Niels Bohr's Drastic Revision of Physics | David Albert & Tim Maudlin

Robinson's Podcast #210 - David Albert & Tim Maudlin: Niels Bohr, Measurement, & Quantum Mechanics

David Albert is the Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, director of the Philosophical Foundations of Physics program at Columbia, and a faculty member of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics. Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at NYU and Founder and Director of the JBI. This is David’s seventh appearance on Robinson’s Podcast. He last appeared on episode 189 with Barry Loewer to talk about the Mentaculus, their joint project on the foundations of statistical mechanics. This is Tim’s sixth appearance on the show. He last appeared on episode 188 with Sheldon Goldstein to discuss Bohmian mechanics. Tim and David last joined Robinson together for episode 67, which gave an overview of the foundations of quantum mechanics. In this episode, Robinson, David, and Tim talk about the measurement problem, the role of philosophy in physics, various thought experiments, like Schrödinger’s cat and Wigner’s friend, and Niels Bohr’s effects both on quantum mechanics and the philosophy of science. If you’re interested in the foundations of physics, then please check out the JBI, which is devoted to providing a home for research and education in this important area. Any donations are immensely helpful at this early stage in the institute’s life.

Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, and everyone in-between.

[BrotherM-cotj]

David Albert offers a valuable perspective on Bohr's take on QM -- which is that it was constrained by the attempt to require that it be explained in classical terms. This led Bohr and his supporters down a path that was dismissive of, and ultimately suppressive of efforts to understand the foundations of QM and "what's really happening." The impact of this school of thought has been huge, and in my view has been detrimental towards the development of the kind of "explanatory science" about how the universe works that for most of us is why we got interested in science to begin with.

I think Maudlin took Albert's initial comments for a left turn down a fairly unproductive path, and largely deflected the conversation away from what could have been a really interesting discussion.