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

How Physics Confronts Reality: Einstein Was Correct, But Bohr Won the Game

Andrew Whitaker

Published Jul 28, 2009• 6 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

This article reviews How Physics Confronts Reality: Einstein was Correct but Bohr Won the Game by Roger G. Newton . 147 pp. , Singapore, 2009. Price: $54(cloth) ISBN 978-981-4277-02-0; $29.95(paper) ISBN 978-981-4277-03-7.

Related papers

Einstein and Bohr and the Nature of Reality

Norman Graves

Arguably the most important scientific debate of the 20th Century was that which took place between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr over the nature of reality. Bohr argued that reality was subjective in nature and therefore depended on the presence of an observer or observing process, while Einstein argued that reality had to be objective. The debate was never resolved, ending prematurely with Einstein's death in 1955. Having outlived Einstein, Bohr's ideas have come to dominate modern physics and Einstein has been somewhat sidelined. Perhaps now it is time to revisit the debate to see if Einstein was correct all along.

•May 1, 2015•0 citations

The Copenhagen interpretation (II): Einstein versus Bohr

Peter Gibbins

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 25, 1987•0 citations

Comparative Analysis on the Physical Realities Of Einstein And Bohr

Huang Ji

Einstein and Bohr are all realists, holding the view of physical reali ty. Einstein thinks that physical reality is localizable, separable, and causall y deterministic; however, Bohr holds that physical reality is illocalizable, ins eparable and statistically deterministic.

•Jan 1, 2004•0 citations

Bohr or Einstein?

Andrew Whitaker

In this last chapter I shall attempt a very brief assessment of the Bohr–Einstein debate. Who won it in the view of the audience? Who actually had the better case? I will also ask two rather more specific questions. The first is ‘Have the contributions of John Bell favoured the position of either of the protagonists?’ The second is ‘Has the dramatic arrival and progress of quantum information theory anything to tell us about the Bohr–Einstein debate?’ To help to answer these questions, let me first re-assemble a few points, putting together in turn an argument for each of the protagonists against a rather hostile critic. First Bohr, and I take as his critic John Bell himself. Bell was prepared, in fact, to give Bohr great credit for what Bell called the pragmatic approach to quantum theory, which I discussed earlier. This approach says that the world must be divided into ‘classical’ and ‘quantum’ parts, with an arbitrarily placed cut between them; that the macroscopic measuring device must be described in classical terms, but that we should not expect to picture the ‘quantum’ system in physical terms, and should be content just to possess rules of calculation that work well. But Bell regarded Bohr's philosophy of what lay behind pragmatism, complementarity , as ill-defined, unsatisfactory and bizarre.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 29, 2006•1 citation

A bolt from the blue

Jim Baggott

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’.

•Nov 6, 2003•0 citations

An appraisal of Bohr's philosophy of physics

Dugald R. Murdoch

Now that my account of Bohr's philosophy of physics has been completed, it remains for me to give a general assessment of it. What value should we assign to Bohr's main ideas – the notions of correspondence and complementarity? How does his interpretation of quantum physics fare in comparison with some of its rivals? What should our assessment of the Bohr–Einstein debate be? I shall take up these questions in the reverse order. Einstein or Bohr? The final verdict The Bohr–Einstein debate is primarily a dispute about the philosophical foundations in terms of which the interpretation of quantum mechanics should be based: specifically it is a dispute about the intrinsic-properties theory, i.e. about the scope of a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein wished to maintain the two realist theses, the intrinsic-properties theory and the objective-values theory, whereas Bohr wished to hold only the latter. My own philosophical leanings are in the direction of realism. To my mind the notion of a physical reality the existence and constitution of which are independent of human thought and perception is coherent and plausible: what physical objects there are, and what properties they have, is not determined by human thought or perception, or by human practical interests. I have sympathy, therefore, with Einstein's position concerning the indefinability thesis and the question of the completeness of quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 5, 1987•0 citations
This article reviews How Physics Confronts Reality: Einstein was Correct but Bohr Won the Game by Roger G. Newton . 147 pp. , Singapore, 2009. Price: 54(cloth)ISBN978−981−4277−02−0;54(cloth) ISBN 978-981-4277-02-0; 54(cloth)ISBN978−981−4277−02−0;29.95(paper) ISBN 978-981-4277-03-7.
Arguably the most important scientific debate of the 20th Century was that which took place between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr over the nature of reality. Bohr argued that reality was subjective in nature and therefore depended on the presence of an observer or observing process, while Einstein argued that reality had to be objective. The debate was never resolved, ending prematurely with Einstein's death in 1955. Having outlived Einstein, Bohr's ideas have come to dominate modern physics and Einstein has been somewhat sidelined. Perhaps now it is time to revisit the debate to see if Einstein was correct all along.
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.
In this last chapter I shall attempt a very brief assessment of the Bohr–Einstein debate. Who won it in the view of the audience? Who actually had the better case? I will also ask two rather more specific questions. The first is ‘Have the contributions of John Bell favoured the position of either of the protagonists?’ The second is ‘Has the dramatic arrival and progress of quantum information theory anything to tell us about the Bohr–Einstein debate?’ To help to answer these questions, let me first re-assemble a few points, putting together in turn an argument for each of the protagonists against a rather hostile critic. First Bohr, and I take as his critic John Bell himself. Bell was prepared, in fact, to give Bohr great credit for what Bell called the pragmatic approach to quantum theory, which I discussed earlier. This approach says that the world must be divided into ‘classical’ and ‘quantum’ parts, with an arbitrarily placed cut between them; that the macroscopic measuring device must be described in classical terms, but that we should not expect to picture the ‘quantum’ system in physical terms, and should be content just to possess rules of calculation that work well. But Bell regarded Bohr's philosophy of what lay behind pragmatism, complementarity , as ill-defined, unsatisfactory and bizarre.
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’.
Now that my account of Bohr's philosophy of physics has been completed, it remains for me to give a general assessment of it. What value should we assign to Bohr's main ideas – the notions of correspondence and complementarity? How does his interpretation of quantum physics fare in comparison with some of its rivals? What should our assessment of the Bohr–Einstein debate be? I shall take up these questions in the reverse order. Einstein or Bohr? The final verdict The Bohr–Einstein debate is primarily a dispute about the philosophical foundations in terms of which the interpretation of quantum mechanics should be based: specifically it is a dispute about the intrinsic-properties theory, i.e. about the scope of a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein wished to maintain the two realist theses, the intrinsic-properties theory and the objective-values theory, whereas Bohr wished to hold only the latter. My own philosophical leanings are in the direction of realism. To my mind the notion of a physical reality the existence and constitution of which are independent of human thought and perception is coherent and plausible: what physical objects there are, and what properties they have, is not determined by human thought or perception, or by human practical interests. I have sympathy, therefore, with Einstein's position concerning the indefinability thesis and the question of the completeness of quantum mechanics.