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

Looking For Roots In All The Wrong Places: A Comment on ArXiv:1003.5008

Ron Bourgoin

Published Apr 1, 2010• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The authors of ArXiv:1003.5008 tell us they are searching for the foundations of quantum mechanics, a theory they say was born early in the twentieth century. As a matter of fact, the theory was born in the eighteenth century.

Related papers

One hundred years of quantum mechanics

Marlan O. Scully, William George Unruh

Quantum mechanics has gone from a theory in test to becoming the foundation of new technologies.

Science•Dec 4, 2025•3 citations

Quantum Mechanics and Experience

David Z. Albert

The more science tells us about the world, the stranger it looks. Ever since physics first penetrated the atom, early in this century, what it found there has stood as a radical and unanswered challenge to many of our most cherished conceptions of nature. It has literally been called into question since then whether or not there are always objective matters of fact about the whereabouts of subatomic particles, or about the locations of tables and chairs, or even about the very contents of our thoughts. A new kind of uncertainty has become a principle of science. This book is an original and provocative investigation of that challenge, as well as a novel attempt at writing about science in a style that is simultaneously elementary and deep. It is a lucid and self-contained introduction to the foundations of quantum mechanics, accessible to anyone with a high school mathematics education, and at the same time a rigorous discussion of the most important recent advances in our understanding of that subject, some of which are due to the author himself.

Harvard University Press eBooks•Mar 15, 1994•580 citations

Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards Quantum Mechanics

Christoph Sommer

Although it has been almost 100 years since the beginnings of quantum mechanics, the discussions about its interpretation still do not cease. Therefore, a survey of opinions regarding this matter is of particular interest. This poll was conducted following an idea and using the methodology of Schlosshauer et al. (arXiv:1301.1069 [quant-ph]), but among a slightly different group. It is supposed to give another snapshot of attitudes towards the interpretation of quantum mechanics and keep discourse about this topic alive.

arXiv:1303.2719•Mar 11, 2013•10 citations

The Copenhagen interpretation (II): Einstein versus Bohr

Peter Gibbins

The debate between Bohr and Einstein on the consistency, completeness, and finality of quantum theory ranks as one of the most significant philosophical debates of the twentieth century. It was a philosophical debate not in the sense that it had a considerable impact on the relatively technical field of the philosophy of physics. It was philosophical because at its root there lay two rival conceptions of physical reality and of our capacity to comprehend physical reality. With the possible exception of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence in which Leibniz and Clarke - with the latter acting as Newton's frontman - pressed their respective conceptions of space and time in the early part of the eighteenth century, the Einstein-Bohr dialogue has no parallel in the history of physics. Unlike the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, the Bohr-Einstein debate contained no bitterness and was not based on any personal rivalry. The debate was continuous from about 1927 and lasted right up to Einstein's death in 1955. For the contemporary philosopher of physics the most important episodes took place in the years between 1927 and 1935. However, in one respect at least the differences between Bohr and Einstein predated quantum mechanics itself. One is tempted to view the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein as the opposition of Bohr the revolutionary and Einstein the conservative, and in his best and clearest account of it Bohr certainly writes as if that were so.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 25, 1987•0 citations

The Physics of the Twentieth Century

Károly Simonyi, David Kramer

“But this is dreadful,” Grete Hermann said. “On the one hand, you claim that your knowledge of the Radium B atom is incomplete inasmuch as you cannot tell when and in what direction the electron will be emitted, while, on the other hand, you tell me that your knowledge is complete because, if there were further determinants, you would get into trouble with other experiments. But our knowledge cannot possibly be complete and incomplete at the same time. The whole thing is sheer nonsense… I was wondering why our inability to discover the causes of, say, the emission of an electron means that we must stop searching further. Admittedly, you don’t forbid this search, but you claim that it is futile since no further determining factors can be found. Indeed, you contend that, if only it is formulated in precise mathematical language, the indeterminacy allows a definite prediction in another experiment. And this, too, you claim is borne out by the results. If you argue like that, you turn uncertainty into a physical reality, with an objective character, while, normally speaking, uncertainty is a synonym for ignorance, and as such something purely subjective.”

A K Peters/CRC Press eBooks•Feb 7, 2025•0 citations

Comments on the review of “foundations of quantum mechanics, a study in continuity and symmetry”

Alfred Landé

Nuclear Physics•Mar 1, 1957•3 citations
The more science tells us about the world, the stranger it looks. Ever since physics first penetrated the atom, early in this century, what it found there has stood as a radical and unanswered challenge to many of our most cherished conceptions of nature. It has literally been called into question since then whether or not there are always objective matters of fact about the whereabouts of subatomic particles, or about the locations of tables and chairs, or even about the very contents of our thoughts. A new kind of uncertainty has become a principle of science. This book is an original and provocative investigation of that challenge, as well as a novel attempt at writing about science in a style that is simultaneously elementary and deep. It is a lucid and self-contained introduction to the foundations of quantum mechanics, accessible to anyone with a high school mathematics education, and at the same time a rigorous discussion of the most important recent advances in our understanding of that subject, some of which are due to the author himself.
Although it has been almost 100 years since the beginnings of quantum mechanics, the discussions about its interpretation still do not cease. Therefore, a survey of opinions regarding this matter is of particular interest. This poll was conducted following an idea and using the methodology of Schlosshauer et al. (arXiv:1301.1069 [quant-ph]), but among a slightly different group. It is supposed to give another snapshot of attitudes towards the interpretation of quantum mechanics and keep discourse about this topic alive.
The debate between Bohr and Einstein on the consistency, completeness, and finality of quantum theory ranks as one of the most significant philosophical debates of the twentieth century. It was a philosophical debate not in the sense that it had a considerable impact on the relatively technical field of the philosophy of physics. It was philosophical because at its root there lay two rival conceptions of physical reality and of our capacity to comprehend physical reality. With the possible exception of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence in which Leibniz and Clarke - with the latter acting as Newton's frontman - pressed their respective conceptions of space and time in the early part of the eighteenth century, the Einstein-Bohr dialogue has no parallel in the history of physics. Unlike the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, the Bohr-Einstein debate contained no bitterness and was not based on any personal rivalry. The debate was continuous from about 1927 and lasted right up to Einstein's death in 1955. For the contemporary philosopher of physics the most important episodes took place in the years between 1927 and 1935. However, in one respect at least the differences between Bohr and Einstein predated quantum mechanics itself. One is tempted to view the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein as the opposition of Bohr the revolutionary and Einstein the conservative, and in his best and clearest account of it Bohr certainly writes as if that were so.
“But this is dreadful,” Grete Hermann said. “On the one hand, you claim that your knowledge of the Radium B atom is incomplete inasmuch as you cannot tell when and in what direction the electron will be emitted, while, on the other hand, you tell me that your knowledge is complete because, if there were further determinants, you would get into trouble with other experiments. But our knowledge cannot possibly be complete and incomplete at the same time. The whole thing is sheer nonsense… I was wondering why our inability to discover the causes of, say, the emission of an electron means that we must stop searching further. Admittedly, you don’t forbid this search, but you claim that it is futile since no further determining factors can be found. Indeed, you contend that, if only it is formulated in precise mathematical language, the indeterminacy allows a definite prediction in another experiment. And this, too, you claim is borne out by the results. If you argue like that, you turn uncertainty into a physical reality, with an objective character, while, normally speaking, uncertainty is a synonym for ignorance, and as such something purely subjective.”