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

Annals of Social Sciences & Management studies

A Simple Idea on the Unification of Einstein-Bohr Controversy

Weicheng Cui

Published Jan 30, 2019• 6 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Whether the world works regularly or not, and whether the nature of the world is knowable or unknowable, Einstein and Bohr have debated these two questions for more than 40 years and even up to now, physicists continue the debate.From my point of view, this controversy was created by Bohr's over claim.The purpose of this short note is to present my simple idea of unification of Einstein-Bohr controversy.

DOI
10.19080/asm.2019.02.555597

Related papers

Understanding Einstein’s Viewpoint on Quantum Mechanics

Fátima Masot-Conde

The controversy between Einstein and Bohr about quantum \nmechanics is a classic. On the one hand, Einstein rejected it because of its \nunpredictable essence, while Bohr had no trouble accepting the limits \nimposed by Nature on human knowledge, being happy with just a statistical \ndescription. Time has passed, and quantum mechanics works beyond any \nreasonable doubt. That possibly means that Bohr’s world vision was right \nand we should abandon Einstein’s idea of Nature working as a deterministic \nclock’s machinery. However, despite the success of the quantum theory, \nsome of its implications still seem absurd, while the world shows a more and \nmore mathematical essence, just as Einstein thought. In this paper, Einstein’s \npoint is defended in the light of the resemblance between Mathematics and \nthe natural world.

Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum•Dec 23, 2015•1 citation

Bohr or Einstein?

Andrew Whitaker

In this last chapter I shall attempt a very brief assessment of the Bohr–Einstein debate. Who won it in the view of the audience? Who actually had the better case? I will also ask two rather more specific questions. The first is ‘Have the contributions of John Bell favoured the position of either of the protagonists?’ The second is ‘Has the dramatic arrival and progress of quantum information theory anything to tell us about the Bohr–Einstein debate?’ To help to answer these questions, let me first re-assemble a few points, putting together in turn an argument for each of the protagonists against a rather hostile critic. First Bohr, and I take as his critic John Bell himself. Bell was prepared, in fact, to give Bohr great credit for what Bell called the pragmatic approach to quantum theory, which I discussed earlier. This approach says that the world must be divided into ‘classical’ and ‘quantum’ parts, with an arbitrarily placed cut between them; that the macroscopic measuring device must be described in classical terms, but that we should not expect to picture the ‘quantum’ system in physical terms, and should be content just to possess rules of calculation that work well. But Bell regarded Bohr's philosophy of what lay behind pragmatism, complementarity , as ill-defined, unsatisfactory and bizarre.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 29, 2006•1 citation

An Underappreciated Exchange in the Bohr--Einstein Debate

Blake C. Stacey

The Bohr--Einstein debate is one of the more remarkable protracted intellectual exchanges in the history of physics. Its influence has been lasting: One of the few clear patterns in a 2013 survey about quantum foundations was that the physicists who believed Bohr to be correct were apt to say that Einstein had been wrong. The exchanges began when Bohr and Einstein first met in 1920, continued at the Solvay conferences of the following decade, reached a dramatic crescendo with the EPR paradox in 1935, and continued thereafter. Not every episode in this long story has been investigated equally. In particular, one late statement attributed to Bohr has received much more intense examination than Einstein's equally pithy reply.

arXiv:2003.14385•Mar 31, 2020•0 citations

THE PROBLEM OF REALITY IN THE TEXTS OF NIELS BOHR

Valentyna M. Rozhkovska

The article discusses a new understanding of the reality in the 20th century. Since the key figure in these changes was the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, we refer to his early and later articles to analyze the use of the term “reality”. Through an analysis of the terms, it is shown that Bohr describes discoveries in earlier articles that are inconsistent with old concepts in physics, and it is these questions that will further lead him to a new understanding of reality. In the article we also indicate how many times and in what contexts the term “reality” is used. Further, we find that the term “reality” is more common in later articles than in his earlier works (Copenhagen’s interpretation of quantum theory had not yet been formulated at the time of writing the early works). Through the analyzing of usage of certain terms, we show how the emphasis in the early and late Bohr’s articles shifts. For many years, the Danish physicist has sought to clarify quantum theory. In some later articles, we note that the problems affect not only physical, but also other areas of knowledge. We also analyze the use of the term in later articles. This analysis shows how Niels Bohr’s discoveries in the nature of the objects of the micro-world lead him to questions about the nature of reality. How discoveries in the microcosm affect the new conception of reality is best traced in controversy with other physicists. As the most striking example, we took the article “Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics”. In this article, Bohr describes the specific behavior of micro-objects, features of physical experiments and proves the idea that a fundamentally new (including ontological plan) understanding of physical processes is needed. An analysis of the terms shows that, from Bohr’s point of view, reality itself is as described by its quantum mechanics. We strive to show the evolution of Bohr’s views in the context of how they influenced the revision of all physics. We conclude that the discovery of stationary states in an atom is the first step to rethinking philosophical questions of a nature of reality.

The Journal of V N Karazin Kharkiv National University Series Philosophy Philosophical Peripeteias•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics

Valentin Malinov

Why scientists stating that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics they are not compatible, and one of them probably is wrong?

•Dec 1, 2020•0 citations

Wonderful Copenhagen?

Alastair I. M. Rae

The 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen represented the culmination of a long debate that had begun soon after quantum theory was developed in the 1920s. One of the main protagonists in this discussion was Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist who worked in Copenhagen until, like so many other European scientists of his time, he became a refugee in the face of the German invasion during the Second World War. As we shall see, Bohr's views differed strongly from those of Einstein and his co-workers on a number of fundamental issues, but it was his approach to the fundamental problems of quantum physics that eventually gained general, though not universal, acceptance. Because much of Bohr's work was done in that city, his ideas and those developed from them have become known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’. In this chapter we shall discuss the main ideas of this approach. We shall try to appreciate its strengths as well as attempting to understand why some believe that there are important questions left unanswered. When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice’, Bohr is said to have replied ‘Don't tell God what to do!’ The historical accuracy of this exchange may be in doubt, but it encapsulates the differences in approach of the two men. Whereas Einstein approached quantum physics with doubts, and sought to reveal its incompleteness by demonstrating its lack of consistency with our everyday ways of thinking about the physical universe, Bohr's approach was to accept the quantum ideas and to explore their consequences for our everyday ways of thinking.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 7, 2004•0 citations
Whether the world works regularly or not, and whether the nature of the world is knowable or unknowable, Einstein and Bohr have debated these two questions for more than 40 years and even up to now, physicists continue the debate.From my point of view, this controversy was created by Bohr's over claim.The purpose of this short note is to present my simple idea of unification of Einstein-Bohr controversy.
The controversy between Einstein and Bohr about quantum \nmechanics is a classic. On the one hand, Einstein rejected it because of its \nunpredictable essence, while Bohr had no trouble accepting the limits \nimposed by Nature on human knowledge, being happy with just a statistical \ndescription. Time has passed, and quantum mechanics works beyond any \nreasonable doubt. That possibly means that Bohr’s world vision was right \nand we should abandon Einstein’s idea of Nature working as a deterministic \nclock’s machinery. However, despite the success of the quantum theory, \nsome of its implications still seem absurd, while the world shows a more and \nmore mathematical essence, just as Einstein thought. In this paper, Einstein’s \npoint is defended in the light of the resemblance between Mathematics and \nthe natural world.
In this last chapter I shall attempt a very brief assessment of the Bohr–Einstein debate. Who won it in the view of the audience? Who actually had the better case? I will also ask two rather more specific questions. The first is ‘Have the contributions of John Bell favoured the position of either of the protagonists?’ The second is ‘Has the dramatic arrival and progress of quantum information theory anything to tell us about the Bohr–Einstein debate?’ To help to answer these questions, let me first re-assemble a few points, putting together in turn an argument for each of the protagonists against a rather hostile critic. First Bohr, and I take as his critic John Bell himself. Bell was prepared, in fact, to give Bohr great credit for what Bell called the pragmatic approach to quantum theory, which I discussed earlier. This approach says that the world must be divided into ‘classical’ and ‘quantum’ parts, with an arbitrarily placed cut between them; that the macroscopic measuring device must be described in classical terms, but that we should not expect to picture the ‘quantum’ system in physical terms, and should be content just to possess rules of calculation that work well. But Bell regarded Bohr's philosophy of what lay behind pragmatism, complementarity , as ill-defined, unsatisfactory and bizarre.
The Bohr--Einstein debate is one of the more remarkable protracted intellectual exchanges in the history of physics. Its influence has been lasting: One of the few clear patterns in a 2013 survey about quantum foundations was that the physicists who believed Bohr to be correct were apt to say that Einstein had been wrong. The exchanges began when Bohr and Einstein first met in 1920, continued at the Solvay conferences of the following decade, reached a dramatic crescendo with the EPR paradox in 1935, and continued thereafter. Not every episode in this long story has been investigated equally. In particular, one late statement attributed to Bohr has received much more intense examination than Einstein's equally pithy reply.
The article discusses a new understanding of the reality in the 20th century. Since the key figure in these changes was the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, we refer to his early and later articles to analyze the use of the term “reality”. Through an analysis of the terms, it is shown that Bohr describes discoveries in earlier articles that are inconsistent with old concepts in physics, and it is these questions that will further lead him to a new understanding of reality. In the article we also indicate how many times and in what contexts the term “reality” is used. Further, we find that the term “reality” is more common in later articles than in his earlier works (Copenhagen’s interpretation of quantum theory had not yet been formulated at the time of writing the early works). Through the analyzing of usage of certain terms, we show how the emphasis in the early and late Bohr’s articles shifts. For many years, the Danish physicist has sought to clarify quantum theory. In some later articles, we note that the problems affect not only physical, but also other areas of knowledge. We also analyze the use of the term in later articles. This analysis shows how Niels Bohr’s discoveries in the nature of the objects of the micro-world lead him to questions about the nature of reality. How discoveries in the microcosm affect the new conception of reality is best traced in controversy with other physicists. As the most striking example, we took the article “Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics”. In this article, Bohr describes the specific behavior of micro-objects, features of physical experiments and proves the idea that a fundamentally new (including ontological plan) understanding of physical processes is needed. An analysis of the terms shows that, from Bohr’s point of view, reality itself is as described by its quantum mechanics. We strive to show the evolution of Bohr’s views in the context of how they influenced the revision of all physics. We conclude that the discovery of stationary states in an atom is the first step to rethinking philosophical questions of a nature of reality.
The 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen represented the culmination of a long debate that had begun soon after quantum theory was developed in the 1920s. One of the main protagonists in this discussion was Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist who worked in Copenhagen until, like so many other European scientists of his time, he became a refugee in the face of the German invasion during the Second World War. As we shall see, Bohr's views differed strongly from those of Einstein and his co-workers on a number of fundamental issues, but it was his approach to the fundamental problems of quantum physics that eventually gained general, though not universal, acceptance. Because much of Bohr's work was done in that city, his ideas and those developed from them have become known as the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’. In this chapter we shall discuss the main ideas of this approach. We shall try to appreciate its strengths as well as attempting to understand why some believe that there are important questions left unanswered. When Einstein said that ‘God does not play dice’, Bohr is said to have replied ‘Don't tell God what to do!’ The historical accuracy of this exchange may be in doubt, but it encapsulates the differences in approach of the two men. Whereas Einstein approached quantum physics with doubts, and sought to reveal its incompleteness by demonstrating its lack of consistency with our everyday ways of thinking about the physical universe, Bohr's approach was to accept the quantum ideas and to explore their consequences for our everyday ways of thinking.