Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-30T14:49:59.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On a Recent Critique of Complementarity: Part I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Paul K. Feyerabend
Paul K. Feyerabend*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Discussions of the interpretation of quantum theory are at present obstructed by (1) the increasing axiomania in physics and philosophy which replaces fundamental problems by problems of formulation within a certain preconceived calculus, and (2) the decreasing (since 1927) philosophical interest and sophistication both of professional physicists and of professional philosophers which results in the replacement of subtle positions by crude ones and of dialectical arguments by dogmatic ones. More especially, such discussions are obstructed by the ignorance of both opponents, and also defenders of the Copenhagen point of view, as regards the arguments which once were used in its defence. The publication of Bunge's Quantum Theory and Reality and especially of Popper's contribution to it are taken as an occasion for the restatement of Bohr's position and for the refutation of some quite popular, but surprisingly naive and uninformed objections against it. Bohr's position is distinguished both from the position of Heisenberg and from the vulgarized versions which have become part of the so-called “Copenhagen Interpretation” and whose inarticulateness has been a boon for all those critics who prefer easy victories to a rational debate. Einstein's main counterargument is discussed, and Bohr's refutation restated. The philosophical background and earlier forms of Bohr's views are stated also. Considering that these views are more detailed, better adapted to the facts of the microdomain than any existing alternative it follows that fundamental discussion must first return to them. Their uniqueness is not asserted, however. Here the author still maintains that a hundred shabby flowers are preferable to a single blossom, however exquisite. But a hundred shabby flowers plus an exquisite blossom are more desirable still.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , December 1968 , pp. 309 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1968

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

An earlier version of the paper was criticized by Profs. Agassi and Watkins, Drs. Bub and Lakatos, as well as by Mr. Musgrave and an anonymous referee. I have made use of some of their suggestions. This paper is a belated aftereffect of a discussion with Professor C. F. von Weiszaecker in autumn 1965. For support of research I am again indebted to the National Science Foundation.

Part II, the concluding part of this essay, will appear in Philosophy of Science, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1 (March, 1969), the next issue of this journal.

References

REFERENCES

[1] Bohm, D., Quantum Theory, Princeton, 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Bohm, D., Physical Review, vol. 85, 1952, pp. 166–179, 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Bohm, D., and Bub, J., Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 38, 1966, pp. 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Bohr, N., Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 13, 1923, pp. 117–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Bohr, N., Ueber die Quantentheorie der Linienspektren, Braunschweig, 1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Bohr, N., Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, Cambridge. 1932.Google Scholar
[7] Bohr, N., Physical Review, vol. 48, 1935, pp. 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Bohr, N., Dialectica, vols. 7/8, 1948, pp. 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Bohr, N., Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Bohr, N., Kramers, H. A., and Slater, J. C., Philosophical Magazine, vol. 47, 1924, pp. 785–802.Google Scholar
[11] Bohr, N., and Rosenfeld, L., Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Mathematisk-fysike Meddelelser, vol. 12, 1933, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar
[12] Bopp, F. (ed.), Werner Heisenberg und die Physik unserer Zeit, Braunschweig, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Born, M., Vorlesungen ueber Atommechanik, Berlin, 1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Bothe, W., and Geiger, H., Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 26, 1924, p. 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Bothe, W., and Geiger, H., Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 32, 1925, 639–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Bunge, M. (ed.), The Critical Approach, Essays in Honour of Karl Popper, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
[17] Bunge, M. (ed.), Quantum Theory and Reality, New York, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Caldirola, P. (ed.), Ergodic Theories, New York, 1961.Google Scholar
[19] Colodny, R. (ed.), Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, Pittsburgh, 1962.Google Scholar
[20] Colodny, R. (ed.), Mind and Cosmos, Pittsburgh, 1966.Google Scholar
[21] Compton, A. H., Naturwissenschaften, vol. 17, 1929, pp. 507–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] Compton, A. H., and Simon, A. W., Physical Review, vol. 26, 1925, 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Daneri, A., Loinger, A., and Prosperi, G. M., Nuclear Physics, vol. 33, 1962, p. 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24] Daneri, A., Loinger, A., and Prosperi, G. M., Nuovo Cimento, vol. 44B, 1966, p. 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25] Dirac, P. A. M., The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford, 1947.Google Scholar
[26] Einstein, A., Physikalische Zeitschrift, vol. 28, 1917, pp. 121–136.Google Scholar
[27] Einstein, A., Physical Review, vol. 47, 1935, pp. 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28] Einstein, A., and Ehrenfest, P., Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 11, 1922, pp. 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29] Epstein, P. S., Annalen der Physik, vol. 50, 1916, pp. 489–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30] Feycrabend, P. K., Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 145, 1956, pp. 421–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31] Feyerabend, P. K., Philosophical Review, vol. 69, 1960, pp. 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[32] Feyerabend, P. K., and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Mind, Matter and Method, Essays in Honor of Herbert Feigl, Minneapolis, 1966.Google Scholar
[33] Fock, W. A., Philosophische Probleme der Modernen Naturwissenschaft, Berlin, 1962.Google Scholar
[34] Hanson, N. R., Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge, 1961.Google Scholar
[35] Hegel, G. W. F., Philosophie der Geschichte (ed. Brunstaedt), Leipzig, 1908.Google Scholar
[36] Heisenberg, W., Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 43, 1927, pp. 172–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[37] Heisenberg, W., Naturwissenschaften, vol. 17, 1929, pp. 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[38] Heisenberg, W., The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, Chicago, 1930.Google Scholar
[39] Heitler, W., The Quantum Theory of Radiation, Oxford, 1954.Google Scholar
[40] Jammer, M., The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
[41] Jauch, J. M., Helvetica Physika Acta, vol. 37, 1964, p. 193.Google Scholar
[42] Jauch, J. M., Wigner, E. P., and Yanase, M. M., Nuovo Cimento, vol. 48, 1967, pp, 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[43] Koerner, S. (ed.), Observation and Interpretation, London, 1957.Google Scholar
[44] Kramers, H. A., Naturwissenschaften, vol. 11, 1923, pp. 550–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[45] Kuhn, T. S., Heilbronn, J. L., and Forman, P. L., Sources for History of Quantum Theory Am. Phil. Soc., 1967.Google Scholar
[46] Lakatos, I., and Musgrave, A., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Amsterdam, 1968.Google Scholar
[47] Landau, L., and Lifshitz, S., Quantum Mechanics, New York, 1958.Google Scholar
[48] Landé, A., Die Neuere Entwicklung der Quantentheorie, Leipzig, 1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[49] Landé, A., Foundations of Quantum Theory, New Haven, 1955.Google Scholar
[50] Margenau, H., Physics Today, vol. 7, 1954, pp. 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[51] Margenau, H., Philosophy of Science, vol. 30, 1963, pp. 1–16, 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[52] Meyer-Abich, K. M., Korrespondenz, Individualitaet, und Komplementaritaet, Wiesbaden, 1965.Google Scholar
[53] McKnight, J. L., Philosophy of Science, vol. 24, 1957, pp. 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[54] Neumann, J. von, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Berlin, 1932.Google Scholar
[55] Pauli, W. (ed.), Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, London, 1955.Google Scholar
[56] Popper, K. R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[57] Popper, K. R., Conjectures and Refutations, New York, 1962.Google Scholar
[58] Rosen, N., American Journal of Physics, vol. 32, 1964, pp. 597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[59] Rozenthal, S. (ed.), Niels Bohr, His Life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[60] Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, Evanston, 1948.Google Scholar
[61] Schroedinger, E., Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 23, 1935, pp. 807–812, 823–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[62] Schroedinger, E., Nature, vol. 173, 1954, p. 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[63] Schroedinger, E., Nuovo Cimento, vol. 36, 1955, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
[64] Scientific Papers Presented to Max Born, Edinburgh, 1953.Google Scholar
[65] Slater, J. C., Nature, vol. 113, 1924, pp. 307–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[66] Solvay Conference, Proceedings of Vth, Paris, 1928.Google Scholar
[67] Solvay Conference, Proceedings of VIth, Paris, 1930.Google Scholar
[68] Solvay Conference, Proceedings of XIIth, New York, 1962.Google Scholar
[69] Sommerfeld, A., Atombau Und Spektrallinien, Leipzig, 1922.Google Scholar
[70] Stern, O., and Gerlach, W., Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 11, 1922, pp. 31–57.Google Scholar
[71] Van der Waerden, B. L., Sources of Quantum Mechanics, Amsterdam, 1967.Google Scholar
[72] Wigner, E. P., American Journal of Physics, vol. 31, 1963, pp. 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar