Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Challenging the Monocracy of the Copenhagen School

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Quantum Dissidents

  • 1555 Accesses

Abstract

Quantum mechanics—the physical theory for atoms, radiation and their interaction—was developed in the first quarter of the twentieth century. This was accompanied by a quarrel, with philosophical overtones, on its interpretation. Bohr called it complementarity and later it was labeled the Copenhagen interpretation. Complementarity spurred a debate among giants such as Bohr and Einstein. In 1952 David Bohm made the boldest challenge to this interpretation suggesting instead a causal interpretation. The proposal was harshly criticized by most commentators and supported by just a few. Bohm had joined the Communist Party in 1943 while at Berkeley and was caught in the witch-hunt of the McCarthyism era. He opted for a life of exile in Brazil, then Israel, and eventually England. His passport was confiscated by U.S. officials and his citizenship was revoked. While some Soviet scholars criticized the complementarity interpretation as idealistic, and thus bourgeois, they did not endorse Bohm’s endeavor to recover determinism, which frustrated Bohm. At the forefront of this battle it was two giants who quarreled: Bohm and Rosenfeld. Both gifted physicists and dedicated Marxists, they nonetheless disagreed about how to interpret physics and its philosophical lessons. Bohm promised to generalize his approach for the relativistic domain, but this was not fulfilled. In the late 1950s, Bohm experienced a major intellectual change. He broke with Marxism, abandoned the causal interpretation, moved towards Eastern thinkers and began a long-standing project of reforming physics along the themes of order and wholeness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    C. Møller, interviewed by T.S Kuhn, 29 July 1963, Archives for the History of Quantum Physics (hereafter AHQP), American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA, cited in Jacobsen (2012, p. 55).

  2. 2.

    For the debates before 1950 see Jammer (1974), for Jammer’s quotation, see his p. 250. For the Soviet critics see Graham (1987).

  3. 3.

    Bohm (Bohm 1952b, pp. 188–189). Bohm’s reference to Ernst Mach, criticizing the positivist view, is a shibboleth of his Marxist background, a feature we will return to later, as this reference gained currency among Marxists in the first half of the twentieth century following the diffusion of Materialism and Empirio-criticism (Lenin 1947).

  4. 4.

    According Bell’s words, “absurdly, such theories are known as ‘hidden variable’ theories. Absurdly, for there is not in the wavefunction that one finds an image of the visible world, and the results of experiments, but in the complementary ‘hidden’(!) variables.” I am thankful to Michael Kiessling for calling my attention to Bell’s remarks.

  5. 5.

    On the Duhem-Quine thesis, see (Harding 1976). On quantum mechanics as an illustration of this thesis, see Cushing (1994).

  6. 6.

    On Bohm’s biography, see Peat (1997) and Mullet (2008b). For an analysis of Bohm’s works, see Kojevnikov (2002). Bohm and Gross (1949a, b), Bohm and Pines (1951, 1953), Pines and Bohm (1952). The fourth paper in the series was authored only by Pines (1953).

  7. 7.

    Sam Schweber, “Bohm Memorial,” Folder A.M., David Bohm Papers, Birkbeck College, University of London (hereafter BP), cited in Mullet (2008a, p. 40) and Mehra (1994, pp. 217–218).

  8. 8.

    For Weinberg’s statement, see Mullet (2008a, p. 39).

  9. 9.

    Blokhintsev (1952) and Terletsky (1952).

  10. 10.

    The David Bohm Papers, deposited at Birkbeck College, University of London, reveal few documents from the period prior to his departure to Brazil at the end of 1951, when the papers on the causal interpretation had already been submitted for publication. After leaving the U.S., there is a meaningful correspondence with Einstein; Melba Philips, an American physicist and friend of Bohm; Hanna Loewy and Miriam Yevick, his friends. Most of the correspondence with Wolfgang Pauli, relevant for the period prior to his departure from the U.S. and after the completion of his paper in the causal interpretation, was recovered and published by Karl von Meyenn in the collection dedicated to Pauli’s correspondence (Pauli and Meyenn 1996, 1999). More recently, a batch of letters between Bohm and the French astrophysicist Evry Schatzman was unearthed by Virgile Besson at Schatzman’s papers, Observatoire de Paris. These letters corroborate the main points of our work. Furthermore, they weaken the possibility of Bohm’s reading of Soviet papers while moving to build the causal interpretation. Indeed, he did not mention this in his letters to Schatzman while describing his work to obtain this interpretation.

  11. 11.

    “The early years of the Cold War were not a pleasant time to be an intellectual in the United States, especially if he or she happened to have a past or present interest in the political left. […] theoretical physicists emerged as the most consistently named whipping-boys of McCarthyism” (Kaiser 2005, p. 28).

  12. 12.

    Historians have already set the record of most of this history. The cases of persecution towards Bohm and his colleagues at Berkeley, Bernard Peters, Joseph Weinberg, and Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz have been well charted by Shawn Mullet (2008a); Princeton’s attitudes towards him were analyzed by Russell Olwell (1999); the anti-communist hysteria in American academia was studied by Ellen Schrecker (1986), Jessica Wang (1999), and David Kaiser (2005). Bohm’s imprisonment and bail is also in Kojevnikov (2002, p. 181).

  13. 13.

    On the influences on Bohm’s shift towards the causal interpretation, see Jammer (1974, 1988) and Forstner (2008).

  14. 14.

    Einstein’s remark is in Paty (1993). Bohm to Pauli, [Jul 1951], in Pauli and Meyenn (1996, pp. 343–345). Most of Pauli’s letters to Bohm did not survive; we infer their contents from Bohm’s replies. Bohm to Karl von Meyenn, 2 Dec 1983, ibid, on 345. Broglie’s pilot wave and Pauli’s criticisms are in (Institut International de Physique Solvay 1928, pp. 105–141 and 280–282). See also Bacciagaluppi and Valentini (2009).

  15. 15.

    Bohm to Pauli, July 1951, Summer 1951, Oct 1951, 20 Nov 1951 (Pauli and Meyenn 1996, pp. 343–346, 389–394, and 429–462).

  16. 16.

    Pauli to Bohm, 3 Dec 1951, plus an appendix, (Pauli and Meyenn 1996, pp. 436–441).

  17. 17.

    For the evolution of de Broglie’s ideas, see Broglie (1956, pp. 115–143). Bohm to Pauli, Oct 1951, op. cit.

  18. 18.

    Bohm to Pauli, 20 Nov 1951, op. cit. (Bohm 1952b, pp. 191–193).

  19. 19.

    Albert Einstein to Patrick Blackett, 17 Apr 1951, Albert Einstein Archives. Jayme Tiomno, interviewed by the author, 4 Aug 2003. Record number 816/51 [microfilm], Archives of the Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, USP. Abrahão de Moraes did not need to use the letter to President Vargas, it is published in Estudos avançados, [São Paulo] 21 (1994).

  20. 20.

    David Bohm to Albert Einstein, Nov 1951, BP (C.10–11). David Bohm to Hanna Loewy, 6 Oct 1953, BP (C.39). David Bohm to Albert Einstein, Dec 1951, BP (C.10–11). David Bohm to Albert Einstein, 3 Feb 1954. Albert Einstein Archives. David Bohm to Melba Phillips, n.d., BP (C.46–C.48). David Bohm to Melba Phillips, 28 June 1952; ibid., [w.d.], BP (C.46–C.48). David Bohm to Hanna Loewy, 6 Oct 1953, BP (C.39).

  21. 21.

    For more details on Bohm’s stay in Brazil, see (Freire Jr. 2005, pp. 4–7 and 10–19). On Jews in Brazil, see Rattner (1977); on Brazilian communist intellectuals, see Rodrigues (1996, p. 412). During the 1930s, however there were some obstacles to Jews in Brazil, see Saidel and Plonski (1994).

  22. 22.

    On Lattes’s cosmic ray work, see Vieira and Videira (2014). On Brazilian physics in the early 1950s, see Andrade (1999), Brownell (1952). Costa Ribeiro’s report is in Arquivos do CNPq (Records of the Conselho Diretor, 139th meeting, 25 Feb 1953), Museu de Astronomia, Rio de Janeiro.

  23. 23.

    Léon Rosenfeld to Wolfgang Pauli, 20 Mar 1952, in Pauli and Meyenn (1996).

  24. 24.

    Bohm to Beck [w/d], Guido Beck Papers, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro. Beck had reported to Bohm the content of Pauli’s seminar in Paris, in 1952. The criticisms were published in Pauli’s contribution to the Louis de Broglie Festschrift, see Pauli (1953). Pauli to Markus Fierz, 6 Jan 1952, in Pauli and Meyenn (1996, pp. 499–502); Pauli to Giuseppe Occhialini, [1951–1952]. Archivio Occhialini 5.1.14, Università degli studi, Milan. Max Born to Einstein, 26 Nov 1953, in (Einstein et al. 1971).

  25. 25.

    For Rosenfeld’s biography, see Jacobsen (2012). On the debates on the quantum theory in the former USSR, see Graham (1987, p. 325 and 328). Rosenfeld to Bohr, 31 May 1949, Bohr Scient. Corr, AHQP.

  26. 26.

    Léon Rosenfeld to David Bohm, 30 May 1952, Léon Rosenfeld Papers, Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen (hereafter RP). In the French version of the paper, Rosenfeld (1953) emphasized the idea of complementarity resulting from experience, but in the English version, reacting to criticisms from Max Born, he attenuated his stand, changing “La relation de complémentarité comme donné de l’expérience” to “Complementarity and experience.” On Born’s criticism, see Freire Jr. and Lehner (2010). “But in any case the relation of complementarity is the first example of a precise dialectical scheme, whose formal structure has been accurately analysed by the logicians” (Rosenfeld 1953). For Western Marxism, see Anderson (1976).

  27. 27.

    “Je crois mon devoir de vous signaler une situation que je considère comme très sérieuse et qui vous touche de près. Il s’agit de vos ‘poulains’ Vigier, Schatzman, Vassails e tutti quanti, tous jeunes gens intelligents et pleins du désir de bien faire. Malheureusement, pour le moment, ils sont bien malades. Ils se sont mis en tête qu’il fallait mordicus abattre la complémentarité et sauver le déterminisme.” He did not succeed; Joliot diplomatically kept his distance from the battle. “Autant je suis d’accord avec leurs préoccupations concernant les grands principes de la physique moderne, autant je suis d’accord avec vous sur la nécessité d’en comprendre le sens exact et profond avant de se lancer dans des discussions avec des citations qui ne sont que des planages trahissant parfois leurs auteurs.” Léon Rosenfeld to Frédéric Joliot-Curie, 6 Apr 1952; Joliot to Rosenfeld, 21 Apr 1952. RP. See also Pinault (2000, p. 508).

  28. 28.

    Pauline Yates to Léon Rosenfeld, 7 Feb 1952, 19 Feb 1952, RP. Rosenfeld succeeded, “the editors stopped work on this article.” The paper had been submitted to Nature by Harrie S.W. Massey [with whom Bohm had worked in the Manhattan Project at Berkeley]. Nature’s editors to Léon Rosenfeld, 11 Mar 1952, RP. “Also I sent a brief article to Massey with the suggestion that he publish it in Nature.” David Bohm to Miriam Yevick, n.d., BP. Bohm did not keep a copy of the unpublished paper, but there is a copy of it in Louis de Broglie Papers, Archives de l’Académie des sciences, Paris. Léon Rosenfeld, “Report on L. de Broglie, La théorie de la mesure en mécanique ondulatoire.” n.d. RP. The book Rosenfeld advised against translating was Broglie (1957).

  29. 29.

    Denis Gabor to Léon Rosenfeld, 7 Jan 1953; Abraham Pais to Léon Rosenfeld, 15 May [1952]; Robert Cohen to Léon Rosenfeld, 31 Jul 1953; Vladmir Fock to Léon Rosenfeld, 7 Apr 1956; all papers at RP. For Fock’s criticism of Bohm’s views, see Fock (1957). Jean-Louis Destouches to Léon Rosenfeld, 19 Dec 1951; Léon Rosenfeld to Robert Haveman, 7 Oct 1957; Haveman to Rosenfeld, 13 Sep 1957; Adolf Grünbaum to Léon Rosenfeld, 1 Feb 1956; 20 Apr 1957, 3 Oct 1957; Rosenfeld to Grünbaum, 14 Feb 1956; 21 May 1957; 11 Dec 1957. All letters are at RP. On Havemann, see Hoffmann (1999).

  30. 30.

    Guido Beck to Léon Rosenfeld, 1 May 1952, RP. Rosenfeld to Beck, 9 Feb 1953; Bohm to Beck, 16 Sep 1952; 31 Dec 1952; 13 Apr 1953; 5 May 1953; 26 May 1953; Guido Beck Papers, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas, Rio de Janeiro. Rosenfeld (1953). Eric Burhop to Léon Rosenfeld, 5 May 1952, RP. Lancelot Whyte to Léon Rosenfeld, 8 Apr 1958; 14 Mar 1958; 22 Mar 1958; 27 June 1958; Rosenfeld to Whyte, 17 Mar 1958, RP. Rosenfeld to Whyte, 28 May 1958, is in Lancelot L. Whyte Papers, Department of Special Collections, Boston University. The disputed papers were Rosenfeld (1958) and Whyte (1958).

  31. 31.

    Bohm to Aage Bohr, 13 Oct 1953, ABP; Rosenfeld (1954) and Rosenfeld (2005). For the Bristol conference’s proceedings, see Körner (1957).

  32. 32.

    Heisenberg’s criticism was published in the widely read and translated Physics and Philosophy (Heisenberg 1958). However, Heisenberg did not pursue the combat. In the late 1950s, “[he] had written more than enough on the subject and had, he said, ‘nothing new to say’” (Carson 2010, p. 92).

  33. 33.

    Born to Rosenfeld, 28 Jan 1953, RP (Rosenfeld 1960, 1970; Freire Jr. and Lehner 2010). Pauli to Heisenberg, 13 May 1954; Pauli to Rosenfeld, 28 Sep 1954, in Pauli and Meyenn (1999, pp. 620–621 and 769).

  34. 34.

    David Bohm to Miriam Yevick, [received 20 Aug 1952]; Bohm to Melba Phillips, n.d., BP. I merged the two letters in my narrative.

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    New research techniques in physics (1954, pp. 187–198).

  37. 37.

    All quotations are from New research techniques in physics (1954, ibid.).

  38. 38.

    Other criticisms include Takabayasi (1952), Takabayasi (1953), Halpern (1952), Keller (1953), and Epstein (1953a, b).

  39. 39.

    For discussions between Bohm and Schönberg, see Peat (1997, pp. 155–157). David Bohm to Miriam Yevick, 24 Oct 1953, BP. For Schönberg’s work on quantum mechanics and geometry, see Schönberg (1959). Schönberg’s scientific works are collected and reprinted in Schönberg and Hamburger (2009, 2013).

  40. 40.

    Rosenfeld to Bohr, 21 Oct 1957, BSC, reel 31, AHQP, reel 31, cited in (Osnaghi et al. 2009, p. 101). Louis de Broglie to Bohm, 29 March 1953, Louis de Broglie Papers, Box 7, Archives de l’Académie des sciences, Paris.

  41. 41.

    “Les jeunes gens ont accueilli avec enthousiasme le travail de Bohm qui correspond à toutes les tendances philosophiques qui les animent: réalisme thomiste, déterminisme marxiste, rationalisme cartésien. Je suis donc maintenant à peu près le seul ici à soutenir encore l’interprétation quantique de Bohr.” Jean-Louis Destouches to Léon Rosenfeld, 19 Dec 1951, RP.

  42. 42.

    Freistadt worked both on the philosophical and technical aspects of the causal interpretation; on his activities on this subject in the context of American physics, see (Kaiser 2012, pp. 20–22). For Freistadt’s works, see Freistadt (1953, 1955, 1957). Schiller, Bunge, and Tiomno worked with Bohm in Brazil and their cases are discussed in this chapter.

  43. 43.

    For the role Bohm attributed to those papers, see Bohm (1981, pp. 114 and 118, notes 11 and 12), Bohm and Hiley (1993, p. 205), Pauli (1953) and Bohm (1953a); a simplified and shortened version of this paper was presented in New research techniques in physics (1954, pp. 187–198). “C’était aussi un des problèmes décisifs que Bohm n’avait pas traité dans ses papiers de 1952.” Jean-Pierre Vigier, interviewed by the author, 27 Jan 1992 (Bohm and Vigier 1954, 1958; Broglie et al. 1963). A lacuna in the history of physics in the twentieth century—an analysis of the activities of the de Broglie-Vigier group—is now being filled by the works of Vals (2012) and Besson (2011).

  44. 44.

    Bohm et al. (1955) and Bohm and Schiller (1955). On Tiomno, see Freire Jr. (1999, p. 95). Mario Bunge to the author, 1 Nov 1996, and 12 Feb 1997.

  45. 45.

    Wang (1999, p. 279) and Schatzman (1953).

  46. 46.

    Einstein to Born, 12 May 1952 and 12 Oct 1953 (Einstein et al. 1971; Einstein 1953; Bohm 1953b). For Einstein’s stances, see Paty (1993, 1995).

  47. 47.

    On Feynman in Brazil, see Lopes (1990) and Mehra (1994, pp. 333–342). David Bohm to Hanna Loewy, [w/d], 4 Dec 1951, BP (C.38) (Feynman 1954). For the role played by Feynman, Bethe, and the renormalization calculations in physics at that time, see Schweber (1994).

  48. 48.

    David Bohm to Melba Phillips, n.d., BP (C.46–C.48). Letter from Aage Bohr to the author, 17 Oct 1997.

  49. 49.

    David Bohm to Arthur Wightman, [1953], Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen.

  50. 50.

    Aage Bohr to David Bohm, 3 Oct 1953; Bohm to Aage Bohr, 13 Oct 1953, emphasis in the originals, Aage Bohr Papers, Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen.

  51. 51.

    Aage Bohr to David Bohm, 3 Oct 1953; Bohm to Aage Bohr, 24 Sep 1953, ibid.

  52. 52.

    Bohm to Aage Bohr, 18 Dec 1956, ibid. Aage Bohr replied, “I hope very much you can manage to come here next summer, when we also expect Pines to be here. We should, of course, be very pleased if you would tell us a little about plasma theory.” Aage Bohr to Bohm, 26 Jan 1957, ibid. For the next summer, Aage mentioned they wanted to hear Bohm on superconductivity, reflecting the interest arose by the work of Bardeen and colleagues, Aage Bohr to Bohm, 25 Oct 1957, ibid.

  53. 53.

    Visitors records, Niels Bohr Archive. “The Nobel Prize in Physics 1975”, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1975/. “Ben R. Mottelson - Nobel Lecture”, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1975/mottelson-lecture.html, on page 240. Both information accessed on 11 Jan 2014 (Bohr et al. 1958).

  54. 54.

    J. von Neumann’s reaction is in David Bohm to Wolfgang Pauli, [Oct 1951], in Pauli and Meyenn (1996, pp. 389–394). John von Neumann to H. Cirker, [President of Dover Pub], 3 Oct 1949. John von Neumann Papers (Box 27, Folder 8), Library of Congress, Washington, DC (Von Neumann 1955; Stöltzner 1999).

  55. 55.

    Schrödinger (1953). On Schrödinger’s philosophical views, see Michel Bitbol’s comments in Schrödinger and Bitbol (1992, pp. 140–141) and Bitbol (1996a). In private, Schrödinger kept high his fight against the complementarity view, as in this letter to Max Born, on October, 10, 1960: “The impudence with which you assert time and again that the Copenhagen interpretation is practically universally accepted, assert it without reservations, even before an audience of the laity–who are completely at your mercy–it’s at the limit of the estimable … Have you no anxiety about the verdict of history?” (Moore 1989, p. 479).

  56. 56.

    Popper and Bartley (1982), Reichenbach (1944), Bachelard (1934), Hermann et al. (1996), and Kojève and Auffret (1990).

  57. 57.

    Feyerabend (1960) and Hanson (1959). On Bachelard, see Freire Jr. (2004a). An illustrative example of how attractive this topic may be is Mara Beller’s criticism of Kuhn’s paradigms (Beller 1999). In her view, the appearance of the notion of paradigm is related to the quantum controversy. I discussed these issues in Freire Jr. (2014c). Popper, who was interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics from the 1930s, only became an active protagonist in the quantum controversy in the early 1980s. See Freire Jr. (2004b) and Popper and Bartley (1982).

  58. 58.

    David Bohm to Miriam Yevick, 5 Nov 1954, BP. David Bohm to Melba Phillips, n.d. BP. David Bohm to Miriam Yevick, 7 Jan 1952, BP.

  59. 59.

    Bohm to Melba Phillips, 18 March 1955, BP (C49). Andrew Cross (1991) saw Bohm’s work as just a reflection of the ideological Marxist climate of the time; thus he missed the fact that the quantum controversy continued even when that climate faded. For the critique of this position, see (Freire Jr. 1992).

  60. 60.

    For a description of the ensemble interpretation, see Home and Whitaker (1992).

  61. 61.

    On Marxism and the controversy over the interpretation of quantum theory, see Freire Jr. (2011c). See also Graham (1987, pp. 320–353), on Fock and Blokhintsev; Kuzemsky (2008), on Blokhintsev; Pechenkin (2012), on the early ensemble interpretation in the USSR and in the US; Forstner (2008), on Bohm; Jacobsen (2007, 2012), on Rosenfeld; Kojevnikov (2011), on ensembles; Pechenkin (2013), on Mandelstam; Kojevnikov (2004), on Soviet physics, and Besson (2011), on Vigier.

  62. 62.

    For an account of those events, see Gaddis (2005, pp. 83–194). Jan Meyer, conversation with Olival Freire, 30 January 1997; Bohm to Phillips, undated, BP (C49). This rupture is also noted by Kojevnikov (2002, p. 191) and Peat (1997, p. 178).

  63. 63.

    Ory and Sirinelli (2004), Hobsbawm (2011), Chaps. 11 and 14, Caute (1967).

  64. 64.

    Bohm to Biederman, 2 February 1961, (Bohm et al. 1999, p. 95). As the historian Eric Hobsbawm remarked, at least two features of Marxism should not be abandoned unless one gives up historical materialism as a way to change the world: (a) the triumph of socialism is the logical end of all historical evolution until the present, and (b) socialism marks the end of prehistory as it cannot and will not be an antagonistic society (Hobsbawm 1997, Chap. 11).

  65. 65.

    Paavo Pylkkänen’s statement is in the introduction of Bohm et al. (1999, p. xix).

  66. 66.

    Biederman to Bohm, 6 March 1960; Bohm to Biederman, 24 April 1960; both in Bohm et al. (1999, pp. 3–4 and 8–19).

  67. 67.

    Bohm et al. (1960a, b); a review of the state of the art of this research is Broglie et al. (1963). Virgile Besson is studying the French side of the mentioned collaboration while Pablo Ruiz de Olano is studying the Japanese side.

  68. 68.

    A balance of how far Bohm went with hidden variable theory is provided by Bohm (1962). See particularly pp. 359–363 for his evaluation of the criticisms it suffered.

  69. 69.

    Bohm tried to convince Einstein to support his move to Israel, but Einstein was reluctant, writing, “to go there with the intention to leave on the first occasion would be regrettable.” Einstein to Bohm, 22 Jan 1954. Bohm, however, was decided to go: “I have decided to go to Israel. This decision was precipitated by the receipt of an offer of a job in Haifa from Rosen […] I have cited you as a possible recommendation, so you may be receiving a letter from them soon.” He also promised to stay there for years to Einstein (“… do not plan to leave unless after several years of effort”), a promise he would not keep. In addition, Bohm was considering the possibility of getting a passport without losing American citizenship—“I am informed that the Israeli Embassy in Brazil may issue a passport for me to go to Israel, if the Technion request it.”—which did not materialize, Bohm to Einstein, 3 Feb 1954. Then Einstein changed his views and supported Bohm’s plans. Einstein to Bohm, 10 Feb 1954; and Einstein to Nathan Rosen, 11 March 1954. The Albert Einstein Archives, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. My thanks to Michel Paty and Amit Hagar for providing me with copies of these letters.

  70. 70.

    Bohm to Hanna Loewy [Beginning of 1952]. BP (C.40). According to physicist José Leite Lopes [Interview with A.M.R. Andrade, 18 March 2003], Brazilian physicists had asked João Alberto Lins de Barros, a very influential politician and supporter of Brazilian physics, to accelerate Bohm’s Brazilian citizenship application. File 40.135/54. Archives of the “Instituto de Identificação Ricardo Gumbleton Daunt”, SSP—Polícia Civil, São Paulo.

  71. 71.

    For the date of the “Certificate of Loss of Nationality”, see Stirling Colgate folder in BP (C.8). “I would like very much to get the question of my US citizenship settled again”. Bohm to Stirling Colgate, 28 April 1965, BP (C.8). I am thankful to Basil Hiley for his kindness in sending me a copy of the notarized documents.

  72. 72.

    Bohm to Aage Bohr, November 17, 1960, Aage Bohr Papers, Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen. The distinction between declaring not to be Communist and expressing active anti-Communism was not understood by Bohm’s biographer David Peat (1997, pp. 254–255). Peat also asked “Why did he place his rejection of Communism at the end of the Second World War when in fact his letters from Brazil are staunchly pro-Communist?” I think Peat was not very sensitive to the carefully diplomatic manner in which Bohm wrote, in the statement previously cited: “Gradually however, and especially after the war was over, I began to see that …” He was simply avoiding any great disparity between that statement and what he had declared before the HUAC, in 1949–1950. Bohm to Ross Lomanitz, 21 Nov 1996, BP (C.42), underlined in the original. Stirling Colgate to George Owen (Deputy Director Visa Office—US State Dept), 4 Nov 4, 1966, BP (C.8).

  73. 73.

    Bohm’s lawyer, Edward S. Gudeon, based his petition on the decision of the Supreme Court, in 1967, in the case Afroyim v Rusk, which stated that an American citizen could only lose his citizenship if required by himself. Edward Gudeon to Ehud Benamy, 11 Feb 1986, BP [Probably C.8]. Richard Haegele—American Consul in London—to David Bohm, 11 Feb 1986, BP [Probably C.8]. “I cannot see how I could settle there permanently, because my pension could not be adequate for this”. Bohm to Hanna Loewy, 3 March 1986, BP (C.41).

  74. 74.

    David Bohm, interviewed by Maurice Wilkins, sessions 4 and 7, 25 Sept 1986 and 30 Jan 1987, Niels Bohr Library and Archives, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD.

  75. 75.

    For the debate on the theoretical interpretation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, see Lyre (2009).

  76. 76.

    Talk with Jeffrey Bub, 22 May 2002, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD. E-mails from Bub to the author, 29 May 2014.

  77. 77.

    Margenau’s paper was Margenau (1963) and the papers by Norbert Wiener and Armand Siegel were Wiener and Siegel (1953, 1955) and Siegel and Wiener (1956).

  78. 78.

    Jeffrey Bub, talk with the author, 3 April 2014.

  79. 79.

    Bohm et al. (1970), Bohm (1971, 1973), Bohm (1981).

  80. 80.

    Bohm (1982, 1987). Basil Hiley 2008, American Institute of Physics, ibid.

  81. 81.

    Basil Hiley interviewed by Olival Freire, 11 Jan 2008, Niels Bohr Library and Archives, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD. See also Basil Hiley interviewed by Alexei Kojevnikov, 05 Dec 2000, Niels Bohr Library and Archives, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD.

  82. 82.

    See Bohm and Hiley (1981), Frescura and Hiley (1980a, b). Reference to Schönberg is in Frescura and Hiley (1980b).

  83. 83.

    Basil Hiley, ibid.

  84. 84.

    Philippidis et al. (1979) and Bohm and Hiley (1993, p. 2). For Hiley’s recent work, see Hiley and Callaghan (2012).

  85. 85.

    Capra (1991), Bohm (1981) and Bohm (1987).

  86. 86.

    Stroke (1995). Lancelot Whyte to Léon Rosenfeld, 8 Apr 1958, RP (Bohm et al. 1987). Melba Phillips to David Peat, 17 Oct 1994, A22, BP.

  87. 87.

    Basil Hiley cited these achievements and Bohm’s contributions to our understanding of quantum non-locality when asked for the background for Bohm’s nomination for the Nobel Prize. B. Hiley to Sessler, 9 Jan 1989, A172, BP.

  88. 88.

    Dürr et al. (1992, 1996, 2009).

  89. 89.

    Jammer (1988, p. 694), Bernstein (1991, pp. 65–68) and Bell (1982, 1987). For the history of Bell’s theorem and its experiments, see Chap. 7.

  90. 90.

    Hiley (1997, p. 113), Peat (1997, p. 133) and Olwell (1999, p. 750). Shawn Mullet, “Political science: The red scare as the hidden variable in the Bohmian interpretation of quantum theory” (Senior thesis HIS679, University of Texas at Austin, unpub. paper, 1999). Mullet, after contact with sources from Bohm’s stay in Brazil, has changed his views; cf. Shawn Mullet, “Creativity and the mainstream: David Bohm’s migration to Brazil and the hidden variables interpretation,” unpublished paper, Workshop on “Migrant scientists in the twentieth century,” Milan, 2003. Cushing (1994, p. 144), Jammer (1974) and Beller (1999).

  91. 91.

    However, Messiah did not please the hard core of the supporters of the Copenhagen interpretation. Rosenfeld wrote to him praising the book, but in disagreement with his diagnosis of the controversy. For Rosenfeld, “Ce nʼest pas en effet dʼexpérience, mais bien de simple logique quʼil sʼagit ici.” Léon Rosenfeld to Albert Messiah, 16 Jan 1959, RP. About Bopp, by the way, he was then working on another alternative interpretation, the so-called “stochastic interpretation.”

References

  • Aharonov, Y., Bohm, D.: Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory. Phys. Rev. 115(3), 485–491 (1959)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P.: Considerations on Western Marxism. NLB, London (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, A.M.R.: Físicos, mésons e política: a dinâmica da ciência na sociedade. HUCITEC, São Paulo (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacciagaluppi, G., Valentini, A.: Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachelard, G.: Le Nouvel Esprit Scientifique. Félix Alcan, Paris (1934)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: On the impossible pilot wave. Found. Phys. 12(10), 989–999 (1982)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: Beables for quantum field theory. In: Hiley, B.J., Peat, F.D. (eds.) Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, pp. 227–234. Routledge & Kegan, London (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. With an Introduction by Alain Aspect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Beller, M.: Quantum Dialogue—The Making of a Revolution. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, J.: Quantum Profiles. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M., Pollard, B.: The Physical Tourist Physics in Bristol. Phys. Perspect. 10, 468–480 (2008)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Besson, V.: Les premiers travaux de Jean-Pierre Vigier sur la théorie des quanta: une rencontre entre science et marxisme (1951-1954). Master dissertation, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitbol, M.: Schrödinger’s Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Blokhintsev, D.I.: Critique de la conception idéaliste de la théorie quantique. Questions scientifiques—Physique, pp. 95–129. Les éditions de la nouvelle critique, Paris (1952).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Quantum Theory. Prentice-Hall, New York (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Reply to a criticism of a causal re-interpretation of the quantum theory. Phys. Rev. 87(2), 389–390 (1952a)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of hidden variables—I & II. Phys. Rev. 85(2), 166–179 and 180–193 (1952b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Proof that probability density approaches (Psi)2 in causal interpretation of the quantum theory. Phys. Rev. 89(2), 458–466 (1953a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D: A Discussion of Certain Remarks by Einstein on Born’s Probability Interpretation of the [psi]—Function. Scientific Papers presented to Max Born. Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, pp. 13–19 (1953b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Hidden variables in the quantum theory. In: Bates, D.R. (ed.) Quantum Theory—III—Radiation and High Energy Physics, pp. 345–387. Academic, New York (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Quantum theory as an indication of a new order in physics. Part A. The development of new order as shown through the history of physics. Found. Phys. 1(4), 359–381 (1971)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Quantum theory as an indication of a new order in physics. Part B. Implicate and explicate order in physical law. Found. Phys. 3(2), 139–168 (1973)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Interview. New Sci. 96(1331), 361–365 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Hidden variables and the implicate order. In: Hiley, B., Peat, D. (eds.) Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, pp. 33–45. Routledge, London (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Bub, J.: A proposed solution of measurement problem in quantum mechanics by a hidden variable theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38(3), 453–469 (1966a)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Bub, J.: A refutation of proof by Jauch and Piron that hidden variables can be excluded in quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38(3), 470–475 (1966b)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Gross, E.P.: Theory of plasma oscillations. A. Origin of medium-like behavior. Phys. Rev. 75(12), 1851–1864 (1949a)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Gross, E.P.: Theory of plasma oscillations. B. Excitation and damping of oscillations. Phys. Rev. 75(12), 1864–1876 (1949b)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Hiley, B.J.: On a quantum algebraic approach to a generalized phase-space. Found. Phys. 11(3–4), 179–203 (1981)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Hiley, B.J.: The Undivided Universe : An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Routledge, London (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Pines, D.: A collective description of electron interactions. 1. Magnetic interactions. Phys. Rev. 82(5), 625–634 (1951)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Pines, D.: A collective description of electron interactions. 3. Coulomb interactions in a degenerate electron gas. Phys. Rev. 92(3), 609–625 (1953)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Schiller, R.: A causal interpretation of the Pauli equation (B). Nuovo Cimento Suppl 1(1), 67–91 (1955)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Vigier, J.P.: Model of the causal interpretation of quantum theory in terms of a fluid with irregular fluctuations. Phys. Rev. 96(1), 208–216 (1954)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Vigier, J.P.: Relativistic hydrodynamics of rotating fluid masses. Phys. Rev. 109(6), 1882–1891 (1958)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Schiller, R., Tiomno, J.: A causal interpretation of the Pauli equation (A). Nuovo Cimento Suppl 1, 48–66 (1955)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Hillion, P., Takabayasi, T., Vigier, J.P.: Relativistic rotators and bilocal theory. Prog. Theor. Phys. 23(3), 496–511 (1960a)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Hillion, P., Vigier, J.P.: Internal quantum states of hyperspherical (nakano) relativistic rotators. Prog. Theor. Phys. 24(4), 761–782 (1960b)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Hiley, B.J., Stuart, A.E.G.: On a new mode of description in physics. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 3(3), 171–183 (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Hiley, B.J., Peat, F.D.: Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm. Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Biederman, C.J., Pylkkänen, P.: Bohm-Biederman Correspondence. Routledge, London (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N.: Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics. In: Schilpp, P.A. (ed.) Albert Einstein—Philosopher-Scientist, pp. 199–242. The Library of the Living Philosophers, Evanston (1949)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, A., Mottelson, B.R., Pines, D.: Possible analogy between the excitation spectra of nuclei and those of the superconducting metallic state. Phys. Rev. 110(4), 936–938 (1958)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Broglie, L.: Nouvelles Perspectives en Microphysique. Albin Michel, Paris (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  • Broglie, L.: La théorie de la mesure en mécanique ondulatoire interprétation usuelle et interprétation causale. Gauthier-Villars, Paris (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  • Broglie, L.D., Vigier, J.P., Bohm, D., Takabayasi, T.: Rotator model of elementary particles considered as relativistic extended structures in minkowski space. Phys. Rev. 129(1), 438–450 (1963)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Brownell, G. L.: Physics in South America. Physics Today July, pp. 5–12 (1952)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bub, J.: Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Capra, F.: The Tao of Physics : An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Shambhala Publications, Boston, MA (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, C.: Heisenberg in the Atomic Age: Science and the Public Sphere. German Historical Institute, Washington, DC (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Caute, D.: Le Communisme et les intellectuels français, 1914-1966. Gallimard, Paris (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, A.: The Crisis in Physics: Dialectical Materialism and Quantum Theory. Soc. Stud. Sci. 21, 735–759 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushing, J.: Quantum Mechanics—Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Zanghi, N.: Quantum chaos, classical randomness, and bohmian mechanics. J. Stat. Phys. 68(1–2), 259–270 (1992)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Zanghi, N.: Bohmian mechanics at the foundation of quantum mechanics. In: Cushing, J.T., Fine, A., Goldstein, S. (eds.) Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, pp. 21–44. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., Zanghi, N.: Bohmian mechanics. In: Greenberger, D., Hentsche, K., Weinert, F. (eds.) Compendium of Quantum Physics—Concepts, Experiments, History and Philosophy, pp. 47–55. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A.: Remarks to the essays appearing in this collective volume. In: Schilpp, P.A., Einstein, A. (eds.) Albert Einstein—Philosopher-Scientist, pp. 665–668. The Library of the Living Philosophers, Evanston, IL (1949)

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A.: Elementare Überlegungen zur Interpretation der Grundlagen der Quanten-Mechanik. Scientific Papers presented to Max Born, pp. 33–40. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh . French translation in Albert Einstein, Oeuvres Choisies, ed. by F. Balibar, B. Jech, and O. Darrigol, Paris: Editions du Seuil-CNRS, 1989, pp. 1251–1256 (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A., Born, M., Born, H.: The Born-Einstein Letters: Correspondence Between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916-1955, with Commentaries by Max Born. Macmillan, London (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S.T.: The causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. 89(1), 319 (1953a)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S.T.: The causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. 91(4), 985 (1953b)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P.: Professor Bohm’s philosophy of nature. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 10(40), 321–338 (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  • Feynman, R.: The present situation in fundamental theoretical physics. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 26(1), 51–60 (1954)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fock, V.A.: On the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Czechoslov. J. Phys. 7, 643–656 (1957)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Forstner, C.: The early history of David Bohm’s quantum mechanics through the perspective of Ludwik Fleck’s thought-collectives. Minerva 46(2), 215–229 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: The crisis in physics—comment. Soc. Stud. Sci. 22(4), 739–742 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: David Bohm e a controvérsia dos quanta. Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência, Campinas [Brazil] (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: Gaston Bachelard et Louis de Broglie, ont-ils toujours été en synthonie? Cahiers Gaston Bachelard 6, 160–166 (2004a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: Popper, probabilidade e teoria quântica. Episteme [Porto Alegre] 18, 103–127 (2004b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: Science and exile: David Bohm, the cold war, and a new interpretation of quantum mechanics. Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 36(1), 1–34 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: Causality in physics and in the history of physics: a comparison of Bohm’s and Forman’s papers. In: Carson, C., Kojevnikov, A., Trischler, H. (eds.) Weimar Culture and Quantum Mechanics: Selected Papers by Paul Forman and Contemporary Perspectives on the Forman Thesis, pp. 397–411. Imperial College & World Scientific, London (2011a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: Continuity and change: charting David Bohm’s evolving ideas on quantum mechanics. In: Krause, D., Videira, A. (eds.) Brazilian Studies in Philosophy and History of Science, pp. 291–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2011b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: On the connections between the dialectical materialism and the controversy on the quanta. Jahrbuch Für Europäihce Wissenschaftskultur 6, 195–210 (2011c)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: On the influence of science milestones on the history and philosophy of science. In: Blum, A., Gavroglu, K., Renn, J. (eds.) Towards a History of the History of Science: 50 Years Since “Structure”. Edition Open Access, Berlin (2014c)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O., Lehner, C.: ‘Dialectical materialism and modern physics’, an unpublished text by Max Born. Notes Rec. R. Soc. 64(2), 155–162 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freistadt, H.: The crisis in physics. Sci. Soc. 17, 211–237 (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freistadt, H.: Connection between recent theories of Bohm, de Broglie, Dirac, and Schrodinger. Phys. Rev. 98(4), 1176 (1955)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Freistadt, H.: The causal formulation of quantum mechanics of particles: The theory of de Broglie, Bohm and Takabayasi. Nuovo Cimento Suppl 5, 1–70 (1957)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Frescura, F.A.M., Hiley, B.J.: The implicate order, algebras, and the spinor. Found. Phys. 10(1–2), 7–31 (1980a)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Frescura, F.A.M., Hiley, B.J.: The algebraization of quantum-mechanics and the implicate order. Found. Phys. 10(9–10), 705–722 (1980b)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis, J.L.: The Cold War: A New History. Penguin, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, L.R.: Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union. Knopf, New York (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, L.R.: Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union. Columbia University Press, New York (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, O.: A proposed re-interpretation of quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. 87(2), 389 (1952)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, N.R.: Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. Am. J. Phys. 27(1), 1–15 (1959)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S.G. (ed.): Can Theories be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis. Synthese Library v 81. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisenberg, W.: Physics and Philosophy; the Revolution in Modern Science. Harper, New York (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, G., Soler, L., Schnell, A.: Les fondements philosophiques de la mécanique quantique introd., présentation, postf. critique par Lena Soler trad. par Alexandre Schnell en collab. avec Lena Soler préf. de Bernard d’Espagnat. J. Vrin, Paris (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiley, B.J.: David Joseph Bohm. Biogr. Mem. Fellows R. Soc. 43, 106–131 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiley, B.J., Callaghan, R.E.: Clifford algebras and the Dirac-Bohm quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation. Found. Phys. 42, 192–208 (2012)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hobsbawm, E.J.: On history. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobsbawm, E.J.: How to Change the World : Marx and Marxism, 1840-2011. Little, Brown, London (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, D.: Robert Havemann: antifascist, communist, dissident. In: Macrakis, K., Hoffmann, D. (eds.) Science Under Socialism : East Germany in Comparative Perspective, pp. 269–285. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P.R.: The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Home, D., Whitaker, M.A.B.: Ensemble interpretations of quantum-mechanics—a modern perspective. Phys. Rep. 210(4), 223–317 (1992)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Institut International de Physique Solvay: Electrons et photons—Rapports et discussions du Cinquième Conseil de Physique tenu à Bruxelles du 24 au 29 octobre 1927. Gauthier-Villars, Paris (1928) [English translation in Bacciagaluppi and Valentini 2009]

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, A.: Léon Rosenfeld’s Marxist defense of complementarity. Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 37(Suppl), 3–34 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, A.: Léon Rosenfeld—physics, philosophy, and politics in the twentieth century. World Scientific, Singapore (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammer, M.: The philosophy of quantum mechanics—the interpretations of quantum mechanics in historical perspective. Wiley, New York (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammer, M.: David Bohm and his work on the occasion of his 70th-birthday. Found. Phys. 18(7), 691–699 (1988)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, D.: The atomic secret in red hands? American suspicions of theoretical physicists during the early Cold War. Representations 90, 28–60 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, D.: How the hippies saved physics: science, counterculture, and the quantum revival. W. W Norton, New York (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J.B.: Bohm's Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables. Phys. Rev. 89(5), 1040–1041 (1953)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kojève, A., Auffret, D.: L’ Idée du déterminisme dans la physique classique et dans la physique moderne. Présentation de Dominique Auffret. Librairie générale française, Paris (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kojevnikov, A.: David Bohm and collective movement. Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 33, 161–192 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kojevnikov, A.: Stalin’s Great Science: The Times and Adventures of Soviet Physicists. Imperial College Press, London (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kojevnikov, A.: Probability, marxism, and quantum ensembles. Yearb. Eur. Cult. Sci. 6, 211–235 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Körner, S.: Observation and Interpretation; A Symposium of Philosophers and Physicists. Butterworths, London (1957)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzemsky, A.L.: Works by D. I. Blokhintsev and the development of quantum physics. Phys. Part. Nucl. 39(2), 137–172 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenin, V.I.: Materialism and Empirio-Criticism; Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy. Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow (1947)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, J.L.: Richard Feynman in Brazil: personal recollections. Quipu 7, 383–397 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyre, H.: Aharonov-Bohm effect. In: Greenberger, D., Hentschel, K., Weinert, F. (eds.) Compendium of quantum physics: concepts, experiments, history and philosophy, pp. 1–3. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Margenau, H.: Measurement and quantum states—I & II. Philos. Sci. 30, 1–16 (1963). 138–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, J.: The Beat of a Different Drum : The Life and Science of Richard Feynman. Clarendon, Oxford (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Messiah, A.: Quantum Mechanics. North Holland, Amsterdam (1961)

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W.J.: Schrödinger : Life and Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [England] (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullet, S.K.: Bohm, David Joseph. New Dictionary of Scientific Biography, pp. 321–326. N. Koertge, New York, Thomson - Gale. I (2008b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullet, S.K.: Little Man: Four Junior Physicists and the Red Scare Experience. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University (2008a)

    Google Scholar 

  • New research techniques in physics (1954). Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, July 15–29, 1952

    Google Scholar 

  • Olwell, R.: Physical Isolation and Marginalization in Physics - David Bohm's Cold War Exile. ISIS 90, 738–756 (1999)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ory, P., Sirinelli, J.-F.: Les Intellectuels en France de l’affaire Dreyfus à nos jours. Perrin, Paris (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Osnaghi, S., Freitas, F., Freire Jr., O.: The origin of the Everettian heresy. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 40(2), 97–123 (2009)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Paty, M.: Sur les ‘variables cachées’ de la mécanique quantique—Albert Einstein, David Bohm et Louis de Broglie. La pensée 292, 93–116 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Paty, M.: The nature of Einsteins objections to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum-mechanics. Found. Phys. 25(1), 183–204 (1995)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, W.: Remarques sur le problème des paramètres cachés dans la mécanique quantique et sur la théorie de l’onde pilote. In: George, A. (ed.) Louis de Broglie – Physicien et Penseur, pp. 33–42. Editions Albin Michel, Paris (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, W., Meyenn, K.V.: Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u. a. Band IV Teil I 1950-1952. Springer, Berlin (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, W., Meyenn, K.V.: Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u. a. Band IV Teil II 1953-1954. Springer, Berlin (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peat, F.D.: Infinite Potential : The Life and Times of David Bohm. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pechenkin, A.: The early statistical interpretations of quantum mechanics in the USA and USSR. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 43(1), 25–34 (2012)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pechenkin, A.: Leonid Isaakovich Mandelstam: Research, Teaching, Life. Springer, New York (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Peshkin, M., Tonomura, A.: The Aharonov-Bohm Effect. Springer, Berlin (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • Philippidis, C., Dewdney, C., Hiley, B.J.: Quantum interference and the quantum potential. Nuovo Cimento della Societa Italiana di Fisica B—Gen. Phys. Relat. Astron. Math. Phys. Methods 52(1), 15–28 (1979)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pinault, M.: Frédéric Joliot-Curie. O. Jacob, Paris (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pines, D.: A collective description of electron interactions. 4. Electron interaction in metals. Phys. Rev. 92(3), 626–636 (1953)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pines, D., Bohm, D.: A collective description of electron interactions. 2. Collective vs individual particle aspects of the interactions. Phys. Rev. 85(2), 338–353 (1952)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K.R., Bartley, W.W.: Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Rowan and Littlefield, Totowa, NJ (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rattner, H.: Tradição e mudança (a comunidade judaica em São Paulo). Atica, São Paulo (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, H.: Philosophic Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA (1944)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, L.M.: O PCB: Os dirigentes e a organização. História geral da civilização brasileira, tomo III, vol. 3: O Brasil republicano—sociedade e política (1930-1964). B. Fausto. Rio de Janeiro, Bertrand Brasil, pp. 361–443 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, L.: (1953) L’évidence de la complementarité. Louis de Broglie—physicien et penseur. A. George. Paris, Editions Albin Michel, pp. 43–65 [A slightly modified English version of this paper is Strife about complementarity, Science progress. 163, 1393–1410 (1953), reprinted in Robert Cohen and John Stachel (eds.). Selected papers of Léon Rosenfeld (Dordrecht, D. Reidel, 1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, L.: A filosofia da física atômica. Ciência e cultura 6(2), 67–72 (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, L.: Physics and metaphysics. Nature 181, 658 (1958)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, L.: Heisenberg, physics and philosophy. Nature 186, 830–831 (1960)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, L.: Berkeley redivivus. Nature 228, 479 (1970)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, L.: Classical Statistical Mechanics. Livraria da Física & CBPF, São Paulo (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Saidel, R.G., Plonski, G.A.: Shaping modern science and technology in Brazil. The contribution of refugees from national socialism after 1933. Leo Baeck Inst. Year Book 39, 257–270 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzman, E.: Physique quantique et realité. La pensée 42–43, 107–122 (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilpp, P.A., Einstein, A.: Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist. Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, IL (1949)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönberg, M.: On the hydrodynamical model of the quantum mechanics. Nuovo Cimento XII(1), 103–133 (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönberg, M.: Quantum theory and geometry. In: Kockel, B., Macke, W., Papapetrou, A. (eds.) Max-Planck-Festschrift 1958, pp. 321–338. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin (1959) [Reprinted in M. Schönberg, Obra Científica de Mario Schönberg, São Paulo: EDUSP, 2013]

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönberg, M., Hamburger, A.I.: Obra Científica de Mario Schönberg—Volume 1—1936–1948. EDUSP, São Paulo (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönberg, M., Hamburger, A.I.: Obra Científica de Mario Schönberg—Volume 2—1949–1987. EDUSP, São Paulo (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrecker, E.: No Ivory Tower : McCarthyism and the Universities. Oxford University Press, New York (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E.: The meaning of wave mechanics. In: George, A. (ed.) Louis de Broglie—physicien et penseur, pp. 16–32. Albin Michel, Paris (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E., Bitbol, M.: Physique quantique et représentation du monde introd. et notes par Michel Bitbol. Ed. du Seuil, Paris (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweber, S.S.: QED and the Men Who Made It : Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schweber, S.S.: Feynman, Richard. In: Heilbron, J.L. (ed.) The Oxford Guide to the History of Physics and Astronomy, pp. 118–120. Oxford University Press, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, A., Wiener, N.: Theory of measurement in differential-space quantum theory. Phys. Rev. 101(1), 429–432 (1956)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Stöltzner, M.: What John von Neumann thought of the Bohm interpretation. In: Greenberger, D., Reiter, W.L., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Epistemological and Experimental Perspectives on Quantum Mechanics, pp. 257–262. Springer, Dordrecht (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroke, H.H.: The Physical Review—The First Hundred Years: A Selection of Seminal Papers and Commentaries. American Institute of Physics, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Takabayasi, T.: On the formulation of quantum mechanics associated with classical pictures. Prog. Theor. Phys. 8(2), 143–182 (1952)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Takabayasi, T.: Remarks on the formulation of quantum mechanics with classical pictures and on relations between linear scalar fields and hydrodynamical fields. Prog. Theor. Phys. 9(3), 187–222 (1953)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Terletsky, I.P.: Problèmes du développement de la théorie quantique. Questions scientifiques—Physique, pp. 131–146. Les éditions de la nouvelle critique, Paris (1952)

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, A.: Astrophysical and cosmological tests of quantum theory. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 40(12), 3285–3303 (2007)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, A.: Inflationary cosmology as a probe of primordial quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. D 82(6) (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vals, A.V.: Louis de Broglie et la diffusion de la mécanique quantique en France (1925-1960), PhD dissertation, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, C.L., Videira, A.A.P.: Carried by history: Cesar Lattes, nuclear emulsions, and the discovery of the Pi-meson. Phys. Perspect. 16(1), 3–36 (2014)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann, J.: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1955)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J.: American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Scientists, Anticommunism, and the Cold War. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, L.L.: The Scope of Quantum-Mechanics—Discussion. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 9(34), 133–134 (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N., Siegel, A.: A new form for the statistical postulate of quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. 91(6), 1551–1560 (1953)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N., Siegel, A.: The differential-space theory of quantum systems. Il Nuovo Cimento 2(4 Suppl), 982–1003 (1955)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Física – UFBa Campus de Ondina, Salvador, Brazil

    Olival Freire Junior

Authors
  1. Olival Freire Junior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Freire Junior, O. (2015). Challenging the Monocracy of the Copenhagen School. In: The Quantum Dissidents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44662-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44662-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44661-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44662-1

  • eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation