Everett,H., Revs. Modern Phys.
29 (1957), 454
see also Wheeler, J. A., Revs. Modern Phys.
29 (1957), 463.
See for example: de Witt, B. S. and others in Physics Today 23 (1970), No. 9, 30 and 24, No. 4, 36 (1971) and references therein. Ideas like those of Everett have also been set out by Cooper, L. N. and van Vechten, D., American J. Phys. 37 (1969), 1212 and by L. N. Cooper in his contribution to the Trieste symposium in honour of P. A. M. Dirac, September 1972.
For a systematic exposition see: de Broglie, L., ‘Tentative d’Interprétation Causale et Non-linéaire de la Mécani que Ondulatoire’, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1956.
Bohm, D., Phys. Rev.
85 (1952), 166, 180.
This thesis has already been presented in my contribution to the international colloquium on issues in contemporary physics and philosophy of science, Penn. State University, September 1971, CERN TH. 1424. That paper is referred to for more details of several arguments, but the opportunity has been taken here to expand on some points only mentioned there.
Bell, J. S., contribution to the Trieste symposium in honour of P. A. M. Dirac, CERN TH.1582, September 197210.
Rosenfeld, L., Nuclear Phys. 40 (1963), 353.
G. F. Chew has suggested that the electromagnetic interaction must be considered apart (although not of course left un quantized) because of its macroscopic role in observation (High Energy Physics, Les Houches, 1965, ed. by C. de Witt and M. Jacob, Gordon and Breach, 1965.).
It is beside the present point that microscopic gravitation might not in fact be quantitatively unimportant; see, for example, the contribution of A. Salam to the Trieste symposium in honour of P. A. M. Dirac, September 197210.
For details see the paper referred to in note 5.
The Physicist’s Conception of Nature,Ed. by J. Mehra, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1973.