Bohr writes that at the institute's birthday they all missed Pauli. Bohr's thoughts went out to the old collaborators, including Pauli, who supported him patiently in his endeavours. He thanks Pauli for the invitation to come to Zürich and to give a lecture. He heard through Gamow that Pauli was in Berlin, so he hopes that he will come to Copenhagen and have the opportunity to speak a little about physics. Bohr also writes that he thinks that he has reached a valid view diverging from Peierls' and Landau's scepticism. After Klein's departure, Bohr has found in Rosenfeld an excellent and sympathetic collaborator. He hopes in a few days to finish a small article that should please Pauli.

Bohr explains that he has not yet answered Pauli's letters and cards because of a lack of interest in Pauli's questions concerning his calculations of scattering of high frequent radiation from bound electrons. During the last week he has thought much about it and discussed it with Bloch. He also has some remarks about it and he would like to know Pauli's opinion.

Bohr apologizes for not answering Pauli's letters from last summer. He is glad to hear that Pauli is rather satisfied with life in general and with his own work. Bohr writes that Pauli should not look uncritically at the endeavours of his friends. He also felt that Pauli had read Bohr's Faraday lecture and Rom-discussion in the same way as "the devil reads the Bible".

Bohr sends only a few words to say that he has found that a sentence in his Brussels remarks is not correct. It is the sentence that begins with: "Comme on sait, la forme des lignes...". However, this is not important for the point of view that he tries to defend. Now, he thinks that he understands the relation between the theory of dispersion and the problem of line-width.

Møller is writing a book on relativity. He is uncertain how to rearch Heisenberg.

Bohr has thought about the Einstein article and looked up some of the old literature. He writes about a new book on Einstein's life by Philipp Frank, which may not be too good, either in terms of physics or philosphy, but certainly gives a most interesting picture of Einstein's personality and the unbalanced situation in Germany between the wars. Bohr is very interested to learn about the plans for a special issue of "Dialectica" on the epistomological problems and it would certainly be a pleasure to him to contribute with an article. To his mind, the situation is far more clear than generally assumed. He should, however, be glad to wait with a definite answer until he has advanced further with the article on which he is working and which perhaps, if it is not ready in time for the Einstein volume, could be used to some other purpose.

Bohr hopes that Pauli received his letter of May 16th and hopes that he is not too unsatisfied with the cursory character of Bohr's remarks. When writing Bohr was unable to find Pauli's letter on his discussions with Stern. Now this letter reappeared and Bohr wishes to add that he was aware of the various points that Pauli mentioned. Therefore Bohr feels it dubious to look for more explicit connections between thermodynamics and the special observational problems in quantum mechanics. He is prepared to hear that Pauli has something far more positive in mind and he is eagerly awaiting Pauli's reactions.

Bohr's reply to Pauli's letter of the 15th November 1948 relates to an article in "Dialectica". He also writes about a discussion he had with Van Hove and about letters by Born and his own scripts concerning the mass problem.

Møller and Kristensen send notes from a colloquium on nonlocal theories. They relay as invitation from Bohr to visit Copenhagen for the CERN Study Group.

Møller and Kristensen reply to Pauli's letter and manuscript. They writes about details of the mathematical development of their theory, with special reference to the work of Claude Bloch.