The article explores the transition from classical to post-classical science, rooted in quantum theory, within the framework of complementarity between Albert Einstein's determinism and Niels Bohr's probabilistic worldview. A conceptual model of this transition is proposed, where the two sides (Einstein and Bohr) are joined, much like ships in orbit, through a docking module (Max Planck). The components of this unity, the author suggests, correspond to the aspects of the Holy Trinity: Einstein as the Father, Bohr as the Son, and Planck as the Holy Spirit. _____________________ Статья исследует переход от классической науки к науке постклассической, квантовой в своей основе, в контексте концепции комплементарности детерминизма Альберта Эйнштейна и вероятностного миропредставления Нильса Бора. Предложена сущностная модель перехода, стороны которой (Эйнштейн и Бор) соединяются, подобно кораблям на орбите, посредством стыковочного модуля (Макс Планк). Составные этого единства, считает автор, выступают эквивалентами ипостасей Св. Троицы: Эйнштейн — Отец, Бор — Сын, Планк — Дух Святой. Author portal: https://sites.google.com/view/yermakov-orcid
The article explores the transition from classical to post-classical science, rooted in quantum theory, within the framework of complementarity between Albert Einstein's determinism and Niels Bohr's probabilistic worldview. A conceptual model of this transition is proposed, where the two sides (Einstein and Bohr) are joined, much like ships in orbit, through a docking module (Max Planck). The components of this unity, the author suggests, correspond to the aspects of the Holy Trinity: Einstein as the Father, Bohr as the Son, and Planck as the Holy Spirit. _____________________ Статья исследует переход от классической науки к науке постклассической, квантовой в своей основе, в контексте концепции комплементарности детерминизма Альберта Эйнштейна и вероятностного миропредставления Нильса Бора. Предложена сущностная модель перехода, стороны которой (Эйнштейн и Бор) соединяются, подобно кораблям на орбите, посредством стыковочного модуля (Макс Планк). Составные этого единства, считает автор, выступают эквивалентами ипостасей Св. Троицы: Эйнштейн — Отец, Бор — Сын, Планк — Дух Святой. Author portal: https://sites.google.com/view/yermakov-orcid
The acute conflict of scientific and philosophical views of Einstein and Bohr is often presented as a contradiction, Discord. But in fact, their relationship is a vivid manifestation of the quantum principle of complementarity: Unity, existing in the sacred sense as the connection of the Father (Einstein) and the Son (Bohr), the link of which, the Holy Spirit, was Max Planck _________________________ Острейший конфликт научных и философских воззрений Эйнштейна и Бора часто представляют как противоречие, Рознь. Но на деле их отношения — яркое проявление квантового принципа дополнительности: Единство, сущее в смысле сакральном как связь Отца (Эйнштейн) и Сына (Бор), связующим звеном которой, Святым Духом, стал Макс Планк. Author portal: https://sites.google.com/view/yermakov-orcid
The article, which is a philosophical and linguistic study, examines the issue of the spiritual and methodological unity between Socrates and Bohr, as well as Humanity as the foundation of their epistemological approach, which Bohr, inspired and supported by his colleagues, reintroduced into scientific knowledge centuries later. ______________________ В статье, представляющей собой философско-лингвистическое исследование, рассматривается вопрос духовного и методологического единства Сократа и Бора, а также Человечности как фундамента их гносеологического подхода, который Бор, вдохновляемый и поддерживаемый своими соратниками, спустя века вернул в научное познание. Author portal: https://sites.google.com/view/yermakov-orcid
th century ‐ the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. Based on these developments, it is interesting for the future of physics that when examined in terms of their conceptual and mathematical bases, these theories are incompatible. On the other hand, each of these theories requires an incorporation of the other to proceed toward its completion. This is the dilemma we face in these early decades of the 21 st century: Which of the two theories should be abandoned and which should be maintained?[1] Albert Einstein was the leading proponent of the theory of relativity and its philosophy, Niels Bohr was the leading proponent of the quantum theory and its philosophy ‐ as fundamental theories of matter.[2] Because of the incompatibility of the mathematical and conceptual bases of these theories, in fundamental terms, as will be discussed in detail later on, they cannot peacefully coexist. But because aspects of each of these theories are necessary to complete the other, the form of the accepted theory must be generalized in such a way that it yields, as a mathematical approximation, the form of the theory whose concepts are abandoned. This is an appeal to the wellknown principle of correspondence. Bohr appealed to this principle in showing how the formal expression of quantum mechanics goes smoothly into the structure of classical mechanics as the fundamental unit of action ‐ Planck’s constant h ‐ approaches zero, compared with the values of classical action. Similarly, the principle of correspondence reveals how Einstein’s relativistic mechanics goes smoothly
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become the standard way of explaining the physical philosophical meaning of the mathematics of microscopic behavior. It developed from the thought of people who attended the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Copenhagen during the 40 years that Niels Bohr directed it, from 1920 to 1962. Bohr took a large part in developing the Copenhagen Interpretation, he didn't escape all controversy over it (although the quote above is a bit of an exaggeration). Bohr did die before the experimental theoretical developments that have transposed the debate over the appropriateness adequacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation into a new key, he may well have been lucky to have escaped when he did. There is no authoritative codification of CI [the Copenhagen Interpretation], write T Gornitz C. E von Weizsacker of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg, West Germany in' their formal presentation to the recent Loyola Conference on Mathematical Interpretational Problems in Relativistic Quantum Theory, and under the conditions of its origin there probably could not be one.... All prominent authors of the time who wrote on these questions, like Bohr, [Werner] Heisenberg, [Wolfgang] Pauli, J[ohn] v[on] Neumann on one side, [Albert] Einstein [Erwin] Schrodinger on the other, fell, so we feel, into some stammering when they tried to express their own positions. Nevertheless there is what might be called a Copenhagen attitude. It concentrates on observable phenomena, makes statistics probability central to its understanding, considers quantum mechanics primarily a theory of knowledge or information becomes a kind of physica negativa (analogous to a theologia negativa) in trying not to say too much about things that can't be seen or felt. For example, it doesn't much care whether the orbits of electrons in atoms are real or not and, in fact, tends to regard them as unreal. It appears in most textbooks as the standard way of looking at things.
“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress,” said Niels Bohr with characteristic irony. The quantum view of the atom began with Bohr. Coming from Denmark, he worked with Rutherford, who although famously skeptical about theoreticians, supported him. Max Planck had previously introduced the idea of the quantum, and Einstein had extended it from matter to light, but Bohr’s proposal that electrons can adjust their orbits only by quantum leaps was revolutionary. The next revolution was Schrödinger’s description of electrons as waves instead of particles. This led to recognition of the wave–particle duality. The rest of the 20th century was marked by the realization that the apparently fundamental particles of the nucleus, the proton and the neutron, each actually consisted of a series of sub-particles. The wave–particle duality created a baffling series of paradoxes. Following revolutions tended to be driven by theoreticians, and massive team efforts were required to identify the sub-particles experimentally.
This article discusses the history of quantum physics, beginning with an analysis of the process through which a community of quantum theorists and experimentalists came into being. In particular, it traces the roots and fruits of Max Planck’s papers in irreversible processes in nature. It proceeds by exploring the origin and subsequent development of Niels Bohr’s so-called ‘planetary model’ of the atom, focusing on the extension of the model by Arnold Sommerfeld and members of his school as well to Bohr’s use of his principles of correspondence and adiabatic invariance. It also considers the post-war years, as the problems of atomic spectroscopy sparked the development of new methodological approaches to quantum theory. Finally, it offers a history of the two distinct new forms of quantum mechanics put forward in the mid-1920s: Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Pascual Jordan’s matrix mechanics, and Erwin Schrödinger’s wave mechanics.