¹ Cf. The contributions of both these philosopher-physicists in the volume Observation and Interpretation (Butterworth's scientific publications, London, 1957). Compare also, Bohm's book Causality and Change in Modern Physics (Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1957), as well as his important articles in The Physical Review [Vol. 85, 166, 180 (1952)]. Feyerabend's writings in the British Journal for Philosophy of Science (1956-present), as well as his important contributions to the forthcoming volume III of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science are equally worthy of note. Writings by other Copenhagen critics, e.g. Dr. Mehlberg, will be referred to where appropriate.

² And of what interpretation of a scientific theory would this not be true ?

³ E.g., the fact that the spontaneous decay of a carbon₁₄ unstable atom is intuitively thought of as a transition from one pure state to another pure state of a carbon₁₄ atom, even in the complete absence of a measuring system or a physical detector.

⁴ Cf. Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics (Pergamon Press, London, 1955).

⁵ I take it that this does not include Dirac's equation, and does not specify in general terms, and on general grounds, what the Maxwellian operators-div E-p, div H etc. operate on. (They are usually assumed to operate on ψ functions.)

⁶ Certainly every exposition I know anything about.

⁷ Compare Dyson: “... divergences at large moments due to insufficiently rapid decrease of the whole integrand at infinity ... have always been the main obstacle to the construction of a consistent quantum electrodynamics...” [Physical Review, vol. 75 (1949), pp. 1744-45.]

⁸ Compare Dyson again: “... the whole theory is built upon a Hamiltonian formalism with an interaction-function which is infinite and therefore physically meaningless.” (op. cit., p. 1754).

And yet again: “... a posteriori justification of [mathematically] dubious manipulations is an inevitable feature of any theory which aims to extract meaningful results from not completely consistent premises.” (op. cit. p. 1753).

⁹ The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, 1930.

¹⁰ Feyerabend assures me that the contemporary work of Bohm and of himself is not open to this objection. But the earlier (1952) papers of Bohm certainly are.

¹¹ Perhaps Feyerabend or Bohm would want to say here that I take the philosophical arguments of Bohr (against the possibility of a hidden variable theory) and confuse them with the formal arguments of von Neumann against the possibility of hidden variables. I do this. I do this because, these two things are conflated by most holders of the Copenhagen Interpretation in its usual contemporary form.

¹² E.g., the theories of perfectly circular cosmological motion, of the direct proportionality between instantaneous velocity and distance fallen, of the unqualified undulatory nature of light, of ‘specific heat substance’, of continuous emission and absorption of all energy, etc.