Einstein’s Approaches to Quantum Theory 1925-1935


Heisenberg’s seminal paper initiating quantum theory was written in July 1925. It is sometimes suggested that Einstein was initially unclear in his views on the theory; Pais1 suggests that he ‘vacillated.’ It seems more likely that he combined at much the same time great excitement about the mathematical content and potential of the theory, with growing concern that philosophical conclusions were being drawn from the theory that he found unacceptable. In March 1926 he wrote2 to Max Born’s wife that: ‘The Heisenberg-Born concepts leave us all breathless, and have made a deep impression on all theoretically oriented people. Instead of dull resignation, there is now a singular tension in us sluggish people.’ Indeed it must have been as exciting for Einstein as for any other physicist to perceive a clear mathematical route forward after the conceptual turmoil of the previous quarter-century. In 1912, Einstein1 had written: “The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks‘, and his feelings had probably not changed much during the 12 years before 1912 and the 13 afterwards up to 1925. Now at last it seemed that one could hope to study atoms and light from a well-defined theory rather than by guesswork and subterfuge, however brilliant.


Quantum Theory Physical Reality Hide Variable Standard Interpretation Gibbs Ensemble 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pais A. (1982). ’subtle is the Lord...’: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Born M. (2005). The Born-Einstein Letters 1916–1955. 2nd edn., Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mehra J. (1975). Satyendra Nath Bose, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 21, 117–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heisenberg W. (1972). Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forman P. (1971). Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory 1918–1927: Adaptation by German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile intellectual environment, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3, 1–117.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hendry J. (1980). Weimar culture and quantum causality, History of Science 18, 155–80.ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore W. (1989). Schrödinger: Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Przibram K. (ed.) (1967). Letters on Wave Mechanics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Born M. (1926). Zur Quantenmechanik der Stossvorgänge [On the quantum mechanics of collisions], Zeitschrift für Physik 37, 863–7.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fine A. (1986). The Shaky Game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cushing J.T. (1994). Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belousek D.W (1996). Einstein’s 1927 unpublished hidden-variable theory: Its background, content and significance, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27, 437–61.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holland P. (2005). What’s wrong with Einstein’s 1927 hidden-variable interpretation of quantum mechanics? Foundations of Physics 35, 177–96.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    von Neumann J. (1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Einstein A. (1949). Autobiographical notes, In: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, (Schilpp P.A., ed.) New York: Tudor, pp. 1–95.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bohm D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of’ hidden variables’ I and II, Physical Review 85, 166–93.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson E. (1966). Derivation of the Schrödinger equation from Newtonian mechanics, Physical Review 150, 1079–85.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nelson E. (1985). Quantum Fluctuations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bacciagaluppi G. (1999). Nelsonian mechanics revisited, Foundations of Physics Letters 12, 1–16.CrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bohr N. (1927). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory, Nature 121, 580–90.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mehra J. (1975). The Solvay Conferences on Physics: Aspects of the Development of Physics since 1911. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beller M. (1992). The birth of Bohr’s complementarity: The context and the dialogues, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 23, 147–80.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holland P.R. (1993). The Quantum Theory of Motion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Broglie L. (1959). L’interprétation de la mécanique ondulatoire, Journal of Physics: Radium 20, 963–79.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Broglie L. (1964). The Current Interpretation of Wave Mechanics: A Critical Study. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norsen T. (2005). Einstein’s boxes, American Journal of Physics 73, 164–76.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bohr N. (1949). Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, In: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. (Schilpp P.A., ed.) New York: Tudor, pp. 199–241.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jammer M. (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Unruh W.G. and Opat G.J. (1979). The Bohr-Einstein ‘weighing of energy’ debate, American Journal of Physics 47, 143–4.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ghirardi G.-C. (2005). Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards. Princeton: Princeton University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de la Torre A.C., Daleo A. and Garcia-Mata I. (2000). The photon-box: Einstein-Bohr debate demythologized, European Journal of Physics 21, 253–60.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whitaker M.A.B. (2004). The EPR paper and Bohr’s response, Foundations of Physics 34, 1305–40.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Einstein A., Podolsky B. and Rosen N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47, 777–80.MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Landsman N.P. (2006). When champions meet: rethinking the Bohr-Einstein debate, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37, 212–42.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shimony A. (2005). Comment on Norsen”s defense of Einstein’s ‘box argument’, American Journal of Physics 73, 177–8.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Personalised recommendations