论文部分内容阅读
1941年秋天,海森伯与玻尔在哥本哈根会面。由于当事双方都没有留下记录,其缘由、经过、效果,以及对各自心理与身后声名造成的影响,一直以来都是局限于科学史界内讨论的一桩公案。1998年,英国剧作家迈克尔·弗雷恩(Michael Frayn)的《哥本哈根》问世,引发了公众对这个悬案的普遍关注。为了防止公众的误解,2002年2月6日,玻尔家族决定将存放在尼耳斯·玻尔档案馆中的所有11个有关文件提前解密,而不是像先前那样只对极少数研究者开放。从这批文献公布后学术界的不同反应来看,“哥本哈根迷雾”仍然存在。2007年8月,我国研究玻尔的专家戈革教授在生病住院前将所有这些信件译出。考虑到它们在科学史上的重要性,也为了纪念去年底刚去世的戈革教授,我们这里全文刊发他的译文,包括他所翻译的玻尔文献馆馆长芬·奥瑟若德(Finn Aaserud)所写的一个说明。由于原始文献多为并未实际发出去的打印稿或笔录稿,文中个别语句不够连贯,有的文件内容重复,由此也可以体会玻尔在书写或口授这些文件时异常复杂的心情。为了向中文读者提供一个有关这批文献的完整面貌,我们对以上问题未作更多的技术处理。感谢戈革教授的女儿戈疆与北京大学秦克诚先生向我们提供戈革教授的遗稿,秦先生改正了遗稿中的少数笔误。
In the autumn of 1941, Heisenberg and Bohr met in Copenhagen. As neither party has left a record, its causes, its effects, their effects, and their influence on their own psychology and their reputation have always been confined to a public case discussed in the history of science. The advent of “Copenhagen” by British dramatist Michael Frayn in 1998 sparked widespread public concern about the pending case. In order to prevent public misunderstanding, on February 6, 2002, the Bohr families decided to decrypt all 11 relevant documents stored in the Nieuwbol Archives ahead of schedule instead of being open to only a handful of researchers as previously . Judging from the different reactions of academics after the publication of these documents, “the fog of Copenhagen” still exists. In August 2007, Professor Ge Ge, our expert on Bohr, translated all these letters before he became hospitalized. Taking into account their importance in the history of science and the honor of Professor Gege, who died at the end of last year, we have translated his text here, including his translated Finn Aaserud ) Written by a note. Due to the fact that many of the original documents were printed or transcripts that were not actually sent out, the individual sentences in the article were not coherent and some documents were duplicated. Thus, it was also possible to understand Bohr's unusual and complicated mood when writing or dictating these documents. In order to provide Chinese readers with a complete picture of these documents, we have not done any more technical work on the above issues. We thank Gege, the daughter of Professor Ge Ge, and Mr. Qin Kecheng, from Peking University, for providing us with the posthumous manuscript of Professor Ge Ge. Mr. Qin corrected the few mistakes in the manuscript.