Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2011.11969

The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Post-War Italy's Cultural Context

Abstract

After World War II, a hyper-pragmatic paradigm was established in physics in most of the western countries, within which foundations of quantum mechanics were vastly dismissed as pointless speculations. In this paper, we show that in Italy, however, the interest toward quantum foundations was revived at the turn of the 1960s, mainly thanks to the initiative of Franco Selleri, who started criticising the contents and the practice of modern physics (in the context of capitalistic society), and thought that the solution was to be sought in a rethinking of the foundations of the discipline. In 1969, supported by Luis de Broglie himself, Selleri wrote a paper reviving the idea of hidden variables and he successfully proposed to the Italian Physical Society to devote the "Varenna School" of 1970 to quantum foundations. This school's historical pivotal importance is twofold: it gathered some of the most preeminent international physicists working on the foundations of quantum theory; and it provided a first platform for young physicists to express their dissatisfaction towards "scientism". In fact, Selleri's highly politicised views found the favour of a critical mass of young, left-wing physicists, who made of quantum foundations their main topic of research in the 1970s. Although these physicists understood very early the central importance of Bell's theorem, their (ideological) aim was to demonstrate that quantum theory could have limits of validity. Such a research program turned out to be unsuccessful, yet the Italian endeavour was worldwide one of the first and most significant revivals of the interest towards quantum foundations.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Flavio Del Santo. 2020-11-24. The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Post-War Italy's Cultural Context. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb%2F9780198844495.013.0026

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Niels Bohr in North America (1923) and his Meeting with Robert Frost

During the autumn of 1923, Niels Bohr stayed for about three months in Canada and the United States where he gave a series of lectures on atomic and quantum theory. This paper provides details about his many meetings and lectures. It deals in particular with his stay at Amherst College, where he had a long conversation with the celebrated poet Robert Frost. Based on new archival sources, the paper includes a more fine-grained and better documented version of the episode than the one offered by literary critics and scholars. It concludes, perhaps somewhat disappointingly, that the Bohr-Frost meeting was of no great importance to either the physicist or the poet.

physics.hist-ph

Gauge Matters More Than Curvature

Recent orthodoxy, which we call Curvature Fundamentalism, posits that the field strength $F$ on spacetime exhausts the physically significant content of electromagnetism, at least on prosaic (contractible) spacetimes. We argue that it is gauge invariance that constrains physical significance. As a result, there are physically significant quantities that $F$ does not capture, even on contractible spacetimes. We show that this result is robust: in the presence of charged matter fields, there are interference experiments whose outcome cannot be predicted by $F$ or any other point-local gauge invariant quantities on the basis of initial Cauchy data. We prove this using the example of relative phase of a Klein-Gordon-Maxwell field, and use it to identify a context in which the widely-claimed equivalence between the Maxwell-Faraday formulation $EM_1$ and the gauge formulation $EM_2$ of electromagnetism is untenable, and that new strategies may be needed for the reductionist project.

physics.hist-ph

Lorenz vs Lorentz. The controversy examined from the original texts

The attribution of the condition div A + (1/c^2) dPhi/dt = 0 has been under discussion since 1938 as a question of priority between Ludvig Lorenz and Hendrik Lorentz. This work argues that the problem is of a different nature, and that the discussion does not close because it has never been specified what is being attributed. Drawing on the three versions of the 1867 paper and on six further primary sources, it is documented that three separable acts have been designated under a single name: the obtaining of the relation between potentials, its imposition as a restriction on the admissible potentials, and its denomination as a gauge. It is further documented that in none of the three versions of the 1867 paper does the word potential appear, that the magnetic field does not figure in it as a quantity of the theory, and that the vocabulary in which that paper is described today enters the literature after it was written. It is concluded that the disjunction between the two denominations, posed without specifying which of the three acts is being attributed, is ill formed.

physics.hist-ph