Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:57:03.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Empirical Reply to Empiricism: Protective Measurement Opens The Door for Quantum Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Michael Dickson
Michael Dickson*
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quantum mechanics has sometimes been taken to be an empiricist (vs. realist) theory. I state the empiricist's argument, then outline a recently noticed type of measurement—protective measurement—that affords a good reply for the realist. This paper is a reply to scientific empiricism (about quantum mechanics), but is neither a refutation of that position, nor an argument in favor of scientific realism. Rather, my aim is to place realism and empiricism on an even score in regards to quantum theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 122 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1995

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

†

Thanks to the University of Notre Dame Philosophy of Physics Reading Group for a useful discussion. Thanks to Jim Cushing for several helpful comments. Thanks to an anonymous referee for useful remarks. Thanks also to the University of Notre Dame, the Mellon Foundation, the International Center for Theoretical Physics, and S.I.S.S.A. for generous financial support of this research.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, England.

References

Aharanov, Y.; Anandan, J.; and Vaidman, L. (1993), “Meaning of the Wave Function”, Physical Review 47: 4616–4626.10.1103/PhysRevA.47.4616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1990), “Against Measurement”, in Miller, A., ed., Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty. New York: Plenum, pp. 17–33.10.1007/978-1-4684-8771-8_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D. (1951), Quantum Theory. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1952), “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I and II”. Physical Review Letters 85: 166–193.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. and Hiley, B. J. (forthcoming), The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1934), Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. (1984), “The Current Status of Scientific Realism,” in Leplin, J., ed., Scientific Realism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 41–82.10.1525/9780520337442-004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bub, J. (1989), “Review Article: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40: 191–211.10.1093/bjps/40.2.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1093/0198247044.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Tannoudji, C.; Bernard, D.; and Laloë, F. (1977), Quantum Mechanics. Vols. 1–2. Translated by S. R. Hemley. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1982), “Some Local Models for Correlation Experiments,” Synthese 50: 279–294.10.1007/BF00416904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1986), The Shaky Game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Foulis, D. J. and Randall, C. H. (1974), “Empirical Logic and Quantum Mechanics,” Synthese 29: 81–111.10.1007/BF00484953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C.; Rimini, A.; and Weber, T. (1986), “Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems,” Physical Review 34: 470.Google ScholarPubMed
Hacking, I. (1984), “Experimentation and Scientific Realism,” in Leplin, J., ed., Scientific Realism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 154–172.10.1525/9780520337442-009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. (1993), The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511622687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krips, H. (1987), The Metaphysics of Quantum Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Leavens, C. (1989), “Transmission, Reflection and Dwell Times Within Bohm's Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” Solid State Communications 74: 923–928.10.1016/0038-1098(90)90457-MCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavens, C. (1990), “Traversal Times for Rectangular Barriers Within Bohm's Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” Solid State Communications 76: 253–261.10.1016/0038-1098(90)90833-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavens, C. and Aers, G. (1991), “The Time-Modulated Barrier Approach to Traversal Times from the Bohm Trajectory Point of View,” Solid State Communications 78: 1015–1023.10.1016/0038-1098(91)90121-BCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton, P. (1991), Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203470855_chapter_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, F. and Bauer, E. (1983), “The Theory of Observation in Quantum Mechanics,” in Wheeler, J. A. and Zurek, W. H., eds., Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, E. (1979), “Scientific Realism: The New Debates,” Philosophy of Science 46: 501–532.10.1086/288894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. (1984), “A Case for Scientific Realism,” in Leplin, J., ed., Scientific Realism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 41–82.Google Scholar
Miller, R. (1987), Fact and Method: Explanation, Confirmation and Reality in the Natural and Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pearle, P. (1989), “Combining Stochastic Dynamical State-Vector Reduction with Spontaneous Localization”, Physical Review 39: 2277–2289.10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2277CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redhead, M. L. G. (1987), Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schiff, L. (1968), Quantum Mechanics. 3d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1952), “Are There Quantum Jumps”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3: 109–123, 233–242.10.1093/bjps/III.10.109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1981), “The Projection Postulate and Bohr's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Asquith, P. and Giere, R., eds., PSA 1980, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 201–223.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198244274.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1982), “The Charybdis of Realism: Epistemological Implications of Bell's Inequality”, Synthese 52: 25–38.10.1007/BF00485253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1991), Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198239807.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Neumann, J. (1955), Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Translated by R. T. Beyer. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar