Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

John Wheeler letter to Max Jammer, 19-March-1972

JOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER

Published May 19, 2011• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In the early 1970s, physicist and philosopher of physics Max Jammer began working on a follow up to his classic 1966 book, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. Jammer hoped that the new book, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective (1974), could contain some additional information on the Everett interpretation. This letter is Wheeler's reply to a letter from Jammer seeking Everett's contact information. It is interesting to note that the address Wheeler provides is incorrect – which explains why the letter in the archive from Jammer to Everett is dated almost 18 months later, with Jammer attributing Everett's correct address to DeWitt. It seems that Wheeler and Everett were largely not in contact by this time, though they would meet and correspond periodically over the next five or six years.

Related papers

Max Jammer letter to Hugh Everett, 28-August-1973

Max Jammer

In the early 1970s, physicist and philosopher of physics Max Jammer began working on a follow up to his classic 1966 book, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. Jammer hoped that the new book, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective (1974), could contain some additional information on the Hugh Everett interpretation. Here he writes to Everett with some questions concerning Everett's intellectual development and the historical context in which Everett developed his interpretation.

•Aug 28, 1973•0 citations

Hugh Everett letter to Max Jammer, 19-September-1973

Hugh Everett

In the early 1970s, physicist and philosopher of physics Max Jammer began working on a follow up to his classic 1966 book, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. Jammer hoped that the new book, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective (1974), could contain some additional information on the Hugh Everett interpretation. He wrote to Everett of August of 1973; here, Everett responds in some detail to Jammer's questions about his intellectual development and the origins of his thesis.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

Bryce DeWitt letter to John Wheeler, 19-September-1979

Bryce Seligman DeWitt

As Hugh Everett's interpretation gained more notoriety in the wake of the DeWitt-Graham anthology, Wheeler began to distance himself from his former student. Here, DeWitt and Wheeler have reversed their earlier positions: DeWitt finds himself defending Everett's interpretation against Wheeler, who seems to have taken Bohr's side in a previous letter to DeWitt.

•Sep 19, 1979•0 citations

Max Dresden letters to John Wheeler, 23 October 1957 and reply 30 October 1957, with note to Hugh Everett

Max Dresden

After the publication of Hugh Everett's thesis and John Wheeler's commentary in the September 1957 issue of Reviews of Modern Physics, several physicists wrote to Everett and Wheeler to discuss the papers. This one, from a physicist at Johns Hopkins named Max Dresden, seems to approve of Everett's contributions, and suggests that it might be related to a project he and a student worked on shortly before. Wheeler, at least at this point, seems interested in continuing to work on topics related to Everett's thesis, and also appears to believe that future publications on related topics are forthcoming. This letter is particularly interesting because it suggests that not only did Wheeler believe Everett could get an academic job at a top university, but that Robert Sachs, a prominent theoretical physicist at University of Wisconsin Madison, was actively attempting to recruit Everett. Everett, however, refused to follow any of these leads.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

John Wheeler letter to Paul Benioff, 07-July-1977

JOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER

Paul Benioff was a physicist and mathematician working as a research scientist at the Argonne National Laboratory. He published two papers on Everett interpretation shortly after this letter: Benioff (1977) ["Finite and infinite measurement in quantum mechanics and randomness: The Everett interpretation," Journal of Mathematical Physics 18(12), 2289] and Benioff (1978) ["A Note on the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," Foundations of Physics 8(9/10), 709]. In both cases, Benioff was interested in the role of infinite sequences of measurements in the Everett interpretation. In this letter, Wheeler seems to approve of Benioff's central point in the first paper (which appears to be the one he originally sent), but encourages Benioff to pass the preprint on to Everett. He also suggests that Benioff should call his topic of study the "Everett interpretation" and not the "Everett-Wheeler interpretation"—in part because Wheeler no longer subscribes to the view. The letter also includes a handwritten comment by Everett that Wheeler only accepts his interpretation on alternating Tuesdays.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

Norbert Wiener letter to John Wheeler and Hugh Everett, 9-April-1957

Norbert Wiener

MIT mathematician, physicist, and polymath Norbert Wiener was among the physicists who received preprints of Hugh Everett and John Wheeler's Review of Modern Physics articles. Wiener at this time was developing his own alternative mathematical/interpretive framework for quantum mechanics, and here he projects some of his own views on Everett while offering criticism of Everett's particular approach. Everett, meanwhile, disavows in his marginal comments several of the ideas that Wiener attributes to him.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations
In the early 1970s, physicist and philosopher of physics Max Jammer began working on a follow up to his classic 1966 book, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. Jammer hoped that the new book, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective (1974), could contain some additional information on the Everett interpretation. This letter is Wheeler's reply to a letter from Jammer seeking Everett's contact information. It is interesting to note that the address Wheeler provides is incorrect – which explains why the letter in the archive from Jammer to Everett is dated almost 18 months later, with Jammer attributing Everett's correct address to DeWitt. It seems that Wheeler and Everett were largely not in contact by this time, though they would meet and correspond periodically over the next five or six years.
In the early 1970s, physicist and philosopher of physics Max Jammer began working on a follow up to his classic 1966 book, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. Jammer hoped that the new book, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective (1974), could contain some additional information on the Hugh Everett interpretation. Here he writes to Everett with some questions concerning Everett's intellectual development and the historical context in which Everett developed his interpretation.
In the early 1970s, physicist and philosopher of physics Max Jammer began working on a follow up to his classic 1966 book, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. Jammer hoped that the new book, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective (1974), could contain some additional information on the Hugh Everett interpretation. He wrote to Everett of August of 1973; here, Everett responds in some detail to Jammer's questions about his intellectual development and the origins of his thesis.
After the publication of Hugh Everett's thesis and John Wheeler's commentary in the September 1957 issue of Reviews of Modern Physics, several physicists wrote to Everett and Wheeler to discuss the papers. This one, from a physicist at Johns Hopkins named Max Dresden, seems to approve of Everett's contributions, and suggests that it might be related to a project he and a student worked on shortly before. Wheeler, at least at this point, seems interested in continuing to work on topics related to Everett's thesis, and also appears to believe that future publications on related topics are forthcoming. This letter is particularly interesting because it suggests that not only did Wheeler believe Everett could get an academic job at a top university, but that Robert Sachs, a prominent theoretical physicist at University of Wisconsin Madison, was actively attempting to recruit Everett. Everett, however, refused to follow any of these leads.
Paul Benioff was a physicist and mathematician working as a research scientist at the Argonne National Laboratory. He published two papers on Everett interpretation shortly after this letter: Benioff (1977) ["Finite and infinite measurement in quantum mechanics and randomness: The Everett interpretation," Journal of Mathematical Physics 18(12), 2289] and Benioff (1978) ["A Note on the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," Foundations of Physics 8(9/10), 709]. In both cases, Benioff was interested in the role of infinite sequences of measurements in the Everett interpretation. In this letter, Wheeler seems to approve of Benioff's central point in the first paper (which appears to be the one he originally sent), but encourages Benioff to pass the preprint on to Everett. He also suggests that Benioff should call his topic of study the "Everett interpretation" and not the "Everett-Wheeler interpretation"—in part because Wheeler no longer subscribes to the view. The letter also includes a handwritten comment by Everett that Wheeler only accepts his interpretation on alternating Tuesdays.
MIT mathematician, physicist, and polymath Norbert Wiener was among the physicists who received preprints of Hugh Everett and John Wheeler's Review of Modern Physics articles. Wiener at this time was developing his own alternative mathematical/interpretive framework for quantum mechanics, and here he projects some of his own views on Everett while offering criticism of Everett's particular approach. Everett, meanwhile, disavows in his marginal comments several of the ideas that Wiener attributes to him.