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

Archimedes

The Correspondence Principle in Copenhagen 1913–1923: Origin, Formulation and Consolidation

Martin Jähnert

Published Jan 1, 2019• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-13300-9_2

Related papers

A brief survey of various formulations of the correspondence principle

Adam J. Makowski

Several formulations of the correspondence principle, including both the historical and contemporary ones, are presented and critically reviewed.

European Journal of Physics•Jul 17, 2006•18 citations

On the Origins of the Copenhagen Interpretation

Arthur I. Miller

•Jan 1, 1988•4 citations

The Correspondence Principle History and Present State

U. A. Radžabov

Danish Yearbook of Philosophy•Aug 20, 1980•1 citation

A Magic Wand

Helge Kragh

In a major work of 1918 (‘On the quantum theory of line-spectra’) Bohr reconsidered the general principles of quantum and atomic theory. Apart from reinterpreting his original theory, he introduced the correspondence principle as a crucial connection between quantum and classical physics. What was the nature of this principle and what role did it play in the understanding of atomic structure? In applying the new principle, Bohr and his assistant H. A. Kramers relied on Einstein’s radiation theory. Bohr used the correspondence principle as a selection principle, and Kramers showed how it could account quantitatively for the Stark effect. However, not all physicists appreciated the Copenhagen ‘magic wand’ and Bohr’s use of it. Sommerfeld was the most prominent of the sceptics, but not the only one. The chapter also briefly considers the role of the correspondence principle in the early phase of the new quantum mechanics.

Oxford University Press eBooks•May 17, 2012•0 citations

The Correspondence Principle (1918–1923)

Niels Bohr•Jan 1, 1976•21 citations

Duality and measurement: the Copenhagen reconciliation

Vincenzo Chilla

Duality, not monism, constitutes the hermeneutic lens that characterizes the original Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, evoking the principles of correspondence and complementarity, in this work we re-assert a dual-aspect reading of quantum theory, structured through a multi-perspective schema encompassing its ontological, analytical, epistemological, causal, and information dimensions. We then show how this schema dissolves the so-called 'measurement problem', along with the associated 'knowledge-information' and 'macro-micro' dichotomies, issues historically raised within later monistic or universalist philosophical settings that ultimately depart from the traditional Copenhagen spirit.

quant-pharXiv:2601.03310•Jan 7, 2026•0 citations
In a major work of 1918 (‘On the quantum theory of line-spectra’) Bohr reconsidered the general principles of quantum and atomic theory. Apart from reinterpreting his original theory, he introduced the correspondence principle as a crucial connection between quantum and classical physics. What was the nature of this principle and what role did it play in the understanding of atomic structure? In applying the new principle, Bohr and his assistant H. A. Kramers relied on Einstein’s radiation theory. Bohr used the correspondence principle as a selection principle, and Kramers showed how it could account quantitatively for the Stark effect. However, not all physicists appreciated the Copenhagen ‘magic wand’ and Bohr’s use of it. Sommerfeld was the most prominent of the sceptics, but not the only one. The chapter also briefly considers the role of the correspondence principle in the early phase of the new quantum mechanics.
Duality, not monism, constitutes the hermeneutic lens that characterizes the original Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, evoking the principles of correspondence and complementarity, in this work we re-assert a dual-aspect reading of quantum theory, structured through a multi-perspective schema encompassing its ontological, analytical, epistemological, causal, and information dimensions. We then show how this schema dissolves the so-called 'measurement problem', along with the associated 'knowledge-information' and 'macro-micro' dichotomies, issues historically raised within later monistic or universalist philosophical settings that ultimately depart from the traditional Copenhagen spirit.