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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Two lectures on the wave–particle duality, January 1993

N. David Mermin

Published Jan 5, 2016• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

During the recent presidential election, I dreamt that two of the candidates had concluded from interviews with focus groups that there might be some anxiety among the American public over the foundations of quantum mechanics. Concerned that by homing in on so esoteric a topic they could lose the attention of the people, the two men had made a direct assessment of public interest by quietly employing their rhetorical skills in unpublicized lectures at local events such as church barbecues, farmers’ markets, or demolition derbies. I could never learn soon enough about these performances, always arriving just as a lecture ended. By conducting exit interviews, however, I managed to put together fragmentary transcripts of what took place, which were so vivid that I was able to jot them down in the morning. In a subsequent dream I read these texts back to my interviewees, who agreed that although I had failed to capture the full brilliance of the argumentation, I had at least succeeded in conveying the flavor of the insight these remarkable men brought to the problems that have puzzled and delighted physicists for so many years. The candidates’ experiments were not a success. Both men concluded that the time was not ripe to bring these great issues before the public. Indeed, in my third and final dream I was forced to endure an interminable postelection analysis on public TV, in which the panelists concluded that by distracting the two candidates from more pressing issues, their love of quantum mechanics had contributed significantly to their defeat. I'm sure there are lessons for physicists from this cautionary tale, but I offer here only the texts of the lectures themselves, which I believe form an important chapter in the intellectual history of our times. The first lecture Now it's really very simple, OK? Over here's an electron, moving toward this wall, kind of like a cur dog slinking toward his kennel. Only there are two doors to the kennel, like the two doors in the wall here in Figure 1. Now, over here on the other side of the wall's a screen. Now then, the point is, the electron ends up making a mark on the screen, kind of like a fly makes a speck on a kitchen window?

DOI
10.1017/cbo9781139162579.015

Related papers

The ‘Mystery’ of Quantum Physics: Narrating the Wave-Particle Duality in a Richard Feynman Lecture

Angela Gencarelli

De Gruyter eBooks•Nov 6, 2023•1 citation

Selected Topics in Field Quantization

Wolfgang Ernst Friederich Pauli, Charles Paul Enz, Susana Margulies +2 more

These lectures covering topics basic to classical and modern physics were given by Pauli at the Zurich Federal Institute, where they were transcribed by his collaborators. They have now been translated and edited for English publication, and are introduced by Victor Weisskopf, who writes as follows: It is often said that scientific texts quickly become obsolete. Why are the Pauli lectures brought to the public today, when some of them were given as long as twenty years ago? The reason is simple: Pauli's way of presenting physics is never out of date. His famous article on the foundations of quantum mechanics appeared in 1933 in the German encyclopedia Handbuch der Physik. Twenty-five years later it reappeared practically unchanged in a new edition, whereas most other contributions to this encyclopedia had to be completely rewritten. The reason for this remarkable fact lies in Pauli's style, which is commensurate to the greatness of its subject in its clarity and impact. Style in scientific writing is a quality that today is on the point of vanishing. The pressure of fast publication is so great that people rush into print with hurriedly written papers and books that show little concern for careful formulation of ideas. Mathematical and instrumental techniques have become complicated and difficult today; they demand so much skill and training that most of the effort of writing and learning is devoted to the acquisition of this skill instead of insight into important concepts. Essential ideas of physics are often lost in the dense forest of mathematical reasoning. This situation need not be so. Pauli's lectures show how physical ideas can be presented clearly and in good mathematical form, without being hidden in formalistic expertise.

•Jan 1, 1973•48 citations

The Trieste Lecture of John Stewart Bell

Angelo Bassi, G. C. Ghirardi

Delivered at Trieste on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, 2 November 1989 The video of this lecture is available here . Please see the PDF for the transcript of the lecture. General remarks by Angelo Bassi and GianCarlo Ghirardi During the autumn of 1989 the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, celebrated the 25th anniversary of its creation. Among the many prestigious speakers, who delivered extremely interesting lectures on that occasion, was the late John Stewart Bell. All lectures have been recorded on tape. We succeeded in getting a copy of John's lecture. In the lecture, many of the arguments that John had lucidly stressed in his writings appear once more, but there are also extremely interesting new remarks which, to our knowledge, have not been presented elsewhere. In particular he decided, as pointed out by the very choice of the title of his lecture, to call attention to the fact that the theory presents two types of difficulties, which Dirac classified as first and second class. The former are those connected with the so-called macro-objectification problem, the latter with the divergences characterizing relativistic quantum field theories. Bell describes the precise position of Dirac on these problems and he stresses appropriately how, contrary to Dirac's hopes, the steps which have led to a partial overcoming of the second class difficulties have not helped in any way whatsoever to overcome those of the first class. He then proceeds to analyse the origin and development of the Dynamical Reduction Program and draws attention to the problems that still affect it, in particular that of a consistent relativistic generalization. When the two meetings Are there quantum jumps? and On the present status of Quantum Mechanics were organized in Trieste and Losinj (Croatia), on 5–10 September 2005, it occurred to us that this lecture, which has never been published, might represent an extremely interesting historical record for all the participants who certainly shared with us a great admiration for this outstanding scientist and deep thinker. Accordingly, with the permission of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, and with thanks to the financial support of the Consorzio per la Fisica of the Trieste University, we have produced from the original record a DVD which has been given to all participants although, unfortunately, the video tape of the event was not particularly good. Taking into account that the participants to the meetings represented only a very small subset of those scientists who might be interested in hearing what John Bell said in probably his last lecture, we considered that it would be useful for the scientific community interested in foundational problems to publish the text of this lecture in order to make it accessible to everybody. The lecture was preceded by a presentation by the Chairman, Alain Aspect, which we have also included. Due to the aforementioned low quality of the recording it has not been easy to pass from the tape to the text we are presenting below, and we have to thank, for her precious collaboration, Dr Julia Filingeri who did most of the work, as well as Mrs Anne Gatti from ICTP, Professors Detlef Düurr and Sheldon Goldstein, and the staff of IOP Publishing who contributed in an essential way in deciphering some particularly difficult passages. Obviously, we take full responsibility for any possible inappropriate rendering of the original talk. We thank the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics for authorizing IOP Publishing to publish this important document. Some final remarks are in order. Firstly, we have put in square brackets parenthetical remarks that John made while reading sentences from his transparencies. We have also indicated by parenthetical ellipsis (...) very short parts of the speech (usually one word) which we have not been able to decipher. We have included a picture (figure 1) shown by him, taking it from the tape image which is of rather poor quality (we apologize for this) and three figures taken from his transparencies. Moreover, to help the reader in grasping the various points John Stewart Bell brilliantly raised in his talk we have divided the paper into six sections whose titles have been chosen by us to summarize the most crucial points of his argument. Presentation by the Chairman, Alain Aspect It is a great pleasure and an honour to introduce Professor Bell. When looking to my old papers I discovered that this 25th anniversary of the ICTP also coincides with the famous paper in which appeared, for the first time, inequalities that are now known as Bell's inequalities so it's a very good opportunity to have a talk by John Bell here. Many of us have been strongly influenced by this work of John Bell because he has shown us that quantum mechanics is much more difficult to understand that we thought it was. I am sure that today he will again raise some questions which are very embarrassing but that we have definitely to face.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Mar 7, 2007•12 citations

Wave-particle dualism and the interpretation of quantum mechanics

Christopher Dewdney, G. Horton, Mai Mai Lam +2 more

Foundations of Physics•Oct 1, 1992•24 citations

Could Feynman Have Said This?

N. David Mermin

Fifteen years ago, I mused in a Reference Frame column on how different generations of physicists differed in the degree to which they thought that the interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a serious problem (Physics Today, Physics Today 0031-9228 42 4 1989 9 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2810963. April 1989, page 9 ). I declared myself to be among those who feel uncomfortable when asked to articulate what we really think about the quantum theory, adding that "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be "Shut up and calculate!"In the intervening years, I've come to hold a milder and more nuanced opinion of the Copenhagen view, but that should be the subject of another column. The subject of this one is the habit of misquotation or misattribution that afflicts our profession, a rather different example of which I pointed out a few months ago (February 2004, page 10).Given my capacity for intellectual development ("inconsistency," in the terminology deployed in the current American political season), it's fortunate that I've now reached an age at which I tend to forget about things I've written more than a few years ago. Indeed, I find it downright irritating when somebody asks me questions about papers I wrote a mere half dozen years ago, naively identifying me with the author of those ancient texts. Until quite recently, I had no memory of ever having written such a childishly brusque dismissal of such an exquisitely subtle point of view, much less of having published it in so widely read a venue.This amnesia, combined with the evolution in my thinking that had distanced me from my long forgotten words, may explain why I was initially somewhat puzzled by the slight sensation of discomfort that passed over me when, browsing the e-print archive earlier this year, I read a characterization of Max Born's probability rule as "the favorite ingredient of what has been nicknamed, after Feynman's famous dictum, the shut up and calculate interpretation of quantum mechanics."I yield to nobody in my admiration for Richard Feynman's aphorisms on the nature of quantum mechanics. Indeed, long ago I published a poem (Physics Today, April 1985, page 47) consisting of nothing more than a resetting as verse of a paragraph Feynman had written about his own attitude toward the quantum theory, in his now (but not then) famous article that launched the whole field of quantum computation. I like to think I have devoured everything Feynman ever wrote on the character of quantum mechanics. But while "shut up and calculate" sounded dimly familiar to me as a characterization of a certain interpretive stance, I couldn't recall where Feynman had written it. Mulling this over, a terrible thought began to dawn on me. Could it be that I myself had once used the phrase? If so, then it would appear that I had picked it up from something by Feynman, forgotten the source, and presented it as my own. Devastating!It was devastating because I have a horror of writing or uttering any witticism that is not original with me, unless I make it absolutely clear where and (if known) from whom I got it. I don't even like to tell jokes unless I've made them up myself. (I digress to offer you my favorite:Question: What is the difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics? Answer: Theoretical physics is done by physicists who lack the necessary skills to do real experiments; mathematical physics is done by mathematicians who lack the necessary skills to do real mathematics. Mathematical physicists tend not to like this joke, but other physicists seem to. Nonphysicists, of course, are entirely immune to its charms.)So with growing trepidation, I searched through my past writings on quantum mechanics. I was dismayed when I came upon my 1989 column, which confirmed my worst fears. Not only had I appropriated without proper attribution a Feynman quote, but it appeared to be a famous one. How humiliating! I was afflicted with visions of knowledgeable Physics Today readers shaking their heads 15 years ago at what must have struck them as my shameless attempt to ride to literary glory on the unacknowledged shoulders of Feynman.So I went to the Web to find the source, hoping I could then salvage my reputation by persuading Physics Today to print an addendum or erratum. Google gives more than 130 hits containing both "shut up and calculate" and "feynman." Most of these do not directly link the two, but about a dozen do. Here are a few: "Shut up and calculate" was a motto of Richard Feynman.For example, there's Feynman's "shut up and calculate."My personal philosophy is that of the famous physicist Richard Feynman, who said: "Shut up and calculate."When asked which interpretation of QM he favored, Feynman replied "Shut up and calculate."Richard Feynman foreslog ligefrem en "shut up and calculate" fortolkning af kvantemekanikken.Shut up and calculate—Richard Feynman.Just to make sure, I also searched for "shut up and calculate" and "mermin." I found only 10 hits, all of them mentioning me in ways that had nothing to do with their use, elsewhere, of "shut up and calculate." So it would have been clear to the world that I had indeed passed off Feynman's words as my own.Or had I …?I noticed that not a single one of the Web sites attributing the phrase to Feynman cited a source or hinted at the circumstances under which he had said it. A ray of hope flickered on: Could I once again have become a victim of the Matthew effect?The Matthew effect was enunciated by the great sociologist of science, Robert Merton. 1 1. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 Merton worked in those innocent days when sociologists were interested only in the behavior of scientists and not in the content of their science. (To be fair to contemporary sociologists of science, I should modify that last phrase to "and not in the manifestations of that behavior in the content of their science.") I first learned of the Matthew effect more than 20 years ago, on the occasion of my first and, perhaps until now, only, victimization at the hands of the New York Times.I learned the name for what the Times had done to me when I received a very nice note from P. W. Anderson in which he expressed his regret that the newspaper had given him exclusive credit for a nomenclatural advance that was entirely due to me. "A depressingly typical example of the Matthew effect" was how he characterized the misattribution. (I reported the entire history of this contretemps in these pages back in those dark ages [April 1981, page 46] before there were Reference Frame columns.) When I wrote back asking him what the Matthew effect was, he referred me to Merton.It was Merton who identified and named the tendency always to assign exclusive scientific credit to the most eminent among all the plausible candidates. At least I hope it was he, though I'm sure Merton, who invented many wonderful jokes himself, would have been delighted if the credit for it turned out to be misattributed to him. Merton named the effect after the Gospel According to Matthew, because there it is written, For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.—Matthew 25:29.Could the widespread attribution of my wretched witticism to Feynman be another instance of this same deplorable practice? Had I once again been matthewed?Although I didn't say so in my old Reference-Frame article, what inspired this not so terribly bon mot were vivid memories of the responses my conceptual inquiries elicited from my professors—whom I viewed as agents of Copenhagen—when I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject. "You'll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted by such frivolities," they kept advising me, "so get back to serious business and produce some results." "Shut up," in other words, "and calculate." And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it. At Harvard, they knew how to administer tough love in those olden days.This bit of history is relevant to the question of whether Feynman's abundance might have been augmented by a portion of the little that I had. Can you imagine the young Feynman ever having had a similar experience that seared "shut up and calculate" into his tender consciousness? No, of course you can't! Nobody could ever have had the slightest reason to direct the best human calculator that ever was to shut up and calculate.But perhaps Feynman was offering such advice to others who were searching for a better understanding of the quantum mechanical formalism. I can't believe that. He said that he "always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents," and added, "I still get nervous with it." 2 2. R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 471 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179 Nobody who felt that way would ever respond with "shut up and calculate" to conceptual inquiries from the perplexed.Well maybe Feynman, like me, was merely dismissing an interpretive position of others by lampooning it as a "shut up and calculate interpretation." I find this unlikely. For one thing, his strong preference for working things out for himself and, of course, his well-known disdain for philosophy make me doubt that he ever paid much attention to the interpretive positions of others. For another, would one for whom calculation was so effortless and understanding so important be likely to translate anybody's admonition against fruitless speculation into such terms?In short, I suspect that it is only Feynman's habitual irreverence that has linked him in the minds of many to the phrase "shut up and calculate." Who else among the high and mighty—and Merton has taught us that it is only among the high and mighty that people tend to look—could have said it? Albert Einstein? Don't be silly. Erwin Schrödinger? Of course not. Niels Bohr? Don't make me laugh. None of them besides Feynman could have said it. Does that mean that Feynman said it? No!Broaden the search to embrace the low and powerless. Among them am I, who hereby put forth the hypothesis that I was the first to use "shut up and calculate" in the context of quantum foundations. I'm not proud of having said it. It's not a beautiful phrase. It's not very clever. It's snide and mindlessly dismissive. But, damn it, if I'm the one who said it first, then that means I did not, even unconsciously, appropriate the words of Richard Feynman and pass them off as my own. So I have nothing to be ashamed of other than having characterized the Copenhagen interpretation in such foolish terms—a lesser offense than unconscious plagiarism, in my moral bookkeeping.So, dear reader, if you have evidence that Feynman really did say "shut up and calculate," please send it to me. I will not be happy to receive it. I'd rather be a Matthew victim than a plagiarist. But I'd like to know the truth.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 471 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2004 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•May 1, 2004•133 citations

Prologue: The wave-particle duality of the elementary particle

Springer eBooks•Apr 6, 2008•0 citations
During the recent presidential election, I dreamt that two of the candidates had concluded from interviews with focus groups that there might be some anxiety among the American public over the foundations of quantum mechanics. Concerned that by homing in on so esoteric a topic they could lose the attention of the people, the two men had made a direct assessment of public interest by quietly employing their rhetorical skills in unpublicized lectures at local events such as church barbecues, farmers’ markets, or demolition derbies. I could never learn soon enough about these performances, always arriving just as a lecture ended. By conducting exit interviews, however, I managed to put together fragmentary transcripts of what took place, which were so vivid that I was able to jot them down in the morning. In a subsequent dream I read these texts back to my interviewees, who agreed that although I had failed to capture the full brilliance of the argumentation, I had at least succeeded in conveying the flavor of the insight these remarkable men brought to the problems that have puzzled and delighted physicists for so many years. The candidates’ experiments were not a success. Both men concluded that the time was not ripe to bring these great issues before the public. Indeed, in my third and final dream I was forced to endure an interminable postelection analysis on public TV, in which the panelists concluded that by distracting the two candidates from more pressing issues, their love of quantum mechanics had contributed significantly to their defeat. I'm sure there are lessons for physicists from this cautionary tale, but I offer here only the texts of the lectures themselves, which I believe form an important chapter in the intellectual history of our times. The first lecture Now it's really very simple, OK? Over here's an electron, moving toward this wall, kind of like a cur dog slinking toward his kennel. Only there are two doors to the kennel, like the two doors in the wall here in Figure 1. Now, over here on the other side of the wall's a screen. Now then, the point is, the electron ends up making a mark on the screen, kind of like a fly makes a speck on a kitchen window?
These lectures covering topics basic to classical and modern physics were given by Pauli at the Zurich Federal Institute, where they were transcribed by his collaborators. They have now been translated and edited for English publication, and are introduced by Victor Weisskopf, who writes as follows: It is often said that scientific texts quickly become obsolete. Why are the Pauli lectures brought to the public today, when some of them were given as long as twenty years ago? The reason is simple: Pauli's way of presenting physics is never out of date. His famous article on the foundations of quantum mechanics appeared in 1933 in the German encyclopedia Handbuch der Physik. Twenty-five years later it reappeared practically unchanged in a new edition, whereas most other contributions to this encyclopedia had to be completely rewritten. The reason for this remarkable fact lies in Pauli's style, which is commensurate to the greatness of its subject in its clarity and impact. Style in scientific writing is a quality that today is on the point of vanishing. The pressure of fast publication is so great that people rush into print with hurriedly written papers and books that show little concern for careful formulation of ideas. Mathematical and instrumental techniques have become complicated and difficult today; they demand so much skill and training that most of the effort of writing and learning is devoted to the acquisition of this skill instead of insight into important concepts. Essential ideas of physics are often lost in the dense forest of mathematical reasoning. This situation need not be so. Pauli's lectures show how physical ideas can be presented clearly and in good mathematical form, without being hidden in formalistic expertise.
Delivered at Trieste on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, 2 November 1989 The video of this lecture is available here . Please see the PDF for the transcript of the lecture. General remarks by Angelo Bassi and GianCarlo Ghirardi During the autumn of 1989 the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, celebrated the 25th anniversary of its creation. Among the many prestigious speakers, who delivered extremely interesting lectures on that occasion, was the late John Stewart Bell. All lectures have been recorded on tape. We succeeded in getting a copy of John's lecture. In the lecture, many of the arguments that John had lucidly stressed in his writings appear once more, but there are also extremely interesting new remarks which, to our knowledge, have not been presented elsewhere. In particular he decided, as pointed out by the very choice of the title of his lecture, to call attention to the fact that the theory presents two types of difficulties, which Dirac classified as first and second class. The former are those connected with the so-called macro-objectification problem, the latter with the divergences characterizing relativistic quantum field theories. Bell describes the precise position of Dirac on these problems and he stresses appropriately how, contrary to Dirac's hopes, the steps which have led to a partial overcoming of the second class difficulties have not helped in any way whatsoever to overcome those of the first class. He then proceeds to analyse the origin and development of the Dynamical Reduction Program and draws attention to the problems that still affect it, in particular that of a consistent relativistic generalization. When the two meetings Are there quantum jumps? and On the present status of Quantum Mechanics were organized in Trieste and Losinj (Croatia), on 5–10 September 2005, it occurred to us that this lecture, which has never been published, might represent an extremely interesting historical record for all the participants who certainly shared with us a great admiration for this outstanding scientist and deep thinker. Accordingly, with the permission of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, and with thanks to the financial support of the Consorzio per la Fisica of the Trieste University, we have produced from the original record a DVD which has been given to all participants although, unfortunately, the video tape of the event was not particularly good. Taking into account that the participants to the meetings represented only a very small subset of those scientists who might be interested in hearing what John Bell said in probably his last lecture, we considered that it would be useful for the scientific community interested in foundational problems to publish the text of this lecture in order to make it accessible to everybody. The lecture was preceded by a presentation by the Chairman, Alain Aspect, which we have also included. Due to the aforementioned low quality of the recording it has not been easy to pass from the tape to the text we are presenting below, and we have to thank, for her precious collaboration, Dr Julia Filingeri who did most of the work, as well as Mrs Anne Gatti from ICTP, Professors Detlef Düurr and Sheldon Goldstein, and the staff of IOP Publishing who contributed in an essential way in deciphering some particularly difficult passages. Obviously, we take full responsibility for any possible inappropriate rendering of the original talk. We thank the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics for authorizing IOP Publishing to publish this important document. Some final remarks are in order. Firstly, we have put in square brackets parenthetical remarks that John made while reading sentences from his transparencies. We have also indicated by parenthetical ellipsis (...) very short parts of the speech (usually one word) which we have not been able to decipher. We have included a picture (figure 1) shown by him, taking it from the tape image which is of rather poor quality (we apologize for this) and three figures taken from his transparencies. Moreover, to help the reader in grasping the various points John Stewart Bell brilliantly raised in his talk we have divided the paper into six sections whose titles have been chosen by us to summarize the most crucial points of his argument. Presentation by the Chairman, Alain Aspect It is a great pleasure and an honour to introduce Professor Bell. When looking to my old papers I discovered that this 25th anniversary of the ICTP also coincides with the famous paper in which appeared, for the first time, inequalities that are now known as Bell's inequalities so it's a very good opportunity to have a talk by John Bell here. Many of us have been strongly influenced by this work of John Bell because he has shown us that quantum mechanics is much more difficult to understand that we thought it was. I am sure that today he will again raise some questions which are very embarrassing but that we have definitely to face.
Fifteen years ago, I mused in a Reference Frame column on how different generations of physicists differed in the degree to which they thought that the interpretation of quantum mechanics remains a serious problem (Physics Today, Physics Today 0031-9228 42 4 1989 9 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2810963. April 1989, page 9 ). I declared myself to be among those who feel uncomfortable when asked to articulate what we really think about the quantum theory, adding that "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be "Shut up and calculate!"In the intervening years, I've come to hold a milder and more nuanced opinion of the Copenhagen view, but that should be the subject of another column. The subject of this one is the habit of misquotation or misattribution that afflicts our profession, a rather different example of which I pointed out a few months ago (February 2004, page 10).Given my capacity for intellectual development ("inconsistency," in the terminology deployed in the current American political season), it's fortunate that I've now reached an age at which I tend to forget about things I've written more than a few years ago. Indeed, I find it downright irritating when somebody asks me questions about papers I wrote a mere half dozen years ago, naively identifying me with the author of those ancient texts. Until quite recently, I had no memory of ever having written such a childishly brusque dismissal of such an exquisitely subtle point of view, much less of having published it in so widely read a venue.This amnesia, combined with the evolution in my thinking that had distanced me from my long forgotten words, may explain why I was initially somewhat puzzled by the slight sensation of discomfort that passed over me when, browsing the e-print archive earlier this year, I read a characterization of Max Born's probability rule as "the favorite ingredient of what has been nicknamed, after Feynman's famous dictum, the shut up and calculate interpretation of quantum mechanics."I yield to nobody in my admiration for Richard Feynman's aphorisms on the nature of quantum mechanics. Indeed, long ago I published a poem (Physics Today, April 1985, page 47) consisting of nothing more than a resetting as verse of a paragraph Feynman had written about his own attitude toward the quantum theory, in his now (but not then) famous article that launched the whole field of quantum computation. I like to think I have devoured everything Feynman ever wrote on the character of quantum mechanics. But while "shut up and calculate" sounded dimly familiar to me as a characterization of a certain interpretive stance, I couldn't recall where Feynman had written it. Mulling this over, a terrible thought began to dawn on me. Could it be that I myself had once used the phrase? If so, then it would appear that I had picked it up from something by Feynman, forgotten the source, and presented it as my own. Devastating!It was devastating because I have a horror of writing or uttering any witticism that is not original with me, unless I make it absolutely clear where and (if known) from whom I got it. I don't even like to tell jokes unless I've made them up myself. (I digress to offer you my favorite:Question: What is the difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics? Answer: Theoretical physics is done by physicists who lack the necessary skills to do real experiments; mathematical physics is done by mathematicians who lack the necessary skills to do real mathematics. Mathematical physicists tend not to like this joke, but other physicists seem to. Nonphysicists, of course, are entirely immune to its charms.)So with growing trepidation, I searched through my past writings on quantum mechanics. I was dismayed when I came upon my 1989 column, which confirmed my worst fears. Not only had I appropriated without proper attribution a Feynman quote, but it appeared to be a famous one. How humiliating! I was afflicted with visions of knowledgeable Physics Today readers shaking their heads 15 years ago at what must have struck them as my shameless attempt to ride to literary glory on the unacknowledged shoulders of Feynman.So I went to the Web to find the source, hoping I could then salvage my reputation by persuading Physics Today to print an addendum or erratum. Google gives more than 130 hits containing both "shut up and calculate" and "feynman." Most of these do not directly link the two, but about a dozen do. Here are a few: "Shut up and calculate" was a motto of Richard Feynman.For example, there's Feynman's "shut up and calculate."My personal philosophy is that of the famous physicist Richard Feynman, who said: "Shut up and calculate."When asked which interpretation of QM he favored, Feynman replied "Shut up and calculate."Richard Feynman foreslog ligefrem en "shut up and calculate" fortolkning af kvantemekanikken.Shut up and calculate—Richard Feynman.Just to make sure, I also searched for "shut up and calculate" and "mermin." I found only 10 hits, all of them mentioning me in ways that had nothing to do with their use, elsewhere, of "shut up and calculate." So it would have been clear to the world that I had indeed passed off Feynman's words as my own.Or had I …?I noticed that not a single one of the Web sites attributing the phrase to Feynman cited a source or hinted at the circumstances under which he had said it. A ray of hope flickered on: Could I once again have become a victim of the Matthew effect?The Matthew effect was enunciated by the great sociologist of science, Robert Merton. 1 1. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 Merton worked in those innocent days when sociologists were interested only in the behavior of scientists and not in the content of their science. (To be fair to contemporary sociologists of science, I should modify that last phrase to "and not in the manifestations of that behavior in the content of their science.") I first learned of the Matthew effect more than 20 years ago, on the occasion of my first and, perhaps until now, only, victimization at the hands of the New York Times.I learned the name for what the Times had done to me when I received a very nice note from P. W. Anderson in which he expressed his regret that the newspaper had given him exclusive credit for a nomenclatural advance that was entirely due to me. "A depressingly typical example of the Matthew effect" was how he characterized the misattribution. (I reported the entire history of this contretemps in these pages back in those dark ages [April 1981, page 46] before there were Reference Frame columns.) When I wrote back asking him what the Matthew effect was, he referred me to Merton.It was Merton who identified and named the tendency always to assign exclusive scientific credit to the most eminent among all the plausible candidates. At least I hope it was he, though I'm sure Merton, who invented many wonderful jokes himself, would have been delighted if the credit for it turned out to be misattributed to him. Merton named the effect after the Gospel According to Matthew, because there it is written, For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.—Matthew 25:29.Could the widespread attribution of my wretched witticism to Feynman be another instance of this same deplorable practice? Had I once again been matthewed?Although I didn't say so in my old Reference-Frame article, what inspired this not so terribly bon mot were vivid memories of the responses my conceptual inquiries elicited from my professors—whom I viewed as agents of Copenhagen—when I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject. "You'll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted by such frivolities," they kept advising me, "so get back to serious business and produce some results." "Shut up," in other words, "and calculate." And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it. At Harvard, they knew how to administer tough love in those olden days.This bit of history is relevant to the question of whether Feynman's abundance might have been augmented by a portion of the little that I had. Can you imagine the young Feynman ever having had a similar experience that seared "shut up and calculate" into his tender consciousness? No, of course you can't! Nobody could ever have had the slightest reason to direct the best human calculator that ever was to shut up and calculate.But perhaps Feynman was offering such advice to others who were searching for a better understanding of the quantum mechanical formalism. I can't believe that. He said that he "always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents," and added, "I still get nervous with it." 2 2. R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 471 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179 Nobody who felt that way would ever respond with "shut up and calculate" to conceptual inquiries from the perplexed.Well maybe Feynman, like me, was merely dismissing an interpretive position of others by lampooning it as a "shut up and calculate interpretation." I find this unlikely. For one thing, his strong preference for working things out for himself and, of course, his well-known disdain for philosophy make me doubt that he ever paid much attention to the interpretive positions of others. For another, would one for whom calculation was so effortless and understanding so important be likely to translate anybody's admonition against fruitless speculation into such terms?In short, I suspect that it is only Feynman's habitual irreverence that has linked him in the minds of many to the phrase "shut up and calculate." Who else among the high and mighty—and Merton has taught us that it is only among the high and mighty that people tend to look—could have said it? Albert Einstein? Don't be silly. Erwin Schrödinger? Of course not. Niels Bohr? Don't make me laugh. None of them besides Feynman could have said it. Does that mean that Feynman said it? No!Broaden the search to embrace the low and powerless. Among them am I, who hereby put forth the hypothesis that I was the first to use "shut up and calculate" in the context of quantum foundations. I'm not proud of having said it. It's not a beautiful phrase. It's not very clever. It's snide and mindlessly dismissive. But, damn it, if I'm the one who said it first, then that means I did not, even unconsciously, appropriate the words of Richard Feynman and pass them off as my own. So I have nothing to be ashamed of other than having characterized the Copenhagen interpretation in such foolish terms—a lesser offense than unconscious plagiarism, in my moral bookkeeping.So, dear reader, if you have evidence that Feynman really did say "shut up and calculate," please send it to me. I will not be happy to receive it. I'd rather be a Matthew victim than a plagiarist. But I'd like to know the truth.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 471 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2004 American Institute of Physics.