Abstract
Heisenberg’s seminal paper initiating quantum theory was written in July 1925. It is sometimes suggested that Einstein was initially unclear in his views on the theory; Pais1 suggests that he ‘vacillated.’ It seems more likely that he combined at much the same time great excitement about the mathematical content and potential of the theory, with growing concern that philosophical conclusions were being drawn from the theory that he found unacceptable. In March 1926 he wrote2 to Max Born’s wife that: ‘The Heisenberg-Born concepts leave us all breathless, and have made a deep impression on all theoretically oriented people. Instead of dull resignation, there is now a singular tension in us sluggish people.’ Indeed it must have been as exciting for Einstein as for any other physicist to perceive a clear mathematical route forward after the conceptual turmoil of the previous quarter-century. In 1912, Einstein1 had written: “The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks‘, and his feelings had probably not changed much during the 12 years before 1912 and the 13 afterwards up to 1925. Now at last it seemed that one could hope to study atoms and light from a well-defined theory rather than by guesswork and subterfuge, however brilliant.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Pais A. (1982). ’subtle is the Lord...’: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford: Clarendon.
Born M. (2005). The Born-Einstein Letters 1916–1955. 2nd edn., Houndmills: Macmillan.
Mehra J. (1975). Satyendra Nath Bose, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 21, 117–53.
Heisenberg W. (1972). Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. New York: Harper.
Forman P. (1971). Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory 1918–1927: Adaptation by German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile intellectual environment, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3, 1–117.
Hendry J. (1980). Weimar culture and quantum causality, History of Science 18, 155–80.
Moore W. (1989). Schrödinger: Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Przibram K. (ed.) (1967). Letters on Wave Mechanics. New York: Philosophical Library.
Born M. (1926). Zur Quantenmechanik der Stossvorgänge [On the quantum mechanics of collisions], Zeitschrift für Physik 37, 863–7.
Fine A. (1986). The Shaky Game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cushing J.T. (1994). Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Belousek D.W (1996). Einstein’s 1927 unpublished hidden-variable theory: Its background, content and significance, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27, 437–61.
Holland P. (2005). What’s wrong with Einstein’s 1927 hidden-variable interpretation of quantum mechanics? Foundations of Physics 35, 177–96.
von Neumann J. (1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Einstein A. (1949). Autobiographical notes, In: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, (Schilpp P.A., ed.) New York: Tudor, pp. 1–95.
Bohm D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of’ hidden variables’ I and II, Physical Review 85, 166–93.
Nelson E. (1966). Derivation of the Schrödinger equation from Newtonian mechanics, Physical Review 150, 1079–85.
Nelson E. (1985). Quantum Fluctuations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bacciagaluppi G. (1999). Nelsonian mechanics revisited, Foundations of Physics Letters 12, 1–16.
Bohr N. (1927). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory, Nature 121, 580–90.
Mehra J. (1975). The Solvay Conferences on Physics: Aspects of the Development of Physics since 1911. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Beller M. (1992). The birth of Bohr’s complementarity: The context and the dialogues, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 23, 147–80.
Holland P.R. (1993). The Quantum Theory of Motion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Broglie L. (1959). L’interprétation de la mécanique ondulatoire, Journal of Physics: Radium 20, 963–79.
de Broglie L. (1964). The Current Interpretation of Wave Mechanics: A Critical Study. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Norsen T. (2005). Einstein’s boxes, American Journal of Physics 73, 164–76.
Bohr N. (1949). Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, In: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. (Schilpp P.A., ed.) New York: Tudor, pp. 199–241.
Jammer M. (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Unruh W.G. and Opat G.J. (1979). The Bohr-Einstein ‘weighing of energy’ debate, American Journal of Physics 47, 143–4.
Ghirardi G.-C. (2005). Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
de la Torre A.C., Daleo A. and Garcia-Mata I. (2000). The photon-box: Einstein-Bohr debate demythologized, European Journal of Physics 21, 253–60.
Whitaker M.A.B. (2004). The EPR paper and Bohr’s response, Foundations of Physics 34, 1305–40.
Einstein A., Podolsky B. and Rosen N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47, 777–80.
Landsman N.P. (2006). When champions meet: rethinking the Bohr-Einstein debate, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37, 212–42.
Shimony A. (2005). Comment on Norsen”s defense of Einstein’s ‘box argument’, American Journal of Physics 73, 177–8.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Einstein’s Approaches to Quantum Theory 1925-1935. In: Einstein’s Struggles with Quantum Theory. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71520-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71520-9_5
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-71519-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-71520-9
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)