Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:59:40.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A Study in Mythology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Don Howard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What is commonly known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, regarded as representing a unitary Copenhagen point of view, differs significantly from Bohr's complementarity interpretation, which does not employ wave packet collapse in its account of measurement and does not accord the subjective observer any privileged role in measurement. It is argued that the Copenhagen interpretation is an invention of the mid-1950s, for which Heisenberg is chiefly responsible, various other physicists and philosophers, including Bohm, Feyerabend, Hanson, and Popper, having further promoted the invention in the service of their own philosophical agendas.

Type
Bohr's Philosophy of Quantum Theory: A New Look
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers , December 2004 , pp. 669 - 682
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 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

Beller, Mara (1997), “Copenhagen Ideology and the Philosophy of Science: Kuhn and Feyerabend,” paper delivered at “Dissent and Orthodoxy in Quantum Mechanics”, conference in honor of James T. Cushing’s Sixtieth Birthday, September 27, 1997. University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
Beller, Mara (1999), Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bohm, David (1951), Quantum Theory. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bohm, David (1952), “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden Variables,’ I and II”, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden Variables,’ I and II 85:166–193.Google Scholar
Bohm, David (1957a), Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bohm, David (1957b), “A Proposed Explanation of Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables at a Sub-quantum-mechanical Level”, in Körner 1957, 33–40.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels ([1927] 1934), “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory”, in Atti del Congresso Internazionale dei Fisici 11–20 Settembre 1927, Como-Pavia-Roma (published 1928), vol. 2. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli. Reprinted (1928) in Nature (Suppl.) 121:580–590; and in Niels Bohr (1934), Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 52–91.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels ([1938] 1958), “Natural Philosophy and Human Cultures”, Reprinted in Bohr 1958, 23–31. Originally published in Nature 143: 268.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels ([1949] 1958), “Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics”, Reprinted in Bohr 1958, 32–66. Originally published in Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Evanston, IL: The Library of Living Philosophers, 199–241.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels (1958), Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: John Wiley & Sons; London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels ([1961] 1963), “The Genesis of Quantum Mechanics”, reprinted in Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley, 74–78. Originally published as “Die Entstehung der Quantenmechanik”, in Fritz Bopp (ed.), Werner Heisenberg und die Physik unserer Zeit. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.Google Scholar
Bohr, Niels (1984), Collected Works, Erik Rüdinger (ed.), Vol. 5, The Emergence of Quantum Mechanics (Mainly 1924–1926), Stolzenburg, Klaus (ed.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Cassidy, David C. (1992), Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Chevalley, Catherine (1991), “Introduction: Le dessin et la couleur”, in Bohr, Niels, Physique atomique et connaissance humaine, Edmond Bauer and Roland Omnès (trans.), Catherine Chevalley (ed.). Paris: Gallimard, 17–140.Google Scholar
Chevalley, Catherine (1994), “Niels Bohr’s Words and the Atlantis of Kantianism”, in Faye and Folse 1994, 33–55.Google Scholar
Clifton, Rob, and Halvorson, Hans (1999), “Maximal Beable Subalgebras of Quantum Mechanical Observables”, Maximal Beable Subalgebras of Quantum Mechanical Observables 38:2441–2484.Google Scholar
Clifton, Rob, and Halvorson, Hans (2002), “Reconsidering Bohr’s Reply to EPR”, in Placek and Butterfield 2002, 3–18.Google Scholar
Cushing, James T. (1994), Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dickson, Michael (2001), “The EPR Experiment: A Prelude to Bohr’s Reply to EPR”, in Heidelberger, Michael and Stadler, Friedrich (eds.), History of Philosophy of Science: New Trends and Perspectives. Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic, 263–275.Google Scholar
Dickson, Michael (2002), “Bohr on Bell: A Proposed Reading of Bohr and Its Implications for Bell’s Theorem”, in Placek and Butterfield 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1927), “Bestimmt Schrödingers Wellenmechanik die Bewegung eines Systems vollständig oder nur im Sinne der Statistik?”, unpublished manuscript, Einstein Archive 2–100.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert, Podolsky, Boris, and Rosen, Nathan (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? 47:777–780.Google Scholar
Faye, Jan (1991), Niels Bohr: His Heritage and Legacy. An Anti-Realist View of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faye, Jan (2002), “Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2002/entries/qm-copenhagen/.Google Scholar
Faye, Jan, and Folse, Henry (eds.) (1994), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. (1957), “On the Quantum Theory of Measurement”, in Körner 1957, 121–130.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. (1958), “Complementarity”, Complementarity 32:75–104.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. (1960), “Professor Bohm’s Philosophy of Nature”, Professor Bohm’s Philosophy of Nature 10:321–328.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. (1973), Against Method. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Frank, Philipp (1932), Das Kausalgesetz und seine Grenzen. Vienna: Julius Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Philipp ([1936] 1950), “Philosophic Misinterpretations of the Quantum Theory”, in Modern Science and Its Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 158–171. Originally published as “Philosophische Deutungen und Mißdeutungen der Quantentheorie”, Erkenntnis 6:303–316.Google Scholar
Frank, Philipp (1938), Interpretations and Misinterpretations of Modern Physics. Paris: Hermann et Cie.Google Scholar
Halvorson, Hans (2004), “Complementarity of Representations in Quantum Mechanics”, Complementarity of Representations in Quantum Mechanics 35:45–56.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood Russell (1958), Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood Russell (1959), “Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory 27:1–15.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner (1934), “Atomtheorie und Naturerkenntnis”, Atomtheorie und Naturerkenntnis 16(1): 9–20.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner (1948), “Der Begriff ‘abgeschlossene Theorie’ in der modernen Naturwissenschaft”, Der Begriff ‘abgeschlossene Theorie’ in der modernen Naturwissenschaft 2:331–336.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner (1955), “The Development of the Interpretation of the Quantum Theory”, in Pauli, Wolfgang (ed.), Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics. London: Pergamon, 1955, 12–29.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner ([1955] 1958), “The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, the Gifford Lectures at St. Andrews, winter term, 1955–1956. Reprinted in Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper and Row, chapter 3.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner (1958), “The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics”, The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics 87 (Summer): 95–108.Google Scholar
Howard, Don (1979), Complementarity and Ontology: Niels Bohr and the Problem of Scientific Realism in Quantum Physics. Ph.D. Dissertation. Boston: Boston University.Google Scholar
Howard, Don (1990), “‘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 Miller, Arthur (ed.), Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical, and Physical Inquiries into the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Plenum, 61–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Don (1994), “What Makes a Classical Concept Classical? Toward a Reconstruction of Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Physics”, in Faye and Folse 1994, 201–229.Google Scholar
Jordan, Pascual (1936a), Anschauliche Quantentheorie: Eine Einführung in die moderne Auffassung der Quantenerscheinungen. Berlin: Julius Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, Pascual (1936b), Die Physik des 20. Jahrhunderts: Einführung in den Gedankeninhalt der modernen Physik. Braunschweig: Freidrich Vieweg & Sohn.Google Scholar
Körner, Stephan (ed.) (1957), Observation and Interpretation: A Symposium of Philosophers and Physicists. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Placek, Tomasz, and Butterfield, Jeremy (eds.) (2002), Non-locality and Modality. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1934a), Logik der Forschung. Vienna: Julius Springer.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1934b), “Zur Kritik der Ungenauigkeitsrelationen”, Zur Kritik der Ungenauigkeitsrelationen 48:807–808.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1957), “The Propensity Interpretation of the Calculus of Probability, and the Quantum Theory”, in Körner 1957, 65–70.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1959), “The Propensity Interpretation of Probability”, The Propensity Interpretation of Probability 10:25–42.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1967), “Quantum Mechanics without ‘the Observer’”, in Bunge, Mario (ed.), Quantum Theory and Reality. New York: Springer, 1–12.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1982), Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Totowa, NJ: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, Leon (1957), “Misunderstandings about the Foundations of Quantum Theory”, in Körner 1957, 41–45.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, Erwin (1935a), “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik”, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik 23:807–812, 824–828, 844–849.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, Erwin (1935b), “Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems”, Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems 31:555–562.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, Erwin (1936), “Probability Relations between Separated Systems”, Probability Relations between Separated Systems 32:446–452.Google Scholar