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 Paul Benioff, 07-September-1977

JOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER

Published May 19, 2011• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

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. This letter is a response to Benioff having sent the second of these papers as a preprint. Wheeler reiterates that he would prefer if Benioff did not use his name when referring to the Everett interpretation.

Related papers

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

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

Letters to Paul Benioff

Christopher A. Fuchs

09 April 1996, “Randomness” I don't know if you remember me, but we met at the Santa Fe Institute Workshop on the Physics of Information two summers ago. I spoke to you about your old papers on randomness and quantum mechanics. In any case, I am very much interested in them again. (Presently, in particular, the ones titled “Finite and Infinite Measurement Sequences in Quantum Mechanics and Randomness: The Everett Interpretation” JMP 18 (1977) 2289, and “A Note on the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” Found. Phys . 8 (1978) 709.) Carl Caves and I are writing a book on Quantum Information and are trying to get a feel for how far these sorts of considerations really go toward deriving the standard probability expression of quantum theory. Last night I reread the latter of the two papers mentioned above. The main question on my mind now is about Section 4 “The Asymptotic Description.” At the end you state, “Thus it is an open question whether or not there is any possible state description of the asymptotic situation that includes component states each corresponding to a possible universe as perceived by an observer with memory trace ν.” Has there been any progress in this direction since then?? If there has, could you please send me a reference or outline the solution?

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 6, 2011•0 citations

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

JOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER

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.

•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

The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics

Bryce Seligman DeWitt

Introduction In the July 1957 issue of the Reviews of Modern Physics: Hugh Everett iii put forward a new interpretation of quantum mechanics (Everett 1957). John Wheeler, Everett's thesis adviser, published, in the same issue, an accompanying paper supporting Everett's views (Wheeler 1957). Everett's aim was to cut through the fuzzy thinking displayed by many authors, some of them quite prominent, who in previous years had written incredibly dull papers on how they understood quantum mechanics. Everett's idea was simply to assume that quantum mechanics provides a description of reality in exactly the same sense as classical mechanics was once thought to do. This is a shocking idea, for it leads to a multiplicity of “realities.” Few physicists in 1957 were prepared to accept it. And yet it can be shown to work. It is the purpose of this article to expand on Everett's original demonstration and to reveal the courage John Wheeler displayed in betting that his student was right. Classical theory of measurement System, apparatus, coupling Our starting point is the standard theory of measurement, which we shall first examine classically. In its simplest form a measurement involves just two dynamical entities: a system and an apparatus . It is the role of the apparatus to record the value of some system observable s . For this purpose system and apparatus must be coupled together for a certain period of time, which will be taken to be finite.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 22, 2004•26 citations
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. This letter is a response to Benioff having sent the second of these papers as a preprint. Wheeler reiterates that he would prefer if Benioff did not use his name when referring to the Everett interpretation.
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.
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.
09 April 1996, “Randomness” I don't know if you remember me, but we met at the Santa Fe Institute Workshop on the Physics of Information two summers ago. I spoke to you about your old papers on randomness and quantum mechanics. In any case, I am very much interested in them again. (Presently, in particular, the ones titled “Finite and Infinite Measurement Sequences in Quantum Mechanics and Randomness: The Everett Interpretation” JMP 18 (1977) 2289, and “A Note on the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” Found. Phys . 8 (1978) 709.) Carl Caves and I are writing a book on Quantum Information and are trying to get a feel for how far these sorts of considerations really go toward deriving the standard probability expression of quantum theory. Last night I reread the latter of the two papers mentioned above. The main question on my mind now is about Section 4 “The Asymptotic Description.” At the end you state, “Thus it is an open question whether or not there is any possible state description of the asymptotic situation that includes component states each corresponding to a possible universe as perceived by an observer with memory trace ν.” Has there been any progress in this direction since then?? If there has, could you please send me a reference or outline the solution?
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.
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.
Introduction In the July 1957 issue of the Reviews of Modern Physics: Hugh Everett iii put forward a new interpretation of quantum mechanics (Everett 1957). John Wheeler, Everett's thesis adviser, published, in the same issue, an accompanying paper supporting Everett's views (Wheeler 1957). Everett's aim was to cut through the fuzzy thinking displayed by many authors, some of them quite prominent, who in previous years had written incredibly dull papers on how they understood quantum mechanics. Everett's idea was simply to assume that quantum mechanics provides a description of reality in exactly the same sense as classical mechanics was once thought to do. This is a shocking idea, for it leads to a multiplicity of “realities.” Few physicists in 1957 were prepared to accept it. And yet it can be shown to work. It is the purpose of this article to expand on Everett's original demonstration and to reveal the courage John Wheeler displayed in betting that his student was right. Classical theory of measurement System, apparatus, coupling Our starting point is the standard theory of measurement, which we shall first examine classically. In its simplest form a measurement involves just two dynamical entities: a system and an apparatus . It is the role of the apparatus to record the value of some system observable s . For this purpose system and apparatus must be coupled together for a certain period of time, which will be taken to be finite.