Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

ON THE UNIFICATION OF QUANTUM THEORY AND CLASSICAL PHYSICS

Henry Pierce Stapp

Published Jul 1, 1985• 2 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

A program is described for unifying quantum theory and classical physics on the basis of the Copenhagen-interpretation idea of external reality and a recently discovered classical part ofthe electromagnetic field.The program effects an integration of the intuitions of Heisenberg, Bohr, and Einstein.

Related papers

Introduction and overview

Stephen L. Adler

Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 26, 2004•2 citations

Some Thoughts on the Unification of Quantum and Classical Mechanics

Norman Graves

The paper discusses some of the issues related to the unification of quantum theory with classical theory with the aim of providing pointers as to how to go about achieving this.

•Jun 1, 2020•0 citations

The Dice of God: Einstein, Heisenberg, and Robert Coover

Arlen J. Hansen

The Fifth Solvay Conference, in Brussels in 1927, was a watershed in the history of modern physics. It separated the old revolutionaries from the young. There was Einstein, the inspiration of them all, the man who had upended the world by his startling discoveries twenty years earlier. Maintaining that classical mechanics could not explain the behavior of electromagnetic and light phenomena, had posited a relativistic mechanics and had confirmed it with his own application of non-Euclidean geometry. Newton's mechanics works here, said in effect, but not there, pointing to the electromagnetic phenomena addressed by Maxwell's theories. So, in one sense, Einstein's work in relativity was conservative: it salvaged much of Newton's theory by discovering the limits of its applicability. It may not be surprising, therefore, to find on the conservative side of the watershed in 1927. The young Turks, on the other side, clustered around the Danish physicist, Niels Bohr. Sometimes referred to as the Copenhagen group, Bohr, Max Born, and a young German, Werner Heisenberg, proposed some profoundly radical ideas-some inconceivable ideas which challenged the human imagination. The point of contention between and the Copenhagen group lay in the fact that quantum theory as developed by Bohr, Heisenberg, and others provides knowledge that is probabilistic. In Physics and Beyond Heisenberg recalls that Einstein would not admit that it was impossible, even in principle, to discover all the partial facts needed for a complete description of a physical process (New York, 1971, p. 80; hereafter PAB). Just prior to the 1927 conference Heisenberg had shown that knowing the location of an electron to a given degree of precision

NOVEL A Forum on Fiction•Jan 1, 1976•3 citations

The Theory of Quantum Relativity

Daniel Cordero Grau

In this Article I lay down the Theory of Quantum Relativity which unify Quantum Mechanics of Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg and Schrodinger and Relativity of Einstein

•Aug 1, 2017•0 citations

FUNCTIONS OF INTUITION IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

Brigitte Falkenburg

According to Kant, intuition is a non-logical mental form of representation, one that serves partly to idealize conceptual contents and partly to render them concrete. In performing this task, intuition fulfills the semantic function of giving sense and significance to formal concepts. With reference to Kant, Bohr and Heisenberg demand that abstract quantum theory be interpreted intuitively by means of complementary classical descriptions of phenomena. This interpretation rests on Bohr’s correspondence principle, which gives sense and significance to abstract quantum theory. Since today’s physics does not have consistent axiomatic foundations, Bohr’s principle is required as a bridge principle, in order to give a physical interpretation of quantum mechanical states with recourse to classical magnitudes. In the case of the Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory, by contrast, intuition merely has the function of making a complex theoretical calculus comprehensible by means of iconic representation.

•Jan 1, 2006•4 citations

The requirements of fundamental physical theory

P A M Dirac

The author discusses Heisenberg's approach to quantum theory and the associated Hamiltonian.

European Journal of Physics•Apr 1, 1984•43 citations
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.
The Fifth Solvay Conference, in Brussels in 1927, was a watershed in the history of modern physics. It separated the old revolutionaries from the young. There was Einstein, the inspiration of them all, the man who had upended the world by his startling discoveries twenty years earlier. Maintaining that classical mechanics could not explain the behavior of electromagnetic and light phenomena, had posited a relativistic mechanics and had confirmed it with his own application of non-Euclidean geometry. Newton's mechanics works here, said in effect, but not there, pointing to the electromagnetic phenomena addressed by Maxwell's theories. So, in one sense, Einstein's work in relativity was conservative: it salvaged much of Newton's theory by discovering the limits of its applicability. It may not be surprising, therefore, to find on the conservative side of the watershed in 1927. The young Turks, on the other side, clustered around the Danish physicist, Niels Bohr. Sometimes referred to as the Copenhagen group, Bohr, Max Born, and a young German, Werner Heisenberg, proposed some profoundly radical ideas-some inconceivable ideas which challenged the human imagination. The point of contention between and the Copenhagen group lay in the fact that quantum theory as developed by Bohr, Heisenberg, and others provides knowledge that is probabilistic. In Physics and Beyond Heisenberg recalls that Einstein would not admit that it was impossible, even in principle, to discover all the partial facts needed for a complete description of a physical process (New York, 1971, p. 80; hereafter PAB). Just prior to the 1927 conference Heisenberg had shown that knowing the location of an electron to a given degree of precision
According to Kant, intuition is a non-logical mental form of representation, one that serves partly to idealize conceptual contents and partly to render them concrete. In performing this task, intuition fulfills the semantic function of giving sense and significance to formal concepts. With reference to Kant, Bohr and Heisenberg demand that abstract quantum theory be interpreted intuitively by means of complementary classical descriptions of phenomena. This interpretation rests on Bohr’s correspondence principle, which gives sense and significance to abstract quantum theory. Since today’s physics does not have consistent axiomatic foundations, Bohr’s principle is required as a bridge principle, in order to give a physical interpretation of quantum mechanical states with recourse to classical magnitudes. In the case of the Feynman diagrams of quantum field theory, by contrast, intuition merely has the function of making a complex theoretical calculus comprehensible by means of iconic representation.