Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 347–371 | Cite as

Niels Bohr’s Generalization of Classical Mechanics

  • Peter Bokulich
  • Alisa Bokulich
Article

Abstract

We clarify Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics by demonstrating the central role played by his thesis that quantum theory is a rational generalization of classical mechanics. This thesis is essential for an adequate understanding of his insistence on the indispensability of classical concepts, his account of how the quantum formalism gets its meaning, and his belief that hidden variable interpretations are impossible.

Keywords

Bohr Bohm quantum mechanics classical mechanics Copenhagen interpretation intertheoretic relations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    N. Bohr, “Introductory survey”, in Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, [1929] 1934), pp. 1–24. Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 6: Foundations of Quantum Physics I (1926–1932), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), pp. 279–302.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohr, N. 1976“On the application of the quantum theory to atomic problems: report to the third Solvay congress, April 1921”Nielsen, J. R. eds. Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 3: The Correspondence Principle (1918–1923)North-HollandAmsterdam364380Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohr, N. 1929“Wirkunsquantum und naturbeschreibung,”Naturwissenschafter17483486 Trans. into English as “The quantum of action and the description of nature,” in Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1934), pp. 92--101. Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 6: Foundations of Quantum Physics I (1926--1932), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), pp. 208--217. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Bohr, “Quantum physics and philosophy: causality and complementarity”, in Philosophy in the Mid-Century: A Survey, R. Klibansky, ed. (La Nuova Italia Editrice, Firenze, 1958), pp. 308–314. Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7: Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933–1958), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 388–394.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohr, N. 1925“Atomic theory and mechanics,”Nature(suppl.)116845852 Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 5: The Emergence of Quantum Mechanics (Mainly 1924--1926), K. Stolzenburg, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984), pp. 273--280. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bohr, N. 1939“The causality problem in atomic physics”, in New Theories in PhysicsInternational Institute of Intellectual Co-operationParis1130 Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7: Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933–1958), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 303–322. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Darrigol, O. 1997“Classical concepts in Bohr’s atomic theory (1913–1925)”Physis: Riv. Int. Storia della Sci.34545567Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bohr, N. 1948“On the notions of causality and complementarity”Dialectica2312319 Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7: Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933--1958), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 330--337.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Howard, “What makes a classical concept classical? Towards a reconstruction of Niels Bohr’s philosophy of physics”, in Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 153), J. Faye and H. Folse, eds. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 201–229.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bohr, N. 1931“Maxwell and modern theoretical physics,”Nature128691692Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 6: Foundations of Quantum Physics I (1926--1932), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), pp. 359--360.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faye, J.Folse, H. eds. 1994Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 153)Kluwer AcademicDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Tanona, “From correspondence to complementarity: the emergence of Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, (2002).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bohr, N. 1928“The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory,’Nature (suppl.)121580590Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 6: Foundations of Quantum Physics I (1926--1932), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), pp. 148--158. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. Bohr, “On the application of the quantum theory to atomic structure”, in Proc. of the Cambridge Philos. Soc. (suppl.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1924), pp. 1–42. Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 3: The Correspondence Principle (1918–1923), J. R. Nielsen, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1976), pp. 457–499.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nickles, T. 1973“Two concepts of intertheoretic reduction”J. Philos.70181201Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bokulich, A. 2004“Open or closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the relation between classical and quantum mechanics”Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys.35377396Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bohr, N., Rosenfeld, L. 1933“Zur frage der messbarkeit der elektomagnetischen feldgrssen”Mat.-fys. Medd. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk.12365Trans. into English as “On the question of the measurability of electromagnetic field quantities” in Selected Papers of Lon Rosenfeld, R. Cohen and J. Stachel, eds. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979), pp. 357--400. Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7: Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933--1958), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 123--166. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. Bohr, “Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics”, in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. VII), P. A. Schilpp, ed. (Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1949), pp. 201–241. Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7: Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933–1958), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 341–381.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bohr, N. 1958“On atoms and human knowledge,”Dædalus: Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci.87164175 Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7: Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933--1958), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 411--423.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Bokulich, “Horizons of description: black holes and complementarity”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame (2003).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Darrigol, O. 1991“Cohérence et complétude de la mécanique quantique: l’exemple de Bohr-Rosenfeld”Rev. d’Hist. Sci.44137179Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Dickson, “Quantum reference frames in the context of EPR”, Philosophy of Science, Supplemental Proceedings of PSA 2002 (forthcoming 2004).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bohr, N. 1935“Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,”Phys. Rev.48696702Reprinted in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7: Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933--1958), J. Kalckar, ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 292--298.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bohm, D. 1952“A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II”Phys. Rev. 85166179180–193Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kalkar, J. 1996“Editor’s introduction to Part II: Complementarity: Bedrock of the quantal description”, in Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7: Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933–1958)North-HollandAmsterdam249287Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cushing, J. T. 1994Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen HegemonyUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beller, M. 1999Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a RevolutionUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenfeld, L. 1953“Strife about complementarity,”Sci. Prog.41393410Reprinted in Selected Papers of Léon Rosenfeld, R. Cohen and J. Stachel, eds. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979), pp. 465--483.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bohm, D. 1985“On Bohr’s views concerning the quantum theory”French, A.Kennedy, P. eds. Niels Bohr: A Centenary VolumeHarvard University PressCambridge153159Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cushing, J. T. 1994“A Bohmian response to Bohr’s complementarity”Faye, J.Folse, H. eds. Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 153Kluwer AcademicDordrecht5775Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dibner Institute for the History of Science and TechnologyMassachusetts Institute for TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations