1 Two recent and valuable collections of articles indicating the diversity of the views expressed are Körner, S., ed., Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics with Special Reference to Quantum Mechanics (New York, 1962)Google Scholar; and Colodny, R. G., ed., Beyond, the Edge of Certainty (Englewood Cliffs, 1965)Google Scholar.

2 Expressed mathematically as ΔxΔpx ≧ ħ /2 ‘ where Δx and Δpx are the limits of precision within which the value of a coordinate and of momentum, respectively, can be simultaneously determined and ħ = Planck's constant divided by 2π. When physical values are involved in this sort of relationship, the term “canonically conjugate parameters” is employed.

3 See Hilary Putnam, “A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics,” in Colodny, p. 78.

4 The explanation for the spot imprint given by de Broglie was that of the “reduction of the wave packet.“

5 There is a great deal of disagreement among physicists and philosophers of science on the definition of complementarity, and some would not accept the explanation above. Another common statement of the meaning of complementarity is that the quantum description of phenomena divides into two mutually exclusive classes which complement each other in the sense that one must combine them in order to have a complete description in classical terms.

6 A summary of the early warnings is in David Joravsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, 1917-1932 (New York, 1961), passim, esp. pp. 285-86.

7 Bohr indicated that the concept of complementarity might be applied to such areas as physiology, psychology, biology, and sociology in his Atomtheorie und Naturbeschreibung (Berlin, 1931) and “Causality and Complementarity,” Dialectica, II, No. 3-4 (1948), 312-19. This issue of Dialectica was devoted entirely to the concept of complementarity and included one article in which the author advanced the thesis that complementarity is potentially valid in all areas of systematic study: F. Gonseth, “Remarque sur l'idée de complémentarité,“ pp. 413-20.

8 Otchet o deiatel'nosti Akademii nauk SSSR za 1929 g. (Leningrad, 1930), Vol. I (Appendix).

9 Nikol'skii, , “Printsipy kvantovoi mekhaniki,” Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk (hereafter UFN), XVI, No. 5 (1936), 537–65Google Scholar. Nikol'skii later published a book setting forth the same view: Kvantovye protsessy, 1940. Nikol'skii's 1936 article indicated his agreement with the position of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in their debate with Bohr. See Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review, XLVII, No. 10 (May 15, 1935), 777–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Niels Bohr, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?“ ibid., XLVIII, No. 8 (Oct. 15, 1935), 696-702.

10 Nikol'skii, “Otvet V. A. Foku,” UFN, XVII, No. 4 (1937), 555. In his criticism of Nikol'skii, Fock maintained that quantum mechanics described the action of an individual micro-object as well as statistical groups (“K stat'e Nikol'skogo ‘Printsipy kvantovoi mekhaniki/” ibid., pp. 553-54).

11 Fok, “Mozhno li schitat', chto kvantomekhanicheskoe opisanie fizicheskoi real'nosti iavliaetsia polnym?” ibid., XVI, No. 4 (1936), 437. In his introduction Fock clearly indicated that he considered Bohr the victor in the debate.

12 Fock also engaged in a debate before the war with A. A. Maksimov, another important participant in the later controversy. See Fok, “K diskussii po voprosam fiziki,” Pod znamenem marksizma (hereafter PZM), No. 1, 1938, pp. 149-59. In 1937 and 1938 PZM contained a number of articles on the philosophic interpretation of quantum mechanics, including contributions by Maksimov, E. Kol'man, P. Langevin, and Nikol'skii.

13 Omel'ianovskii, V. I. Lenin i fizika XX veka (Moscow, 1947), passim, esp. p. 77. Omel'ianovskii accepted the relativity of simultaneity and of spatial and temporal intervals, concepts which were to be severely criticized in Soviet philosophical journals in the coming months.

14 Ibid., p. 95.

15 For critical reviews of Omel'ianovskii, see M. Karasev and V. Nozdrev, “O knige M. E. Omel'ianovskogo ‘V. I. Lenin i fizika XX veka,’ “ Voprosy filosofii (hereafter VF), No. 1, 1949, pp. 338-42; V. V. Perfil'ev, “O knige M. E. Omel'ianovskogo ‘V. I. Lenin i fizika XX veka,’ “ VF, No. 1, 1948, pp. 311-12. The second edition was published in Ukrainian, Borot'ba materiializmu proty idealizmu v suchasnii fizytsi (Kiev, 1947).

16 Zhdanov, Vystuplenie na diskussii po knige G. F. Aleksandrova “Istoriia zapadnoevropeiskoi filosofii” 24 iiunia 1947 g. (Moscow, 1951), p. 43.

17 The first four issues were under the editorship of B. M. Kedrov, who was replaced by D. I. Chesnokov after Kedrov had sponsored a series of controversial articles. Kedrov obviously supported the Markov article and was held responsible for the criticism it incurred. Five articles in the first issues of Voprosy filosofii, including Markov's, were criticized in an article in Pravda, “Za boevoi filosofckii zhurnal” (September 7, 1949).

18 Markov, “O prirode fizicheskogo znaniia,” VF, No. 2, 1947, pp. 140-76.

19 Maksimov charged that around Fock in the P. N. Lebedev Physics Institute of the Academy of Sciences there was a group of scientists who refused to admit dialectical materialism into science (A. A. Maksimov, “Bor'ba za materializm v sovremennoi fizike,” VF, No. 1, 1953, p. 178). When Markov's viewpoint was discussed in this institute, very little substantive criticism was expressed; see L. L. Potkov, “Obsuzhdenie raboty M. A. Markova 'O mikromire,'” VF, No. 2, 1947, pp. 381-82. The criticism came later, primarily from philosophers.

20 Markov, p. 150. The “hidden parameter” theories have been promoted in recent years by David Bohm in particular.

21 Ibid., p. 146.

22 Ibid., p. 163.

23 Schrödinger, E., “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik,” Die Naturwissenschaften, XXIII, No. 48 (Nov. 29, 1935), 812.Google Scholar

24 Putnam, pp. 94 ff. Hans Reichenbach also analyzed the cat paradox in “The Principle of Anomaly,” Dialectica, II, No. 3-4 (1948), 344.

25 Maksimov, “Ob odnoi filosofskom kentavre,” Literaturnaia gazeta, April 10, 1948, p. 3.

26 Joravsky, p. 185.

27 “K diskussii po stat'e M. A. Markova,” VF, No. 1, 1948, p. 225.

28 Mitin is currently chief editor of Voprosy filosofii.

29 Maksimov, “Ob odnoi filosofskom kentavre,” p. 3. One of the characteristics of Maksimov's article was its inaccuracies, as many critics in letters to the editor of Literaturnaia gazeta pointed out. In the quotation cited, for example, Maksimov stated that Markov had said that microreality “does not exist” before measurement, a statement which Markov never made, although he did say that the state of a system is “prepared” by measurement. In addition, Maksimov described Markov as saying that there existed a sharp division between the microlevel and the macrolevel of physical reality, a statement which Markov not only did not make but specifically denied.

30 See “Diskussiia o prirode fizicheskogo znaniia: Obsuzhdenie stat'i M. A. Markova,“ VF, No. 1, 1948, pp. 203-32. Among the other contributors were B. G. Kuznetsov and S. A. Petrushevskii.

31 Maksimov, “Diskussiia o prirode fizicheskogo znaniia,” VF, No. 3, 1948, p. 228.

32 “Ot redaktsii,” ibid., pp. 231-32.

33 Soviet philosophers were quite straightforward in recognizing the discrediting of complementarity. Thus, Storchak observed, “In the course of the discussion of M. A. Markov's article it was established that the principle of complementarity was contrived as an idealistic distortion of the foundations of quantum mechanics” (“Za materialisticheskoe osveshchenie osnov kvantovoi mekhaniki,” VF, No. 3, 1951, p. 202).

34 Terletskii, “Obsuzhdenie stat'i M. A. Markova,” VF, No. 3, 1948, p. 229.

35 He seems to have played a role in this controversy similar to Chelintsev's in the theory of resonance dispute. See my “A Soviet Marxist View of Structural Chemistry: The Theory of Resonance Controversy,” Isis, LV, No. 179 (March 1964), 20-31.

36 Maksimov, “Marksistskii filosofskii materializm i sovremennaia fizika,” VF, No. 3, 1948, p. 114.

37 Blokhintsev, Vvedenie v kvantovuiu mekhaniku (Moscow and Leningrad, 1944).

38 Osnovy kvantovoi mekhaniki (Moscow and Leningrad, 1949).

39 Ibid., p. 8.

40 Vvedenie v kvantovuiu mekhaniku, p. 34.

41 Ibid., p. 42.

42 See Reichenbach, “The Principle of Anomaly,” p. 345.

43 Vvedenie v kvantovuiu mekhaniku, p. 42.

44 Ibid., pp. 52, 58.

45 In a laudatory review of Blokhintsev's second edition, Storchak observed that the book would serve well as a dialectical materialist statement of quantum mechanics (“Za materialisticheskoe osveshchenie osnov kvantovoi mekhaniki,” VF, No. 3, 1951), p. 202.

46 Vvedenie v kvantovuiu mekhaniku, p. 34, and Osnovy kvantovoi mekhaniki, p. 45; italics added.

47 Blokhintsev drew his references from Bohr, 's Atomtheorie und Naturbeschreibung (Berlin, 1931)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Jordan, P.'s Physics of the Twentieth Century (New York, 1944)Google Scholar.

48 Compare Osnovy kvantovoi mekhaniki, p. 547, lines 17-21, with Vvedenie v kvantovuiu mekhaniku, p. 34, lines 6-7.

49 Osnovy kvantovoi mekhaniki, p. 57.

50 Blokhintsev, “Kritika idealisticheskogo ponimaniia kvantovoi teorii,” UFN, XLV (1951), No. 2 (Oct.), 195-228 (reprinted with two pages of preface as “Kritika filosofskikh vozzrenii tak nazyvaemoi ‘kopengagenskoi shkoly’ v fizike,” in A. A. Maksimov et al., eds., Filosofskie voprosy sovremennoi fiziki [Moscow, 1952], pp. 358-95).

51 “Kritika idealisticheskogo ponimaniia kvantovoi teorii,” p. 209.

52 Ibid„ p. 210.

53 Blokhintsev now defined the ensemble as the microsystem plus the macro-instrument (ibid., p. 212).

54 Istoriia Vsesoiuznoi kommunisticheskoi partii (bol'shevikov): Kratkii kurs (Moscow, 1945), p. 101.

55 “Kritika idealisticheskogo ponimaniia kvantovoi teorii,” p. 213.

56 Many contemporary analysts of quantum mechanics agree with Blokhintsev on this point. See, for example, P. K. Feyerabend, “Problems of Microphysics,” in R. G. Colodny, ed., Frontiers of Science and Philosophy (Pittsburgh, 1962), p. 207.

57 This position of Blokhintsev's illustrates that he was not in complete agreement with the interpretation of Nikol'skii before World War II, as has often been said. Nikol'skii agreed with Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. See Nikol'skii, “Printsipy kvantovoi mekhaniki.“

58 “Kritika idealisticheskogo ponimaniia kvantovoi teorii,” p. 211.

59 V. A. Fok, “O tak nazyvaemykh ansambliakh v kvantovoi mekhanike,” VF, No. 4, 1952, p. 170.

60 Ibid., p. 173.

61 “Otvet akademiku V. A. Foku,” VF, No. 6, 1952, pp. 172-73.

62 See, for example, his “Problema struktury elementarnykh chastits,” in I. V. Kuznetsov and M. E. Omel'ianovskii, eds., Filosofskie problemy fiziki elementarnykh chastits (Moscow, 1964), pp. 47-59.

63 N. R. Hanson, “Five Cautions for the Copenhagen Interpretation's Critics,” Philosophy of Science, October 1959, p. 327.

64 Fok, “Ob interpretatsii kvantovoi mekhaniki,” in N. N. Fedoseev et al., eds., Filosofskie problemy sovremennogo estestvoznaniia (Moscow, 1959), p. 235.

65 See, for example, Shirokov, “Filosofskie voprosy teorii otnositel'nosti,” in V. N. Kolbanovskii et al., eds., Dialekticheskii materializm i sovremennoe estestvoznanie (Moscow, 1964), pp. 58-80.

66 Fok, “K diskussii po voprosam fiziki,” PZM, No. 1, 1938, p. 159.

67 See p. 384 above and note 11.

68 Fok, “K diskussii po voprosam fiziki“; and “Protiv nevezhestvennoi kritiki sovremennykh fizicheskikh teorii,” VF, No. 1, 1953, pp. 168-74; Maksimov, “O filosofskikh vozzreniiakh akad. V. F. Mitkevich i o putiakh razvitiia sovetskoi fiziki,” PZM, No. 7, 1937, pp. 25-55; and “Bor'ba za materializm v sovremennoi fizike,” VF, No. 1, 1953, pp. 175-94.

69 Fok, “Osnovnye zakony fiziki v svete dialekticheskogo materializma,” Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta, No. 4, 1949, p. 39; and M. E. Omel'ianovskii, Filosofskie voprosy kvantovoi mekhaniki (Moscow, 1956), p. 35.

70 V. A. Fok and A. B. Migdal, in N. S. Krylov, Raboty po obosnovaniiu statisticheskoi fiziki (Moscow and Leningrad, 1950), p. 8.

71 Even if Fock's hypothesis were to be granted, die existence of objective reality would not necessarily be denied, since there is no reason why such reality has to be defined in terms of certain parameters, such as position and momentum. Nevertheless, such an interpretation would require a more sophisticated view of reality than is often granted it.

72 Omel'ianovskii, “Dialekticheskii materializm i tak nazyvaemyi printsip dopolnitel'nosti Bora,” in A. A. Maksimov et al., eds., Filosofskie voprosy sovremennoi fiziki (Moscow, 1952), pp. 404-5.

73 Fok, “O tak nazyvaemykh ansambliakh v kvantovoi mekhanike,” VF, No. 4, 1952, p. 172.,

74 Fok, “Kritika vzgliadov Bora na kvantovuiu mekhaniku,” UFN, XLV (1951), No. 1 (Sept.), p. 13.

75 Fok, “Ob interpretatsii kvantovoi mekhaniki,” in N. N. Fedoseev et al., eds., Filosofskie problemy sovremennogo estestvoznaniia (Moscow, 1959), pp. 212-36.

76 In 1952 de Broglie, after defending the Copenhagen Interpretation for over twenty years, returned to his earlier belief in its replacement by a theory based on the “instinctive“ position of a physicist, that of realism. Louis de Broglie, “La Physique quantique restera-telle indéterministe?” Revue d'Histoire des Sciences et de leurs applications, V (1952), No. 4 (Oct.-Dec), 309.

77 See David Bohm, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics (New York, 1961).

78 Vigier remarked, “A particle is thus considered as an average organized excitation of a chaotic subquantum-mechanical level of matter, similar in a sense to a sound wave propagation in the chaos of molecular agitation.” In this same article Vigier credited Blokhintsev with providing the essential ideas for his model. J.-P. Vigier, “Probability in the Probabilistic and Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” in Körner, pp. 75, 76.

79 Fok, “Ob interpretatsii kvantovoi mekhaniki,” p. 215.

80 Ibid., p. 218.

81 The intermediate form, said Fock, would be a case when wave-like and corpuscle-like properties appear simultaneously (although not sharply), such as when an electron is partially localized (corpuscle-like property) and at the same time displays wave properties (wave function has the character or a standing wave with an amplitude rapidly decreasing with increasing distance from the center of the atom).

82 Ibid., p. 219.

83 Ibid., p. 222.

84 Omel'ianovskii, Filosofskie voprosy kvantovoi mekhaniki (Moscow, 1956).

85 Ibid., pp. 21-22.

86 Ibid., pp. 253, 254.

87 Ibid., p. 74. See note 2 above.

88 Ibid., p. 71.

89 Ibid., p. 32.

90 The record of the conference was published in N. N. Fedoseev et al., eds., Filosofskie problemy sovremennogo estestvoznaniia (Moscow, 1959). For the Chesnokov reference, see p. 650.

91 Ibid., p. 561. De Broglie referred to the same statement of Voltaire in his well-known 1952 article, “La Physique quantique restera-t-elle indéterministe?” p. 310.

92 Omel'ianovskii, “The Concept of Dialectical Contradiction in Quantum Physics,” in Philosophy, Science and Man: The Soviet Delegation Reports for the XIII World Congress of Philosophy (Moscow, 1963), p. 77.

93 Ibid., p. 75.

94 Kol'man, “Sovremennaia fizika v poiskakh dal'neishei fundamental'noi teorii,” VF, No. 2, 1965, p. 122. Kol'man, a Czech who has spent long periods of time in Moscow, has played a very interesting role in disputes over the philosophy of science. Among Czech scientists he is generally known as a rigid ideologue, but in the Soviet Union he has often been a “liberal” in the various controversies, although he favored Lysenko in the early genetics controversy. As early as 1938 he was praised by Fock for his views on relativity physics. In cybernetics he was the first person to plead with Party officials for a recognition of the value of the new field (Kol'man, “Chto takoe kibernetika,” VF, No. 4, 1955, pp. 148- 59). The article on physics cited above is definitely within this liberal tradition.

95 De Broglie would find causality by replacing current quantum theory by a theory (pilot-wave) which would restore classical concepts. Nagel would consider existing quantum theory “causal.” See the latter's “The Causal Character of Modern Physical Theory,” in S. W. Baron, E. Nagel, and K. S. Pinson, eds., Freedom and Reason: Studies in Philosophy and Jewish Culture (Glencoe, 111., 1951), pp. 244-68; and The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation (New York, 1961), pp. 316-24.

96 See p. 402 above.