Conceptual Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics: Second Edition (Advanced Books Classics) 2nd Edition by Bernard D’espagnat (PDF)

Description

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.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐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 so? And who is the final arbitrator since the professional physicists don’t know either? Not only in physics, but in all the sciences…how do we determine what should be used to build an “assured” ontology? Entanglement? Quantum fields? Macroscopic objects? Biology? Neurology and psychology? Sociology? Philosophy or theology? One gets different answers depending on the field of study :-). Physicists, at any rate, certainly disagree with each other on a proper interpretation of the foundational problems. A pragmatist might say here if the physicist experts themselves can’t agree, most likely the philosophers are merely guessing as well. The take-home lesson here appears to be that one should not become overconfident looking at elements of modern physics for ontological purposes; the myriads of interpretations on foundational problems alone ought to convince us we indeed have a long way to go for “assured” ontological insights, in spite of – judging by some of the literature – what some philosophers of science would have us believe. And again we should keep in mind – as d’Espagnat would want us to – the objective, independent world out there (what he calls “empirical reality”) is part of a unknown, deeper reality which can only be accessed in a progressive manner.And in general all of us, unfortunately, have some limitations as humans in using our own sensibilities to construct our worlds of space, time, causality, etc., from the physics we have…even physicists! With these limitations in mind, the “hope” of direct penetration of “ultimate” reality – i.e., that the scientific inquiry is actually dealing directly with reality-as-it-is, without a human filter slightly fogging the view, seems a little too naive.What d’Espagnat’s work shows us, perhaps more than anything else, is the inherent inability -in principle- of humans transcending the limits of our methods. If this reminds you of the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant exploring the limits of rational thought, bingo… BUT, let’s not focus too much on Kant. The difference is, d’Espagnat recognizes we can *progressively* explore this “veiled” realm through the scientific method. We’ll never quite perceive it completely in all its glory as the “strong” realists might want, given our finite limitations (and it is rather odd that some think we can), but at least there is indeed room for optimism. We DO appear to be expanding our understanding of “veiled” Reality with each new scientific advance (and such could possibly happen, d’Espagnat speculates, through other – non-scientific but equally human – avenues -i.e., music, art, poetry, perhaps some meditative states and religious impulses, etc.). While we can’t really rule out these other avenues, the highly subjective elements inherent therein – not to mention the haphazard way experiences occur and the lack of any progressive understanding – renders these rather shaky as reliable tools. Since this is unavoidable, perhaps the empirical requirement of science – hence an ability to *progressively* and reliably expand our insight – positions science to be uniquely qualified to lead the way. In this way, science may well be the “royal road” to the Real!5/12/09 Addendum to above review:I guess I should really add something here in view of d’Espagnat winning the lucrative 2009 Templeton Prize; organizers said his work in quantum physics “revealed a reality beyond science that spirituality and art could help to partly grasp”. It’s a curious state of affairs, d’Espagnat himself is cautious in his writings to avoid big metaphysical leaps, so I’m not sure what the organizers saw in his work that pertains directly to “spirituality”, except in a broad sense…Nonetheless, d’Espagnat himself says he agrees in principle with the aims of the Templeton Foundation, and I suppose his “veiled reality” could be construed as a vague permission to explore other avenues, so what the heck…pocket that 1 million pounds and head out of town quick…We should all be so lucky. As Amanda Gefter (Opinion columnist for New Scientist magazine) points out, “It would be nonsensical to paint [D’Espagnat’s God] with the figure of a personal God or attribute to it specific concerns or commandments. The ‘veiled reality’, then, can in no way help Christians or Muslims or Jews or anyone else rationalize their specific beliefs. The Templeton Foundation – despite being headed up by John Templeton Jr, an evangelical Christian – claims to afford no bias to any particular religion, and by awarding their prize to d’Espagnat, I think they’ve proven that to be true. I happen to believe that drawing any spiritual conclusions from quantum mechanics is an unfounded leap in logic – but if someone out there in the world is willing to pay someone £1 million for pondering the nature of reality, that’s a world I’m happy to live in.”As for various comments from the peanut gallery (scientists and otherwise) on the appropriateness of d’Espagnat’s work on quantum nonseparability (now generally labeled “entanglement”) being rewarded by this organization, I was entertained by the gauntlet of opinions, both yay and nay. Some critics, usually hard-nosed reductionists such as the Dawkins anti-religion crowd, see the Templeton Foundation as a dubious organization from square one, with all this “spiritual” talk and what not. Par for the course there. Other critics question d’Espagnat’s own conclusions, not seeing the supposed “holism” shown from Bell’s Inequalities necessarily leading to observations about a general “ignorance” of reality. True enough, interpretations of entanglement and its nonseparability issues vary… Some don’t like the seemingly vague, “open” way d’Espagnat’s ontology ends up…some are looking for a more precise description of possible metaphysics, if somebody like d’Espagnat could just guide them and be less vague…[For d’Espagnat’s more mature thinking on these ideas, his article “‘State of the Art’ and Perspectives: Quantum Physics and the Ontological Problem” should be consulted.]Personally, I take a pragmatic view of the whole mess; it’s a nice thing that d’Espagnat finally got some public recognition for his work in quantum foundations…which admittedly isn’t a field of physics with constant experimental developments. Many hard-nosed physicists may not like the idea that it was the Templeton Foundation that did the award, but then again, since these guys DIDN’T win and would have surely given a speech and taken the money if they had been nominated, I see some sour grapes here. Plus, it’s not like any physics organizations came out and offered d’Espagnat any cash prizes for his work on foundations, so a pox on the physics crowd too :-). LOL

⭐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.

⭐I teach quantum physics. I have four PhDs.Quantum theory has bootstrapped us into the modern age.Almost everything that is manufactured these days has its basis in quantum theory.Chinese, please revere the appropriate genius, not just your old Lao Tseu, who has become quite obsolete,still relevant though in some circles.This book lays down the basics of all quantum theory, from Schrodinger’s equation to Heisenberg’sfamous Uncertainty Principle. It states the basic quantum enigma : why does the representation of theworld depend on the observer, here to collapse the wave function. And what does it mean for our humbleexistence ?Why are we here ? Is it to explain the world ?Consciousness is our most potent weapon, and yet we do not know why we apply it !!!…But it distinguishes us from the apes !

⭐This is the classic text on interpretational issues in quantum theory. No physicist or philosopher of science should be without it.

⭐Très bien. Le livre en très bonnes conditions.

⭐この本には、1976年の第二版があり、読者はそちらの方を読むことを勧める。また、その日本語訳(町田茂、1980年)「量子力学における観測の理論」(岩波書店)がある。量子力学の解釈は、ニールス・ボーアによる世に言うコペンハーゲン解釈以来、議論の多いテーマで、アインシュタインの「EPRパラドックス」、シュレディンガーの「猫のパラドックス」の論文を生んだ。これらのパラドックスに応えようとして、1957年プリンストン大のPh.D.候補(Everett)が書いた論文「Many-Worlds Interpretation」は、「並行宇宙論(パラレルユニバース)」を生むきっかけとなった。この本の最終パートは、1957年のEverettの「Many-Worlds Interpretation」に関する議論で終わっている。そこで著者はこの「Many-Worlds Interpretation」では観測の度に世界が「増殖」されるという表現をしている。余談だが、この「増殖」に関して、Everettモデルに疑問を呈する研究者は、この考えでは「エネルギー保存則」が満たされないのではないか、と批判する。これに対して、このモデルの支持者は、世界が増殖する際に、枝分かれする各世界は量子力学的確率の重みを持ち、全体を総和すればエネルギー保存則は満たされていると説明しているようだ。もし私の理解が正しければ、この確率解釈によると、枝分かれした各世界の全エネルギーは単調に減少していくことになり、やがて消え去るのではないだろうか？これに対して、Everettモデルの流れをくむW.H. Zurekの「Quantum Darwinism」の理論では、世界は無制限に分岐するのではなく、ダーウイン進化論のような「淘汰」によって生き残る分岐の数は制限されるという理論が提案されており、これがEverettモデルから派生した多世界理論の主流のようだ。偉大なダーウインの考えは宇宙論から、心理学、言語学、そして量子論にまで染み渡っている。これを哲学者のDaniel Dennettは「ダーウインの危険なアイデア」と称している。

⭐

Keywords

Free Download Conceptual Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics: Second Edition (Advanced Books Classics) 2nd Edition in PDF format
Conceptual Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics: Second Edition (Advanced Books Classics) 2nd Edition PDF Free Download
Download Conceptual Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics: Second Edition (Advanced Books Classics) 2nd Edition 2018 PDF Free
Conceptual Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics: Second Edition (Advanced Books Classics) 2nd Edition 2018 PDF Free Download
Download Conceptual Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics: Second Edition (Advanced Books Classics) 2nd Edition PDF
Free Download Ebook Conceptual Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics: Second Edition (Advanced Books Classics) 2nd Edition