Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:11:46.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Points in Modern Physical Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Henry Margenau
Henry Margenau*
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent discussions in the physical literature, designed to clarify the logical position of modern physical theory, have brought to light an amazing divergence of fundamental attitudes which may well bewilder the careful student of physics as well as philosophy. Quantum mechanics, representing an abstract formalism, should be capable of having its logical structure analyzed with great precision like any other mathematical discipline. Its consequences in all problems to which its method can be applied are so unambiguous, consistent, and successful in predicting physical experience as to disperse immediately all thoughts of possible discrepancies in its fundamental texture. Yet it must be said that even the founders of quantum theory are not in harmony in their various expositions of the bases of that theory. However, while this situation seems disquieting on the face of it, there is no cause for serious brow raising, for it is a fact that there exists agreement with regard to the central axioms of the theory, and that the ambiguities affect only their philosophical interpretation, a field in which differences of opinion may at present be honestly entertained.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , July 1937 , pp. 337 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1937

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

Einstein, A., Podolski, B., and Rosen, N., Phys. Rev., 47, 777 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemble, E. C., Phys. Rev., 47, 973 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruark, A. E., Phys. Rev., 48, 466 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N., Phys. Rev., 48, 696 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrödinger, E., Naturwissenschaften, 23, 807 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrödinger, E., Naturwissenschaften, 23, 823 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrödinger, E., Naturwissenschaften, 23, 844 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrödinger, E., Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 31, 555 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margenau, H., Phys. Rev., 49, 240 (1936).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furry, W. H., Phys. Rev., 49, 393 (1936).10.1103/PhysRev.49.393CrossRefGoogle Scholar