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

Physica Scripta

The controversy between Einstein and Bohr after 75 years, its actual solution and consequences for the present

M. V. Lokajíček, V. Kundrát

Published Nov 1, 2012• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In the given controversy, Einstein was right; the Copenhagen quantum mechanics has been based on physically unacceptable assumptions. And also later, Bell's inequalities have been mistakenly interpreted: holding true only in the classically deterministic model and not for the Schrödinger solutions when the initial state of the evolving system is represented by a (not fully known) set of different classical states; and the measured results in individual events are statistically distributed. The structure of Hilbert space formed by the solutions of the corresponding Schrödinger equation cannot be arbitrarily defined; it must be adapted to the corresponding physical system. Any Schrödinger state is then equivalent to a superposition of the solutions of the corresponding Hamilton equations, while all solutions of these equations form a greater set. However, the usual energy quantization approach represents phenomenological characteristics only, and the proper cause should be interpreted on other physical grounds. The actual source of quantum phenomena may hardly be explained without the participation of all interactions between the corresponding physical objects; their not yet fully known properties surely play an important role. The results obtained in experiments when the mutual (mainly elastic) collisions of the corresponding particles are studied might surely be very helpful.

DOI
10.1088/0031-8949/2012/t151/014007

Related papers

Einstein-Bohr Controversy After 75 Years, Its Actual Solution and Consequences

V. Milo

Copenhagen quantum mechanics has required the existence of direct interaction between two objects at great distances, which was criticized by Einstein in 1935. However, the scientific community accepted the standpoint of Bohr that the given phenomenon may exist between microscopic objects. The given conclusion was then accepted practically by the whole physical community when the inequalities of Bell have been shown to be violated in corresponding experiments (in 1982). However, it has been shown recently by us that Bell’s inequalities were derived under a very strong assumption and could not be valid in the given experiment. Consequently, only the Schroedinger equation itself may be admitted as phenomenological description of the whole (microscopic and macroscopic) reality.

InTech eBooks•Feb 22, 2012•5 citations

Two different physical interpretations of Schroedinger equation

M. V. Lokajíček, V. Kundrát, J Procházka

The assumptions added by Bohr and concerning the Hilbert space (formed by all solutions of Schroedinger equation) changed fundamentally the original physical interpretation of these solutions proposed earlier by Schroedinger. This new alternative was refused by Einstein on the basis of the EPR Gedankenexperiment, but accepted fully for microscopic reality by scientific community. Both the quantum alternatives were discussed, however, again later. Bell tried to find a possibility how to decide between them; he generalized Einstein's Gedankenexperiment assuming that also spins of two detected particles would be measured. He derived then some inequality for a special combination of four coincidence probabilities, and it was commonly assumed that his inequality held for the original Schroedinger interpretation but not in Bohr's Copenhagen quantum mechanics; without any actual proof having been given. Corresponding experiments were proposed and finished in 1982. The violation of Bell's inequality was then interpreted as decisive victory of Bohr's theory. However, it will be shown that Bell's inequality has been interpreted mistakenly. It has been based always on some assumption that does not hold in any probabilistic theory (i.e., in the given spin experiment) but only in deterministic classical theory. There is not any argument for preferring the Copenhagen quantum mechanics and against Einstein's critical standpoint. Some other consequences will be mentioned, too.

arXiv:1305.5503•May 22, 2013•4 citations

Einstein-Bohr Controversy and Theory of Hidden Variables

Miloš V Lokajcek

It has been shown by us recently that Einstein was right in his controversy with Bohr or that the so called hidden-variable theory should be preferred to the Copenhagen quantum mechanics. In the following paper the corresponding arguments will be shortly repeated. The main attention will be then devoted to explaining main differences between these two quantum alternatives, differing in the access to the problem of chance, causality and locality of microscopic objects. The actual meaning of the mentioned hidden variables will be discussed, too, the essence of which remained practically unclear during all past discussions. It will be shown that the theory of hidden variables (or Schrodinger equation alone) is able to represent the properties of the whole known physical reality.

NeuroQuantology•Nov 18, 2010•3 citations

Einstein-Bohr controversy and theory of hidden variables

M. V. Lokajíček

It has been shown by us recently that Einstein was right in his controversy with Bohr or that the so called hidden-variable theory should be preferred to the Copenhagen quantum mechanics. In the following paper the corresponding arguments will be shortly repeated. The main attention will be then devoted to explaining main differences between these two quantum alternatives, differing in the access to the problem of chance, causality and locality of microscopic objects. The actual meaning of the mentioned hidden variables will be discussed, too, the essence of which remained practically unclear during all past discussions. It will be shown that the theory of hidden variables (or Schroedinger equation alone) is able to represent the properties of the whole known physical reality.

arXiv:1004.3005•Apr 18, 2010•0 citations

Schroedinger equation and classical physics

M. V. Lokajíček

Any time-dependent solution of Schrödinger equation may be always correlated to a solution of Hamilton equations or to a statistical combination of their solutions; only the set of corresponding solutions is somewhat smaller (due to existence of quantization). There is not any reason to the physical interpretation according to Copenhagen alternative as Bell's inequalities are valid in the classical physics only (and not in any alternative based on Schrödinger equation). The advantage of Schrödinger equation consists then in that it enables to represent directly the time evolution of a statistical distribution of classical initial states (which is usual in collision experiments). The Schrödinger equation (without assumptions added by Bohr) may then represent the common physical theory for microscopic as well as macroscopic physical systems. However, together with the last possibility the solutions of Schrödinger equation may be helpful also in analyzing the influence of other statistically distributed properties (e.g., spin orientations or space structures) of individual matter objects forming a corresponding physical system, which goes in principle beyond the classical physics. In any case, the contemporary quantum theory represents the phenomenological approximative description of some matter characteristics only, without providing any insight into quantum mechanism emergence. In such a case it is necessary to take into account more detailed properties at least of some involved objects.

arXiv:1205.6720•May 30, 2012•2 citations

Controversy between Einstein and Bohr and two erroneous arguments used in supporting Copenhagen quantum mechanics

M. V. Lokajíček

The support of Copenhagen quantum mechanics in the discussion concerning EPR experiments has been based fundamentally on two mistakes. First, quantum mechanics as well as hidden-variable theory give the same predictions; the statement of Belinfante from 1973 about the significant difference must be denoted as mistake. Secondly, the experimental violation of Bell's inequalities has been erroneously interpreted as excluding the hidden-variable alternative, while they have been based on assumption corresponding to classical physics. The EPR experiments cannot bring, therefore, any decision in the controversy between Einstein and Bohr. However, the view of Einstein is strongly supported by experimental results concerning the light transmission through three polarizers.

arXiv:quant-ph/0601015•Jan 3, 2006•0 citations
In the given controversy, Einstein was right; the Copenhagen quantum mechanics has been based on physically unacceptable assumptions. And also later, Bell's inequalities have been mistakenly interpreted: holding true only in the classically deterministic model and not for the Schrödinger solutions when the initial state of the evolving system is represented by a (not fully known) set of different classical states; and the measured results in individual events are statistically distributed. The structure of Hilbert space formed by the solutions of the corresponding Schrödinger equation cannot be arbitrarily defined; it must be adapted to the corresponding physical system. Any Schrödinger state is then equivalent to a superposition of the solutions of the corresponding Hamilton equations, while all solutions of these equations form a greater set. However, the usual energy quantization approach represents phenomenological characteristics only, and the proper cause should be interpreted on other physical grounds. The actual source of quantum phenomena may hardly be explained without the participation of all interactions between the corresponding physical objects; their not yet fully known properties surely play an important role. The results obtained in experiments when the mutual (mainly elastic) collisions of the corresponding particles are studied might surely be very helpful.
Copenhagen quantum mechanics has required the existence of direct interaction between two objects at great distances, which was criticized by Einstein in 1935. However, the scientific community accepted the standpoint of Bohr that the given phenomenon may exist between microscopic objects. The given conclusion was then accepted practically by the whole physical community when the inequalities of Bell have been shown to be violated in corresponding experiments (in 1982). However, it has been shown recently by us that Bell’s inequalities were derived under a very strong assumption and could not be valid in the given experiment. Consequently, only the Schroedinger equation itself may be admitted as phenomenological description of the whole (microscopic and macroscopic) reality.
The assumptions added by Bohr and concerning the Hilbert space (formed by all solutions of Schroedinger equation) changed fundamentally the original physical interpretation of these solutions proposed earlier by Schroedinger. This new alternative was refused by Einstein on the basis of the EPR Gedankenexperiment, but accepted fully for microscopic reality by scientific community. Both the quantum alternatives were discussed, however, again later. Bell tried to find a possibility how to decide between them; he generalized Einstein's Gedankenexperiment assuming that also spins of two detected particles would be measured. He derived then some inequality for a special combination of four coincidence probabilities, and it was commonly assumed that his inequality held for the original Schroedinger interpretation but not in Bohr's Copenhagen quantum mechanics; without any actual proof having been given. Corresponding experiments were proposed and finished in 1982. The violation of Bell's inequality was then interpreted as decisive victory of Bohr's theory. However, it will be shown that Bell's inequality has been interpreted mistakenly. It has been based always on some assumption that does not hold in any probabilistic theory (i.e., in the given spin experiment) but only in deterministic classical theory. There is not any argument for preferring the Copenhagen quantum mechanics and against Einstein's critical standpoint. Some other consequences will be mentioned, too.
It has been shown by us recently that Einstein was right in his controversy with Bohr or that the so called hidden-variable theory should be preferred to the Copenhagen quantum mechanics. In the following paper the corresponding arguments will be shortly repeated. The main attention will be then devoted to explaining main differences between these two quantum alternatives, differing in the access to the problem of chance, causality and locality of microscopic objects. The actual meaning of the mentioned hidden variables will be discussed, too, the essence of which remained practically unclear during all past discussions. It will be shown that the theory of hidden variables (or Schrodinger equation alone) is able to represent the properties of the whole known physical reality.
It has been shown by us recently that Einstein was right in his controversy with Bohr or that the so called hidden-variable theory should be preferred to the Copenhagen quantum mechanics. In the following paper the corresponding arguments will be shortly repeated. The main attention will be then devoted to explaining main differences between these two quantum alternatives, differing in the access to the problem of chance, causality and locality of microscopic objects. The actual meaning of the mentioned hidden variables will be discussed, too, the essence of which remained practically unclear during all past discussions. It will be shown that the theory of hidden variables (or Schroedinger equation alone) is able to represent the properties of the whole known physical reality.
Any time-dependent solution of Schrödinger equation may be always correlated to a solution of Hamilton equations or to a statistical combination of their solutions; only the set of corresponding solutions is somewhat smaller (due to existence of quantization). There is not any reason to the physical interpretation according to Copenhagen alternative as Bell's inequalities are valid in the classical physics only (and not in any alternative based on Schrödinger equation). The advantage of Schrödinger equation consists then in that it enables to represent directly the time evolution of a statistical distribution of classical initial states (which is usual in collision experiments). The Schrödinger equation (without assumptions added by Bohr) may then represent the common physical theory for microscopic as well as macroscopic physical systems. However, together with the last possibility the solutions of Schrödinger equation may be helpful also in analyzing the influence of other statistically distributed properties (e.g., spin orientations or space structures) of individual matter objects forming a corresponding physical system, which goes in principle beyond the classical physics. In any case, the contemporary quantum theory represents the phenomenological approximative description of some matter characteristics only, without providing any insight into quantum mechanism emergence. In such a case it is necessary to take into account more detailed properties at least of some involved objects.
The support of Copenhagen quantum mechanics in the discussion concerning EPR experiments has been based fundamentally on two mistakes. First, quantum mechanics as well as hidden-variable theory give the same predictions; the statement of Belinfante from 1973 about the significant difference must be denoted as mistake. Secondly, the experimental violation of Bell's inequalities has been erroneously interpreted as excluding the hidden-variable alternative, while they have been based on assumption corresponding to classical physics. The EPR experiments cannot bring, therefore, any decision in the controversy between Einstein and Bohr. However, the view of Einstein is strongly supported by experimental results concerning the light transmission through three polarizers.