Abstract
From the 1950s awareness of the existence of a problem with measurement in quantum theory grew among physicists. Framed in von Neumann’s terms, it concerns the two kinds of evolution of the quantum states. In the early 1960s the debate on measurement was further stirred up by Eugene Wigner and by Léon Rosenfeld. Wigner held that the mind may be responsible for measurement. He also supported a number of younger physicists who began to tackle the measurement problem, such as Abner Shimony and Michael Yanase. Rosenfeld presented the results from the Italian physicists Adriana Daneri, Angelo Loinger, and Giovanni Prosperi as the crowning of Bohr’s complementarity. The Italians had suggested that measurements should be understood as thermodynamic amplifications in the measurement device after it interacts with the quantum system, in line with a hint from Bohr that measurement implies irreversibility. Rosenfeld and Wigner embraced the conflict with a number of papers crossing the Atlantic criticizing each other. In addition to the quantum controversy their background fuelled the controversy, with Wigner supporting the US in the atomic race and Rosenfeld a Marxist. As a result of the battle, the Copenhagen monocracy was broken. Physicists began to speak of the Copenhagen school and the Princeton school as two variants of orthodoxy in quantum mechanics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Jammer’s (1974, p. 250) words were: “In the early 1950s the almost unchallenged monocracy of the Copenhagen school in the philosophy of quantum mechanics began to be disputed in the West.”
- 2.
For the purposes of this text, I would like to emphasize that Bohr’s complementarity treats measurement devices according to classical physics, not according to quantum physics. For a standard, comprehensive description of complementarity, see Bohr’s (1949) report of his discussions with Einstein.
- 3.
- 4.
On Hilbert’s and von Neumann’s early axiomatic activity in the field of quantum mechanics, see Lacki (2000) and references therein.
- 5.
That von Neumann appealed to the psycho-physical parallelism and refrained from attributing a physical role for the mind in the quantum measurement processes has not been acknowledged by some commentators. For an example of this misreading, see Jammer (1974, pp. 480–482). The psycho-physical parallelism was articulated by Gustav Theodor Fechner as part of the debates on the mind-body issue in the second half of the nineteenth century. According to Heidelberger, it was seen “as compatible with science and science’s materialistic inclination, without necessitating recourse to crude materialism.” On its origins, its German-speaking cultural background, including its influence on physicists such as Einstein, Bohr, and von Neumann, see Heidelberger (2003).
- 6.
- 7.
According to Schrödinger’s (1983, p. 157) own conclusions, “It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a ‘blurred model’ for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.”
- 8.
For this English translation of London and Bauer’s original paper, which was in French, see Wheeler and Zurek (1983).
- 9.
To trace London and Bauer’s philosophical concerns with quantum physics is not easy, according to Gavroglu (1995, p. 175), as they never wrote anything else, before or after this book, on the philosophical aspects of quantum physics. On London’s influence from both philosophy and psychology; see Gavroglu (1995, p. 179).
- 10.
For a survey of other contributions on the quantum measurement process between the 1920s and the early 1960s, see Jammer (1974, pp. 470–521).
- 11.
Wigner considered von Neumann’s mathematical work on the foundations of quantum mechanics “more important than any of these inventions [computing machine and implosion bomb].” See E.P. Wigner, interviewed by W. Aspray, 04 Dec 1984, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD.
- 12.
There is no professional biography on Wigner. His recollections are in Wigner and Szanton (1992). Hargittai (2006) drew from the same source to describe a biographical picture of the Hungarian-born physicists Theodore von Kármán, Leo Szilard, Eugene P. Wigner, John von Neumann, and Edward Teller. A concise biographical note is Westfall (2008). In another biographical note it was said that “Wigner’s deep interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, especially the quantum theory of measurement, persisted longer than any of his other interests” (Seitz et al. 1998). The relationship between Wigner and Michael Polanyi is exploited in Nye (2011); on their discussions on epistemology, see Jha (2011).
- 13.
- 14.
Trenton Evening Times, 6 November 1961: “Princeton Scientist Who Did Work On Atom Bomb Has Own Shelter”. See Eugene Wigner Papers [hereafter WigP], Box 97, Folder 1, Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
Indeed Hugh Everett was the first to write the argument we now call “Wigner’s friend,” in the long version of his doctoral thesis. To get his PhD degree in 1957, he submitted an abridged version of the dissertation, without this argument. The full dissertation only was published in 1973. However, it is uncertain who was the first to conceive this argument as Everett interacted with Wigner at Princeton in the mid-1950s. See Chap. 3; Osnaghi et al. (2009, pp. 104–105) and Everett et al. (2012, pp. 14, 29–32).
- 18.
In his 1961 paper, he wrote a section under the heading “Non-linearity of Equations as Indicators of Life.” Later, Wigner (1995[1973]) kept the same stance: “it seems unlikely […] that the superposition principle applies in full force to beings with consciousness. If it does not, or if the linearity of the equations of motion should be invalid for systems in which life plays a significant role, the determinants of such systems may play the role which proponents of the hidden variable theories attribute to such variables. All proofs of the unreasonable nature of hidden variables are based on the linearity of the equations.”
- 19.
Wigner’s conjecture about the role of mind in quantum physics was strongly intertwined with his metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. He kept a dualistic view about mind and matter and maintained the former was primary. He criticized mechanistic approaches to the question of life because, for him, the phenomenon of consciousness entreats us to admit the existence of biotonic laws, that is, laws of nature not contained in the laws of physics (Wigner 1995[1972], 1997a, b). I will not, however, extend my analysis of his broader philosophical views here. For a discussion on such issues, see (Esfeld 1999). Thanks to Ron Anderson for bringing this paper to my attention.
- 20.
Letter from Abner Shimony to Wigner, May 1, 1961. WigP, Box 94, folder 1. Shimony would always defend that the mind, or cognitive faculties, should be investigated in relation with the quantum measurement problem. “A possibility that seems to me largely to have been neglected in the literature on the measurement problem […] is that the locus of reduction is the macromolecules of the sensory and cognitive faculties.” He conducted experiments on the subject (Hall et al. 1977) and maintains that quantum mechanics may bridge the gap between psychology and natural sciences (Shimony 1993, pp. 74 and 319).
- 21.
Wigner to Watanabe, 30 Aug 1961; Watanabe to Wigner, 15 Dec 1961; WigP, Box 63, folder 12, and box 71, folder 1, respectively.
- 22.
- 23.
R. Nixon to Wigner, 22 Jun 22, 1970: “Encouragement is always gratifying, but I particularly appreciated your very thoughtful letter and I want you to know how pleased I was to hear from you. Your support for our policies toward Southeast Asia means a great deal to America’s fighting men, and needless to say, it means a great deal to me.” WigP, Box 97, folder 3.
- 24.
Anderson’s distinction is driven to label those Marxist intellectuals, such as Lukacs, Korsch, Bloch, and Adorno, who kept their distance from the Soviet Marxism and the Western Communist parties related to it. Anderson’s categories are not trivial since Antonio Gramsci, the leader of Italian Communism, is considered for his works part of Western Marxism. Roughly used, however, they are useful for understanding Rosenfeld’s Marxism.
- 25.
See letters to L. Rosenfeld, from J.A. Wheeler [March 27, 1952]; R.E. Marshak [September 24, 1954], and A. Roberts [December 22, 1955]. Léon Rosenfeld Papers, Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen [Hereafter RP].
- 26.
I am thankful to Sam Schweber for his discussion on this issue. Commenting on the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, Schweber (1996) wrote: “Wigner stands out by being, on the one hand, the theorist who had perhaps the greatest affinity to pure mathematics and, on the other, probably the most phenomenologically inclined among them.” For Wigner’s insertion in the mathematical physics tradition, see Schweber (2014).
- 27.
L. Rosenfeld to Saul M. Bergmann, December 21st, 1959. RP. The subject of the letter concerns Everett’s approach to quantum physics. Emphases are in the original.
- 28.
L. Rosenfeld. “Report on: Louis de Broglie, La théorie de la mesure en mécanique ondulatoire (Paris: Gauthier-Villars),” 1957, RP.
- 29.
For a more detailed discussion of Daneri, Loinger, and Prosperi’s paper, see Chap. 5.
- 30.
- 31.
For references to the Geneva school, see Arthur (1981).
- 32.
Wigner to Jauch, 06 September 1966. WigP, Box 94, folder 7.
- 33.
Ibid.
- 34.
Wigner to Shimony, 16 Dec 1966. WigP, Box 71, folder 3.
- 35.
The suggestion is in Shimony to Wigner, 1 Jan 1967. WigP, Box 83, folder 7. Shimony’s suggestion was to cite (Bohm and Bub 1966a). Jauch’s reaction was: “the second major point which I should modify refers to your remarks on Bohm and Bub. This concerns me perhaps more directly because their second paper (Bohm and Bub 1966b) is entitled as a ‘refutation’ of the paper by Piron and myself […] but what concerns me more in connection with the problem on measurement is that the model which they propose in the first paper has absolutely no predictive value.” Wigner then accepted Jauch’s restrictions. Jauch to Wigner, 13 Oct 1966, Wigner to Jauch, 25 Oct 1966, WigP, Box 71, folder 3. On Bub’s work as a doctoral student of Bohm, see Chap. 2.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
“L’exposé de Wigner m’a convaincu qu’aucun dialogue n’était possible, et que d’ailleurs il ne le souhaitait nullement; quant à Bohm, je dirais seulement que ses prêches des derniers jours me fatiguent; et vous savez ce que je pense des prestidigitations axiomatiques de Jauch.” Rosenfeld to d’Espagnat, 23 December 1969, RP.
- 40.
“I received a letter from d’Espagnat telling me about your suggestion that the discussion between Prosperi and myself be included in the Proceedings of our conference in Varenna.” Wigner to Shimony, 09 Oct 1970; Wigner to Shimony, 21 Jan 1971, Box 1, Folder 07-B, Shimony to Wigner, 02 Feb 1971, Box 1, Folder 7, Abner Shimony Papers (AS hereafter), Archives of Scientific Philosophy, Special Collections Department, University of Pittsburgh. “It would indeed be a service to people interested in foundations of quantum mechanics for you to reconstruct your discussion with Prosperi.” Shimony to Wigner, [w/d 1971], WigP, Box 72, folder 2.
- 41.
G. Prosperi, July 3, 2003, Milan, interviewed by the author.
- 42.
Neither Wigner nor Rosenfeld, however, held Ballentine’s views in high esteem. “Ballentine, whom I had the honour to meet at your old place, Vancouver, last April, looked to me as a rejuvenation of Everett himself, just as bumptious and probably no less stupid. I was giving a general lecture […] and at the end Ballentine came to me and said, ‘I am very embarrassed because I expected that I would strongly disagree with you and I find what you said is in agreement with my views’”, Rosenfeld to F. J. Belinfante, 22 June 1972, RP. “Did you see Ballentine’s article in the Rev. Mod. Phys.? It does show how difficult the communication is between physicists and philosophers, and how much more the latter believe in the meaningful nature of words which we consider ill defined. We do need people like yourself to establish a modicum of mutual understanding.” Wigner to Shimony, 21 January 1970, AS, Box 1, Folder 07-B.
- 43.
Most of this correspondence, of meaningful philosophical value, is deposited at the Eugene W. Papers (WigP) and Abner Shimony Papers (AS).
- 44.
Bernard d’Espagnat, interviewed by the author, Paris, 26 Oct 2011, Center for History of Physics, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD.
- 45.
“Je tiens à vous remercier pour […] l’approbation que vous avez la gentilesse d’y exprimer à l’égard de mon livre,” d’Espagnat to Wigner, 18 Feb 1964, WigP, Box 94, Folder 1. D’Espagnat to Rosenfeld, 26 Feb 1966. “Votre dernier travail ‘Two Remarks on the Theory of Measurement’ semble indiquer que vous avez besoin de vous retremper dans l’air pur de Copenhague, […] Il n’y a rien de tel comme cure de cette wignérite dont vous paraissez subir une atteinte, que j’espère légère,” Rosenfeld to d’Espagnat, 8 July 1966, RP.
- 46.
Margenau to Wigner, 21 Jan 21, 1963. Henry Margenau Papers [MP hereafter], Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, box 1, folder 12.
- 47.
See Margenau and Wigner (1962). On the debate with Putnam, see Santos and Pessoa Jr. (2011). For the book they planned, as suggested by Wigner, see the letter from Margenau to Wigner, 4 Oct 4, 1974 (WigP, box 56, folder 13); idem, 26 Dec 1974 (WigP, box 72, folder 3); and the letter from Wigner to Margenau, 28 Dec 28, 1974 (MP, box 1, folder 12). Later, however, Wigner apparently did not follow Margenau’s admission of extrasensory perception and remained skeptical about Margenau’s essays on blending science and religion. See letter from Margenau to Wigner, 27 May 1988; and Wigner’s to Margenau, 30 June 1988 (WigP, box 56, folder 13). Documents from Margenau’s views on extrasensory perception are in WigP (box 56, folder 13), and MP (box 1, folder 6).
- 48.
See Foundations of Physics, 1970, 1, “editorial preface.”
- 49.
Letter from Wigner to Robert Ubell, 24 Sep 1974, WigP, box 72, folder 3.
- 50.
Wheeler to Aage Bohr, 25 Feb 1977; John Wheeler Papers, Series V, Notebook October 1976–April 1977, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA.
- 51.
Wheeler to John Hopfield, 2 May 1977; Aage Bohr to Wheeler, 16 May 1977. Ibid.
- 52.
In his first published paper on the foundations of quantum mechanics, Shimony (1963) analyzed these two proposals for interpreting the quantum state evolution during measurements: von Neumann’s and Bohr’s approaches. His point of view on the former was that “although this interpretation appears to be free from inconsistencies, it is not supported by psychological evidence and it is difficult to reconcile with the inter-subjective agreement of several independent observers.”
- 53.
- 54.
L. Rosenfeld to F.J. Belinfante, 22 June 1972, RP.
- 55.
- 56.
Eugene Wigner to Abner Shimony, 12 Oct 1977, WigP, Box 83, folder 7.
- 57.
Incidentally, the homage speech to Wigner, given by Arthur Wightman (1986), is, as far as I know, the sole account of Schrödinger’s cat experiment from the perspective of cats.
- 58.
At the time Santos invited me to participate in the book he was organizing, I thought the intrinsic historic worth of Wigner’s case would be enough to justify its inclusion in a book organized to criticize the hubris of contemporary scientism and to suggest, instead, the role of prudent knowledge for a decent life, which was the theme of Santos’ book (2003). Parts of the book in Portuguese were later translated into English; see Santos (2007) and Freire Jr. (2007). For Baptista’s replica, see Baptista (2004, pp. 88–95).
- 59.
There is further significance in quoting Marc Bloch as there are some parallelisms between Bloch’s and Santos’ intellectual démarches. In “A Discourse on the Sciences,” Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2001) took into account what seemed to him to be lessons from the natural sciences in order to reflect on the changing paradigms of social sciences. Marc Bloch (1953), in a beautiful but unfinished essay about the historian’s craft, written sometime before being killed by the Nazis on June 16, 1944, on the order of Klaus Barbie, affirmed that our mental environment was not the same anymore. Quantum physics, relativity theory, and the kinetic theory of gases soundly changed the ideas we had formed about science, making it more flexible, he wrote. Bloch added that we were then better prepared to admit that historical knowledge, even without Euclidian proofs or immutable laws of repetition, could nevertheless aim to be named scientific. For an analogous argument, see Gaddis (2002).
References
Aaserud, F.: Sputnik and the Princeton 3—the national-security laboratory that was not to be. Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 25, 185–239 (1995)
Anderson, P.: Considerations on Western Marxism. NLB, London (1976)
Arthur, R.T.W.: Quantum-mechanics, a half century later—Lopes, JL, Paty, M. Philos. Sci. 48(1), 156–161 (1981)
Aspect, A.: Introduction. In: Bell, J.S. (ed.) Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, New York (2004)
Ballentine, L.E.: Statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 42(4), 358–381 (1970)
Baptista, A.M.: O discurso pós-moderno contra a ciência—obscurantismo e irresponsabilidade, 2nd edn. Lisboa, Gradiva (2002)
Baptista, A.M.: Crítica da razão ausente. Gradiva, Lisboa (2004)
Bensaude-Vincent, B.: Langevin 1872–1946 science et vigilance. Belin, Paris (1987)
Bloch, M.: The Historian’s Craft. Vintage Books, New York (1953)
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)
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)
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)
Brandt, H.E.: Deconstructing Wigner’s density matrix concerning the mind-body question. Found. Phys. Lett. 15(3), 287–292 (2002)
Christie, J.R.R.: The development of the historiography of science. In: Olby, R.C., Cantor, G.N., Christie, J.R.R. (eds.) Companion to the History of Modern Science, pp. 5–22. Routledge, London (1990)
D’Espagnat, B.: Two remarks on the theory of measurement. Suppl. al Nuovo Cimento 1, 828–838 (1966)
d’Espagnat, B.: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics—Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”. Academic, New York (1971)
Daneri, A., Prosperi, G.M., Loinger, A.: Quantum theory of measurement and ergodicity conditions. Nucl. Phys. 33(2), 297–319 (1962) [reprinted in Wheeler, J.A., Zurek, W.H. (eds.) Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp. 1657–1679. Princeton University Press (1983)]
Daneri, A., Loinger, A., Prosperi, G.M.: Further remarks on relations between statistical mechanics and quantum theory of measurement. Nuovo Cimento B 44(1), 119–128 (1966)
Doncel, M.G., Michel, L., Six, J.: Interview de Eugene P. Wigner sur sa vie scientifique. Arch Int Hist Sci 34(112), 177–217 (1984)
Dumoulin, O.: Anachronisme. Dictionnaire des sciences historiques, pp. 34–35. A. Burguière (ed). Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (1986)
Duncan, A., Janssen, M.: (Never) Mind your p’s and q’s: Von Neumann versus Jordan on the foundations of quantum theory. Eur Phys J H 38(2), 175–259 (2013)
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)
Esfeld, M.: Wigner’s view of physical reality. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 30(1), 145–154 (1999)
Everett, H., Barrett, J.A., Byrne, P.: The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics : collected works 1955-1980 with commentary. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2012)
Febvre, L.P.V.: The problem of unbelief in the sixteenth century, the religion of Rabelais. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1982)
Feyerabend, P.K.: On the quantum-theory of measurement. In: Körner, S. (ed.) Observation and Interpretation in Physics, pp. 121–130. Butterworths Scientific Publications, Dover, NY (1957)
Finkbeiner, A.: The Jasons: The Secret History of Science’s Postwar Elite. Viking, New York (2006)
Freire Jr., O.: L'interprétation de la mécanique quantique selon Paul Langevin. La Pensée 292, 117–134 (1993)
Freire Jr., O.: A story without an ending: the quantum physics controversy 1950-1970. Sci. Educ. 12(5–6), 573–586 (2003a)
Freire Jr., O.: O debate sobre a imagem da ciência—a propósito das ideias e da ação de E. P. Wigner. Conhecimento Prudente para uma vida Decente—‘Um Discurso sobre as Ciências’ revisitado. B. S. Santos. Porto, Edições Afrontamento, pp 481–506 (2003b)
Freire Jr., O.: The historical roots of “foundations of quantum mechanics” as a field of research (1950–1970). Found. Phys. 34(11), 1741–1760 (2004)
Freire Jr., O.: Orthodoxy and heterodoxy in the research on the foundations of quantum physics: E.P. Wigner’s case. In: Santos, B.d.S. (ed) Cognitive Justice in a Global World: Prudent Knowledges for a Decent Life, pp. 203–224. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD (2007)
Freire Jr., O.: Quantum dissidents: research on the foundations of quantum mechanics circa 1970. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 40(4), 280–289 (2009)
Frisch, O.R., Frisch, O.R.: The conceptual problem of quantum theory from the experimentalist’s point of view. In: Bastin, T. (ed.) Quantum Theory and Beyond—Essays and Discussions Arising From a Colloquium, pp. 13–21. Cambridge University Press, London (1971)
Gaddis, J.L.: The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past. Oxford University Press, New York (2002)
Gavroglu, K.: Fritz London a Scientific Biography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)
Gell-Mann, M.: The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. W.H. Freeman, New York (1994)
George, C., Rosenfeld, L., Prigogine, I.: Macroscopic level of quantum-mechanics. Nature 240(5375), 25–27 (1972)
Greenberger, D. (ed.): New techniques and ideas in quantum measurement theory, vol. 480. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York (1986)
Hall, J., Kim, C., Mcelroy, B., Shimony, A.: Wave-packet reduction as a medium of communication. Found. Phys. 7(9–10), 759–767 (1977)
Hargittai, I.: The Martians of Science: Five Physicists Who Changed the Twentieth Century. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, New York (2006)
Haroche, S.: Entanglement, decoherence and the quantum/classical boundary. Phys. Today 51(7), 36–42 (1998)
Heidelberger, M.: The Mind-body problem in the origin of logical empiricism: Herbert Feigl and psychophysical parallelism. In: Parrini, P., Salmon, M.H., Salmon, W.C. (eds.) Logical Empiricism: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, pp. 233–262. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA (2003)
Heims, S.J.: John Von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: From Mathematics to the Technologies of Life and Death. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1980)
Home, D., Whitaker, M.A.B.: Ensemble interpretations of quantum-mechanics—a modern perspective. Phys Rep Rev Sect Phys Lett 210(4), 223–317 (1992)
Institut international de coopération intellectuelle: Les Nouvelles théories de la physique. I.I.C.I, Paris (1939). Varsovie, 30 mai-3 juin 1938
Jacobsen, A.: Léon Rosenfeld—Physics, Philosophy, and Politics in the Twentieth Century. World Scientific, Singapore (2012)
Jammer, M.: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics—The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective. Wiley, New York (1974)
Jauch, J.M.: Problem of Measurement in Quantum Mechanics. Helv Phys Acta 37(4–5), 293–316 (1964)
Jauch, J.M., Piron, C.: Can hidden variables be excluded in quantum mechanics. Helv Phys Acta 36(7), 827–837 (1963)
Jauch, J.M., Wigner, E.P., Yanase, M.M.: Some comments concerning measurements in quantum mechanics. Nuovo Cimento B 48(1), 144–151 (1967)
Jha, S.: Wigner’s “Polanyian” epistemology and the measurement problem: the Wigner-Polanyi dialog on tacit knowledge. Phys. Perspect. 13(3), 329–358 (2011)
Jordan, P.: On the process of measurement in quantum mechanics. Philos. Sci. 16, 269–278 (1949)
Körner, S.: Observation and interpretation—a symposium of philosophers and physicists. Butterworths, London (1957)
Kuhn, T.S.: Sources for history of quantum physics; an inventory and report [by] Thomas S. Kuhn [and others]. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia (1967)
Lacki, J.: The early axiomatizations of quantum mechanics: Jordan, Von Neumann and the continuation of Hilbert’s program. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 54(4), 279–318 (2000)
Leggett, A.J.: Reflections on the quantum measurement paradox. In: Hiley, B., Peat, D. (eds.) Quantum implications—essays in honour of David Bohm, pp. 85–104. Routledge, London (1987)
Loinger, A.: Comments on a recent paper concerning quantum theory of measurement. Nucl. Phys. A A108(2), 245–249 (1968)
London, F., Bauer, E.: La théorie de l’observation en mécanique quantique. Hermann, Paris (1939). English translation in Wheeler & Zurek 1983, pp. 217–259
Ludwig, G.: Der Messprozess. Zeitschrift Fur Physik 135(5), 483–511 (1953)
Macrae, N.: John von Neumann. Pantheon Books, New York (1992)
Margenau, H., Wigner, E.P.: Comments on Putnam comments—discussion. Philos. Sci. 29(3), 292–293 (1962)
Mehra, J., Wigner, E.P.: A biographical sketch. In: Wigner, P. (ed.) The Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner, Part A, pp. 3–14. Springer, Berlin (1993)
Moore, K.: Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945-1975. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2008)
Nauenberg, M.: Critique of “quantum enigma: physics encounters consciousness”. Found. Phys. 37, 1612–1627 (2007)
Nye, M.J.: Michael Polanyi and His Generation: Origins of the Social Construction of Science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London (2011)
Osnaghi, S., Freitas, F., Freire Jr., O.: The origin of the Everettian heresy. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 40(2), 97–123 (2009)
Pessoa Jr., O.: Can the decoherence approach help to solve the measurement problem? Synthese 113, 323–346 (1998)
Pessoa Jr., O., Freire Jr., O., De Greiff, A.: The Tausk controversy on the foundations of quantum mechanics: physics, philosophy and politics. Phys. Perspect. 10(2), 138–162 (2008)
Rosenfeld, L. (1953). L’évidence de la complementarité. In: George, A. (ed.) Louis de Broglie—physicien et penseur, pp. 43–65. Editions Albin Michel, Paris [A slightly modified English version of this paper is Strife about complementarity, Science progress, 163 (1953), 1393–1410, reprinted in Robert Cohen and John Stachel (eds.). Selected papers of Léon Rosenfeld (Dordrecht, D. Reidel, 1979)
Rosenfeld, L.: Measuring process in quantum mechanics. Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys., 222–231 (1965)
Rosenfeld, L.: Questions of method in consistency problem of quantum mechanics. Nucl. Phys. A A108(2), 241–244 (1968)
Rosenfeld, L., Cohen, R.S., Stachel, J.J.: Selected Papers of Léon Rosenfeld. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1979)
Santos, B.S.: Um discurso sobre as ciências, 12th edn. Afrontamento, Porto (2001)
Santos, B.S. (ed.): Conhecimento Prudente para uma Vida Decente—‘Um Discurso sobre as Ciências’ revisitado. Edições Afrontamento, Porto (2003)
Santos, B.S.: Cognitive Justice in a Global World: Prudent Knowledges for a Decent Life. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD (2007)
Santos, F.M.: Na fronteira entre a Ciência e a Filosofia: Reflexões Filosóficas de Eugene Wigner. Master Dissertation, Universidade Federal da Bahia (2010)
Santos, F.M., Pessoa Jr., O.: Delineando o Problema da Medição na Mecânica Quântica: o debate de E. P. Wigner e H. Margenau versus H. Putnam. Scientiae Studia 9, 625–644 (2011)
Schrödinger, E.: The present situation in quantum mechanics. In: Wheeler, J.A., Zurek, W.H. (eds.) Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp. 152–167. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1983). Original publication in Naturwissenchaften 123, 807–812, 823–828, 844–849, 1935
Schweber, S.S.: Wigner’s vast output: four of the eight planned volumes. Physics Today October, pp. 65–66 (1996)
Schweber, S.S.: Writing the biography of Hans Bethe: contextual history and Paul Forman. Phys. Perspect. 6, 179–217 (2014)
Seitz, F., Vogt, E., Weinberg, A.: Eugene Paul Wigner. Biogr. Mem. Natl Acad. Sci. 74, 364–388 (1998)
Shimony, A.: Role of observer in quantum theory. Am. J. Phys. 31(10), 755–773 (1963)
Shimony, A.: Search for a Naturalistic World View. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993). 2 vols
Shimony, A.: Wigner on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. The Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner, Part A—Vol III, Particles and Fields; Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Springer, Berlin (1997)
Shimony, A.: Wigner’s contributions to the quantum theory of measurement. Acta Phys. Hung. B 20, 59–72 (2004)
Süssmann, G.: An analysis of measurement. In: Körner, S. (ed.) Observation and Interpretation: A Symposium of Philosophers and Physicists, pp. 131–147. Butterworths, London (1957)
Von Neumann, J.: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1955)
Weinberg, A.M.: Eugene Wigner, nuclear engineer. Phys. Today 55(10), 42–46 (2002)
Westfall, C.: Wigner, Eugene Paul. In: Koertge, N. (ed.) New Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 8, pp. 293–297. Thomson Gale, New York (2008)
Wheeler, J.A., Zurek, W.H.: Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1983)
Whitaker, M.A.B.: Theory and experiment in the foundations of quantum theory. Prog Quantum Electron 24, 1–106 (2000)
Wightman, A.: E.P. Wigner: an introduction. In: Greenberger, D. (ed.) New techniques and ideas in quantum theory measurement. The New York Academy of Sciences, New York (1986). xv–xvii
Wigner, E.P.: Die Messung Quantenmechanischer Operatoren. Zeitschrift Fur Physik 133(1-2), 101–108 (1952). Reprinted in Wigner (1995, pp. 1147–1154)
Wigner, E.P.: Remarks on the mind-body question. In: Good, I.J. (ed.) The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-Baked Ideas, pp. 284–302. Heinemann, London (1961). Reprinted in Wheeler, J.A., Zurek, W.H. (eds.) Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp. 168–181. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1983)
Wigner, E.P.: Problem of measurement. Am. J. Phys. 31(1), 6–15 (1963)
Wigner, E.P.: Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses. Springer, Berlin (1995)
Wigner, E.P.: The Probability of the Existence of a Self-Reproducing Unit. The Collected Works of E. P. Wigner, Part A – Vol III. Springer, Berlin (1997a)
Wigner, E.P.: Are We Machines? The Collected Works of E.P. Wigner, Part A—Vol III. Springer, Berlin (1997b)
Wigner, E.P.: The place of consciousness in modern physics. In: Wigner, E.P. (ed.) Philosophilcal Reflections and Syntheses, pp. 261–267. Springer, Berlin (1995[1972])
Wigner, E.P: Epistemological perspective on quantum theory. In: Wigner, E.P. (ed) Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, pp. 55–71. Springer, Berlin (1995[1973])
Wigner, E.P.: The limitations of determinism. In: Wigner, E.P. (ed.) Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, pp. 133–138. Springer, Berlin (1995[1983])
Wigner, E.P., Szanton, A.: The Recollections of Eugene P. Wigner as Told to Andrew Szanton. Plenum, New York (1992)
Zeh, H.D.: On the interpretations of measurement in quantum theory. Found. Phys. 1, 69–76 (1970). Reprinted in Wheeler and Zurek, Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp. 342–349
Zurek, W.H.: Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical. Phys. Today 44(10), 36–44 (1991)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Freire Junior, O. (2015). The Monocracy is Broken: Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Wigner’s Case. In: The Quantum Dissidents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44662-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44662-1_4
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)