Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Niels Bohr’s Generalization of Classical Mechanics

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

  2. N. Bohr (1976) “On the application of the quantum theory to atomic problems: report to the third Solvay congress, April 1921” J. R. Nielsen (Eds) Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 3: The Correspondence Principle (1918–1923) North-Holland Amsterdam 364–380

    Google Scholar 

  3. N. Bohr (1929) ArticleTitle“Wirkunsquantum und naturbeschreibung,” Naturwissenschafter 17 483–486

    Google Scholar 

  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.

  5. N. Bohr (1925) ArticleTitle“Atomic theory and mechanics,” Nature(suppl.) 116 845–852

    Google Scholar 

  6. N. Bohr (1939) “The causality problem in atomic physics”, in New Theories in Physics International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation Paris 11–30

    Google Scholar 

  7. O. Darrigol (1997) ArticleTitle“Classical concepts in Bohr’s atomic theory (1913–1925)” Physis: Riv. Int. Storia della Sci. 34 545–567

    Google Scholar 

  8. N. Bohr (1948) ArticleTitle“On the notions of causality and complementarity” Dialectica 2 312–319

    Google Scholar 

  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.

  10. N. Bohr (1931) ArticleTitle“Maxwell and modern theoretical physics,” Nature 128 IssueID3234 691–692

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Faye H. Folse (Eds) (1994) Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 153) Kluwer Academic Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. Tanona, “From correspondence to complementarity: the emergence of Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, (2002).

  13. N. Bohr (1928) ArticleTitle“The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory,’ Nature (suppl.) 121 580–590

    Google Scholar 

  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.

  15. T. Nickles (1973) ArticleTitle“Two concepts of intertheoretic reduction” J. Philos. 70 IssueID7 181–201

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Bokulich (2004) ArticleTitle“Open or closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the relation between classical and quantum mechanics” Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 35 377–396

    Google Scholar 

  17. N. Bohr L. Rosenfeld (1933) ArticleTitle“Zur frage der messbarkeit der elektomagnetischen feldgrssen” Mat.-fys. Medd. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. 12 3–65

    Google Scholar 

  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.

  19. N. Bohr (1958) ArticleTitle“On atoms and human knowledge,” Dædalus: Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 87 IssueID2 164–175

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. Bokulich, “Horizons of description: black holes and complementarity”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame (2003).

  21. O. Darrigol (1991) ArticleTitle“Cohérence et complétude de la mécanique quantique: l’exemple de Bohr-Rosenfeld” Rev. d’Hist. Sci. 44 IssueID2 137–179

    Google Scholar 

  22. M. Dickson, “Quantum reference frames in the context of EPR”, Philosophy of Science, Supplemental Proceedings of PSA 2002 (forthcoming 2004).

  23. N. Bohr (1935) ArticleTitle“Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,” Phys. Rev. 48 696–702

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. Bohm (1952) ArticleTitle“A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II” Phys. Rev. 85 166–179

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. Kalkar (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-Holland Amsterdam 249–287

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. T. Cushing (1994) Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony University of Chicago Press Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Beller (1999) Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution University of Chicago Press Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  28. L. Rosenfeld (1953) ArticleTitle“Strife about complementarity,” Sci. Prog. 41 393–410

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. Bohm (1985) “On Bohr’s views concerning the quantum theory” A. French P. Kennedy (Eds) Niels Bohr: A Centenary Volume Harvard University Press Cambridge 153–159

    Google Scholar 

  30. J. T. Cushing (1994) “A Bohmian response to Bohr’s complementarity” J. Faye H. Folse (Eds) Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 153 Kluwer Academic Dordrecht 57–75

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Peter Bokulich

  2. Department of Philosophy, Boston University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Alisa Bokulich

Authors
  1. Peter Bokulich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alisa Bokulich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Bokulich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bokulich, P., Bokulich, A. Niels Bohr’s Generalization of Classical Mechanics. Found Phys 35, 347–371 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1979-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1979-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation