| Referências: |
Anderson P. W., “More Is Different. Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science”, Science, 1972, Vol. 177, N°4047, pp. 393-396.
Beller M., “Jocular Commemorations: The Copenhagen Spirit”, Osiris, 1999, Vol. 14, pp. 252-273.
Besson V., L’interprétation causale de la mécanique quantique : biographie d’un programme de recherche minoritaire (1951-1964), Tese de dotourado Histoire, philosophie et épistémologie des sciences, des techniques et des technologies, Lyon: Université Claude Bernard – Lyon 1, 2018.
Blum A., Lalli R. et Renn J., “The Reinvention of General Relativity: A Historiographical Framework for Assessing One Hundred Years of Curved Space-time”, Isis, 2015, Vol. 106, pp. 598-620.
Bohr N., “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory”, em Atti del Congresso Internazionale dei Fisici, Como, 11-20 Settembre 1927, 1928, Vol. 2, pp. 565-588.
Bohr N., “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be considered Complete?”, Physical Review, 1935, Vol. 48, pp. 696-702.
Bohr N. For an open world. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1950, Vol. 6, n°7, pp. 213-219.
Camilleri K., “Constructing the Myth of the Copenhagen Interpretation”, Perspectives on Science, 2009, Vol. 17, N°1, pp. 26-57.
Carson C., Kojevnikov A. e Trischler H. (eds.), Weimar Culture and Quantum Mechanics. Selected Papers by Paul Forman and Contemporary Perspectives on the Forman Thesis, Singapour: Imperial College Press e World Scientific, 2011, 560 p.
Chevalley C., “Mythe et philosophie : la construction de Niels Bohr dans la doxographie” , Physis, Rivista Internazionale di Storia della Scienza, 1997, Vol. 34, N°3, pp. 569-603.
Cross A., “The Crisis in Physics: Dialectical Materialism and Quantum Theory”, Social Studies of Science, 1991, Vol. 21, N°4, pp. 735-759.
Einstein A., Podolsky B. et Rosen N., “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be considered Complete?”, Physical Review, 1935, Vol. 47, pp. 777-780.
Forman P., “Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment”, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 3, pp. 1-115.
Forman P., “Kausalität, Anschaulichkeit, and Individualität, or How Cultural Values Prescribed the Character and the Lessons Ascribed to Quantum Mechanics”, em Stehr N. et Meja V. (eds.), Society and Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives in the Sociology of Knowledge, New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1984, pp. 333-347.
Forman P., “The reception of an Acausal Quantum Mechanics in Germany and Britain”, em Mauskopf S. (ed), The reception of Unconventional Science, Boulder: Westview Press, 1979, pp. 221-260.
Freire Junior O., “Quantum controversy and Marxism”, Historia Scientarum, 1997, N°7, pp. 137-152.
Freire Junior O., “The Historical Roots of “Foundations of Quantum Physics” as a Field of Research (1950-1970)”, Foundations of Physics, 2004, Vol. 34, N°11, pp. 1741-1760.
Freire Junior O., “On the connections between the dialectical materialism and the controversy on the quanta”, Jahrbuch für Europäische Wissenschaftskultur / Yearbook for European Culture of Science, 2011, Vol. 6, pp. 195-210.
Freire Junior O., The Quantum Dissidents. Rebuilding the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1950-1990), Heidelberg : Springer, 2015, 356 p.
Freire Junior O., “Das margens para o centro: Mudanças na pesquisa em fundamentos da mecânica quântica, 1950-1990”, Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, V. 32, p. 369-377, 2015.
Freire Jr. O., Silva I. L., “Diplomacia e ciência no contexto da Segunda Guerra Mundial: a viagem de Arthur Compton ao Brasil em 1941”, Revista Brasileira de História, 2014, Vol. 34, p. 181-201.
Gavroglu K. et Simões A., “Preparing the Ground for Quantum Chemistry in Great Britain: The Work of the Physicist R. H. Fowler and the Chemist N. V. Sidgwick”, The British Journal for the History of Science, 2002, Vol. 35, N°2, pp. 187-212.
Giambiagi J. J., “La fisica en America Latina”, Perspectivas, pp. 74-80.
Graham L. R., “The Reception of Einstein's Ideas: Two Examples from Contrasting Political Cultures”, em Holton G. et Elkana Y. (eds), Albert Einstein, Historical and Cultural Perspectives. The Centennial Symposium in Jerusalem, 14-23 March 1979, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982, pp. 107-136.
Graham L. R., Science, Philosophy, and Human Behaviour in the Soviet Union, 1987, New York : Columbia University Press, 565 p.
Graham L. R., “The Soviet Reaction to Bohr’s Quantum Mechanics”, em Feshbach H., Matsui T. et Oleson A. (eds.), Niels Bohr: Physics and the World, 2014 [1988], pp. 305-317.
Hollings C. D., Scientific Communication Across the Iron Curtain, Dordrecht: Springer Publ., 2016, 123 p.
Ito K., Making Sense of Ryöshiron (Quantum Theory): Introduction of Quantum Mechanics into Japan, 1920-1940, tese de Dotourado em Pholosophy in the subject of History of Science, Harvard University, 2002, 477 p.
Ito K., “ ‘Electron Theory’ and the Emergence of Atomic Physics in Japan”, Science in Context, Vol. 31, n°3, pp. 283-320.
Joravsky D., Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, 1917-1932, New-York : Columbia University Press, 1961. 433 p.
Kaiser D., How the Hippies Saved Physics. Science, Counterculture and the Quantum Revival, W. W. Norton & Company, 2012, 416 p.
Kaiser D., Ito K., Hall K., “Spreading the Tools of Theory: Feynman Diagrams in the USA, Japan, and the Soviet Union”, Social Studies of Sciences, 2004, Vol. 34, n°6, p. 879-922.
Kojevnikov A. B., “Filantropiya Rokfellera i sovetskaya nauka » [Philantropie Rockefeller et science soviétique], Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki, N°2, 1993, pp. 80-111.
Kojevnikov A. B., “Einstein and Soviet Dogma; An elusive Relationship”, Physics Today, 2002, Vol. 55, N°9, pp. 59-60.
Kojevnikov A., “Probability, Marxism, and Quantum Ensembles”, Yearbook for the European Culture of Science, 2012, N°7, pp. 211-235.
Kragh H., Quantum generations. A history of physics in the twentieth century, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999, 494 p.
Lalli R., Building the General Relativity and Gravitation Community During the Cold War, Dordrecht : Springer, 2017, 168 p.
Muir-Harmony T. Project Apollo, Cold War diplomacy and the American framing of global interdependence. Tese em History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology and Society (HASTS). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Program in Science, Technology and Society, 2014, 265 p.
Pestre D., Physique et physiciens en France 1918-1940, Seconde édition, Paris: Éditions des archives contemporaines, 1992, p.108-109.
Pestre D., “Por uma nova historia social e cultural das ciências: novas definições, novos objetos, novas abordagens”, Cadernos IG/Unicamp, 1996, Vol. 6, n°1, pp. 3-56.
Pickering A., “Pragmatism in Particle Physics: Scientific and Military Interests in the Post-war United States”, em James F.A.J.L. (eds) The Development of the Laboratory. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1989, pp. 174-183.
Schweber S. S., “The Empiricist Temper Regnant: Theoretical Physics in the United States 1920-1950”, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 1986, Vol. 17, N°1, pp. 55–98.
Schweber S. S., “Physics, community and the crisis in physical theory”, Physics Today, 1993, Vol. 46, N°11, pp. 34-40.
Siegmund-Schultze R., “The Institute Henri Poincaré and mathematics in France between the wars”, Revue d’histoire des sciences, 2009, Vol. 62, n°1, pp. 247-283.
Simões A. et Gavroglu, K., “Quantum Chemistry in Great Britain: Developing a Mathematical Framework for Quantum Chemistry”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Vol. 31, N°4, 2000, pp. 511–548.
Staley R., “Trajectories in the History and Historiography of Physics in the Twentieth Century”, History of Science, 2013, Vol. 51, n°2, pp. 151–177. |
