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

Leon Rosenfeld letter to F.J. Belinfante 22-June-1972

L. Rosenfeld

Published Jun 22, 1972• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Leon Rosenfeld was a close collaborator of Niels Bohr's, with whom both Hugh Everett and John Wheeler discussed Everett's work. After the initial debate with Bohr and his collaborators, during which nether side was convinced of the other's position, Rosenfeld took the role of defender of the faith. In a series of letters to various physicists, Rosenfeld harshly criticized Everett and his work. F. J. Belinfante was a physicist at Purdue university. In 1972, he and Rosenfeld had an extended correspondence concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics, including discussions of both Everett and Leslie Ballentine, another physicist working on the foundations of quantum mechanics. (The present archive only contains Rosenfeld's replies to Belinfante.) This is the first letter in the series. Everett is mentioned and dismissed; in later letters, Rosenfeld objects to Belinfante's attempts to reconstruct Everett favorably.

Related papers

Leon Rosenfeld letter to F.J. Belinfante, 12-October-1972

L. Rosenfeld

Leon Rosenfeld was a close collaborator of Niels Bohr's, with whom both Hugh Everett and John Wheeler discussed Everett's work. After the initial debate with Bohr and his collaborators, during which nether side was convinced of the other's position, Rosenfeld took the role of defender of the faith. In a series of letters to various physicists, Rosenfeld harshly criticized Everett and his work. F. J. Belinfante was a physicist at Purdue university. In 1972, he and Rosenfeld had an extended correspondence concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics, including discussions of both Everett and Leslie Ballentine, another physicist working on the foundations of quantum mechanics. (The present archive only contains Rosenfeld's replies to Belinfante.) This is the fourth letter in the series. Rosenfeld apologizes for not replying to a previous letter, but defers further comments.

•Oct 12, 1972•0 citations

Leon Rosenfeld letter to F.J. Belinfante, 31-October-1972

L. Rosenfeld

Leon Rosenfeld was a close collaborator of Niels Bohr's, with whom both Hugh Everett and John Wheeler discussed Everett's work. After the initial debate with Bohr and his collaborators, during which nether side was convinced of the other's position, Rosenfeld took the role of defender of the faith. In a series of letters to various physicists, Rosenfeld harshly criticized Everett and his work. F. J. Belinfante was a physicist at Purdue university. In 1972, he and Rosenfeld had an extended correspondence concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics, including discussions of both Everett and Leslie Ballentine, another physicist working on the foundations of quantum mechanics. (The present archive only contains Rosenfeld's replies to Belinfante.) This is the fifth and final letter in the series. Rosenfeld seems to grant that Belinfante's criticisms of Everett are sound, though he continues to disagree that the interpretation merits further discussion.

•Oct 31, 1972•0 citations

Leon Rosenfeld letter to P.G. Bergmann, 21-December-1959

L. Rosenfeld

Leon Rosenfeld was a close collaborator of Niels Bohr's, with whom both Hugh Everett and John Wheeler discussed Everett's work. After the initial debate with Bohr and his collaborators, during which nether side was convinced of the other's position, Rosenfeld took the role of defender of the faith. In a series of letters to various physicists, Rosenfeld harshly criticized Everett and his work. Here Rosenfeld reports the Copenhagen line on Everett's thesis to an industrial physicist in Massachusetts.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

John Wheeler letter to Hugh Everett, 26-May-1956

JOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER

In spring of 1956, John Wheeler was in residence at the Lorentz Institute in Leiden, Netherlands. In April, 1956 a copy of the long version of Hugh Everett's thesis was sent to the Institute; the next month, Wheeler traveled to Copenhagen to discuss the thesis with Bohr and others. This is a letter he wrote to Everett after he returned to Leiden, following up on his letter from the day before (in which he forwarded Alexander Stern's criticisms to Everett). Here he includes his notes from a conversation with Niels Bohr — dated 4 May 1956 — on Everett's thesis, and urges Everett to come to Copenhagen immediately to discuss his work with Bohr. He includes an offer to pay for Everett's travel from his own research funds. Although Everett would ultimately travel to Copenhagen in 1959, he did not accept the invitation Wheeler extends here.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

John Wheeler letter to Alexander Stern 25-May-1956

JOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER

Alexander Stern was an American physicist and engineer who spent many years during the 1950s and 1960s is residence at Bohr's Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen. In April, 1956 a copy of the long version of Everett's thesis was sent to the Institute; the next month, Wheeler traveled to Copenhagen to discuss the thesis with Bohr and others. Soon after he left, Stern held a seminar on Everett's work, during which he recorded some of the reactions of members of the Institute to Everett's ideas. After the seminar, Stern wrote a long letter to Wheeler describing his own (and reporting on his colleagues') dissatisfaction with Everett's theory. Here Wheeler replies to Stern. This letter shows both sides of Wheeler delicate position on his student's work: on the one hand, he defends Everett, while simultaneously insisting that Everett's theory is not in conflict with Bohr's. One copy of the letter went to Everett; this copy remained with Wheeler. Wheeler makes several additional marginal notes on the letter, as it seems, did Everett's fellow graduate student Charles Misner. Misner defends Everett against Stern's attacks.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

John Wheeler letter to Hugh Everett, 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 asks Everett to comment on Benioff's argument.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations
Leon Rosenfeld was a close collaborator of Niels Bohr's, with whom both Hugh Everett and John Wheeler discussed Everett's work. After the initial debate with Bohr and his collaborators, during which nether side was convinced of the other's position, Rosenfeld took the role of defender of the faith. In a series of letters to various physicists, Rosenfeld harshly criticized Everett and his work. F. J. Belinfante was a physicist at Purdue university. In 1972, he and Rosenfeld had an extended correspondence concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics, including discussions of both Everett and Leslie Ballentine, another physicist working on the foundations of quantum mechanics. (The present archive only contains Rosenfeld's replies to Belinfante.) This is the first letter in the series. Everett is mentioned and dismissed; in later letters, Rosenfeld objects to Belinfante's attempts to reconstruct Everett favorably.
Leon Rosenfeld was a close collaborator of Niels Bohr's, with whom both Hugh Everett and John Wheeler discussed Everett's work. After the initial debate with Bohr and his collaborators, during which nether side was convinced of the other's position, Rosenfeld took the role of defender of the faith. In a series of letters to various physicists, Rosenfeld harshly criticized Everett and his work. F. J. Belinfante was a physicist at Purdue university. In 1972, he and Rosenfeld had an extended correspondence concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics, including discussions of both Everett and Leslie Ballentine, another physicist working on the foundations of quantum mechanics. (The present archive only contains Rosenfeld's replies to Belinfante.) This is the fourth letter in the series. Rosenfeld apologizes for not replying to a previous letter, but defers further comments.
Leon Rosenfeld was a close collaborator of Niels Bohr's, with whom both Hugh Everett and John Wheeler discussed Everett's work. After the initial debate with Bohr and his collaborators, during which nether side was convinced of the other's position, Rosenfeld took the role of defender of the faith. In a series of letters to various physicists, Rosenfeld harshly criticized Everett and his work. F. J. Belinfante was a physicist at Purdue university. In 1972, he and Rosenfeld had an extended correspondence concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics, including discussions of both Everett and Leslie Ballentine, another physicist working on the foundations of quantum mechanics. (The present archive only contains Rosenfeld's replies to Belinfante.) This is the fifth and final letter in the series. Rosenfeld seems to grant that Belinfante's criticisms of Everett are sound, though he continues to disagree that the interpretation merits further discussion.
Leon Rosenfeld was a close collaborator of Niels Bohr's, with whom both Hugh Everett and John Wheeler discussed Everett's work. After the initial debate with Bohr and his collaborators, during which nether side was convinced of the other's position, Rosenfeld took the role of defender of the faith. In a series of letters to various physicists, Rosenfeld harshly criticized Everett and his work. Here Rosenfeld reports the Copenhagen line on Everett's thesis to an industrial physicist in Massachusetts.
In spring of 1956, John Wheeler was in residence at the Lorentz Institute in Leiden, Netherlands. In April, 1956 a copy of the long version of Hugh Everett's thesis was sent to the Institute; the next month, Wheeler traveled to Copenhagen to discuss the thesis with Bohr and others. This is a letter he wrote to Everett after he returned to Leiden, following up on his letter from the day before (in which he forwarded Alexander Stern's criticisms to Everett). Here he includes his notes from a conversation with Niels Bohr — dated 4 May 1956 — on Everett's thesis, and urges Everett to come to Copenhagen immediately to discuss his work with Bohr. He includes an offer to pay for Everett's travel from his own research funds. Although Everett would ultimately travel to Copenhagen in 1959, he did not accept the invitation Wheeler extends here.
Alexander Stern was an American physicist and engineer who spent many years during the 1950s and 1960s is residence at Bohr's Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen. In April, 1956 a copy of the long version of Everett's thesis was sent to the Institute; the next month, Wheeler traveled to Copenhagen to discuss the thesis with Bohr and others. Soon after he left, Stern held a seminar on Everett's work, during which he recorded some of the reactions of members of the Institute to Everett's ideas. After the seminar, Stern wrote a long letter to Wheeler describing his own (and reporting on his colleagues') dissatisfaction with Everett's theory. Here Wheeler replies to Stern. This letter shows both sides of Wheeler delicate position on his student's work: on the one hand, he defends Everett, while simultaneously insisting that Everett's theory is not in conflict with Bohr's. One copy of the letter went to Everett; this copy remained with Wheeler. Wheeler makes several additional marginal notes on the letter, as it seems, did Everett's fellow graduate student Charles Misner. Misner defends Everett against Stern's attacks.
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 asks Everett to comment on Benioff's argument.