@ André: Your factual knowledge which is visible in your answers is impressive as usual.

But please keep in mind that the named persons (Einstein, Bohr et al) have created merly theories about the reality. They are at a time the best declarations of the observations, experimental results etc. but they can't be in no case the last word of wisdom.

Schrödinges wave mechanics was and is an attempt to justify the order of particles within the atomic shell basing on de Broglies matter waves. Well, but particles don't move within the structures and also not in the form of waves. I claim that the particles within a compound like atomic nuclei or atomic shells itself arrange as a specific geometrical grid. Fermis 'electron gas' is nothing else than an overarching grid of electrons and the cause of the metallic bond and electrical conductivity.

Einsteins assumptions show also contradictions to the reality. The history of science shows that such theories sooner or later are replaced by better theories or ideally recognition.

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

" Is it perhaps because quantum physics is more difficult to understand and/or assimulate? "

No. It is because Niels Bohr is not the actual contributor of quantum physics. He only agreed with Heisenberg.

Einstein contributed SR and GR, and the 3 current representations of Quantum Mecanics were contributed by Schrödinger for the wave equation proper first and foremost, and then Heisenberg for the corresponding energy statistical distribution, and Feynman for the path integral.

Good contribution. But it differs from my reference books. According to mine, he was the main contributor and Einstein had no role-but forgive my ignorance but can you confirm this? I have an interest in science but I am not a scientist.

The question stands though, as Quantum ideas are less part of public discourse.

Stanley- you are correct. Niels Bohr and Max Planck are considered the founding fathers of Quantum Theory, each received a Nobel Prize in Physics for their contribution. Einstein is considered “Johnny come lately“ as we say in USA! Amir

Thanks Amir. I thought I'd gone a bit do-lally there for one second.

There have been a controversy between Bohr and Einstein about quantum mechanics. It was thought that Bohr won it, but with more hindsight, it appears Einstein was right in some way. That's why these two names are associated, but actually Einstein was the one who (following Planck) initiated quantum mechanics in 1905, well before even the Bohr model of the atom. Many people made an essential contribution to quantum mechanics, Bohr's one was the complementary principle, but they always had the shadow of Einstein over them. That's why quantum mechanics isn't attached to a single name like relativity.

Ok. I'll check it, but still my knowledge is that Einstein didn't like it at all.

I am getting extremely confused as this doesn't fit in with my reading. Einstein rejected the matter according to my books on the subject. It is surely usually seen as the micro-macro with different rules for each, and Einstein refusing to accept that there could be such a profound difference in reality itself.

Dear Stanley,

Contrary to the general urban legend, Einstein was in perfect agreement with Quantum Mechanics. He simply considered that we still did not know all there was to be known about the electron, contrary to Bohr.

More than that, Einstein's Special theory of relativity was instrumental in de Broglie coming up with the idea that electrons were captive in resonance states on their orbitals (then thought to be orbits) in atoms, which is what gave Schrödinger the idea to use the wave function to represent these resonance states.

Here is what Einstein wrote in 1952 (in his preferred language), followed by the translation:

" Ich zweifle gar nicht daran, dass die gegenwärtige Quanten-Theorie (genauer " Quanten-Mechanik ") die vollkommenste mit der Erfahrung vereinbare Theorie ist, solange man der Beschreibung die Begriffe materieller Punkt und potentielle Energie als elementare Begriffe zugrunde legt. Was ich aber an der Theorie unbefriedigend finde, stellt sich verschieden dar je nach der Interpretation, welche man der " ψ-Funktion " gibt. Jedenfalls aber steht am Anfang meiner Auffassung eine These, die von den meisten gegenwärtigen Theoretikern entschieden abgelehnt wird:

Es gibt so etwas wie den " realen Zustand " eines physikalischen Systems, was unabhängig von jeder Beobachtung oder Messung objektiv existiert und mit den Ausdrucksmitteln der Physik im Prinzip beschrieben werden kann.

Nun ist es kein Zweifel, dass die ψ-Funktion eine Art Beschreibung eines "realen Zustandes" ist. Die Frage ist aber, ob diese Beschreibung den realen Zustand vollständig oder unvollständig charakterisiert."

A. Einstein, E. Schrödinger, W. Pauli, L, Rosenfeld, M. Born, I. & F. Joliot-Curie, W. Heisenberg, H. Yukawa, et al. Louis de Broglie, physicien et penseur . A Tribute to Louis de Broglie for his 60th birthday, each colleague providing one chapter, Einstein even collaborating to 2 distinct chapters, the complete text drafting a detailed overview of the state of knowledge in fundamental physics in 1952. Éditions Albin Michel, Paris, (1953), page 6.

" I have no doubt that current quantum theory (more precisely "Quantum Mechanics") is the most perfect theory compatible with experience, inasmuch as its description is made to rest on the concept of the material point and potential energy as being elementary concepts. But what I find unsatisfactory in the theory resides elsewhere, in the interpretation that is given to the "ψ-function ". In any case, this is at the origin of my conception of a thesis which is categorically rejected by most current theoreticians:

There is something like "the real state" of a physical system, that exists objectively, independently of any observation or measure, and that can in principle be described by physics description means.

Now, there is no doubt that the ψ-function is a manner of description of a "real state". The question is then to determine if this description of a real state is complete or incomplete."

It must not be assumed that all books on this issue have been deeply documented from formal and original sources.

The one I mention was actually written by these discoverers and other colleagues. This is an original source.

The legend comes from an early Solvay congress in 1927, where there was that famous discussion between Bohr and Einstein. De Broglie, Lorentz, and Schrödinger were on the side of Einstein, but the realistic view was rejected by all the other participants, including Ehrenfest who had been a collaborator of Einstein, and was the most bitter with him. It has been agreed that Bohr won the day, but the matter is not so simple, and it had many turns and twists later on. In particular, there is the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) paradox that lay bare the problem. The experiment that have been performed for investigating it didn't vindicated Einstein, but didn't proved him completely wrong either. Quantum mechanics wasn't exactly the theory the physicists thought back then. Einstein followed the sufficient reason principle, which made him so successful, and on ground of this principle he couldn't accept true randomness. That's this only feature that he rejected.

This story have been related by Bohr, and also by De Boglie in his last book Non-Linear Wave Mechanics. To write a legend, it is much easier to caricature so that it sticks in mind, but the issue of quantum mechanics is much too complex to allow such a simplification.

QM is actually in the consciousness of the research community. General public doesn't understand it, and popular books have not glamorized it like GR. Niels Bohr gets credit for Copenhagen interpretation.

After formulating the theory of general relativity, Albert Einstein had shown that photons have momentum and that electrons and other subatomic particles display characteristics of both waves and particles. These discoveries helped form the quantum theories of Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, who proposed that this wave-particle duality exhibited a randomness that is affected by the observer himself. Thereby, the more precisely the particle’s position is determined, the less precisely its momentum is known; the more precisely the momentum of the particle, the less precisely its position is known.

Einstein could never accept the random nature of quantum mechanics and conducted a series of thought experiments to disprove this theory. Bohr would counter and attempt to prove him wrong. Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr held a long-standing verbal jousting match about quantum theory during the 1920s and 30s. Bohr responded to Einstein’s famous quip, “God does not play dice,” by saying “Einstein, stop telling God what to do.”

The problem is not what Einstein created; the problem is that the real Einstein and his image are significantly different. Einstein certainly is the author of the theories of photoelectric effect and Brownian motion. However, when it comes to the special and general theory of relativity and espeсially to quantum theory - there are many points of view. I will leave it all to the historians of science. These theories exists despite of its creators names.

Nevertheless, about the doppelgänger of Einstein, formed in the 20-60's, it is worth talking about. In these years, the image of physics as the queen of all sciences was created. On the one hand, this is understandable - physics has brought quite a few discoveries that affect the life of everyone (first with atomic energy in all its hypostasis, ending with cellular phones, the full list will be very long). However, the obvious successes, as always, became the basis for speculation and claims for complete and final knowledge. Insufficient physicality has become synonymous with unscientificity, etc. In a strange way, Einstein became an icon of this psychosis, even meme for public (lot of apological works were created, one of the last example - Genius (U.S. TV series)). About the same as Archimedes for us - it is ancient Greek mechanics. The farther the "Sturm und Drang" epoch in physics is moved away from our time, the more schematic and iconic this name will be for people.

Why Bohr did not occupy the same position in the scientific Pantheon? Maybe because he stayed in Denmark, and the Danish media is not so effective as the American ones? Any way, the real trace of Bohr in science is more significant, since he left behind assembly of the disciples, unlike Einstein, who left only fans...

Einstein didn't try to "disprove" quantum mechanics, he though it was of random nature because it is incomplete. He tried to prove this. Later it has been shown that true randomness go hand in hand with non-locality, and that's not any better.

Vadim, it is obvious the popular character of Einstein makes us forget all his various and multifarious contributions in physics. It is commonly said that Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, that he tried to unify general relativity and electromagnetism and failed, but that are wrong shortcuts. Einstein came up with no less than three unified theory, better that the Kaluza-Klein one that is the only one still studied today. He was at the origin of quantum mechanics even before Bohr. There is another unknown fact. The thesis of De Broglie was not taken seriously. But Einstein knew a member of the jury, and cited it in one of his publication. That's probably how Schrödinger could be aware of a work that was deemed worth to be forgotten. There are plenty of other important contributions, both before 1905 in thermodynamics, and after 1915. Not the least one, he discovered the EPR paradox that exhibits the really mysterious nature of quantum mechanics.

Dear Claude, I repeat, I do not consider Einstein's contribution to science, this will be left to historians. I'm interested in the Einstein phenomenon, which in the public discourse often embodies science in general. I share Stanley Wilkin's surprise (as I understand this) about the fact that the creator of the theory of relativity plays a much greater role in public consciousness than Bohr, which nevertheless made a significant contribution in the development of the quantum theory. Although the present role of these branch of science and its applied fields is incomparably greater than the theory of relativity (imho).

Dear Jerry,

You write "QM is actually in the consciousness of the research community. General public doesn't understand it".

I'd say that the research community doesn't understand it either even today, nor does it understand the role that de Broglie played in the emergence of QM.

I spoke with numerous physicists who are not even aware that the wave function was meant to represent the resonance state of the axially resonating electron in the ground orbital of the hydrogen atom first and foremost.

Here is another quote from Einstein from the intro of the same book in 1952 that sets this record straight, but that apparently no-one is aware of in the community:

""Ich will dem zusammen mit Frau B. Kaufman verfassten Beitrag zu diesem Bande einige Worte vorausschicken in der einzigen Sprache, in der ich mich mit einige Leichtigkeit ausdrücken kann. Es sind Worte der Entschuldigung. Sie sollen zeigen, warum ich, trotzdem ich De Broglie visionäre Entdeckung des inneren Zusammenhanges zwischen discreten Quantenzuständen und Resonanzzuständen in relativ jungen Jahren bewundernd miterlebt habe, doch unablässig nach einem Wege gesucht habe, das Quantenrätsel auf anderem Wege zu lösen oder doch wenigstens eine Lösung vorbereiten zu helfen.".

Translation (apparently for the first time in English):

"I will begin my contribution prepared for this book in collaboration with Mrs. Kaufman with a few words in the only language in which I can express myself with any ease. They are words to express regret. They are meant to show why - although I observed admiringly in my years of relative youth the genial discovery by Louis de Broglie of the intimate relation between the discrete quantum states and resonance states - I nevertheless ceaselessly searched for some manner to resolve the enigma of quanta by some other means, or at least help in preparing such a solution."

It then turns out that Schrödinger and de Broglie were initially analyzing these observed resonance states in view of establishing a progressive mechanical explanation to the transitions between the stationary states, which involves the generation of the bremmsstrahlung photons that are responsible for the fine spectral lines detected in relation with these transitions, but that the immediate popularity of Heisenberg's statistical method in the community caused all research in this direction to be stalled almost from the start.

Schrödinger clearly expressed his frustration for this state of fact in the chapter he contributed:

"For it must have given to de Broglie the same shock and disappointment as it gave to me, when we learnt that a sort of transcendental, almost psychical interpretation of the wave phenomenon had been put forward, which was very soon hailed by the majority of leading theorists as the only one reconcilable with experiment, and which has now become the orthodox creed, accepted by almost everybody, with a few notable exceptions."

It seems that Schrödinger's frustration was well justified, considering that it took 55 years after he so openly aired this protest in this book and also in a paper titled "Are there quantum jumps" published the same year in the "British Journal for the Philosophy of Science", that is, 80 years after he introduced the wave function, for the first hints of renewed interest in resonance states in relation with the wave function to reappear in the community. This recent analysis can be found in a paper by V. A. Golovko published only in 2008.

Forgive me for saying how pleased I am with this discussion.

Let me put in a few points, some already established here:

It appears from my reading that Bohr was regarded by his and Einstein's contemporaries, especially the younger physicists, as more significant than Einstein. The latter was frequently upbraided for his hostility to quantum mechanics, although this was in part the result of Einstein employing what appears to have been a different logic on the problems. It must also be born in mind that Einstein immediately rejected the Big Bang theory when presented to him by Lemaitre-as he was a priest perhaps Einstein believed his theory was influenced by Genesis?

It seems that Einstein had begun acting towards novel theories in physics as others had first acted towards him. Had he therefore internalised that early hostility?

Einstein has been something of a hero of mine since youth, but it still concerns me that Bohr has largely, and to the public certainly, disappeared into a degree of obscurity. Culturally, this appears strange.

Was the problem, if there is one, to do with Bohr's difficulties with communication, noted by all who knew him, compared to Einstein's excellent use of words, showmanship and media savvy?

One final point at this juncture: why has so much of the discussion here concerned Einstein, rather than Bohr? Is this symtomatic of the cultural trend I've identified?

Dear Stanly,

Maybe it is just an impression that Bohr is not as visible as Einstein in the community and even in the general public.

To my knowledge, his name is familiar to just about everybody minimally interested in physics.

The "Bohr" atom is as familiar as SR and GR to anybody, and even more so since his model is quite easy to understand when compared to SR and GR. It is even one the first things that students learn about particle physics in high school introduction courses.

The only reason I see that Einstein is mentioned more is that ever since his theories were published, they have been the object of constant discussion as to whether they really are conform to observation or not. As long as this is not settled, his name will obviously continue being mentioned since he came up with both relativity theories. I don't think this is obscuring Bohr's contribution in any way. Bohr's contribution is contested by nobody, contrary to Einstein's.

Vadim, you said: "The real trace of Bohr in science is more significant." I disagree with this. There is no logical contradiction between being an icon and being the greatest physicist of the 20th century. Einstein was both, and I don't say that because I am a "fan," but because I deeply know his work. If physics has been considered the queen of all science, it is thanks to Einstein who were the pioneer of both modern physic's revolutions: relativity and quantum mechanics. And at a closer look, it is also clear that there have been a complete change in philosophy, again brought by Einstein, which eased these revolutions. In contrast, for Bohr only the old atomic model (with Sommerfeld,) the complementary principle or Copenhague interpretation (with Born,) and the Beth-Bohr-Block formula comes to mind, and it is minor contribution. In quantum mechanics, De Broglie, Heisenberg (with Born and Jordan,) and Schrödinger played the most significant part.

it must be said also that de Broglie was working with the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom as a template to first become aware that the Bohr orbit might just be a mean distance about which the electron was axially resonating as it was then assumed to be moving on this trajectory.

The same for Heisenberg's statistical energy distribution.

So Bohr's contribution is also part of the foundation of QM.

Stanley, Einstein wasn't able to speak before five years old. Verbal communication wasn't his strength. It is said that when his first article on relativity was published, only four physicists could understand it. Now let us reframe the issue. If it is about quantum mechanics, Bohr's contribution is arguably more significant that the Einstein's one, but he shares its achievement with many more bright people. On the other hand, considering relativity, Einstein was the only one or if need be with Poincaré and Hilbert.

The reality of Einstein's contribution is not in doubt, but culturally he has surely extinquished others. I know of no films carrying his name. I know of no recent documentaries on Bohr or the other outstanding physicists of the time.

No matter how outstanding all the others were, including Pauli, Dirac, he dominates. Has Paul Dirac been forgotten?

@ André: Your factual knowledge which is visible in your answers is impressive as usual.

But please keep in mind that the named persons (Einstein, Bohr et al) have created merly theories about the reality. They are at a time the best declarations of the observations, experimental results etc. but they can't be in no case the last word of wisdom.

Schrödinges wave mechanics was and is an attempt to justify the order of particles within the atomic shell basing on de Broglies matter waves. Well, but particles don't move within the structures and also not in the form of waves. I claim that the particles within a compound like atomic nuclei or atomic shells itself arrange as a specific geometrical grid. Fermis 'electron gas' is nothing else than an overarching grid of electrons and the cause of the metallic bond and electrical conductivity.

Einsteins assumptions show also contradictions to the reality. The history of science shows that such theories sooner or later are replaced by better theories or ideally recognition.

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Dear Hans,

Thank you for your appreciation of the knowledge contained in my old books collection.

I agree with all you say relative to Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie et al. that they could not analyze further than the data that was then available, just like we are today with even the more extensive data that we have.

They focused in the right direction as well as they could, as we all are trying to do.

You write "Well, but particles don't move within the structures and also not in the form of waves. I claim that the particles within a compound like atomic nuclei or atomic shells itself arrange as a specific geometrical grid."

This is also my conclusion, which is what de Broglie, Schrödinger and Heisenberg were on their way to uncovering. And my analysis leads me to conclude that the actual key to the solution is the "resonance" perspective that de Broglie and Shrödinger had uncovered.

From my analysis, they stabilize in local least action electromagnetic axial resonance states in configurations as you describe within the volumes that can be described by the wave function.

I described already this mechanics of stabilization in the case of the hydrogen atom ground state in 3 of my papers, and I am finalizing a last paper that will go in every detail of orbital stabilization and local Zitterbewegung (which is itself a local resonance state involving the separately oscillating magnetic fields of the electron and of its carrying energy) of the electron in motion from the trispatial perspective.

Understanding them however involves understanding the oscillating nature of elementary particles' magnetic fields, and becoming aware of the "physical existence" of the electromagnetic carrying energy of elementary particles as a "real substance".

Best Regards

André

Dear Hans,

The paper about the mechanics of hydrogen atom stabilization that I mentioned in my previous post has now been published. It is titled "The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States":

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf

Best Regards

André

Claude belatedly, but Einstein's written work is clear and accomplished enough to make even very difficult ideas comprehensible. His use of imagery to explain difficult ideas is merely an understanding of metaphor.