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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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
N. Bohr (1929) ArticleTitle“Wirkunsquantum und naturbeschreibung,” Naturwissenschafter 17 483–486
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.
N. Bohr (1925) ArticleTitle“Atomic theory and mechanics,” Nature(suppl.) 116 845–852
N. Bohr (1939) “The causality problem in atomic physics”, in New Theories in Physics International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation Paris 11–30
O. Darrigol (1997) ArticleTitle“Classical concepts in Bohr’s atomic theory (1913–1925)” Physis: Riv. Int. Storia della Sci. 34 545–567
N. Bohr (1948) ArticleTitle“On the notions of causality and complementarity” Dialectica 2 312–319
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.
N. Bohr (1931) ArticleTitle“Maxwell and modern theoretical physics,” Nature 128 IssueID3234 691–692
J. Faye H. Folse (Eds) (1994) Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 153) Kluwer Academic Dordrecht
S. Tanona, “From correspondence to complementarity: the emergence of Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University, (2002).
N. Bohr (1928) ArticleTitle“The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory,’ Nature (suppl.) 121 580–590
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.
T. Nickles (1973) ArticleTitle“Two concepts of intertheoretic reduction” J. Philos. 70 IssueID7 181–201
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
N. Bohr L. Rosenfeld (1933) ArticleTitle“Zur frage der messbarkeit der elektomagnetischen feldgrssen” Mat.-fys. Medd. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. 12 3–65
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.
N. Bohr (1958) ArticleTitle“On atoms and human knowledge,” Dædalus: Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 87 IssueID2 164–175
P. Bokulich, “Horizons of description: black holes and complementarity”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame (2003).
O. Darrigol (1991) ArticleTitle“Cohérence et complétude de la mécanique quantique: l’exemple de Bohr-Rosenfeld” Rev. d’Hist. Sci. 44 IssueID2 137–179
M. Dickson, “Quantum reference frames in the context of EPR”, Philosophy of Science, Supplemental Proceedings of PSA 2002 (forthcoming 2004).
N. Bohr (1935) ArticleTitle“Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,” Phys. Rev. 48 696–702
D. Bohm (1952) ArticleTitle“A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II” Phys. Rev. 85 166–179
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
J. T. Cushing (1994) Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony University of Chicago Press Chicago
M. Beller (1999) Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution University of Chicago Press Chicago
L. Rosenfeld (1953) ArticleTitle“Strife about complementarity,” Sci. Prog. 41 393–410
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-1979-5