Philosophical relativism, which denies objectivity and undermines causality, has been a constant feature of ideological struggle in this century, especially in mystifying science and undercutting belief in social progress through scientific understanding. Surprisingly, while the relativist attack has been led by culture critics, they have been able to claim support from the writings of some of the leading scientists themselves, especially in quantum theory. While current quantum theory yields a highly accurate representation of reality, it has been interpreted to deny objectivity and causality. Einstein fought throughout his life against these relativist interpretations, associated especially with the views of Bohr and Heisenberg. It is only in the last few years that Einstein has been largely vindicated by new experimental and theoretical developments, and by a fuller understanding of how the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr came to dominate the conventional wisdom.
Philosophical relativism, which denies objectivity and undermines causality, has been a constant feature of ideological struggle in this century, especially in mystifying science and undercutting belief in social progress through scientific understanding. Surprisingly, while the relativist attack has been led by culture critics, they have been able to claim support from the writings of some of the leading scientists themselves, especially in quantum theory. While current quantum theory yields a highly accurate representation of reality, it has been interpreted to deny objectivity and causality. Einstein fought throughout his life against these relativist interpretations, associated especially with the views of Bohr and Heisenberg. It is only in the last few years that Einstein has been largely vindicated by new experimental and theoretical developments, and by a fuller understanding of how the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr came to dominate the conventional wisdom.
The political attitude and the ideology of a very small elite of physicists (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and view other) played a major role in the construction of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics in the 1920s.Lastly, the hegemonic standard acausal Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics abandoned the principle of causality in quantum mechanics and opened a very wide door to mysticism, logical fallacies and wishful thinking in physics and in science as such.Historically, the Second International Congress for the Unity of Science (Copenhagen, June 21-26, 1936) tried to solve the problem of causality within physics but without a success.Thus far, 80 years after the Second International Congress for the Unity of Science this publication will expel Bohr's and Heisenberg's dogma of non-causality out of quantum mechanics and re-establish the unrestricted validity of the principle of causality at quantum level and under conditions of relativity theory by mathematizing the relationship between cause and effect in the form of the mathematical formula of the causal relationship k.In contrast to Bohr, Heisenberg and other representatives of the Copenhagen interpretation quantum mechanics, a realistic interpretation of quantum theory grounded on the unrestricted validity of the principle of causality will expel any kind of mysticism from physics and enable a quantization of the gravitational field too.
The surprising thing is that the most successful scientific field of the century is quantum physics, and quantum physics in its most orthodox interpretation is decidedly anti-realist. At least that is what Niels Bohr, the foremost thinker in the field, said explicitly: "an independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation." Many philosophers, however, would cringe at the thought that any form of relativism may be considered sensible. Their support for realism stems in part from the belief that the alternative to realism is relativism and that relativism is incoherent. Likewise at the level of science, a view may allow the bat such striking success in dealing with certain difficult questions that the bat adopts it as his means of viewing that entire area of experience.
For over nine decades, quantum mechanics has profoundly shaped our understanding of nature, offering explanations for the stability of atoms, the formation of mole cules, the properties of materials, and phenomena such as light or radioactivity. It is essential to modern technologies—from microchips to lasers—and underpins the physics of elementary particles. Yet, despite its successes, it remains a deeply mysterious theory, confronting a central enigma: why does the quantum world behave so differently from everyday reality? Elements such as superposition and quantum entanglement—which allow particles to exist simultaneously in multiple states or remain interconnected regardless of distance—contradict classical world intuitions. This gap between microscopic and macroscopic behavior has given rise to what is known as the “measurement problem,” raising fundamental questions about the nature of reality. Diverging interpretations have led to two major schools of thought: anti-realism, promoted by Niels Bohr, which holds that reality depends on the observer and their interaction with measurement instruments; and realism, supported by Albert Einstein, which argues that quantum mechanics is incomplete and that eality exists independently of observation. Bohr’s complementary philosophy and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle were central to the formulation of the “Copenhagen interpretation,” which became dominant in the 20th century. However, the persistent opposition of scientists like Einstein and Schrödinger inspired generations of physicists to seek a unification between quantum mechanics and relativity, culminating in new theories such as loop quantum gravity and string theory. Thus, the debate between realism and anti-realism remains alive, and philosophy continues to play a crucial role in exploring the new foundations of physics.
The debate between Bohr and Einstein on the consistency, completeness, and finality of quantum theory ranks as one of the most significant philosophical debates of the twentieth century. It was a philosophical debate not in the sense that it had a considerable impact on the relatively technical field of the philosophy of physics. It was philosophical because at its root there lay two rival conceptions of physical reality and of our capacity to comprehend physical reality. With the possible exception of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence in which Leibniz and Clarke - with the latter acting as Newton's frontman - pressed their respective conceptions of space and time in the early part of the eighteenth century, the Einstein-Bohr dialogue has no parallel in the history of physics. Unlike the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, the Bohr-Einstein debate contained no bitterness and was not based on any personal rivalry. The debate was continuous from about 1927 and lasted right up to Einstein's death in 1955. For the contemporary philosopher of physics the most important episodes took place in the years between 1927 and 1935. However, in one respect at least the differences between Bohr and Einstein predated quantum mechanics itself. One is tempted to view the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein as the opposition of Bohr the revolutionary and Einstein the conservative, and in his best and clearest account of it Bohr certainly writes as if that were so.
Abstract The confrontation between Einstein and Bohr over the interpretation of quantum theory has been painted in the past as a direct conflict between realism and positivism. However, more recent attempts to uncover the philosophical positions of both Einstein and Bohr have revealed that these were not so black and white. Einstein’s realism was conditioned by the strong empiricist influence in his own early experiences as a theorist and the growing wariness that led him eventually to reject Machian positivism. His was a realism born of a sense of necessity: a belief that a realist stance is the only one that leads to productive theorizing about the physical world. Bohr’s philosophy went through some quite marked changes, principally in response to Einstein’s challenges. The father of modem atomic theory could hardly subscribe to an uncompromising positivist position that rejected the reality of atoms. But the reality of the inner workings of those atoms was, Bohr contended, beyond the reach of a knowledge founded on complementary classical concepts of waves and particles. As Einstein’s challenges became deeper and more subtle, so Bohr’s position shifted to that of a distinctive anti-realism. Add to this a rhetoric in Bohr’s speeches and published writings that insisted on the logical inevitability of the Copenhagen interpretation, that insisted on its status as the only feasible interpretation, and that countenanced no other alternative, and you have dogma in the making. Heisenberg called it ‘Kopen hagener Geist der Quantentheorie’, the Copenhagen spirit of quantum theory which, he declared in 1930, ‘has directed the entire development of modem atomic physics’. Einstein frequently referred to the Copenhagen doctrine as ‘Talmudic’.
At the close of the nineteenth century, we stood on the threshold of one of the greatest periods of science, in which the entire world and understanding of science would be shaken to the core and greatly modified. This explosion of knowledge led ultimately to that same information revolution that we live in today. Planck and Einstein showed that light was not continuous but made of small corpuscles that today we call photons. Einstein changed the understanding of mechanics with his theory of relativity: airplanes became conceivable; radio and television blossomed; and the microelectronics industry, which drives most of modern technology, came into being. New areas of science were greatly expanded and developed, and one of these was quantum mechanics, which is the story to be told here. Yet, the development of quantum mechanics and the leadership of Niels Bohr have distorted the understanding of quantum mechanics in a strange way. There are some who would say that Bohr set back the real understanding of quantum mechanics by half a century. I believe they underestimate his role, and it may be something more like a full century. Whether we call it the Copenhagen interpretation, or the Copenhagen orthodoxy, it is the how for the continuing mysticism provided by Mach that is still remaining in quantum mechanics. It is not the why. Why it perseveres and why it was forced on the field in the first place is an important perception to be studied. In this book, I want to trace the development of quantum mechanics and try to uncover the why.