Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Quantum State Preparation Representation
Quantum Chemistry
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Karl Popper's Forgotten Role in the Quantum Debate at the Edge between Philosophy and Physics in 1950s and 1960s
arXiv
Authors: Flavio Del Santo
Year
2018
Paper ID
23635
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
171
Citations
N/A
Abstract
It is not very well known that the philosopher Karl Popper has been one of the foremost critics of the orthodox interpretation of quantum physics for about six decades. This paper reconstructs in detail most of Popper's activities on foundations of quantum mechanics (FQM) in the period of 1950s and 1960s, when his involvement in the community of quantum physicists became extensive and quite influential. Thanks to unpublished documents and correspondence, it is now possible to shed new light on Popper's central - though neglected - role in this "thought collective" of physicists concerned with FQM, and on the intellectual relationships that Popper established in this context with some of the protagonists of the debate over quantum physics (such as David Bohm, Alfed Landé and Henry Margenau, among many others). Foundations of quantum mechanics represented in those years also the initial ground for the embittering controversy between Popper and perhaps his most notable former student, Paul Feyerabend. I present here novel elements to further understand the origin of their troubled relationship.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2018 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- It is not very well known that the philosopher Karl Popper has been one of the foremost critics of the orthodox interpretation of quantum physics for about six decades.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.