gloria Berumen1, Sandra Griffin1, and Edgar Padilla1 1Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA 2Department of Philosophy, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA Received 19 December 2009; Revised 23 February 2010 Abstract To describe physics properly, we need to take into account quantum effects. Thus, for every non- quantum physical theory, we must come up with an appropriate quantum theory. A traditional approach is to replace all the scalars in the classical description of this theory by the corresponding operators. The problem with the above approach is that due to non-commutativity of the quantum operators, two math- ematically equivalent formulations of the classical theory can lead to different (non-equivalent) quantum theories. An alternative quantization approach that directly transforms the non-quantum action functional into the appropriate quantum theory, was indeed proposed by the Nobelist Richard Feynman, under the name of path integration. Feynman path integration is not just a foundational idea, it is actually an efficient computing tool (Feynman diagrams). From the pragmatic viewpoint, Feynman path integral is a great success. However, from the founda- tional viewpoint, we still face an important question: why the Feynman's path integration formula? In this paper, we provide a natural explanation for Feynman's path integration formula. ⃝c 2010 World Academic Press, UK. All rights reserved. Keywords: Feynman path integration, independence, foundations of quantum physics 1 Why Feynman Path Integration: Formulation of the Problem Need for quantization.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Fidelity Quantum Logic in Ca+
    University of Oxford Department of Physics High-Fidelity Quantum Logic in Ca+ Christopher J. Ballance −1 10 0.9 Photon scattering Motional error Off−resonant lightshift Spin−dephasing error Total error budget Data −2 10 0.99 Gate error Gate fidelity −3 10 0.999 1 2 3 10 10 10 Gate time (µs) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Hertford College Michaelmas term, 2014 Abstract High-Fidelity Quantum Logic in Ca+ Christopher J. Ballance A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Michaelmas term 2014 Hertford College, Oxford Trapped atomic ions are one of the most promising systems for building a quantum computer – all of the fundamental operations needed to build a quan- tum computer have been demonstrated in such systems. The challenge now is to understand and reduce the operation errors to below the ‘fault-tolerant thresh- old’ (the level below which quantum error correction works), and to scale up the current few-qubit experiments to many qubits. This thesis describes experimen- tal work concentrated primarily on the first of these challenges. We demonstrate high-fidelity single-qubit and two-qubit (entangling) gates with errors at or be- low the fault-tolerant threshold. We also implement an entangling gate between two different species of ions, a tool which may be useful for certain scalable architectures. We study the speed/fidelity trade-off for a two-qubit phase gate implemented in 43Ca+ hyperfine trapped-ion qubits. We develop an error model which de- scribes the fundamental and technical imperfections / limitations that contribute to the measured gate error.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Vacuum Energy Density and Unifying Perspectives Between Gravity and Quantum Behaviour of Matter
    Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 42, numéro 2, 2017 251 Quantum vacuum energy density and unifying perspectives between gravity and quantum behaviour of matter Davide Fiscalettia, Amrit Sorlib aSpaceLife Institute, S. Lorenzo in Campo (PU), Italy corresponding author, email: [email protected] bSpaceLife Institute, S. Lorenzo in Campo (PU), Italy Foundations of Physics Institute, Idrija, Slovenia email: [email protected] ABSTRACT. A model of a three-dimensional quantum vacuum based on Planck energy density as a universal property of a granular space is suggested. This model introduces the possibility to interpret gravity and the quantum behaviour of matter as two different aspects of the same origin. The change of the quantum vacuum energy density can be considered as the fundamental medium which determines a bridge between gravity and the quantum behaviour, leading to new interest- ing perspectives about the problem of unifying gravity with quantum theory. PACS numbers: 04. ; 04.20-q ; 04.50.Kd ; 04.60.-m. Key words: general relativity, three-dimensional space, quantum vac- uum energy density, quantum mechanics, generalized Klein-Gordon equation for the quantum vacuum energy density, generalized Dirac equation for the quantum vacuum energy density. 1 Introduction The standard interpretation of phenomena in gravitational fields is in terms of a fundamentally curved space-time. However, this approach leads to well known problems if one aims to find a unifying picture which takes into account some basic aspects of the quantum theory. For this reason, several authors advocated different ways in order to treat gravitational interaction, in which the space-time manifold can be considered as an emergence of the deepest processes situated at the fundamental level of quantum gravity.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Geometry and Quantum Field Theory
    Quantum Geometry and Quantum Field Theory Robert Oeckl Downing College Cambridge September 2000 A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge Preface This dissertation is based on research done at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, in the period from October 1997 to August 2000. It is original except where reference is made to the work of others. Chapter 4 in its entirety and Chapter 2 partly (as specified therein) represent work done in collaboration with Shahn Majid. All other chapters represent solely my own work. No part of this dissertation nor anything substantially the same has been submitted for any qualification at any other university. Most of the material presented has been published or submitted for publication in the following papers: [Oec99b] R. Oeckl, Classification of differential calculi on U (b ), classical limits, and • q + duality, J. Math. Phys. 40 (1999), 3588{3603. [MO99] S. Majid and R. Oeckl, Twisting of Quantum Differentials and the Planck Scale • Hopf Algebra, Commun. Math. Phys. 205 (1999), 617{655. [Oec99a] R. Oeckl, Braided Quantum Field Theory, Preprint DAMTP-1999-82, hep- • th/9906225. [Oec00b] R. Oeckl, Untwisting noncommutative Rd and the equivalence of quantum field • theories, Nucl. Phys. B 581 (2000), 559{574. [Oec00a] R. Oeckl, The Quantum Geometry of Spin and Statistics, Preprint DAMTP- • 2000-81, hep-th/0008072. ii Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Shahn Majid. Besides helping and encouraging me in my studies, he managed to inspire me with a deep fascination for the subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Quantum and Information Theories
    LETT]~R~, AL NU0V0 ClMENTO VOL. 38, N. 16 17 Dicembrc 1983 Geometrical . Identification. of Quantum and Information Theories. E. R. CA~A~IET.LO(*) Joint Institute ]or Nuclear Research, Laboratory o/ Theoretical l~hysics - Dubna (ricevuto il 15 Settembre 1983) PACS. 03.65. - Quantum theory; quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics and information theory both deal with (( phenomena )) (rather than (~ noumena ,) as does classical physics) and, in a way or another, with (( uncertainty ~>, i.e. lack of information. The issue may be far more general, and indeed of a fundamental nature to all science; e.g. recently KALMA~ (1) has shown that (~ uncertain data )~ lead to (~ uncertain models )) and that even the simplest linear models must be profoundly modified when this fact is taken into account (( in all branches of science, including time-series analysis, economic forecasting, most of econometrics, psychometrics and elsewhere, (2). The emergence of (~ discrete levels ~) in every sort of ~( structured sys- tems ~ (a) may point in the same direction. Connections between statistics, quantum mechanics and information theory have been studied in remarkable papers (notably by TRIBUS (4) and JAY~s (s)) based on the maximum (Shannon) entropy principle. We propose here to show that such a connection can be obtained in the (( natural meeting ground ~) of geometry. Information theory and several branches of statistics have classic geometric realizations, in which the role of (( distance ~)is played by the infinitesimal difference between two probability distributions: the basic concept is here cross-entropy, i.e. information (which we much prefer to entropy: the latter is essentially (~ static )~, while the former correlates a posterior to a prior situa- tion and invites thus to dynamics).
    [Show full text]
  • Required Readings
    HPS/PHIL 93872 Spring 2006 Historical Foundations of the Quantum Theory Don Howard, Instructor Required Readings: Topic: Readings: Planck and black-body radiation. Martin Klein. “Planck, Entropy, and Quanta, 19011906.” The Natural Philosopher 1 (1963), 83-108. Martin Klein. “Einstein’s First Paper on Quanta.” The Natural Einstein and the photo-electric effect. Philosopher 2 (1963), 59-86. Max Jammer. “Regularities in Line Spectra”; “Bohr’s Theory The Bohr model of the atom and spectral of the Hydrogen Atom.” In The Conceptual Development of series. Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 62- 88. The Bohr-Sommerfeld “old” quantum Max Jammer. “The Older Quantum Theory.” In The Conceptual theory; Einstein on transition Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, probabilities. 1966, pp. 89-156. The Bohr-Kramers-Slater theory. Max Jammer. “The Transition to Quantum Mechanics.” In The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 157-195. Bose-Einstein statistics. Don Howard. “‘Nicht sein kann was nicht sein darf,’ or the Prehistory of EPR, 1909-1935: Einstein’s Early Worries about the Quantum Mechanics of Composite Systems.” In Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical, and Physical Inquiries into the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Arthur Miller, ed. New York: Plenum, 1990, pp. 61-111. Max Jammer. “The Formation of Quantum Mechanics.” In The Schrödinger and wave mechanics; Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Heisenberg and matrix mechanics. McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 196-280. James T. Cushing. “Early Attempts at Causal Theories: A De Broglie and the origins of pilot-wave Stillborn Program.” In Quantum Mechanics: Historical theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Holography, Quantum Geometry, and Quantum
    HOLOGRAPHY, QUANTUM GEOMETRY, AND QUANTUM INFORMATION THEORY P. A. Zizzi Dipartimento di Astronomia dell’ Università di Padova, Vicolo dell’ Osservatorio, 5 35122 Padova, Italy e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT We interpret the Holographic Conjecture in terms of quantum bits (qubits). N-qubit states are associated with surfaces that are punctured in N points by spin networks’ edges labelled by the spin- 1 representation of SU (2) , which are in a superposed quantum state of spin "up" and spin 2 "down". The formalism is applied in particular to de Sitter horizons, and leads to a picture of the early inflationary universe in terms of quantum computation. A discrete micro-causality emerges, where the time parameter is being defined by the discrete increase of entropy. Then, the model is analysed in the framework of the theory of presheaves (varying sets on a causal set) and we get a quantum history. A (bosonic) Fock space of the whole history is considered. The Fock space wavefunction, which resembles a Bose-Einstein condensate, undergoes decoherence at the end of inflation. This fact seems to be responsible for the rather low entropy of our universe. Contribution to the 8th UK Foundations of Physics Meeting, 13-17 September 1999, Imperial College, London, U K.. 1 1 INTRODUCTION Today, the main challenge of theoretical physics is to settle a theory of quantum gravity that will reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. There are three main approaches to quantum gravity: the canonical approach, the histories approach, and string theory. In what follows, we will focus mainly on the canonical approach; however, we will consider also quantum histories in the context of topos theory [1-2].
    [Show full text]
  • Complementary & the Copenhagen Interpretation
    Complementarity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Click here to go to the UPSCALE home page. Click here to go to the Physics Virtual Bookshelf home page. Introduction Neils Bohr (1885 - 1962) was one of the giants in the development of Quantum Mechanics. He is best known for: 1. The development of the Bohr Model of the Atom in 1913. A small document on this topic is available here. 2. The principle of Complementarity, the "heart" of Bohr's search for the significance of the quantum idea. This principle led him to: 3. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In this document we discuss Complementarity and then the Copenhagen Interpretation. But first we shall briefly discuss the general issue of interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, and briefly describe two interpretations. The discussion assumes some knowledge of the Feynman Double Slit, such as is discussed here; it also assumes some knowledge of Schrödinger's Cat, such as is discussed here. Finally, further discussion of interpretations of Quantum Mechanics can be meaningfully given with some knowledge of Bell's Theorem; a document on that topic is here. The level of discussion in what follows is based on an upper-year liberal arts course in modern physics without mathematics given at the University of Toronto. In that context, the discussion of Bell's Theorem mentioned in the previous paragraph is deferred until later. A recommended reference on the material discussed below is: F. David Peat, Einstein's Moon (Contemporary Books, 1990), ISBN 0-8092-4512-4 (cloth), 0-8092-3965-5 (paper). Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics Although the basic mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechanics was developed independently by Heisenberg and Schrödinger in 1926, a full and accepted interpretation of what that mathematics means still eludes us.
    [Show full text]
  • John Von Neumann's “Impossibility Proof” in a Historical Perspective’, Physis 32 (1995), Pp
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by SAS-SPACE Published: Louis Caruana, ‘John von Neumann's “Impossibility Proof” in a Historical Perspective’, Physis 32 (1995), pp. 109-124. JOHN VON NEUMANN'S ‘IMPOSSIBILITY PROOF’ IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ABSTRACT John von Neumann's proof that quantum mechanics is logically incompatible with hidden varibales has been the object of extensive study both by physicists and by historians. The latter have concentrated mainly on the way the proof was interpreted, accepted and rejected between 1932, when it was published, and 1966, when J.S. Bell published the first explicit identification of the mistake it involved. What is proposed in this paper is an investigation into the origins of the proof rather than the aftermath. In the first section, a brief overview of the his personal life and his proof is given to set the scene. There follows a discussion on the merits of using here the historical method employed elsewhere by Andrew Warwick. It will be argued that a study of the origins of von Neumann's proof shows how there is an interaction between the following factors: the broad issues within a specific culture, the learning process of the theoretical physicist concerned, and the conceptual techniques available. In our case, the ‘conceptual technology’ employed by von Neumann is identified as the method of axiomatisation. 1. INTRODUCTION A full biography of John von Neumann is not yet available. Moreover, it seems that there is a lack of extended historical work on the origin of his contributions to quantum mechanics.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    SPRING 1991 85 Inbetweenness: Spatial Folds in Theatre Historiography Michal Kobialka Thought thinks its own history (the past), but in order to free itself from what it thinks (the present) and be able finally to "think otherwise" (the future). Gilles Deleuze, Foucault In his recent book, Soundings in Critical T7ieoryy Dominick LaCapra discusses the critical and self-critical nature of historiography. Noteworthy is a passage introducing the dialogic exchanges between the theoretical systems of Marx, Derrida, Foucault, and other contemporary theoreticians, in which LaCapra talks about the nature of criticism today: Any assembly of "critics" today will have representatives of various established departments who are uneasy with their own represent­ ative function and may find more to say, listen to, or at least argue about with other critics than with more securely "representative" members of their own department or field. Indeed contemporary critics are no longer content with interdisciplinary efforts that simply combine, compare, or synthetically unify the methods of existing academic disciplines. Their questioning of established disciplines both raises doubts about internal criteria of purity or autonomy and unsettles the boundaries and protocols of given fields. Criticism in this sense is a discursive agitation running across a variety of Michal Kobialka has published articles and reviews in Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, Theatre History Studies, Medieval Perspectives, The Drama Review, Theatre Journal, Stages, Slavic and East European Journal, and Soviet and East-European Drama, Theatre and Film. He is currently working on a book on Taduesz Kantor and his Cricot 2 theatre. 86 Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism disciplines and having an uneasy relation to its own institutional­ ization.
    [Show full text]