Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

simplicissimusrex OP t1_ixjoimz wrote

Whoo! Now I look at this in some detail in the QM chapter of the book. You may be aware that there's a dispute over that proof that it still going today! Jeffrey Bub and, separately, Dennis Dieks have argued that von Neumann never meant to rule out all possible hidden variables– only a subset of them. They claim what he was actually arguing was that a hidden variables theory couldn't have the same mathematical structure as his own ie they cannot be Hilbert space theories. And that's true: Bohmian mechanics isn't a Hilbert space theory.

To answer your question though...it's complicated (sorry). Von Neumann seems to have been open to the idea of hidden variable theories ie he didn't think they were mathematically suspect. But my gut feeling was that he didn't see the point of them!

However, he wasn't dismissive of Bohm as other physicists were. From my book:

>While Heisenberg and Pauli branded Bohm’s theory as ‘metaphysical’

or ‘ideological’, von Neumann was not dismissive, as Bohm

himself notes with some pride and more than a little relief. ‘It appears

that von Neumann has agreed that my interpretation is logically consistent

and leads to all results of the usual interpretation. (This I am

told by some people.)’ Bohm wrote to Pauli shortly before his theory

was published. ‘Also, he came to a talk of mine and did not raise any

objections.’

Bohm might have hoped for Einstein to embrace his ideas, which

restored both realism (particles exist at all times in Bohmian mechanics)

and determinism. Einstein was, however, less kind than von

Neumann. Disappointed that Bohm had not rid quantum mechanics

of ‘spooky action at a distance’ (which he could not abide) he privately

called Bohm’s theory ‘too cheap’.

24

fintech1 t1_ixjqaub wrote

Thank you for the detailed answer! It is a little sad that Grete Hermann rebuttal was ignored (possibly because of sexism?) until John Bell came along.

I just purchased the book and I’m looking forward to reading it!

12

simplicissimusrex OP t1_ixjs6pr wrote

Hermann was a remarkable person. Heisenberg devoted a full chapter of his autobiography to Hermann's arguments about causality in quantum mechanics! Thanks and hope you enjoy the book.

10

JanusLeeJones t1_ixl5sze wrote

I've seen it recently argued that it was more likely due to being published in philosophy journals and physicists never refer to philosophy journals.

5

simplicissimusrex OP t1_ixmc5ch wrote

I definitely think there's something in that. But the physicists of the 20s and 30s were far more interested in 'philosophical' issues and interpretation of QM than physicists now, though it's making a bit of a come back in certain circles.

Hermann did prepare the way with an essay which she sent to Bohr, heisenberg and others--and we know that Heisenberg and
von Weizsäcker read it, and met with her to discuss the essay. but her criticism of the 'no hidden variables' proof was just a small part of that essay and the resulting paper. She didn't seem to attach that much importance to it herself. There was a lot of sexism obviously but it's a mark of Hermann's intellect that she overcame even that and was taken very seriously.

But yes, she first published her thoughts in Abhandlugen der Fries’schen Schule, which was philosophy. When she was asked to send an edited version to Die Naturwissenschaften, which would certainly have been read widely by scientits, she left her criticism of von Neumann out....

5

JanusLeeJones t1_ixmiv36 wrote

Yes I wish she was encouraged to publish her von Neumann work in a physics journal. In any case, I was quite impressed to see her show up in Heisenberg's Physics and Beyond (I think that was the book) as a someone Heisenberg found worthy to write about, and discuss her ideas seriously.

2