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

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

Norbert Wiener

Published May 19, 2011• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

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.

Related papers

Hugh Everett letter to Norbert Wiener, 31-May-1957

Hugh Everett

MIT mathematician, physicist, and polymath Norbert Wiener was among the physicists who received preprints of Everett and Wheelers' Review of Modern Physics articles. Wiener at this time was developing his own alternative mathematical/interpretive framework for quantum mechanics. In this document, Everett responds to Wiener comments on his preprint, emphasizing that he disagrees that his formulation of quantum mechanics requires a notion of Lebesgue measure on a Hilbert space.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

Hugh Everett draft letter with calculations to Norbert Wiener, May-1957

Hugh Everett

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. This document is a draft of the letter Everett would ultimately send. Here he sketches his response to Wiener's comments on his preprint, emphasizing that he disagrees that his formulation of quantum mechanics requires a notion of Lebesgue measure on a Hilbert space.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

John Wheeler letter to Hugh Everett, 23-July-1957

JOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER

Hugh Everett's thesis was ultimately published in September 1957 in a special issue of Reviews of Modern Physics, guest edited by Bryce DeWitt. This was Everett first and only journal publication on the topic. In July of that year, however, as the journal article was going to press, Wheeler spoke with mathematician and physicist Norbert Wiener about Everett's theory. Wiener argued about the importance of a measure in Everett's work. Everett, too, saw his derivation of a typicality measure as of central important, especially in the long thesis. But there is no evidence that Everett followed Wheeler's advice of writing a follow-up paper addressing the question of a measure on the space of branches more explicitly. Wheeler also, once again, encourages Everett to visit Bohr.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

Philip Frank letter to Hugh Everett, 03-August-1957

Philip Frank

In his Reviews of Modern Physics article on Hugh Everett's theory, John Wheeler referenced the philosophical writings of Philip Frank, a philosopher of science at Harvard University. In May 1957, Everett sent Frank the Reviews of Modern Physics preprints, along with a letter in which he identified himself with Frank's broadly empiricist world view. Frank replied with some brief, but apparently approving, remarks.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

H. J. Groenewold letter to John Wheeler, 11-April-1957

Hilbrand Johannes Groenewold

In mid-March, 1957, as Hugh Everett III was preparing to defend his thesis and graduate, John Wheeler asked him to send preprints of the short thesis and Wheeler's companion article to Bohr and other prominent physicists. In April, H. J. Groenewold of Natuurkundig Laboratorium der Rijks-Universiteit te Groningen, Germany wrote to Everett and Wheeler with his criticism of the revised dissertation. He had previously read the long dissertation sent to Copenhagen. He thought that the preprint was a "much improved" abstract of a (rewritten) longer thesis, although he confessed to not being able to follow many of the arguments. Everett furiously annotated his copy of Groenewold's letter, answering his criticisms point by point and concluding that Groenewold, too, had not thoroughly studied his work.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations

Henry Margenau letter to Hugh Everett, 8-April-1957

Henry Margenau

Henry Margenau was a German physicist and philosopher of physics who had previously written on the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. It seems that Hugh Everett---or rather, John Wheeler---sent Everett's thesis to Margenau and other physicists for comments. Margenau was the first to reply, and though he admits to not having looked at the work closely, he appears to approve. Margenau includes a preprint of a paper of his own to be published in the journal Philosophy of Science, and a reprint of an earlier paper from Physical Review.

•May 19, 2011•0 citations
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.
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. This document is a draft of the letter Everett would ultimately send. Here he sketches his response to Wiener's comments on his preprint, emphasizing that he disagrees that his formulation of quantum mechanics requires a notion of Lebesgue measure on a Hilbert space.
Hugh Everett's thesis was ultimately published in September 1957 in a special issue of Reviews of Modern Physics, guest edited by Bryce DeWitt. This was Everett first and only journal publication on the topic. In July of that year, however, as the journal article was going to press, Wheeler spoke with mathematician and physicist Norbert Wiener about Everett's theory. Wiener argued about the importance of a measure in Everett's work. Everett, too, saw his derivation of a typicality measure as of central important, especially in the long thesis. But there is no evidence that Everett followed Wheeler's advice of writing a follow-up paper addressing the question of a measure on the space of branches more explicitly. Wheeler also, once again, encourages Everett to visit Bohr.
In mid-March, 1957, as Hugh Everett III was preparing to defend his thesis and graduate, John Wheeler asked him to send preprints of the short thesis and Wheeler's companion article to Bohr and other prominent physicists. In April, H. J. Groenewold of Natuurkundig Laboratorium der Rijks-Universiteit te Groningen, Germany wrote to Everett and Wheeler with his criticism of the revised dissertation. He had previously read the long dissertation sent to Copenhagen. He thought that the preprint was a "much improved" abstract of a (rewritten) longer thesis, although he confessed to not being able to follow many of the arguments. Everett furiously annotated his copy of Groenewold's letter, answering his criticisms point by point and concluding that Groenewold, too, had not thoroughly studied his work.
Henry Margenau was a German physicist and philosopher of physics who had previously written on the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. It seems that Hugh Everett---or rather, John Wheeler---sent Everett's thesis to Margenau and other physicists for comments. Margenau was the first to reply, and though he admits to not having looked at the work closely, he appears to approve. Margenau includes a preprint of a paper of his own to be published in the journal Philosophy of Science, and a reprint of an earlier paper from Physical Review.