Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics provides a detailed view of the conceptual foundations and problems of quantum physics, and a clear and comprehensive account of the fundamental physical implications of the quantum formalism. This book deals with nonseparability, hidden variable theories, measurement theories and several related problems. Mathematical arguments are presented with an emphasis on simple but adequately representative cases. The conclusion incorporates a description of a set of relationships and concepts that could compose a legitimate view of the world.
FREE Two-Day Shipping for students on millions of items. Learn more |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Bernard d’Espagnat, Emeritus Professor at the University of Paris, Orsay, was born in Fourmagnac, France, on August 22, 1921. He received his Ph.D. in physics from the Sorbonne in 1950. He was a research physicist at the French National Center for Scientific Research, at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Chicago, at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and at CERN in Geneva. In 1959, d’Espagnat joined the University of Paris, where he was professor at both the Paris and Orsay campuses. Professor d’Espagnat was director of the Laboratoire de Physique Theorique et Particules Elementaires, Orsay, from 1970 to 1987. In 1996 he was elected into the Institut de France (Académie des Sciences morales et politiques) as a philosopher of science.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Limits of Physics 101...,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Hardcover)
Anyone, physicist or otherwise, who is at all interested in the broader philosophical implications of quantum mechanics would do well to read d'Espagnat's works. Why? Quite simply, d'Espagnat is one of pioneers in exploring the broader implications of modern physics, especially in the boundary domain where physics meets metaphysics. His concept of "veiled" reality is particularly important to scientists, who seem to need some occasional reminding that empirical work, crucial as it is in understanding our physical universe, is nonetheless- by definition- incomplete; there is always a "beyond" which remains forever hidden -in principle- to direct study and observation. What should be appreciated from d'Espagnat's investigation, moreover, is that the foundations of quantum mechanics seem to POINT one to this observation, at least in the estimation of this distinguished expert in the field of quantum "entanglement". Although science cannot define this ultimate "veiled" realm, the scientific method enables us to progressively uncover aspects of it by virtue of observed manifestations in the empirical world, as revealed in the physical laws of our universe and, perhaps, our mental states as well. The author thus promotes an ontological "dual-aspect monism" position, where mind and matter are equally fundamental and interdependent, and both aspects are derived from something deeper (indefinable) that is neither...One is reminded of somewhat similar positions arrived at by other physicists interested in the foundations of QM, such as Wolfgang Pauli and David Bohm, to name a few. This early book on quantum foundations lays out the basis for d'Espagnat's views on the limits of science, using arguments from QM to examine a variety of popular philosophical positions, which became the theme of many of d'Espagnat's later books. The latter were aimed at a broader, non-technical (but intellectually curious) audience. But even in this book for physicists, primarily, one can see d'Espagant develop his theme of "veiled" reality as he examines and criticizes various philosophical schools of thought (including those of physicists, such as Bohr and Einstein) from the standpoint of quantum foundations. As such, d'Espagnat's investigations into the world of the philosophy of physics is valuable, coming as it is from one who tackles the problems from the "inside-out", as it were, instead of looking at physics from the outside. This doesn't necessarily mean a physicist is always "correct" speculating on general ontological matters, of course, but the value of actual insider insight shouldn't be trivialized. It should be mentioned d'Espagnat's investigation is no direct doorway to theism, such as is found in the popular world religions. It is a huge leap indeed to go from the possibility of cautiously allowing the possibility of meta-(aka "beyond"-) physics, which d'Espagnat does himself, to a fully-developed systematic theology full of non-empirical elements. One shouldn't use physics as any kind of support for such a leap, although many have tried. It is wise to remember ALL metaphysical systems remain inherently arbitrary - once empiricism is removed as a criteria, how could it be otherwise? Be that as it may, d'Espagnat's main idea, that we must posit a broader aspect of reality which science can only penetrate in a progressive manner, should hardly be a controversial concept. After all, in a general sense, there is "something" that answers "yes" or "no" to experiments and thereby scientists learn whether they are on the right track or not. But the concept that reality can only be accessed indirectly may bother some in science or philosophy who are hardcore "strong" realists, believing that science is actually dealing with "ultimate reality" directly. This view remains confident the achievement of science ("for all practical purposes" [FAPP] as John Bell might say...) is an ability to eliminate (or at least render trivial) human perceptions and sensibilities in the construction of the methodology. d'Espagnat calls this "strong" objectivity, vs. "weak" objectivity, the latter which - although not denying realism per se- sees a human side to all scientific explorations. He remarks, "Quantum mechanics introduced another point of view, which consists essentially that the aim of science is not to describe ultimate reality as it really is...rather, it is to make account of reality as it appears to us, accounting for the limitations of our own mind and our own sensibilities". d'Espagnat's strong point, really, is precisely this ability to see in quantum foundations an emphatic lesson: we have indeed moved a long way from the naive view of purely objective descriptions (supposedly) of Nature found in classical physics, where descriptions of phenomena could be made without reference to a human element (or human limitations, to be more accurate) in their construction. Alas, it would seem the tendency to believe science can penetrate "Reality" directly, ignoring an inherent human perceptive filter, seems to have continued unabashed in many areas of science even today. It is tempting to view the remarkable success of mathematical physics as an indication our mathematical descriptions somehow have a higher "reality" of their own, completely apart from human constructions. This actually is a modern version of the old Pythagorean dictim that "numbers are the essence of things" (d'Espagnat dubs this "Einsteinian realism", after Einstein's own high confidence in mathematical physics). However, some caution is in order here. Perhaps our optimistic Pythagoreans ought also remember Plato's allegory of the cave and how we see the "Real" only in shadows... But regardless of how some mathematicians like to argue over the "Platonic" nature of pure mathematics (or not), d'Espagnat reminds us mathematical *physics*, at least, is a more mundane activity of *predicting* observational results. Hence, realistically we seem to be looking not at some ethereal realm of Platonic perfection, but rather an altogether human descriptive language :-). From this perspective, we need to be "ontologically" cautious about confusing a human tool with "reality-in-itself". At any rate, d'Espagnat would certainly agree with Plato's cave allegory here- the "Real", he reminds us, is hidden, and we can only peer into it in glimpses. Progressive and ever-broader glimpses, yes...but always only partial. Speaking of the dangers of confusing a methodology with "reality-in-itself", a current fad of certain modern philosophers of science seems to be to look at quantum field theory for inspiration, with the hope that the subatomic realm itself might give us insight into the "way things really are". Structural realists, for instance, tell us "relationships" are what is "real" (at least in the "ontic" version; there are many others)...in other words, interactions/relationships ARE the reality, and what we perceive as "objects" or "intrinsic properties" of systems are only abstractions- as least as far as being devoid of equal ontological importance. This insight, one quickly realizes perusing the structural realist literature, finds its inspiration in a "relational" interpretation of quantum mechanics- a view suggesting the curious feature of "entanglement" (formerly called "nonseparability") may be more "real" than the "particles" in a quantum event. Since quantum mechanics seems to exhibit relational characteristics (and there is also a controversial "relational" interpretation of relativity), some structural realists have taken the hint and built a supposed ontology on a philosophical foundation of "relations" or "interactions", instead of "relata". Surely we're closer to the "Real", with all this progress in quantum theory, right? Or are we? The problem here is similar to the earlier example...i.e., continuing to hold inflated ideas about the ability of science to give assured ontological certainties. Quantum theory, for instance, very much requires a human element in the interpretation of the formalism, as physicists try to represent very abstract phenomena (if we are allowed that word) which have no resemblance to our everyday familiar world... so as far as "interpretating" the subatomic world goes, we're back to square one...back to basic quantum foundational questions. One simply cannot avoid the fundamental question from an ontological perspective- what are we really talking about? Regardless if one wants to build an ontology making "relationships" fundamental, as the structural realists might desire, the problem remains of determining exactly what ontological significance a "field" or "wavefunction" or "entanglement" has in the first place :-). The subatomic realm seems to have a different type of "reality"...it isn't "real"TM in the same sense our familiar macroscopic world appears to be. Subatomic events exist in kind of an Alice-In-Wonderland realm of superpositions until some type of abrupt change occurs to cause definite outcomes (if indeed a "collapse" actually occurs...of course measurement remains a subject of controversy). Some even prefer a more subjective interpretation, claiming a wavefunction only describes a particular "state of knowledge of a system"... On the other hand, it doesn't seem entirely satisfactory to assume wavefunctions are merely subjective "states of knowledge", for physicists certainly are talking about concrete physical effects, which can be measured. So wavefunctions definately yield "real" effects. Logic would dictate some type of non-nebulous, objective existence of quantum states and we are not just talking about an observer's "knowledge of the system", yes? At any rate, the debate over "ontic" vs. "epistemic" interpretations of quantum states goes on, and so it makes this business of assigning "ontological reality" to wavefunctions rather difficult - how much can we do... Read more ›
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A classic in the philosophy of physics,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Conceptual Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics: Second Edition (Advanced Books Classics) (Paperback)
D'Espagnat carefully presents a concise reconstruction of the theory of non-relativistic quantum mechanics in axiomatic form, as well as careful analyses of each of the major difficulties inherent in its interpretation. His discussions of the metaphysical and epistemological questions surrounding the theory have played a significant role in setting the terms and temrinology of current debates in the philosophy of physics. For anyone seeking a better grasp of the nature and implications of quantum theory, whether he be a philosopher or physicist, this book is an essential read. It is, by any reasonable account, a classic.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
|
|
