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

Birkhäuser Boston eBooks

Paradoxes

David Wick

Published Jan 1, 1995• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

As an earthquake has a main shock and secondary shocks, so too a scientific revolution. In this chapter I discuss some of the lesser but still significant tremblers that shook the foundations of physics since 1925 (the principal shock having been identified by Bell in 1964, following clues left by EPR and Bohm). Then, in “Principles,” ignoring Mr. Feynman’s mixed metaphor, we attempt to understand “how it can be like that.” These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

DOI
10.1007/978-1-4612-5361-7_16

Related papers

Summing Up the Successes and the Remaining Mysteries

Theo van Holten

This chapter sums up the visualisations of quantum phenomena, made possible by the “droplet theory”. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Atlantis Press eBooks•Dec 9, 2016•1 citation

Principles

David Wick

What are the principles of quantum mechanics? Since 1925, proponents of various interpretations have championed theirs, while doubters have searched for new ones. Principles, therefore, are important — but what do we mean by a “principle” when talking about a scientific theory? These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Birkhäuser Boston eBooks•Jan 1, 1995•0 citations

Classical models of quantum mechanics

Klaas Landsman

This chapter gives an introduction to a chain of results attempting to exclude deeper layers underneath quantum mechanics that restore some form of classical physics: ‘[Such results] more or less illustrate the ways along which some opponents might hope to escape Bohr’s reasonings and von Neumann’s proof and the places where they are dangerously near breaking their necks.’ (Groenewold, 1946, p. 454). In so far as they are mathematically precise, such no-go results have their roots in von Neumann’s 1932 book, which gave rise to two traditions that were often in polemical opposition to each other. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Fundamental theories of physics•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations

The Bohr—Einstein confrontation: phenomena and physical reality

Sandro Petruccioli

As Quine wrote in 1961, what strikes us in a paradox is its initial air of absurdity, which develops into a sort of psychological discomfort when we compare the conclusions of the reasoning with the apparently irrefutable arguments on which it is based. However, as he went on to observe, ‘More than once in history the discovery of paradox has been the occasion for major reconstruction at the foundations of thought’. Catastrophe may therefore lurk even in the most innocent-seeming of paradoxes and force us to recognize the arbitrary nature ‘of a buried premise or of some preconception previously reckoned as central to physical theory, to mathematics or to the thinking process’. More recently, ideas of this kind have been used to assert in general that the role of paradox in the growth of knowledge is to generate category switches and to construct new universes of discourse. It could also be argued that paradoxes constitute elements of the logic of discovery capable of amplifying and thus making intelligible the still obscure phases accompanying paradigm shifts. Paradoxes would thus represent points of accumulation for the tension created between a given system of conceptual representation and a theory or empirical discovery that violates it. Historians of science have tried different interpretative approaches in their attempts to unravel the thought process that was to lead Einstein in 1905 to the formulation of special relativity and the simultaneous demolition of the classical conception of space and time.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 18, 1993•0 citations

Introduction to Multi-Electron Atoms

Floyd L. Williams

Some of the basic themes, or foundational concepts and principles of quantum mechanics (Planck’s quantization, Schrödinger’s equation, de Broglie’s wavelength, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, etc.) were introduced in Chapter 1. There is another basic principle, Pauli’s exclusion principle , which was not introduced there but which will be considered in this chapter. This principle was actually postulated prior to the main developments of post-Bohr quantum mechanics, and has had a spectacular impact in regards to the understanding of why atoms exhibit different chemical properties. The principle resolves the question, among others, namely of what determines the arrangements of electrons about a nucleus, a question which we touch on briefly, or tangentially. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Progress in mathematical physics•Jan 1, 2003•0 citations

The Decline and Fall of Causality

F. Waismann

I. The year 1927 is a landmark in the evolution of physics — the year which saw the obsequies of the notion of causality. To avoid misconceptions, it should not be thought that the concept fell a victim to the unbridled antipathy of certain physicists or their indulgence in fancies. The truth is that men of science came, very reluctantly and almost against their will, to recognize the impossibility of giving a coherent causal description of the happenings on the atomic scale, though some of them — curiously enough, amongst them Planck, Einstein, de Broglie, Schrodinger — could never bring themselves to accept wholeheartedly so drastic a renunciation of classical ideals. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks•Jan 1, 1968•3 citations
As an earthquake has a main shock and secondary shocks, so too a scientific revolution. In this chapter I discuss some of the lesser but still significant tremblers that shook the foundations of physics since 1925 (the principal shock having been identified by Bell in 1964, following clues left by EPR and Bohm). Then, in “Principles,” ignoring Mr. Feynman’s mixed metaphor, we attempt to understand “how it can be like that.” These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This chapter gives an introduction to a chain of results attempting to exclude deeper layers underneath quantum mechanics that restore some form of classical physics: ‘[Such results] more or less illustrate the ways along which some opponents might hope to escape Bohr’s reasonings and von Neumann’s proof and the places where they are dangerously near breaking their necks.’ (Groenewold, 1946, p. 454). In so far as they are mathematically precise, such no-go results have their roots in von Neumann’s 1932 book, which gave rise to two traditions that were often in polemical opposition to each other. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
As Quine wrote in 1961, what strikes us in a paradox is its initial air of absurdity, which develops into a sort of psychological discomfort when we compare the conclusions of the reasoning with the apparently irrefutable arguments on which it is based. However, as he went on to observe, ‘More than once in history the discovery of paradox has been the occasion for major reconstruction at the foundations of thought’. Catastrophe may therefore lurk even in the most innocent-seeming of paradoxes and force us to recognize the arbitrary nature ‘of a buried premise or of some preconception previously reckoned as central to physical theory, to mathematics or to the thinking process’. More recently, ideas of this kind have been used to assert in general that the role of paradox in the growth of knowledge is to generate category switches and to construct new universes of discourse. It could also be argued that paradoxes constitute elements of the logic of discovery capable of amplifying and thus making intelligible the still obscure phases accompanying paradigm shifts. Paradoxes would thus represent points of accumulation for the tension created between a given system of conceptual representation and a theory or empirical discovery that violates it. Historians of science have tried different interpretative approaches in their attempts to unravel the thought process that was to lead Einstein in 1905 to the formulation of special relativity and the simultaneous demolition of the classical conception of space and time.
Some of the basic themes, or foundational concepts and principles of quantum mechanics (Planck’s quantization, Schrödinger’s equation, de Broglie’s wavelength, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, etc.) were introduced in Chapter 1. There is another basic principle, Pauli’s exclusion principle , which was not introduced there but which will be considered in this chapter. This principle was actually postulated prior to the main developments of post-Bohr quantum mechanics, and has had a spectacular impact in regards to the understanding of why atoms exhibit different chemical properties. The principle resolves the question, among others, namely of what determines the arrangements of electrons about a nucleus, a question which we touch on briefly, or tangentially. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
I. The year 1927 is a landmark in the evolution of physics — the year which saw the obsequies of the notion of causality. To avoid misconceptions, it should not be thought that the concept fell a victim to the unbridled antipathy of certain physicists or their indulgence in fancies. The truth is that men of science came, very reluctantly and almost against their will, to recognize the impossibility of giving a coherent causal description of the happenings on the atomic scale, though some of them — curiously enough, amongst them Planck, Einstein, de Broglie, Schrodinger — could never bring themselves to accept wholeheartedly so drastic a renunciation of classical ideals. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.