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

Nature

How quantum mechanics emerged in a few revolutionary months 100 years ago

Kristian Camilleri

Published Jan 8, 2025• 7 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1038/d41586-024-04217-0

Related papers

Fifty years ago: The birth of quantum mechanics

Linus Carl Pauling

Trends in Biochemical Sciences•Sep 1, 1976•2 citations

100 years of quantum mechanics: The months that changed physics

Milan R. Pantić

A hundred years ago, physics underwent one of its most dramatic transformations - a paradigm shift that fundamentally changed our understanding of nature. Over the course of several revolutionary months in 1925 and early 1926, quantum mechanics emerged as a new, foundational theory of the microscopic world. With the publication of key papers by Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, the theoretical framework was established that radically redefined our perception of physical reality. These works demonstrated that atoms and subatomic particles do not obey the laws of classical mechanics, but instead follow entirely new, quantum laws. Born in those intense months, quantum mechanics became one of the cornerstones of modern physics and a lasting source of inspiration in both theoretical and applied sciences. This paradigmatic shift opened new avenues of research and laid the groundwork for scientific discoveries that continue to shape our understanding of nature today. This paper is dedicated to those pivotal historical moments - the months in which science made one of its deepest leaps and most consequential strides in comprehending the world.

Kragujevac Journal of Science•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics: A Century Later

T. C. Choy

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Dec 28, 2025•1 citation

Could Feynman have said this? May 2004

N. David Mermin

Fifteen years ago, I mused in a Reference Frame column on how different generations of physicists differed in the degree to which they thought that the interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a serious problem. I declared myself to be among those who feel uncomfortable when asked to articulate what we really think about the quantum theory, adding that “If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’” In the intervening years, I've come to hold a milder and more nuanced opinion of the Copenhagen view, but that should be the subject of another column. The subject of this one is the habit of misquotation or misattribution that afflicts our profession, a rather different example of which I pointed out a few months ago. Given my capacity for intellectual development (“inconsistency,” in the terminology deployed in the current American political season), it's fortunate that I've now reached an age at which I tend to forget about things I've written more than a few years ago. Indeed, I find it downright irritating when somebody asks me questions about papers I wrote a mere half dozen years ago, naively identifying me with the author of those ancient texts. Until quite recently, I had no memory of ever having written such a childishly brusque dismissal of such an exquisitely subtle point of view, much less of having published it in so widely read a venue. This amnesia, combined with the evolution in my thinking that had distanced me from my long-forgotten words, may explain why I was initially somewhat puzzled by the slight sensation of discomfort that passed over me when, browsing the e-print archive earlier this year, I read a characterization of Max Born's probability rule as “the favorite ingredient of what has been nicknamed, after Feynman's famous dictum, the shut up and calculate interpretation of quantum mechanics.” I yield to nobody in my admiration for Richard Feynman's aphorisms on the nature of quantum mechanics. Indeed, long ago I published a poem consisting of nothing more than a resetting as verse of a paragraph Feynman had written about his own attitude toward the quantum theory, in his now (but not then) famous article that launched the whole field of quantum computation. I like to think I have devoured everything Feynman ever wrote on the character of quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 5, 2016•0 citations

Bose-Einstein Condensates Display Their First Tricks

Gary Taubes

A year ago this month, physicists first created a Bose-Einstein condensate, a state of matter in which a cloud of trapped atoms is cooled so close to absolute zero that their quantum-mechanical waves merge. But with barely 1000 atoms in a condensate that lasted just a few seconds, the researchers could do no more than say they'd done it. Now the field is being transformed by a new atom trap that can create condensates of 5 million sodium atoms that survive for half a minute and a new technique for imaging condensates without destroying them. Several research groups are now probing the size, growth rate, optical properties, and even the viscosity of this new form of matter.

Science•Jun 14, 1996•1 citation

Revisiting the History of Quantum Mechanics

Jean Bricmont

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2016•1 citation
A hundred years ago, physics underwent one of its most dramatic transformations - a paradigm shift that fundamentally changed our understanding of nature. Over the course of several revolutionary months in 1925 and early 1926, quantum mechanics emerged as a new, foundational theory of the microscopic world. With the publication of key papers by Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, the theoretical framework was established that radically redefined our perception of physical reality. These works demonstrated that atoms and subatomic particles do not obey the laws of classical mechanics, but instead follow entirely new, quantum laws. Born in those intense months, quantum mechanics became one of the cornerstones of modern physics and a lasting source of inspiration in both theoretical and applied sciences. This paradigmatic shift opened new avenues of research and laid the groundwork for scientific discoveries that continue to shape our understanding of nature today. This paper is dedicated to those pivotal historical moments - the months in which science made one of its deepest leaps and most consequential strides in comprehending the world.
Fifteen years ago, I mused in a Reference Frame column on how different generations of physicists differed in the degree to which they thought that the interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a serious problem. I declared myself to be among those who feel uncomfortable when asked to articulate what we really think about the quantum theory, adding that “If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’” In the intervening years, I've come to hold a milder and more nuanced opinion of the Copenhagen view, but that should be the subject of another column. The subject of this one is the habit of misquotation or misattribution that afflicts our profession, a rather different example of which I pointed out a few months ago. Given my capacity for intellectual development (“inconsistency,” in the terminology deployed in the current American political season), it's fortunate that I've now reached an age at which I tend to forget about things I've written more than a few years ago. Indeed, I find it downright irritating when somebody asks me questions about papers I wrote a mere half dozen years ago, naively identifying me with the author of those ancient texts. Until quite recently, I had no memory of ever having written such a childishly brusque dismissal of such an exquisitely subtle point of view, much less of having published it in so widely read a venue. This amnesia, combined with the evolution in my thinking that had distanced me from my long-forgotten words, may explain why I was initially somewhat puzzled by the slight sensation of discomfort that passed over me when, browsing the e-print archive earlier this year, I read a characterization of Max Born's probability rule as “the favorite ingredient of what has been nicknamed, after Feynman's famous dictum, the shut up and calculate interpretation of quantum mechanics.” I yield to nobody in my admiration for Richard Feynman's aphorisms on the nature of quantum mechanics. Indeed, long ago I published a poem consisting of nothing more than a resetting as verse of a paragraph Feynman had written about his own attitude toward the quantum theory, in his now (but not then) famous article that launched the whole field of quantum computation. I like to think I have devoured everything Feynman ever wrote on the character of quantum mechanics.
A year ago this month, physicists first created a Bose-Einstein condensate, a state of matter in which a cloud of trapped atoms is cooled so close to absolute zero that their quantum-mechanical waves merge. But with barely 1000 atoms in a condensate that lasted just a few seconds, the researchers could do no more than say they'd done it. Now the field is being transformed by a new atom trap that can create condensates of 5 million sodium atoms that survive for half a minute and a new technique for imaging condensates without destroying them. Several research groups are now probing the size, growth rate, optical properties, and even the viscosity of this new form of matter.