Interpretations of QM in different countries

[DarMM]

More a sociological question.

I was talking to a former Japanese colleague by email recently and he mentioned that the Copenhagen interpretation is almost universally accepted there. I already knew Huzihiro Araki and many other researchers from Japan in mathematical field theory take a fairly orthodox Copenhagen view. I later found a quote by Rosenfeld:

"[In 1961] I had occasion to discuss Bohr's ideas with the great Japanese physicist [Yukawa], whose conception of the meson with its complementary aspects of elementary particle and field of nuclear force is one of the most striking illustrations of the fruitfulness of the new way of looking at things that we owe to Neils Bohr. I asked Yukawa whether the Japanese physicists had the same difficulty as their Western colleagues in assimilating the idea of complementarity ... He answered No, Bohr's argumentation has always appeared quite evident to us; ... you see, we in Japan have not been corrupted by Aristotle."
Rosenfeld, L., Physics Today 16, (Oct 1963), pg. 47.

This led me to wonder is there any accounts out there of how QM was received in different countries. I'd be particularly interested in Japan and China.

 

[vanhees71]

Great! The less one is corrupted by philosophy the less difficulties one has with unnecessary quibbles according to prejudices.

I'm not an expert about the interesting question, how general cultural traditions in different societies affect the general methodology of doing (theoretical) physics, but I always had the impression that the Japanese are more inclined to the mathematical approach and thus they are quite immune against philosophical gibbering compared to the europeans, particularly Germans, where a considerable portion of educated people are "against math".

 

[haushofer]

Wat on Earth is "being corrupted by philosophy"? And the other way around: can philosophy also be corrupted by physics? "Shut up and philosophise"?

More ontopic: maybe it depends on the philosophical background of Asian countries. Eastern philosophy varies drastically on certain topics from Western philosophies. :)

 

[almostvoid]

Great! The less one is corrupted by philosophy the less difficulties one has with unnecessary quibbles according to prejudices.

I'm not an expert about the interesting question, how general cultural traditions in different societies affect the general methodology of doing (theoretical) physics, but I always had the impression that the Japanese are more inclined to the mathematical approach and thus they are quite immune against philosophical gibbering compared to the europeans, particularly Germans, where a considerable portion of educated people are "against math".

oh dear, the thinkers pollute the purity of an imagined mathematical universe. What are humans doing investigating the nature of reality. Science emerged out of philosophical enquiry and the laboratory if the alchemists. Remember mathematics is symbolic abstractions computating imagined probabilities according to its own self defined limits. This is not to deny its value. Just that there are no absolutes.

 

[Demystifier]

Why is this thread in the textbook forum?

 

[atyy]

Why is this thread in the textbook forum?

Maybe there is no Japanese translation of Ballentine, so the Japanese haven't been corrupted by it ...

 

[DarMM]

Why is this thread in the textbook forum?

I'm looking for a textbook on the subject, a proper academic historical monograph.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

...that the Japanese are more inclined to the mathematical approach and thus they are quite immune against philosophical gibbering

Otto Robert Frisch in “What Little I Remember”:

"I remember an occasion when after a lengthy discussion on the fundamental problems of quantum theory a visitor said 'It makes me quite giddy to think about these problems.' Bohr immediately rounded on him and said 'But, but, but...if anybody says he can think about quantum theory without getting giddy it merely shows that he hasn't understood the first thing about it!' He never trusted a purely formal or mathematical argument. 'No, no' he would say 'You are not thinking; you are just being logical.'" [bold by LJ]

 

[vanhees71]

Well, my problem with Bohr is that he's usually not logical ;-))).

 

[vanhees71]

I'm looking for a textbook on the subject, a proper academic historical monograph.

You mean the history of QM? I guess the multi-volume work by Mehra and Rechenberg is (quite) comprehensive.

 

[DarMM]

You mean the history of QM? I guess the multi-volume work by Mehra and Rechenberg is (quite) comprehensive.

I know the historical development of the subject well enough, but if that volume deals with the theory in Asia it looks like what I was after. I found this which disagrees with Yukawa's remarks:
http://kenjiito.org/mywork/Itodissertation.pdf

 

[andresB]

It's probably naive to think that there is some form of uniformity in the Asian physicists's thought about QM. It's a mistake that people tend to make when dealing with eastern philosophies.

 

[DarMM]

It's probably naive to think that there is some form of uniformity in the Asian physicists's thought about QM. It's a mistake that people tend to make when dealing with eastern philosophies.

Of course. I'm just asking for a history book, not arguing for the uniformity of Asian thought.

 

[Demystifier]

Well, my problem with Bohr is that he's usually not logical ;-))).

Because he's (over)thinking.