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

Voprosy filosofii

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in the USSR: Methodology and Ideology

Alexander A. Pechenkin

Published May 5, 2025• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is usually called standard because it is presented in the basic textbooks on the field. In the USSR this inter­pretation was treated from the point of view of the philosophy of dialectic mate­rialism, which was taken as the state ideology. This treatment was oscillated from negative and rejecting of definitely positive. The Copenhagen interpreta­tion has been rejected by the Marxist philosopher A. Maximov, it was severely criticized by the physicist D. Blohintsev, who supported the ensemble approach to quantum mechanics, it was adopted by the mathematician-physicist V. Fock, who proposed some corrections and reservations to it. The Soviet ideology was not completely homogeneous and stable. From the very beginning it contained the philosophy of activity which was something like the “shadow component”. By accepting the philosophy of activity the physicist M. Markov provided the authentic presentation of the Copenhagen interpretation in 1947. In 1980 the philosophy of activity became popular among Russian intellectuals, and the philosopher I. Alexeev published the detailed presentation of the Copenhagen interpretation by treating it as methodologically productive.

DOI
10.21146/0042-8744-2025-5-155-165

Related papers

The Ensemble Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Scientific Realism

Alexander A. Pechenkin

The article takes under consideration three versions of the ensemble (statistical) interpretation of quantum mechanics and discusses the interconnection of these interpretations with the philosophy of science. To emphasize the specifics of the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics in the USSR, the Marxist ideology is taken into account. The present paper continues the author’s previous analysis of ensemble interpretations which emerged in the USA and USSR in the first half of the 20th century. The author emphasizes that the ensemble approach turned out to be a dead end for the development of the interpretation of quantum mechanics in Russia. The article also argues that in Soviet Russia, the classical Copenhagen (standard) approach to quantum mechanics was used. The Copenhagen approach was developed by Lev Landau in 1919–1931 and became the basis of the Landau-Lifshitz famous course on quantum mechanics, one of the classics of twentieth-century physics literature (the first edition was published in 1947). Although Vladimir A. Fock’s approach to the interpretation of quantum mechanics differs from the standard presentation by Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz, Fock put forward a very important principle that complementarity is a “firmly established law of nature”. The fundamental writings of Lev Landau, Vladimir Fock and Igor Tamm, the authors of the mid-twentieth century, did a lot to defend the standard point of view such as the popular interpretations by Landau and Lifshitz. This approach can be traced back to Landau’s early writings and to Fock’s criticism of the ensemble approach.

Acta Baltica Historiae et Philosophiae Scientiarum•May 27, 2021•0 citations

Constructing the Myth of the Copenhagen Interpretation

Kristian Camilleri

According to the standard view, the so-called ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics originated in discussions between Bohr and Heisenberg in 1927, and was defended by Bohr in his classic debate with Einstein. Yet recent scholarship has shown Bohr's views were never widely accepted, let alone properly understood, by his contemporaries, many of whom held divergent views of the ‘Copenhagen orthodoxy’. This paper examines how the ‘myth of the Copenhagen interpretation’ was constructed by situating it in the context of Soviet Marxist critique of quantum mechanics in the 1950s and the response by physicists such as Heisenberg and Rosenfeld.

Perspectives on Science•Jan 29, 2009•111 citations

Niels Bohr in the darkness and light of soviet philosophy∗

Siegfried Müller-Markus

Soviet attitude towards Bohr reflects changes in the ideological approach to science. During the last period before Stalin's death Ždanov proclaimed the campaign against Western influence in Soviet philosophy and science. Nevertheless the physicist M. A. Markov tried to introduce complementarity as a materialistic interpretation of quantum‐mechanics in 1948. He was officially condemned. This was followed by a period (1948–54) during which heavy attacks were made against the Copenhagen school. In 1958, after a personal exchange of thoughts with Bohr, academician Fock declared complementarity and probability to be irreversible steps towards a new insight into physical reality, at the same time correcting some of Bohr's epistemological conceptions.

Inquiry•Jan 1, 1966•0 citations

The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in the 21st Century

Alexander A. Pechenkin

In the 20th century the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics had the leading position. This interpretation was formulated by N. Bohr and W. Hei­senberg in the late twenties and in thirties and was named the orthodox interpretation as it was presented in leading textbooks. The alternative interpretations arose, however they were treated in connection with the problems, which were typical for the orthodox interpretation. In the 21st century the new situation arose. A number of non-orthodox interpretations has been taken under consi­deration by the physicists, and they have been treated in connection withtheir specific methodological problems. In the present paper we refer to the list of the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics, the list which was compiled on the basis of two sources: 1) a survey of the physicists who participated in the seminar which was organized by the Nobel Prize winner A. Zeilinger, and 2) a review of the literature, provided by the French physicist and the historian of physics F. Laloë. We take under consideration the following interpretations: the Copenhagen interpretation, information interpretation (A. Zeilinger), many-worlds interpretation (H. Everett, B. DeWitt); interpretation of relative states (H. Everett); interpretation of objective collapse (R. Penrose); subjectivist (Bayesian) interpretation.

Voprosy filosofii•Apr 2, 2026•0 citations

Beyond Ideology: Epistemological Foundations of Vladimir Fock's approach to Quantum Theory

Jean‐Philippe Martinez

Vladimir Fock was a Soviet theoretical physicist who, from the 1930s, worked to prove that modern physics was compatible with the Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism. In 1957, he went to Copenhagen, and a dispute over the interpretation of quantum mechanics began with Niels Bohr. Fock later claimed that he had found points of convergence with his Danish colleague, most of them concerning issues of wording and recognition of the reality of the world independently of our mind. It led to a specific narrative among historians of physics on Fock and his interpretation of quantum mechanics: The Soviet physicist is often described as a member of the Copenhagen school that contributed to the rapprochement of the Soviet philosophy of physics with the ideas of complementarity in stripping away the positivism in its formulation. Our contribution aims to show that this ideological dimension was only one aspect of reality. Returning to the foundations of Fock's epistemology of physics, we argue that he relied on the principles of antireductionism and scientific realism to develop an interpretation of the theory that sought to overcome Bohr's approach and that the differences between the two men cannot be reduced to mere questions of formulation.

Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte•Dec 1, 2019•4 citations

QBism: An Analytical Review

Alexander A. Pechenkin

A new interpretation of quantum mechanics, the interpretation which became popular in XXI, has been taken under consideration. This is the quantum baysinism (QBism) which may be taken as an extrapolation of the baysian philosophy of probability over the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The baysian philosophy of quantum mechanics has been compared with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the interpretation which can been treated as standard as it is represented in the main textbooks. In contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation which proceeds from the triplets – nature, apparatus and observer (agent), QBism emphasizes the conscious of the observer: the quantum state is the observer’s state, and by means of the quantum conceptual technique the observer constructs his/her own image of quantum processes. By means of measurement the observer updates his/her quantum state, the measuring apparatus being an extension of the observer’s sensuality. From the point of the QBism’s view the phenomenon of decoherence which is widely discussed in the contemporary literature is not essential for the theory of measurement in quantum mechanics. The decoherence explains why the macroscopic phenomena don’t expose the interference behavior which is characteristic for quantum superposition. From the historicо-philosophical point of view Qbism can be traced back to American instrumentalism and operationalism.

Epistemology & Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 2020•1 citation
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is usually called standard because it is presented in the basic textbooks on the field. In the USSR this inter­pretation was treated from the point of view of the philosophy of dialectic mate­rialism, which was taken as the state ideology. This treatment was oscillated from negative and rejecting of definitely positive. The Copenhagen interpreta­tion has been rejected by the Marxist philosopher A. Maximov, it was severely criticized by the physicist D. Blohintsev, who supported the ensemble approach to quantum mechanics, it was adopted by the mathematician-physicist V. Fock, who proposed some corrections and reservations to it. The Soviet ideology was not completely homogeneous and stable. From the very beginning it contained the philosophy of activity which was something like the “shadow component”. By accepting the philosophy of activity the physicist M. Markov provided the authentic presentation of the Copenhagen interpretation in 1947. In 1980 the philosophy of activity became popular among Russian intellectuals, and the philosopher I. Alexeev published the detailed presentation of the Copenhagen interpretation by treating it as methodologically productive.
The article takes under consideration three versions of the ensemble (statistical) interpretation of quantum mechanics and discusses the interconnection of these interpretations with the philosophy of science. To emphasize the specifics of the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics in the USSR, the Marxist ideology is taken into account. The present paper continues the author’s previous analysis of ensemble interpretations which emerged in the USA and USSR in the first half of the 20th century. The author emphasizes that the ensemble approach turned out to be a dead end for the development of the interpretation of quantum mechanics in Russia. The article also argues that in Soviet Russia, the classical Copenhagen (standard) approach to quantum mechanics was used. The Copenhagen approach was developed by Lev Landau in 1919–1931 and became the basis of the Landau-Lifshitz famous course on quantum mechanics, one of the classics of twentieth-century physics literature (the first edition was published in 1947). Although Vladimir A. Fock’s approach to the interpretation of quantum mechanics differs from the standard presentation by Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz, Fock put forward a very important principle that complementarity is a “firmly established law of nature”. The fundamental writings of Lev Landau, Vladimir Fock and Igor Tamm, the authors of the mid-twentieth century, did a lot to defend the standard point of view such as the popular interpretations by Landau and Lifshitz. This approach can be traced back to Landau’s early writings and to Fock’s criticism of the ensemble approach.
According to the standard view, the so-called ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics originated in discussions between Bohr and Heisenberg in 1927, and was defended by Bohr in his classic debate with Einstein. Yet recent scholarship has shown Bohr's views were never widely accepted, let alone properly understood, by his contemporaries, many of whom held divergent views of the ‘Copenhagen orthodoxy’. This paper examines how the ‘myth of the Copenhagen interpretation’ was constructed by situating it in the context of Soviet Marxist critique of quantum mechanics in the 1950s and the response by physicists such as Heisenberg and Rosenfeld.
Soviet attitude towards Bohr reflects changes in the ideological approach to science. During the last period before Stalin's death Ždanov proclaimed the campaign against Western influence in Soviet philosophy and science. Nevertheless the physicist M. A. Markov tried to introduce complementarity as a materialistic interpretation of quantum‐mechanics in 1948. He was officially condemned. This was followed by a period (1948–54) during which heavy attacks were made against the Copenhagen school. In 1958, after a personal exchange of thoughts with Bohr, academician Fock declared complementarity and probability to be irreversible steps towards a new insight into physical reality, at the same time correcting some of Bohr's epistemological conceptions.
In the 20th century the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics had the leading position. This interpretation was formulated by N. Bohr and W. Hei­senberg in the late twenties and in thirties and was named the orthodox interpretation as it was presented in leading textbooks. The alternative interpretations arose, however they were treated in connection with the problems, which were typical for the orthodox interpretation. In the 21st century the new situation arose. A number of non-orthodox interpretations has been taken under consi­deration by the physicists, and they have been treated in connection withtheir specific methodological problems. In the present paper we refer to the list of the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics, the list which was compiled on the basis of two sources: 1) a survey of the physicists who participated in the seminar which was organized by the Nobel Prize winner A. Zeilinger, and 2) a review of the literature, provided by the French physicist and the historian of physics F. Laloë. We take under consideration the following interpretations: the Copenhagen interpretation, information interpretation (A. Zeilinger), many-worlds interpretation (H. Everett, B. DeWitt); interpretation of relative states (H. Everett); interpretation of objective collapse (R. Penrose); subjectivist (Bayesian) interpretation.
Vladimir Fock was a Soviet theoretical physicist who, from the 1930s, worked to prove that modern physics was compatible with the Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism. In 1957, he went to Copenhagen, and a dispute over the interpretation of quantum mechanics began with Niels Bohr. Fock later claimed that he had found points of convergence with his Danish colleague, most of them concerning issues of wording and recognition of the reality of the world independently of our mind. It led to a specific narrative among historians of physics on Fock and his interpretation of quantum mechanics: The Soviet physicist is often described as a member of the Copenhagen school that contributed to the rapprochement of the Soviet philosophy of physics with the ideas of complementarity in stripping away the positivism in its formulation. Our contribution aims to show that this ideological dimension was only one aspect of reality. Returning to the foundations of Fock's epistemology of physics, we argue that he relied on the principles of antireductionism and scientific realism to develop an interpretation of the theory that sought to overcome Bohr's approach and that the differences between the two men cannot be reduced to mere questions of formulation.
A new interpretation of quantum mechanics, the interpretation which became popular in XXI, has been taken under consideration. This is the quantum baysinism (QBism) which may be taken as an extrapolation of the baysian philosophy of probability over the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The baysian philosophy of quantum mechanics has been compared with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the interpretation which can been treated as standard as it is represented in the main textbooks. In contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation which proceeds from the triplets – nature, apparatus and observer (agent), QBism emphasizes the conscious of the observer: the quantum state is the observer’s state, and by means of the quantum conceptual technique the observer constructs his/her own image of quantum processes. By means of measurement the observer updates his/her quantum state, the measuring apparatus being an extension of the observer’s sensuality. From the point of the QBism’s view the phenomenon of decoherence which is widely discussed in the contemporary literature is not essential for the theory of measurement in quantum mechanics. The decoherence explains why the macroscopic phenomena don’t expose the interference behavior which is characteristic for quantum superposition. From the historicо-philosophical point of view Qbism can be traced back to American instrumentalism and operationalism.