See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/36443856

The Hidden Side of Wolfgang Pauli

Article · February 1995

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

31 1,145

2 authors:

Harald Atmanspacher Hans Primas

ETH Zurich Hochschule für Technik Zürich
217 PUBLICATIONS   4,070 CITATIONS    57 PUBLICATIONS   1,616 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

theory of complex systems View project

contextual emergence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Harald Atmanspacher on 02 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Hidden Side of Wolfgang Pauli:
An Eminent Physicist’s Extraordinary
Encounter With Depth Psychology
Harald Atmanspacher
Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology
D–79098 Freiburg

Hans Primas
CH–8700 Küsnacht

Originally published in the

Journal of Consciousness Studies 3, 112–126 (1996).

Abstract
Wolfgang Pauli is well recognized as an outstanding theoretical physicist,
famous for his formulation of the two-valuedness of the electron spin, for the
exclusion principle, and for his prediction of the neutrino. Less well known is
the fact that Pauli spent a lot of time in different avenues of human experience
and scholarship, ranging over fields such as the history of ideas, philosophy,
religion, alchemy, and Jung’s psychology. Pauli’s philosophical and partic-
ularly his psychological background is not overt in his scientific papers and
was unknown even to many specialist scholars until a number of enthralling
and perplexing documents of a close interaction between Wolfgang Pauli and
the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung became publicly available in recent years.
Both scholars stressed the inseparability of the physical and the psychical and
called upon a sense of more openness toward the unconscious. Decades af-
ter his death, Pauli’s innovative perspective and his vision of a wholeness of
psyche and matter are more than ever before of great relevance.

1
1 Who Was Wolfgang Pauli?
Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958) was a most critical theoretical physicist with profound
insight as well as a deep thinker. He was a child prodigy – while still a teenager
Pauli wrote three erudite papers on general relativity which were highly esteemed
by experts like the mathematician Hermann Weyl (1919):1 “But how you at your
young age have managed to get access to the intellectual power and freedom of
thought required to assimilate the theory of relativity is almost inconceivable to
me.” His teacher Arnold Sommerfeld (1868–1951) – one of the leading figures in
the old quantum theory of the atom – was so impressed by Pauli’s mathematical
knowledge, physical insight, and his familiarity with the most subtle arguments in
the theory of relativity that he transmitted an invitation to write a review article
on relativity theory for the Enzyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften to his
student.
When the twenty-year-old Pauli delivered a five pound manuscript, Max Born
(1921) wrote to Albert Einstein, full of praise: “This little chap is not only clever but
industrious as well.” And Einstein (1922) applauded: “Who ever studies this mature
and grandly composed work would not believe that the author is a man of twenty-
one. One does not know what to admire most: the psychological understanding of
the evolution of ideas, the accuracy of mathematical deduction, the deep physical
insight, the capacity for lucid systematic presentation, the knowledge of literature,
the factual completeness, or the infallibility of criticism.” In spite of later deep
philosophical disagreement, Einstein always held Pauli in high esteem, and in an
address in 1946 on occasion of Pauli’s Nobel prize the old Einstein called Pauli his
spiritual son.
In June 1921 Pauli received his PhD from the University of Munich on a topic
of the old quantum theory. After postdoctoral work with Max Born at Göttingen
(1921/22), Niels Bohr at Copenhagen (1922/23), and his habilitation in Hamburg
(1924), he discovered in 1925 the exclusion principle (the so-called “Pauli-Verbot”),
ascribing the spin as a new discrete degree of freedom to the electron. From 1926
to 1928 he was professor for theoretical physics in Hamburg. In 1928 he accepted
an offer for a full professorship for theoretical physics at the ETH (Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology) in Zurich.
Together with Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac,
Wolfgang Pauli was one of the principal creators of quantum mechanics, relativistic
quantum field theory, and the orthodox “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum
mechanics. He became renowned for his fundamental original contributions and
brilliant reviews on quantum mechanics and quantum field theory and for his role
as “the living conscience of theoretical physics”. Pauli was particularly fascinated
by the fine structure constant which Sommerfeld had introduced and which has the
approximate value 1/137. The mysterious number 137 haunted Pauli all his life,
1
This and all following quotations cited from German text passages have been translated by
the authors.

2
and he did not get weary of stressing that its theoretical understanding would be
crucial, but missing so far.
Wolfgang Pauli was one of the most penetrating and most outspoken of critics,
merciless in dismissing work that he considered superficial or inadequate: “Though I
have sometimes regarded something right as wrong, I have never regarded something
wrong as right” (Pauli 1984). Also typical for Pauli were phrases like “ganz falsch”
(“utterly wrong”) and, even worse: “nicht einmal falsch” (“not even wrong”). Re-
marks like “I don’t mind your thinking slowly, but I mind your publishing faster
than you think” forced many a scientist to ask himself: “Would Pauli accept this?”
Sometimes Pauli himself signed his critical letters with “der fürchterliche Pauli”
(“the terrible Pauli”) or with “die Geissel Gottes” (“god’s whip”), but his criticism
was almost always sound and fertile.
Pauli was never what our experts in didactics would call a good lecturer. Never-
theless he was an inspiring and intoxicating teacher. In particular when he was not
too well prepared – this happened not infrequently – one could experience the spirit
in statu nascendi, and this was awesome. With his ruthless demand for precision and
lucidity Pauli never intended to hurt his students or colleagues. His sharp tongue
notwithstanding, his criticism was always honest and reflected not only his dislike
of half-truths but also his demonic depths.
The rational onesidedness of the young Pauli received a strong blow in his early
thirties, a crisis that he later described as his “big neurosis” (Pauli 1939, 1956a).
Together with stern strokes of fate (1927 suicide of his mother, 1930 divorce from
his first wife), it was basically his excessively rational attitude which brought Pauli
into serious inner conflicts which he could not master intellectually. Following the
advice of his father he asked the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung for help. After
an interview, Jung recognized the outstanding scientific training and intellectual
capability of Pauli. Jung recounts (Jung 1935a; of course, without mentioning
Pauli’s name): “I saw that he was chock-full of archaic material, and I said to
myself: ‘Now I am going to make an interesting experiment to get that material
absolutely pure, without any influence from myself, and therefore I won’t touch it.’
So I sent him to a woman doctor [Erna Rosenbaum] who was then just a beginner
and who did not know much about archetypal material. ... [Pauli] was five months
with that doctor, and then for three months he was doing the work all by himself,
continuing the observations of his unconscious with minute accuracy. He was very
gifted in this respect.”
During a period of three years, about fifteen hundred dreams of Pauli have been
recorded, containing an extraordinary series of archetypal images. Jung used four
hundred dreams out of this material for his 1935 Eranos lecture on dream symbols of
the process of individuation (Jung 1936, revised: Jung 1944, republished in English:
Jung 1968). Other publications by Jung which contain dreams of Pauli are, e.g., his
Tavistock Lectures (Jung 1935a), his Terry Lectures (Jung 1937a), and his New York
seminars “Dream Symbols of the Individuation Process” (Jung 1937b). In all these
lectures and publications the dreamer’s identity has always been kept anonymous

3
by Jung (“a scientifically educated young man,” “a great scientist,” “a very famous
man, who lives today”). It was revealed by the English editors of the transcription
of Jung’s London seminar The Symbolic Life (Jung 1977).
Pauli finished his analysis in 1934 and married again in the same year. Neverthe-
less, Jung found his dreams so important that he asked Pauli to continue recording
and interpreting his dreams and to stay in contact with him. When the Second
World War began, he was not yet a Swiss citizen and got on leave-of-absence from
the ETH in order to join the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. For five
years he was in close contact with Einstein and held intense discussions with him,
Kurt Gödel, Bertrand Russell, and many others (Pais 1982). In 1945 Pauli received
the Nobel prize for the exclusion principle. One year later he returned to Zurich and
stayed there for the rest of his life. Late in 1958 Pauli fell seriously ill, and on De-
cember 14 of that year he died of cancer in room number 137 at the Rotkreuzspital
Zurich.

2 Source Material
Pauli published only few articles dealing with philosophical problems (Pauli 1994) –
his technical papers are remarkably free of philosophical comments. But this state of
affairs gives an entirely misleading impression of Pauli’s wide range of philosophical,
psychological and historical interests, including the foundations of science as well as
the limits of scientific methodology. He was interested in those phenomena which
elude the grasp of reason and in exploring the meaning of scientific enterprise in
general. Pauli took Jung’s ideas seriously. He did not share the prevalent cheap
attitude “this is all nonsense” but tried hard to understand. In spite of his critical
stance, he was certainly not one of these “petty reasoning minds which cannot endure
any paradoxes” denounced by Jung (Jung 1968, Ziff. 19).
Pauli was a compulsive writer, seemingly unable to think without a pen in his
hand. He never published his ideas as quickly as possible but preferred to com-
municate his thoughts in long letters to his friends and colleagues, trying out new
ideas. The often colloquial and sometimes speculative style of his letters is in strik-
ing contrast to his cautious and refined publications. A considerable portion of
Pauli’s unpublished writings were released for publication only within the last few
years. These consist basically of his extremely rich personal correspondence – many
thousands of letters – and a few previously unpublished manuscripts. But a lot
of further material which, by the way, was never intended for publication, remains
unpublished, inaccessible or hard to find.
This situation is barely reflected in the papers published by Pauli himself but is
evident from his exchange of letters, particularly in his correspondence with Jung
(Meier 1992) and with his younger colleague, the physicist Markus Fierz. The ex-
tensive and exciting Pauli-Fierz correspondence (1943–1958) is not yet published
in its entirety. Its first six years are included in the third volume of von Meyenn’s

4
edition of Pauli’s scientific correspondence (Hermann et al. 1979, von Meyenn 1985,
1993).2 Important excerpts from later letters of Pauli to Fierz (but without the re-
sponses of Fierz) have been published and commented in Laurikainen’s book Beyond
the Atom (Laurikainen 1988) and in his article “Wolfgang Pauli and Philosophy”
(Laurikainen 1984). Two letters of Pauli to Hermann Levin Goldschmidt are pub-
lished in Nochmals Dialogik (Goldschmidt 1990). A lot of additional manuscripts are
deposited in the Pauli Letter Collection (PLC) at Cern in Geneva and in the Wis-
senschaftshistorische Sammlungen der ETH in Zürich (for details see Atmanspacher
et al. 1995).

3 Carl Gustav Jung and Some Central Elements

of His Psychology
When Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) had finished school, he had severe difficulties
in deciding what faculty to choose at the University. His father complained (Jung
1963): “The boy is interested in everything imaginable, but he does not know what
he wants.” He had developed strong interests not only in science – specifically in
zoology, paleontology and geology – but also in the humanities and in archeology.
Considering that he had to earn his living, he finally started studying medicine at
the University of Basel. Jung received his MD at the faculty of medicine of the
University of Zurich in 1902 for a thesis on the psychology of occult phenomena.
Then he specialized in psychiatry, and after a stay with Pierre Janet in Paris he
became an assistant to Eugen Bleuler, director of Burghölzli, a psychiatric clinic in
Zurich. He was fascinated by Freud’s psychoanalysis, met Freud in Vienna in 1907,
and a close father-and-son-like relationship began to emerge between the two (see
McGuire and Sauerländer 1974). In 1909, Jung moved to his new home in Küsnacht
near Zurich, where he lived together with his family until he died in 1961.
Jung’s early work was based on Freud’s sexual theory of repression, but later
he began to doubt the universal significance of this theory to which Freud attached
much emphasis. In 1913, Jung broke with Freud and cut all connections with his
psychoanalytic school. In the ensuing period he was virtually isolated and found
that the personal psyche is grounded in archaic and historical roots. In his studies
of the unconscious Jung used anthropological material, the writings of alchemists,
and carried out field studies among primitives. He was blessed with tremendous
intuitive capabilities and he did not always aim at formulating his profound insights
in razor-sharp and intellectually unassailable terms. He refused to reject anything
which cannot be phrased in a clear-cut analytical language since he was aware that
such efforts would be self-defeating. Realizing that logical contradictions are disas-
2
Further volumes of this comprehensive work, which were in preparation at the time of the first
publication of this article in 1996, are no accessible, see von Meyenn (1996, 1999, 2001, 2005). See
also Atmanspacher and Primas (2006, 2008) for recent accounts on the reception of Pauli’s ideas
in contemporary science and philosophy.

5
trous only from the restricted viewpoint of pure intellect, Jung took the burden to
explicitly accept thinking in paradoxes.
Unlike Freud’s conception of the unconscious as a storehouse of repressed emo-
tions, thoughts, and memories, Jung’s therapeutic work brought him to consider
contents of the psyche which could not be attributed to a person’s individual de-
velopment. In Jung’s analytical psychology (also called complex psychology) this
deeper realm of non-personal, collective character is called the collective unconscious.
Its contents are not individually acquired but inherited. They include instincts and
other autonomous driving forces as well as typical modes of apprehension, which
Jung, adopting a notion of St. Augustine, called archetypes (Jung 1935b).
According to Jung, three layers can be distinguished in the human psyche: the
conscious, the personal unconscious, and the collective unconscious. The archetypes
belong to the contents of the collective unconscious. Jung uses the term archetype to
paraphrase the Platonic “forms”, the eidola. Archetypes are universal dispositions
and, like instincts, they are common to all mankind (Jung 1935b). Their presence
can be demonstrated wherever the relevant records are preserved. Jung considers
the collective unconscious as “objective”, prior to individual experience, and acting
as a source of imagination and creative work. Such a transcendental realm of the
psyche was alien to Freud’s rather mechanistic conception of the unconscious. In
his earlier writings Jung treated archetypal phenomena as essentially psychic, but
later he considered the unconscious as a realm which encompasses non-material and
material aspects and denoted the nature of the archetype as “psychoid” rather than
psychic (Jung 1969a): “Since psyche and matter are contained in one and the same
world, and moreover are in continuous contact with one another, and ultimately
rest on irrepresentable, transcendental factors, it is not only possible but even fairly
probable that psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same
thing.”
Archetypes are not directly perceivable. They are logically prior to mental con-
structs like concepts or images but can manifest themselves in such constructs.
Typical examples are the shadow, the feminine in men, the masculine in women,
the old wise man, the old wise woman. The totality of the personality that entails
both the conscious and the unconscious psyche is called the “self”: an archetype
representing the wholeness of man and, moreover, the goal of the process of his
psychic development. This process is called individuation in Jung’s parlance, and
in his treatise Psychology and Alchemy he unfolded the thesis “that there is in the
psyche a process that seeks its own goal independently of external factors” (Jung
1968, Ziff. 4).
For Pauli the importance of Jung’s depth psychology was not only in therapy
and analysis but predominantly in its potential to conceive our scientific approach
to nature via primordial ideas. Pauli favored the thesis that creative ideas are
formed through a correspondence between the outer reality and archetypal images.
He believed that “the ideas of the unconscious will not be developed further in the
narrow frame of its therapeutic applications, but that their connection with the

6
general development of the life sciences will be decisive for them” (Pauli 1954a).
Similarly, Jung was convinced (Jung 1968, Ziff. 4) “that the treatment of neurosis
opens up a problem which goes far beyond purely medical considerations and to
which medical knowledge alone cannot hope to do justice.”
Another example of an archetype which Jung considered to be particularly
important was the principle of quaternity, reflected by structures like mandalas,
squares, and crosses. According to Jung (1969b), “quaternity is an archetype of
almost universal occurence. It forms the logical basis for any whole judgment.”
Quaternarian structures – one could also say: structures based on the number four
– can be interpreted as symbols of all concepts of unbroken wholeness, whatever
they may be, in both psychology and in physics, in the internal and in the external
world. The historical significance of quaternity in European culture can be traced
back to the Pythagoreans where the “tetraktys” was the holiest of the numbers. It is
implicitly used in various principles of systematic philosophy (cf. Kant’s or Schopen-
hauer’s fourfold classification schemes), and it is clearly seen in many distinctions
of everday life: four points of the compass, four seasons, four basic colors, four di-
mensions of spacetime, and so on. Jung’s work on psychological functions suggests
the four classes of thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. Individuation, i.e., the
realization of the wholeness of one’s self, is thus also meant as an integration of these
functions. Quaternity often has a 3+1 structure, in which one of the four elements
is of particular significance and creates “a totality” together with the other three.
(An example: the dimension of time together with the three dimensions of space
provides the four-dimensional spacetime structure of general relativity.) Jung’s dis-
cussions with Pauli have often been about the principle of quaternity as compared
to that of trinity, related to the number three.

Figure 1: Pauli and Jung Timetable

4 The Pauli–Jung-Dialog: General Aspects

The psychology of the unconscious and modern quantum physics introduced inde-
pendently new concepts (e.g., complementarity, holism) in a remarkably and pecu-
liarly coincident manner. The corresponding relations between the two fields formed
the core of the Pauli–Jung-dialog. Other than most of his physicist fellows, Pauli
tried to interpret the scientific revolution that relativity theory and quantum the-
ory implied for the world view of physics not only from a philosophical perspective
but also from a psychological one. And other than most psychologists, Jung seri-
ously looked for an objective basis that modern physics might provide for his models
of the psyche. Pauli once wrote to Jung (Pauli 1953a): “As physics strives after
completeness, your analytical psychology longs for a home.”

7
 From a general point of view, the key topic of the Pauli-Jung-dialog was the
problem of psychophysical relationships. In Pauli’s words (Pauli 1952a): “More and
more I see the key to the whole spiritual situation of our time in the psycho-physical
problem.” From the viewpoint of modern natural sciences, one might be tempted to
speak of relationships between psyche and matter, across the Cartesian cut between
the two. This common denominator notwithstanding, Pauli’s and Jung’s approaches
were different in motivation and method. The articles they published together in the
volume The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche (Naturerklärung und Psyche)
illustrate both their agreement and their differences paradigmatically.
Pauli’s contribution to the joint book investigated The Influence of Archetypal
Ideas on the Scientific Theories of Kepler (Pauli 1952b). The goal of this study
was to explore the role of the unconscious in the development of science and of the
archetypal background of physical concepts. Pauli intended to show how inner im-
ages initiate and guide the process of the formation of a scientific theory. This issue
clearly relates to what was later denoted as the context of discovery by historians
of science, but it goes beyond this concept in explicitly focusing on the “objective”
archetypal contents of Jung’s collective unconscious. As the archetypal image most
relevant for Kepler’s work, Pauli found the religious symbol of trinity which oper-
ates as a central motivation, and even “explanation”, of a number of Kepler’s main
ideas. For instance, Pauli ascribed Kepler’s evidence for the heliocentricity of the
planetary system and for the three-dimensionality of space to a trinitarian world
view.
Pauli’s essay contrasts Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) with his contemporary
Robert Fludd (1574–1637), alchemist and Rosicrucian at Oxford, with whom he
staged extended and intensive controversies. Fludd’s world view was dominated
by the symbol of quaternity instead of trinity. It included the concrete and dirty
world of matter and evil in addition to Kepler’s abstract and clean world of heavenly
harmony. Fludd commented on Kepler’s narrow perspective with the words: “He
has hold of the tail, I grasp the head.” Kepler responded: “I hold the tail but I
hold it in my hand. You may grasp the head mentally, though only, I fear, in your
dreams” (quoted after Pauli 1952b, p. 155–156). Although Kepler accused Fludd of
being unscientific, overly speculative, and a dreamer, Fludd’s quaternarian attitude
contained insights which Pauli considered useful, e.g., in the sense of a qualitative
complementation of Kepler’s “scientific”, quantitative approach. Another interest-
ing point is that a quaternarian world view symbolically adds another dimension
to the “trinitarian” dimensions of space. This is particularly remarkable in regard
of the notoriously underrated issue of time and the corresponding misconception of
space and time from that period of the history of science until now (Pauli 1947a,b).

Figure 2: Ouroboros (the tail eater). Inscription: en to pan (the one, the all)
(Codex Marcianus, Venice, 10th/11th century)
Figure 3: Fludd’s quaternity as doubled trinity (reproduced from Pauli 1952b,
p. 148)

8
 In contrast to the attitude of today’s mainstream science, Pauli did not follow
Kepler in his unconditional condemnation of Fludd’s world view. Pauli realized
that presently, four centuries after the Kepler-Fludd-controversy, a reconciliation of
trinitarian and quaternarian approaches is appropriate rather than a decision for
one of them and against the other. Pauli saw that Fludd was a part of Kepler as
Kepler was a part of Fludd, and he himself felt like Kepler and Fludd in one person
(Pauli 1953b). Again and again, this tension turned out to be of strong influence
in his scientific work as well as for the development of his personality – in Jungian
terms: his individuation (Pauli 1951). However, beyond these personal, individual
aspects, he was also well aware of the collective significance of this same conflict for
the difficulties and problems of the present state of mankind as a whole. It would
be unpardonable to dismiss these issues as his mere personal matter (Pauli 1939).
Jung’s contribution to The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche is entitled
Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle (Jung 1952), a subject which he
first mentioned in an obituary for Richard Wilhelm in 1930 (Jung 1930). For years
Jung hesitated to publish his corresponding ideas. It was Pauli who encouraged him
to write this treatise (Jung 1949), and the final version was the result of several
revisions inspired by Pauli’s numerous comments. Pauli’s interest in synchronicity
was not purely theoretical – he was haunted by strange phenomena during his entire
life. Pauli lived in a permanent state of tension with our technical world and he was
notoriously clumsy with experimental tools. It is reported that his very presence in
the vicinity of a laboratory was sufficient to cause the breakdown of experimental
equipment in most inexplicable ways. Pauli’s sardonic humor and his sense for the
burlesque permitted him to enjoy the countless anecdotes about this so-called Pauli
effect (Weizsäcker 1959, Jordan 1973). Their authenticity is well documented by
many independent accounts. Indeed, several experimental physicists became nervous
whenever Pauli approached their labs, and one of them, Otto Stern, categorically
prohibited his close friend Pauli from ever entering his laboratory (Fierz 1979). Pauli
did not take these phenomena lightly, he considered them as possible synchronistic
manifestations of a deep conflict between his rational and non-rational side.

5 A Closer Look on Synchronicity

What precisely is synchronicity? In a few words, two (or more) seemingly accidental,
but not necessarily simultaneous (Jung 1947) events are called synchronistic, if the
following three conditions are satisfied.

1. Any presumption of a causal relationship between the events is absurd or even

inconceivable.

2. The events correspond with one another by a common meaning, often ex-
pressed symbolically.

9
 3. Each pair of synchronistic events contains an internally produced and an ex-
ternally perceived component.

Particularly the last one of these criteria makes clear that synchronistic phenom-
ena are psycho-physical phenomena, and that they are intractable by any science
dealing with psyche or matter alone. The first criterion indicates a central princi-
ple of traditional science which has to be reevaluated if synchronistic phenomena
are to be studied: causality in the narrow sense of a cause-and-effect-relation. The
second criterion suggests the concept of meaning as a constructive perspective into
this direction. Since synchronistic phenomena are not necessarily “synchronistic” in
the sense of “simultaneous”, synchronicity is a somewhat misleading term. For this
reason Pauli preferred to speak of meaningful correspondences (“Sinnkorresponden-
zen”) under the influence of an archetypal “acausal ordering”. He considered both
Jung’s synchronicity and the old teleological idea of finality (in the general sense of
a process oriented toward a goal) as particular instances of such an acausal ordering
which cannot be set up intentionally. Accordingly, the concept of chance (referring
to seemingly accidental events) might also be interpretable in terms of meaningful
correspondences.
From the viewpoint of the history of science, Pauli suggested to regard such an
interpretation as the reverse of what happened when Darwin introduced the con-
cept of chance in order to model biological evolution. In his article Scientific and
Epistemological Aspects of Concepts of the Unconscious, Pauli wrote (Pauli 1954a,
p. 297): “This model of evolution is an attempt to theoretically cling, according
to the ideas of the second half of the 19th century, to the total elimination of any
finality. As a consequence, this has in some way to be replaced by the introduction
of chance.” Pauli suggested that the concept of synchronicity might force science to
revive the historically repressed concept of finality as a complement to causality. In
Die Vorlesung an die fremden Leute (part of the very personal essay Die Klavier-
stunde, Pauli 1953c, Ziff. 41) Pauli speculated about a “third kind of natural laws
which consists in correcting the fluctuations of chance by meaningful or functional
coincidences of causally not connected events.” But he hesitated to publish such
thoughts (Pauli 1953c, Ziff. 45): “If one really would like to make such ideas public,
it would be imperative to show something which is verifiable.”
Discussing finality and goal-oriented evolution with respect to the question of
meaningful correspondences, it is essential to have criteria for the meaning con-
stituting the correspondence. This was one of the big issues of the Pauli-Jung-
correspondence between November 1950 and February 1951 (Meier 1992, pp. 56–73).
Jung had originally claimed that such a criterion has to be found in the individ-
ual response (communicated by language, gestures, or other kinds of behavior) of a
subject that understands the meaning. But how can understanding be judged if an
individual response is missing or remains unrecognized? Obviously, this point is of
importance for early forms of life and, in particular, for so-called inanimate matter.

10
 Postponing the difficult question of “meaning”, Pauli and Jung generalized the
notion of meaningful correspondence to similarity or mimesis (“Ähnlichkeit”), holis-
tic order (“ganzheitliche Anordnung”), or simply to correspondence. Pauli suggested
to start detailed studies of synchronicity in strictly non-psychological situations (e.g.,
radioactive decay). Jung, however, favored the reverse approach. He focused on syn-
chronistic events on the fully psychological level (even including psychokinesis) and
expected that chance in the sense of physics, reinterpreted in a finalistic manner,
would turn out as a special case under certain restrictions (Jung 1951). While Pauli’s
approach would allow one to start within the framework of a strict detachment of
the psyche of an observer and any observed phenomenon, Jung’s would clearly imply
that the observer’s psyche is implicitly involved in any experimental setup or result.
This difference points to the decades-old and notorious question of observer de-
tachment. In conventional quantum mechanics, the so-called “observer” is always
an inanimate observer, that is an observing apparatus. In spite of the fact that even
such an observing apparatus is never completely detached from the observed system,
the achievements of modern physics imply that under appropriate circumstances it
is possible to place the conceptual cut (the so-called Heisenberg cut) between the
two in such a way that the interactions can be minimized with respect to the ob-
servables under study. In contrast, an animate observer, e.g., a human observer’s
psyche, is not at any place part of the standard formalism of quantum mechanics
and does therefore play no role as far as a physical description of external material
reality is concerned. Although Pauli always stressed the latter point, he was not
happy with this state of affairs (compare Pauli 1956b). In a letter to Fierz (Pauli
1954b) he expressed doubts that matter is always treated correctly, “if we observe
it, as we do in quantum mechanics, namely leaving the internal state of the observer
totally out of consideration.” However, it must be clearly kept in mind that this
statement is an offspring from his speculative Fluddian side and must not be taken
as more than it is: an honest indication of an important but unresolved problem.
Pauli’s compliance with a strictly detached observer psyche corresponds to his
scientific Keplerian side. As far as we know today, chance on the non-psychological,
purely physical level is “blind chance”, hence governed by the empirically repro-
ducible statistical rules of mathematical probability theory. As opposed to this,
many psychological experiments suggest the existence of a “decline effect”, charac-
terized by decreasing statistical significance with increasing number of “identical”
experiments. Pauli and Jung discussed this feature in terms of a possible comple-
mentarity of statistical method and synchronistic events, indicating that synchro-
nistic phenomena cannot be corroborated by statistical methods as they are usually
applied. They proposed that the triad “momentum-energy, space-time, causality”
should be complemented by “synchronicity”, thus once more emphasizing a transi-
tion from a trinitarian to a quaternarian scheme. During the last decade a number of
pertinent investigations have been carried out in the field of parapsychology, an area
of research which Pauli often mentioned as a hopeful candidate for a better under-
standing of synchronistic phenomena: “If the positive results in the yet controversial

11
field of ‘extra sensory perception’ can be verified, this could lead to consequences
which are totally unforeseeable at present” (Pauli 1956b).

Figure 4: Quaternity of momentum-energy, space-time, causality, and synchronic-

ity according to Pauli und Jung (reproduced from Jung 1952, p. 102)

6 Matter and Psyche as Two Aspects of One Re-

ality
If synchronicity has to do with some kind of holistic order, then it is a natural
question to ask for the ordering factors. Pauli and Jung agreed that matter and
psyche should be understood as complementary aspects of the same reality which is
governed by common ordering principles: the archetypes (Pauli 1952b, Pauli 1953d,
Jung 1953). This implies that the archetypes are elements of a realm beyond matter
and psyche. Their influence reaches concurrently into both domains. It is their
phenomenological appearance, not their intrinsic status, that refers either to internal
psychological or external physical events. The notion of “psychoid archetypes” which
Jung used in his later writings reflects this important distinction from a purely
psychological relevance.
These concepts – admittedly not easy to grasp for a traditionally educated sci-
entist – have been sketched in a letter from Pauli to Fierz as early as 1948 (Pauli
1948a): “The ordering factors must be considered beyond the distinction of ‘physi-
cal’ and ‘psychic’ – as Plato’s ‘ideas’ share the character of a notion with that of a
‘natural force’. I am very much in favor of calling these ordering factors ‘archetypes’,
but then it would be inadmissible to define them as contents of the psyche. Instead,
the inner images are psychic manifestations of the archetypes, which, however, also
would have to create, produce, cause everything in the material world that happens
according to the laws of nature. The laws of the material world would thus refer to
the physical manifestations of the archetypes. ... Each natural law should then have
an inner correspondence and vice versa, even if this is not always immediately visible
today.” With his strong emphasis on inner images (and symbols), the platonist side
of Pauli can clearly be recognized. But he also knew that Plato’s “mysticism is so
light that it overlooks large fields of darkness – what we today are neither allowed
nor able to do” (Pauli 1956b). Whatever these fields of darkness might refer to, the
lightness of the Platonic world view in this conception reflects itself in the trinitarian
attitude of one archetypal level with its two realms of manifestation.
However, this picture alone would be unbalanced with respect to Pauli’s other,
Fludd-like, quaternarian side. In the context of his corresponding interests, a num-
ber of similar ideas have been formulated in his privately distributed essay Modern
Examples of Background Physics (Pauli 1948b). Here he advocates the opinion that
a complete quaternarian world view “would not show up within physics alone, but

12
it could well be related to the wholeness of physics and psychology .... It would be
conceivable, and it even seems plausible to me, that there might be phenomena for
which the full quaternity plays an essential role.” Later in the same essay Pauli em-
phasizes that physics by definition excludes anything having to do with judgments,
feelings, and emotions – psychological forces which also exceed the clean and nice
trinitarian frame of archetypes with their manifestations in natural laws and the
material world. Alluding to Einstein’s claim of an alleged incompleteness of quan-
tum mechanics, he concludes (Pauli 1948b, p. 192; see also Pauli 1954b): “However,
this does not indicate an incompleteness of quantum theory within physics, but an
incompleteness of physics within the totality of life.”
This strong statement also confines the sense in which the psychoid realm of
the archetypes might be the realm of a neutral, universal language for psyche and
matter for which Pauli and Jung have yearned so strongly (compare Pauli 1948c).
Pauli agreed with Jung that in ancient and medieval alchemy one can recognize
first steps into such a direction. However, Pauli pointed out “that the alchemistic
attempt to establish a psycho-physical universal language failed because it referred to
a visible concrete reality”, and that such an effort seems to be much more promising
if it “would refer to a deeper invisible reality”. While alchemy overemphasized the
concrete (Pauli 1953e, Heisenberg 1959), today’s situation rather seems to be the
reverse. If not only abstract intellectual reflection, but also the concrete experience
of life is relevant for such a mode of communication, then its essence cannot possibly
be covered by something like a final unified theory, a world formula, or a theory of
everything. All these attempts at universal models include – in Jungian terms –
the potential aspect of an implicit urge toward the exertion of power. At the same
time they have a strong flavor of a theory of a stomach that ignores digestion. The
cartoon with which Pauli commented his withdrawal from his own and Heisenberg’s
work on such an approach (a unified spinor theory of elementary particles) expresses
this better than a thousand words.

Figure 5: Pauli’s comment in a letter to leading physicists all over the world in
response to Heisenberg’s radio announcement of a so-called “world formula” in 1958
(Pauli 1958).

7 What Does All This Mean For Us Today?

It was a basic tenet of Pauli that the walk on the ridge between psychology and
physics is as difficult as the way “between the scylla of a blue dust of mysticism and
the charybdis of a sterile rationalism” (Pauli 1954c). In a letter to Fierz, in which
Pauli (1954b) meditates about “holistic relationships between inside and outside
which present science does not contain” and which might imply correlations of the
inner state of an observer with the observed, Pauli warns (Pauli 1954b): “I have here
reached the limits of what might be knowable in the framework of contemporary

13
knowledge, and I have even approached the realm of ‘magic’ ... I am very well aware
that this amounts to the threatening danger of a regression into most primitive
superstition, that this would be much worse than Einstein’s regressive obligation to
classical field physics, and that everything depends on retaining the positive results
and values of rationality.”
If we take Pauli’s views seriously, we have to reevaluate fundamental questions in
natural science and ponder about the repressed concepts and ideas in Western cul-
ture. Such a reevaluation involves cases like the psychological and physical aspects
of space and time, the old question of whether the psychic state of the observer be
correlated with the external material course of nature, the problem of finality and
its relation to chance, the role of meaning in the exact sciences, and the relations be-
tween “inside” and “outside”. Moreover, such an endeavour requires us to consider
additional topics like conscious and unconscious, light and shadow, good and evil,
and the connections between them. In one or another way all these examples may
be put under the common heading of the psychophysical problem, i.e., the problem
of the relationships between psyche and matter.
This problem may be one of the crucial issues in a future-oriented science as
well as society. Typical scientific aspects besides those points already raised are the
fields of psychosomatic relationships and the so-called “hard problem” of cognitive
science: the interface between psychology and neurophysiology. Today there is a
strong tendency to tackle all these age-old questions afresh, on a basis of scientific
knowledge that is more solid and more profound than ever before. The Pauli–Jung-
dialog does not solve any of the issues indicated. But it helps to recognize a number
of problems more clearly. In this sense it might serve as a starting point to define
a reasonable research program. Nevertheless, it would be overly naive and unwise
to believe that the psychophysical problem can be ultimately resolved by science
alone and to dismiss the non-rational side of the whole as irrelevant. Metaphorically
speaking this would amount to building an amazing complex of thoughts but living
in a barn next door.
Pauli insisted that in the future we can no longer ignore the relationship between
our knowledge of the external material world and the inner world of meaning-giving
contents of the psyche. We have to acknowledge the rational scientific approach
as but one way of seeing and interpreting the world. A complementary approach
implies that our investigations of reality must not any more deal with matter and
psyche separately but that we have to take both sides into one common account.
This is easily said, but it obviously addresses enormously difficult and ambitious
problems. The normative principles of contemporary science – often tacit, hence
applied without awareness of their meaning and consequences – will have to be
specified and criticized more explicitly. In this regard (and others) we need an
ecology of mind in addition to an ecology of matter.
Wholeness seems to be an extremely influential archetype in our time – it ra-
diates an immense fascination and naturally triggers rejection to the same extent.
Hence not only enthusiasm, but also much resistance is to be expected – against

14
possible misunderstandings and abuses of a holistic science – and by no means all
the objections will be simply wrong-headed or pointless. At present it is hard to be
specific about details in this regard, but the issue of a humane science with scientists
who feel responsible both for their research on its scientific level and also for the
way it is practiced on a day-to-day-basis is certainly of utmost significance. More-
over, within a perspective that includes the dignity of human beings and respect
for nature, ethical and religious aspects can no longer be left aside as subordinate
details.

8 References
Atmanspacher, Harald, Primas, Hans (2006): Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in
the context of contemporary science. Journal of Consciousness Studies 13(3),
5–50.

Atmanspacher, Harald, Primas, Hans, eds. (2008): Recasting Reality. Wolfgang

Pauli’s Philosophical Ideas and Contemporary Science. Springer, Berlin.

Atmanspacher, Harald, Primas, Hans, Wertenschlag-Birkhäuser, Eva (1995): ‘Ein-

führung’. In: Der Pauli-Jung-Dialog und seine Bedeutung für die moderne
Wissenschaft, ed. by H. Atmanspacher, H. Primas and E. Wertenschlag-Birk-
häuser). Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–8; in particular references [19]–[26].

Born, Max (1921): Letter to Einstein of February 12, 1921. In: The Born–Einstein-
Letters. Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born
from 1916 to 1955 with commentaries by Max Born. Translated by Irene Born.
Walker, New York 1971, p. 54.

Einstein, Albert (1922): ‘Buchbesprechung: Pauli, W., jun., Relativitätstheorie’.

Naturwissenschaften 10, 184–185.

Fierz, Markus (1979): ‘Naturerklärung und Psyche. Ein Kommentar zu dem Buch
von C.G. Jung und W. Pauli’. Z. f. Analytische Psychologie und ihre Grenzge-
biete 10, 290–299. Reprinted in: M. Fierz: Naturwissenschaft und Geschichte.
Birkhäuser, Basel 1988, pp. 181–191, here: p. 190.

Goldschmidt, Hermann L. (ed.) (1990): Nochmals Dialogik. ETH Stiftung Di-

alogik, Zürich 1990, pp. 23–55.

Heisenberg, Werner (1959): ‘Wolfgang Paulis philosophische Auffassungen’. Natur-

wissenschaften 46, 661–663.

Hermann, Armin, von Meyenn, Karl, Weisskopf, Victor F. (eds.) (1979): it Wolf-
gang Pauli. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel, Band I: 1919–1929. Springer,
Berlin.

15
Jordan, Pascual (1973): ‘Erinnerungen an Wolfgang Pauli’. Physikalische Blätter
29, 291–298, here p. 293.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1930): ‘Nachruf für Richard Wilhelm’. Neue Zürcher Zeitung,
March 6, 1930. Republished as ‘Richard Wilhelm: In Memoriam’. In: C.
G. Jung, Collected Works 15. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1966,
pp. 74–96.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1935a): ‘The Tavistock Lectures’. Republished in: C.G. Jung,
Collected Works 18, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1977, Ziff. 402 and
404, pp. 174–175.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1935b): ‘Psychologischer Commentar zum Bardo Thödol’.

In: Das tibetanische Totenbuch, hrsg. W.Y. Evans-Wentz, Rascher, Zürich,
pp. 17–35. English translation republished in: C.G. Jung, Collected Works
11. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1958, second edition 1961, Ziff. 845,
pp. 74–96.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1936): ‘Traumsymbole des Individuationsprozesses’. In: Era-

nos-Jahrbuch 1935, Band III. Ed. by O. Fröbe-Kapteyn. Rhein-Verlag, Zürich,
pp. 13–133.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1937a): ‘The Terry Lectures (Yale University)’. Republished
as ‘Psychology and Religion’ in: C.G. Jung, Collected Works 11, Princeton
University Press, Princeton 1958, second edition 1969, pp. 3–105.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1937b): ‘Dream Symbols of the Individuation Process’. Volume
1: Bailey Island Seminar, Sept. 1936; Volume 2: New York Seminar, Oct. 1937.
Multigraphed notes, unpublished.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1944): Psychologie und Alchemie. Rascher, Zürich, zweite
Auflage 1952.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1947): ‘Der Geist der Psychologie’. In: Eranos-Jahrbuch 1946.
Ed. by O. Fröbe-Kapteyn. Rhein-Verlag, Zürich, pp. 385–490.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1949): Letter to Pauli of June 22, 1949. In: Wolfgang Pauli
und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992,
p. 40.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1951): Letter to Pauli of January 13, 1951. In: Wolfgang Pauli
und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992,
p. 70–72.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1952): ‘Synchronizität als ein Prinzip akausaler Zusammenhän-
ge’. In: Naturerklärung und Psyche, ed. by C.G. Jung und W. Pauli. Rascher,
Zürich 1952, pp. 1–107.

16
Jung, Carl Gustav (1953): Letter to Pauli of May 4, 1953. In: Wolfgang Pauli
und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992,
p. 114.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1963): Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Collins, p. 104.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1968): Collected Works 12: Psychology and Alchemy. Second
edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1969a): ‘On the Nature of the Psyche’. Reprinted in: Collected
Works 8. Second edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Ziff. 418,
p. 215.

Jung, Carl Gustav (1969b): Collected Works 11: Psychology and Religion: West
and East. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Ziff. 246, p. 167 (first edition
1958).

Jung, Carl Gustav (1977): Collected Works 18: The Symbolic Life. Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London, Ziff. 673, p. 285, footnote 9.

Laurikainen, Kalervo V. (1984): ‘Wolfgang Pauli and Philosophy’. Gesnerus 41,

213–241.

Laurikainen, Kalervo V. (1988): Beyond the Atom. Springer, Berlin.

McGuire, William, and Sauerländer, Wolfgang (eds.) (1974): Sigmund Freud –

C.G. Jung. Briefwechsel. Fischer, Frankfurt.

Meier, Carl A. (ed.) (1992): Wolfgang Pauli und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel.
Springer, Berlin.

Meyenn, Karl von (ed.) (1985): Wolfgang Pauli. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel,

Band II: 1930–1939. Springer, Berlin.

Meyenn, Karl von (ed.) (1993): Wolfgang Pauli. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel,

Band III: 1940–1949. Springer, Berlin.

Meyenn, Karl von (ed.) (1996): Wolfgang Pauli. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel,

Band IV/1: 1950–1952. Springer, Berlin.

Meyenn, Karl von (ed.) (1999): Wolfgang Pauli. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel,

Band IV/2: 1953–1954. Springer, Berlin.

Meyenn, Karl von (ed.) (2001): Wolfgang Pauli. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel,

Band IV/3: 1955–1956. Springer, Berlin.

Meyenn, Karl von (ed.) (2005): Wolfgang Pauli. Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel,

Band IV/4: 1957–1958. Springer, Berlin.

17
Pais, Abraham (1982): ‘Subtle is the Lord...’. The Science and the Life of Albert
Einstein. Clarendon, Oxford, p. 13.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1939): Letter to Jung of May 24, 1939. In: Wolfgang Pauli und
C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992, p. 31.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1947a): Letter to Jung of December 23, 1947. In: Wolfgang Pauli
und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992,
p. 36.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1947b): Letter to Fierz of December 29, 1947. In: Wolfgang Pauli.
Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel, Band III: 1940–1949. Ed. by K. v. Meyenn.
Springer, Berlin 1993, p. 488.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1948a): Letter to Fierz of January 7, 1948. In: Wolfgang Pauli.
Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel, Band III: 1940–1949. Ed. by K. v. Meyenn.
Springer, Berlin 1993, p. 496f.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1948b): ‘Moderne Beispiele zur Hintergrundsphysik’. Reprinted

in: Wolfgang Pauli und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier.
Springer, Berlin 1992, pp. 176–192.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1948c): Letter to Fierz of August 12, 1948. In: Wolfgang Pauli.
Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel, Band III: 1940–1949. Ed. by K. v. Meyenn.
Springer, Berlin 1993, p. 561.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1951): Letter to Fierz of October 3, 1951. In: K.V. Laurikainen,
Beyond the Atom. Springer, Berlin 1988, p. 129/221.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1952a): Letter to Jung of May 17, 1952. In: Wolfgang Pauli und
C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992, p. 84.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1952b): ‘Der Einfluss archetypischer Vorstellungen auf die Bil-
dung naturwissenschaftlicher Theorien bei Kepler’. In: Naturerklärung und
Psyche. Ed. by C.G. Jung und W. Pauli, Rascher, Zürich 1952, pp. 109–194.
English translation reprinted in: Writings on Physics and Philosophy, ed. by
C.P. Enz and K. von Meyenn. Springer, Berlin 1994, pp. 218–279.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1953a): Letter to Jung of May 27, 1953. In: Wolfgang Pauli
und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992,
p. 123.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1953b): Letter to Fierz of January 19, 1953. In: K.V. Lau-
rikainen, Beyond the Atom. Springer, Berlin 1988, p. 89/206.

18
 Pauli, Wolfgang (1953c): ‘Die Klavierstunde. Eine aktive Phantasie über das
Unbewusste’. In: Der Pauli-Jung-Dialog und seine Bedeutung für die mod-
erne Wissenschaft, ed. by H. Atmanspacher, H. Primas and E. Wertenschlag-
Birkhäuser). Springer, Berlin 1995, pp. 317–330.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1953d): Letter to Jung of March 31, 1953. In: Wolfgang Pauli
und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992,
p. 107.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1953e): Letter to Jung of February 27, 1953. In: Wolfgang Pauli
und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992,
p. 88.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1954a): ‘Naturwissenschaftliche und erkenntnistheoretische As-

pekte der Ideen vom Unbewussten’. Dialectica 8, 283–301.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1954b): Letter to Fierz of August 10, 1954. In: K.V. Laurikainen,
Beyond the Atom. Springer, Berlin 1988, p. 144f/225f.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1954c): Letter to Weisskopf of February 8, 1954. In: W. Pauli,

Physik und Erkenntnistheorie, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1984, p. XXIII.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1956a): Letter to Jung of October 23, 1956. In: Wolfgang Pauli
und C.G. Jung. Ein Briefwechsel. Ed. by C.A. Meier. Springer, Berlin 1992,
p. 150.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1956b): ‘Die Wissenschaft und das abendländische Denken’. In:
Europa – Erbe und Aufgabe, ed. by M. Göhring, Franz Steiner Verlag, Wies-
baden, pp. 71–79.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1958): Letter to Gamov of March 1, 1958. Reproduced in:

G. Gamov, Thirty Years That Shook Physics. Dover, New York, 1985, p. 163.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1984): Physik und Erkenntnistheorie. Vieweg, Braunschweig,

p. XVIII.

Pauli, Wolfgang (1994): Writings on Physics and Philosophy. Ed. by C.P. Enz and
K. von Meyenn. Springer, Berlin.

Weizsäcker, Carl Friedrich von (1959): ‘Erinnerungen an Wolfgang Pauli’. Zeit-

schr. f. Naturforsch. 14a, 439–440 (1959).

Weyl, Hermann (1919): Letter to Pauli of May 10, 1919. In: Wolfgang Pauli.
Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel, Band I. Ed. by A. Hermann, K. von Meyenn
and V.F. Weisskopf, Springer, Berlin 1979, p. 3.

19

View publication stats