From Newton to Quantum Mechanics, a Metaphysical View.

         ______________________________________________________

 

                             Anne Runehov

 

                          Uppsala University

                        anne.runehov@kvac.uu.se

 

                     (received:  April 29, 1996)

             (first printed - Vol. 2, No. 9 - June 1996)



 

I. Introduction

_______________

 

        1.  Short presentation of  "Metaphysics"

	________________________________________

 

 	 We first find the word metaphysics in Greek Philosophy from ca. 300 

BC. An  incorrect explanation is that the word was created by the publishers 

of Aristotle's  book following his earlier work named "Physics". The Greek 

word "metaphysics" is to be  translated by "after physics".  Later the word 

"metaphysics" was given to the contents of  Aristotle's works. Even if this 

explanation is wrong, it still is a fact that Aristotle's  metaphysics have 

been of great importance to determine the European philosophical 

comprehension. Metaphysic  is the philosophical study touching our deepest 

thoughts, our deepest questions  about the meaning of life, our existence, 

whether God exist, how  the universe looks  like, whether there is eternity or 

not, and if our observations and experiments reveal  reality or simply create 

it. Metaphysics wonders whether the human mind can truly understand  the 

universe, or whether its deeper meaning is forever hidden from us. Metaphysics 

search  for what is beyond physics.

 

	To make this essay understandable I have to present some concepts used 

by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), as I will explain the concepts "meaninglessness, 

nonsense, simplicity, jump and crazy referring to Kant's terms.

 

	1. The transcendent: refers to what is beyond the border of 

		empirical knowledge.

 

	2. The transcendental: refers to the causal of our beliefs 

		and ideas, to what they are built upon, what they 

		are tinged of, to what is causal to our deepest thoughts.

 

	3. *A priori*: refers to knowledge which is independent 

		of experience, to what is necessarily truth.

 

	4. *Aposteriori*: concerns empirical  knowledge.

 

About reality Kant writes: "If  I imagine a supreme being as the highest  

reality, the question still remains whether it exists or not. Because, even if 

the concept of this  highest reality is complete in all senses, something is 

missing concerning its relation to my  own state of mind, namely. that 

knowledge about this object also shall be possible  *aposteriori*."  Kant 

meant that there is indeed a reality higher that the reality we know from our  

empirical world, but we can not have knowledge about it, something which 

Arthur Schopenhauer,  (1788-1860) would deny.

 

	2. Meaninglessness, Simplicity, Nonsense and Jump

	_________________________________________________

 

	All sciences use a range of special concepts. In this essay I will try 

to  explain some metaphysical ones. The concept "Simplicity" is given by Craig 

Dilworth. From  Wittgenstein we received the concept "Nonsense" and 

Kierkegaard gave us the term "Jump".  You will find that the metaphysical 

meaning of these concepts does not correspond to  everyday language, neither 

with the explanations found in lexicons. In metaphysics these  concepts have 

the same meaning,  if synonyms were possible, than these terms were synonyms.  

While meditating on the words meaninglessness and nonsense you will find that 

the  first one concerns something which doesn't have a meaning, the other word 

has no  sense, so why bother? Thinking deeper you will find that these 

concepts often occur when  meeting a contradiction, for example when an 

experimental result  doesn't correspond  with common sense or natural laws. 

You suddenly find yourself facing  something you  don't understand, yet this 

something is there. You can't ignore it. You "simply" have to  accept it. By 

doing that you put simplicity somewhere in the middle, you don't choose the 

one side  and you don't choose its opposite either.  You somehow hang in there 

and it is there you  will find you make some kind of a "jump", something 

happens, something completely new, but  you don't know why or how. It just 

happened. You can't put a finger on it, you can't  measure it, and you can't 

recall it taking time or space, because it simply doesn't.  Meaninglessness, 

nonsense, simplicity and jump have no dimension. You find yourself in a new  

state, dimension, or world, whatever you call it, you transcendated. You have 

been  in an in- between state without an "in-between".  In one moment you were 

in one state  and in the next in an other. Nothing ever was in between. 

Conclusion is that  meaninglessness, nonsense, simplicity and jump are given 

*a priori*. The verb "to transcendate" is  often understood as "a spiritual  

movement from our physical world to the spiritual world". To  transcendate is 

often seen as a meditation action applied in religious training. Still it is  

something happening to all of us  in daily life. We often just don't take the 

time to reflect on  it. In this essay I will try to show this by means of  the 

physical language, theories or  experiments, especially within Quantum 

Mechanics, which clearly explain the announced concepts in a  metaphysical 

way.

 



II. From Newton to Quantum Mechanics, a Metaphysical view 

_________________________________________________________

 

	1. Meaninglessness and nonsense. 	

	________________________________

 

	"The only thing I know is that I don't know anything" were Socrates 

famous  word. According to Socrates (470-399 BC), to really accept this 

proverb is to be open for the truth. That is meaningless, some would say, not 

knowing anything is being stupid,  uneducated. Everybody knows something. Yet 

the importance of meaninglessness can hardly  be overestimated. The more 

obvious it becomes to us that something is  meaningless, the clearer our 

self-made cognitive structures become. However, meaninglessness doesn't  seem 

to belong in mankind's arranged patterns forced on reality. Only few 

understand  that "meaninglessness" only means that we don't understand what we 

grasp in the  very moment we meet meaninglessness. A creative mind is firmly 

convinced that there  somehow, somewhere exists a point of view from where 

meaninglessness is not at all  meaningless but on the contrary, very obvious. 

Such a mind understands the significance of  meaninglessness, knows that 

meaninglessness is an important issue, that it represents a  transcendental 

point. Being at such a point includes having to make a choice, to remain with 

the  well-known, or to jump to the unknown. Especially within arts and music 

we meet people who  bravely took the step into the unknown world, beyond the 

revealed barrier and we learned  that those persons have been most successful. 

We often see that such persons have the  gift of a child. Like a child they 

see the world exactly as it is, and not as it seem to be  according to what we 

know about it. A child is naive, innocent in the purest way. Didn't Jesus  say 

"suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is 

the kingdom of  heaven"? The same open and questioning mind is often 

characteristic of beginners. Hers or  his  mind is empty, free from the 

experts habits, ready to accept, to doubt, they have  the mind open for all 

possibilities.

 

	Within Natural Science we have Albert Einstein to illustrate such a 

state  of mind. The seed to Einstein's Theory of Relativity was formed in a 

paradox which he  experienced at the age of 16. He tried to imagine how a ray 

of light would look like for an  observer travelling parallel with it. He came 

to the conclusion that such an observer  would see an electromagnetic field 

oscillating there and back, without ever moving  itself, without building a 

wave. This result was contrary to the laws of physics at that time. In  other 

words, his conclusion didn't make sense, it just seemed to be "non-sense". 

Later  Einstein would find that the "Theory of Relativity" can be carried out 

when describing  electromagnetic phenomena, on condition that space-and time 

is relative. Einstein did not  reject "meaninglessness", he accepted it and 

discovered truths unknown until then.

 

	Another example within Natural Science is Werner Heisenberg. In 1920, 

when  he was 19 years old, he was thrown into research on Quantum theory. His 

task  was to find quantum numbers which could explain why spectra lines are 

divided into pairs  or doubles. He found the answer within some weeks. The 

young student who had not learned  yet to follow given patterns found the most 

"simple" solution to the problem. His  colleagues and his supervisor, 

Sommerfeld, got puzzled. To his supervisor who followed the  atom system of 

Bohr, this solution was "meaningless". The young students results were  

immediately rejected. Some months later, the same theory was published by 

another  scientist Alfred Landee. This "simple" solution turned out to be of 

great value for Quantum  Mechanics, it conducted research in a complete new 

direction.

 

	Let us travel back in time some centuries and take a look at two  

Philosophers, Isaac Newton (1642-1727), and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 

(1646-1716). The classical  physics assumed the existence of a outer reality 

which exists independent from us.  Furthermore it assumed that we can observe, 

even measure, the outer existence without  causing it any change. Newton's 

physics is still applicable broadly across the world, but  is not valuable on 

subatomic environments, the invisible universe building its fundamental  

structures which we found all around us. As Einstein put it: " ... to create a 

new theory is  not to destroy a old barn and to build a skyscraper instead. 

Rather it is to climb a mountain,  get broader views, discover unexpected 

connections between our starting place and its  comprehensive surroundings. 

But our starting place still exists and it is still visible  only it has 

become smaller and builds a little part in the wide view which we achieved 

through  conquering the obstacles on our adventurous way to the top of the 

mountain." Newton's  physics are built on observation of the everyday world. 

Even if Newton's laws today are well  known by almost everybody, he challenged 

the biggest authority at that time, namely  Aristotle, exactly as Einstein 

challenged classical physics and Quantum Mechanics challenged  Einstein's view 

on reality. According to Aristotle, the tendency of every object in motion is  

to return to its natural place of rest.  A stone falls down, and a feather 

flies up because  the stones natural resting place is the earth and the 

feathers natural resting place is the  sky. One can only imagine the reaction 

of the scientist and philosophers 300 years ago when  Newton presented his "3 

Laws of Motion", and his "Law of Gravitation". Looking at Newton's  results 

with the knowledge we have today, that is knowing what was unknown to Newton, 

what he described as future, (that is partly, some of Newton's future is 

future for  us as well), we discover interesting things.

 

	The four laws explained the planets course around the sun and the 

course of  the moon around the earth, leads to serious philosophical 

consequences. With  Newton's laws one could predict exactly a particles 

behaviour based on its reciprocal  action with other particles which effected 

them. If it should be possible to know place and  speed of every particle in 

the universe, it should be possible to predict every particle's  future, hence 

the future of the universe. Does this mean that the universe is some kind of a 

 clock, started by the Creator in some kind of perfectly predictable course?  

A view which  leaves very little space for free will or random events. Could 

it be possible that we all are  some kind of dolls following our own 

predetermined roads through life without having any  possibility of choice?

 

	Nevertheless Newton's experiments did open for *many worlds thinking* 

even though Newton himself had no intention of searching in this direction.  

Newton tried to explain the attributes of light by means of particles. We can 

observe that  light propagates itself in a straight way and that light 

reflects in a mirror in the same way  as a ball bounces off the wall. Newton 

built the first mirror telescope and explained white  light as a compound of 

the colours of the rainbow. This means that we have a switch of  states. In 

one state, (one world) we have different colours, in the other state (other  

world) we just have one. We know also that whichever we see the light, both 

states are there at  the same time. "Nonsense", some of you might say, that is 

"simply" an optical experiment.  Another Philosopher living in the same 

century started to think of other possible  worlds, namely Leibniz. As a truth 

Christian, he was puzzled by the way our world looked.  He could not 

understand why our world was so bad, while God, who created this world, is  

but good. Finely Leibniz concluded that our world, against all odds, had to be 

the  best one of all possible worlds, because God had chosen this world among 

plenty of other  worlds the Divinity could have chosen. What Leibniz said is 

that we live in one world,  which has to be the best, but which is not the 

only world in which we could exist, seen  through Gods eyes. Nonsense? Every 

time science had to deal with new ways of thinking, it  seemed that this 

didn't make sense. To put it in a different way, at the beginning, the new  

thinking was declared to be nonsense. Still, by holding to this nonsense, as a 

matter of  fact, to pass through the nonsense state, science was able to add a 

piece to the  tremendous puzzle of reality.

 

	2. Simplicity 	

	_____________

 

	With Einstein's "Theory of Relativity", the idea that physical 

phenomena  can be explained in terms of everyday life, died. A 300 years 

tradition ended. From  now on, in situations like Quantum Mechanics there can 

not be any concrete  visualization concerning how to represent physical 

theory. Suddenly there was a distance between  physics and everyday 

experience. This distance has kept on increasing since then. With  one stroke, 

Einstein eliminated  two important physical and philosophical problems.  

Without an ether and without the idea about an absolute non-motion which 

anyway confused  everything, the situation got much "simpler". While scientist 

were puzzled by the  Michelon-Morley experiment which showed that the speed of 

light was invariant, Einstein  accepted that this was the case. He "simply" 

named it "The principle of the invariant speed of  light".  This principle 

became the first stone in "The Special Theory of Relativity". The  second 

stone was "The Principle of Relativity". As Einstein rejected the idea about 

an  absolute non-motion, his theory "simply" became a theory of relativity. 

"The Special Theory of  Relativity" briefly implies:

 

	1. The speed of light in vacuum is equal in all frames 

		of reference for all observers moving homogeneous 

		in relation to each other and

 

	2. All natural laws are equal in all frames of reference 

		which move homogeneous in relation to each other.

 

	If you just listen to these sentences, read them, without thinking of 

the  mathematical backgrounds, you have to admit their simplicity, the beauty 

of their  construction. As put by Goscinski, "It is beautiful, simple thus it 

is genius". Still the problem  existed. How could "The principle of the 

invariant speed of light" as well as  the classical  "Law of transformation" 

be truth? According to the classical Law of transformation,  and according to 

common sense, the speed of light as it radiates from the source of light,  has 

to be added to, or subtracted from the speed of the observer, according to the 

observers  movement towards, or from the corn of light.

 

	The experiment showed that the speed of light remained exactly the 

same no  matter the observers movement. Common sense is in conflict with these 

experiments.  Einstein, said that if we can't question what is actually 

existing (the result of the  experiment), our common sense has to be wrong. 

Through "simply" denying common sense, Einstein  bravely took the step into 

the unknown, beyond the imaginable. He transcendated. Simplicity  is a key we 

often meet. It is said that Buddha, after his 40 days fasting, at the moment  

of his enlightenment, he said: " it is so simple !" And Jesus said: " Blessed 

are  the simple in spirits, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

 

	3. Jump

	_______

 

	Imagine standing on a beach watching how the waves enter the mouth of 

a  harbour. Looking towards the horizon, the sea seems to be at rest, the 

waves  stretches out in a straight, undisturbed lines. If you follow the waves 

on their way to the  harbour gate, you see how wave after wave enters the 

mouth of the harbour and spreads out again.  Imagine now that the harbour has 

two gates, situated side by side. You will notice that  the waves going 

through these two narrow gaps, will spread out and meet again in a complex  

interference pattern of many peaks and troughs. The English physicist Thomas 

Young showed  in 1801 that exactly the same sort of interference patterns can 

be made by light.  His double-slit experiment became one of the cornerstones 

in the argument that light must  exist in the form of waves. Because if light 

should exist out of particles, (corpuscles as  Newton believed) there would be 

no such pattern possible. This is easy to proof empirically. Let us  put up a 

screen and let us build some kind of a wall placed before the screen, in which 

we  make two narrow slits. We first direct light from some source towards the 

slits. On the  screen we will see a complex pattern of light and dark regions 

where crests meet crests and  troughs meet troughs, and crests meet troughs. 

Next we take a shotgun and fire bullets  towards the slits, until they hit the 

screen. The result is that we on the screen we notice a  simple pattern of 

tiny holes, somewhat spread, as guns don't have absolute precision. Still we 

find  the holes directly behind the slits. In the first experiment, on the 

contrary,  light  is shown even in those regions of the screen that do not lie 

directly behind the slits. Light  waves spread out from each slit and 

interfere with each other.

 

	Interference had to be the result of light consisting of waves. Until  

quantum theory came along. The question was what would happen if when light is 

so weak that  only one photon is reaching the double slits at a time? Common 

sense dictates that,  since photons are indivisible, they only can go through 

one of the two slits, and an  interference pattern is clearly impossible. Yet 

the experiment showed that photons do act as if they  passed through the two 

slits at the same time. When closing one of the slits, there is no  such 

pattern on the screen. But photons are indivisible, it should not matter 

whether both slits  are open or one is not. How do the photon know that both 

slits are open? Could a photon be at  two places at the same time? Could the 

photon somehow split in two? Quantum theory had to  deny common sense. 

According to Sjoeqvist, the photons go neitherthrough one  slit, neither 

through both, and neither through none. Still a complex interference pattern  

occurs.   All quantum particles appear to behave in exactly the same 

mysterious way. Some  times they will manifest themselves as waves, other 

times as particles. The quantum  double-slit experiment illustrated the first 

of the great mysteries of the quantum  world, the schizophrenic dual nature of 

matter and energy, in which light and electrons  can behave both like 

particles and like waves.

 

	To break with common sense to approach reality is something quantum 

theory  has to do over and over again,  as, more over  a quantum particle can 

move  between two points without ever occupying the intermediate space 

between. This phenomenon is  called the "Quantum Jump", explained as follows. 

Without going in the complexity of  radioactive substances like radium, which 

I would not be able to do, let us accept the  fact that they are energetically 

unstable, they are like time bombs waiting to go off. Imagine  a mountain, on 

the top of the mountain there is a tiny valley. In that valley there lies a  

ball. The ball is stable and yet it is not. Unstable because if you would push 

the ball it will roll  down the mountain at greater and greater speed. Stable 

because it need a push to roll down the  mountain. The ball would never roll 

down spontaneously. Everything that happens in our  daily life has a reason. 

In the zoo the lion won't escape unless for some reason the cage was opened, 

or destroyed. Again the quantum world is different. Radioactive  atoms cannot 

be understood in this common-sense way. Instead of a continuous change there 

is  a discontinuous leap. At one instant the elementary particle is inside the 

 nucleus. At the next moment it has escaped. There is no intermediate state, 

nothing has opened or  destroyed the cage. No physical process connects the 

two states of being. If I throw a  ball toward you, it leaves my hands and a 

moment later you catch it. In the time between the  ball leaving my hand and 

you catching it, the ball is somewhere. Traveling through the air,  occupying 

space. This is not so in the quantum world. The of the quantum jump  involves 

even  another mystery, there is no way to predict when the jump will happen. 

The quantum  jump is an absolutely random event. This phenomenon explains, I 

believe, exactly the  concept "Jump", Kierkegaards uses in "Concept Agony". He 

rejects that it is possible to  achieve a new quality through determination of 

the quantities, as done in logic. The New quality  arises at once, through a 

"Jump" with the most mysterious abruptness. The "Jump" has no  dimension. All 

of us who have experienced fear or grief at the very deepest  level know that  

suddenly, in a mysterious way we find ourselves out of it. We are not  in same 

state were  we were before we met this fear or grief, we are in a completely 

previous unknown state. We  crossed a boarder. The "jump" from the fear- or 

grief level to the new one just  happened. We can't recall it having taken 

place. We just find ourselves, due to an  unexplainable happening, renewed

 

	What quantum theory is saying is that, at the level of quantum 

processes,  there is no quantum reality. Thus quantum physics must live on 

betting odds and  probabilities. This conclusion was never accepted by 

Einstein, who countered "God does not play  dice with the universe." Why would 

Einstein, who's research opened the way for quantum  theory, now oppose 

against it? Einstein always believed that beyond everything there  exists an 

independent reality. He argued that there must be a deeper theory, as yet  

undiscovered that will reveal the independent reality of the atom. But quantum 

theory had  changed the scientific thinking. There could never be a return to 

classical thinking. As  Einstein, Planck and Schr:odinger objected against the 

new ideas, they forced Bohr and his  colleagues to create an epistemology, 

concerning  knowledge about the atomic world.  Normally the questions "how can 

we know anything for certain?" and "what is the  difference between knowing 

something and believing something" are posed by philosophers. Now  this task 

fell on physicists. Classical physics offer complete certainty and  

predictability. Quantum theory suggest a reality in which no absolute 

knowledge is possible. What happens  when you measure a quantum system is, 

according to Bohr, at the moment the apparatus  and the atom interact, that he 

whole situation becomes an unanalyzable whole. The two,  apparatus and atom, 

are bounded together by a single indivisible quantum. There is an  indivisible 

wholeness. The observer and the observed make a single unified whole at the  

moment of observation. Again we meet a transcendental point, as it is 

impossible to  measure when or how the unification happens. This holistic 

nature of the atomic world was  the key to Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation. 

Whenever you have to make a measurement, and  whenever this measurement takes 

place, you lose the whole notion of an independent atom.  When not observing, 

quantum theory dictates that we can't even talk about the atoms  motion nor 

place. Nothing happens unless observed. A click of the Geiger counter  enables 

us to say that an electron just passed through a particular region of space. A 

moment later  a second apparatus may register the arrival of the electron. But 

where was it in the  period between? Somewhere in the laboratory? Somewhere in 

the solar system? The only thing  which is real according to Bohr and his 

colleagues are the two Geiger measurements.  Then  where is the atomic 

reality? There is no quantum reality according to Bohr. In the land  of Oz, 

there is a wizard creating reality, but in the land of quantum there isn't 

even that,  Bohr declared.

 

	4. Crazy enough.

	_______________

 

	Hugh Everett III, still being a PhD student at Princeton University in 

the  50ties, was puzzled about the Copenhagen interpretation holistic nature. 

The Copenhagen interpretation says that nothing exists if not observed. It is 

observation  that reveals reality.What does Everett's alternative to the 

Copenhagen interpretation  look like? He "simply" creates a "super universe". 

As explained by De Witt, he created  several worlds existing independently 

from each other, all equally true. Let us look upon a  well-known example to 

illustrate Everett's alternative, Schroedinger's cat.  Schroedinger, like 

Einstein, opposed  the conclusion that no quantum reality exists. 

Schr3D94dinger  explained that if we should put a cat in a box, together with 

a bottle of poison arranged in a  way that, if, in some radioactive substance 

which also is put in the box, radioactive  disintegration occurs, the bottle 

breaks and the cat would die. In the everyday world there is 50%  chance that 

the cat will die and 50% chance that she will live. Now we are about to meet 

another  mysterium in the quantum world. Whether the cat is dead or alive is 

irrelevant as long as  nobody looks at it. Disintegration has not occurred 

nor, and has not not occurred. The cat  is in an "in-between" state. Nothing 

is real unless it is observed. Everett goes even  further. He declares that 

there is a dead cat as well as there is a living cat, both in a  different 

world. The question is not whether there has been radioactive disintegration 

or not, both  disintegration and non- disintegration took place. Moving from 

the box to the universe, this means that whenever a decision is  made, the 

universe splits up into two versions of itself, identical in all means,  

except that in one world you will find one possible decision, in the other you 

will find the other  one.  This really sounds like science fiction, and it 

sure has some interesting consequences.  The existence of other worlds, makes 

it theoretically possible to travel in space and time  without paradoxes 

occurring. Mathematically, Everett's different worlds are described in four  

dimensions, space and time. All the worlds are at right angles to each other. 

Imagine a  tree with all its branches, each branch being another world, and 

all the branches at right  angles to each other. Imagine that you are on one 

of these branches, imagine this is your  world. You "jump" onto another branch 

which is at a right angle to yours. Now you have been  travelling in space and 

time. You may find yourself eating dinner together with your  grandmothers 

mother long before you both were born. Still this would not be a paradox  

because you still are born in your original world. Science fiction, maybe, 

still I wonder what  happens every time we make a choice? All of us make 

choices at any moment over and over  again. What happens with the things we do 

not choose? They can't possibly disappear as  we always can choose these items 

back. Say that you want to try another profession and you  finely choose to do 

so. After some time you realise that it doesn't fit you as well as you  

thought it would, you prefer your old profession and choose it back. Possibly 

you can't get  your previous working place back, and you may find yourself 

changed, but your previous  profession is there waiting for you to want it. 

You may argue that this doesn't prove that  there are possible other worlds 

and if there is, it doesn't prove we can have  *aposteriori* experience. It 

certainly doesn't prove a possibility of travelling in time and space. That  

is correct, but what about our dreams, what about our thoughts, are they bound 

to just one  existing possible world, one determined time?

 

 

 

Epilogue

________

 

To end this essay I want to quote the Author of "The search for  

Schr:odinger's cat":

 

	It says that when a student came to Niels Bohr with a 

	wild idea, Bohr would say: " Your theory is crazy, but

	not crazy enough to be truth". I would say (that is John 

	Gribbin), that Everett's theory is crazy enough to be truth.

 

With this we just might have discovered a new metaphysical concept, "crazy",  

clearly a concept without dimension.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Reference literature

____________________

 

1.	"The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav, Swedish translation by 

Carl G. Liungman. Askild & Kaernekull Foerlag Ab, 1981.

 

2.	"The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra, Swedish translation by Gunnar 

Gaellmo. Bokfoerlaget Korpen, 1982.

 

3.	"In Search of Schroedingers Cat" by Mary and John Gribbin, Swedish 

translation by Ingenjoersfoerlaget Stockholm, 1985

 

4.	"Inledning till en ny metafysik", by Craig Dilworth, vid Uppsala  

Universitet 941205.

 

5.	"Filosofi genom Tiderna" 1600-1700-talet, by Konrad Marc-Wogau. 

Bokfoerlaget Thales 1992.

 

6.	Einstein's Moon, by F. David Peat, Contemporary Books Inc., Chicago 

1990.

 

 7.	"Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic  

Physics", by Bohr, Albert Einstein : Philosopher-Scientist, edited by P.A. 

Schilpp (Evanston I11: Library of Living Philosophers, 1949.)