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

Reconciling Einstein and Bohr: The Ultra-Instrument View of Quantum Mechanics

Johannes F. Geurdes

Published Jan 1, 2012• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Both Bohr and Einstein were right about the interpretation of quantum theory. The quantum theory is interpreted as a measurement theory with a more prominent role for the instrument. Here, Einstein’s local hidden variables are non-statistical but arise from quantum theory itself.

Related papers

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

The interpretation of quantum mechanics revisited

Fernando M. S. Silva Fernandes

The foundations and meaning of quantum theory became a central issue to Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr since the onset of their impassioned debate in the 1920s, enriched by the contributions of many other distinguished scientists and philosophers.The questions are not settled down at all, despite the great achievements of the theory, its impressive accordance with experiment and predictive power.The fundamental and technological applications range from cosmology to biology, with the development of invaluable instruments and the design of new materials.Is quantum mechanics a complete or an incomplete theory?Is there an objective reality independent of the observer or is the reality created by the measurements?Are hidden-variable theories justifiable?Is there a quantum theory founded in a local-causal and non-linear approach that formally contains the orthodox linear theory as a special case?Can such a formulation unify classical and quantum physics?Are Heisenberg's uncertainty relations valid in all cases?Here, the subject is addressed as an adaptation of our contribution to the Colloquium "Quantal aspects in Chemistry and Physics.

Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra eBooks•Jan 1, 2011•0 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

Einstein's Interpretations of the Quantum Theory

Arthur I. Fine

The Argument This paper argues that Einstein subscribed to three distinct kinds of interpretations of the quantum theory: subjective, instrumental, and hidden variables interpretations. We explore the context and ihe content of Einstein's thinking over these interpretations, emphasizing Einstein's conception of his role not only as a critic of the new quantum theory but also as a guide pointing the way to better physics.

Science in Context•Jan 1, 1993•11 citations

How Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation is realist and solves the measurement problem

Krishnan., Govind

The field of interpretation of quantum mechanics emerged in an attempt to solve the measurement problem. This turned on the perception that Niels Bohr avoided addressing the measurement problem by taking an instrumentalist view of quantum mechanics. I argue that this view is mistaken and Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics is realist. Moreover, Bohr's interpretation, which is different from textbook quantum mechanics (which is due more to Von Neumann and Paul Dirac), succeeds in solving the measurement problem. While the claim that Bohr dissolves the measurement problem within the limits of the epistemological framework he assumes has been made by a few authors, rarely has the case been made that Bohr's project unambiguously and completely overcomes the measurement problem. I make the strong case that Bohr eliminated the measurement problem altogether. For this, I put forward two new postulates through which to make sense of Bohr's interpretation. The article thus seeks to single out Bohr's interpretation from the various views that go together under the umbrella of orthodox quantum mechanics, and which have been traditionally considered susceptible to the measurement problem. It shows that Bohr's interpretation should be classified along with those like hidden variable theories, collapse models, modal interpretations etc., which offer a solution to the measurement problem and are committed to a realist ontology.

arXiv:2308.00814•Jul 29, 2023•0 citations

The sequel to the Bohr-Einstein debate

Dugald R. Murdoch

The EPR paper and Bohr's reply to it brought to an end the public debate between Einstein and Bohr. In the aftermath, Bohr's construal of quantum mechanics established itself as the basis of the orthodox interpretation – the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ as it came to be called. The vast majority of physicists regarded Einstein's criticism as reactionary, and dismissed it with disdain. One of the main causes of this disdainful attitude was the general opinion that Einstein's criticism committed him to the existence of hidden states, and the existence of these, it was thought, had been conclusively ruled out by the work of von Neumann and others. What light does the subsequent work on the question of hidden states, and in particular the work of Bell, throw on the Bohr–Einstein dispute? Completeness and hidden states There are three distinct questions concerning hidden states. First, might there be such states, unbeknown to quantum mechanics? Second, can quantum mechanics, as it stands, take account of such states? Third, could some theory containing descriptions of such states reduplicate the predictions of quantum mechanics? Concerning the first of these questions, Einstein's view was that it is very likely that such states exist, and since quantum mechanics takes no account of them, it is incomplete and best regarded as a statistical theory analogous in some respects to classical statistical mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 5, 1987•1 citation
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.
The foundations and meaning of quantum theory became a central issue to Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr since the onset of their impassioned debate in the 1920s, enriched by the contributions of many other distinguished scientists and philosophers.The questions are not settled down at all, despite the great achievements of the theory, its impressive accordance with experiment and predictive power.The fundamental and technological applications range from cosmology to biology, with the development of invaluable instruments and the design of new materials.Is quantum mechanics a complete or an incomplete theory?Is there an objective reality independent of the observer or is the reality created by the measurements?Are hidden-variable theories justifiable?Is there a quantum theory founded in a local-causal and non-linear approach that formally contains the orthodox linear theory as a special case?Can such a formulation unify classical and quantum physics?Are Heisenberg's uncertainty relations valid in all cases?Here, the subject is addressed as an adaptation of our contribution to the Colloquium "Quantal aspects in Chemistry and Physics.
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.
The field of interpretation of quantum mechanics emerged in an attempt to solve the measurement problem. This turned on the perception that Niels Bohr avoided addressing the measurement problem by taking an instrumentalist view of quantum mechanics. I argue that this view is mistaken and Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics is realist. Moreover, Bohr's interpretation, which is different from textbook quantum mechanics (which is due more to Von Neumann and Paul Dirac), succeeds in solving the measurement problem. While the claim that Bohr dissolves the measurement problem within the limits of the epistemological framework he assumes has been made by a few authors, rarely has the case been made that Bohr's project unambiguously and completely overcomes the measurement problem. I make the strong case that Bohr eliminated the measurement problem altogether. For this, I put forward two new postulates through which to make sense of Bohr's interpretation. The article thus seeks to single out Bohr's interpretation from the various views that go together under the umbrella of orthodox quantum mechanics, and which have been traditionally considered susceptible to the measurement problem. It shows that Bohr's interpretation should be classified along with those like hidden variable theories, collapse models, modal interpretations etc., which offer a solution to the measurement problem and are committed to a realist ontology.
The EPR paper and Bohr's reply to it brought to an end the public debate between Einstein and Bohr. In the aftermath, Bohr's construal of quantum mechanics established itself as the basis of the orthodox interpretation – the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ as it came to be called. The vast majority of physicists regarded Einstein's criticism as reactionary, and dismissed it with disdain. One of the main causes of this disdainful attitude was the general opinion that Einstein's criticism committed him to the existence of hidden states, and the existence of these, it was thought, had been conclusively ruled out by the work of von Neumann and others. What light does the subsequent work on the question of hidden states, and in particular the work of Bell, throw on the Bohr–Einstein dispute? Completeness and hidden states There are three distinct questions concerning hidden states. First, might there be such states, unbeknown to quantum mechanics? Second, can quantum mechanics, as it stands, take account of such states? Third, could some theory containing descriptions of such states reduplicate the predictions of quantum mechanics? Concerning the first of these questions, Einstein's view was that it is very likely that such states exist, and since quantum mechanics takes no account of them, it is incomplete and best regarded as a statistical theory analogous in some respects to classical statistical mechanics.