Talk:Bohr-Einstein debates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Unclear

This article is highly unclear. Which are the actual arguments, which are comments by the article's author, which are the scientific facts behind the arguments, which of the arguments are false or defective - nothing has been explained. Seriously lacks a lot.

SundarKanna 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

You see, here's another example. I go and break my balls writing up a lenghty and decent article on this and then find there is already an article. If no one is offended or anything, I will merge whatver useful contents I can gather from this one into my own version (much more developed, lucid, fascinating and conprehensive) and redirect this over there.--Lacatosias 11:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Do it! --Kripkenstein 23:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mediating role of Ehrenfest

I became interested in Ehrenfest's mediating role in these debates. According to Niels Bohr, in Schilpp's book:

<q>Einstein's attitude gave rise to ardent discussions within a small circle, in which Ehrenfest, who through the years had been a close friend of us both, took part in a most active and helpful way. </q>

<q>I remember also how at the peak of the discussion Ehrenfest, in his affectionate manner of teasing his friends, jokingly hinted at the apparent similarity between Einstein's attitude and that of the opponents of relativity theory; but instantly Ehrenfest added that he would not be able to find relief in his own mind before concord with Einstein was reached. </q>

<q>The Solvay meeting in 1930 was the last occasion where, in common discussions with Einstein, we could benefit from the stimulating and mediating influence of Ehrenfest, ...</q>

I included a brief paragraph on this in the article on Paul Ehrenfest, perhaps it should be brought up here as well. JdH 03:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small suggestion/question

This article writes:

"Einstein pointed out how it was possible to take advantage of the (universally accepted) laws of conservation of energy and of impulse (momentum) in order to obtain information ..."

I was wondering if Einstein or Bohr actually called it "impulse", because as far as I can see - we now think of it as conservation of momentum not impulse, although they of course have the same implications and use. My suggestion is that we put that word impulse in quotes. Fresheneesz 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They of course spoke German; they probably called it "Impulsmoment" when speaking German (and "Drehmoment" for angular momentum). In Bohr's account of the disccusons, which is written in English, he uses the two expressions interchangebly JdH 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a second small suggestion/question

One title reads: Einstein's second attack

Is attack the best word considering the friendly relationship Einstein and Bohr had.

[edit] EPR

A few thoughts about the EPR section:

  • It does not explain in plain language what the point of the dispute was. This is not because it is impossible; the formulation of the gedanken-experiment is not the most important part of the EPR argument.
  • I've read in a number of sources that the EPR paper was written only by Podolsky (though it came out of conversations with the other). This is probably worth noting: Einstein's most famous disagreement over QM was not written by Einstein at all. And Einstein himself felt that it was bogged down in formalism and not clear.
  • Bohr's response here is not really given a fair shake at all. While I'd be the last to suggest that Bohr was clear, there have been reasonable interpretations of what his objections were, which are much more comprehensible than the version given here.
  • There is no mention of the role that the correspondence principle played, implicitly, in this part of the debate, which I think is rather crucial to it.

I'll try and make some changes when I get some time, but I just wanted to throw that out there. I think the section is also unnecessarily slanted towards Einstein's position which it ironically does not explain very well in the first place. As the text notes, most people thought Bohr won the debate; it is worth trying to explain why. --Fastfission 12:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ease up. Ease up, please. I am not god!! You have valid points and seem to be quite knowlegable about the matter. I would appreciate your contribution, especilly on simplifying the prose. Why do you find it necessary to be insulting about it?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Has someone vandilized this page??? (photo) Surely thats not them smoking a joint??? Thanks.

I'm new, frist edit, sorry for mistakes.

121.72.24.108 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment--- EPR wasn't written by Einstein, but the argument clearly belongs to him. Einstein's english just wasn't very good. In the new biography of Einstein, they say that he was upset with the final form, which he felt was too formal. I think the reason Bohr won the debate on this matter is mostly political--- by then nobody thought (or thinks now) that quantum mechanics is wrong in any measurable way. It was just that Einstein was arguing that this type of theory involves a nonlocal construction--- the wavefunction--- which allows for the physical phenomenon of entanglement between distant objects. He could not accept such a construction as the foundation of an objective physical reality. Neither could Bohr, but Bohr didn't care because he did not think that physics is in the business of describing a reality.Likebox (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)