Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?
REFERENCES
1.
J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1955).
2.
3.
B. S. DeWitt, Dynamical Theory of Groups and Fields, Gordon and Breach, New York (1965), pp. 16–29.
4.
N.
Bohr
, L.
Rosenfeld
, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab, Mat.‐Fys. Medd.
12
, no. 8
(1933
).5.
E. P. Wigner, “Remarks on the Mind–Body Question,” in The Scientist Speculates (I. J. Good, ed), William Heinemann Ltd, London (1961).
Reprinted in E. P. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections, Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1967).
6.
D.
Bohm
, 87
, 389
(1952
);D.
Bohm
, 89
, 319
and
(1953
).7.
8.
A. Petersen, Quantum Physics and the Philosophical Tradition, MIT Press, Cambridge (1968).
9.
W. Heisenberg, “Quantum Theory and Its Interpretation,” in Niels Bohr (S. Rozental, ed), North Holland, Wiley, New York (1967).
10.
11.
12.
R. N. Graham, PhD thesis, University of North Carolina (in preparation).
13.
B. S. DeWitt, “The Everett–Wheeler Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” in Battelle Rencontres, 1967 Lectures in Mathematics and Physics (C. DeWitt, J. A. Wheeler, eds), W. A. Benjamin Inc., New York (1968).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1970 American Institute of Physics.
1970
American Institute of Physics