We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 January 2010
Popper wrote extensively on the quantum theory. In Logic der Forschung (LSD) he devoted a whole chapter to the topic, while the whole of Volume 3 of the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery is devoted to the quantum theory. This volume entitled Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (QTSP) incorporated a famous earlier essay, ‘Quantum Mechanics without “the Observer”’ (QM). In addition Popper's development of the propensity interpretation of probability was much influenced by his views on the role of probability in quantum theory, and he also wrote an insightful critique of the 1936 paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann on nondistributive quantum logic (BNIQM).
1 In this paper Popper exploited some ambiguity in the Birkhoff and von Neumann paper concerning the distinction between complement and orthocomplement in a lattice, and by making a plausible measure-theoretic assumption concerning their lattice showed that it was actually distributive rather than nondistributive. For a detailed critique of BNIQM reference may be made to Scheibe, E., ‘Popper and Quantum Logic’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25 (1974), 319–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 For historical details see Jammer, M., The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (New York,: Wiley, 1974), p. 178.Google Scholar
3 There are other critiques of the experiment in the literature making broadly similar points to my own. See, for example, Sudbury, A. ‘Popper's Variant of the EPR Experiment Does not Test the Copenhagen Interpretation’, Philosophy of Science 52 (1985), pp. 470–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Krips, H., ‘Popper, Propensities and Quantum Theory’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (1984) pp. 253–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Feyerabend, P., ‘On a Recent Critique of Complementarity’, Philosophy of Science 35 (1968), pp. 309–31; 36 (1969), pp. 82–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Lande, A., Quantum Mechanics (Pitman, London, 1951).Google Scholar
6 Fine, A., ‘Probability and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (1973), pp. 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 See, for example, Wigner, E., ‘On the Quantum Correction for Thermodynamic Equilibrium’, Physical Review 40 (1932), pp. 749–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 See Fine, A., ‘Logic, Probability and Quantum Theory’, Philosophy of Science 35 (1968), pp. 101–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Angelidis, T., ‘Bell's Theorem: Does the Clauser-Horne Inequality Hold for all Local Theories?’, Physical Review Letters 51 (1983), pp. 1819–22;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘On the Problem of a Local Extension of the Quantum Formalism’, Journal of Mathematical Physics 34 (1993), pp. 1635–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The first paper has been criticized by a number of people. The second paper has not so far attracted critical comment in the literature.
10 See, for example, Redhead, M. L. G., Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 98ff.Google Scholar
