Adler, S. (2003), Why decoherence has not solved the measurement problem: A response to P. W. Anderson, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34B: 135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bacciagaluppi, G. (2004), The role of decoherence in quantum mechanics, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/qm-decoherence/.Google Scholar

Baker, A. (2005), Are there genuine mathematical explanations of physical phenomena?, Mind 114: 223–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ballentine, L. (1970), The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics 42: 358–381. Reprinted in L. Ballentine (1988), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics since the Bell Inequalities, Selected Reprints. College Park: American Association of Physics Teachers, pp. 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ballentine, L. (2004), Quantum-to-classical limit in a Hamiltonian system, Physical Review A 70: 032111–1 to 032111–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ballentine, L., Yang, Y., and Zibin, J. P. (1994), Inadequacy of Ehrenfest's theorem to characterize the classical regime, Physical Review A: 50: 2854–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baranger, H., Jalabert, R., and Stone, D. (1993), Quantum-chaotic scattering effects in semiconductor microstructures, Chaos, 3: 665–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Batterman, R. (1991), Chaos, quantization, and the correspondence principle, Synthese, 89: 189–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Batterman, R. (1992), Explanatory instability, Noûs 26: 325–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Batterman, R. (1993), Quantum chaos and semiclassical mechanics, PSA 1992, Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. Two: Symposia and Invited Papers, 50–65.Google Scholar

Batterman, R. (1995), Theories between theories: asymptotic limiting intertheoretic relations, Synthese 103: 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Batterman, R. (2002), The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction and Emergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Batterman, R. (2005), Response to Belot's “Whose devil? Which details?”, Philosophy of Science, 72: 154–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beller, M. (1996), The rhetoric of antirealism and the Copenhagen spirit, Philosophy of Science 63: 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beller, M. (1999), Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Belot, G. (2000), Chaos and fundamentalism, Philosophy of Science 67 (Proceedings): S454–S465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belot, G. (2005), Whose devil? Which details?, Philosophy of Science, 72: 128–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berry, M. V. (1977), Regular and irregular semiclassical wavefunctions, Journal of Physics A 10 (12): 2083–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berry, M. V. (1982), Semiclassical weak reflections above analytic and nonanalytic potential barriers, Journal of Physics A 15: 3693–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berry, M. V. (1983), Semiclassical mechanics of regular and irregular motion, in Iooss, G., Helleman, R. H. G., and Stora, R., (eds.), Les Houches Lecture Series Session XXXVI, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 171–271.Google Scholar

Berry, M. V. (1987), Quantum chaology (The Bakerian Lecture), Proceedings of the Royal Society A 413: 183–98.

Berry, M. V. (1988), Random renormalization in the semiclassical long-time limit of a precessing spin, Physica D 33: 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berry, M. V. (1989), Quantum chaology, not quantum chaos, Physica Scripta 40: 335–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berry, M. V. (1991), Some quantum-to-classical asymptotics, in Giannoni, M. J., Voros, A., and Zinn-Justin, J. (eds.) Chaos and Quantum Physics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 250–303.Google Scholar

Berry, M. V. (1994), Asymptotics, singularities and the reduction of theories, in Prawitz, D., Skyrms, B., and Westerstahl, D. (eds.) Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IX. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Berry, M. V. (2001), Chaos and the semiclassical limit of quantum mechanics (Is the moon there when somebody looks?), in Russell, R. J., Clayton, P., Wegter-McNelly, K., and Polkinghorne, J. (eds.) Quantum Mechanics: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican Observatory: CTNS Publications.Google Scholar

Berry, M. V. (2002), Singular limits, Physics Today, 55(5): 10–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berry, M. V. and Mount, K. (1972), Semiclassical approximations in wave mechanics, Reports on Progress in Physics, 35: 315–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohr, N. (1913), On the constitution of atoms and molecules, Philosophical Magazine 26: 1–25, 476–502, 857–75.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1918), The quantum theory of line-spectra, D. Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skrifter, naturvidensk. og mathem. Afd. 8. Reikke, IV.1, reprinted in Bohr (1976), pp. 67–102.

Bohr, N. (1920), On the series spectra of the elements, Lecture before the German Physical Society in Berlin (27 April 1920), translated by A. D. Udden, in Bohr (1976), 241–82.

Bohr, N. (1921a), Foreword to German translation of early papers on atomic structure, in Bohr (1976), 325–337; translation of “Geleitwort” in Stintzing, H. (ed.) Abhandlungen űber Atombau aus den Jahren 1913–1916, Braunschweig: F. Vieweg & Sohn (1921).Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1921b), Constitution of atoms, in Bohr (1977), pp. 99–174.

Bohr, N. (1922), Seven lectures on the theory of atomic structure, in Bohr (1977), pp. 341–419.

Bohr, N. (1924), On the application of the quantum theory to atomic structure, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (suppl.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42. Reprinted in Bohr (1976), pp. 457–99.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1925), Atomic theory and mechanics, Nature (suppl.) 116, 845–852. Reprinted in Bohr (1984), pp. 273–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohr, N. (1928), The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory, Nature (suppl.) 121: 580–590. Reprinted Bohr (1985), pp. 148–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohr, N. ([1929] 1934) Introductory survey, in Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, [1929] 1934), pp. 1–24. Reprinted in Bohr (1985), pp. 279–302.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1931), Maxwell and modern theoretical physics, Nature 128 (3234): 691–692. Reprinted in Bohr (1985), pp. 359–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohr, N. (1935), Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical Review 48: 696–702. Reprinted in Bohr (1996), pp. 292–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohr, N. (1948), On the notions of causality and complementarity, Dialectica 2, 312–319. Reprinted in Bohr (1996), pp. 330–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohr, N, (1949), Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.) Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. VII. La Salle, IL: Open Court, pp. 201–41. Reprinted in Bohr (1996), pp. 341–81.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1958b), Quantum physics and philosophy: causality and complementarity, in Klibansky, R., (ed.) Philosophy in the Mid-Century: A Survey. Firenze: La Nuova Italia Editrice. Reprinted in Bohr (1996), pp. 388–94.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1976), Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 3: The Correspondence Principle (1918–1923), Nielsen, J. R. (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1977), Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 4: The Periodic System (1920–1923), Nielsen, J. R. (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1984), Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 5: The Emergence of Quantum Mechanics (Mainly 1924–1926), Stolzenburg, K. (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1985), Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 6: Foundations of Quantum Physics I (1926–1932), Kalckar, J. (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1996), Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 7: Foundations of Quantum Physics II (1933–1958), Kalckar, J. (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar

Bokulich, A. (2001) Philosophical perspectives on quantum chaos: Models and interpretations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame.

Bokulich, A. (2004), Open or closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the relation between classical and quantum mechanics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35: 377–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bokulich, A. (2006), Heisenberg meets Kuhn: Closed theories and paradigms, Philosophy of Science 73: 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bokulich, A. (2008), Can classical structures explain quantum phenomena?, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2): 217–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bokulich, A. (2008), Paul Dirac and the Einstein-Bohr debate, Perspectives on Science 16(1): 103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bokulich, P. and Bokulich, A. (2005), Niels Bohr's generalization of classical mechanics, Foundations of Physics 35: 347–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Born, M. (1926), Problems of Atomic Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Born, M. and Heisenberg, W. ([1927] 1928), La mécanique des quanta, in Institut International Solvay, Physique (ed.) Électrons et Photons: Rapports et Discussions du Cinquième Conseil de Physique Tenu à Bruxelles du 24 au 29 Octobre 1927 sous les Auspices de l'Institut International de Physique Solvay. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 143–84. Reprinted in Heisenberg (1984), 58–96.Google Scholar

Brillouin, L. (1926), La mécanique ondulatoire de Schrödinger; Une méthod général de résolution par approximations successives, Comptes Rendus de Séances de l'Academie des Sciences, 183: 24–6.Google Scholar

Bueno, O. (1997), Empirical adequacy: A partial structures approach, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 28: 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bueno, O. (1999), What is structural empiricism? Scientific change in an empiricist setting, Erkenntnis 50: 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bueno, O. (2000), Empiricism, scientific change and mathematical change, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31: 269–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bueno, O., French, S., and Ladyman, J. (2002), On representing the relationship between the mathematical and the empirical, Philosophy of Science 69: 452–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cartwright, N. (1995), The metaphysics of the disunified world, in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R. (eds.) PSA 1994, vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 357–64.Google Scholar

Cartwright, N. (1999), The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Casati, G. and Chirikov, B. (1995), The legacy of chaos in quantum mechanics, in Casati, G. and Chirikov, B. (eds.) Quantum Chaos: Between Order and Disorder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cassidy, D. (1992), Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg. New York: Freeman Press.Google Scholar

Chevalley, C. (1988), Physical reality and closed theories in Werner Heisenberg's early papers, in Batens, D. and Bendegem, J. P. (eds.) Theory and Experiment: Recent Insights and New Perspectives on their Relation. Dordrecht, Reidel, 159–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clifton, R. (1998) Scientific explanation in quantum theory, Unpublished manuscript on PhilSci Archive: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000091/.

Craver, C. (2006), When mechanistic models explain, Synthese 153: 355–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crowe, M. J. (1990), Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Cvitanović, P., Artuso, R., Mainieri, R., Tanner, G., Vattay, G., Whelan, N., and Wirzba, A. (2005), Chaos: Classical and Quantum. http://ChaosBook.org/version11 (Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen).

da Costa, N. and French, S. (2000), Models, theories, and structures: Thirty years on, Philosophy of Science 67: S116–S127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

da Costa, N. and French, S. (2003), Science as Partial Truth: A Unitary Approach to Models and Scientific Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darrigol, O. (1992), From c-Numbers to q-Numbers: The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Darrigol, O. (1997), Classical concepts in Bohr's atomic theory (1913–1925), Physis: Rivista Internazionale di Storia della Scienza 34: 545–67.Google Scholar

Delos, J. B., Knudson, S. K. and Noid, D. W. (1983), Highly excited states of a hydrogen atom in a strong magnetic field, Physical Review A 28: 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delos, J. B., and Du, M.-L. (1988), Correspondence principles: the relationship between classical trajectories and quantum spectra, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 24: 1445–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1925), The fundamental equations of quantum mechanics, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 109: 642–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1926a), Quantum mechanics and preliminary investigation of the hydrogen atom, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 110: 561–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1926b), The elimination of the nodes in quantum mechanics, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 110: 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1932), Relativistic quantum mechanics, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 136: 453–64. Reprinted in Dirac (1995), pp. 621–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. ([1933] 2005), The Lagrangian in quantum mechanics, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion, 3.1 (1933): 64–72. Reprinted in L. M. Brown (ed.) (2005), Feynman's Thesis: A New Approach to Quantum Theory. London: World Scientific, pp. 113–21.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1938), Classical theory of radiating electrons, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 167, 148–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1939), The relation between mathematics and physics, Proceedings of the Royal Society (Edinburgh), 59: 122–9. Reprinted in Dirac (1995), pp. 905–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1945), On the analogy between classical and quantum mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics, 17, 195–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. ([1948] 1995), “Quelques développements sur la théorie atomique” Conférence faites an Palais de la Découverte, 6 December 1945. Paris: Université de Paris, 1948. Translated and reprinted in Dirac (1995), 1246–67.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1951a), The relation of classical to quantum mechanics, Proceedings of the Second Mathematical Congress, Vancouver, 1949. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 10–31.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1951b), Is there an aether?, Nature, 168, 906–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1952), Is there an aether?, Nature, 169, 702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1953), The Lorentz transformation and absolute time, Physica, 19, 888–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1958), The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (4th edn.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. (1962, April 1st), Oral history interview of P.A.M. Dirac by Thomas Kuhn. Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, deposit at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1963, May 14th), Oral history interview of P.A.M. Dirac by Thomas Kuhn. Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, deposit at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1963), The evolution of the physicist's picture of nature, Scientific American, 208(5), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1970), Can equations of motion be used in high-energy physics?, Physics Today, April, 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1971), The Development of Quantum Theory: J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize Acceptance Speech. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1974), Einstein and Bohr: The great controversy, Unpublished lecture. Paul A. M. Dirac Collection, Series 2, Box 29, Folder 4, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1977), Recollections of an exciting era, in Weiner, C. (ed.) History of Twentieth Century Physics, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” 1972. New York: Academic Press, pp. 109–46.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. ([1979] 1982), The early years of relativity, in Holton, G. and Elkana, Y. (eds.) Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives, Jerusalem Einstein Centennial Symposium 14–23 March 1979 (pp. 79–90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1987), The inadequacies of quantum field theory, in Kursunoglu, B. and Wigner, E. (eds.) Reminiscences About a Great Physicist: P.A.M. Dirac. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 194–8.Google Scholar

Dirac, P. A. M. (1995), The Collected Works of P. A. M. Dirac: 1924–1948, edited by Dalitz, R. H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Du, M.-L., and Delos, J. B. (1988), Effect of closed classical orbits on quantum spectra: Ionization of atoms in a magnetic field. I. Physical picture and calculations, Physical Review A 38: 1896–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dupré, J. (1995), Against scientific imperialism, in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R. (eds.), PSA 1994, vol. 2, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 374–81.Google Scholar

Dupré, J. (1996a), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Dupré, J. (1996b), Metaphysical disorder and scientific disunity, in Galison, P. and Stump, D. (eds.), The Disunity of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 101–17.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1917), Zum Quantensatz von Sommerfeld und Epstein, Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 19: 82–92. Translated into English and reprinted in Einstein (1997), pp. 434–43.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1926), [Letter to Max Born on December 4, 1926]. Translated and reprinted in The Born-Einstein Letters: Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955 with Commentaries by Max Born. New York: Walker and Co., 90–1.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. ([1927] 1928), Comments in “Discussion générale des idées nouvelles émises”. Électrons et photons: rapports et discussions du cinquième conseil de physique, tenu à Bruxelles du 24 and 29 Octobre 1927, sous les auspices de l'Institut International de Physique Solvay. Paris: Gauthier-Villars et Cie. Reprinted in J. Kalckar (ed.), Niels Bohr Collected Works, Volume 6: Foundations of Quantum Physics I 1926–1932). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985, 101–3.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. ([1933] 1934), On the method of theoretical physics, The Herbert Spencer Lecture, Delivered at Oxford, June 10, 1933. Reproduced in Philosophy of Science 1: 163–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Einstein, A. ([1949] 1970), Remarks to the essays appearing in this volume, in Schilpp, P. (ed), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. La Salle: Open Court. pp. 663–88.

Einstein, A. (1997), The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 6. Engel, A. (trans.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Elgin, M. and Sober, E. (2002), Cartwright on explanation and idealization, Erkenntnis 57: 441–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Emerson, J. (2001), Chaos and quantum-classical correspondence for coupled spins, Ph.D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University.

Epstein, P. (1916), Zur Quantentheorie, Annalen der Physik, 51: 168–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ezra, G. S. (1998), Classical-quantum correspondence and the analysis of highly excited states: Periodic orbits, rational tori, and beyond, in Hase, W. (ed.) Advances in Classical Trajectory Methods, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 35–72.Google Scholar

Ezra, G. S., Richter, K., Tanner, G., and Wintgen, D. (1991), Semiclassical cycle expansion for the helium atom, Journal of Physics B, 24: L413–L420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Faye, J. and Folse, H. (eds.) (1994), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 153. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fedak, W. A., and Prentis, J. J. (2002), Quantum jumps and classical harmonics, American Journal of Physics 70: 332–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feyerabend, P. (1962), Explanation, reduction, and empiricism, in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 28–97.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. ([1965] 1983), Problems of empiricism, in Colodny, R. (ed.) Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 145–260.Google Scholar

Feynman, R. (1948), Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics 10: 367–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feynman, R. (1965), The development of the space-time view of quantum electrodynamics, Nobel Lecture. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html

Fine, A. (1996), The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and The Quantum Theory, 2nd edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, J. (1974), Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis), Synthese 28: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, J. (1997), Special sciences: Still autonomous after all these years, Noûs 31, Supplement: Philosophical Perspectives, 11, Mind, Causation, and World, 149–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, J. and Mantica, G. (1992), Does quantum mechanics obey the correspondence principle? Is it complete?, American Journal of Physics 60: 1086–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frappier, M. (2004), Heisenberg's Notion of Interpretation. Ph.D. Dissertation. London, Ontario: The University of Western Ontario.

French, S. (1997), Partiality, pursuit and practice, in dalla Chiara, M. L., Doets, K., Mundici, D., and Benthem, J. (eds.) Logic and Scientific Methods, Volume One of the Tenth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, August 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 35–52.Google Scholar

French, S. (2000), The reasonable effectiveness of mathematics: Partial structures and the application of group theory to physics, Synthese 125: 103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

French, S. and Ladyman, J. (1999), Reinflating the model-theoretic approach, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13: 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

French, S. and Ladyman, J. (2003), Remodelling structural realism: Quantum physics and the metaphysics of structure, Synthese 136: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedman, M. (1974), Explanation and scientific understanding, Journal of Philosophy 71: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frisch, M. (2002), Non-locality in classical electrodynamics, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frisch, M. (2005), Inconsistency, Asymmetry, and Non-Locality: A Philosophical Investigation of Classical Electrodynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galison, P. (1997), Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Garton, W. and Tomkins, F. (1969), Diamagnetic Zeeman effect and magnetic configuration mixing in long spectral series of Ba I, The Astrophysical Journal 158: 839–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Granger, B. E. (2001), Quantum and Semiclassical Scattering Matrix Theory for Atomic Photoabsorption in External Fields, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado.

Gutzwiller, M. (1971), Periodic orbits and classical quantization conditions, Journal of Mathematical Physics 12: 343–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gutzwiller, M. (1990), Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Habib, S., Shizume, K., and Zurek, W. (1998), Decoherence, chaos, and the correspondence principle, Physical Review Letters 80: 4361–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haggerty, M. R., Spellmeyer, N., Kleppner, D., and Delos, J. B. (1998), Extracting classical trajectories from atomic spectra, Physical Review Letters 81: 1592–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hassoun, G. and Kobe, D. (1989), Synthesis of the Planck and Bohr formulations of the correspondence principle, American Journal of Physics 57(7): 658–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1925] 1967), Quantum-theoretical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations, in Waerden, B. (ed.) Sources of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Dover Publications, 261–276. Translation of “Über quantentheorische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen”, Zeitschrift für Physik 33: 879–93.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1927] 1983), The physical content of quantum kinematics and mechanics, translated and reprinted in Wheeler, J. A. and Zurek, W. H. (eds.) Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 62–84.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. (1930), The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory. Translated by Eckart, C. and Hoyt, F. C.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1934] 1979), Recent changes in the foundations of exact science, in Hayes, F. C. (trans.) Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press, pp. 11–26.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1935] 1979), Questions of principle in modern physics, Lecture delivered at Vienna University on November 27, 1935. Published in Heisenberg, W., Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press, 41–52.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1938] 1994), The universal length appearing in the theory of elementary particles, in Miller, A. I. (ed.) Early Quantum Electrodynamics: A Sourcebook. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 244–53.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1941a] 1979), The teachings of Goethe and Newton on colour in light of modern physics, in Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press, pp. 60–76.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1941b] 1990), On the unity of the scientific outlook on nature, in Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press, pp. 77–94.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1942] 1998), Ordnung der Wirklichkeit. Translated into French by Catherine Chevalley as Philosophie: Le Manuscrit de 1942. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1948] 1974), The notion of a “closed theory” in modern science, in Heisenberg, W.Across The Frontiers. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 39–46. Originally published as “Der Begriff ‘Abgeschlossene Theorie’ in der Modernen Naturwissenschaft”, Dialectica2: 331–6.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. (1958a), Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1958b] 1974), Planck's discovery and the philosophical problems of atomic theory, in Across The Frontiers. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 8–29.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. (1961), Goethe's view of nature and the world, in Wachsmuth, A. B. (ed.) Goethe–New Series of the Goethe Society Yearbook, Vol. 29. Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, pp. 27–42. Reprinted in Heisenberg ([1970] 1990), pp. 121–41.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. (1963, February 15th), Oral history interview of Werner Heisenberg by Thomas Kuhn. Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, deposit at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Heisenberg, W. (1963, February 27th), Oral history interview of Werner Heisenberg by Thomas Kuhn. Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, deposit at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Heisenberg, W. (1963, February 28th), Oral history interview of Werner Heisenberg by Thomas Kuhn. Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, deposit at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Heisenberg, W. (1963, July 5th), Oral history interview of Werner Heisenberg by Thomas Kuhn. Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, deposit at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Heisenberg, W. (1966), Die Rolle der phänomenologischen Theorien im System der theoretischen Physik, in De-Shalit, A., Feshbach, H., and Hove, L. (eds.) Preludes in Theoretical Physics: In Honor of V. F. Weisskopf. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., pp. 166–169. Reprinted in Heisenberg (1984), 384–7.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. (1968), Theory, criticism and a philosophy, in From a Life Of Physics: Evening Lectures at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy. Wien: IAEA, 31–46. Reprinted in Heisenberg (1984), 423–38.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1969] 1990), Changes of thought pattern in the progress of science, in Heisenberg ([1970] 1990), pp. 154–65.

Heisenberg, W. ([1970] 1990), Across the Frontiers, translated from German by Heath, Peter. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. (1971), Atomic physics and pragmatism (1929), in Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 93–102.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1972] 1983), The correctness-criteria for closed theories in physics, in Heisenberg, W.Encounters with Einstein: And Other Essays on People, Places, and Particles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 123–9.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. ([1952] 1979), Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W. (1984), Gesammelte Werke/Collected Works, Volume C2, Blum, W., Durr, H.-P., and Rechenberg, H. (eds.). Munchen: Piper.Google Scholar

Heller, E. J. (1984), Bound-state eigenfunctions of classically chaotic Hamiltonian systems: scars of periodic orbits, Physical Review Letters, 53: 1515–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heller, E. J. (1986), Qualitative properties of eigenfunctions of classically chaotic Hamiltonian systems in Seligman, T. H. and Nishioka, H. (eds.) Quantum Chaos and Statistical Nuclear Physics, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 162–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heller, E. and Tomsovic, S. (1993), Postmodern quantum mechanics, Physics Today, 46 (July): 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hempel, C. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Hesse, M. B. (1966), Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, C. and Woodward, J. (2003), Explanatory generalizations, part II: Plumbing explanatory depth, Noûs 37: 181–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holle, A., Main, J., Wiebusch, G., Rottke, H., and Welge, K. H. (1988), Quasi-Landau spectrum of the chaotic diamagnetic hydrogen atom, Physical Review Letters 61: 161–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hooker, C. (2004), Asymptotics, reduction and emergence, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55: 435–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howard, D. (1990). “Nicht sein kann was nicht sein darf,” or the prehistory of EPR, 1909–1935: Einstein's early worries about the quantum mechanics of composite systems. In Miller, A. I. (ed.) Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical and Physical Inquiries into to the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Plenum, pp. 61–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howard, D. (1994), What makes a classical concept classical? Towards a reconstruction of Niels Bohr's philosophy of physics, in Faye, J. and Folse, H. (eds.) Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 153. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 201–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howard, D. (2004), Who invented the Copenhagen Interpretation? A study in mythology, Philosophy of Science 71: 669–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hughes, R. I. G. (1989), Bell's Theorem, ideology, and structural explanation, Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 195–207.Google Scholar

Hughes, R. I. G. (1993), Theoretical explanation, Midwest Studies in Philosophy Vol. XVIII: 132–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hylleraas, E. (1963), Reminiscences from early quantum mechanics of two-electron atoms, Reviews of Modern Physics, 35 (3): 421–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jalabert, R. (2000), The semiclassical tool in mesoscopic physics, in Casati, G., Guarneri, I., and Smilansky, U. (eds.) New Directions in Quantum Chaos, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ‘Enrico Fermi’, Course CXLIII. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 145–222.Google Scholar

Jammer, M. (1966), The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.Google Scholar

Jammer, M. (1974), The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Jensen, R. V. (1992), Quantum chaos, Nature, 355: 311–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaplan, L. (1999), Scars in quantum chaotic wavefunctions, Nonlinearity 12: R1–R40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keller, J. (1958), Corrected Bohr-Sommerfeld quantum conditions for nonseperable systems, Annals of Physics, 4: 180–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keller, J. (1985), Semiclassical mechanics, SIAM Review, 27 (4): 485–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kellert, S., Longino, H. and Waters, C. K. (eds.) (2006), Scientific Pluralism, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, XIX. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. and Oppenheim, P.. (1956), On reduction, Philosophical Studies 7: 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitcher, P. (1984), 1953 and all that. A tale of two sciences, The Philosophical Review, 93: 335–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Klavetter, J. (1989a), Rotation of Hyperion. I–Observations, Astronomical Journal 97: 570–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klavetter, J. (1989b), Rotation of Hyperion. II–Dynamics, Astronomical Journal 98: 1855–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kleppner, D. (1991), Quantum chaos and the bow-stern enigma, Physics Today, August: 10–11.Google Scholar

Kleppner, D. and Delos, J. B. (2001), Beyond quantum mechanics: insights from the work of Martin Gutzwiller, Foundations of Physics 31: 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koopman, B. O. (1931), Hamiltonian systems and transformations in Hilbert space, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 18: 315–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kragh, H. (1990). Dirac: A Scientific Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kramers, H. (1926), Wellenmechanik und halbzahlige Quantisierung, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 39: 828–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, T. ([1962] 1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. (1963, February 27th), Oral history interview of Werner Heisenberg by Thomas Kuhn. Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, deposit at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Kuhn, T. (1963, February 28th), Oral history interview of Werner Heisenberg by Thomas Kuhn. Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, deposit at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Ladyman, J. (1998), What is structural realism?, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29: 409–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I. (1970), Falsification and the Methodology of scientific Research Programmes, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. (1981), Mechanics, 3rd edn. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar

Landsman, N. P. (2007), Between classical and quantum, in Butterfield, J. and Earman, J. (eds.) Philosophy of Physics. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland, 417–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laudan, L. (1981), A confutation of convergent realism, Philosophy of Science 48: 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leopold, J. and Percival, I. (1980), The semiclassical two-electron atom and the old quantum theory, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics, 13: 1037–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liboff, R. (1984), The correspondence principle revisited, Physics Today 37: 50–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lu, K. T., Tomkins, F. S., and Garton, W. R. S. (1978), Configuration interaction effect on diamagnetic phenomena in atoms: strong mixing and Landau regions, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 362: 421–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Main, J., Weibusch, G., Holle, A., and Welge, K. H. (1986), New quasi-Landau structure of highly excited atoms: the hydrogen atom, Physical Review Letters, 57: 2789–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Massimi, M. (2005), Pauli's Exclusion Principle: The Origin and Validation of a Scientific Principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matzkin, A. (2006), Can Bohmian trajectories account for quantum recurrences having classical periodicities?, arXiv.org, preprint quant-ph/0607095.

McAllister, J. (1996), Beauty and Revolution in Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

McMullin, E. (1978), Structural explanation, American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 139–47.Google Scholar

McMullin, E. (1984), A case for scientific realism, in Leplin, Jarrett (ed.) Scientific Realism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 8–40.Google Scholar

McMullin, E. (1985), Galilean idealization, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 247–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mehra, J. and Rechenberg, H. (1982), The Historical Development of Quantum Theory: Volume I: The Quantum Theory of Planck, Einstein, Bohr and Sommerfeld: Its Foundation and the Rise of Its Difficulties 1900–1925, & Volume II: The Discovery of Quantum Mechanics 1925. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Meredith, D. (1992), Semiclassical wavefunctions of nonintegrable systems and localization on periodic orbits, Journal of Statistical Physics 68 (1/2): 97–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Messiah, A. (1965), Quantum Mechanics, vols. I and II. Temmer, G. M. (trans.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar

Mitchell, S. (2003), Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morrison, M. (1999), Models as autonomous agents, in Morgan, M. and Morrison, M. (eds.), Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 38–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nagel, E. ([1961] 1979), The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar

Narimanov, E. E., Cerruti, N. R., Baranger, H. U., and Tomsovic, S. (1999), Chaos in quantum dots: Dynamical modulation of Coulomb blockade peak heights, Physical Review Letters, 83: 2540–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Narimanov, E. E., Baranger, H. U., Cerruti, N. R., and Tomsovic, S. (2001), Semiclassical theory of Coulomb blockade peak heights in chaotic quantum dots, Physical Review B, 64: 235329–1 to 235329–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nielsen, J. R. (1976), Introduction to Niels Bohr Collected Works, Vol. 3, in Bohr (1976), pp. 3–46.

Nickles, T. (1973), Two concepts of intertheoretic reduction, The Journal of Philosophy 70: 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O'Connor, P., Gehlen, J., and Heller, E. (1987), Properties of random superpositions of plane waves, Physical Review Letters, 58: 1296–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Oppenheim, P. and Putnam, H. (1958), Unity of science as a working hypothesis, in Feigl, H., Maxwell, G., and Scriven, M. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Park, H-K., and Kim, S. W. (2003), Decoherence from chaotic internal dynamics in two coupled δ-function-kicked rotors, Physical Review A 67: 060102–1 to 060102–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parker, W. S. (forthcoming), Does matter really matter? Computer simulations, experiments, and materiality, Synthese.

Pauli, W. (1926), Quantentheorie, in Geiger, H. and Scheel, K. (eds.), Handbuch der Physik, 23: 1–278.Google Scholar

Peres, A. (1995), Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Planck, M. (1906), Vorlesungen uber die Theorie der Warmestrahlung. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosious Barth.Google Scholar

Planck, M. (1913), Vorlesungen uber die Theorie der Warmestrahlung, 2nd edition. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosious Barth.Google Scholar

Planck, M. (1959), Theory of Heat Radiation. Translation of Planck (1913). New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Popper, K. ([1963] 1989), Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Post, H. R. (1971), Correspondence, invariance and heuristics: In praise of conservative induction, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 2: 213–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, H. (1975), Mathematics, Matter and Method. Philosophical Papers, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Radder, H. (1991), Heuristics and the generalized correspondence principle, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42: 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Railton, P. (1980), Explaining Explanation: A Realist Account of Scientific Explanation and Understanding. Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University.

Redhead, M. (2001a), The intelligibility of the universe, in O'Hear, A. (ed.) Philosophy at the New Millennium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73–90.Google Scholar

Redhead, M. (2001b), Quests of a realist: Review of Stathis Psillos, Scientific Realism, Metascience 10: 341–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Redhead, M. (2004), Discussion note: Asymptotic reasoning, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35: 527–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richter, K. (2000), Semiclassical Theory of Mesoscopic Quantum Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Robnik, M. (1981), Hydrogen atom in a strong magnetic field: On the existence of the third integral of motion, Journal of Physics A 14: 3195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenfeld, L. ([1973] 1979), The wave-particle dilemma, in Cohen, R. and Stachel, J. (eds.) Selected Papers of Léon Rosenfeld. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 688–703. Originally published in J. Mehra (ed.) The Physicist's Conception of Nature. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 251–63.Google Scholar

Salmon, W. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Salmon, W. (1989), Four decades of scientific explanation, in Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. (eds.) Scientific Explanation: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science13.Google Scholar

Sánchez-Ron, J. (1983). Quantum vs. classical physics: Some historical considerations on the role played by the “principle of correspondence” in the development of classical physics, Fundamenta Scientia 4: 77–86.Google Scholar

Sarkar, S. (1992), Models of reduction and categories of reductionism, Synthese 91: 167–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saunders, S. (1993), To what physics corresponds, in French, S. and Kaminga, H., (eds.) Correspondence, Invariance, and Heuristics; Essays in Honour of Heinz Post. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 295–326.Google Scholar

Scerri, E. (1994), Has chemistry at least approximately been reduced to quantum mechanics?, PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994, Vol. 1: Contributed Papers, 160–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schaffner, K. (1967), Approaches to reduction, Philosophy of Science 34: 137–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheibe, E. (1988), The physicists' conception of progress, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 19: 141–59. Reprinted in Scheibe (2001), 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheibe, E. (1993), Heisenberg's concept of a closed theory. In Scheibe (2001), 136–41.

Scheibe, E. (2001). Between Rationalism and Empiricism: Selected Papers in the Philosophy of Physics. Edited by Falkenburg, B.. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schlosshauer, M. (2006), Comment on “Quantum mechanics of Hyperion”, Preprint quant-ph/0605249.

Schulman, L. S. (2005), Techniques and Applications of Path Integration. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, K. (1916), Zur Quantenhypothese, Berliner Berichte 1916: 548–68.Google Scholar

Schweber, S. S. (1994), QED and the Men Who Made It. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Sklar, L. (1999), The reduction(?) of thermodynamics to statistical mechanics, Philosophical Studies: 95: 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sommerfeld, A. (1916), Zur Quantentheorie der Spektrallinien, Annalen der Physik, 51: 1–94; 125–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sommerfeld, A. ([1919] 1923), Atomic Structure and Spectral Lines. Translated by Brose, H.. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Sommerfeld, A. (1920), Letter to Niels Bohr, November 1920. In Bohr (1976) p. 690.

Suppe, F. (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Sridhar, S. (1991), Experimental observation of scarred eigenfunctions of chaotic microwave cavities, Physical Review Letters 67: 785–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stone, A. D. (2005), Einstein's unknown insight and the problem of quantizing chaos, Physics Today, August: 1–7.Google Scholar

Stoppard, T. (1988), Hapgood. Boston: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar

Styer, D., Balkin, M., Becker, K., et al. (2002), Nine formulations of quantum mechanics, American Journal of Physics 70(3): 289–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tabor, M. (1989), Chaos and Integrability in Nonlinear Dynamics: An Introduction. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar

Tanner, G., Richter, K., and Rost, J.-M. (2000), The theory of two-electron atoms: Between ground state and complete fragmentation, Reviews of Modern Physics 72: 497–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tanona, S. (2002), From correspondence to complementarity: The emergence of Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University.

Tanona, S. (2004), Uncertainty in Bohr's response to the Heisenberg microscope, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35: 483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thomson-Jones, M. (2006), Models and the semantic view, Philosophy of Science 73: 524–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trout, J. D. (2002), Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding, Philosophy of Science 69: 212–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uzer, T., Farrelly, D., Milligan, J. A., Raines, P. E., and Skelton, J. P. (1991), “Celestial mechanics on a microscopic scale”, Science, 253: 42–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Waerden, B. (ed.) (1967), Sources of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraassen, B. (1997), Structure and perspective: Philosophical perplexity and paradox, in dalla Chiara, M. L., Doets, K., Mundici, D., and Benthem, J. (eds.) Logic and Scientific Methods, Volume One of the Tenth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, August 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Fraassen, B. (2006), Structure: Its shadow and substance, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57: 275–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vleck, J. (1922), The dilemma of the helium atom, Physical Review 19: 419–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baeyer, H. C. (1995), The philosopher's atom, Discover 16 (11).Google Scholar

Weinberg, S. (1992), Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. London: Trafalgar Square Publishing.Google Scholar

Weinert, F. (1994), The correspondence principle and the closure of theories, Erkenntnis 40: 303–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Welch, G. R., Kash, M. M., Iu, C., Hsu, L., and Kleppner, D. (1989), Positive-energy structure of the diamagnetic Rydberg spectrum, Physical Review Letters 62: 1975–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wentzel, G. (1926). Eine Verallgemeinerung der Quantenbedingung fur die Zwecke der Wellenmechanik, Zeitschrift fur Physik 38: 518–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiebe, N. and Ballentine, L. E. (2005), Quantum mechanics of Hyperion, Physical Review A 72: 022109–1 to 022109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wigner, E. P. (1932), On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilibrium, Physical Review 40: 749–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wigner, E. P. (1960), The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wimsatt, W. W. (1987), False models as means to truer theories, in Nitecki, M. and Hoffman, A. (eds.) Neutral Models in Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wintgen, D., Richter, K., and Tanner, G. (1992), The semiclassical helium atom, Chaos, 2: 19–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wise, M. N. and Brock, D. C. (1998), The culture of quantum chaos, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 29: 369–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wisdom, J., Peale, S., Mignard, F. (1984), The chaotic rotation of Hyperion, Icarus 58: 137–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woodward, J. (2003), Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Woodward, J. and Hitchcock, C. (2003), Explanatory generalizations, part I: A counterfactual account, Noûs 37: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Worrall, J. (1989), Structural realism: The best of both worlds?, Dialectica 43: 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Young, L. and Uhlenbeck, G. (1930), On the Wentzel-Brillouin-Kramers approximate solution of the wave equation, Physical Review 36: 1154–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zurek, W. (1991), Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical, Physics Today 44: 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zurek, W. (1998), Decoherence, chaos, quantum-classical correspondence, and the algorithmic arrow of time, Physica Scripta T76: 186–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zurek, W. (2003), Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical, Reviews of Modern Physics 75: 715–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zurek, W. and Paz, J. P. (1997), Why we don't need quantum planetary dynamics: Decoherence and the correspondence principle for chaotic systems, in Hu, B. L. and Feng, D. H. (eds.) Quantum Classical Correspondence: Proceedings of the 4th Drexel Symposium on Quantum Nonintegrability, Drexel University, September 8–11, 1994. Cambridge, MA: International Press, pp. 367–79.Google Scholar