When Can I Draw Social Security If I Was Born In 1958

The swell extension of our experience in recent years has brought calorie-free to the insufficiency of our simple mechanical conceptions and, as a issue, has shaken the foundation on which the customary estimation of ascertainment was based.

Niels Henrik David Bohr (seven October 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 employ correctly.

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides united states is whether it is crazy enough to have a take chances of beingness correct.

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

Information technology is wrong to think that the task of physics is to detect out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...

It is a swell pity that human beings cannot notice all of their satisfaction in scientific contemplativeness.

Some subjects are then serious that i can merely joke most them.

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

We must exist clear that when it comes to atoms, linguistic communication tin exist used only as in poetry. The poet, likewise, is not nearly then concerned with describing facts every bit with creating images and establishing mental connections.
- In his first meeting with Werner Heisenberg in early summertime 1920, in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Linguistic communication (1933); quoted in Defense Implications of International Indeterminacy (1972) by Robert J. Pranger, p. xi, and Theorizing Modernism : Essays in Critical Theory (1993) by Steve Giles, p. 28

The grand discoveries which scientific experiment yielded at and about 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 first instance, as all are aware, to the work of the great investigators of the English school, Sir Joseph Thomson and Sir Ernest Rutherford, who have inscribed their names on the tablets of the history of scientific inquiry as distinguished witnesses to the truth that imagination and acumen are capable of penetrating the crowded mass of registered feel and of revealing Nature's simplicity to our gaze.
- Niels Bohr's speech at the Nobel Banquet in Stockholm (December 10, 1922)

The bang-up extension of our experience in contempo years has brought light to the insufficiency of our uncomplicated mechanical conceptions and, equally a outcome, has shaken the foundation on which the customary interpretation of observation was based.
- Niels Bohr, "Atomic Physics and the Clarification of Nature" (1934)

Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties existence definable and observable simply through their interaction with other systems.
- "Atomic Physics and the Clarification of Nature" (1934)

What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the telescopic of our clarification, but in such a way that our messages do non thereby lose their objective or unambiguous graphic symbol ... We are suspended in language in such a way that nosotros cannot say what is upward and what is down. The word "reality" is likewise a discussion, a discussion which we must learn 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 turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological issues with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the groovy drama of existence.
- Speech on quantum theory at Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani, Bologna, Italian republic (October 1937)

Contraria Sunt Complementa
- Opposites are complementary.
  - Motto he chose for his coat of arms, when granted the Danish Social club of the Elephant in 1947.

However far the phenomena transcend the scope of classical physical caption, the account of all evidence must be expressed in classical terms. The argument is that simply by the give-and-take "experiment" we refer to a situation where we tin tell others what we have washed and what we accept learned and that, therefore, the account of the experimental organization and of the results of the observations must be expressed in unambiguous language with suitable application 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 constitute out past his ain painful feel all the mistakes that one can make in a very narrow field.
- As quoted by Edward Teller, in Dr. Edward Teller's Magnificent Obsession by Robert Coughlan, in LIFE mag (6 September 1954), p. 62
- Variant: An expert is a human being who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
  - Equally quoted by Edward Teller (x 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 have a chance of being correct.
- Said to Wolfgang Pauli after his presentation of Heisenberg'south and Pauli's nonlinear field theory of elementary particles, at Columbia University (1958), equally reported by F. J. Dyson in his newspaper "Innovation in Physics" (Scientific American, 199, No. 3, September 1958, pp. 74-82; reprinted in "JingShin Theoretical Physics Symposium in Honor of Professor Ta-You Wu," edited by Jong-Ping Hsu & Leonardo Hsu, Singapore; River Edge, NJ: World Scientific, 1998, pp. 73-90, hither: p. 84).
- Your theory is crazy, only information technology'south not crazy enough to be true.
  - Every bit 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 us is whether information technology is crazy plenty.
  - We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question is whether it is crazy plenty to exist have a take a chance of being correct.
  - We in the back are convinced your theory is crazy. Merely what divides united states of america is whether it is crazy enough.
  - Your theory is crazy, the question is whether information technology's crazy enough to be true.
  - Aye, I think that your theory is crazy. Sadly, it'south 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 development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience. In this respect our task must be to account for such feel in a manner independent of individual subjective judgement and therefore objective in the sense that it can exist unambiguously communicated in ordinary human being language.
- "The Unity of Human Knowledge" (Oct 1960)

Every valuable human being must exist a radical and a insubordinate, for what he must aim at is to make things better than they are.
- As quoted in The Earth of the Atom (1966) past Henry Abraham Boorse and Lloyd Motz, p. 741

How wonderful that we accept met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.
- As quoted in Niels Bohr : The Human being, His Scientific discipline, & the World They Changed (1966) by Ruth Moore, p. 196

2 sorts of truth: profound truths recognized by the fact that the contrary is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously cool.
- Every bit quoted by his son Hans Bohr in "My Father", published in Niels Bohr: His Life and Work (1967), p. 328
- Unsourced variant: The reverse of a correct statement is a false statement. But the reverse of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
- Every bit quoted in Max Delbrück, Heed from Matter: An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology, (1986) p. 167. It is the hallmark of whatsoever deep truth that its negation is also a deep truth

Every judgement I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.
- Every bit quoted in A Lexicon of Scientific Quotations (1991) by Alan L. Mackay, p. 35

It is a cracking pity that human beings cannot detect all of their satisfaction in scientific contemplativeness.
- As quoted in Chandra: A Biography of South. Chandrasekhar‎ (1991) by Kameshwar C. Wali, p. 147

Anyone who is not shocked by breakthrough theory has not understood it.
- As 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 up beyond breakthrough mechanics cannot possibly take understood it.
  Those who are not shocked when they first run across quantum theory cannot peradventure accept understood information technology.
  Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single give-and-take.
  If you think y'all can talk about quantum theory without feeling dizzy, you haven't understood the first thing about it.

Some subjects are so serious that one tin can only joke about them.
- As quoted in The Genius of Science: A Portrait Gallery (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24
- Some things are and so serious that 1 tin can only joke about them.
  - Variant without whatever citation equally to author in Deprival is not a river in Egypt (1998) by Sandi Bachom, p. 85.

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

It is not enough to be wrong, one must also exist polite.
- As quoted in The Genius of Scientific discipline: A Portrait Gallery (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24

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

Oh, what idiots nosotros all have been. This is just every bit it must be.
- In response to Frisch & Meitner's 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 Eight Rival Religions That Run the Globe and Why Their Differences Thing (2010), by Stephen Prothero, Ch, 4 : Hinduism : The Fashion of Devotion, p. 144

No, no, you are not thinking, you are just being logical.
- In response to those who made purely formal or mathematical arguments, equally quoted in What Fiddling I Call back (1979) by Otto Robert Frisch, p. 95

I am admittedly prepared to talk about the spiritual life of an electronic figurer: to state that information technology is reflecting or is in a bad mood... The question whether the machine really feels or ponders, or whether it only looks as though it did, is of form absolutely meaningingless.
- As quoted in a letter written from J. Kalckar to John A. Wheeler dated June 10, 1977, which appears in Wheeler's "Law Without Constabulary," pg 207.

[edit]

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

Present, the private seems to exist able to choose the spiritual framework of his thoughts and actions quite freely, and this freedom reflects the fact that the boundaries between the various cultures and societies are starting time to get more fluid. But even when an individual tries to attain the greatest possible degree of independence, he will still be swayed by the existing spiritual structures — consciously or unconsciously.

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

I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to recollect that religion uses linguistic communication in quite a different way from scientific discipline. The language of faith is more than closely related to the language of poesy than to the language of science. Truthful, nosotros are inclined to think that scientific discipline deals with information most objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence nosotros conclude that if religion does indeed bargain with objective truths, information technology ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much also arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means but that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not hateful that information technology is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get u.s. very far.

I consider those developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as "objective" and "subjective" are, a peachy liberation of thought. The whole affair started with the theory of relativity. In the past, the statement that two events are simultaneous was considered an objective assertion, ane that could be communicated quite simply and that was open to verification by any observer. Today we know that 'simultaneity' contains a subjective element, inasmuch every bit two events that appear simultaneous to an observer at rest are not necessarily simultaneous to an observer in movement. However, the relativistic clarification is likewise objective inasmuch as every observer can deduce by calculation what the other observer volition perceive or has perceived. For all that, nosotros have come a long way from the classical ideal of objective descriptions.
In breakthrough mechanics the departure from this ideal has been even more radical. Nosotros can still utilize the objectifying language of classical physics to make statements about appreciable facts. For case, we tin say that a photographic plate has been blackened, or that cloud aerosol have formed. Merely we can say zippo nigh the atoms themselves. And what predictions we base on such findings depend on the way nosotros pose our experimental question, and here the observer has freedom of option. Naturally, information technology still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but information technology is no longer possible to brand predictions without reference to the observer or the means of ascertainment. To that extent, every physical procedure may be said to have objective and subjective features. The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, equally we know today, an ideal, limiting case, simply not the whole reality. Admittedly, even in our hereafter encounters with reality we shall accept to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division between the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the style things are looked at; to a sure extent it can exist chosen at will. Hence I can quite empathise why nosotros cannot speak most the content of religion in an objectifying language. The fact that different religions try to express this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Maybe nosotros ought to look upon these different forms every bit complementary descriptions which, though they exclude 1 another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man's relationship with the central order.

In mathematics we can have our inner distance from the content of our statements. In the final analysis mathematics is a mental game that we tin can play or not play equally we cull. Faith, on the other hand, deals with ourselves, with our life and death; its promises are meant to govern our actions and thus, at to the lowest degree indirectly, our very existence. Nosotros cannot but look at them impassively from the outside. Moreover, our mental attitude to religious questions cannot be separated from our attitude to gild. Even if religion arose as the spiritual structure of a detail man society, it is arguable whether information technology has remained the strongest social molding strength through history, or whether social club, once formed, develops new spiritual structures and adapts them to its item level of knowledge. Present, the individual seems to be able to choose the spiritual framework of his thoughts and actions quite freely, and this freedom reflects the fact that the boundaries between the various cultures and societies are beginning to get more fluid. But fifty-fifty when an individual tries to reach the greatest possible degree of independence, he will yet be swayed past the existing spiritual structures — consciously or unconsciously. For he, too, must be able to speak of life and decease and the human status to other members of the guild in which he'southward chosen to alive; he must brainwash his children co-ordinate to the norms of that lodge, fit into its life. Epistemological sophistries cannot perchance help him reach these ends. Here, too, the relationship between disquisitional thought about the spiritual content of a given faith and action based on the deliberate acceptance of that content is complementary. And such acceptance, if consciously arrived at, fills the individual with force 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 being sheltered under an all-embracing roof can grant. In that sense, religion helps to make social life more harmonious; its most important task is to remind us, in the language of pictures and parables, of the wider framework within which our life is fix.

Disputed [edit]

Finish telling God what to practice with his dice.

Anyone who is non shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
- Heisenberg recounts a personal chat he had with Pauli and Bohr in 1952 in which Bohr says, "Those who are not shocked when they offset come beyond quantum theory cannot perchance have understood it." Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Beyond. (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) p. 206.
- Bohr said this sentence in a chat with Werner Heisenberg, as quoted in: "Der Teil und das Ganze. Gespräche im Umkreis der Atomphysik" . R. Piper & Co., München, 1969, Due south. 280. DIE ZEIT 22. Aug. 1969 [1].
- As quoted in Meeting the Universe Halfway (2007) by Karen Michelle Barad, p. 254, with the quote attributed to The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, but with no page number or volume number given.
- David Mermin, on pages 186–187 of his volume Boojums All the Way Through: Communicating Science in a Prosaic Historic period (1990) noted that he specifically looked for pithy quotes about quantum mechanics forth these lines when reviewing the three volumes of The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, but couldn't find any:
  
  Once I tried to teach some quantum mechanics to a class of police students, philosophers, and fine art historians. As an advertisement for the course I put together the well-nigh sensational quotations I could collect from the about authoritative practitioners of the subject. Heisenberg was a goldmine: "The concept of the objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated..."; "the thought of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the aforementioned sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we find them ... is impossible ..." Feynman did his office too: "I call back I tin can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Simply I failed to turn up anything 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 as regards the account of fundamental properties of matter presupposed in classical physical description but outside its scope."
  
  I was therefore on the lookout for nuggets when I sat down to review these three volumes – a reissue of Bohr's collected essays on the revolutionary epistemological character of the quantum theory and on the implications of that revolution for other scientific and not-scientific areas of endeavor (the originals first appeared in 1934, 1958, and 1963.) Merely the most radical statement I could detect in all three books was this: "...physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, just rather every bit the development of methods for ordering and surveying homo experience." No nuggets for the nonscientist.
- Variants: Those who are non shocked when they starting time come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly accept understood it.
  Those who are not shocked when they offset come across quantum theory cannot maybe accept understood it.
  Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word.
  If yous think you can talk about quantum theory without feeling lightheaded, you haven't understood the first thing about it.

Prediction is very hard, especially nearly the future.
- As quoted in Education and Learning Elementary Social Studies (1970) by Arthur Grand. Ellis, p. 431
- The in 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 likewise attributed to Danish cartoonist Storm P (Robert Storm Petersen).
- Variant: Information technology'due south hard to make predictions, specially nearly the time to come.

Terminate telling God what to do with his die.
- A response to Einstein'southward assertion that "God doesn't play dice"; a similar statement is attributed to Enrico Fermi
- Variant: Einstein, don't tell God what to practise.
- Variant: Don't tell God what to practise with his dice.
- Variant: You ought non to speak for what Providence tin can or can not do. – As described in The Physicists: A generation that inverse the world (1981) past C. P. Snowfall, p. 84

Of class non ... but I am told it works even if yous don't believe in it.
- Respond to a visitor to his home in Tisvilde who asked him if he really believed a horseshoe above his door brought him luck, as quoted in Inward Leap : Of Matter and Forces in the Physical World (1986) by Abraham Pais, p. 210
- In virtually published accounts of this anecdote such was Bohr's reply to his friend, but in 1 early account, in The Interaction Between Scientific discipline and Philosophy (1974) past Samuel Sambursky, p. 357, Bohr was at a friend'due south house and asked "Do you really believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, I don't believe in information technology. Merely I am told information technology works even if you don't believe in it."
- Variant: No, but I'thou told information technology works even if you lot don't believe in it.

Quotes about Bohr [edit]

Alphabetized past writer

Bohr seemed to think that he had solved this question. I could not find his solution in his writings. Simply in that location was no doubt that he was convinced that he had solved the problem and, in so doing, had not only contributed to atomic physics, merely to epistemology, to philosophy, to humanity in full general. And there are astonishing passages in his writings in which he is sort of patronizing to the ancient Far Eastern philosophers, almost saying that he had solved the problems that had defeated them. It's an boggling matter for me—the character of Bohr—absolutely puzzling. I like to speak of two Bohrs: one is a very pragmatic fellow who insists that the apparatus is classical, and the other is a very arrogant, pontificating human who makes enormous claims for what he has done.
- John S. Bell, quoted in Jeremy Bernstein, Breakthrough Profiles (1991), John Stewart Bell: Quantum Engineer

One of the favorite maxims of my father was the distinction between the two sorts of truths, profound truths recognized past the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in dissimilarity to trivialities where opposites are obviously cool.
- Hans Henrik Bohr, writing almost his father in "My father" in Niels Bohr - His Life and Piece of work As Seen By His Friends and Colleagues (1967), S. Rozental, ed.

If quantum 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 Hazard (1949) ch. 10, p. 127

Not ofttimes in life has a human existence acquired me such joy by his mere presence as you did.
- Albert Einstein in a letter to Bohr (1920)

It is practically impossible to depict Niels Bohr to a person who has never worked with him. Probably his well-nigh characteristic property was the slowness of his thinking and comprehension. When, in the belatedly twenties and early thirties, the author of this book was 1 of the "Bohr boys" working in his Constitute in Copenhagen on a Carlsberg (the all-time beer in the globe!) fellowship, he had many a hazard to observe it. In the evening, when a scattering of Bohr'south students were "working" in the Paa Blegdamsvejen Establish, discussing the latest issues of the quantum theory, or playing Ping-pong on the library tabular array with java cups placed on it to make the game more hard, Bohr would appear, complaining that he was very tired, and would like to "do something." To "do something" inevitably meant to become to the movies, and the only movies Bohr liked were those called The Gun Fight at the Lazy Gee Ranch or The Lone Ranger and a Sioux Girl. But information technology was hard to go with Bohr to the movies. He could not follow the plot, and was constantly asking us, to the bang-up badgerer of the residual of the audience, questions like this: "Is that the sister of that cowboy who shot the Indian who tried to steal a herd of cattle belonging to her brother-in-police force?" The aforementioned slowness of reaction was apparent at scientific meetings. Many a time, a visiting young physicist (almost physicists visiting Copenhagen were young) would deliver a bright talk about his contempo calculations on some intricate problem of the quantum theory. Everybody in the audience would understand the argument quite clearly, but Bohr wouldn't. So everybody would commencement to explain to Bohr the simple point he had missed, and in the resulting turmoil everybody would terminate understanding anything. Finally, after a considerable period of time, Bohr would begin to understand, and it would turn out that what he understood most the problem presented by the visitor was quite different from what the visitor meant, and was correct, while the company's interpretation was wrong.
- George Gamow on Niels Bohr in "The Great Physicists from Galileo to Einstein" (1961) pg. 237

I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended well-nigh in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighbouring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Tin can nature possibly be then absurd as information technology seemed to usa in these atomic experiments?
- Werner Heisenberg in Physics and Philosophy (1958)

The first matter Bohr said to me was that it would only then be profitable to work with him if I understood that he was a dilettante. The only style I knew to react to this unexpected statement was with a polite smiling of atheism. But evidently Bohr was serious. He explained how he had to approach every new question from a starting point of total ignorance. It is maybe better to say that Bohr'southward strength lay in his formidable intuition and insight rather than erudition.
- Abraham Pais, in testimony in Niels Bohr : His Life and Piece of work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues (1967) edited by Stefan Rozental, p. 218; afterwards in his own piece of work, Niels Bohr'due south Times : In Physics, Philosophy, and Polity (1991)

When asked whether the algorism of breakthrough mechanics could be considered every bit somehow mirroring an underlying quantum world, Bohr would answer, "In that location is no breakthrough world. In that location is but an abstract breakthrough physical description. Information technology is wrong to remember that the chore of physics is to detect out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." Bohr felt that every step in the development of physics has strengthened the view that the trouble of establishing an unambiguous description of nature has only one solution. He regarded all attempts to supercede our elementary concepts or to introduce a new logic to account for the peculiarities of breakthrough phenomena as not merely unnecessary but besides incompatible with our most cardinal conditions, since we are suspended in a unique language.
- Aage Petersen, "The philosophy of Niels Bohr" by in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. nineteen, No. 7 (September 1963); The Genius of Scientific discipline: A Portrait Gallery (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24, and Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object (2001) by Paul. McEvoy, p. 291
- Quotes about quote:
  - To my not bad pleasance, Victor Weisskopf was sitting in his usual identify in the forepart row, smiling approvingly up at me. (Information technology's surprising how much such encouragement from such a source can improve the quality of a talk.) His smiles continued right upwardly to the moment when I read the Petersen quotation. No sooner had I finished reading information technology than Viki was on his feet. "That's outrageous," he proclaimed. "Bohr couldn't possibly have said anything similar that!" Somewhat taken aback by this sudden flip from beatitude 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's mouth!"
    - North. David Mermin, "What's Incorrect With This Quantum World?" Physics Today Vol. 52, No. 2 (February 2004), p. 10.

[Bohr was] a marvelous physicist, ane of the greatest of all fourth dimension, but he was a miserable philosopher, and one couldn't talk to him. He was talking all the time, allowing practically simply one or two words to you lot and so at in one case cut in.
- Karl Popper, quoted in John Horgan, The End of Science (1996), Ch. 2 : The End of Philosophy

"Y'all can talk about people similar Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius, simply the thing that convinced me that such people existed were the conversations with Bohr," Dr. Wheeler said.
- John A. Wheeler every bit quoted by Dennis Overbye in "John A. Wheeler, Physicist Who Coined the Term 'Black Hole,' Is Expressionless at 96". NY Times. (14 Apr 2008)

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