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

Edinburgh University Press eBooks

Whitehead’s Highly Speculative Lectures on Quantum Theory

Ronny Desmet

Published Feb 1, 2020• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

Ronny Desmet endeavors in this chapter to examine Whitehead’s theory of quantum theory and primates as found in his Harvard lectures using Clerk Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism as a starting point while refusing to abandon the idea of continuous space-time, using wave equations as his mathematical vehicle. The chapter contains sections detailing Whitehead’s alternative theory of gravitation, his paradigm of the electron as a complex organism, and his reaction to Niels Bohr’s model of the atom. The chapter concluded that Whitehead wanted a complete reconceptualisation of the atom in terms of atomic structures of vibrations, intending to leave behind all remnants of the materialistic theory in favour of an organic theory.

DOI
10.3366/edinburgh/9781474461351.003.0009

Related papers

Quantum physics and the philosophy of Whitehead

Abner Shimony

INTRODUCTION One of the virtues which Whitehead claims for his philosophy of organism is that it provides a conceptual framework for quantum theory ( SMW chapter 8, PR 121–2 and 145). The theory which he has in mind is the ‘old’ quantum theory, consisting of the hypotheses of Planck (1901) and of Einstein (1905) that electromagnetic energy is emitted and absorbed in quanta, together with Bohr's model of the atom (1913) in which discontinuous transitions were supposed to occur between discrete electronic orbits. The philosophy of organism was presented in a preliminary form in the Lowell Lectures of 1925 (published in the same year as SMW ) and in its most systematic form in the Gifford Lectures of 1927–28 (published as PR in 1929). It was during the years 1924–28 that de Broglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Bohr, Dirac, and others developed the ‘new’ quantum theory, which was more systematic than the old, much more successful in its predictions, and more revolutionary in its departures from classical physics. Whitehead never refers to the new quantum theory, and it would be unreasonable to expect that even so imaginative a philosopher and scientist could have anticipated it except in the most general terms. Nevertheless, it is important in evaluating the philosophy of organism to determine how well its physical implications agree with quantum theory and with contemporary microphysical theory in general. To do this is the primary purpose of the present essay.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 26, 1993•24 citations

Abner Shimony Quantum Physics and the Philosophy of Whitehead

Black, Max

One of the virtues which Whitehead claims for his philosophy of organism is that it provides a conceptual framework for quantum theory (SMW chapter 8, PR 121-2 and 145).1 The theory which he has in mind is the 'old' quantum theory, consisting of the hypotheses of Planck (1901) and of Einstein (1905) that electromagnetic energy is emitted and absorbed in quanta, together with Bohr's model of the atom (1913) in which discontinuous transitions were supposed to occur between discrete electronic orbits. The philosophy of organism was presented in a preliminary form in the Lowell Lectures of 1925 (published in the same year as SMW) and in its most systematic form in the Gifford Lectures of 1927-8 (published as PR in 1929). It was during the years 1924-28 that De Broglie, Schr6dinger, Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Bohr, Dirac, and others developed the 'new' quantum theory, which was more systematic than the old, much more successful in its predictions, and more revolutionary in its departures from classical physics. Whitehead never refers to the new quantum theory,2 and it would be unreasonable to expect that even so imaginative a philosopher and scientist could have anticipated it except in the most general terms. Nevertheless, it is important in evaluating the philosophy of organism to determine how well its physical implications agree with quantum theory and with contemporary microphysical theory in general. To do this is the primary purpose of the present essay. It will appear that the agreement is only partial and that there are several crucial discrepancies both in detailed predictions and in general spirit.

Routledge eBooks•Jun 3, 2014•0 citations

On Herstein’s ‘Quanta and Corpuscles’

Ronny Desmet

In this chapter Ronny Desmet airs some disagreements with Gary Herstein’s earlier chapter on ‘Quanta and Corpuscles’, arguing for a more nuanced understanding of Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation. He also notes that concept of continuity can be reasonably easily understood as the divisibility-indivisibility contrast, and that Lewis Ford’s temporal atomism thesis is note definitively dead, since Whitehead did change his mind from an idea of continuous becoming to one of atomic becoming

Edinburgh University Press eBooks•Feb 1, 2020•0 citations

Reply to Desmet

Gary L. Herstein

In this short chapter, Gary Herstein replies to Ronny Desmet’s critique of his earlier chapter, arguing that his discussion of the fifth Solvay conference highlights the underestimated maelstrom of confusion in physics at the time, and that it is not clear that Bohr even understood or adequately responded to Einstein’s arguments, and that his interpretation is based on a wilful acceptance of incoherence at the base of reality. He also argues that Lewis Ford, not being a mathematician, was heavily ‘reading in’ the concept of temporal atomism into Whitehead’s philosophy without any clear understanding of Whitehead’s mathematical habits of thought.

Edinburgh University Press eBooks•Feb 1, 2020•0 citations

The Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Michael Epperson

Two types of ontologies about the universe arise: the materialist ontologies that describe the universe (and everything in it) as composed of fluids and atoms that move through space and time, and the conventional materialist ontologies that look at nature as contained in intact particles. Even though Whitehead perceives incompatibilities with the interpretations of some physicists, this section provides discussions on Abner Shimony's five points implicitly supplied by the quantum theory, Bohr's utilization of interconnected information as nature's most basic element, the benefits of the Jamesian ontological accommodation from the Interpretation of Copenhagen, and the idea of a “closed system.” Also given in this chapter are equations and sample situations to support the propositions of Murray Gell-Mann and John Bell, Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, and ontological conclusions from the quantum formalism specializing in the elaboration of potential facts.

Fordham University Press eBooks•Jul 15, 2004•2 citations

Introduction

Michael Epperson

This chapter intends to give a brief background to quantum mechanics and Alfred North Whitehead's cosmology. Several interpretations in quantum mechanics were found to be incompatible with Whitehead's desiderata. Whitehead viewed an analysis as being incompatible with his according to its coherence, logic, applicability, and adequacy. Some of the examples cited are as follows: Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity, David Bohm's “implicate order,” and quantum cosmogonic models by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. In addition to this, there are two notable differences between quantum mechanics and Whiteheadian concepts: “pure” potentia and “inherited” potentia. Aside from this, Whitehead brings the term “satisfaction” into the picture, which he considers to be the final state of the expected output in the process of evolution.

Fordham University Press eBooks•Jul 15, 2004•0 citations
Ronny Desmet endeavors in this chapter to examine Whitehead’s theory of quantum theory and primates as found in his Harvard lectures using Clerk Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism as a starting point while refusing to abandon the idea of continuous space-time, using wave equations as his mathematical vehicle. The chapter contains sections detailing Whitehead’s alternative theory of gravitation, his paradigm of the electron as a complex organism, and his reaction to Niels Bohr’s model of the atom. The chapter concluded that Whitehead wanted a complete reconceptualisation of the atom in terms of atomic structures of vibrations, intending to leave behind all remnants of the materialistic theory in favour of an organic theory.
INTRODUCTION One of the virtues which Whitehead claims for his philosophy of organism is that it provides a conceptual framework for quantum theory ( SMW chapter 8, PR 121–2 and 145). The theory which he has in mind is the ‘old’ quantum theory, consisting of the hypotheses of Planck (1901) and of Einstein (1905) that electromagnetic energy is emitted and absorbed in quanta, together with Bohr's model of the atom (1913) in which discontinuous transitions were supposed to occur between discrete electronic orbits. The philosophy of organism was presented in a preliminary form in the Lowell Lectures of 1925 (published in the same year as SMW ) and in its most systematic form in the Gifford Lectures of 1927–28 (published as PR in 1929). It was during the years 1924–28 that de Broglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Bohr, Dirac, and others developed the ‘new’ quantum theory, which was more systematic than the old, much more successful in its predictions, and more revolutionary in its departures from classical physics. Whitehead never refers to the new quantum theory, and it would be unreasonable to expect that even so imaginative a philosopher and scientist could have anticipated it except in the most general terms. Nevertheless, it is important in evaluating the philosophy of organism to determine how well its physical implications agree with quantum theory and with contemporary microphysical theory in general. To do this is the primary purpose of the present essay.
One of the virtues which Whitehead claims for his philosophy of organism is that it provides a conceptual framework for quantum theory (SMW chapter 8, PR 121-2 and 145).1 The theory which he has in mind is the 'old' quantum theory, consisting of the hypotheses of Planck (1901) and of Einstein (1905) that electromagnetic energy is emitted and absorbed in quanta, together with Bohr's model of the atom (1913) in which discontinuous transitions were supposed to occur between discrete electronic orbits. The philosophy of organism was presented in a preliminary form in the Lowell Lectures of 1925 (published in the same year as SMW) and in its most systematic form in the Gifford Lectures of 1927-8 (published as PR in 1929). It was during the years 1924-28 that De Broglie, Schr6dinger, Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Bohr, Dirac, and others developed the 'new' quantum theory, which was more systematic than the old, much more successful in its predictions, and more revolutionary in its departures from classical physics. Whitehead never refers to the new quantum theory,2 and it would be unreasonable to expect that even so imaginative a philosopher and scientist could have anticipated it except in the most general terms. Nevertheless, it is important in evaluating the philosophy of organism to determine how well its physical implications agree with quantum theory and with contemporary microphysical theory in general. To do this is the primary purpose of the present essay. It will appear that the agreement is only partial and that there are several crucial discrepancies both in detailed predictions and in general spirit.
In this short chapter, Gary Herstein replies to Ronny Desmet’s critique of his earlier chapter, arguing that his discussion of the fifth Solvay conference highlights the underestimated maelstrom of confusion in physics at the time, and that it is not clear that Bohr even understood or adequately responded to Einstein’s arguments, and that his interpretation is based on a wilful acceptance of incoherence at the base of reality. He also argues that Lewis Ford, not being a mathematician, was heavily ‘reading in’ the concept of temporal atomism into Whitehead’s philosophy without any clear understanding of Whitehead’s mathematical habits of thought.
Two types of ontologies about the universe arise: the materialist ontologies that describe the universe (and everything in it) as composed of fluids and atoms that move through space and time, and the conventional materialist ontologies that look at nature as contained in intact particles. Even though Whitehead perceives incompatibilities with the interpretations of some physicists, this section provides discussions on Abner Shimony's five points implicitly supplied by the quantum theory, Bohr's utilization of interconnected information as nature's most basic element, the benefits of the Jamesian ontological accommodation from the Interpretation of Copenhagen, and the idea of a “closed system.” Also given in this chapter are equations and sample situations to support the propositions of Murray Gell-Mann and John Bell, Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, and ontological conclusions from the quantum formalism specializing in the elaboration of potential facts.
This chapter intends to give a brief background to quantum mechanics and Alfred North Whitehead's cosmology. Several interpretations in quantum mechanics were found to be incompatible with Whitehead's desiderata. Whitehead viewed an analysis as being incompatible with his according to its coherence, logic, applicability, and adequacy. Some of the examples cited are as follows: Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity, David Bohm's “implicate order,” and quantum cosmogonic models by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. In addition to this, there are two notable differences between quantum mechanics and Whiteheadian concepts: “pure” potentia and “inherited” potentia. Aside from this, Whitehead brings the term “satisfaction” into the picture, which he considers to be the final state of the expected output in the process of evolution.