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

Annalen der Physik

The interpretation of quantum mechanics through1935

James T. Cushing

Published Nov 1, 2000• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

I first define what I mean by the term ‘interpretation’, then trace some of the major developments in attempts to fashion an interpretation of quantum mechanics from its early mathematical formulation (ca. 1925) up through the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper, Bohr's response to it, and Schrödinger's insights on entanglement, in 1935. In the process, I question some of the conventional wisdom about how a unified interpretation emerged.

DOI
10.1002/1521-3889(200011)9:11/12<939::aid-andp939>3.0.co;2-8

Related papers

The interpretation of quantum mechanics through1935

James T. Cushing

Abstract I first define what I mean by the term ‘interpretation’, then trace some of the major developments in attempts to fashion an interpretation of quantum mechanics from its early mathematical formulation ( ca . 1925) up through the Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen paper, Bohr's response to it, and Schrödinger's insights on entanglement, in 1935. In the process, I question some of the conventional wisdom about how a unified interpretation emerged.

Annalen der Physik•Nov 1, 2000•1 citation

14 From Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger to Bell and Feynman: a New Quantum Revolution?

Alain Aspect

In 1935, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper introduced a new kind of two-particles quantum state, which was named 'entangled' by Schrödinger.Showing that measurements on both particles were strongly correlated even if the particles were widely separated, Einstein argued that the formalism did not describe all the elements of the physical reality, and he concluded that Quantum Mechanics was not complete.Bohr immediately opposed this reasoning, claiming that Quantum Mechanics was consistent as it was, and that it did not need to be completed, and even that it should not be completed.The discussion between Einstein and Bohr lasted until the death of the two giants, leaving the question unsettled.It was considered by most of the physicists only as an epistemological debate, holding on questions of interpretation, but without any practical consequence on how to use Quantum Mechanics.The situation changed in 1964, when Bell discovered that taking Einstein's point of view led to consequences in contradiction with the predictions of Quantum Mechanics in some (rare) situations.The debate was then displaced from the realm of epistemology to the one of physics, since it could be settled by experiments.After a series of experiments closer and closer to the ideal Gedankenexperiment, more and more physicists realized that entanglement was definitely weirder than any previous concept, and that it might be used for new ways of processing and transmitting information.This prompted the development of a new field, quantum information, which brings us into a new quantum age, and may change our society as dramatically as the first quantum revolution, which gave us integrated circuits and lasers, responsible for the development of the information and communication society.

EDP Sciences eBooks•Nov 4, 2020•0 citations

Theories and Interpretations

Olímpia Lombardi

Abstract The purpose of this book is to present an interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what are we talking about when we speak of “quantum mechanics?” Are we talking about a single theory or about many related theories? And what do we mean by “interpretation” here? In this chapter, I will address these questions in an introductory way. Of course, I do not intend to take part in the extensive discussions about what a scientific theory is, what is meant by interpreting a theory, in what situation we encounter equivalent theories, and many other questions related to or derived from these. My aim here is to present some preliminary ideas in a way that I hope will be sufficient to avoid misunderstandings in the following chapters. But, above all, I will state my position as to why, after so many years and so much literature on the subject, the interpretation of quantum mechanics deserves further discussion.

•Feb 19, 2026•0 citations

80 years of steering and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox: introduction

Eric G. Cavalcanti, Curtis J. Broadbent, Stephen Patrick Walborn +1 more

The year 2015 marks 80 years since Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, in the process describing one of the most counterintuitive characteristics of quantum mechanics: distant measurements can influence the character of local quantum states. This led to reactions from Schrodinger, Bohr, and John Bell. This issue shows that these developments are still well under way, with new foundational insights on the history of steering and Bell-nonlocality, new directions in the mathematical characterization of EPR-steering, demonstrations in quantum optical experiments, and further connections with quantum information processing.

Journal of the Optical Society of America B•Apr 1, 2015•10 citations

The Rise of Quantum Mechanics

S. Boffi

The rise of quantum mechanics is reviewed with special attention to the development between June 1925 and October 1927 when the Copenhagen interpretation was proposed.

arXiv:0806.4515•Jun 27, 2008•1 citation

Towards a new interpretation of quantum mechanics?

André Julg, Pierre Julg

Abstract Quantum mechanics is a remarkable formalism for studying problems in the microscopic domain, and nobody has reasonably contested its power. Nevertheless, in spite of the many interpretations which have been proposed, its true meaning is far from being clear. The aim of this preliminary paper is to show that it is possible to conceive within a classical framework an interpretation of quantum mechanics and to make its limits of validity precise.

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Feb 1, 1983•4 citations
I first define what I mean by the term ‘interpretation’, then trace some of the major developments in attempts to fashion an interpretation of quantum mechanics from its early mathematical formulation (ca. 1925) up through the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper, Bohr's response to it, and Schrödinger's insights on entanglement, in 1935. In the process, I question some of the conventional wisdom about how a unified interpretation emerged.
In 1935, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper introduced a new kind of two-particles quantum state, which was named 'entangled' by Schrödinger.Showing that measurements on both particles were strongly correlated even if the particles were widely separated, Einstein argued that the formalism did not describe all the elements of the physical reality, and he concluded that Quantum Mechanics was not complete.Bohr immediately opposed this reasoning, claiming that Quantum Mechanics was consistent as it was, and that it did not need to be completed, and even that it should not be completed.The discussion between Einstein and Bohr lasted until the death of the two giants, leaving the question unsettled.It was considered by most of the physicists only as an epistemological debate, holding on questions of interpretation, but without any practical consequence on how to use Quantum Mechanics.The situation changed in 1964, when Bell discovered that taking Einstein's point of view led to consequences in contradiction with the predictions of Quantum Mechanics in some (rare) situations.The debate was then displaced from the realm of epistemology to the one of physics, since it could be settled by experiments.After a series of experiments closer and closer to the ideal Gedankenexperiment, more and more physicists realized that entanglement was definitely weirder than any previous concept, and that it might be used for new ways of processing and transmitting information.This prompted the development of a new field, quantum information, which brings us into a new quantum age, and may change our society as dramatically as the first quantum revolution, which gave us integrated circuits and lasers, responsible for the development of the information and communication society.
Abstract The purpose of this book is to present an interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what are we talking about when we speak of “quantum mechanics?” Are we talking about a single theory or about many related theories? And what do we mean by “interpretation” here? In this chapter, I will address these questions in an introductory way. Of course, I do not intend to take part in the extensive discussions about what a scientific theory is, what is meant by interpreting a theory, in what situation we encounter equivalent theories, and many other questions related to or derived from these. My aim here is to present some preliminary ideas in a way that I hope will be sufficient to avoid misunderstandings in the following chapters. But, above all, I will state my position as to why, after so many years and so much literature on the subject, the interpretation of quantum mechanics deserves further discussion.
The year 2015 marks 80 years since Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, in the process describing one of the most counterintuitive characteristics of quantum mechanics: distant measurements can influence the character of local quantum states. This led to reactions from Schrodinger, Bohr, and John Bell. This issue shows that these developments are still well under way, with new foundational insights on the history of steering and Bell-nonlocality, new directions in the mathematical characterization of EPR-steering, demonstrations in quantum optical experiments, and further connections with quantum information processing.