388
M. Svrˇ cek
quantum physics, eliminating also Everett’s interpretation [17], since its basic stipulation presupposes a deterministic quantum mechanical wave function of the whole
Universe. The Bohm—de Broglie interpretation [14] was already outdated by Bohm
himself, when he formulated several additional requirements [15, 16] that a true
quantum interpretation must fulfil.
So the final verdict reads: From all the known conceptions of microscopic theories
of nature only the Copenhagen interpretation has the ability to incorporate teleological phenomena via the megascopic mirroring of each of its basic axioms, and in that
way squaring up with all the universal paradoxes discussed here.
Acknowledgements The author would like to express his greatest appreciation to E. Brändas for
his careful reading of the manuscript, offering many linguistic improvements, as well as extensive
constructive suggestions for valuable reformulations.
References
1. Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N (1935) Phys Rev 47:777–780
2. Bell JS (1964) Physics 1:195–200
3. Born M, Oppenheimer R (1927) Ann Phys (Leipzig) 84:457
4. Sutcliffe B, Woolley RG (2013) Progr Theoret Chem Phys 27(Part 1):3–40 (Springer)
5. Monkhorst HJ (1999) Int J Quantum Chem 72:281
6. Monkhorst HJ (1987) Phys Rev A 36:1544
7. Born M, Huang K (1954) The dynamical theory of crystal lattices. Oxford University Press,
London
8. Kutzelnigg W (1997) Mol Phys 90:909
9. Cafiero M, Adamowicz L (2004) Chem Phys Lett 387:136–141
10. Jahn HA, Teller E (1937) Proc R Soc Lond A 161:220
11. Köppel H, Domcke W, Cederbaum LS (1984) Adv Chem Phys 57:59
12. Bersuker IB, Polinger BZ (1983) Vibronic interactions in molecules and crystals. Nauka,
Moscow (in Russian)
13. Santilli RM (1967) Nuovo Cimento 51:570
14. Bohm D (1952) Phys Rev 85:166–179
15. Bohm D (1980) Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge Classics, London, New York
16. Sheldrake R, Bohm D (1982) Morphogenetic fields and the implicate order. ReVision 5:41
17. Everett H (1957) Rev Mod Phys 29:454
18. Norton JD (2015) The measurement problem. Selected courses in history and philosophy of
science. University of Pittsburgh
19. Einstein A (1949) Reply to criticisms in Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist. The library of
living philosophers series. Cambridge University Press
20. Carpenter RHS, Anderson AJ (2006) Ann Fond Louis Broglie 31:1
21. Schreiber Z (1995) The nine lives of Schrödinger’s cat. arXiv:9501014 [quant-ph]
22. Schlosshauer M, Camilleri K (2011) AIP Conf Proc 1327:26–35
23. Bohr N (1985) Collected works. In: Kalckar J (ed) Foundations of quantum mechanics I
(1926–1932), vol 6. North-Holland, Amsterdam
24. Heisenberg W (1958) Physics and philosophy. Harper & Bros, New York
25. Heelan P (1975) Z Allg Wiss 6:113–138
26. Heisenberg W (1952) Questions of principle in modern physics. Philosophic problems in
nuclear science. Faber and Faber, London, pp 41–52
M. Svrˇ cek
quantum physics, eliminating also Everett’s interpretation [17], since its basic stipulation presupposes a deterministic quantum mechanical wave function of the whole
Universe. The Bohm—de Broglie interpretation [14] was already outdated by Bohm
himself, when he formulated several additional requirements [15, 16] that a true
quantum interpretation must fulfil.
So the final verdict reads: From all the known conceptions of microscopic theories
of nature only the Copenhagen interpretation has the ability to incorporate teleological phenomena via the megascopic mirroring of each of its basic axioms, and in that
way squaring up with all the universal paradoxes discussed here.
Acknowledgements The author would like to express his greatest appreciation to E. Brändas for
his careful reading of the manuscript, offering many linguistic improvements, as well as extensive
constructive suggestions for valuable reformulations.
References
1. Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N (1935) Phys Rev 47:777–780
2. Bell JS (1964) Physics 1:195–200
3. Born M, Oppenheimer R (1927) Ann Phys (Leipzig) 84:457
4. Sutcliffe B, Woolley RG (2013) Progr Theoret Chem Phys 27(Part 1):3–40 (Springer)
5. Monkhorst HJ (1999) Int J Quantum Chem 72:281
6. Monkhorst HJ (1987) Phys Rev A 36:1544
7. Born M, Huang K (1954) The dynamical theory of crystal lattices. Oxford University Press,
London
8. Kutzelnigg W (1997) Mol Phys 90:909
9. Cafiero M, Adamowicz L (2004) Chem Phys Lett 387:136–141
10. Jahn HA, Teller E (1937) Proc R Soc Lond A 161:220
11. Köppel H, Domcke W, Cederbaum LS (1984) Adv Chem Phys 57:59
12. Bersuker IB, Polinger BZ (1983) Vibronic interactions in molecules and crystals. Nauka,
Moscow (in Russian)
13. Santilli RM (1967) Nuovo Cimento 51:570
14. Bohm D (1952) Phys Rev 85:166–179
15. Bohm D (1980) Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge Classics, London, New York
16. Sheldrake R, Bohm D (1982) Morphogenetic fields and the implicate order. ReVision 5:41
17. Everett H (1957) Rev Mod Phys 29:454
18. Norton JD (2015) The measurement problem. Selected courses in history and philosophy of
science. University of Pittsburgh
19. Einstein A (1949) Reply to criticisms in Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist. The library of
living philosophers series. Cambridge University Press
20. Carpenter RHS, Anderson AJ (2006) Ann Fond Louis Broglie 31:1
21. Schreiber Z (1995) The nine lives of Schrödinger’s cat. arXiv:9501014 [quant-ph]
22. Schlosshauer M, Camilleri K (2011) AIP Conf Proc 1327:26–35
23. Bohr N (1985) Collected works. In: Kalckar J (ed) Foundations of quantum mechanics I
(1926–1932), vol 6. North-Holland, Amsterdam
24. Heisenberg W (1958) Physics and philosophy. Harper & Bros, New York
25. Heelan P (1975) Z Allg Wiss 6:113–138
26. Heisenberg W (1952) Questions of principle in modern physics. Philosophic problems in
nuclear science. Faber and Faber, London, pp 41–52