What Is the Fear That Elie Feels Again When They Arrive at Buchenwald

The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought light to the insufficiency of our unproblematic mechanical conceptions and, as a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary estimation of observation was based.

Niels Henrik David Bohr (vii Oct 1885 – 18 November 1962) was a Danish physicist. He received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1922 for his contributions which were essential to modern understandings of atomic structure and quantum mechanics.

Quotes [edit]

The word "reality" is also a word, a word which nosotros must learn to utilise correctly.

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides united states is whether it is crazy plenty to accept a chance of being correct.

Physics is to exist regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying homo experience.

It is incorrect to call up that the chore of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we tin say nearly nature...

It is a great pity that man beings cannot find all of their satisfaction in scientific contemplativeness.

Some subjects are and so serious that one can only joke nearly them.

• Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot perchance accept understood it.
  • In a 1952 conversation with Heisenberg and Pauli in Copenhagen; quoted in Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Beyond. (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) p. 206.

• We must exist clear that when it comes to atoms, language tin can be used but as in poesy. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.
  • In his first meeting with Werner Heisenberg in early on summer 1920, in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions near Linguistic communication (1933); quoted in Defence force Implications of International Indeterminacy (1972) past Robert J. Pranger, p. 11, and Theorizing Modernism : Essays in Disquisitional Theory (1993) by Steve Giles, p. 28

• The 1000 discoveries which scientific experiment yielded at and nearly the plough of the century, in which investigators in many countries took an eminent part and which were destined all unexpectedly to give us a fresh insight into the structure of atoms, were due in the commencement example, every bit all are enlightened, to the work of the bang-up investigators of the English schoolhouse, Sir Joseph Thomson and Sir Ernest Rutherford, who have inscribed their names on the tablets of the history of scientific research as distinguished witnesses to the truth that imagination and acumen are capable of penetrating the crowded mass of registered experience and of revealing Nature's simplicity to our gaze.
  • Niels Bohr'south speech at the Nobel Feast in Stockholm (December 10, 1922)

• The great extension of our experience in recent years has brought low-cal to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, every bit a consequence, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of ascertainment was based.
  • Niels Bohr, "Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)

• Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and appreciable only through their interaction with other systems.
  • "Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)

• What is it that we humans depend on? Nosotros depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. Nosotros must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a fashion that our messages practise non thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a mode that nosotros cannot say what is upwardly and what is downwards. The word "reality" is also a word, a give-and-take which we must acquire to use correctly.
  • Quoted in Philosophy of Science Vol. 37 (1934), p. 157, and in The Truth of Scientific discipline : Physical Theories and Reality (1997) by Roger Gerhard Newton, p. 176

• For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealizations, we must in fact plough to quite other branches of science, such every bit psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence.
  • Speech communication on quantum theory at Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani, Bologna, Italy (October 1937)

• Contraria Sunt Complementa
  • Opposites are complementary.
    • Motto he chose for his coat of artillery, when granted the Danish Order of the Elephant in 1947.

• However far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical concrete explanation, the account of all evidence must exist expressed in classical terms. The argument is that simply by the word "experiment" we refer to a situation where we can tell others what we have washed and what nosotros have learned and that, therefore, the account of the experimental arrangement and of the results of the observations must exist expressed in unambiguous linguistic communication with suitable awarding of the terminology of classical physics.
  • Niels Bohr, "Discussions with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics," in Paul Arthur Schilpp, Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist (1949) pp. 199-241.

• An expert is a person who has found out by his own painful feel all the mistakes that ane tin can make in a very narrow field.
  • As quoted by Edward Teller, in Dr. Edward Teller's Magnificent Obsession by Robert Coughlan, in LIFE magazine (vi September 1954), p. 62
  • Variant: An proficient is a man who has made all the mistakes which tin be fabricated in a very narrow field.
    • As quoted by Edward Teller (10 October 1972), and A Dictionary of Scientific Quotations (1991) past Alan L. Mackay, p. 35

• We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to accept a take a chance of being right.
  • Said to Wolfgang Pauli after his presentation of Heisenberg's and Pauli's nonlinear field theory of elementary particles, at Columbia University (1958), as reported by F. J. Dyson in his paper "Innovation in Physics" (Scientific American, 199, No. 3, September 1958, pp. 74-82; reprinted in "JingShin Theoretical Physics Symposium in Award of Professor Ta-You lot Wu," edited by Jong-Ping Hsu & Leonardo Hsu, Singapore; River Edge, NJ: World Scientific, 1998, pp. 73-90, here: p. 84).
  • Your theory is crazy, just it's not crazy enough to exist truthful.
    • As quoted in First Philosophy: The Theory of Everything (2007) by Spencer Scoular, p. 89
  • There are many slight variants on this remark:
    • We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides u.s. is whether information technology is crazy plenty.
    • Nosotros are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question is whether it is crazy enough to be have a take a chance of being right.
    • We in the dorsum are convinced your theory is crazy. Just what divides united states is whether it is crazy plenty.
    • Your theory is crazy, the question is whether information technology's crazy enough to be true.
    • Yes, I think that your theory is crazy. Sadly, it's not crazy enough to be believed.

• Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the evolution of methods of ordering and surveying homo experience. In this respect our task must be to account for such experience in a fashion contained of individual subjective judgement and therefore objective in the sense that it tin be unambiguously communicated in ordinary human language.
  • "The Unity of Human Knowledge" (October 1960)

• Every valuable homo existence must be a radical and a rebel, for what he must aim at is to brand things better than they are.
  • As quoted in The World of the Atom (1966) by Henry Abraham Boorse and Lloyd Motz, p. 741

• How wonderful that we accept met with a paradox. Now we take some hope of making progress.
  • Every bit quoted in Niels Bohr : The Man, His Science, & the World They Changed (1966) past Ruth Moore, p. 196

• Two sorts of truth: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is likewise a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.
  • As quoted by his son Hans Bohr in "My Male parent", published in Niels Bohr: His Life and Piece of work (1967), p. 328
  • Unsourced variant: The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well exist some other profound truth.
  • Equally quoted in Max Delbrück, Mind from Affair: An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology, (1986) p. 167. It is the authentication of any deep truth that its negation is besides a deep truth

• Every judgement I utter must exist understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.
  • Equally quoted in A Dictionary of Scientific Quotations (1991) past Alan L. Mackay, p. 35

• It is a peachy pity that human being beings cannot notice all of their satisfaction in scientific contemplativeness.
  • Every bit quoted in Chandra: A Biography of S. Chandrasekhar‎ (1991) by Kameshwar C. Wali, p. 147

• Anyone who is not shocked past quantum theory has non understood it.
  • Equally quoted in Meeting the Universe Halfway (2007) by Karen Michelle Barad, p. 254, with a footnote citing The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr (1998).
  • Variants: Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it.
    Those who are not shocked when they first come beyond quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.
    Anyone who is non shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single give-and-take.
    If you think you can talk nearly breakthrough theory without feeling light-headed, you haven't understood the first thing about it.

• Some subjects are then serious that i can merely joke about them.
  • As quoted in The Genius of Science: A Portrait Gallery (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24
  • Some things are so serious that ane tin just joke about them.
    • Variant without any citation every bit to author in Denial is not a river in Egypt (1998) by Sandi Bachom, p. 85.

• Truth and clarity are complementary.
  • Every bit quoted in Breakthrough Theory and the Flight from Realism : Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics (2000) by Christopher Norris, p. 234

• Information technology is not enough to be incorrect, one must as well be polite.
  • As quoted in The Genius of Science: A Portrait Gallery (2000) past Abraham Pais, p. 24

• Never express yourself more than clearly than you are able to think.
  • As quoted in Values of the Wise : Humanity'due south Highest Aspirations (2004) by Jason Merchey, p. 63

• Oh, what idiots we all have been. This is just as it must be.
  • In response to Frisch & Meitner'due south explanation of nuclear fission, as quoted in The Physicists - A generation that changed the world (1981) by C.P.Snow, p. 96

• I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.
  • As quoted in God Is Not One : The 8 Rival Religions That Run the World and Why Their Differences Affair (2010), by Stephen Prothero, Ch, 4 : Hinduism : The Way of Devotion, p. 144

• No, no, you lot are not thinking, you are just being logical.
  • In response to those who fabricated purely formal or mathematical arguments, as quoted in What Little I Recollect (1979) by Otto Robert Frisch, p. 95

• I am absolutely prepared to talk about the spiritual life of an electronic calculator: to land that it is reflecting or is in a bad mood... The question whether the automobile really feels or ponders, or whether it merely looks as though information technology did, is of course absolutely meaningingless.
  • As quoted in a alphabetic character written from J. Kalckar to John A. Wheeler dated June x, 1977, which appears in Wheeler's "Law Without Law," pg 207.

[edit]

The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that at that place are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. Simply that does non mean that information technology is not a genuine reality.

Nowadays, the individual seems to be able to cull the spiritual framework of his thoughts and actions quite freely, and this liberty reflects the fact that the boundaries between the various cultures and societies are beginning to become more than fluid. Simply even when an individual tries to reach the greatest possible caste of independence, he will notwithstanding exist swayed by the existing spiritual structures — consciously or unconsciously.

Statements of Bohr subsequently the Solvay Conference of 1927, as quoted in Physics and Across (1971) by Werner Heisenberg

• I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. Merely nosotros ought to think that organized religion uses language in quite a dissimilar style from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the linguistic communication of science. True, nosotros are inclined to think that science deals with data near objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if organized religion does indeed deal with objective truths, information technology ought to adopt the aforementioned criteria of truth as scientific discipline. Merely I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much also capricious. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes ways simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a 18-carat reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get the states very far.

• I consider those developments in physics during the concluding decades which have shown how problematical such concepts every bit "objective" and "subjective" are, a great liberation of thought. The whole matter started with the theory of relativity. In the past, the argument that two events are simultaneous was considered an objective assertion, one that could exist communicated quite merely and that was open to verification past any observer. Today we know that 'simultaneity' contains a subjective chemical element, inasmuch every bit ii events that appear simultaneous to an observer at rest are not necessarily simultaneous to an observer in motility. However, the relativistic description is also objective inasmuch as every observer tin can deduce by adding what the other observer will perceive or has perceived. For all that, we take come a long way from the classical ideal of objective descriptions.
  In quantum mechanics the departure from this ideal has been even more than radical. We can still apply the objectifying linguistic communication of classical physics to make statements about observable facts. For instance, nosotros tin can say that a photographic plate has been blackened, or that cloud droplets have formed. But we tin say nothing virtually the atoms themselves. And what predictions nosotros base of operations on such findings depend on the way we pose our experimental question, and here the observer has liberty of choice. Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a human being, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, merely it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation. To that extent, every physical procedure may be said to take objective and subjective features. The objective world of nineteenth-century scientific discipline was, equally we know today, an ideal, limiting instance, but not the whole reality. Admittedly, fifty-fifty in our time to come encounters with reality nosotros shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division betwixt the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the way things are looked at; to a certain extent it can be chosen at volition. Hence I can quite understand why we cannot speak nearly the content of religion in an objectifying linguistic communication. The fact that dissimilar religions endeavor to limited this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Perhaps nosotros ought to look upon these dissimilar forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from human's relationship with the cardinal order.

• In mathematics we can accept our inner altitude from the content of our statements. In the last assay mathematics is a mental game that nosotros can play or not play every bit nosotros choose. Religion, on the other hand, deals with ourselves, with our life and death; its promises are meant to govern our deportment and thus, at to the lowest degree indirectly, our very beingness. We cannot just expect at them impassively from the outside. Moreover, our attitude to religious questions cannot be separated from our attitude to society. Even if religion arose as the spiritual structure of a particular human society, it is arguable whether it has remained the strongest social molding forcefulness through history, or whether social club, once formed, develops new spiritual structures and adapts them to its particular level of knowledge. Present, the individual seems to be able to choose the spiritual framework of his thoughts and deportment quite freely, and this freedom reflects the fact that the boundaries between the diverse cultures and societies are beginning to go more fluid. But even when an individual tries to attain the greatest possible caste of independence, he will still exist swayed by the existing spiritual structures — consciously or unconsciously. For he, besides, must be able to speak of life and expiry and the human condition to other members of the society in which he's chosen to live; he must brainwash his children according to the norms of that society, fit into its life. Epistemological sophistries cannot possibly help him attain these ends. Here, too, the relationship between critical thought about the spiritual content of a given religion and action based on the deliberate acceptance of that content is complementary. And such acceptance, if consciously arrived at, fills the individual with forcefulness of purpose, helps him to overcome doubts and, if he has to suffer, provides him with the kind of solace that only a sense of existence sheltered under an all-embracing roof tin grant. In that sense, religion helps to make social life more harmonious; its most important chore is to remind the states, in the linguistic communication of pictures and parables, of the wider framework inside which our life is set.

Disputed [edit]

Finish telling God what to practice with his dice.

• Anyone who is not shocked by breakthrough theory has not understood information technology.
  • Heisenberg recounts a personal conversation he had with Pauli and Bohr in 1952 in which Bohr says, "Those who are non shocked when they first come up across breakthrough theory cannot mayhap take understood it." Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Across. (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) p. 206.
  • Bohr said this judgement in a chat with Werner Heisenberg, as quoted in: "Der Teil und das Ganze. Gespräche im Umkreis der Atomphysik" . R. Piper & Co., München, 1969, S. 280. Dice ZEIT 22. Aug. 1969 [ane].
  • As quoted in Coming together the Universe Halfway (2007) by Karen Michelle Barad, p. 254, with the quote attributed to The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, only with no folio number or volume number given.

  • David Mermin, on pages 186–187 of his book Boojums All the Way Through: Communicating Science in a Prosaic Age (1990) noted that he specifically looked for pithy quotes nigh quantum mechanics along these lines when reviewing the 3 volumes of The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, but couldn't detect any:

    Once I tried to teach some breakthrough mechanics to a grade of law students, philosophers, and art historians. As an advertizing for the course I put together the most sensational quotations I could collect from the almost authoritative practitioners of the subject area. Heisenberg was a goldmine: "The concept of the objective reality of the uncomplicated particles has thus evaporated..."; "the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts be considerately in the same sense every bit stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ... is impossible ..." Feynman did his part likewise: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." But I failed to plow up annihilation comparable in the writings of Bohr. Others attributed spectacular remarks to him, but he seemed to take pains to avoid any hint of the dramatic in his own writings. Yous don't pack them into your classroom with "The indivisibility of breakthrough phenomena finds its consequent expression in the circumstance that every definable subdivision would require a change of the experimental arrangement with the appearance of new individual phenomena," or "the wider frame of complementarity directly expresses our position equally regards the account of primal properties of matter presupposed in classical physical clarification but outside its scope."

    I was therefore on the lookout for nuggets when I sat down to review these iii volumes – a reissue of Bohr's nerveless essays on the revolutionary epistemological character of the quantum theory and on the implications of that revolution for other scientific and non-scientific areas of endeavor (the originals first appeared in 1934, 1958, and 1963.) But the virtually radical statement I could find in all iii books was this: "...physics is to be regarded not so much equally the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods for ordering and surveying human experience." No nuggets for the nonscientist.

  • Variants: Those who are not shocked when they commencement come up across quantum mechanics cannot mayhap have understood it.
    Those who are not shocked when they beginning come beyond quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.
    Anyone who is non shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word.
    If you call up you tin can talk virtually breakthrough theory without feeling empty-headed, you oasis't understood the first thing nigh it.

• Prediction is very difficult, especially about the hereafter.
  • Every bit quoted in Teaching and Learning Uncomplicated Social Studies (1970) by Arthur K. Ellis, p. 431
  • The to a higher place quote is also attributed to various humourists and the Danish poet Piet Hein: "det er svært at spå – især om fremtiden"
  • It is too attributed to Danish cartoonist Storm P (Robert Tempest Petersen).
  • Variant: It'south hard to make predictions, especially most the future.

• End telling God what to practice with his dice.
  • A response to Einstein'southward assertion that "God doesn't play die"; a similar statement is attributed to Enrico Fermi
  • Variant: Einstein, don't tell God what to do.
  • Variant: Don't tell God what to do with his dice.
  • Variant: You ought not to speak for what Providence can or can not exercise. – As described in The Physicists: A generation that changed the world (1981) by C. P. Snow, p. 84

• Of course not ... but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it.
  • Respond to a visitor to his domicile in Tisvilde who asked him if he really believed a horseshoe above his door brought him luck, as quoted in In Bound : Of Affair and Forces in the Physical Globe (1986) by Abraham Pais, p. 210
  • In most published accounts of this anecdote such was Bohr's reply to his friend, but in one early account, in The Interaction Between Science and Philosophy (1974) by Samuel Sambursky, p. 357, Bohr was at a friend'southward business firm and asked "Do you actually believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, I don't believe in it. But I am told it works fifty-fifty if you don't believe in information technology."
  • Variant: No, but I'k told information technology works fifty-fifty if you don't believe in it.

Quotes nigh Bohr [edit]

Alphabetized by author

• Bohr seemed to think that he had solved this question. I could not find his solution in his writings. But there was no dubiety that he was convinced that he had solved the trouble and, in so doing, had not only contributed to diminutive physics, but to epistemology, to philosophy, to humanity in general. And there are amazing passages in his writings in which he is sort of patronizing to the aboriginal Far Eastern philosophers, most maxim that he had solved the issues that had defeated them. It'due south an extraordinary affair for me—the character of Bohr—absolutely puzzling. I similar to speak of ii Bohrs: one is a very pragmatic fellow who insists that the appliance is classical, and the other is a very arrogant, pontificating homo who makes enormous claims for what he has done.
  • John South. Bong, quoted in Jeremy Bernstein, Breakthrough Profiles (1991), John Stewart Bong: Breakthrough Engineer

• One of the favorite maxims of my father was the distinction between the two sorts of truths, profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is likewise a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are plain cool.
  • Hans Henrik Bohr, writing virtually his father in "My male parent" in Niels Bohr - His Life and Work Equally Seen Past His Friends and Colleagues (1967), S. Rozental, ed.

• If breakthrough theory has any philosophical importance at all, it lies in the fact that it demonstrates for a single, sharply defined science the necessity of dual aspects and complementary considerations. Niels Bohr has discussed this question with respect to many applications in physiology, psychology, and philosophy in general.
  • Max Born in Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance (1949) ch. 10, p. 127

• Not often in life has a human being caused me such joy past his mere presence as you did.
  • Albert Einstein in a letter to Bohr (1920)

• It is practically impossible to describe Niels Bohr to a person who has never worked with him. Probably his most characteristic property was the slowness of his thinking and comprehension. When, in the late twenties and early on thirties, the author of this book was one of the "Bohr boys" working in his Institute in Copenhagen on a Carlsberg (the all-time beer in the world!) fellowship, he had many a risk to observe information technology. In the evening, when a handful of Bohr's students were "working" in the Paa Blegdamsvejen Institute, discussing the latest issues of the quantum theory, or playing Ping-pong on the library table with coffee cups placed on information technology to make the game more than difficult, Bohr would appear, complaining that he was very tired, and would like to "exercise something." To "do something" inevitably meant to go to the movies, and the only movies Bohr liked were those chosen The Gun Fight at the Lazy Gee Ranch or The Lone Ranger and a Sioux Girl. But it was hard to go with Bohr to the movies. He could not follow the plot, and was constantly asking us, to the groovy annoyance of the rest of the audience, questions similar this: "Is that the sis of that cowboy who shot the Indian who tried to steal a herd of cattle belonging to her brother-in-police?" The aforementioned slowness of reaction was credible at scientific meetings. Many a time, a visiting immature physicist (most physicists visiting Copenhagen were young) would deliver a brilliant talk almost his recent calculations on some intricate problem of the quantum theory. Everybody in the audition would sympathise the argument quite clearly, but Bohr wouldn't. Then everybody would kickoff to explain to Bohr the simple point he had missed, and in the resulting turmoil everybody would finish understanding anything. Finally, subsequently a considerable period of time, Bohr would begin to understand, and information technology would turn out that what he understood near the problem presented by the company was quite different from what the company meant, and was correct, while the visitor's interpretation was wrong.
  • George Gamow on Niels Bohr in "The Groovy Physicists from Galileo to Einstein" (1961) pg. 237

• I recall discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went lonely for a walk in the neighbouring park I repeated to myself over again and again the question: Tin can nature possibly be so absurd as information technology seemed to u.s. in these diminutive experiments?
  • Werner Heisenberg in Physics and Philosophy (1958)

• The first thing Bohr said to me was that it would only and so be assisting to piece of work with him if I understood that he was a dilettante. The simply style I knew to react to this unexpected statement was with a polite grin of atheism. But evidently Bohr was serious. He explained how he had to approach every new question from a starting indicate of total ignorance. It is mayhap ameliorate to say that Bohr'south strength lay in his formidable intuition and insight rather than erudition.
  • Abraham Pais, in testimony in Niels Bohr : His Life and Work as Seen past His Friends and Colleagues (1967) edited past Stefan Rozental, p. 218; later in his own work, Niels Bohr's Times : In Physics, Philosophy, and Polity (1991)

• When asked whether the algorism of quantum mechanics could be considered every bit somehow mirroring an underlying quantum world, Bohr would respond, "There is no breakthrough world. In that location is only an abstruse quantum physical description. Information technology is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say nearly nature." Bohr felt that every stride in the evolution of physics has strengthened the view that the problem of establishing an unambiguous clarification of nature has only one solution. He regarded all attempts to replace our uncomplicated concepts or to introduce a new logic to account for the peculiarities of quantum phenomena as not merely unnecessary just also incompatible with our most fundamental conditions, since we are suspended in a unique language.
  • Aage Petersen, "The philosophy of Niels Bohr" past in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. xix, No. 7 (September 1963); The Genius of Science: A Portrait Gallery (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24, and Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object (2001) by Paul. McEvoy, p. 291
  • Quotes virtually quote:
    • To my great pleasure, Victor Weisskopf was sitting in his usual place in the forepart row, grinning approvingly up at me. (It'southward surprising how much such encouragement from such a source can amend the quality of a talk.) His smiles continued correct up to the moment when I read the Petersen quotation. No sooner had I finished reading it than Viki was on his feet. "That's outrageous," he proclaimed. "Bohr couldn't maybe have said annihilation like that!" Somewhat taken aback past this sudden flip from approbation to condemnation, I feebly protested that I wasn't attributing it to Bohr, merely to Aage Petersen's retentiveness of Bohr. That did not extinguish the flames. "Shame on Aage Petersen," declared Viki, "for putting those ridiculous words into Bohr'due south mouth!"
      • N. David Mermin, "What'south Wrong With This Quantum World?" Physics Today Vol. 52, No. ii (February 2004), p. ten.

• [Bohr was] a marvelous physicist, one of the greatest of all time, merely he was a miserable philosopher, and one couldn't talk to him. He was talking all the time, allowing practically simply one or 2 words to you and and then at once cut in.
  • Karl Popper, quoted in John Horgan, The Stop of Scientific discipline (1996), Ch. ii : The End of Philosophy

• "You lot can talk near people like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius, but the affair that convinced me that such people existed were the conversations with Bohr," Dr. Wheeler said.
  • John A. Wheeler as quoted past Dennis Overbye in "John A. Wheeler, Physicist Who Coined the Term 'Black Hole,' Is Dead at 96". NY Times. (fourteen April 2008)

• Niels Bohr distinguished two kinds of truths. An ordinary truth is a statement whose reverse is a falsehood. A profound truth is a statement whose contrary is also a profound truth.
  • Frank Wilczek, The Lightness of Being (2008)

External links [edit]

• Niels Bohr Archive
• Nobel Foundation: Niels Bohr
• Nigh Niels Bohr
• Niels Bohr Quotes Video

grahamlishat.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

Share this post