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

"Towards a Proper Quantum Theory," annotated article from Dialectica 30 (2/3), 1976

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond

Published May 19, 2011• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In 1976, a conference called "Fifty Years of Quantum Mechanics" was held at the University of Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg. It was attended by more than a dozen physicists, including a young French scientist, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond. Wheeler's presentation was called, `"Include the Observer in the Wave Function?'' Wheeler had a history of vacillating on Everett's theory, but now, 20 years after he had endorsed it in Reviews of Modern Physics, he rejected Everett's inclusion of the observer in the wave function, essentially upholding the Copenhagen interpretation. In 1977, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond wrote a letter to Everett, including a copy of a paper he had presented at the conference that compared DeWitt's and Everett's views. Everett responded by agreeing with Levy-Leblond's analysis of the differences between the two views. Everett especially liked the short spoof of foundational writing in physics (on "zipperdynamics'') that LeBlond had tacked onto the end of his paper. This document is the published version of Levy-Leblond's paper, which appeared in the journal Dialectica 30 (2/3) in 1976.

Related papers

Hugh Everett letter to J.M. Levy-Leblond, 15-November-1977 with draft

Hugh Everett

In 1976, a conference called "Fifty Years of Quantum Mechanics" was held at the University of Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg. It was attended by more than a dozen physicists, including a young French scientist, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond. Wheeler's presentation was called, "Include the Observer in the Wave Function?'' Wheeler had a history of vacillating on Everett's theory, but now, 20 years after he had endorsed it in Reviews of Modern Physics, he rejected Everett's inclusion of the observer in the wave function, essentially upholding the Copenhagen interpretation. In 1977, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond wrote a letter to Everett, including a copy of a paper he had presented at the conference that compared DeWitt's and Everett's views. Everett responded by agreeing with Levy-Leblond's analysis of the differences between the two views. Everett especially liked the short spoof of foundational writing in physics (on "zipperdynamics'') that LeBlond had tacked onto the end of his paper. This document is Everett's reply to Levy-Leblond, including an earlier rough draft.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

J.M. Levy-Leblond letter to Hugh Everett, 17-August-1977

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond

In 1976, a conference called "Fifty Years of Quantum Mechanics" was held at the University of Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg. It was attended by more than a dozen physicists, including a young French scientist, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond. Wheeler's presentation was called, "Include the Observer in the Wave Function?'' Wheeler had a history of vacillating on Everett's theory, but now, 20 years after he had endorsed it in Reviews of Modern Physics, he rejected Everett's inclusion of the observer in the wave function, essentially upholding the Copenhagen interpretation. In 1977, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond wrote a letter to Everett, including a copy of a paper he had presented at the conference that compared DeWitt's and Everett's views. Everett responded by agreeing with Levy-Leblond's analysis of the differences between the two views. Everett especially liked the short spoof of foundational writing in physics (on "zipperdynamics'') that LeBlond had tacked onto the end of his paper. This document is the cover letter that Levy-Leblond sent with his paper.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

Bryce S. DeWitt letter to J.A. Wheeler, Hugh Everett's copy, 07-May-1957

Bryce Seligman DeWitt

As a close friend and collaborator of John Wheeler's, Bryce S. DeWitt was one of the first people to see a draft of the short version of Hugh Everett's thesis (he did not read the longer version until much later, as is evidenced by some of the complaints in this letter). In May 1957, DeWitt wrote a long and thoughtful letter to Wheeler about how Everett's theory had conceptual parallels with Einstein's theory of general relativity. Wheeler promptly forwarded a copy of the letter to Everett. DeWitt was unhappy with both wave function collapse and the Copenhagen Interpretation. He wrote that Everett's formalistic argument for pure wave mechanics was `"beautifully consistent''. But he could not accept the ontological ramifications of the theory because, `"I simply do not branch.'' This document is Everett's copy of the letter, as reproduced by Wheeler's secretary. It differs from Wheeler's own copy by several sentences at the bottom of page 4, cut off during the reproduction process. It is likely that Everett never saw these missing sentences.

•May 7, 1957•0 citations

Bryce S. DeWitt letter to John Wheeler, Wheeler's copy, 07-May-1957

Bryce Seligman DeWitt

As a close friend and collaborator of John Wheeler's, Bryce DeWitt was one of the first people to see a draft of the short version of Hugh Everett's thesis (he did not read the longer version until much later, as is evidenced by some of the complaints in this letter). In May 1957, DeWitt wrote a long and thoughtful letter to Wheeler about how Everett's theory had conceptual parallels with Einstein's theory of general relativity. Wheeler promptly forwarded a copy of the letter to Everett. DeWitt was unhappy with both wave function collapse and the Copenhagen Interpretation. He wrote that Everett's formalistic argument for pure wave mechanics was "beautifully consistent''. But he could not accept the ontological ramifications of the theory because, "I simply do not branch.'' This document is the original letter, as saved by Wheeler. It includes several sentences on the bottom of page 4 that were cut off when Wheeler's secretary reproduced the letter for Everett.

•May 7, 1957•0 citations

"The Theory of the Universal Wave Function," long thesis as published, 1973

Hugh Everett

Hugh Everett's long thesis was submitted to John Archibald Wheeler, his doctoral thesis advisor, in January 1956 under the title "Quantum Mechanics by the Method of the Universal Wave Function.'' It was retitled "Wave Mechanics Without Probability'' and circulated in April of that year to several prominent physicists, including Niels Bohr. Largely due to the criticism of the long thesis by the Copenhagen colleagues, Everett and his advisor John Wheeler rewrote Everett's thesis in the winter of 1957 to produce a much shorter version, which Everett subsequently defended for his Ph.D. under the title "On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.'' While the long thesis was organized around the quantum measurement problem and how it is best solved by pure wave mechanics, the short thesis presented Everett's relative-state formulation of pure wave mechanics more as a suitable theory for the development of quantum gravity, cosmology, and field theory. The short thesis no longer contains Everett's chapter on information theory and correlation, his survey of possible solutions to the measurement problem, or his extended discussion of the nature of physical theories. What remains is a distilled presentation of pure wave mechanics, his principle of the fundamental relativity of states, and his derivation of the standard quantum statistics. The short thesis was retitled for publication in Reviews of Modern Physics in July 1957 as "The `Relative State' Formulation of Quantum Mechanics.'' The version below closely follows the Reviews of Modern Physics article. The long thesis itself was not published until 1973 in the DeWitt and Graham Princeton University Press anthology. It was published under the title "The Theory of the Universal Wave Function." This document is a reproduction of the version of the thesis published in the DeWitt-Graham anthology.

•May 20, 2011•0 citations

No-collapse Versions of Quantum Mechanics

Yoav Ben-Dov

More than sixty years after the general acceptance of Quantum Mechanics, and notwithstanding its enormous practical success, the nature of the fundamental objects appearing in its framework is unclear, and the debate concerning its conceptual foundations still goes on. This paper tries to examine what may be claimed to be one of the most ‘properly quantic’ ( Lévy-Leblond 1977 ) approaches to this problem, namely ‘no-collapse’ versions of the non-relativistic quantum mechanics of closed systems: Everett’s theory and the ‘pilot wave’.

CRC Press eBooks•Oct 19, 2017•13 citations
In 1976, a conference called "Fifty Years of Quantum Mechanics" was held at the University of Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg. It was attended by more than a dozen physicists, including a young French scientist, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond. Wheeler's presentation was called, `"Include the Observer in the Wave Function?'' Wheeler had a history of vacillating on Everett's theory, but now, 20 years after he had endorsed it in Reviews of Modern Physics, he rejected Everett's inclusion of the observer in the wave function, essentially upholding the Copenhagen interpretation. In 1977, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond wrote a letter to Everett, including a copy of a paper he had presented at the conference that compared DeWitt's and Everett's views. Everett responded by agreeing with Levy-Leblond's analysis of the differences between the two views. Everett especially liked the short spoof of foundational writing in physics (on "zipperdynamics'') that LeBlond had tacked onto the end of his paper. This document is the published version of Levy-Leblond's paper, which appeared in the journal Dialectica 30 (2/3) in 1976.
In 1976, a conference called "Fifty Years of Quantum Mechanics" was held at the University of Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg. It was attended by more than a dozen physicists, including a young French scientist, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond. Wheeler's presentation was called, "Include the Observer in the Wave Function?'' Wheeler had a history of vacillating on Everett's theory, but now, 20 years after he had endorsed it in Reviews of Modern Physics, he rejected Everett's inclusion of the observer in the wave function, essentially upholding the Copenhagen interpretation. In 1977, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond wrote a letter to Everett, including a copy of a paper he had presented at the conference that compared DeWitt's and Everett's views. Everett responded by agreeing with Levy-Leblond's analysis of the differences between the two views. Everett especially liked the short spoof of foundational writing in physics (on "zipperdynamics'') that LeBlond had tacked onto the end of his paper. This document is Everett's reply to Levy-Leblond, including an earlier rough draft.
In 1976, a conference called "Fifty Years of Quantum Mechanics" was held at the University of Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg. It was attended by more than a dozen physicists, including a young French scientist, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond. Wheeler's presentation was called, "Include the Observer in the Wave Function?'' Wheeler had a history of vacillating on Everett's theory, but now, 20 years after he had endorsed it in Reviews of Modern Physics, he rejected Everett's inclusion of the observer in the wave function, essentially upholding the Copenhagen interpretation. In 1977, Jean Marc Levy-Leblond wrote a letter to Everett, including a copy of a paper he had presented at the conference that compared DeWitt's and Everett's views. Everett responded by agreeing with Levy-Leblond's analysis of the differences between the two views. Everett especially liked the short spoof of foundational writing in physics (on "zipperdynamics'') that LeBlond had tacked onto the end of his paper. This document is the cover letter that Levy-Leblond sent with his paper.
As a close friend and collaborator of John Wheeler's, Bryce S. DeWitt was one of the first people to see a draft of the short version of Hugh Everett's thesis (he did not read the longer version until much later, as is evidenced by some of the complaints in this letter). In May 1957, DeWitt wrote a long and thoughtful letter to Wheeler about how Everett's theory had conceptual parallels with Einstein's theory of general relativity. Wheeler promptly forwarded a copy of the letter to Everett. DeWitt was unhappy with both wave function collapse and the Copenhagen Interpretation. He wrote that Everett's formalistic argument for pure wave mechanics was `"beautifully consistent''. But he could not accept the ontological ramifications of the theory because, `"I simply do not branch.'' This document is Everett's copy of the letter, as reproduced by Wheeler's secretary. It differs from Wheeler's own copy by several sentences at the bottom of page 4, cut off during the reproduction process. It is likely that Everett never saw these missing sentences.
As a close friend and collaborator of John Wheeler's, Bryce DeWitt was one of the first people to see a draft of the short version of Hugh Everett's thesis (he did not read the longer version until much later, as is evidenced by some of the complaints in this letter). In May 1957, DeWitt wrote a long and thoughtful letter to Wheeler about how Everett's theory had conceptual parallels with Einstein's theory of general relativity. Wheeler promptly forwarded a copy of the letter to Everett. DeWitt was unhappy with both wave function collapse and the Copenhagen Interpretation. He wrote that Everett's formalistic argument for pure wave mechanics was "beautifully consistent''. But he could not accept the ontological ramifications of the theory because, "I simply do not branch.'' This document is the original letter, as saved by Wheeler. It includes several sentences on the bottom of page 4 that were cut off when Wheeler's secretary reproduced the letter for Everett.
Hugh Everett's long thesis was submitted to John Archibald Wheeler, his doctoral thesis advisor, in January 1956 under the title "Quantum Mechanics by the Method of the Universal Wave Function.'' It was retitled "Wave Mechanics Without Probability'' and circulated in April of that year to several prominent physicists, including Niels Bohr. Largely due to the criticism of the long thesis by the Copenhagen colleagues, Everett and his advisor John Wheeler rewrote Everett's thesis in the winter of 1957 to produce a much shorter version, which Everett subsequently defended for his Ph.D. under the title "On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.'' While the long thesis was organized around the quantum measurement problem and how it is best solved by pure wave mechanics, the short thesis presented Everett's relative-state formulation of pure wave mechanics more as a suitable theory for the development of quantum gravity, cosmology, and field theory. The short thesis no longer contains Everett's chapter on information theory and correlation, his survey of possible solutions to the measurement problem, or his extended discussion of the nature of physical theories. What remains is a distilled presentation of pure wave mechanics, his principle of the fundamental relativity of states, and his derivation of the standard quantum statistics. The short thesis was retitled for publication in Reviews of Modern Physics in July 1957 as "The `Relative State' Formulation of Quantum Mechanics.'' The version below closely follows the Reviews of Modern Physics article. The long thesis itself was not published until 1973 in the DeWitt and Graham Princeton University Press anthology. It was published under the title "The Theory of the Universal Wave Function." This document is a reproduction of the version of the thesis published in the DeWitt-Graham anthology.
More than sixty years after the general acceptance of Quantum Mechanics, and notwithstanding its enormous practical success, the nature of the fundamental objects appearing in its framework is unclear, and the debate concerning its conceptual foundations still goes on. This paper tries to examine what may be claimed to be one of the most ‘properly quantic’ ( Lévy-Leblond 1977 ) approaches to this problem, namely ‘no-collapse’ versions of the non-relativistic quantum mechanics of closed systems: Everett’s theory and the ‘pilot wave’.