000			03682cam a2200469 a 4500
001			ocm30034498
003			OCoLC
005			20251028093234.0
008			940218s1994 ilua b 001 0 eng
010			_a 94008427
035			_a(Sirsi) i9780226132020
040			_aDLC _beng _cDLC _dUKM _dSDA _dBAKER _dNLGGC _dBTCTA _dLVB _dYDXCP _dOCLCG _dHEBIS _dOCLCQ _dZWZ _dDEBBG _dBDX _dPSM _dVF$
015			_aGB94-87490
019			_a33043197
020			_a0226132021 (acid-free paper)
020			_a9780226132020 (acid-free paper)
020			_a0226132048 (pbk. : acid-free paper)
020			_a9780226132044 (pbk. : acid-free paper)
035			_a(OCoLC)30034498 _z(OCoLC)33043197
050	0	0	_aQC 173.98 _b.C87 1994
049			_aVF$A
100	1		_aCushing, James T., _d1937-
245	1	0	_aQuantum mechanics : _bhistorical contingency and the Copenhagen hegemony / _cJames T. Cushing.
260			_aChicago : _bUniversity of Chicago Press, _cc1994.
300			_axvi, 317 p. : _bill. ; _c24 cm.
490	1		_aScience and its conceptual foundations
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 273-300) and indexes.
505	0		_aTheory construction and selection -- Formalism, interpretation, and understanding -- Standard quantum theory -- Bohm's quantum theory -- Alternative interpretations: an illustration -- Opposing commitments, opposing schools -- Competition and forging Copenhagen -- Early attempts at causal theories: a stillborn program -- The fate of Bohm's program -- An alternative scenario? -- Lessons.
520			_aWhy does one theory "succeed" while another, possibly equally clear and robust, fails? By exploring two observationally equivalent yet conceptually incompatible views of quantum mechanics, James T. Cushing shows how historical contingency can be crucial in determining a theory's construction and its position among competing views. Since the late 1920s, the theory formulated by Niels Bohr and his colleagues at Copenhagen has been the dominant interpretation of quantum mechanics. Yet an alternative interpretation, rooted in the work of Louis de Broglie in the early 1920s and reformulated and extended by David Bohm and his colleagues in the 1950s, explains the observational data equally well. Through a detailed historical and sociological study of the physicists who developed different theories of quantum mechanics, the debates within and between opposing camps, and the reception given each theory, Cushing shows that despite the preeminence of the Copenhagen view, the Bohm interpretation cannot be ignored. Cushing contends that the Copenhagen interpretation became widely accepted not because it is a better explanation of subatomic phenomena than Bohm's but because it happened to appear first. Focusing on the philosophical, social, and cultural forces that have shaped one of the most important developments in modern physics, this provocative book examines the role that timing can play in the establishment of theory and explanation.
650		0	_aQuantum theory _xHistory.
653	0		_aQuantum theory _aHistory
830		0	_aScience and its conceptual foundations.
856	4	2	_3Publisher description _uhttp://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/description/uchi051/94008427.html
856	4	1	_3Table of contents _uhttp://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/uchi051/94008427.html
938			_aBaker & Taylor _bBKTY _c85.00 _d85.00 _i0226132021 _n0002463658 _sactive
938			_aBaker & Taylor _bBKTY _c35.00 _d35.00 _i0226132048 _n0002463659 _sactive
938			_aBaker and Taylor _bBTCP _n94008427
938			_aYBP Library Services _bYANK _n129293
938			_aBrodart _bBROD _n47455845 _c$27.00
994			_aC0 _bVF$
999			_c131755 _d131755