Prior to and into the first decade of Niels Bohr's 1913 atomic theory, physicists dealt with physical systems in which the usual space and time pictures of classical physics were assumed trustworthy and so could be extrapolated to any sort of matter in motion, for example, electrons move like billiard balls and light behaves analogously to water waves. In the German scientific milieu this visual imagery was accorded a reality status higher than viewing merely with the senses and was referred to as ‘ordinary intuition [ gewöhnliche Anschauung ]’. Ordinary intuition is the visual imagery abstracted from phenomena that we have actually witnessed in the world of sense perceptions. The concept of ordinary intuition was much debated during 1923–27 by physicists like Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Erwin Schrödinger, all of whom used this term with proper Kantian overtones, and all of whom lamented its loss in the new quantum mechanics. Ordinary intuition is associated with the strong causality of classical mechanics. According to the law of causality, initial conditions (position and velocity or momentum and energy) can be ascertained with in-principle perfect accuracy. Consequently any system's continuous development in space and time can be traced with in-principle perfect accuracy using Newton's laws of motion and conservation of energy and momentum. Any limitations to the accuracy of measurements are assumed not to be intrinsic to the phenomena, that is they are interpreted to be systematic measurement errors that ideally can be made to vanish.
Prior to and into the first decade of Niels Bohr's 1913 atomic theory, physicists dealt with physical systems in which the usual space and time pictures of classical physics were assumed trustworthy and so could be extrapolated to any sort of matter in motion, for example, electrons move like billiard balls and light behaves analogously to water waves. In the German scientific milieu this visual imagery was accorded a reality status higher than viewing merely with the senses and was referred to as ‘ordinary intuition [ gewöhnliche Anschauung ]’. Ordinary intuition is the visual imagery abstracted from phenomena that we have actually witnessed in the world of sense perceptions. The concept of ordinary intuition was much debated during 1923–27 by physicists like Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli and Erwin Schrödinger, all of whom used this term with proper Kantian overtones, and all of whom lamented its loss in the new quantum mechanics. Ordinary intuition is associated with the strong causality of classical mechanics. According to the law of causality, initial conditions (position and velocity or momentum and energy) can be ascertained with in-principle perfect accuracy. Consequently any system's continuous development in space and time can be traced with in-principle perfect accuracy using Newton's laws of motion and conservation of energy and momentum. Any limitations to the accuracy of measurements are assumed not to be intrinsic to the phenomena, that is they are interpreted to be systematic measurement errors that ideally can be made to vanish.
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].
At the beginning of the twentieth century, it became clear that microscopic particles do not obey Newton's laws of classical mechanics. The idea of light quanta was at odds with the established wisdom that light is a wave phenomenon, of course, but no other explanation of the photoelectric effect seemed possible. The next step in the development of quantum mechanics was taken by Niels Bohr, who introduced postulates about the discreteness of the energy of the bound electrons in an atom similar to the discreteness of the energy of light quanta. Modern quantum mechanics was founded by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Erwin Schroedinger, Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, Enrico Fermi, and others. In quantum mechanics, it is in general fundamentally impossible to determine the exact outcome of an experiment; one can only determine the probability of any given outcome.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
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 Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become the standard way of explaining the physical philosophical meaning of the mathematics of microscopic behavior. It developed from the thought of people who attended the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Copenhagen during the 40 years that Niels Bohr directed it, from 1920 to 1962. Bohr took a large part in developing the Copenhagen Interpretation, he didn't escape all controversy over it (although the quote above is a bit of an exaggeration). Bohr did die before the experimental theoretical developments that have transposed the debate over the appropriateness adequacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation into a new key, he may well have been lucky to have escaped when he did. There is no authoritative codification of CI [the Copenhagen Interpretation], write T Gornitz C. E von Weizsacker of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg, West Germany in' their formal presentation to the recent Loyola Conference on Mathematical Interpretational Problems in Relativistic Quantum Theory, and under the conditions of its origin there probably could not be one.... All prominent authors of the time who wrote on these questions, like Bohr, [Werner] Heisenberg, [Wolfgang] Pauli, J[ohn] v[on] Neumann on one side, [Albert] Einstein [Erwin] Schrodinger on the other, fell, so we feel, into some stammering when they tried to express their own positions. Nevertheless there is what might be called a Copenhagen attitude. It concentrates on observable phenomena, makes statistics probability central to its understanding, considers quantum mechanics primarily a theory of knowledge or information becomes a kind of physica negativa (analogous to a theologia negativa) in trying not to say too much about things that can't be seen or felt. For example, it doesn't much care whether the orbits of electrons in atoms are real or not and, in fact, tends to regard them as unreal. It appears in most textbooks as the standard way of looking at things.
This book gives a detailed study of the development and the interpretation given to Niels Bohr's Principle of Correspondence. It also describes the role that this principle played in guiding Bohr's research over the critical period from 1920 to 1927. Quantum mechanics, developed in the 1920s and 1930s by Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Schrödinger and Dirac, represents one of the most profound turning points in science. This theory required a wholly new kind of physics in which many of the principles, concepts and models representing reality, that had formed the basis of classical physics since Galileo and Newton, had to be abandoned. This book re-examines the birth of quantum mechanics, in particular examining the development of crucial and original insights of Niels Bohr.