What is the best book that covers all the various interpretations of quantum mechanics? Thanks
Dirac has the correct interpretation. I don't know which book best covers the various wrong interpretations.
this one only talks about Everett's Many worlds interpretation but its one of the most interesting one :D
a quick search on amazon.com and got this
Take a look at the contents see if its what you want
The most comprehensive book on interpretations (NB not a singe interpretation but the most well known ones) is Max Jammer's https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Q...sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259818171&sr=1-1". It's out of print but used copies are available (if pricy) and of course it should be in most reasonable libraries.
In his http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/10194741"?
$624.93! Wow, I will have to find it in a library. Thank you, though
There are used copies for much less
His seems to be an instrumentalist. From his Principles of Quantum Mechanics pg. 10, when discussing the superposition of a photon into different polarization states, mentions that
I talked to a professor at the U. of Arizona, and he said all these book are better than Jammer's:
based on the OP
Jammer, among the books that have been thus far mentioned in this thread, is the only one that actually meets the criteria set out; although, Whitaker does have some coverage in a chapter of other interpretations.
Apparently in discussions with the professor at U. of Arizona some other criteria were elicited that resulted in the three recommendations that you mentioned. Since you're around U. Arizona you can surely look at all these and if you're more towards history and the arising of the currently dominant view of QM then perhaps https://www.amazon.com/Inward-Bound...sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259892474&sr=1-1" might also be of interest.
He also said Whitaker's is the most mathematical out of the three he recommended. Also, he said:
Jammer is a very good book, but it was published in 1974, and thus has nothing about more modern interpretations and refinements of intrepretations (Hartle, Griffiths (Not that Griffiths!), Omnes, Zurek, etc.). Also, many foundational experiments have been performed since 1974.
I like Whitaker, but I think that he favours Bohm's interpretation. I also like Hughes, but I, too, don't think that it is the book for which you are looking. There is a nice sentence in Hughes's preface:
I have not looked at Entanglement, Information, and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Gregg Jaeger,
but it appears to be interesting.
Before reading any of these, I recommend reading the short book Lectures on Quantum Theory: Mathematical and Structural Foundations by C. J. Isham,
cover to cover. Some of it will be review, but it will give you a fresh perspective on many things.
How do you guys like http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003321/" [Broken]? A philosopher of physics recommended it to me, saying it is the best.
Aharonov and Rohrlich's "Quantum Paradoxes: A Guide for the Perplexed" is quite fun. Doesn't cover all interpretations, but does treat many worlds which they dislike, but acknowledge to be correct.
https://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Mechanics-Empiricist-Approach-Fundamental/dp/1402009321 by de Muynck seems pretty interesting. Does anyone know this book?
A good introductory text to the subject would be http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Qu...m/e/9780195342505/?itm=1&USRI=quantum+enigma" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner. The book discusses the basics of physics needed to gain a decent understanding of quantum mechanics, as well as the historical aspects that led scientists to embrace quantum mechanics. Plenty of diagrams and analogies aid in the understanding of the topic.
Though not centrally focused on Quantum Mechanics, http://http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Quantum-Enigma/Bruce-Rosenblum/e/9780195342505/?itm=1&USRI=quantum+enigma" [Broken] by Briane Greene discusses the topic in depth in a few chapters, also explaining and presenting evidence for String Theory. A bit of a read compared to the previous text I mentioned, but a good one nonetheless.
Separate names with a comma.