Niels Bohr

S’il faut une preuve que ce ne sont pas les plus grands génies qui guident la vie du monde, nous pourrons également la trouver dans le fait que, lorsqu’Einstein voulut scruter le dense brouillard du futur social humain, il ne sut parvenir à aucune conclusion d’une véritable hauteur, et retomba dans ces peu géniales formules que lui avait transmises un passé usé, et il ne tenta même pas, lui le puissant iconoclaste de la pensée, de se dégager de ce misérable piège.

An exploration of Pythagorean-Platonic and Aristotelian-Thomistic Accounts of mathematics and science. This paper argues that mathematics is a specific form of abstraction. It concludes that science remains authentic when it maintains an awareness that it is necessarily abstract or reductionist.

Quantum physicists have made many attempts to solve the quantum measurement problem, but no solution seems to have received widespread acceptance. The time has come for a new approach. In Sense Perception and Reality: A Theory of Perceptual Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Observer Dependent Universe and in a new paper The End of Realism I suggest the quantum measurement problem is caused by a failure to understand that each species has its own sensory world and that when we say the wave function collapses and brings a particle into existence we mean the particle is bought into existence in the human sensory world by the combined operation of the human sensory apparatus, particle detectors and the experimental set up. This is similar to the Copenhagen Interpretation suggested by Niels Bohr and others, but the understanding that the collapse of the wave function brings a particle into existence in the human sensory world removes the need for a dividing line between the quantum world and the macro world. The same rules can apply to both worlds and the ideas stated in this paper considerably strengthen the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

This book is about scientific understanding. It is widely acknowledged that a central aim of science is to achieve understanding of the world around us, and that possessing such understanding is highly important in our present-day society. But what does it mean to achieve this understanding? What precisely is scientific understanding? These are philosophical questions that have not yet received satisfactory answers. While there has been an ongoing debate about the nature of scientific explanation since Carl Hempel advanced his covering law model in 1948, the related notion of understanding has been largely neglected because most philosophers regarded understanding as merely a subjective byproduct of objective explanations. By contrast, this book puts scientific understanding center stage. It is primarily a philosophical study, but also contains detailed historical case studies of scientific practice. In contrast to most existing studies in this area, it takes into account scientists’ views and analyzes their role in scientific debate and development. The aim of the book is to develop and defend a philosophical theory of scientific understanding that can describe and explain the historical variation of criteria for understanding actually employed by scientists. The theory does justice to the insights of such famous physicists as Werner Heisenberg and Richard Feynman, while bringing much-needed conceptual rigor to their intuitions. The scope of the proposed account of understanding is the natural sciences: while the detailed case studies derive from physics, examples from other sciences are presented to illustrate its wider validity.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction: The desire to understand
2. Understanding and the aims of science
3. Explanatory understanding: A plurality of models
4. A contextual theory of scientific understanding
5. Intelligibility and metaphysics: Understanding gravitation
6. Models and mechanisms: Physical understanding in the nineteenth
7. Visualizability and intelligibility: Insight into the quantum world
8. Conclusion: The many faces of understanding

Based on his dreams and visions, Wolfgang Pauli, the co-founder of quantum physics and Nobel Prize laureate in 1945, believed that, symbolically speaking, he carried both Johannes Kepler, the founder of modern natural science, and Robert Fludd, the hermetic alchemist and magician, within himself. Moreover, he was convinced that it was his task to resolve the conflict between these two contradictory world views, natural science on the one hand, and the magical hermetic-alchemical one on the other

This paper investigates the nature of reality by looking at the philosophical debate between realism and idealism and at scientific investigations in quantum physics and at recent studies of animal senses, neurology and cognitive psychology. The concept of perceptual relativity is examined and this involves looking at sense perception in other animals and various examples of perceptual relativity in science. It will be concluded that the universe is observer dependent and that there is no reality independent of the observer, which is knowable to the observer. The paper concludes by an investigation of what an observer dependent universe would be like and that recognition of an observer dependent world would lead to a more open minded and tolerant world.

This thesis seeks to address the nature of dichotomy in its relationship to truth; whether that truth is binary or pluralistic and the epistemological and ontological implications that stem from it. These issues present themselves in the discipline of Halakha as well as Science and provide fertile ground for an interdisciplinary analysis of the two.
In Halakha, as illustrated in the Talmudic exegesis of elu v’elu – “These and those are the words of the Living God”, truth is simultaneously prescribed to two mutually exclusive schools of thought. In Science, the search for the nature of light has opened the Pandora’s Box of the wave-particle paradox in the field of quantum mechanics and has revolutionized not only our understanding of the atomic world but questioned the very basis which scientific endeavor is founded upon. By drawing parallels between the approaches of interpretation established in these respective disciplines we will be afforded conceptual tools of analysis and understanding for the purpose of cross-pollination between the two. With this, we will glean a deeper understanding of the philosophical implications and bases of these approaches.
It will be shown that the traditional approach, both rabbinic and scientific, subscribes to an epistemological realism which translates into binary truth values. This approach will be expanded to other areas and be carried through as an overriding general world view.
The second school of thought will be shown to have developed much more recently, relatively speaking, with a lean towards neo-Kantian epistemology. In the realm of Halakha, it only surfaces with Kabbalistic origins, no earlier than the 16th century. It will be demonstrated how this approach expands in its application beyond Halakha, and represents not only a philosophy of law, but of Torah and reality itself. In the realm of science, this view is championed and revolutionized in Bohr’s complementarity principle. Here too it will be shown how this principle extends beyond a local set of experiments as an overarching approach to science and the epistemology of the atomic world.

Everyone has heard the name Niels Bohr. And everyone knows that he was one of the greatest physicists in modern times, and one of the founders of quantum theory (QT). But commonly that is also the limit of our knowledge. It is not everyman’s business to say what novel insights about the world we gain from the quantum theory. Does it change our worldview? If so, then how?

The article concerns the possible destination of the complex commonly known as RIESE, located in Lower Silesia, Poland. It presents some facts as well as evidence of the validity of the thesis put forward by the author that the RIESE complex was a secret center of nuclear research of the Third Reich. This is evidenced, inter alia, by the analogies between the RIESE facilities and similar facilities existing in later periods related to nuclear projects of the USA and Russia.

Niels Henrik David Bohr was a Danish physicist who made substantial contributions to understanding the structure of atoms and to the early development of quantum mechanics − generally regarded as one of the foremost physicists of the 20th century − for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. Bohr was also a philosopher and a promoter of scientific research.

The Bohr Einstein debate on the meaning of quantum physics involved Einstein inventing a series of thought experiments to challenge the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. Einstein disliked many aspects of the Copenhagen Interpretation especially its idea of an observer dependent universe. Bohr was able to answer all Einstein’s objections to the Copenhagen Interpretation and so is usually considered as winning the debate. However the debate has continued into the present time as many scientists have been unable to accept the idea of an observer dependent universe and many alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation have been proposed. However none of the alternatives has won general acceptance because all have problems that make them implausible or impossible.

Combining the formalism of relativistic standing waves with that of the old Bohr model for hydrogen leads to a surprisingly consistent theory, one which retains certain essential features from both classical and relativistic mechanics. Of particular interest is the necessity that the electron speed, taken as a proportion of the speed of light, must also remain invariant for all frames of reference. The model not only appears to predict the correct frequency spectrum for hydrogen but, being already a relativistic theory, also gives the relativistic ' correction' term as an automatic consequence. Thus, the possibility arises that the Bohr model did not represent merely an early classical approximation to the later Dirac model but pointed the way to another formalism entirely. 18 December 2015

"Michel Weber and Will Desmond, (eds.), Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought, Frankfurt / Lancaster, ontos verlag, Process Thought X1 & X2, 2008. (695 p. + 726 p. ; ISBN 978-3-938793-92-3 ; 398 €)
Gathering 115 entries written by 101 internationally renowned experts in their fields, the Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought aims at interpreting Whitehead secundum Whitehead, at canvassing the current state of knowledge in Whiteheadian scholarship and at identifying promising directions for future investigations through (internal) cross-elucidation and (external) interdisciplinary and crossdisciplinary development.
Table of Contents
Introduction
I. Aesthetics
II. Anthropology
III. Ecology
IV. Economy
V. Education
VI. Ethics
VII. Gender Studies
VIII. History
IX. Language
X. Mathematics and Logic
XI. Metaphysics
XII. Psychology and the Philosophy of Mind
XIII. Public Policy
XIV. Science
XV. Sociology of Science
XVI. Theology and Religion
XVII. Theory of Knowledge
XVIII. Urbanism & Architecture
XIX. Biographical entries
XX. Critical Apparatus

Authors : A Sister of St-John, Adam Scarfe , Albert C. Lewis, Alessandro Sardi, Alix Parmentier, Andrew Dawson, Annamaria Miranda, Arran Gare, Barbara Muraca, Berit Brogaard, Beth Lord, Brian G. Henning, Bruce Duncan MacQueen, Bruce G. Epperly, Carol F. Johnston, Carol P. Christ, Claude de Jonckheere, Claus Michael Ringel, Clifford Cobb, Craig Eisendrath, Daniel A. Dombrowski, David G. Butt, David Ray Griffin, Dominic J. Balestra, Donald Wayne Viney, Donna Bowman, Douglas R. Anderson, Elias L. Khalil, Elie During, Frédéric Fruteau de Laclos, Franck Robert, Gao Shan, Gary A. Cook, George Allan, Giangiacomo Gerla , Gottfried Heinemann, Graham Bird, Granville C. Henry, jr., Gudmund Smith, Guillaume Durand, Howard Woodhouse, Ivor Grattan-Guinness, Jaime Nubiola, James Connelly, James Williams, Jean-Pascal Alcantara, Johanna Seibt, John B. Cobb, Jr., John H. Buchanan, John Quiring , John W. Lango, Jonathan Delafield-Butt, Jorge Luis Nobo, Joseph A. Bracken, S.J., Joseph E. Earley, Sr., Joseph Grange, Juan Vicente Mayoral de Lucas, Judith Jones, Julie A. Nelson, Kipton Jensen, Leemon McHenry, Les Muray, Lieven Decock, Liliana Albertazzi, Luca Gaeta, Luca Vanzago, Manuel Bächtold, Marc Maesschalck, Maria Pachalska , Mark Modak-Truran, Mark R. Dibben, Mary Elizabeth Moore, Max Velmans, Michael Epperson, Michael Fortescue, Michel Weber, Murray Code, Mustafa Ruezgar, Norman Sieroka, Patrick J. Coppock, Paul Custodio Bube, Peter Hare, Peter Simons, Pierfrancesco Basile, Les Muray, Randall E. Auxier, Richard Feist, Robert Castiglione, Robert J.Valenza, Ronny Desmet , Ross L. Stein, Rudolf Windeln, Stephen T. Franklin, Sylviane R. Schwer, T. L. S. Sprigge, Thomas A. F. Kelly, Thomas E. Hosinski, C.S.C., Timothy E. Eastman, Vincent Shen, Volker Peckhaus, William Jay Garland, William T. Myers"

Is it possible that the most famous critic of quantum mechanics actually
invented most of its fundamentally important concepts?

In his 1905 Brownian motion paper, Einstein quantized matter,
proving the existence of atoms. His light-quantum hypothesis showed
that energy itself comes in particles (photons). He showed energy and
matter are interchangeable, E = mc2. In 1905 Einstein was first to see
nonlocality and instantaneous action-at-a-distance. In 1907 he saw
quantum “jumps” between energy levels in matter, six years before
Bohr postulated them in his atomic model. Einstein saw wave-particle
duality and the “collapse” of the wave in 1909. And in 1916 his transition
probabilities for emission and absorption processes introduced ontological chance when matter and radiation interact, making quantum
mechanics statistical. He discovered the indistinguishability and
odd quantum statistics of elementary particles in 1925 and in 1935
speculated about the nonseparability of interacting identical particles.

It took physicists over twenty years to accept Einstein’s light-quantum.
He explained the relation of particles to waves fifteen years before
Heisenberg matrices and Schrödinger wave functions. He saw
indeterminism ten years before the uncertainty principle. And he saw
nonlocality as early as 1905, presenting it formally in 1927, but was
ignored. In the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper, he explored nonseparability, which was dubbed “entanglement” by Schrödinger. EPR
has gone from being ignorable to become Einstein’s most cited work:
the basis for today’s “second revolution in quantum mechanics.”

In a radical revision of the history of quantum physics, Bob Doyle
develops Einstein’s idea of objective reality to resolve several of
today’s most puzzling quantum mysteries, including the two-slit
experiment, quantum entanglement, and microscopic irreversibility.

The divide between science and religion has its roots in the early modern period. In the first part, the popular talk of oracles of reason is traced back to the ancient oracles published in the 15th century, and it is shown how this led to the emergence of a "natural" theology that does without revelation, so that eventually reference to a divine creator seems superfluous. In the second part, using the concept of the cosmos, it is shown that mathematics, especially geometry, has been part of the theological interpretation of Creation since the Middle Ages. From this developed the concept of transcendence as rooted in human thought. Therefore, cosmos, creation, and humanity, which are mutually exclusive, form a unity of complementary elements.

ÍNDICE
La revolución newtoniana y la nueva representación de la Naturaleza.
La Ilustración y la construcción de la Razón Moderna de la civilización occidental.
La teoría del Progreso cristalización de la Modernidad
Kant y la teoría del conocimiento de la Modernidad.
Darwin y El origen de las especies.
La teoría electromagnética de la luz.
La teoría del calor y el desarrollo de la termodinámica.
Einstein y la teoría de la relatividad.
La teoría cuántica y la discontinuidad en la física.
Pensar desde la complejidad.

Many phenomena in the realm of psychology are unapproachable to science. It calls for a complementarian metaphysical model according to which the universe is both spiritual and material. But it is not experiential as a dual universe. Depending on the conscious viewpoint of the observer, it is either spiritual or material (scientific). Yet, neither of the models will suffice as sole explanatory model. This follows the principle of bipartite complementarity as defined by quantum physicist Niels Bohr. The metaphysical nature of the unconscious archetype is discussed. Postmodernist "re-enchantment of the world" is criticized.

Keywords: spirit, transcendental, science, complementarity, double realism, metaphysics, archetype, unus mundus, psychoid, Spinoza, Plato, C.G. Jung

En 1905 un joven desconocido llamado Albert Einstein publicó cinco artículos que cambiaron la física. La teoría de la relatividad destruyó el espacio y tiempo absolutos que habían caracterizado a la física moderna desde los tiempos de Newton. La relatividad general sustituyo a la cosmología moderna, el universo estático e infinito fue reemplazado por el universo finito y en expansión de la teoría del Big bang. La mecánica cuántica eliminó el principio de causalidad estricto sobre el que se había afirmado la representación determinista de la Naturaleza. La revolución científica del siglo XX cambió nuestra representación de la Naturaleza y los presupuestos epistemológicos sobre los que se asentaba la Razón moderna de la civilización occidental. Einstein desempeñó un papel protagonista en dicha revolución, aunque el carácter probabilista de la teoría cuántica, a la que había realizado contribuciones esenciales, le desagrado profundamente.
Einstein and the Scientific Revolution of the 20th Century
In 1905 an unknown young man called Albert Einstein published five articles that they changed the Physics. The Relativity Theory demolished the absolute space and time that they had been characteristic of the Modern Physics from the times of Newton.The General Relativity replaced the Modern Cosmology, the static and infinite universe that it was replaced by the finite universe and in expansion of the Big Bang Theory. The Quantum Theory eliminated the strict principle of causality that it was the foundation of the deterministic representation of the Nature. The Scientific Revolution of the 20th century changed our representation of the Nature and the epistemological premises in which the modern Reason of the Western Civilization was laid down. Einstein performed a leading role in that Revolution, although the probabilistic character of the quantum theory displeased him deeply, even though he had contributed essential inputs to it.

The interpretation of Niels Bohr (1885-1962) and Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) of the Quantum Theory in the first half of the twentieth century, later know as “the Copenhagen interpretation”, was situated as epicenter of dissent philosophical interpretations in physics in at least three major groups: the orthodox school of Copenhagen, formed by Bohr-Heisenberg; the realist position of Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961); and the indifference with which the young physicists treat the philosophical debates of physics as a consequence of 'superspecialization'. The purpose of this study is to investigate how Karl Popper (1902-1994), when map the problematic situation of these divisions and propose a new view of scientific knowledge, situates in the Bohr-Heisenberg position the inadequacies of his dominant positivism. The propelling thesis sustained by Popper is that the “official view” of contemporary science is a legacy of the Copenhagen’s ortodoxy – the instrumentalist view of scientific theories (a new version of the instrumentalist view of Bishop Berkeley). For Popper the dominance of Copenhagen's positivism is putting in check the rationalist tradition inaugurated by the Pre-Socratic Philosophers and revived by Galileo, of critical discussion and of search for the “true constitution of the world”. Assuming that the aim of science is to find satisfactory explanations concerning the world, Popper effectuate a critical correction in the Galilean tradition: it is not possible to find ultimate explanations in science. All explanation that is accepted as satisfactory, and therefore scientific, is conjectural, for they are inevitably constituted by problems and permeated by errors. (Abstract Edited: Feb 15, 2021.)

From an edited collection that brings together an internationally known and interdisciplinary group of scholars (including François Laruelle himself) who use non-philosophy to cross the boundaries between philosophy and performance, this chapter focuses on quantum complementarity in the work of Georges Bataille wherein it is seen to wield a heuristic power that causal description or teleological writing cannot provide. It is the playful mediation between narrative induction and performative philosophy that helps readers of Bataille to negotiate the world’s inherent discontinuity, offering quantum “bundles” as a way of breaking through the sequential determinism of phenomena.

Aesthetically speaking, the visual representation of quantum bundles playfully unleashes paroxysms of emotional, psychic, and spiritual development. As such, Max Born’s definition of quantum mechanics is transmuted into a kind of quantum mechan(t)ics, evoking a linguistic tomfoolery that functions both heuristically and metaphorically as an acausal entryway, an opening to a critical playfulness ultimately curating the readerly co-quantization with what is being observed.

This summer/fall 2018 issue of Environmental & Architectural Phenomenology includes the following items:
• A “book note” on the recently published 2nd edition of philosopher Jeff Malpas’ groundbreaking Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography, originally published in 1999. This expanded version includes a new chapter on place and technological modernity, “especially the seeming loss of place in the contemporary world.”
• A “book note” on EAP editor David Seamon’s recently published Life Takes Place: Phenomenology, Lifeworlds and Place Making, which gives particular attention to the generative aspects of place and locates six place processes that Seamon identifies as place interaction, place identity, place release, place realization, place intensification, and place creation.
• An essay by the late philosopher and science educator Henri Bortoft, who focuses on ways of thinking holistically, including the conceptual efforts of proto-phenomenologist Wolfgang Johann von Goethe; physicists Niels Bohr and David Bohm; and philosophers J. G. Bennett, Edmund Husserl, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
• An essay by retired environmental educator John Cameron, who begins a new series of essays on the lived relationship between interiority and exteriority, particularly as qualities of the natural world and place contribute to that relationship.

Bohr’s atomic model, its relationship to the radiation spectrum of the hydrogen atom and the inherent hypotheses are revisited. It is argued that Bohr could have adopted a diferente approach, focusing his analyzes on the stationary orbit of the electron and its decomposition on two harmonic oscillators and then imposing, as actually he did, Planck’s quantization for the oscillators’ energies. Some consequences of this procedure are examined.

The paper discusses the work of James Franck and Friedrich Hund on the Ramsauer effect as an example for the reception and adaptation of the correspondence principle in the old quantum theory. In their attempt to account for the Ramsauer effect, Franck and Hund incorporated the correspondence principle into their description of electron scattering and encountered several problems in the correspondence approach. In reaction to these challenges, Franck and Hund adapted the principle and developed both a new interpretation of the correspondence principle and a new understanding of scattering processes.

Und wenn jemand noch einen Beweis dafür braucht, dass der gesellschaftliche Werdegang nicht von großen Denkern abhängt, könnte man anführen, dass Albert Einstein, als er den dichten Nebel der gesellschaftlichen Zukunft durchdringen wollte, nichts Wesentliches zu sagen wusste und nur die alten und schal gewordenen Phrasen wiederholte - er, der große Ikonoklast des Denkens, unternahm auch nicht den geringsten Versuch, sich ihrer elenden Fesseln zu entledigen.

The significant role of models and analogies in scientific practice has been widely recognized. Modern scholarship on analogy takes its departure from the work of Mary Hesse, who pointed out the existence of negative analogies between two different physical systems, that is, those respects in which the two systems clearly differ. However, she underappreciated the role of negative analogies in model-building. In our paper we will stress the significance of negative analogies for the development of Bohr’s atom. We will argue that it was the negative, rather than the positive, analogy between intra-atomic electrons and the rings of Saturn that motivated Bohr to adopt and develop Rutherford’s atomic model. The elaboration of the negative analogy led to the conclusion that the electron could move only in certain discrete orbits and its energy and angular momentum were accordingly restricted. Furthermore, a related analogy between electrons and planets played a significant role in Bohr’s subsequent articulation of the model. On the one hand, the positive analogy suggested that electrons (like planets) revolved around the center of mass of the atom (solar system). On the other hand, the extremely high speed of electrons (unlike that of planets) suggested that relativity be brought into the picture.

En este artículo se muestra que un cierto "criterio de realidad física" formulado por A. Einstein, B. Podolsky y N. Rosen en un artículo con el mismo título contiene una ambigüedad esencial cuando se aplica a los fenómenos cuánticos. En este sentido se explica un punto de vista denominado "complementariedad", a partir del cual la descripción de la mecánica cuántica de los fenómenos físicos parecería cumplir, dentro de su ámbito de aplicación, todas las demandas racionales de completitud.

The framework of quantum frames can help unravel some of the interpretive difficulties in the foundation of quantum mechanics. In this paper, I begin by tracing the origins of this concept in Bohr's discussion of quantum theory and his theory of complementarity. Engaging with various interpreters and followers of Bohr, I argue that the correct account of quantum frames must be extended beyond literal space-time reference frames to frames defined by relations between a quantum system and the exosystem or external physical frame, of which measurement contexts are a particularly important example. This approach provides superior solutions to key EPR-type measurement and locality paradoxes.

We point out and analyze some striking analogies between Kant’s transcendental method in philosophy and Bohr’s approach of the fundamental issues raised by quantum mechanics. We argue in particular that some of the most controversial aspects of Bohr’s views, as well as the philosophical concerns that led him to endorse such views, can naturally be understood along the lines of Kant’s celebrated ‘Copernican’ revolution in epistemology. *** In: O. Darrigol, B. Duplantier, J.M. Raimond, & V. Rivasseau (eds.), Niels Bohr 1913-2013, Birkhauser, 2016 (Progress in Mathematical Physics 68, pp. 199-221)

Од теорије Руђера Бошковића (18. в.) до теорије Павла Савића и Радивоја Кашанина (20. в.) је раздобље од два века. Прва теорија се темељи на закону континуитета и полази од начела класичне Њутновое механике, а друга се заснива на квантној механици. Уз то, Бошковић је свој закон сила примењивао углавном на примарне елементе материје (непротежне и недељиве тачке), као и на честице првог и другог реда, а Савић и Кашанин се усредсређују на честице „од атома до небеских тела“. Стога се чини да су теоријски приступи и предмети ове две теорије потпуно различити. Међутим, није тако. У овом раду дајемо кратке описе живота наведених научника и указујемо на историјску повезаност ове две теорије, као и да теорија Савић-Кашанин заправо произилази из Бошковићеве теорије. Након што смо потврдили да резултати савремене науке потврђују исправност обе теорије, користимо их као путоказе за изналажење неких нових непознатих закономерности у природи.

The aim of this work is to illustrate how, following the revolutions of
thermodynamics and quantum physics and the evolution of cybernetics, a notable contribution was made to the advent of a new idea of temporality, that has become increasingly complex, on the scientific and philosophical side, to the point of dismissing the reductionist claims, advanced by that deterministic vision of reality, prevailing in the epistemological universe of modern sciences.

It is often said that Leucippus and Democritus in 5th century BC first came to the idea that all was made of atoms, tiny indivisible particles. Their thought was religiously prohibited and dormant for more than 1500 years. Dalton in the 19th century came up with the idea that each chemical element has its smallest particles. Believing that they are indivisible, he called them atoms.
Later it turned out that these chemical atoms were made up of the atomic nucleus and electrons. Faraday, Maxwell, W. Thomson (i.e. Lord Kelvin), J. J. Thomson, Rutherford, and Bohr are usually named as the scientists who contributed to finding out the structure of atoms in the 19th and 20th centuries. Then, Avogadro and Cannizzaro are usually listed who, in the 19th century, indicated that atoms are combined into molecules. Then it is stated that Staudinger in 1920 first introduced the hypothesis that the molecules combine into even larger entities - macromolecules.
However, it was not quite so. A part of the story was left out. It is important to note, however, that these achievements are based on the ideas of Roger Boscovich, which contribution is overlooked by the wider scientific community.

IN: ROCHA, Gabriel Kafure da. Bachelard, um livro vivo (Homenagem aos 135 anos de nascimento do Filósofo). [recurso eletrônico] / Gabriel Kafure da Rocha (Orgs.) – Goiânia, GO: Editora Phillos, 2019. ISBN: 978-65-5071-005-7

O capítulo põe em evidência que a posição de Bohr acerca de seu “princípio de complementaridade” é incompatível com a ideia de “recorrência histórica” de Bachelard, que tem como fundamento a noção de “ruptura epistemológica”. Demonstra-se que o princípio bohrniano é omitido na epistemologia de Bachelard, um princípio fundamental no desenvolvimento da mecânica quântica. Com base nessa análise, extrair-se uma crítica não explícita de Bachelard a Bohr a respeito do “princípio de complementaridade” e uma crítica explicita em relação ao modelo atômico planetário bohrniano.

The ontologic framework of Fundamental Awareness proposed here assumes that non-dual
Awareness is foundational to the universe, not arising from the interactions or structures of higher
level phenomena. The framework allows comparison and integration of views from the three
investigative domains concerned with understanding the nature of consciousness: science,
philosophy, and metaphysics. In this framework, Awareness is the underlying reality, not reducible
to anything else. Awareness and existence are the same. As such, the universe is non-material, selforganizing
throughout, a holarchy of complementary, process driven, recursive interactions. The
universe is both its own first observer and subject. Considering the world to be non-material and
comprised, a priori, of Awareness is to privilege information over materiality, action over agency
and to understand that qualia are not a “hard problem,” but the foundational elements of all
existence. These views fully reflect main stream Western philosophical traditions, insights from
culturally diverse contemplative and mystical traditions, and are in keeping with current scientific
thinking, expressible mathematically.