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

American Journal of Physics

Comments on “Quantum Fact and Fiction III”

J. Dwayne Hamilton

Published Jul 1, 1970• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1119/1.1976507

Related papers

Quantum Fact and Fiction III

Alfred Landé

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•0 citations

Quantum Fact and Fiction. II

Alfred Landé

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•0 citations

Quantum fact and fiction. IV

Alfred Landé

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•0 citations

Quantum Fact and Fiction

Alfred Landé

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•0 citations

QUANTUM FACT AND FICTION

David K. Nartonis

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Dec 1, 1974•1 citation

Quantum Fact and Fiction III

Alfred Landé

Part III of this series [A. Landé, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 123 (1965), and 34, 160 (1966), quoted as Parts I and II] continues the critique of the customary interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is directed against the idea that electrons, in opposition to the Born statistical particle interpretation of the wave function, are “wavicles.” Serious conceptual and elementary mathematical defects in Bohr's famous “Discussion with Einstein” are pointed out. The doctrine that position q and momentum p of a particle are blurred over an uncertainty range because both allegedly cannot be measured simultaneously, that q and p do not exist simultaneously, is due to a confusion of analogy with identity of qualities. In its second part, the paper offers a nonquantal derivation of the probability interference law as a necessity under the postulate that the general interdependence between probabilities is to become the ordinary probability addition law in the average. The wave picture of matter violates the postulate of relativity.

American Journal of Physics•May 1, 1969•9 citations
Part III of this series [A. Landé, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 123 (1965), and 34, 160 (1966), quoted as Parts I and II] continues the critique of the customary interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is directed against the idea that electrons, in opposition to the Born statistical particle interpretation of the wave function, are “wavicles.” Serious conceptual and elementary mathematical defects in Bohr's famous “Discussion with Einstein” are pointed out. The doctrine that position q and momentum p of a particle are blurred over an uncertainty range because both allegedly cannot be measured simultaneously, that q and p do not exist simultaneously, is due to a confusion of analogy with identity of qualities. In its second part, the paper offers a nonquantal derivation of the probability interference law as a necessity under the postulate that the general interdependence between probabilities is to become the ordinary probability addition law in the average. The wave picture of matter violates the postulate of relativity.