i. o Werner Heisenberg 2 iG Physics has recently opened up vast now fields of knowledge making it necessary for us to modify some of ‘our most basic philosophical and scientinc concepts— the pillars of cultures and civilizations. This, says F. S.C. Northrop in his introduction to the present volume, is “the major event of today's and tomorrow's world Werner Heisenberg was born in Wurzburg, Germany, in 1901. He was educated af the universitos of Municti and Gottingen and in, 1932 was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work in theoretical atomic physics. He 1s, how Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physics ‘and. Astrophysics in Munich. Author of many books, his memories of a life in science have recently appeared under the title Physies and Beyond Encounters and Conversations (World Perspectives No. 23) PGUSeIoRMOUIO MN (So (UG niaa EN eiCoctre nn ee Here we are moving away the great peaks of intelectual endeavour, where the boundaries. of the subject are transcended and all knowiodge is seen to bo one: itis Smastor hand that is loading us | ‘Books of the Month ig leetures, Hetsanterg 1s making him think. Anyono who willing to 80 s0\ wil find the Boole most ro- warding Institute of Physics and the Physical Society tho read stale han he sien of stimulate } the revolution in modern science ) ‘WORLD PERSPECTIVES NO.15 unwin university books iy »ox] enwin university booksane nd eed Rath Ns Aen Kept Cy Rebun Cone Jeph Newt Rhea aan "et Raber, Alar Sache CN Yop Arte Co, Jeg Mean ret of fh Seep aden poh ad Rai Mee lade Te Manin of oe Tit Cony Kvn E,Rsking WORLD PERSPECTIVES WERNER HEISENBERG Physics and Philosophy THE REVOLUTION IN MODERN SCIENCE skin House GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD‘Reb rt hi nmin, Aig wr gl pl wa ge pat fad 25° ele il senate a a cd wave nies S301 HEN S ‘em «ou WORLD PERSPECTIVES wort runseecrivis isa plan to preset short books in a variety of fields by the most responsible of contemporary thinkers. The purpose isto reveal basic new trends in modern civilization, to Interpret the creative forces at work inthe East aswell a inthe ‘West and to point to the new consciousness which can contr- bute toa deeper understanding ofthe intertlation of man and the universe, the individual and society, and of the values shared by all people. wont reasrecrives represents the workd com- ‘munity of ideas in a universe of discourse, emphasising the prin- ple of unity in mankind, of permanence within change. Recent developments in many fields of thought have opened ‘unsuspected prospects fora deeper understanding of man'sstua ton and for 8 proper appreciation of human values and hurnan aspirations. These prospects, though the outcome of purely specialized studies in limited feds require for their analysis and synthesis a new structure and frame in which they can be ex plore, enriched and advanced in all their aspects for the benefit ff man and society. Sucha structure and frame itsthe endeavour of wont ensrervs to define lading hopfully t 2 dctine ‘A Turther purpose of this Series i to attempt to overcome 2 principal ailment of humanity. namely the effects ofthe atomi- Zatlon of knowledge produced by the overwhelming acretion of facts which science has created; to clarify and synthesise ideas through the depth ferilization of minds: to show from diverse and important points of view the correlation of ideas, facts and Yalues which are in perpetual interplay; to demonstrate the ‘character, kinship, loge and operation of the entire organism of reality while showing the persistent interrelationshp of the processes ofthe human mind andin the interstices of knowledge, to reveal the inner synthesis and organic unity of life itself. tis the thesis of wortb rensrecrves that in spite of the6 ‘WonLo peaspecrives ference and diversity of the disciplines represented, there exists strong common agreement among its authors concerning the overwhelming need for counterbalancing the multitude of compelling scientific activities and investigations of objective phenomena from physics to metaphysis, history and biology Band to relate these to meaningful experience. To provide this balance itis necessary to stimulate an awareness of the basic fact that ulimately the individual human personality must ie all the loose ends together into an organic whole, must relate himself to himeelf, to mankind and socety while deepening and enhancing his communion with the universe. To anchor this Spirit and to impres it on the intellectual and spiritual life of ‘humanity, on thinkers and doers alike. is indeed an enormous challenge and cannot be left entirely ether to natural scence fn the one hand of to organized religion on the other. For we fare confronted with the unbending necessity to discover a principle ofaiferentiation yet relatedness ucid enough to justiy And purify sientifi, philosophic and all other knowledge while accepting thelr mutual interdependence, This is the crisis in consciousness made articulate through the crisis in science. This Isthe new awakening. This Series is committed to the recognition that all great ‘hangesare preceded by a vigorous intellectual reevaluation and ‘eonganization. Our authors are aware that the sin of hubris may beavoided by showing that the creative procesitselfisnota fee activity if by free we mean arbitrary or unrelated to cosmic law. For the creative process in the human mind, the development process in organic nature and the basic laws of the inorganic realm may be but vatied expressions of a universal formative process. Thus WORLD Pensrecrives hopes to show that although the presen apocalytic period sone of exceptional tensions, there is also an exceptional movement at work towards 2 compen: sating unity which cannot violate the ultimate moral power Pervading the universe, that very power on which al human effort must at last depend. In this way, we may come to under Stand that there exists an independence of spiritual and mental growth which though conditioned by circumstances is never Aetermined by circumstances. In this way the great plethora of hhuman knowledge may be correlated with an insight into the Wont Pensrecrives 7 sstre of human nature by being attuned to the wide and deep fangs of human thought and human experience. For wht Teckngs ot the knowledge ofthe structure of the universe but 2 consouresroftheqalleaiveuniquenesof human ie Ad ly ete hi Sri hat ann he procs of developing a ew awareness which, inspite of Hs $ypren sprual and moral captivity, can eventually Ht the Iman race sbove and beyond the fear gnornce brutally and olan which best today isto this nascentconscocsnese, {ois concept of man bor ot of rth vision of ely, that wont ensecrves is etited ew YORK, 1956. [RUTHLNANDA ANSHENCONTENTS ‘An Old and a New Tradition The History of Quantum Theory ‘The, Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum "Theory Quantum Theory and the Roots of Atomic ‘Science “The Development of Philosophical Ideas Since ‘Descares In Comparison with the New Situation in Quantum Theory “The Relation of Quantum Theory to Other Pars of Navara Senco ‘The Theory of Relativity Ckcim and Counter proposals tothe Copen ‘agen Interpretation of Quantum Theory ‘Quantum Theory and the Structure of Matter Language and Reality in Modern Physics “The Role of Modern Physics. in che Present Development of Human Thinking R u 8 8 m4 19 45 161Introduction by F. S.C. Northrop ‘elgg nel ep ‘THERE isa general awareness that contemporary physics has brought about an important revision in man's conception of the ‘universe and his relation to it.The suggestion has been made that this revision pierce to the basis of man's fate and freedom. Afectng even his conception of his capacity to control his own ‘estny. Inno portion of physics does this suggestion show itself more pointedly than in the principe of indeterminacy of quan ‘tm mechanics. The author ofthis book i the discoverer ofthis principle. In fac, usualy bearshisname. Hence, nooneismore ‘Competent to passjudgmenton what it means than he. Tm his previous book, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory." Heisenberg give an exposition of the theoretical interpretation, experimental meaning and mathematical appar ratur of quantum mechanics for profesional physics. Here he pursues this and othe physical theories with respect to thelr pilosophical implications and some of thei ikely socal conse- ‘quences forthe layman, More specifically, he attempts here to Thise and suggest answers to three questions (1) What do the experimentally verified theories of contemporary physics afirm? (@) How do they permit or require man to think of himself in relation to his universe? (3) How is this new way of thinking, ‘which isthe creation f the modern West. going t affect other partsof the world? "The third ofthese questionsis dealt wit biel by Heisenberg at the beginning and end of this inquiry. The brevity of his remarks should not lead the reader to pass lightly over their im Port. As he notes, whether we like it oF not, modern ways are ‘oing to alter andin part destroy traditional customs and values. * Univers of Oca re, Cin.Ie is frequently assumed by native leaders of non-Western societies and also often by thelr Wester advisers that the prob- Jem of introducing modern scientific instruments and ways into ‘Asia, the Middle East and Africa is merely that of giving the native people their political independence and then providing them with the funds andthe practical instruments. This facile assumption overlooks several things. First, the instruments of moder scence derive from its theory and require a comprehen: sion of that theory for their correct manufacture or effective ‘se, Second this theory in tarn rests on philosophical 35 well as physical, assumptions. When comprehended, these philosophical Assumptions generate personal and social mentality and behaviour quite diferent from, and at point incompatible with, ‘the family, caste and tribally centred mentality and values of the native Asian, Middle Eastern or African people. In shor, one ‘cannot bring In the instruments of modem physics without sooner o later introducing its philosophical mentality, and this mentality, as it captures the sclentfally trained youth, up- ses the oid familial and tribal moral loyalties. If unnecessary ‘emotional conflict and social demoralzaton are not to result icisimportant thatthe youth understand what is happening to them. This means that they must see their experience asthe ‘coming together of two different philosophical mentalities, that ‘of thelr traditional culture and that ofthe new physis. Hence, the importance for everyone of understanding the philosophy of ‘he new physic, ‘But it may be asked, Isn't physics quite independent of philosophy? Hasn't modern physics become effective only by ‘ropping philosophy Clearly, Heienberg answers both of these ‘uestionsin th negative. Why isthisthe ease? "Newton left the impression that there were no assumptions in his physics which were not necessitated by the experimental data. This occured when he suggested that he made no hypoth- ses and that he had deduced his basic concepts and laws from the experimental findings. Were this conception of the relation between the physic sexperimental observations andhistheory correct, Newion’s theory would never have required modifica tion, nor could it ever have implied consequences which exper- ‘ment does not confirm. Being implied by the facts, it would be rermopucrion 5 asindubitableand fal asthey are in 1885, however. an experiment performed by Michelon and Morty reveled 2 fact which should not exist were the ‘eoretal assumptions of Newton the whole tut. Ths made {teviden that he relation between te physicit'sexperimenal facts avd his theoredel assumptions i ute oter than what Nevrton had led many modern physics to suppose. When. {ome ten earner, experimentson radiation fom back bodies Enforced an adltonal reconstruction in Neon’ way of thik fngabout hssubject mater thisconelusionbeeameinescapable Expressed positely his means thatthe theory f physi fs nether a mere description of experimental acs nar Something Aeducbe trom such a description: instead, as Einstein bas ‘phased the physical sients only aries at Ns theory by Speciltve means. The deduction i his method runs not om fhe to the assmptins of the theory but from the ssumed theory tothe facts and the experimental data, Consequently ‘theories have tobe proposed speculatively and pursued ded tively with respect co their many consequences so that they can be put to indret experimental tests Inshore, any teary of piyscsmakes more physia and philosophical sumptions tan {he fact alone give or imply. Fr this reason, any hear ssub- Jest further modieton and reconstruction with the advent of new evidence that is incompatible, after the manner ofthe Fay ofthe Men Mary experimen, with i ae sumptions. “These assumptions, moreover, are philosophical in characte. Taey may be omologi, fev ering toe sujet mater of scientific knowledge whichis independent of is relation tothe Perceive; or they may be epistemologiel. Le retertng tothe Feltion of the scentt ar experimenter and knower to the Subject matter which he knows Einstein's special and general tore of elt may the pilsophy fen Bs in the frst of these two respects by radically altering Ue Philosophical theory of space and time and their ration 10 Tater. Quantum mechanics, expecially ts Heenberg principle ‘of indeterminacy. has ben notable forthe change thas brought in the physcin’s epistemological theory ofthe relation ofthe ‘experimenter tothe object of his sien Knowledge. Perhaps4 iysics Axo Panosorny the most novel and important thesis of this book is ts author's ‘contention that quantum mechanics has brought the concept of potentiality back into physical scence. This makes quantum theory as important for ontology a5 for epistemology. At this point, Heisenberg’s philosophy of physics has an element in ommon with that of Whitehead, Ttisbecaus ofthis introduction of potentiality into the subject matter of physics, a5 distinct from the epistemological predica ‘ment of physicists chat Einstein objected to quantum mechanics He expresed this objection by saying: ‘God does not play dice. ‘The point of this statement i thatthe game of dice rests onthe lawsof chance, and Einstein believed thatthe Inter concept finds its scientific meaning solely inthe epistemological limitations of the finite knowing mind in its relation to the omnicomplete oblect of scientific Knowledge and, hence, is misapplied when referred ontlogieally to that object itself, The object being per Se all complete and in this sense omniscient, after the manner of God, the concept of chance or of probability is inappropriate for any scent description oft. "Thisbook simportant because it contains Helsenbery’s answer tothis criticism of his principlaf indeterminacy andof quantum ‘theory by Einstein and by others. In understanding tis answer two things must be kept in mind: (1) The aforementioned rela: tion between the data of experimental physics and the concepts theory (2) The diference between the role ofthe concept ‘of probability in (a) Newton's mechanics and Einstein's theory ‘of relativity and in (b) quantum mechanics. Upon (x) Einstein fnd. Heisenberg, and telatvistic mechanics and quantum. ‘mechanics, ae in agreement. ts only with respect to (2) that they lifer. Yet the reason for Helsenberg's and the quantum physicist’ diference from Einstein on (2) depends in consider- able parton (1) which Einstein admits. {1 lems thatthe experimental data of physics donot imply its theoretical concepts. From thi it follows thatthe object of scientific knowledge is never known directly by observation or ‘experimentation, but is only known by speculatively proposed theoretic construction or axiomatic pestulation, tested only Indirectly and experimentally via its deduced consequences. To find the object of scientific Rnowledge we must go, therefore, snernoDucrion 7 tof theoretical assumptions ‘When we do this for (a) Newtons of Einstein's mechanics an fr () quantum mechanic, we discover tha the concept ‘Stprotabiliy or chance enersinto the definition of he state of Sifynca sytem, ann this ses, ts subject mate: n Suan mechanic, Dut doesnot So om Newtons mecasis ‘Se nateins theory of rlavity. This undoubtedly i what Fsenerg menos when he writs inthis bok tat quant theory as brought the concept of potentiality back int physical scfence Tes also, without question, what Eastin hss ind ‘when fe objects to quantum theory. Tt more concretely, this dlerence between quantum mechanics and the previous physi theories ay be expressed follows In Newton's and Einstein's theory. the sate of any iolated mechanical system a given moment of times given preely when only numbers specifying the poston” and TBomentum of each mast inthe system are empirically deter tinea that moment of tne; no nmbers refering co proba Bit are present. In quantom mechanics the interpretation of amobeervionof system sa rather complicated procedure The ‘teervation may const in singe reading, the accracy of hich has tobe cused or may compra eomplated set of data, such as the photograph ofthe water droplets ina coud ‘hamber:in any cae the result can be stated only in terms of3 proba dibution concerning for istane, the postion of ‘omentum ofthe parties ofthe system, The theory then pre- dics the probably dstbution fora fare ine: The theoy i not expen ved when that re Sate are if ‘merely the mamentum or positon number ina particular ob servation le within the predicted range. The same experimen ‘ith the same ial eonditons must be repented any times, andthe values of poston or momentum, which maybe iferent ineach observation, mus silly be found toe distbuted c= cording tothe preced protaty ditrbuton In short, the eral ference between quant mechanics and Ents or "Newton's mechanics centres in the definition of mechanical ‘Beem a ty mame fine dh ieee tt a mechanics inteducs the concep of probably io ts Aefiston of sate and the mechanics of Newton and Elastin6 pivysics AND PruLosorny oes not This does not mean that probability had no place in Newton's for Einstein's mechanics. Its place was, however, solely in the theory of errors by means of which the accuracy of the Yes or 'No verification of nonconfimation of the prediction of the {theory was determined. Hence, the concept of probability and chance was restricted to the epistemological relation of the Scientist in the verification of what he knows; ie didnot enter Jno the theoretical statement of what he knows. Ths, Einstein's diceum that "God does not play dice" was satisfied in his two ‘theoriesof relativity andin Newton's mechanics. Ts there any way of deciding between Einstein's contention and that of Heisenberg and other quantum theorists) Many Answers have been given to this question, Some physicists and Philosophers, emphasizing operational definitions. have argued that since al physical theories, even classical ones, entail human fervor and uncertainties, there is nothing to be decided between Einstein and the quantum theorists. This, however, is (a) to ‘overlook the presence of axiomatically constructed, constitutive theoretic definitions at well as theory-oferrors, operational ‘definitions in scientific method and (b) to suppose that the ‘concept of probability and the even more complex uncertainty Felation enter into quantum mechanics only in the operational ‘efnition sense, Heisenberg shows thatthe latter supposition isfale (Other scientists and philosophers, going to the opposite ex treme, have argued that, merely because there is uncertainty in predicting certain phenomena, tis constitutes no argument ‘Whatever forthe thesis that these phenomena are not completely determined. This argument combines the statical problem of ‘efining the state of a mechanical system ata given time with the dynamical or casual problem of predicting changes in the State of the system through time. But the concept of probability inquantur theory enters only int ts statics i. its theoretical definition of state, The reader wil ind it wise, therefore to keep distin these two components. Le. the statical theoretical definition state component and the dynamic, or casual, theo- retical change-o-statethrough-ime component. With respect. the former, the concept of probability and the atendant un retmopucrion ” certainty enter theoretically and In principle; they do not refer merely fo the operational and epistemological uncercainties and errors, arising from the finitnss of, and inaccuracies in, uman ‘behaviour, that are common to any scientific theory and any experimentation whatsoever. But, why, itmay be asked, should the concept of probability bbe introduced into the theoretic definition of the state of a me- ‘chanical system at any statical moment in principle? In making such a theoretical construct by axiomatic postulation, do not Heisenberg and quantum theoreticians generally beg the ques tion at issue between themselves and Einstein? This book makes it clear that the answer to these questions is as follows: ‘The reason forthe procedure of quantum mechanics is thesis (1) above, which Einstein himself ls accepts. “Thesis (1) is that we know the object of scientific knowledge only by the speculative means of axiomatic theoretic construc- ‘ion or postlaton; Newton's suggestion that the physicist can deduce our theoretical concepts from the experimental data being fale, Ie follows that there isn @ priori or empirical mean- ingfor afirming that the objec of scientific knowledge, or, more specifically the state of a mechanical system ata given time C, rust be defined ina particular way. The sole criterion i, which set of theoretic assumptions concerning the subject matter of ‘mechanics when pursued to their deduced experimental conse- ‘quencesis confirmed by theexperimental data’ "Now, it happens that when we theoretically and in principe define the state of a mechanical system for subatomic phe- ‘nomena in terms solely of numbers refering to postion and ‘momentum, as Einstein would have us do, and deduce the consequences for radiation from black bodies, this theoretical ‘ssumption concerning the state ofa mechanical system and the subject matter of atomic physics i shown tobe false by exper- ‘mental evidence. The experimental facts simply ae not what the theory calls for. When, however, the traditional theory is modi- fied with the introduction of Planck's constant and the addition ‘in principle ofthe second set of numbers reterring tothe probs- Diliy that the attached position-momentum numbers will be found, from which the uncertainty principle follows, the experi- _mental data confirm the new theoretical concepts and principles.8 PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY In short, the situation in quanturn mechanics with respect to ‘experiments on blackbody radiation is identical with that faced by Eastein with respect tothe Michelson-Morley experiment. In ‘both cases, only by introducing the new theoretical assumption Jn principle is physical theory brought into accord with the ex perimental facts. Thus, to asert that, notwithstanding quantum ‘mechanics, the positions and momenta of subatomic masses are "ally sharply located in space and time as designated by one pair of numbersonly, and, hence, completely deterministic aus- Sly, as Einstein and the aforementioned philosophers of scence ‘would have one do isto affirm a theory eoncering the subject ‘matter of physical knowledge which experiment on black body radiation have shown to be fale inthe sense that a deductive ‘experimental consequence ofthis theory isnot confirmed Ttdoes not follow. ofcourse, that some new theory compatible with the foregoing experimental facts might not be discovered in hich the concept of probability doesnot enter in principle into Its definition of state. Professor Norbert Wiener, for example, believes that he has clues tothe direction such a theory might take. Ie would, however, have to reject a definition of state in termsof the four space-time dimensions of Einstein’ theory and Would, therefore, be incompatible with Einstein's thesis on other rounds. Certainly, one cannot rule out such 2 possibilty. Nevertheless, untl such an alternative theory s presented, any- fone, who does not claim to possess some a priori or private Source of information concerning what the object of scentiic Knowledge must be, has no alternative but to accept the defini- tion of tate of quantum theory and to affirm with the author of this book thatit restores the concept of potentiality tothe object, of modern scientiie knowledge. Experiments on black body ‘radiation require one to conclude that Go plays ice. ‘What ofthe status of causality and determinism in quantum mechanics? Probably the interest ofthe layman andthe humanist inthisbook depends most on ts answer tothis question. If this answer Isto be understood, the reader must pay par- ticular attention to Heisenberg’ description of (a) the afore- mentioned definition of state by recourse to the concept of probability and (b) the Schrodinger timeequation. The reader make sure, and this is the most dificult task of al, that rrmopucrion 9 the meaning of the words causality" and “determinism is ‘Md when he ate the above question i dental with the TRennng these words have in Hessenberg’ mind when he spect Bs tie answer, Otherwfee, Heisenberg wil be anierng a Extreme question from the one the reser I asking and come ‘ete isundestaning upon the reader’ part willoceut “he station rier compen yt act hat meer syses permite the concept of causally to have two dierent ‘Ciencally precke meanings, the one stronger than the other, Sd there so agreement among physicists about which on of thes two meaning the word ‘cusalty Isto be wed to dese "ate Hence, some physicists and philosophers of science use the ‘word to designate the stronger of the two Meanings. Theres Tridence at tines a lest, that thei Profesor Heienbergs {Sage nis book Other physicists ad philosophers, including thevwter of thie Introduction, use the word ‘aust’ 10 {isignte the weaker ofthe two meanings andthe word ‘de termini’ to designate the sronger meaning. When the former tsoge B followed, the words aul” and determinism tecome synonymous. When the second usage followed every Aeserminsie system Is causal system, DU not every casa System i determine reat confusion has entered into previous dicssion ofthis topic because frequent neither the person who asks the es tion nor the phylet who has answered thas been arf ‘pri ineite question oranswer wheter eis using the Word “xasaiy In its weaker or in its stronger modern scenic meaning, fone asks ‘Docs casalty holdin quantum me Charlee not specying whether one fs asking about causally ints stronger orn ts weaker sense one then ges apparent) Contractry answers from eqaly competent physi. One ‘ys, eng the word causally” er stonger sense quite Erect anewert ‘No The other physic, aking ‘causity” ints weaker sense, equally correc answers Yer. Naturally Cheimpression ha aren tat quantum mechanics isnot specie about what the answer Is Nevertheless. (hs impresion is trroneous The answer of quantum mechanics Becomes unequ fal the moment one makes the question apd the answer Stambiguous by specifying which meaning o easly” onstalking about. es important, therefore, to become clear about different possible meanings of the word ‘causality’. Let us begin withthe lhyman's common-sense usageof the word cause’ and then move to the more exact meanings in modern physics, considering the meaningin Aristotle's physics onthe way. ‘One may say “The stone hit the window and caused the glass to break fn this use of ‘causality itis thought of asa relation between objects, Le, between the stone and the windowpane. ‘The scientist expresies the same thing in a different way. He describes the foregoing set of events interme ofthe state of the Stone and the windowpane at the earlier time t when the stone and the windowpane were separated and the state of this same System of two abject a che later time when the stone andthe ‘Windowpane collided. Consequently, whereas the layman tends to think of causality asa relation between objects, the scientist thinks of it as a relation between different states of the same objector thesamesystem of cbjecs at diferent times. ‘This is why. in order to determine what quantum mechanics says about causality, one must pay attention to two things: (1) ‘Thestate function which defines the state of any physical system at any specific time t (2) The Schrdingertime-equation which Telates the state ofthe physical system atthe earlier time t tits diferent state at any speciable later time &. What Heisenberg ‘says about (1) and (2) must therefore, be read with meticulous TE will help to understand what quantum mechanics says about the relation between the sates of a given physical object, orsystem of physical objects at diferent timesif we consier the posible properties that this relation might have. The weakest possible cae would be that of mere temporal succession with no feces connection whatever and with not even a probability, however smal, thatthe specifiable initial state willbe followed In time by a speciale future state. Hume give us reasons for believing that the relation between the sensed states of im ‘mediately sensed natural phenomena is of this character. Cer- tainly. a5 he pointed out, one does not sense aay relation of rnecesary connection, Nor does one directly sense probability. All hat sensation gives us with respect othe successive states of _any phenomenon isthe mere relation of temporal suecesson. "This point sof great importance It means that one can arrive ata eau theory many science orn commonsense knowledge, ‘x even ata probability theory, of the relation between the suc Cesive states of any objector system, only by speculative means “and axlomatically constructed, deductively formulated scientific {nd philosophical theory whichis tested not directly against the Sensed and experimental data but ony indirectly By way of ts deductive consequences, "A second possibility with respect to the character of the rel sion between the states of any physical system at different times is that the relation isa necessary one, but that one can know ‘what this necestary connection is only by Knowing the future State. The later knowledge ofthe future state may be obtained citer by waiting uni arrives or by having seen the Tuture or final state of similar systems in the past, When such i the case, causality i teleological. Changes of the system with time are ‘determined by the final state or goal ofthe system. The physical ‘system which isan acar inthe earlier state tand an oak tree inthe later state isan example. The connection between these two states seems tobe necessary one. Acorn never change nto maple tres or into elephants. They change only into oaks. Yet, {iven the properties of ths physical system inthe acora state of the earlier time €, no scientist has as yet been able to deduce the properties ofthe oak tree which the system will have atthe rer time @, Aristotelian physics afirmed that all causal rela tions are teleological. "Another possiblity is that the relation between the states of any object, or any system of objects, a diferent times is a relation of necessary connection such that, given knowledge of theiniil state ofthe system, assuming isolation is future tate can be deduced, Stated in more technical mathematical lan ‘guage, this means that there exists an indirectly verified, axio- Inatically constructed theory whose postulates (1) specify 2 state funetion, the independent variables of which completely dene the sate ofthe system a any specific instant of time, and (2) provide a timeequation relating the numerical empirical ‘Yalues ofthe independent variables ofthis function at any esrlier time t to their numerical empirical values at any specifi atertime tin such a way that by introducing the operationally de- termined t set of numbers into the timeequation the future @ hhumbers can be deduced by merely solving the equation. When this i the case, the temporal relation between states is said to ‘exemplify mechanical causation. ks to be noted that this definition of mechanical causality leaves open the question of what independent variables are re- ‘quired to define the state ofthe system at any given time. Hence, 1 least two possiblities arise: (a) the concept of probability may be used to define the state ofthe system ar (b) it may not bre so used. When (b) is the ease no independent variables re- ferring to probabilities appear in the statefunction and the stronger type of mechanical causality is present. When (a) is the case independent variables referring to probabilities, 5 well 235 to other properties such as postion and momentum, appear in the statefunction and only the weaker type of mechanical ‘causation curs If the reader keeps these to meanings of me: ‘chanical causation in mind and makes sure which meaning Heisenberg iseferring toi any particular sentence ofthis book, heshould beable to getits answer tothe question concerning the stausof causality a modera physics. "What of determinism: Again, there i no agreed-upon conven- tion among physiiss and philosophers of scence about how this word isto be used It is in accord with the common-sense ‘usage to identify it with the strongest posible causality Let us, then, use the Word "determinism to denote only the stronger type of mechanical causation. Then I believe the careful reader ‘ofthis book will get the following answer to his question: In Newtonian, Listenian and quantum mechanics, mechanical, rather than teleological, causality lds. This is why quantum physics is called quantum mechanics, rather than guancum feleclogice. But, whereas causality in Newton's and Einstein's physics sof the stronger type and, hence, both mechanical and Seterministic, in quantum mechanics iis ofthe weaker causal type and, hence, mechanical but noc deterministie. From the latter fact i follows that if anywhere In this book Helsenberg ses the words ‘mechanical causality” in their stronger, deter ‘init meaning and the question be asked ‘Does mechanical ‘causation in this stronger meaning hol in quantum mechanics” ssemopucrion 3 then the answer has to be No’. “Thesituation seven more complicated, asthe reader wil find, than even these introductory distinctions between the different types of causation indicate. Isto be hoped, however that this focusing of attention upon these diferent meanings wil enable the reader to find his way through this exceptionally important book ore easily than would otherwise be the case "These distinctions should sufice, also, to enable one to grasp the tremendous philosophical significance ofthe introduction of the weaker type of mechanical causation into modern physics, ‘which has occurzed in quantum mechanics. It significance con. sists im reconciling the concept of objective, and in ths sense ‘ontological, potentiality of Aristotelian physics withthe concept ‘of mechanical causation of modern physics. 4 would be an errr, therefore, ifthe reader, {rom Heiser ‘berg’s emphasis upon the presence in quantum mechanics ‘of Something analogous to Aristotle's concept of potentiality, ‘oneluded that contemporary physics has taken vs back %0 ‘Aistote's physics and ontology. It would be an equal eror con- versely to conclude, because mechanical causation in its weaker ‘meaning sil holds in quantum mechanics, that all the same now in modern physics with respect toitsausality and ontology 45 was the case before quantum mechanics came into being ‘What has occurred is that in quantum theory contemporary man has moved on beyond the clasical medieval andthe modern, World to a new physics and philosophy which combines con- Sstently some of the haie causal and ontological assumptions ofeach, Here, let it be recalled, we use the word ‘ontological’ todenote any experimentally Verified conceptof scientific theory Which refers to the object of scientific knowledge rather than ‘merely tothe epistemological relation ofthe slemtist a5 knower to the object which he knows, uch an experimentally verified philosophical synthesis of ontological potentiality with ontolog- fcal mechanical causality, in the weaker meaning ofthe latter ‘concept occurred when physicists found itimposibieto account ‘theoretically for the Compton effect and the results of exper ‘ment on back-body radiation unless they extended the concept of probability from its Newtonian and Einsteinian merely epi- ‘emological. theory of-errorsrole in specifying when thei theory™ PHysics AND PuLosoPty is or is not experimentally confirmed 10 the ontological role. specified in principle in the theory's postulates, of characterizing the abject scientificknowledgeitsel. ‘Needone wonder that Heisenberg went though the subjective emotional experiences described in this book before he became reconciled to the necessity, imposed by both experimental and ‘mathematical considerations of modifying the philosophical and Scientific beliefs of both medieval and modern man in so deep- going a manner. Those interested ina firsthand descripion of the human sprit in one ofits most creative moments will want toread tis book because of this factor alone, The courage which Je ook tomake thisstep away from the unqualified determinism of elasical modern physics may beapprecatedif one recalls that even such a daring, creative spirit as Einstein balked. He could not allow God to play dice; there could not be potentiality in the object of scientific knowledge, as the weaker form of mechanical ‘causality in quantum mechanics allows, Before one concludes, however, that God has become a com: plete gambler and that potentiality isin ll objects, certain limi- {ations which quantum mechanics places on the aplication of Its weaker form of mechanical causation must be noted. To appreciate these qualifications the reader must note what this books says about (1) the Compton effect, (2) Planck's constant ‘and (3) the uncertainty principle which i defined in terms of Planck's constant. Thisconstanth isa number referring tothe quantum of action ‘of any objector system of objets. This quantum, which extends atomicity from matter and electricity tolightand even to energy iets very small. When the quantum numbers of the system being observed ate small, as is the case with subatomic phe- nomena, then the uncertaaty specified by the Heisenberg uncer {ainty principle of the positions and momenta of the masses of the system becomes significant, Then, als, the probability nam- bers asociated with the position-momentum numbers in the state function become significant. When, however, the quantum ‘numbers thesystem are large. then the quantitative amount of uncertainty specified by the Heisenberg principle becomes insig- nificant and the probability numbers inthe state function canbe ‘neglected, Such isthe caze with gross commonsense objects. At werrooucron os hs point quantum mechanics with asely weaker type of Teotiay givestse, ava pecal case of ite t9 Newtonian and Garetteh mechanics wth ther stronger ype of causally sa detrminism. Consqueny, for human bags conser Reig as fos commonsense bjees the ronge eof onal bls and bene, determinism lg aa ‘Neverthe, subatomic phenomena are scenic init cantinman.Tothisexen at ea the casa governing him ‘Sof the weaker type, and be embodies bth mechani fate apd ena There are ete reasons for blving that hs ears cron n heredity. Any reader who wants to prs hs {opicbeyond the pags thisbok shoud turn to Whats Life™ 1p Profesor Erwin Sehédinger, the physi ater whom the Srocequton in quantim mechan named. Undousedly. potently andthe weaker form of catty bold aso for ‘anus ter carats of human eng paral or ‘hove corel neural parsons in man a ae te psec ‘errls of del inrspected man en ahd popore Tr he later pest i the ease the ation afing scent plop od even neal problem may beat and {Ts prolem i How isthe mechanical cation, even i Weiter form of quantum mechan be teconcliod withthe trestle chain patently presentin te moral politcal nd Tega perpose of ma and noe teleological cal determina tion oa bay behaviour, in part ales y hese paps? Inshrehew ite pllosphy of phys expounded ln this Iwek by Hebenbrg co bereconcled with mea, pla 0 legal cence and philosophy? Tiny help the reader to apreit why this bok mst be mastered before hese ager quson canbe corey unde Stoodorefecively answered very hit references nade hee tovomeartices which elt its theory of physi nut the wider relation between mechanism and tology im the imac andthe socal sence The reveals are (2) by Prtesrs Rosesbluth, Wiener and Eigcow in the jon Ok The hosphy of Science ar aman, tog (by ores MCulochanaFitsin The lle Mathematica physic, * Univey Pres, Cambie: Macilon Company. New York 9466 Physics AND Pamosorny Volume 5. 1945, and Volume 9, 1947: and (c) Chapter XIX of eological Ditferences and World Order, elited by the writer ‘of this Introduction and published by the Yale University Press in 1999. I ead after this book, (a) wll show how teleologieal ‘causality arises as a special case ofthe merchanieal xusality described by Heisenberg here. Similarly, (b) will provide physical theory of the neurological correlates of introspected Ideas, expressed in terms ofthe teleologically mechanical causal- ity of (a), thereby giving an explanation of how ideas can have causally significant effect on the behaviour of men, Likewise, (c) wil show bow the ideas and purposes of mora, politcal and legal man relate, by way of (b) and (a) tothe theory of physical potentiality and mechanical causality so thoroughly described by Heisenberg in tis book. Te remains to call attention to what Profesor Heisenberg says about Bohr’ principle of complementarity. This principe plays a great role in the interpretation of quantum theory by "the Copenhagen School’ to which Bohr and. Heisenberg belong. Some students of quantum mechanics, such as Margenau in is book The Nature of Physical Realty, are inclined to the con- clusion that quantum mechanics requires merely its definition of state its Schrdinge time-quation and those other ofits mathe- matical postulates which sulfice to ensure, as noted above, that Einsteinian and Newtonian mechanics come out of quantum mechanics as one ofits special cases. According to the Inter thesis, the principle of complementarity arises from the failure to keep the stronger and weaker form of mechanical causality continuously in mind, with the resultant attribution of the stronger form to those portions of quantum mechanics where ‘only the weaker form is involved. When this happens, the prin- ciple of complementarity has to be introduced to avoid ‘contradiction. If, however, one avoids the foregoing practice. the principle of complementarity becomes, if notunnecesary, a least of a form such that one avoids the danger, noted by Margenau** and appreciated by Bohr, of giving pseudo solutions “he Ea ie Siescce en te ist Nissin Now Yr ssemonucrion 7 to physical and philosophical problems by playing fst and loose shit the law of contradiction, in the nate of the principle of Complementarity ‘By its use the qualifications that had to be put on both the pattielopictue commonsense language of atom physics and Fs common-sense wave picture language were brought together. ‘But once having formulated the result with axiomatically ‘constructed mathematical exactitude, any Further use of itis tnerely 2 superficial convenience when, leaving aside the exact “and estental mathematical assumptions of quantum mechanics, ‘one induesin the common-sense language and images of waves ‘and partcies thas been necessary to go Into the different interpretations ofthe principle of complementarity in order to enable the reader to pass an informed judgment concerning what Heisenberg say in this book abou the common sense and Cartesian concepts of ‘material and mental substances. Ths is the ease because his ‘conclusion concerning Descartes results from his generalization ofthe principle of complementarity beyond physics, fist, 0 the relation between common-sense Dielogcal concepts and ‘mathematical physical concepts and, second, to the bodyemind problem. The result of tis generalization is thatthe Cartesian theory of mental substances comes off very much better inthis ook. as does the concept of substance generally, than isthe ‘ase in any other book on the philosophy of contemporary ‘physics which this writer knows. ‘Whitehead, for example, concluded that contemporary science and philosophy find no place for, and have no need of, ‘the concept of substance, Neutral monists such as Lord Russell and logial postvsts such a5 Professor Carnap agree. ‘Generally speaking. Heisenberg argues that there Js no compelling reason to throw away any of the commonsense concepts of ether biology or mathematical physics, after one ‘knows the refined concepts that ead to the complece clarification ofthe problems in atomic physics. Because the latter clarification ‘complete, its elevant only toa very limited range of problems within science and cannot enable us to avoid using many con cepts ac other places that would not stand critical analysis ofthe type carted out in quantum theory. Since the ideal of complete8 PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY clarification cannot be achieved—and itis important that we Should not be deceived about this point—one may indulge in the ‘sage of common sense conceptsif tis done with suficient care and caution. In this respec, certainly, complementarity isa very ‘useful scientific concept, In any event, two things seem clear and make what Heien- berg says on these matters exceedingly important. Fist, the principle of complementarity and the present validity of the (Cartesian and common-sense concepts of body and mind stand and fll together. Second, it may be that both these notion are merely convenient stepladders which should now be, or must ‘eventually be, thrown away. Even so, in the case of the theory of mind at last, the stepladder wil have to remain unt by its use Wwefind the morelingustcally exact and empirically satisactory theory that wil permit us to throw the Cartesian language away ‘Tobesure, piecemeal theories of mind which donot appeal tthe notionof substance now exist bt none of thei authors, unlesit be Whitehead, has shown how the language of this piecemeal theory can be brought into commensurate and compatible rela ‘onship with the scientific language of the other facts of human knowledge. It is Ikely, therefore, that anyone, whether he be 2 professional physicist or philosopher or the lay reader, who ‘may think he knows better than Heisenberg on these important matters, runs the grave risk of supposing he has a scientific theory of mind in elation to bay, when in act his snot Up to this point we have directed attention, with but ewo ex: cxptions. to what the philosophy of contemporary physics hast Say about the object of scientific knowledge qua object. inde pendent of its relation to the scientist as knower. In shor, we have been concerned with its ontology. This philosophy also has its epistemological component. This component falls into three parts: (1) The relation between (a) the directly observed data fiven tothe physicist as inductive knower in his observations ot his experiments and (b) the speculatively proposed, indirectly verified, axiomatically constructed postulates of his theory. The latter term (b) defines the objects of scientific knowledge qua ‘object and, hence, gives the ontology. The relation between (2) and (b) defines one factor in the epistemology. (2) The roe of rRopucrioN 29 the concept of probability In the theory of erors, by means of ‘which the physicist defines the criterion for judging how far his ‘xperimental findings can depart, due to errors of human ex: mentation, from the deduced consequences of the postulates Ere theory and stil be regarded as confirming the theory. (3) ‘The effect of the experiment being performed upon the object being knovn, What Heisenberg says about the fst and second ofthese three epistemological factors in contemporary physics has already been emphasized inthis Introduction. It remains to direct the reader's attention to what he saysaboutitem (3) ‘In modern physical theory, previous to quantum mechanics, (5) played no role whatever. Hence, the epistemology of modern physics was then completely specified by (1) and (2) alone. In quantum mechanics, however, (3) (a8 well 8 (1) and (2)) Becomes very Important. The very act of observing alters the ‘object being observed when its quantum numbersare sal. From this fact Heisenberg draws a very important conclusion concerning the relation between the object, the observing physicist, and the rest of the universe. This conclusion can be Appreciated if attention i directed to the following key points. may be recalled that in some ofthe definitions of mechanical causality given earlier in this Introduction, the qualifying words or an isolated system’ Were added: elsewhere it was implicit. ‘This qualifying condition can be satisfied in principle in New. toni and Einsteinian mechanics, and also in practice by mak- ing more and more careful observations and refinements in one’s experimental instruments. The introduction of the con: expt of probability into the definition of state of the object of Scientific knowledge in quantum mechanics rules out, however, Jn principe, and not merely in practice due to the imperfec- sions of human observation and instruments, the satisfying of the condition thatthe object of the physics’ knowledge is an Isolated system, Heisenberg shows also thatthe including of the experimental apparatus and even of the eye of the observing Scientist in the physical system which is the object of the ‘Knower's knowledge does nat hep, since if quantum mechanics bbe correct, the states of all objects have to be defined io prin- iple by recourse to the concept of probability. Consequently only ifthe whole universe is included in the object of scientifica prsics AND PuLosoPNY nowiedge con the qusiying condition or an lated system’ eshuste for even the weaker fxm of mechani eszton Gent. the philosophy of contemporary physi shown by ths bok tobe as novel Ine epremology a fe Ih nology: Indeed, Its rom the oegnalty ofits onto — the’ cendstent unifeation of potentiality and. mechanical ‘sty ints weaker forthe the novel of epistemology ‘Unquestionably, one other thing is cleat An anal ofthe specitexperimerisl sere theres fmserm pss with [Eoec to wat tey say abut the objec of human knowledge In is retton tothe human knower exhibit very rch and Complex ontological and epistemological pilsophy whichis Sfvental part ofthe stent theory and method sl Hence, phys is neither eptemologiesly nor ontsiogally neta, Deny anyone ofthe epistemological assumptions of te Tips’ theory and there ino scene metho for testing ‘rhe atthe theory sys aout the pyc objet sue Intheseneat being empiri confrmed. Deny anyone ofthe {utlopcal assumption and theres not enough content the anlomataly onstrated mathematical potltes of the pyc theory to permit the dedution ofthe experimental Faas which rs inotuced to rediy, coordinat consistently tnd exlan Hene, othe extent tha experimental physic ‘Shore tthat her theory of contemporary physics isnt nd experimentally vere, they po feo assure ws that Thane complex ontlogea nd epstemoloisl philosophy is verted ain, ‘When sch empirical verified piosophy of he tein the natural ene ented with the rteron of he food and the asim the humanies and the socal scenes, one has ‘star etic and rspradence. moter words one has Sienialy meaning cognitive citron and. method for jodeing both he verbal personal and soll noms ofthe pose Tewrand the ving etio embodied inthe cums, habits and tration clr Inston of the de focto Peoples and Crlres of the wor the coming together of ths new fhilsopy of physi with the respective pllosphies of exo Ek imankind thatthe major even in tlays and tomorzow's retRopucrion Pa world. At this point. the philosophy of physics inthis book and fis important reference to the social consequences of physics come together. “The ehapters of this book have been read as Gilford Lectures atthe University of St. Andrews during the winter term 1955° 1956, According tothe will oftheir founder the Gifford Lectures Should reel discus all questions about man's conceptions of, God or the Infinite, ther origin, nature, and truth, whether he ‘an have any such conceptions, whether God is under any oF twist limitations and so on’ The lectures of Hesenberg do not tempt to reach these most general and mos dificult problems, ‘But they ty to go far beyond the limited scope of a special science into the wide feld of those general human problems that have been raised by the enormous recent development and the farreaching practical applications of natural science.An Old and a New Tradition ' WHEN one speaks today of modern physics, the frst thought isof atomic weapons. Everybody realizes the enormous influence ofthese weapons on the politial structure of our present world nd is willing to admit that the influence of physics on the general situation is greater than It ever has been before. But is the politcal aspect of moder physics really the most important fone? When the world has adjusted itself i ts political structure to the new technical possiblities, what then wil remain of the Tnsluence of modern physics? "To ancwer these questions, one has to remember that every tool carries with tthe sprit by which it has ben created. Since very nation and every political group has tobe interested in the ‘new weapons in some way irrespective ofthe location and of the ‘cultural tradition ofthis group, the spirit of modern physics wll penetrate into the minds of many people nd will connect self In diferent ways with the older tactions. What wil be the out- tome of this impact of 4 special branch of modern seience on ‘ferent powerful old traditions? In those parts of the word in ‘which modern science has been developed the primary interest hhas been directed for a long time toward practical activity, industry and engineering combined with a rational analysis of tthe outer and inner conditions for such activity. Such people will find it rather easy to cope with the new ideas since they have had time for a slow and gradual adjustment to the modern ‘sclentfi methods of thinking. In other pats ofthe world these . ideas would be confronted with the religious and philosophical foundations ofthe native culture Since itis true thatthe results fof modern physics do touch such fundamental concepts as realty, space and time, the confrontation may lead to entirely {8 OLD AND A NEW TRADITION 33 ox cep eeten Onarc gcinagerriaanererine cca, i Sule aes tein hn aan iahcerni eerste See te SNCS Se cer ad dette deol [sel ete nese rae ae Me amy th igrant ky seri aes ars Ses tina pa cwqarcaee ieee eae Tay ee hs oi pyc many sll tpi ae es spleen Taner Serica Saye sty Stes Seat me te hat Sidhe Sagwetironduiromg cy SEs Srp SE ian a a Ee rns Dy eae eee yn fetes ipeeen ene MaRS eres Standard nain nr eee ie re Sone eel else fae specie ney Sprains tne tne plication of some parts of quantum theory may be said to repre- Sec aan eal S's lea Ser ence oma SR a ae a occa Saepates Seale ee acd nde onary ar $525 wise oad aban on os2 The History of Quantum Theory > THE origin of quantum theory is connected with a wellknown phenomenon, which did nt belong tothe central part of atomic physics. Any piece of matter when it is heated Sars to glow, get red hot and white hot at higher temperatures. The colour foes not depend much on the surface of the material, and for a black body it depends solely on the temperature. Therefore, the radiation emitted by such a black body at high temperatures is a suitable object for physical research; eis simple phenomenon that should find asimple explanation in terms of the known ls {or radiation and heat. The attempt made at the end of the nineteenth century by Lord Rayleigh and Jeans file, however, and revealed serious dificltes. It would not be posible to describe these difculties here in simple terms, It must be Sulfclent to state thatthe application ofthe known laws did not lead to sensible results. When Planck, in 1895, entered this line (of research be tried to turn the problem from radiation to the ‘dating atom. Ths turning éid not remove ay ofthe dificulies Inherent in the problem, but Ie simplified the interpretation of the empirical facts. It was just at this ime, during the summer of 1900, that Curlbaum and Rubens in Berin had made very fccurate new measurements of the spectrum of heat radiation. ‘When Planck heard of these resuls he ted to represent them bby simple mathematical formulas which looked plausible from his research on the general connection between heat and radiation, One day Planck and Rubens met for tea in Planck's hhome and compared Rubens latest results with 2 new formula suggested by Planck. The comparison showed a complete agree ‘ment. This was the discovery of Planck’ law of heat radiation. Tt was atthe same time the beginning of intense theoretical "THE HISTORY OF QUANTUM THEORY 3s work for Planck. What was the correct physical interpretation Sree new formula? Since Planck could, fom his earlier work, ‘tanslate his formula easly neo a statement about the radiating Slom (the so-called oscilator), he must soon have found that iis formula looked asf the ocllator could only contain discrete iquant of energy—a resul that was so different from anything own in classical physics that he certainly must have refused to believe itin the beginning. But in a period of mast intensive ‘work during the summer of 1900 he Rally convinced himself that there Was no way of escaping from this conclusion. It was {old by Planck's son that his father spoke to him about his new jas on a Tong walk through the Grunewald, the wood in the ‘burbs of Berlin. On tis walk he explained that he felt he had possibly made a discovery ofthe frst rank, comparable perhaps nly 10 the discoveries of Newton, So Planck must have realized ft this time that his formula had touched the foundation of our description of nature, and tae these foundations would one day ‘Sart to move from their traditional present location toward 3 new and a8 yet unknown postion of stability. Planck. who was conservative in his whole outlook, id not ike this consequence stall, but he published his quantum hypothesis in December of 1900 "The idea that energy could be emitted or absorbed only in discrete energy quanta was so new that t could not be fted into the traditional framework of physics. An attempt by Planck to reconcile his new hypothesis with the older laws of radiation fled inthe esental pois. Te took five years until the next step ‘ould be made'n the new direction. “This time it was the young Albert Einstein, 2 revolutionary ‘enius among the physicists, who was not afraid to go further ‘away from the old concepts. There were two problems in which he could make use of the new ideas. One was the so-called Photoelectric effec, the emission of electrons from metals under the influence of light. The experiments, especially those of Lenard, had shown that the energy of the emitted electrons did not depend on the intensity ofthe ight. butonly on its colour cr. ‘ore precisely, on its Frequency. Ths could not be understood ‘on the basis ofthe traditional theory of radiation. Einstein could ‘explain the observations by interpreting Planck's hypothesis as6 pivsies AND Pamosorny saying that light consists of quanta of energy travelling through Space: The energy of one ight quantum should, in agreement ‘with Planck's sumptions, be equal tothe frequency ofthe ight ‘multiplied by Planck's constant “The other problem was the specific heat of solid bode. The traditional theory led to values forthe specific heat which fitted ‘the observations at higher temperatures but disagreed with them atlow ones, Again Einstein was able to show that one could “understand this behaviour by applying the quantum hypothesis to the elastic vibrations of the atoms in the solid body. These two results marked a very important advance, since they re- veiled the presence of Planck's quantum of action—as his con- ‘Sant i called among the physicists — in several phenomena ‘hich had nothing immediatly to do with heat radiation. They Teveled at the sime time the deeply revolutionary character of the new hypothesis, since the first of them led toa description of light completely diferent from the traditional wave picture, Light could either be interpreted 2s consisting of electromag. rctic waves, acording to Maxwell’ theory, or as consisting of Tight quanta, energy packets travelling through space with high ‘locity. But could f be both? Einstein knew. ofcourse, thatthe ‘wellknown phenomena of diftaction and interference can be ‘explained only onthe basis ofthe wave picture, He was notable to dspte the complete contradiction between this wave picture and the idea ofthe light quanta; nor did he even attempt to remove the inconsistency of this interpretation. He simply took the contradietion as something which would probably be under- stood only much later In the meantime the experiments of Becquerel, Curie and. Rutherford had led to some clarification concerning the struc ture ofthe atom. In 1911 Rutherford’ observations on the inter action of rays penetrating through matter resulted in his {famous atomic model. The atom is pictured as consisting of a nucleus, which s positively charged and contains nearly the total ‘massof the atom, and electrons, which circle around the nucleus like the planets circle around the sun. The chemical bond be- tween atoms of diferent elements is explained a an interaction between the outer electrons ofthe neighbouring atoms: thas not diecty to do with the atomic nucleus. The nucleus determines “re HISTORY oF quanTUNE THEORY Pa she chemical behaviour of the atom through its charge which in {nn fixes the number of electrons in the neutral atom. Initially {Nsmodel ofthe atom could not explain the most characteristic feature ofthe atom, is enormous stability. No planetary system {allowing the laws of Newton's mechanics would ever go buck fort original configuration after collision with another such {Satem. But an atom of the element carbon, for Instance, will, {il remain a carbon atom after any colision or interaction in Chemical binding “The explanation for this unusual stability was given by Bobr fn 1914, through the application of Planck's quantum byo- {thesis fhe atom can change ts energy only by discrete energy ‘quanta, tis mast mean that the atom can exist oaly in discrete Sationay states, the lowest of which i the normal state ofthe ftom, Therefore, after any Kind of Interaction the atom will finally always fallback into its normal tate ‘By this application of quantum theory to the atomic model Bot could nt only explain the stability ofthe atom but aso. in some simple eases give a theoretical interpretation of the line "pecra emitted by the atomsafter the excitation through electric ischarge or hest. His theory rested upon a combination of ‘asia mechanics forthe motion ofthe eleczons with quantum Conditions, which were imposed upon the classical motions for ‘being the discrete stationary states of the system. A consistent ‘mathematical formulation for those conditions was later given ‘by Sommerfeld, Bohr was well aware ofthe fact that the quan ‘tum conditions spol in some way the consistency of Newtonian ‘mechanics. Inthe simple case of the hydrogen atom one could ‘aleulate fom Bob's theory the fequencies of thelght emited by the atom, and the agreement with the observations was pe: fect. Yet these frequencies were diferent from the orbital frequencies and thelr harmonies ofthe electron circling around ‘he nucleus, and this fact showed at once thatthe theory was sill, full of contradictions, Butt contained an essential par of the ‘Wath. Idd explain qualitatively the chemical behaviour ofthe toms and thet line spectra; the existence ofthe discrete station ary states was verified by the experiments of Franck and Hert, Stern and Gerlach Bohr’ theory had opened up new line of research. The great8 PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY. amount of experimental material collected by spectroscopy through several decades Was now avalable for information bout the strange quantum laws governing the motion ofthe ‘lectronsin the atom. The many experiments of chemistry could bbe ued for the same purpose It was from this time on that the physicists leaned to ask the right questions; and asking the eight ‘question is frequently more than halfway tothe solution of the problem. ‘What were these questions Practically al of them had to do, ‘withthe strange apparent contradictions between the results of ‘iferent experiments, How could t be that the same radiation that preduces interference patterns, and therefore must consist fof waves, also produces the photoelectric effect, and therefore ‘must consist of moving particles? How could t be that the fre ‘quency ofthe orbital motion of the electron inthe atom does not show up in the frequency of the emitted radiation? Does this mean that there is no orbital motion? But ifthe idea of orbital ‘motion should be incorrect, what happens to the electrons in- side the atom? One ean se the electrons move through a cloud chamber, and sometimes they ae knocked out of an atom: why ‘should they not also move within the atom! It is tue that they right be a retin the normal state of the atom, the sate of Towesteneray. But there are many states of higher energy, where the electonic shell hasan angular momentum. There the elec ‘wons cannot possibly be at rest. One could add 2 number of Similar examples, Agnin and again one found thatthe attempt to desribe atomic evens Inthe traditional terms of physics led to contradictions Gradually, during the early twenties, the physicists became accustomed to these difficulties, they acquired a certain vague Knowledge about where trouble would occur, and they learned tw avoid contradictions. They knew which description of an stomicevent would be the correct one forthe special experiment lunder discussion. Ths was not sufficient to form consistent ‘general picture of what happens in a quantum process. but it ‘hanged the minds of the physicists in such a way that they Somehow got nto the spirit of quantum theory. Therefore, even some time before one hada consistent formulation of quantum ‘theory one knew more or less what would be the result of any "THe msTORY OF QUANTUM THEORY » Ope frequently discussed what one called ideal experiments. ‘such experiments were designed to answer a very eres! ques- fon respective of whether or not they could actully be caried ‘hur Of course Te was important that should be possible in frinciple to cary out the experiment, but the technique might FE‘xtremely complicated. ‘Thee ideal experiments could be ‘ery useful in arifying certain problems. It there was no agree nent among the physicists about the result of such an ideal ex periment. was frequently possible eo finda similar but simpler Experiment that could be eared out, 9 thatthe experimental Shower cntebutedesentaly tothe clarification of quantum theory "Thestrangest experience of those years was thatthe paradoxes cof quantum theory did not disappear during this process of {lnncaon: on the contrary. they’ became even more marked Snd more exciting. There was, for Instance, the experiment of {Compton on the scattering of Xray. From earlier experiments ‘on the interference of scattered light there could be'no doubt that scattering takes place essentially tn the following way: The Incident light wave makes an electeon in the beam vibrate in the frequency of the wave the oscillating electron then emits 2 spherical wave with the same frequency and thereby produces the scattered light. However, Compton found in 1923 thatthe frequency of scattered Xcrays was iflerent from the frequency of the incident Xray. Tis change of frequency could be for Illy understood by assuming that scattering ist be described 2 collision ofa ight quantum with an electron. The energy of the light quantum i changed during the colin: and since the frequency times Planck's constant shouldbe the energy ofthe light quantum, the frequency aso shouldbe change. But what happens in this ncerpretation of the ght wave? The two ex: Perments—one on the interference ofSatered ight and the ‘ther on the change of frequency ofthe scattered light—seemed ‘ocontradct eachother without any possibility of compromise. $y this ime many physicists were convinced that these ap Parent contradictions belonged to the intrinsic structure of Mom physics. Therefore, in 1924 de Broglie in France eed to extend the dualism between wave description and particle de” nysics AND Paiosore scription to the elementary particles of matter, primarily o the Clectrons. He showed that a certain matter wave could ‘corre: spond! toa moving electron, just s alight wave corresponds to moving ight quantum, Ie was not clear at the time what the ‘word ‘correspond’ meant in this connection. But de. Broglie Suggested that the quantum condition in Bohr’s theory should bernterpreted ae a statement about the matter waves. A wave circling around a nucleus can for geometrical reasons only be f stationary wave; and the perimeter of the orbit must be an integer multiple of the wavelength. In this way de Brogle's idea connected the quantum condition, which always had been a for- ‘ign element in the mechanics ofthe electrons, with the dualism between waves and particles. In Bobr’s theory the discrepancy between the calculated orbital frequency of the electrons and the frequency of the emitted radiation had to be interpreted as a limitation to the ‘concept ofthe electronic orbit. Tis concept had been somewhat ‘loubtful from the beginning. For the higher orbits, however the lectons should move ata large distance from the nucleus just 85 they do when one sees them moving through a cloud cham- ber. There one should speak about electronic orbits. It was therefore very satisfactory that for these higher orbit the fe ‘quencies ofthe emitted radiation approach the orbital frequency] Andits higher harmonics. Also Bob ha sleady suggested inhi ‘arly papers thatthe intensities of the emitted spectral lines Spproach the Intensities of the corresponding harmonic. This principle of correspondence had proved very useful forthe ap proximative calculation ofthe intensities of spectral lines. In his ‘way one had the impression that Bohr’ theory gave a qualitative ‘but nota quantitative description of what happens inside the atom: that some new feature of the behaviour of matter was ‘qualitatively expressed by the quantum conditions, which ia fur were connected withthe dualism between waves and par ticles “The precise mathematical formulation of quantum theory finally emerged from two diferent developments. The one started from Bohr’: principle of correspondence. One had to give Up the concept ofthe electronic orbit, bur sil had to maintain] in the limit of high quantum numbers, ie, forthe large orbits "THE HISTORY OF QUANTUN THEORY 4“ tn this ater cas the emited radiation, by mean of es tre- {fences an intents pve plete ofthe Seen ott {Pfepresems wht the mathematicians ala Fore expansion ttieorbit The idea sggxed sell hat one shoul wee down the mechanial Isms not as equations forthe postions and ‘lots of the electron tak equation forthe frequencies nt amplitudes of their Fourier expansion, Sartng from sch “ations and changing them wey ile one cos hope to come {Slaons fr those quater which correspond fo the fe ences and intenatietof the emited ration, even forthe Malone and the ground sate ofthe om. Tis plan cool Sina be eared ot: inthe summer of soa ied to 8 atheatical formalism called mate mechani of, mere enly, quantum mechani. The equation of main In Sevtonlan mechanics were replaced by sma equatons be tween matrices iewaea ange experience to find at any of {he old resus of Reweonian mechanic ke conservation of nergy, ec could be derived alton the new scheme. Later the Snveigations of Born. Jordan and Dirac showed that the Imac representing potion and momentum ofthe eeton {dot commute Thslawerfact demonstrated cary ee ese ‘al eterene berween quantum mectanics and clase me- Shales “The other development followed de Broglie of mater wave Scringer ied to setup a ware equnon for de Broglie’ stationary waves aoand the miles Early in 926 Be ssereded in deriving the energy values of the tatonary sates ‘ofthe hydrogen stom as “Elgevaler of his wave eqeation tnd could give a more general preserigcion for wanting © {tena of ascal equations Gf moton ino a comespondng Wave equation inaspace of many dimensions Later he was be {> prove tat his formal of wave mechanic was mathemse- Cal equvaent tthe ener formalin of quantum mech ‘Ths one finally hed a consistent mathemati formal, lc could be dened in two equivalent ways starting ether trom mts between matics rom wave quatn. Tis formalism gave te correct entry valuesor he hy ogen ton, ‘tt esthan one eats tat t war alee for ‘he helium atom andthe more complied problems of the2 iysics AND Puosorny heavier atoms. But in what sense did the new formalism describe the atom? The paradoxes of the dualism between wave picture And particle picture were no solved they were hidden somehow in the mathematical scheme. ‘Afr and very interesting step toward areal understanding ‘of quantum theory was taken by Bohr, Kramers and Slater in {o24. These authors tried to solve the apparent contradiction between the wave pete and the particle picture by the concept of the probability wave, The electromagnetic waves were in- terpreted not as ‘eal’ waves but ab probability waves, the In- tensity of which determines in every point the probability for the adsorption (or induced emission) of alight quantum by an ‘atom at this point Tis idea led to the conclusion that the laws ‘of conservation of energy and momentum need not be true for ‘the single event, that they are ony statistical laws and are true ‘only in the statistical average. Tis conclusion was not correct, Ihowever, and the connections between the wave aspect and the ‘article aspectof radiation were still more complicated. But the paper of Bohr, Kramers and Slater revealed one es sential feature ofthe correc interpretation of quantum theory. ‘Thisconcept ofthe probability wave was somethingentrely new in theoretical physics since Newton. Probability in mathematics (of in statistical mechanics means a statement about our degree ‘of knowledge ofthe actual situation. In throwing dice we do not know the fine details of the motion of our hands which de- termine the fall ofthe dice and therefore we say that the proba- bility for thrownig a special number is just one in six. The probability wave of Bohr, Kramer, Slater, however, meant ore than that; fe meant tendency for something, It was a ‘quantitative version of the old concept of ‘potenti’ in Aris {otelian philosophy. It induced something standing in the Imidale between the idea of an event and the actual event, a ‘Strange kind of physical reality just inthe middle between pos- sibility and reali Later when the mathematical framework of quantum theory was fixed, Born took up this idea ofthe probability wave and give a clear definition of the mathematical quantity in the {ormais which was tobe interpreted asthe probability wave. Iwas nota three dimensional wave like elastic or radio waves, “THE MisTORY oF QUANTUM THEORY 8 but a wave in the many dimensional confgration space, and Uherctoearathersbracmatertclqanty Even at hse n the summer of 1926, twas not clea in every ete how the mathemati forms should be ase to Ste» given experimental station, One knew how to Stave the Stationary sates of an som, bt one id not Kor ow to dseribea much simpler events for instance an ee tronmoving through clo chamber, When Schrier in that summer had shown that isfrmal- ismot wave mechiies was matherstcly equivalent to quan {hin mechanics be tied for some me to sbancon the dea of fuunta and “quantum jumpr akogether and to replace the Slecron nthe stone sply by hs thredmensonl mater sve. He was nse to this temp by hi remit that the {nergy levels ofthe hydrogen atom in bis theory seemed tobe Simply the eigentequences of the stationary ater waves. ‘haere, he thouph twas amis to cal them energes they were jus frequencies ut in the discussions which fook place nthe autumn of 196 In Copenhagen between Bobr and SChridinger andthe Copenhagen troup of pcs son ‘came apparent hat such an iepretaton would nt even be Suficient to expan anck’s formula of heat radiation, During the month following these dscsion an intensive study ofall questions concerning the interpretation of quantum theary in Copenhagen finaly Ted to 3 complete and. 3s many pnnicssbellve, satisfactory Clarification othe station, But Twas nota solution which one could easly accept. emember Sephy of Democritus was not nothing” it was the cater for feometry spd Kinematics, making pose the various range Sent end movements of stom But the posity of empty tice as always been 3 controversial problem in philosophy. the theory of general relatvgy the answer Is given tatPirsics AND PHILOSOPHY a ery many age Seorcrforaponds more cll tthe ew hed DY ta icing ae wae i re honecerar mttamesins ionic ay sarees letraerer oa sc aecntaer temas [Uneaten hich were mae posible by the voi proved 0 ‘sca gmmetenersta! Sj a Fe aatyeeneereano ‘Nomis dd not give any feason for he original motion of ei cian na ey puta ‘ena antefaeetetotn Je explanaon of mater given by Plato in is dlog Snucemeedess [QUANTUM THEORY AND THE ROOTS OF ATOMIC SCIENCE 65 ‘he Pythagoresn schol was ah ofsoot of Orphism, which Macho the wartip of Dons, Here bas ben ebb Jee canton between relijon and mathematics whichever oe Goce he song ncn on human though. The sora see to hav ben te St to elite restive fperteret in matcatealformlauon Tair dcovery foe osrngrsund inhamony tthe gths reins npc Saf temonetated how much mathomanc can mean forte ‘tang of natural phenomena, For the Fythagoess ‘mb hs Gen of eestenting Foren he Ep mathematical rao between the length of the sing ‘ee he harmony insoun. Thre was ae mich myc ‘Ste dcrnesof the ythagorean school whe or sis iit Sitndestnd. Bat by making mathemati pare of hie ‘ign they touched a ewendal polt inthe development of mun thw may quotes semen by Beran Rael Zit ytngeas donot kno of any ter man whe as ben ‘intuctalss he wasinthesperet tought” it kocw of the discovery ofthe repli made by the yng andthe pou ening tem with "nents of Empedecs He compared the sale par he Slenent earth wit the ce ofr with the octahedron re with etraeron, sof water wth honed hee in elenen that corresponds othe dodecahedron; re Pato Sal say tere was yest coinaton whi Gos ws seucteaton of th universe Ifthe eur sli, which represent the freemen can Seconparl with he toms 3 tls made cer by Pato that they re not nie Pt construc te regs am {Wo bse tangle, the eulstraland the cles tangles hich are pte oor the sua of the sos Tee faethe clement ca a eas pry) be eatsformed im ach athe The ear lis can taken parent tet anges tod new rears cane formed of them, For isa Gre terabedron and te cease can be taken spar ino ven equlatrl tangle, which cn be recombined fo Be {ne cusedron, That mene one tom ofr a 0 me ‘Sr e conned og one no of ate Brt te andr ental angles anno be costed mate nce they have“ pivsics AND PHILOSOPHY QUANTUM THEORY AND THE ROOTS OF ATOMIC SCIENCE 67 ten, ee oo ey ot Gata ales al) bee vie aoc Peeper deters parce ee serge te ter of i.e sab mpc wy my cae a ee es Slat tan ce te seer eine oe aaa st eral can be found hese between wo ree ee ie meat ay tg te mot rs nn i mia of ema a cera ant the eam Te entry eee reader mt mes of mate ey col taptomet inca tr amet no extension in space Its only when the angles are lg oor a vega stata unit of mater i cea ‘ee tbaet prs of mater are not the fundamental Beings Inthe russ of Democats xt ae mathematical for Here iis qurteevient hte frm more important han ‘Nbsanceof which tithe form. ‘Aeris thor survey’ of Grek phlosophy up 19 the for sion of the concep ofthe atom we may come Back 1 Phgss and ak how our modern vets on the atom an Janu theory compare with ti ancent developmen. Hi ‘Riaty se word atom in modern physis ad ches W teed othe wrong object ding se revival of Sctence nt “Svemtetnth century, snc the smllt panics belonging Sho called chemial erent ae stl rather compli ‘jut smal units These salir nit ae nowadays cal ‘XSetary particles adit isobviosthat anything in mode physics sould be compared withthe atoms ot Democts ‘platsbe the elementary particles ike proton, neaton leo Democritus was well avare ofthe fact tht if the_ to shoul by ter notion an seangements, xplanthe pr States colour cl tate stey cannot theses {hes properties, Therefore. he bas deprived the stom of ‘juaidsted hs atom tha rather trac piece of mat AutDenoerits has ket wo te stom the qulty of ‘bang Exton in space of shape and motion. He has fet th ‘als betuaeft vould have een ete to opeak about ‘Kom st aif such quate had been taken sway from nthe other hands tis implies thst Hs coneepe ofthe inner explain geomet, extension in space or exten, tue icant reduce them to something more fundamen She moderaview ofthe mentary particle with regard to Dutacene ore content and more rads Let sits Resto: What sam elementary pate! We sy, for instr AMpply a weutton’ bat we can give no well defied picture Janet vee mean by the word, We can we several petures a {sri iconce va pare, one asa wave or asa wave p20 Sut koow thar aoe ofthese esrpins acute. tan the neaton has no color, no sel no tse Inao @ pursics AND PRULOSOPH he created from the available energy and the old particles May have disappeared in the collision. Sach events have been frequently observed and offer the best proof tha al particles are nae ofthe same substance- energy. But the resemblance ofthe} TRadern views to those of Plato and the Pythagoreans can aried somewhat further, The elementary particles in Plato's imocus are finally not substance but mathematical forms. ‘Al things ae numbers is a sentence atributed to Pythagoras. The nly mathematical forms available at that time were such] [Jeometric forms asthe regular solids or the triangles which form fer surace. In modern quantum theory there can be no doubt thatthe elementary particles will ally also be mathematica forms, but of much more complicated nature. The Gree Piilosophers thought of static forms and found them in vgularsoids Mosern science, however, has from its begnnit Inthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries started from ‘dynamic problem, The costantelementin physicssince Newtor ‘Phot a configuration or a geometrical for, but a dynamic law} ‘The equation of motion holds at all times, iis im this se ermal, whereas the geometrical forms, like the orbits, ‘hanging. Therefore, the mathematical forms that represent t ‘lementery particles wil be seltions of some eternal law ‘notion for matter. Actually tis is a problem which has n yet been solved. The fundamental law of motion for matter hot yet known and therefore it isnot yet possible to deri mathematically the properties ofthe elementary particles ft uch la But theoretsel physics in its present state seems t ‘Bo not very far from ths goal and we can atleast say what kin flaw we have to expect. The final equation of motion f ‘matter will probably te some quantized nonlinear wave equ flon for a wave field of operators that simply represents matte ocany specified kind of waves or particles, This wave equati illprobsbly be equivalent torather complicated ets of tear ‘Cqustions, which have ‘Eigenvalues’ and “Eigensoltions» the physicists cal it, These Figensolutions wil nally rep the clementary particles; they sre the mathematical forms w Shall replace the regular solids of the Pythagoreans. We migh mention here that these “Eigensolutions’ wil follow from fundamental equation for matter by much the same ra (QUANTUM THEORY AND THE ROOTS OF ATOMIC SCIENCE 69) iatcal process by which the armonic vibrations ofthe Pye ea hg tll trom the aiferetal union of he ng Sucre lie ober areneyee we folow the Pythagorean ne of tought Wwe ma thatthe funder awa ton wl tu outa ate ‘Gaal simple law, even ifs evaluation with respect othe Egetates may be very complicated tf fiat fo give any FRodargument for this hope for sioplictyexeept he at hat {Phas htherto aways been peal o write the fundamental {uations In physics In simple mathematical forms. Ths fat {fbin withthe Pythagorean religion, and many physicists share {her belt nth respec bot mo convincing agument has et bean Eventos thie mist be. ‘We may aan argument a this point concerning» question wich sequently Sted by laymen th spect tothe concept Gt the elementary particle in modern physics: Why do the shysiisscnim thatthe elementarypartescannxe divided Ino smaller brs? The anewer to #8 question Carly shows ow much more abstract modern scence Is 28 compared to Greek philosophy. Tae argument ros ike this How could one tive an clementary parce Cerny ony y wing exter forces and very sharp tool The ony foo avalabe ar ober {lementry parates Therefor, olson between two el Shentary prices of excremey igh energy would be the only proceses by which the particles could eventually be divided ewally they can be dived in such process, sometimes into very many fragments butte fragments ae aghn elementary Particles ot any smaller pisces of them, the Mase of ese Fagmentsresang frm the very large Kinetic energy ofthe tw calling parle, In eter words, the transmutation of eng into ter makes posible thatthe fagments of le senfary particles are again the same clementary paris. "ter this comparison ofthe modern views in atom physics ‘ith Grek pilosphy we have to add 2 warning. tat this Comparison Should ot be missnderatod. may etm at fst Sight thar the Creek philosophers have by some Kind of ie {ious ntti some to the same of very snl condlusons ‘Se haven modern meso after several emis of rd abr with experents and mathematics. This fterpetatonF 7 prysies AND PamLosorHy {out comparson would, however. bea complete misundr Batti There fan enomour diference between modern "Etnctind Greck pitsophy and that jst the empire ide of modern sinc, Since he time of Cail aod NEw. auntinaden cence hasbeen bed pon 2 decal uy of sere upon the postulate that only such tateents should Tema stave bee verted ora Tess cam be verified by Uy lment The ds that one coud single outsome vento Mare by am experiment. oder Stas the detalles 0 Mae hae he constant ante ominous change. Metoceur tote rec phiesopers. Therefore, moder scence 2G fom te begining toot upon a mach more mode, but Be Ton Gincinack mer bose than ancent piso. ‘Motion the statements of oder physics are it sme Way Irfan mach move serturly tha the saterents of Grek ph Trephy hen Pao say fr instance athe sales pails Peete erihedrene it acquit ea to ee what he ely ts sth formotthetetranedron only ymboially attached ge cama fre or do te sales pares of fe mechan peeing eirtetons ors eat tevabedrons and by Sinden cont ty be seared note euler tangle. SEE Novern scence woul ally alvays akc How ci one Sree etgermentty thatthe ats of ire are tevabedons eee pehaps cabo Therefore when modern sence states Mito frotabiss certain elton oa fundamental equation of Sener mcans that we can from this soton dec mathe Racy yotle properties ofthe proton and ean check the Chrno he alton by eprint ery al Tis easily of checking the Corrects of a satementexpeth ‘rn with ery high pesson and in any muber of deals reas enormous weight he statement that could not be ‘esched to the saternents fer Grek ilsophy Sihiesame some statements of sacen philosophy arerither cats of moter scence Timp shows bow fr one Tin get by combining the ordinary experience of mate ha we fave without ding exprment ith he untiring efor et 2h logical ora into th experience to understand Om ener rine. 5 ‘The Development of Philosophical Ideas Since Descartes in Comparison with the ‘New Situation in Quantum Theory INV THE two thousand years that fllowed the culmination of Greek scence and culture in the fifth and fourth centuries 8. the human mind was toa large extent occupied with problems ‘ofa diferent kind from those of the early period. In the fist entries of Greek culture the strongest impulse had come from the immediate reality ofthe world in which we live and which ‘we perceive by our senses. This reality was fll of Iifeand there ‘was no good reason to stress the distinction between matter and Inind or between body and soul. But inthe philosophy of Plato fone already ses that another realty begins to become stronger. Inthe famous simile ofthe cave Plato compares men to prisoners in cave who are bound and can look in only one direction. ‘Thay havea fie behind them and see on 2 wall the shadows of themselves and of objects behind them. Since they see nothing but the shadows, they regard those shadows as real and are not aware of the objects, nally one of the prisoners escapes and ‘comes from the cave into the light ofthe sun. For the ist ime he sees real things and realizes that he had been deceived itherto by the shadows. For the first ime he knows the truth and thinks only with sorrow of his lng life inthe darkness. The rea philosopher i the prisoner who has escaped from the cave into the light of truth he fs the one who possesses real know! ‘sige. This immediate connection with truth or, we may in the Christan sense say, with God isthe new reality that has begun ‘orbecome stronger than the reality of the world as perceived byn puysies AND PHILOSOPHY ‘ur senses. The Immediate connection with God happens within ‘he human soul, not in the word, and this was the problem that ‘Sccupied human thought more than anything else i the two ‘Round years following Plato, In this period the eyes ofthe Dhllosophers were directed toward the human soul and is rela Fion to God, tothe problems of etic, and wo the interpretation Of the revelation but not to the outer word. Ie was ony inthe time ofthe Ttalian Renaissance that again a gradual change of the human mind could be seen, which resulted finally in a re- ‘vival ofthe intrest in nature “The great development of natural science since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was preceded and accompanied by a development of philosophical ideas which were closely com pected with the fundamental concepts of science. It may there {ore be instructive to comment on these ideas from the position that has finally been reached by modern sciencein ourtime. “Toe st great philosopher of this new period of science was} René Deseares who lived in the fist half ofthe seventeenth century. Those of his ideas that are most important for the development of scientific thinking are contained in his Discourse ‘on Method. On the basis of doubt and logical reasoning he tries to find 2 completely new and ashe thinks solid ground for philosophical system. He does not accept revelation as such af basis nar des he want r0 accept uncritical what i perceive by the senses. So he stats with his method of doubt. He c ‘his doubt upon that which ou senses tellus about the results of ‘our reasoning and finally he arrives at his famous sentence cogito ergo sun L cannot doubt my existence since it fol from the fact that lam thinkin. After establishing the existe ‘ofthe Lin this way he proceeds to prove the existence of ‘sentially on the neo scholastic philosophy. Finally the exit ‘ence of the world follows from the fact that God had given mi ‘rong inclination to believe inthe existence ofthe woe, an itis simply impose that God should have deceived me. “This basis of the philosophy of Descartes is radically diferent from that ofthe ancient Greek philosophers. Here the starting point is nota fundamental principle or substance, but the at] fempt of 2 fundamental knowledge. And Descartes realize ‘that whet we know about our mind sore certain than what we peVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS SINCE DESCARTES. 73 tow about the outer world But already hitting point wi sce ange’ God World, {simplifies Ins dangerous way te thas for further resonng. The division between mater and op or between soul and boty, which ad sored in Pat's ‘usophy, i now complete: Codi separated both from the | Spa om the word Godin face afied so high above the work {hd men that Healy appears nthe posophy of Deseares Shy ascommon pont of eferece tat xa he ean ‘ovens the an the world ‘While ancient Grek pilsophy had tried to find oder in the init varlety of hinge and evens by looking for some funda: mental unifying prep, Descartes tries oexablsh the order through some fundamental divin, But the thee pars wach ration the dvs oe some of heir nen when anyone pats considered a separated from the other two pats Fone tis the fundamental conceps of Descartes a ale isesenal Shot God isin the word ae in the and ie ao eel hat the | eannot be relly separate from the world. OF course Besar randy nce ft coment Philosphy and atual scence inthe following period developed nck of the olanty teen the tes eptans an she fs extens' and mua) sience conentated tre on theres extnst' The influence ofthe Cartesian division on ‘nan thought nthe following centuries cn hardly Be ovr ‘rine. bt is ost thie vson wich we ave fo erie Inerirom the development physic in our time Of course it woul be wrong to say that Descartes, through bis new method in posh. has given a new diction f0 hua thought, What he actualy dd was to format forthe fist ime» trend in man thinking that could already be sen eng te Race in aly and in he Reema The ‘asthe revival of interest in matherates which expresed 3h lnceang nunc of Paton elements in piso. athe instence on personal religion. The growing interest ih mate Sate favoured a plsepica system tha are fem aed "soning an by he method fo arve ase ath that ‘ass cerain sv. mathematical conclusion. The fssence on ‘onl elgon sprted the and elton Ged fo te ri Theirs nthe combination of empirical knowlege- 7” Pvsies AND PHILOSOPHY ‘with mathematics as seen in the work of Galileo was pray partly due to the possiblity of ariving in this way a sor Knowledge tht could be kepe apart completely from the the logical disputes raised by the Reformation, This empirical [knowlege coulé be formulated without speaking about God bout ourselves and favoured the separation ofthe three fun imental concepts God-World] or the separation between ‘re ‘Copitans andres extensa’ In this period there was in ‘Gases an enplcit agreement among the pioneers of empirical ‘SGence that in their dacussons the name of God or a fun mental cause should not be mentioned. ‘On the other hand, the dificultes ofthe separation could clearly seen from the beginning. In the distinction, for insta between the ‘res cogitans’ and the ‘res extena’ Descartes forced to put the animals eniely on the side of the ‘res ex tensa Therefore, the animals and the plants were not esse tially different from machines, eheir behaviour was complete by material eases Buithas always seemed dificul to deny completely the existence of some kind of soul in the an tals anit seems tous thatthe alder concept of soul fr instan in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas was more natural a less forced than the Cartesian concept of the ‘es cognitans ‘even if we are convinced thatthe laws of physics and chem fre strictly valid in living organisms. One of the later con quences of this view of Descartes was that, if animals we Simply considered as machines, It was dificult not to think @ Same about men, ‘Since, on the other hand, the ‘res copia and theres exten’ were taken as completely diferent int fssence, [edd not seem posible that they could act upon ea ‘ther. Therefore in order to preserve complete parallelism tween the experiences of the mind and of the body, the mind als ‘wasin its activities completely determined by laws which cor Spondea tothe las of physics and chemistry. Here the questi ofthe possiblity of Tree will arose. Obviously this whole ‘Scrption is somewhat artifical and shows the grave defects the Cartesian partition ‘On the other hand in natural scence the partition was f several centuiesextremely successful. The mechanics of Newt fand all the other pars of classical physics constructed aftr i pIviLOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS sitce DESCARTES 75 Grpenhagea interpretation of quantum they, onccantwacethe Teas, The world, Les the extended thingy, exist This is 10 Sues that there a statements that canbe objecivated and in fae he largest par of our experience in daly Ife consists Of such statement. Dogmati realism claims that there are 0 ements concerning the material world that cannot be ob- Jrtisatd, Practical reais has always been and wil aways be 2 Ssenil prt of natural science. Dogmatic realism, however. swesee tow, nota necesary condition for natura scencefoe 6 puysies AND PHILOSOPHY But it has in. the past played a very important role in the ‘elopment of sciences actualy the position of classical physics Thatof dogmatic esis, Iisonly through quantum theory th Wrohave lesmed chat exact sciences possible without the bas (fF dogmatic realism. When Einstein has ciicized quanta theory he has done so from the bass of dogmatic realism. 7 see rery natural attitude. Every scientist who does research wo feels that hes Toking for something that is objectively tru. Hi fRatements are not meant 0 depend upon the conditions un Which they can be verified, Especially in physics the fact that Cah expla nature by simple mathematica laws tell us th here we have met some genuine feature of reality. not somethin that ws have-in any meaning ofthe word—invented oursl ‘This fs the situation which Emnstein had in mind when he dogmatic realism as the bai for natural scence. Bur quan theory isin itself an example for the possibility of explain recur by means simple mathematical laws without this ‘Thewe Lave may perhaps not sem quite simple when one ct pares them with Newtonian mechanics. But, judging ron Ehormous complexity of the phenomena which are to be 6 plained (For instance, the line spectra of complicated. atom Re mathematial scheme of quantum theory is comparath simple, Natural scence is actually possible without the basis ‘dogmatic realism. ‘Metaphysical realism goes one step further than dogma realism by saying thatthe things really exit’ This sin f tnnat Descartes tied to prove by the argument that ‘God can fave deceived us The statement that the things really exist ferent [rom the statement of dogmatic realism in so far hhere the word ‘exist occurs, which is also meant inthe ot Statement cogito ergo sum’ I think, therefore 1am." itis dificult see what is meant a this point that is not ‘contained in the thesis of dogmatic realism; and this leads foun general crcism of the statement ‘ogi ergo sum, wh Descartes considered as the solid ground on which he ‘uid his system. Tes infact true that this statement has fertinty of a mathematical conclusion, ifthe words ‘cog Sha um’ are defined in the usual way of, to put it m hukiously and at the same time more critically. the words 3 DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPIHCAL IDEAS SINCE DESCARTES. 7 so dined thatthe statement flows. But tis des not rel ws snything about how far we can use the concepts of thinking and lg ning ut ways aly na very nea dene alnays an empirical question how far our concepts ean applied. : a oe he ict of metaphysical realism was felt son after Descartes and became the starting point for the empiric philosophy” for seneualim and postin "Te tree pilesophers who can be taken as representatives {or eay empiric philosophy are Locke, Berkeley ad Hume locke Rods, contrary to Descartes, that all Knowledge fut rately founded inexperience: Tisexperience may be sensation {r ercepion of the operation of our own mind. Raowledge, 20 Locke state Is the perception ofthe agreement or disagreement tewostessThenext step was taken by Berkeley. acess ‘ur knowlege derived from perception, there eno meaning inthe statement thatthe things ell xi: bens i the pee ception gene cannor poly make any dference whether the thingsenst or donot exist, Therefore, t be perceived is identical with exitence. Ths line of argument then war ex teed roan excrete skeptics by Hume, who denied inv {in and causaon and thereby arived a 2 conclsion which *akenseioway would estoy the asl empire science “he esesm of metaphyseal realism whieh has been ex pried inempiiticpiesophy s certain usted nso far as Iiea warning gant the nave use ofthe term existence’. The posiuvesttementsat this philosophy canbe crite on silar res: Our perceptions are nor pinay bundles of colours or Sounds what we presive i aendy perceived something the Scent ere bing on the word thing and therefore ei arabe {ul whether we gn anything by taking the percepion instead ofthe thing asteulimate cements fray ‘he underlying dificlty has been clearly recognized by modern positivism, This line of thought expreset rican Seoia he nave we of certain ters Ike hing, -percepion ‘Nitec by the general postulate that the question wheter 2 piven sentence haz any meaning a all should abways Be troy and italy examined his postulate and toner ving attude ae derived from mathematical lg. The pro8 ivsies AND PHILOSOPHY ‘cedure of natura scence iptured as an attachment of symbols forthe phenomena, The symbols can, asin mathematics, be com: bined according to certain rules, and in this way statements about the phenomena ean be represented by combinations of symbols, However, combination of symbols that doesnot com- ply with the ruesis not wrong but conveys no meaning “The obvious diiculty in this argument is the lack of any general criterion as to when a sentence should be considered 38 meaningless, A definite decison is possible only when the sen tence belongs to closed system of concepts and axioms, which Inthe development of naturalscience will berather the exception than the rule. In some cases the conjecture that a certain sen tence is meaningles has historically led to important progres, for it opened the way tothe establishment of new connections which would have been impesible if the sentence had a mean- ing. An example in quantum theory that has already been dis- ‘cussed isthe sentence: In which orbit does the electron move round the nucleus? But generally the postvstic scheme taken | from mathematical logic to narrow in adeserption of nature which necessarily uses words and concept that are only vaguely defined. ‘The philosophic thesis that all knowledge is ultimately founded in experience has in the end led toa postulate concern ing th logical clarification of any statement about nature, Such 4 postulate may have seemed justified inthe period of classical ‘ysis, but since quantum theory we have leaned that tcannot| ‘he fulfilled. The words ‘postion’ and ‘velocity’ of an electron, for instance, seemed perfectly well defined 25 to both theit meaning and their posible connections. and in fact they were ‘leary defined concepts within the mathematical framework of ‘Newtonian mechanics. But actually they were aot well defined, asi ten from the relations of uncertainty. One may say that ‘regarding their position in Newtonian mechanics they were well Gefned, but n ther relation to nature they were not. This shows that we can never know beforehand which limitations will be put on the applicability of certain concepts by the extension ‘of our knowledge into the remote parts of nature, nto which we ‘can only penetrate with the most elaborate tools. Therefore. in the process of penetration we are bound sometimes to use Our DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS SINCE DESCARTES. 79) weet ina way we ot uid nd whch cas no tren, Intent onthe pont of complete ogi lar feation mould make scence impossible. We are reminded ere ty moder physics ofthe ad wisdom thatthe one who insists on Sveratterngan error mast remains ‘A combination of those two lines of thought ha started from Descartes onthe onesie, and from Locke snd Berkley. on the ovher, was atempte inthe powpy of Rant, who Way the {cand of German ais Tat prt of ht work which sine portant in comparison with the Tests of modern physi I ESnssned in The Crigue of Pure Reason. He takes ap the esto whether Knowledge i only founded in experince or Gan come from oe soars, and he aries a the consion that our knowledge sn part's prion and nt inferred induc: tly from experience. There, he disngishes between ‘empricaT knowledge and knowledge that is" prion. A the same time he dsingishes between ‘analytic and "synthetic fropostions- Analy propositions follow simply from ee and ther denial would lsd to selteotradieson,Popostions that ‘ee nat'anayie’ are caledsyhetc. ‘Whats, aecordig ro Kane theerterion for knowlege being 1 pio” Kant ages that ll nowlee stars with experionet But he ads that snot ways derived from experince eis Ue that experience was us tha certain thing har such or Such properties, but ft doesnot teach tat It ould not be dierent Therefore ia proposition though gether with necessity It must be "apron Experience never gives to ts indgment complete generat. For instance, the sentence The Sams every morning means tat we know no exception to this rae he past and that we expect to hold intrest ve can imagine exceptions the rule Its judgment sated ‘rth complete generality, therefore, csimposble to inane Any exception. mist be apo An any jgment aivayea prio eren facil lars arithmetic fon paying vith mates, e ee not Iter go back to experience to know that two and two ae fou, Empirical hnowledge, on the ober han, fe ante But are synthetic judgments prior posible? Kan resto Drove iis by ving examples in which the above criteria seem0 puysics AND PHILOSOPHY tobe full. Spaceand tine ae he says pri forms ofp Tetidon tne cae of space he gives the Tolling et sie argument PreGmce not en empl cone arated rom ot extonencea for space bpresipose in felerringsnstons een ceca. and exteral experience nly pos Shroughthe penton a eee iehnceesary pension prior whichundeesall ence perceptons for we annie at thee shoal SeaetPitndagh we cn inapne ha ere shold be nthing in pace. ois not udscarsve or gna concept of the elo vega general for here ony one Space of whlch wha Steal Spc are par not sans. eS preset sani given gst, which ois ith elf alte ports space ths ean iferen Te hots concept to snc and therefore pace concept bara fof ntalon. pele Ryament shall not be dbcussed here. They are me RES bey examples forth general typeof poo tha KGnthurinmidorthesyntet judgments rion “it egrd to pis Kan ook a pro, Bess Ss and ne he aw of casa and the cone of satan. mrLetagect ns work he ed once the aw of conserva Uehrer the equity of ‘sto ad react’ and event Teel grtaion No phys would be wig tfllow Ks BoC itis tem 2 por sued inthe alte sense tat tees eic by ant In mathematics Kant tok Eves Fe Clog we compare these dcrnesf Kant with thers ingen pyc must retonanater pat of his work, cee a nave wo tefer ater. The dare questi Theo tags realy exit which had given Fe 0 em Thane pilsopny occured alo in Kant sytem, But Ks Ps Pete te ln of Bekele apd ume, though tht Ma Tohave ten ogealy consent He hpt the notion o Ea erent tom the peep, apd his Wa {epetomeconneson with ais : Perec the compara of Kant's doctrines wi ‘pevELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS SINCE DESCARTES 81 1 physics itloosin the frst moment as though iscentral ‘cen ote sya ogres» Pr” hen cot fltelyanmiated by the eiscoveries of ourcentry. The theory £Efrelavity bas changed our vews om pace and time, thas fa fot revealed endely new features of space and time, of which poshing is Seen in Kanes a prio forms of pre itition. The fof easly is 0 longer applied in qoantum theory and the lbw of conservation of matter i no longer trae for the ele snenlaty particles. Obviously Kant could not have foreseen the {ev labvetis, but since e was convinced that Bis concepts ould be the tassof any future metaphysis that ean be called ence” is interesting to se where his arguments have been wrong. “Asexample wetae thelaw of causality. Kantaays that when. ever we observe an event we assume that there foregoing erent from which he other event must follow secording tosome file. This is, as Kant states, the bass of al selene work. In this discussion tis not importante whether ot not we can always fd the foregoing event from which the other one followed Actually we can find it in many cases, But even i we cannot, fething can prevent us from asking what this foregoing event might have been and to look fori Therefor, the fw of ca sty is reduced tothe method of scenic research Is the ‘onion which makes scence posible. Since we actually apy {Nemeth thaw sally pro ads ot eed rom experience. Is this truein atomic physics Let us consider a radium atom, hich can emit an earl. The ime forthe emission of the {particle cannot be predicted, We can only say that in the erage the emision wil ake place nsbout two thousand years Therefore, when we observe the emission we do not actually Took fora foregoing event from which the emission mas according ‘baru follow. Loialy it woud be ait posible wo look for Such a foregoing event. and we need not be dicourage by the fac tht hitherto none has bean found. But why ha he sen \iiemethod actualy changed inthis ery fundamental question Since Kant Two posible ansvers can be given to that queston. The one is: Werhave ben convinced by experience thatthe Laws of& oso ‘quantum theory are correct and, if they are, we know that {oregon event as cause fr the emision ata given time anne be found. The other answer is: We know the foregoing even but not quite accurately. We know the forces inthe 3 rucleus that are responsible forthe emission of the «patil But this Knowledge contalns the uncertainty which is bough ‘bout bythe interaction between the nucleus andthe res of ‘worl If we wanted to know why the epartile was emitted that particular time we would have to know the microscop Structure ofthe whole world including ourseves, and tha ist posible, Therefore, Kant’ arguments for the a priori chara Dl the law of causality no longer apply. 's similar discussion coud be given onthe a priori charac ‘of space and time a forms of intuition. The result would be tl ‘Same. The a prior concepts Which Kant considered an undi putabletrath are no longer contained in the scientific system: ‘modern physics. ‘Stl they form an esental part of ths system in a somew diferent sense. In the dscusion of the Copenhagen int tion of quantum theory it has been emphasized that we use Classical conceptsin deserbing our experimental equipment ‘more generally in describing that part ofthe world which hot belong to the object of the experiment. The use of th Concepts including space, time and causality, is in fact t Concition for observing atomic events andi, in this sense of word, 'a prion’. What Kant had not foreseen was tha these Dror concepts can be the conditions fr scence and at the sa fime can have only a limited range of applicability. When ‘make an experiment we have to assume a causal chain of even that leads from the atomic event through the apparatus fina {the eye of the observer if this causal chan was not assum rothing could be knowin about the atomic event. Stil we mu Keep in mind that classical physics and causality have only Timited range of applicability. It was the fundamental para ‘of quantum theory that could not be foreseen by Kant. Modes physics has changed Kant’ statement about the possiblity Synthetic judgments a prior from a metaphysical one into practical one. The synthetic judgments a prior! thereby ha ‘hecharacter ofa relative ruth, DeVPLOPMENT OF PHROSOPHICAL IDEAS SINCE DESCARTES 83 If one reinterprets the Kantian ‘a pron in tls way. there |snoeason to consider the perceptions rather than the things as ven. Just asin classical physics, we can speak about those vents tht ae no observed inthe same manner as about those that ate observed, Therefore, practical realism Isa natural pa ofthe reinterpretation. Considering the Kantian thing intel” Kant had pointed out that we eannot conclude anything fom the perception about the thing tselP, This staterment has, as \Weasicker hos noice, its formal analogy in the fact that in ofthe use ofthe classical concepts in all the experiments a ronclassieal Behaviour of the atomic objects is possible. The ‘hingin-slt is forthe atomic physicist, if he uses this con- cept a all. finally a mathematical structure; but tis structure ‘S contrary to Kant— indirectly deduced from experience in this reinterpretation the Kantian 'a prior” is indirectly connected with experience in so far as it has been formed through the development of the human mind in avery distant post Following this argument the Biologist Lorentz has once orapaed che a prio” concepts with forms of behaviou that in Shimale are called “inherited or innate schemes” It sin fact ‘uit plausble that for certain primitive animals space and time ‘re diferent from what Kant cals our “pure intuition’ of space sna time The later may belong to the species ‘man’, but not tothe world as independent of men, But we are perhaps entering into too hypothetical discussions by following this biological ‘comment on hea prion. It was mentioned here merely a8 3m example of how the term ‘eat truth’ In connection withthe Kantinn’a prion ean possibly be interpreted ‘Modern physics has ben used here as.an example or, we may say, asa model to check the results of some important philo- Sophie systems of the past, Which of course were meant to hold inva much wider fed What we have learned especially from the discussion of the philosophies of Descartes and Kant may perbapebe stated inthe following way: Any concepts or words which have been formed in the past ‘heugh the interplay between the world and ourselves are not realy sharply defined with respect to thelr meaning: that i to say. we donot know exactly how far they wil help usin finding ‘cur way in the world, We often know that they can be applieda ysics AND amosoriy toa wide range of inner o outer experience, but we practically ‘ever know precisely the limits oftheir applicability. Thisis fren of the simplest and most general concepts lke ‘existen nd “space and time” Therefore, it will never be posible pure reason to arrive atsomeabsoite truth “The concepts may, however, be sharply defined with reg totheie connections. Ths actually the fact when the con hecome a pat ofa system of axioms and definitions which be expressed consistently by a mathematical scheme. Such _roup of connected concepts may be applicable ta wide Held ‘experience and will help Us to fin eat way inthis fed, But limits of the applicability will in general not be known, a lea not completely ‘Even if we realize that the meaning ofa concepts never fined with absolute precision, some concepts form an integr partof scientific methods since they represent for the time bei the final result ofthe development of human thought in the past even in a very remote past: they may even be inherited and fn any eave the indispensable tools for doing scientiic work i ‘ur time. In this sense they can be practically a priori. B further limitations oftheir applicability may be found in the ature 6 The Relation of Quantum Theory to Other Parts of Natural Science IT HAS been stated before that the concepts of natural science fan sometimes be sharply defined with regard to their connec: ‘ons. This possiblity was realized forthe fist ime in Newton's Principia and it Just for that reason that Newton's work has exerted ifs enormaus influence on the whole development of ‘natural scence in the following centuries. Newton begins his Frincipia with a group of definitions and axioms which are inter connected in ch a Way that they form what one may call ‘closed system’. Each concept can be represented by 2 mathe- matical symbel, and the connections between the diferent con- cepts are then represented by mathematical equations expressed by means ofthe symbols, The mathematical image ofthe system tesures that contraditions cannot occur in the system. In this way the posible motions of bodies under the iniuence of the Xcting forces are represented by the possible solutions of the ‘cquations, The system of definitions and axioms which can be ‘written in a set of mathematical equations is considered as de- Seribing an eternal structure of nature, depending nether on @ particular space nor on particular time “The connection between the different concepts in the system Isso close that one could generally not change any one of the concepts without destroying the whole system. For this reason Newton's system was for a long time con sidered as final and the task set before the scientists of the fo lowing period seemed simply to be an expansion of Newton's mechanics into wider fields af experience, Actually physis did develop along these lines for about two centuries,F 86 iysics AND PaLosoviTy From the theory of the motion of mass points one could go| cover the mechani of solid bodies, to rotatory motions, and ‘ne could treat the continuous motionsof aid or the vibrating fmotions of an elastic body. All chese parts of mechanics of {yuamics were gradually developedia clese connection withthe ‘volution of mathematics, expecaly ofthe differential calculus, Sind the results were checked by experiments, Acoustics and iydroynamics became apart of mechanics. Another scence. in ‘hich the application of Newton's mechanics was obvious, was Tsronomy. The Improvemen of the mathematical methods ually le to more and more accurate determinations of the Frotions of the planets and of thelr mutual interactions. Wren the phenomena of electricity and magnetism were discovered, the electric or magnetic forees were compared to the gravita tional forces and their actions upon the motion of the bodies {ould again be studied along the ines of Newtonian mechanics Finally-in the nineteenth century. even the theory of heat could be reduced to mechanics by the assumption that heat really con Sts of a complicated statistical motion of the smallest parts of matter. By combining the concepts of the mathematical theory] ‘f probability. with the concepts, of Newtonian mechanics Claleius Gibbs and Boltzmann were able to show that the fundamental laws in the theory of beat could be interpreted as Satitial laws following from Newton's mechanics when} ppliedco very complicated mechanical systems. ‘Up to this pointe programme set up by Newtonian m nies had been carried out quite consistently and had led cot Understanding of a wide field of experience. The fs dificult Sone in the discussions on te electromagnetic fied in the wor ‘Of Favaday and Maxwell, In Newtonian mechanics the gravit {ional force had been considered 35 given, not as an object f further theoretical studies, Inthe work of Faraday and Max} well however, the field of force itself became the object ofthe Investigation the physicists wanted to know how this Geld of force varied as function of space and time. Therefore, they ti torsevup equations of motion forthe lds, not primarily orth bodies upon which the feds act This change led back to a pint of view ahich had been held by many scientists befor} Rewton, An action could, soit seemed, be transferee from one [RELATION OF QUANTUM THEORY TO NATURAL SCIENCE 87 teay to another ony when the twa bodies touched each other: {orinstance, in a collision or through friction. Newton had intro- deeds very new and strange hypothe by assuming fore that acted over along distance. Now in the theory ofthe Els Bt force oe cll cme tack to he re, tat action transtered from on pinto neighbouring pnt, ony by de Shing the behav ofthe els n terme eset Ca {ioe Thie proved actualy to be posible, and therefore the Sesrption othe electromagnet fs aspen by Maxwells qustons seeds anata solution othe pobiem of frce. Fre one had realy changed the programme given by New: {onlan mechanics Te axioms and deftons of Newton had Ire ote andi movon bt ith xh els force secmed fo have acquired the same dere alc asthe totes in Nwons theory. Thi yew ofcourse was ot ey a Cepteds and to avoid such a change in the conept of reality i serine plausible wo compare the cectromagntic eds with he eid of elt deformation or sess, the light waves of Max sels theory with he sound waves in lsc Roe. Therefore, any physics belived thar Maxwell's equations actually re fered tothe deformations of an elastic medium, which they {ced the eter tis are ws given merely to explin ht the medium was so light and thin tat could penetrate into ‘ther matter and coud not be seen o felt. This explanation wat not ton ststactry, however, sine ft could not expan the ompletabience of ay longtdinal ight waves Finally the theory of eltvity. which wl be disused in the next chapter showed inaconetuive way thi the concept he ‘her az substance, to which Maxwell equation rele, ha 0 be handoned. The arguments cannot be dicused a hs pint nde: atthe eat wa tha he esa tobe costed asa pendent rea. ‘Marthe andstillmore staring rest the theory of pei sey wate dicey oe propertly ane tine ‘cul ofa relation tween space sete that had nt Been iownbeloresnd inten nNewtonan meas ‘Uner the inpesion ofthis completly new tation man plvtcas came tothe following somevhat rah conuson ewonian mechanics ha nally been diproved Te rarya8 Pivsics aND PHILOSOPHY ceality isthe field and not the body. and the structure of space nd time is correctly described by the formulas of Lorentz and instein, and not by the axioms of Newton. The mechanics of ‘Newton was a good approximation in many cases, but now it ‘ust be improved to give a more rigorous description of nature. From the point of view which we have finally reached in quantum theory such a statement would appear as avery poor {scription ofthe actual situation. Fist, ie ignores the fact that most experiments by which fields are measured are based upon Newtonian mechanics and, second, that Newtonian mechanics ‘Cannot be improved; ican only be replaced by something essen: tilly eifterent! "The development of quantum theory has taught us that one should rather describe the situation in the following terms ‘Wherever the concepts of Newtonian mechanics can be used (0 describe event in nature, the las formulated by Newton are Strictly correct and cannot be improved. But the electromagnetic phenomena canot adequately be described by the concepts of Rewtonian mechanics, Therefore. the experiments on the leetromagnetc fields and on ight waves, together with their ‘hooretical analyss by Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, have led to new closed system of definitions and axioms and of con cepts that can be represented by mathematical symbols, which Is coherent in the same sense as the system of Newron’s me chanics, butis essentially different rom it. “Therefore, even the hopes which had accompanied the work of the scientists since Newron had to be changed. Apparently progres: in scence could not always be achieved by using the [Known laws of matre for explaining new phenomena, In some tases new phenomena that had been observed could only be Understood by new concepts which were adapted to the new ‘Phenomena i the same way a5 Newton's concepts were t0 the Inechanical events, These new concepts again could be com Hpeced in a closed system and represented by mathematical Symbols. But if physics or, more generally, natural scence pro- (eee in this way. the question arose: What isthe relation be- tween the diferent sets of concepts? If, fr instance, the same Concepts oF words occur in two diferent sets and are defined fiferently with regard to thelr connection and mathematical [RELATION OF QUANTUM THEORY TO NATURAL SCIENCE 9 presentation, in what sense do the concepts represent reality? This problem arose at once when the theory of special rel tivgy had been discovered. The concepts of space and time be- Tonge both to Newtonian mechanics and tothe theory of rela tivity, But space and time in Nevwtonian mechanics were inde- pendent in the theory of relativity they were connected by the [tents transformation In this special case one could show that the statements of the theory of relativity approached those of ‘ewtonian mechanics within the limit in which al velocities in the system are very smalls compared with the velocity of light From thisone could conclude that the conceptsof Newtonian me- ‘chanies could not be applied to events in which there oc ‘curred velocities comparable tothe velocity of light. Thereby one had finally found an essential limitation of Newtonian me- chanics which could not be seen from the coberent st of con- ‘cepts nor from simple observations on mechanical systems. ‘Therefore, the elation between two different coherent sets of concepts always requires very careful investigation. Before we tnter into a general discussion about the structure of any such ‘ored and colierent se of concepts and about ther possible rela ‘ions we will iva bret description of those setsof concepts that have so far been defined in physics. One can distinguish four systems that have already attained their final form. The first set, Newtonian mechanics, has already been dls- cussed, Is suited forthe description ofall mechanical ystems, fof the motion of fuids and ehe elastic vibration of bodies it ‘comprises acoustics, states, aerodynamics. The second closed system of concepts was formed in the ‘course ofthe nineteenth century in connection withthe theory fof heat. Though the theory of heat could finaly be connected with mechanics through the development of statistical me Chanic, it would not be realistic to consider it as a part of mechanics. Actually the phenomenological theory of heat uses numberof concepts that have no counterpart in other branches ‘of physics, lke: heat, specific heat, entropy, free energy, etc 1 from this phenomenological description one goes over to 2 Statistical interpretation, by considering heat as energy, dst buted statistically among the very many’ degres of freedom due totheatomiestructureof matter, then heats no more connected%° Pitysies aNp PumLosorrt: fwth mechanics than with electrodynamics or oher pats of Jone The cnwalconepco! hs ierpretation the cone Peat, dey comecte wih the conept af entropy Inihe phenomenological teary. Boies thseancept he static ar ieey ot eae roles the concept of energy. But PY ‘Shereneaet of sions and concepts physics wil neessiy Sontsn the concepts of ergy, momentum and angular mo- ssontum'tad te ew tat tse quate mae under cen Wats be conserved Tis foo f the coherent fended esrb certain fesares of tre thst are correct t “Glin! st everywhere: nother words, tures thst So not Styend on space an une, the mathematicians pat that neat under arorary tanalaons in Space and time, ‘tations in space and the Gallo or Lavent-—ransformain, Trefe le theory of heat ean be combined with an of the Ce oa Me tid chelate of concepts and axions has its origin inn pnomena of etsy ane magne and has reached ital forint st decade othe twentieth cea trough the woof Loentes Eisten and Minkows. e omnes ‘iSenoynamico special reat. epi, magetsm, na one Stay ince te Ge Brogie theory of mater waves of al i eda of element pantccs but ot the wave theory of Schrodinger. Finally the fourth coberentsptem eset the quantum theory It hn ech eseried inthe fst two chaps He ena concepe ite probably function, or the ‘atic tua. 8 the matheteane call Te comprises quan Ted wave methanicthe theory of stom spec, heist. ha the theory of ther proper of mater ke elec com deci, fertomagnetsm, et : “Te relations berween these for ses of concepts can be in cated inthe folowing way’ Theis sets comtalned nthe rd ‘Sthelinting cv whee the vlocy fight can be consiered Bs inintely Big and conned nthe fourth a5 the ining her where Planet's constant of ston can be considered 3 Infinitely smal The fread pry the tira sex belong the foureh sea pio for te desipdon ofthe experiments The Second se can be connected with any ofthe other thee se RELATION OF QUANTUM THIEORY TO NATURAL SCIENCE. 94 without dificlty and is especially important in its connection ‘with the fourth. The independent existence of the third and Tourth sets suggests the existence ofa ith set, of which one. thre, and four are limiting cass. This ith st will probably be {ound someday in connection with the theary ofthe elementary particles, ‘We have omitted from this enumeration the set of concepts connected with the theory of general relativity, since this set has perhaps noc yet reached its final form. But it should be ‘emphasize that itis distinctly diferent from the other fou sets After this short survey we may come back tothe more general question, what one should consider asthe characteristic features Gf such a closed system of axioms and definitions. Perhaps the ‘ost important feature the possibility of finding a consistent mathematical representation Tor it. Ths representation must {guarantee thatthe system does not contain contradictions. Then the system must be suited to describe a wide field of experience ‘The great variety of phenomena in the Fld should cortespond to the great number f solution of the equations in the mathe- matical representation, The limitations ofthe fel can generally not be derived from the concepts. The concepts are not sharply 4efined in theie relation to nature inspite ofthe sharp definition fof their possible connections. The limitations will therefore be found from experience, from the faet thatthe concepts do not allow complete description of the observed phenomena, ‘After this brief analysis of the structure of present-day physics the relation between physics and other branches of natural Science may be discussed, The nesrest neighbour to physics is ‘chemistry. Actually through quantum theory these two seiences Ihave come toa complete tion. But a hundred years ago they were widely separated, their methods of research were quite ditferent, and the concepts of chemistry had at that time no ‘ounterpatin physis.Conceptslike valency, activity, solubility and volatility had a more qualitative character, and chemistry Scarcely belonged tothe exact sciences. When the theory of heat had been developed by the middle of the last century scientists Started to apply to the chemical processes, and ever since then {he scientific work inthis field has been determined by the hope of reducing the laws of chemistry tothe mechanics of the atoms.2 pivsics aN 2umLosoPty Te should be emphasized, however, tht this was ot possible thithnthe famework of Nevtonan netanics In ode to ve Mfhanvtastedescripon ofthe ws of chemistry one ha emulates mach wert of cone or oni pS Ths was daly done in quart tory. which Ras 13 Yo Juntos much in chemistry tsin atomic pies, Then was easy {over thatthe laws of ehemisy oul ot be reduced to New tontae mechanie of omic pues, ince the cheieal ee] tres dsploed in ter behaviour a degree of ability com ptelylckinginmeshanical stems Bust was pountl Bohr Theory of the atom in 195 that ths plat had been clearly tnderstod. In the Bal reste one may say the concept a emis are in part complementary tothe mechanical con eps ve know that an som ins lowest satlonary tat {hat determines its chemial properties we cannot a he same time speak about the motion ofthe electrons inthe atom. he preset relation tween lyon the oe and ysis ad chest. onthe other maybe very sar to that EEtncen chemistry and pies hundred eats ag The Meteo logy sr dient om those of ad ‘Gemistry, and the typical bilgi! coneeps are ofa mor ‘quate character thn those ofthe exact sence. Concep Ake ite organ. ce function ofan organ, pereepuon have na eurterpartin physicsorchemisty.On te other hand. most off the prepress made in Bclogy drog the pst hundred years has ter scien throug the apleston f chemistry and psi {othe vingerganis, andthe whol tendency of blog in out time is to explain tolls! phenomena on the bas of the own pyscal and eerie! Tavs. Again the question ass, hehe hs hope ested or not. sts inthe east ofcheisty, one earns from single bo} logeal experience that the ving organisms display a degree of Seabity which general complicated structures consisting of Say fevnc peso nlecslescould certainly nathawe on Trav of the phy and chica! ws alone. Therefore, ome Things to beaded tothelawsct physics ad chemisry before thelial peronencan caplet ‘With reg to this question two distin diferent views have ejenty been dane nthe Blog trature, The RELATION OF QUANTUM THEORY To NATURAL SCIENCE 93 one view refers to Darwin's theory of evolution in its connection with modern genetics. According to this theory, the only concept ‘which hs tobe added to those of physics and chemistry inorder to understand life is the concept of history The enormous time interval of roughly four thousand million years that has elapsed since the formation of the earth has given nate the possitlity of tying an almost unlimited variety of structures of groups of molecules. Among these structures there have finally been some ‘that could reduplicate themselves by using smaller groupe fom the surrounding matter, and such structures therefore could be ‘created in great numbers. Accidental changes in the structures provided a stl larger variety ofthe existing structures, Different Structures had to compet forthe material drawn from the sur rounding matter and inthis way, though the “survival of the fittest” the evolution of living organisms finally took Place. There can be no doube that this theory contains a very lage amount of truth, and many biologists claim thatthe addition of the concepts of history and evolution tothe coherent set of con cepts of physics and chemistry will be amply suficent to account fr all biclogical phenomena, One ofthe arguments fe ‘quently used in Favour of this theory emphasizes that wherever the las of physics and chemistry have been checked in living ‘organisms they have always been found to be correct; there seems definitely to be no place at which some "vital force’ df {erent from theforcesin physics could enter. (On the other han, it is just this argument that has lost much ofits weight through quantum theory. Since the concepts of physics and chemistry form a closed and coherent se, namely, hat of quantum theory. its necessary that wherever these con ‘eps can be used to describe phenomena the laws connected with the concepts must be valid too. Therefore, wherever one ‘reat living organisms as physicochemical systems, they must necessarily act as such. The only question from which we can lesrn something about the adequacy ofthis first iew is whether the physicochemical concepts allow a complete description of the organisms, Biologists. who answer this question in the nega tive, generally hold the second view, that has now to be ex Plaine. This second view can perhaps be stated in the following4 Puiysies aND PHILOSOPI terms: It s very dificult to ee how concepts ike perception, function of an organ, affection could bea part of the coberent fet of the concepts of quantum theory contined with the con {Expt of history. On the other hand, these concepts are necesary for a complete description of life. even if forthe moment we ‘exclude mankind a8 presenting new problems beyond biology. ‘Therefore, twill probably be necessary for an understanding of life to go teyond quantum theory and to construct a new co- hherent set of concepts, to which physics and chemistry may be- Tong limiting cates History may be an esential part of it, And concepts like perception, adaptation, affection also wil be- Tong to ttf this view fs corect, the combination of Darwin's theory with physics and chemistry would not be suficient to explain organi fife; but stil ft would be true that living organ- Jams cin toa large extent be considered as physicochemical sys- temsas machines, 9 Descartes and Laplace have put it—and would, if treated ap such, also react 35 such, One could atthe ‘Sime tne assume, as Bohr has suggested. that our knowledge of| 2 call being alive may be complementary to che complete knowl- tuge ofits molecular strucore. Since a complete Knowledge of this structure could possibly be achieved only by operations that destroy the life of the cell, iis logically possible that life pre- ‘cludes the complete determination of its underlying physico- ‘chemical structire. Even if one holds this second view one would probably recommend for biological research no other method than bas been pursued in the past decades: attempting t0 ex plain ae much as possible on the basis of the known physico- Ghemieal lows, and describing. the behaviour of organisms ‘careully nd without theoretical prejudices. ‘The frst ofthese two views is more common among modern biologists than the second: but the experience available at pre- sents certainly not sufcient to decide between the two views. “The preference that is given by many bilogsts to the first view may be de again to the Cartesian partition, which has pene- trated so deeply to the human mind during the past centuries Since the re cogtane' was confined to men, tothe" the ani tals could have no Sou, they belonged exclusively tothe ‘res fextenst Therefore. he animals can be understood, so it is frpued. on the same terms as matter in genera, andthe laws of [RELATION OF QUANTUM THEORY TO NATURAL SCIENCE 95 pysicsand chemistry together with the concept of history must fe sutfcieat to explain their Behaviour. It is only when the res cogitans'is brought in that anew situation arises which will (quire entirely new concepts. But the Cartesian pactton is a dangerous overimpliication and it i therefore quite posible thatthe second view isthe correct one. ‘Quite apart from this question, Which cannot be settled yet, we ae obviously sil very far from such a coherent and closed Seto concepts for the description of biological phenomena. The degree of complication in Biology isso ciscouraging that oné tan at present not imagine any set of conceptsin which the com nections could be so sharply defined that a mathematical epre- sentation could become posible we go beyond biology and include psychology in the iscue son, then there can searcely be any doubt but that the concepts ‘of physics, chemistry, and evolution together will not be suf tient to describe the facts. On this point the existence of quan- tum theory has changed our attitude from what was believed in the nineteenth century. During that period some scientists were inclined to think thatthe psychological phenomena could ut mately be explained on the basis of physics nd chemistry ofthe brain. From the quantumtheoretical point of view there is no reason for such an assumption. We would, inspite of the fact that the physical events in the brain belong to the psychic Phenomena, nt expect that these could be sufficient to explain them. We would never doubt that the bain acts as a physico- chemical mechanism if treated a such, but for an understanding of psychie phenomena we would star from the fact that the human mind enters as object and subject into the scientific process of psychology. Looking back tothe different sets of concepts that have been formed inthe past or may posibly be formed inthe future in the attempt to find our way through the world by means of sence, Wwe see that they appear to be ordered by the increasing part played by the subjective element inthe set. Classical physics can be considered as that idealization in Which we speak about the world as entirely separated from ourselves, The fis three sets correspond to this idealization. Only the fst set compli ex tirely with thea prior’ in the philosophy of Kant. In the fourth96 riysics AND PumLosoPHY fet that of quantum theory, man a the subject of scence i ‘Sogn in through the questions which are putt nature in the pron terms of human slence- Quantum theory des not Slow teompcy ec despion ot ature. lo iniy be important fora complete understanding thatthe ques tvs are sted by the spaces man which fll belongs 10 the {Rus ving organs, nother words that we aleay Koow Stole geen be we ave eed sen Bato Thould perhaps not enter into speculation abot the pss Sroctacofosofconepthathove ne eben oie ‘When one compare ths order with ler clascations that telong to eater sages of natural cence one ees tha one bas now divided te work not into diferent groups of objects but {mo aiferent groups of consecon. In an earier period of ence ove detinguhed, for instance, as aiferent groups eels plantain men, Terje wer ten care Ingo me groip al dilerent natores, made of diferent ma Trias and leterned in ther behaviour by diferent forces. ‘Grow titataytianme mate sine ie ‘Nene compounds tat nay bong toa objeto minerals Sve as animals or plans, als he ores hat act between the Siterenpartsof mater are ulimatly he same inevery kind of She Win cate Sangean ‘ticki primarily important ina certain phenomenon. Fri ace when we spk about the acto of chemial forces we trean kindof connection which more complcted or in any “se iferen from that expressed in Newtonian mechan. The Sword thus appears as 2 completed sau of events, n which Connection ferent Kinds trate o ver oF combine Suthereby determine thetextuect the wha ‘Wien we representa group of connections bya closed and coherent set of concep, xem, definitions and laws which in {arm's represente by a mathematica chee we have in fact Ste an az ths group of connections with he purrs Stainton Bur even if complete arty hasbeen achieved in {his way, Tm nt Known how accurately the set of concepts descrbes reali “oe eaietions may be called 3 part ofthe human lane guage that has teen formed trom the interplay between the [ELATION OF QUANTUM THEORY TO NATURAL SCIENCE 97 wold and ourselves, a human response to the challenge of {Stu In this respec they may be compared othe dilsent Soles of art say of reitecare or muse‘A spt of at ean aso 52 Stine bys Se of fra rues which ae applied to the Steril ofthis speci are These rls can perpen be repre {Ene in a sit sense by ast of mathematical concep an tcustions bot their fundamental element ate very Cesly Fe ihe othe een elemento mathematics. Equay and equality, repetition andsymmetry.certan group ctres pay {He fandamental vole bo in ar and in atheate. Usa the Work several generations needed to develop that formal beginning tothe wealth of elaorete forms which characte is eampletion. The terest ofthe arti x concenrstedon this "psc which ters calle the tye ofthe art fom is spl traces of crytaligaton, where the material f the at takes, through his sevon he various forms tat ae insted y toe fist formal concepts ofthis sy. Alter the completion the Inerest must fade agin, beesute she word intcret meas: to be with something to takepart in'a proces of ie, but this owes has then cometo an end Here agin the question of bow fa the formal rls ofthe sie represent th ely of He which s meant by the art canoe be edd from the frm Tule. Arts aways an felizaton the eal diferent rom ‘elty—at leas ftom the reso the shadows, as Plato Would teputit—butidealztionsnecemaryforunderstanding This comparison berween the diferent sets of concepts in natural sence with ferent sje of art may seam ery ar from the rath to those who conser the diferent sty fot 2s rather abivarypreducs of the human ming: They would frque that in natal science thee diferent sets of concepts represent objective rely, ave bee aught tow by nature te therefore by no means arbitrary. and te a eceary conse uence of our gradually ineeaing experimental Knowledge of ‘tue, About thes points mest sents would pres re the diferent sys of stan arbitrary product of the human ‘nd? Here again we must not be med by the Caceian Faron. Teste arses out ofthe interplay between the weld 2h oureves or more spcielly between the spina he ine fed the arts. The spn of tine probably fac sojecve8 Pvsies aND PHILOSOPHY asany fact in natural science, and this spirit brings out cer features of the world which are even independent of time, a inthis sense eternal, The ats tres by his work to make the features understandable, and in tis attempt he Is led t0 8 {lormsof the syle in which he works. Therefore, the ewo processes, that of science and that of are not very diferent, Both science and artform in the course the centuries a human language by which we can speak abou the more remote parts of realy, and the coherent ses of cepts as well a the different sys of art are diferent words groupe of wordsin this language 7 The Theory of Relativity {WITHIN the fel of modern physics the theory of relativity has always layed avery importantroe. twasin this theory thatthe necesity fora change in the fundamental principles of physics twas recognized fr the fist ime. Therefore, a discussion of those problems that had been raised and partly solved bythe theory of {elativity belongs essentially to our treatment ofthe pilesophi- ‘al implications of modern physics. In some sense it may be said that contrary to quantum theory — the development of the ‘theory of relativity from the final recognition ofthe dificulties tothe solution has taken only a very short ime, The repetition ‘of Michelzon’s experiment by Morley and Mille in 1904 was the frst definite evidence for the impossibility of detecting the tans- latonal mation ofthe eath by optical methods. and Einstein's decisive paper appeared less than two years Inter, On the other hand, the experiment of Morley and Mller and Einstein's paper ‘were only the final steps in a development which had started very much earlier and which may be summarized under the heading ‘electrodynamics of moving bodies ‘Obriously the electrodynamics of moving bodies had been an important fed of physics and engineering ever since electo- motors had been constructed. A serious dificuky had been brought into this subject. however, by Maxwell's discovery of the electromagnetic nature of light waves. These waves der in fone essential property from other waves, for instance, from Sound waves: they can be propagated in what seems to be empty space. When a bell rings ina vessel that has been evaci ted, the sound doesnot penetrate tothe outside, Bu ight does ‘enetrate easily through the evacuated volume. Therefore, one {ssumed tht light waves could be considered as elastic Waves ofvery light substance called ether which could be neither seen hot felt but which filled the evacuated space aswell s the space in which other matter, like air or glass, existed. The idea that tlectromagnetic waves could be a reality In themselves, inde pendent of any bodies, did at that time not occur to the physi {sts Since this hypothetical substance eter seemed to penetrate ‘through other matter, the question arose: What happens if the Imatter is set into motion? Does the ether participate in this motion and-—if this is the ease—how isa light wave propagate in the moving ether? Experiments which are relevant to ths question are dificult for the following reason: The velocities of moving bodies are ‘usually very small compared othe velocity of light. Therefore, the motion of these bodies can only produce very small effect Which are proparonal to the ratio ofthe velocity of the body tothe velocity of light, oft higher power of ths ratio. Several experiments by Wilson, Rowland, Roentgen and Eichenwald ni Fizeau permitted the measurement of such effects with an Sccuracy corresponding to the fst power of this ratio. The theory ofthe electrons developed by Lorentz in 1895 was ableto ‘scribe these elfecs quite satsfacorily. But then the expert ment of Michelson, Morley and Miler eested a new situation, “This experiment shall be discussed in some detail. In order to get bigger effects and thereby more accurate results It seemed best to do experiments with bodies of very high velocity. The arth moves around the sun with a velocity of roughly 20 miles/sec, Ifthe eter is arest with respect to the sun and does fot move with the earth, then this fast motion ofthe eter with fespect to the earth should make isl felt in a change ofthe ‘velocity of light, This velocity shouldbe diferent depending on Whether the light s propagated in a direction parallel or per penicular to the direction of the motion of the ether. Even if ‘he ether should partly move with the earth, there should be some effect due to what one may call wind of the ether, and tis fect would then probably depend on the attude above sea level at which the experiment i carted out. A calculation of the expected elect showed that it shouldbe very small since it ‘is proportional tothe squate ofthe rato of the velocity of the earth to that of the light, and that one therefore had to carry out sey careful experiments on the interference of two beams of light taveling parallel or perpendicular to the motion of the earth. The frst experiment of this kind, caried out by Michel on in 1881, had not been sufciently accurate. But even liter repetitions of the experiment did not reveal the slightest signs bol the expected effect Especially the experiments of Motley and Millen 1904 could be considered as definite proof that an elect ofthe expected order of magnitude did not exist, “This result, strange as it was, met another pont that had been siscussed by the physicists some time before. In Newton’ me thanic a certain ‘principle of relativity’ sfulfiled that can be described in the following terms: If in a certain system of ref ‘erence the mechanical motion of bodies fulfills the 1aws of New: tonian mechanics then this Is sso true for any othe frame of reference which isin uniform noneotating motion with respect to the fist system. Or, in other words a uniform translational motion of a system does not produce any mechanical efiets3t alland can therefore not be observed by sucheffects, Such principle of rlativity—so it seemed to the physicss— could not be true in optics or electrodynamics If the fist system isacrest with respect to the ether the other systems are not. and ‘therefore their motion with respect tothe ether should be recog ized by effects ofthe type considered by Michelson, The nega: tive result of the experiment of Morley and Mille in 1904 Fe vived the dea that such 2 principle of relativity could be true in lectrodynamicsas wellas Newtonian mechanics. ‘On the other hand, there was an old experiment by Fizeau in sisi that seemed definitely to contradict the principe of rela tivity. Fizeau had measured the velocity of light in a moving liquid 1 he principle of relaivity was correct, the total velocity ‘fight in the moving liquid shouldbe the sum of the velocity of te liquid and the velocity of light in the iqui at rest. But this was not the case; the experiment of Fizeau showed thatthe total Velocity was somewhat smaller ‘Sill the negative results ofall more recent experiments to recognize the motion "with respect to the ether” inspired the ‘theoretical physicists and mathematiciansat that time t0look for mathematical interpretations that reconciled the wave equation for the propagation of light with the principle of relativity,Lorentz suggested, 904 a mathematical transformation th fue these equrements. He ad fo introduce the hypothe that moving bolts are contracted in he direction of tion $ actor depending on the velocity of the body, and in ferent “eters of reference there ate diferent apparent’ mes wich inmny ways tke the pace of the ea time Tn this Way Could represent something resembling the princpleof laity the apparent velocity of ight was he samen every system of reference Snares had ben dscised by Poincare, Fx Feral snd other physics Thindecisve step however,astakenjn the paerby Einstein in 190s in which he established the “apparent te ofthe cents transformation as the teal ime and abolished what ed been called realtime by Lorenta This was a change in theveryfounstons of phys an nexpeted nd very raed change that required all the courage of young and revolution Sty felis To take ths sep one needed inthe mathematical representation of nature, nothing moe than the consistent a Peston ofthe Lorene transformation. But by it new inter Drention the structure of space an time had changed an many problems of physic apeared in anew light The sub STanecthes, or insane od be abled too. Sine ally tems of reference tat ae in uniform tanltion mation with eect toeachother ae equivalent forthe description of mare, thee smo meaning in the stoement hat there is a substance, the eter which ft res monly one of hese syste. Such @ Substances infact not needed and t fs much simpler to say that light waves ate propagated through empty space. and that ‘erromapnetic esas reality of ther ov and can exit in empty space. But the decive change was inthe stractr of space and time. ies very dificult to describe tht change in the words of Common language withot the ue of mathemati, since the Common words space’ and "Une refer toa structure of space Sd tie ha i atually am esinton and versimpication athe real structure, But stil we have ory to describ the new ‘Rructure and we cn perhapedoitin the following way "When we Use the term past we comprise a those events hich we could know at lest in principe, about which we could ‘we THEORY oF ReLaTiviry 105 ave heard at lest in principe. In a similar manner we com- prise by the term ‘future’ all those events which we could in- Fizence at least in principle, which we could try to change or to prevent at least in principle. It isnot easy for a nonphysicst © {fe why this definition of the terms ‘past’ and “future” should be the most convenient one. But one can easly see that it corre sponds very accurately to our common use ofthe terms. If we {he the terme this way, eur out asa resul of many exper ‘ents thatthe content of future” or ‘past’ does not depend on the state of motion or other properties of the observer. We may ‘hy that the definition is invariant agalnst the motion of the Giuerver. Thies true both in Newtonian mechanics and in Eine stcn's theory of relativity ‘But the diference i this: In classical theory we assume that fueure and past ae separated by an infinitely shor time interval which we may call the present moment. In the theory of relax tivity we have leaned that the situation is different: fature and past are separated by a finite time interval the length of which {spends on the distance from the observer. Any action can only be propagated by a velocity smaller than or equal tothe velocity of light. Therefore, an observer can at a given instant nether know of nor influence any event at a distant point which takes piace between two characteristic times. The one time is the Instant at which a ight signal has tobe given from the point of the event in order to reach the observer atthe instant of observa tion. The ather time isthe instant at which a light signal, given by the observer at the Instant of the observation, reaches the point of the event. The whole finite time interval between these feo instante may be sad to belong to the resent time’ for the fbcerver atthe instant of abiervation. Any event taking place beween the two characteristic times may be called simultaneous ‘with the at of observation, The use ofthe phrase ‘may'be called’ points up an ambiguity, inthe word ‘simultaneous’ which is due to the fact that this term hasbeen formed from the experience of daly life, in which the velocity of light can always be considered as infinitely high, “Actually this term in physics can be dened asoina slighty dit ferent manner and Einstein has in his papers used his second definition. When two events happen at the same point in space104 asics AND PuLosoPiy simultaneously, we say that they coincide; this erm i quit tambigous; Let us now imagine three points in space chat i Sra stig Line tht the pn inthe mile hs the a {Esance tom eas the vo oster pins. Iwo ever’ Rape Stine two outer points at such tes that Ip sigal tar itom the event coincide when they Teach the pin i the Ife, we can deine the wo evens as simultaneous. Th {efnition is narrower than the fst one. One offs mst In fortant consequences that when two evens are simultaneous Teron observer they may not be simltanous for another ‘ere it hes inmotion relative tothe ist oberer. The con nection beeen the ta definition can be established bythe $otement tat whenever wo eventare simultaneous the fst Sense ofthe tern, one can always find 2 frame of Terence in which they are smutaneasinthesecond sense too. “The firs deinion ofthe term siltaneus seems to come spond more nearly toe ein dally ie since the gheston ‘Whether two evens are simultaneous dos Indl Iie ot de Pend onthe frame of reference. But fn bh eats defn Ss thm a seeds rion whch aig he language of diye In quantum thory the physi Rad 9 len rather erly thatthe terme of lca ysis desebe ‘ature only iaccaratly that thelr aplication is imited by {he quantum laws and tat one therefore shoul be cutout {hei us. In the theory of reat the pst have ted ‘Ghange the meaning ofthe words of casa physics, to make the tems more preie in sucha Way that they Bt the new ua “Te structure of space and time that has been brought | light bythe theory of rly has many consequences in {erent pars of physics. The elecredynamics of moving bois Cin be derived at once frm the pine of reat. Tis Drnepe el canbe formated sa quite geert aw of hature Deraning ot ony toclectrodynamies oF mechanics Batt ny oup of laws The laws take the sine form inal systems of Feferencewhich are diferent rom eachother only by a uniform Ttaninal motion; thy ate ivan asin Che Levent ‘wanstormation. ‘Perhaps the most important consequence ofthe principe of "THE THBORY oF RELATIVFTY 105, relativity is the inertia of energy, or the equivalence of mass and nergy. Since the velocity of igh isthe limiting velocity whieh ‘cn never be reached by any material body. itis easy to See that its more dificult to accelerate a body that is already moving ‘ery fascthan a body at est. The inertia has increased with the Kinetic energy. But quite generally any kind of energy will according o the theory of relativity, combate tothe inert, ie to the mass and the mass belonging to a given amount of ‘nergy is just this energy divided by the square of the velocity flight. Therefore every energy caries mass with it but even 2 rather big energy carries only avery small mass, and this isthe reason why the connection between mass and energy had not been observed before, The twa laws of the conservation of mast and the conservation of charge lose their separate validity and {recombined ino one single law which may’be called the law of ‘Conservation of energy or mast Fity yeas ago, when the theory fof relativity was formulated, this hypothesis ofthe equivalence ff mass and energy seemed to be a complete revolution in psies, and there was til very little experimental evidence for It In our times we see in many experiments how elementary particles can be created from kinetic energy, and how such pile ar annihilated to form radiation; therefore, the trans Imutation from energy into mast and vice versa suggests nothing ‘unusual, The enormous release of energy in anatomic explesion isanother and sil more spectacular proof of the correctness of Einstei's equation. But We may add here a critical historical remark. Te has sometimes been stated thatthe enormous energies of atomic explosions are due toa direct transmutation of mats into nergy. and that itis only onthe basis ofthe theory of relativity thatone hasbeen able to predict these energies. Tiss, however, 4 misunderstanding. The huge amount of energy available inthe atomic nucleus was known ever since the experiments of Bec: fuerel, Curie and Rutherford on radioactive decay. Any decay- ing body like radium preduces an amount of heat about 2 milion times greater than the heat released in a chemical process ina similar amount of material. The source of energy in the fission process of uranium i jus the same as that In the edecay of radium, namely, mainly the electrostatic repulsion of the two106 rrtvsies aND PHILOSOPHY stato whieh the nace separate Therefore, the energy an atone explosion comes ciety from this source ad Soe derived from transmutation of mas Into energy. The ‘Re of lenny particles with nite est masdos not de {ree during the explosion. Bor tis true tat the binding eer {Gov of the particles anatomic cleus do show up in their ses and therefore the reeae of energy sin thisindeet Ihaner abo connected wih changesin the ase of he acl ‘heute of mas and nergy ares eat in stance in physisalo raed prolems concerning Vy Fettnphicl queson Ic as been the tess of several plo pha sytem the pst ha substance or matter cat Be ‘Seeroyed: in ser physics, however many experiments ave Shown that elementary parce e. positrons and electrons, Sdnbeanmilated and vansmated nto aiason Does thismesn {hav these older posophial systems have been disproved by trey experience and thatthe arguments brought forward by Thecarir systems havebeen misleading? ‘fhe would certainly be arash apd unjustied cancion, since the terms subance and ate in ancient or mera Phos eanot simply be iene withthe term mas i orp onwhteto rapes ot men expen Inthe Lingge of eer piesphis, one could conser mass Und energy as two diferent forms ofthe same ‘substance’ and {herey keep ne es of aubtanceasindestractibe te oer hand one can scarey st that oe gains mich by sapesing mole oowlege a ngage. The Tisopie systems of he past were forme fom the nowinlge avatabe at theirs spd from the ines f cought to'whick such Rnowege hal led Cerin one should not ‘xpet the philosophers Of many hundreds of years ago 0 bave foracen the development of modern physics or the theory of Felsity. Therefore the concepts to which (ie pitsophers tere inthe proces of intellect cricaton ong tne anno psy be taped phenomena that ca oy fecrved bythe elaborate techies to of our time Bur before ging nto a eacsson of philosophical implica tions ofthe tinoy of elatoy sre development has tobe dear, ‘ie teony of neariviry 107 ‘The hypothetical substance ‘ether’. which had played such an important role in the early dscussions on Maxwells theories {nthe nineteenth century, had—as has been sad before—been abolished by the theory of relativity. This is sometimes stated by "Syingthat the idea of absolute space has been abandoned. But sich statement has tobe acepted with great caution. Iti (ue ‘thatone cannot point toaspecialframeol referencein which the substance ether Isat rest and which could therefore deserve the ame ‘absolute spac’. But it would be wrong to say that space has now lest all of is physical properties. ‘The equations of ‘ation for material bodies orld stil take a different form in 2 “normal’system of reference from another one which rotates ‘ris in 2 nonuniform motion with respect to the "normal one. “The existence of centrifuga forces ina rotating system proves— sofar asthe theory of relativity of 1505 and 1906 is concerned — the existence of physical properties of space which permit the istinetion Between a rotating and a nonrotating system. This may’ not seem satistactary trom a philosophical point of view, from which ane would preierto attach physial properties ‘only to physical entities like material bodies or fields and not to ‘empty space. But so Tar a5 the theory of electromagnetic proc- 5 oF mechanical Motions is concerned, this eens of physical properties of empty space issimply a description of fats thancatmotbedigpated, . ‘A careful analysis ofthis situation about ten years later, in 1916, led Einstein toa very important extension ofthe theory of relativity, which is usually called the theory of ‘general ela Uvity. Before going into a description ofthe main Ideas ofthis new theory it may be useful to saya few words about the degree ‘of certainty with which we can rely onthe correctness ofthese two pats ofthe theory of relativity. The theory of 1905 and. 1906 is based on avery great number of well-established facts ‘onthe experiments of Michelson and Morley and many similar tones, onthe equivalence of mass and energy in innumerable radioactive processes, onthe dependence ofthe lifetime of radio- active bodies on their velocity, etc. Theelore, this theory be longs tothe firm foundations of modern physics and cannot be

You might also like

• Elec 4 Black

  

  Document1 page

  Elec 4 Black

  yudo08

  No ratings yet
• Extracto Destinos-Elementos-para-la-gestión-de-destinos-turisticos

  

  Document76 pages

  Extracto Destinos-Elementos-para-la-gestión-de-destinos-turisticos

  Enzo Navarrete Ulloa

  No ratings yet
• Renault Inyección Electrónica Clio 1.4 Ac Delco Monopoint P PDF

  

  Document2 pages

  Renault Inyección Electrónica Clio 1.4 Ac Delco Monopoint P PDF

  Good Car

  No ratings yet
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Cicuta Tibia - Tuba

  

  Document2 pages

  Cicuta Tibia - Tuba

  Yohan Octavio Vera Delgado

  No ratings yet
• Aural Ritmo

  

  Document1 page

  Aural Ritmo

  fabio

  No ratings yet
• Lagenda Violin PDF

  

  Document2 pages

  Lagenda Violin PDF

  Marvin Jong

  0% (1)
• 5756867

  

  Document1,027 pages

  5756867

  Sách Việt Nam

  50% (2)
• Indian Express 19 August

  

  Document20 pages

  Indian Express 19 August

  Tension Dene ka

  No ratings yet
• GM Inyección Electrónica S10 Blazer 2.2 Efi Delphi Multec em

  

  Document2 pages

  GM Inyección Electrónica S10 Blazer 2.2 Efi Delphi Multec em

  yayixdfuego131

  No ratings yet
• Building Act

  

  Document136 pages

  Building Act

  Veronika Raušová

  No ratings yet
• Renault Inyección Electrónica Kangoo RL-RN 1.6 1999 Siemens Sirius 32b PDF

  

  Document2 pages

  Renault Inyección Electrónica Kangoo RL-RN 1.6 1999 Siemens Sirius 32b PDF

  Osvaldo López

  No ratings yet
• 6periostitis

  

  Document10 pages

  6periostitis

  Antonio

  No ratings yet
• Ibfc 142 Engenheiro Mecanico

  

  Document16 pages

  Ibfc 142 Engenheiro Mecanico

  José Maria junior

  100% (2)
• Charles D Ghilani - Paul R Wolf - Elementary Surveying - An Introduction To Geomatics-Pearson Prentice Hall (2012) - Extracto

  

  Document19 pages

  Charles D Ghilani - Paul R Wolf - Elementary Surveying - An Introduction To Geomatics-Pearson Prentice Hall (2012) - Extracto

  Rodrigo DelBarrio

  No ratings yet
• Escort 18 16 Zetec

  

  Document2 pages

  Escort 18 16 Zetec

  Osvaldo López

  No ratings yet
• 101 Problems in Algebra

  

  Document160 pages

  101 Problems in Algebra

  Trishaii Cuaresma

  96% (28)
• Detail (1-1) To R.C. Strip Footing (Sf1) : A B E F H J K

  

  Document1 page

  Detail (1-1) To R.C. Strip Footing (Sf1) : A B E F H J K

  Thomas Garcia

  0% (1)
• What A Wonderful World Eb - Bass Trombone PDF

  

  Document1 page

  What A Wonderful World Eb - Bass Trombone PDF

  Jose Herrero

  No ratings yet
• Strong Enough - Drums

  

  Document2 pages

  Strong Enough - Drums

  Колянсур Иванов

  No ratings yet
• Hecho Del Píncipe

  

  Document11 pages

  Hecho Del Píncipe

  Edisson Morales

  No ratings yet
• Tema 6. CULTURA

  

  Document7 pages

  Tema 6. CULTURA

  Marina

  No ratings yet
• Business Startup Guides-Preparing Yourself Ver 2

  

  Document4 pages

  Business Startup Guides-Preparing Yourself Ver 2

  Minh Huỳnh

  100% (1)
• GM Relés y Fusibles Corsa PDF

  

  Document1 page

  GM Relés y Fusibles Corsa PDF

  corylin

  No ratings yet
• Tu Me Gustas Trompeta 1

  

  Document2 pages

  Tu Me Gustas Trompeta 1

  Jonathan

  No ratings yet
• Mix Serpiente - Banda

  

  Document53 pages

  Mix Serpiente - Banda

  John Carlos Vilca Veliz

  No ratings yet
• Flow Design Formulas For Calculation - Exported From (HTM - 02 - 01 - Part - A)

  

  Document8 pages

  Flow Design Formulas For Calculation - Exported From (HTM - 02 - 01 - Part - A)

  wesam allabadi

  50% (2)
• 5

  

  Document2 pages

  5

  Abel Salazar Piano

  No ratings yet
• Mix Trompeta Chilombiano

  

  Document1 page

  Mix Trompeta Chilombiano

  Denise Alvarado

  No ratings yet
• Los Mareados Arreglo Hernan Possetti

  

  Document2 pages

  Los Mareados Arreglo Hernan Possetti

  teomondejarmusica

  No ratings yet
• El Pastor - Vihuela

  

  Document1 page

  El Pastor - Vihuela

  Damian Guardia Salazar

  No ratings yet
• Greenwashing Nas Empresas

  

  Document37 pages

  Greenwashing Nas Empresas

  Lara Gago

  No ratings yet
• Paradise Violín II

  

  Document2 pages

  Paradise Violín II

  Javier Rubio Pérez

  No ratings yet
• All The Things You Are

  

  Document1 page

  All The Things You Are

  Peppe Liotta

  No ratings yet
• Trompeta 2

  

  Document2 pages

  Trompeta 2

  Mauricio Torres

  No ratings yet
• 2020

  

  Document14 pages

  2020

  mintrikpalougoudjo

  No ratings yet
• 388 1006 1 PB

  

  Document20 pages

  388 1006 1 PB

  Gabriel Evangelista dos Santos

  No ratings yet
• Excercise in F

  

  Document2 pages

  Excercise in F

  Paz Villahoz

  100% (2)
• UTS ELT MDE S1 Coursebook Evaluation Checklist

  

  Document3 pages

  UTS ELT MDE S1 Coursebook Evaluation Checklist

  Hanin Khalishah Waqqas

  No ratings yet
• Xsara 18 - Berlingo 18 - 18 Xu7jb PDF

  

  Document2 pages

  Xsara 18 - Berlingo 18 - 18 Xu7jb PDF

  Jorge Daniel Diaz

  No ratings yet
• 09 - Chapter 1

  

  Document20 pages

  09 - Chapter 1

  Dr. POONAM KAUSHAL

  No ratings yet
• Taita Salasaca - Conga Drums 2

  

  Document2 pages

  Taita Salasaca - Conga Drums 2

  Carlos Xavier

  No ratings yet
• Trompeta 1

  

  Document2 pages

  Trompeta 1

  Mauricio Torres

  No ratings yet
• Planes API

  

  Document10 pages

  Planes API

  Manuel Figueroa

  No ratings yet
• 113-SEW Brake Details

  

  Document10 pages

  113-SEW Brake Details

  Tarak Nath Rakshit

  No ratings yet
• Elvis

  

  Document1 page

  Elvis

  maui3

  No ratings yet
• All Art Is Propaganda PDF

  

  Document2,708 pages

  All Art Is Propaganda PDF

  Pau_Brand_2550

  0% (2)
• Calculus Cheat Sheet Derivatives

  

  Document4 pages

  Calculus Cheat Sheet Derivatives

  Rajat

  No ratings yet
• 01 - Lista de Parametros Simplificada

  

  Document8 pages

  01 - Lista de Parametros Simplificada

  Luis Felipe Vidigal

  No ratings yet
• Como Quien Pierde Una Estrella Voz

  

  Document2 pages

  Como Quien Pierde Una Estrella Voz

  Gerardo

  100% (2)
• Enfermeiro Ebsrh 2015

  

  Document10 pages

  Enfermeiro Ebsrh 2015

  Neila Reis da Silva

  No ratings yet
• PDF Parts Catalog Tvs Rockz - Compress

  

  Document104 pages

  PDF Parts Catalog Tvs Rockz - Compress

  asparete

  No ratings yet
• Fiat Coupe

  

  Document1 page

  Fiat Coupe

  Julio Fanin

  No ratings yet
• Music To Watch Girls by MJ

  

  Document3 pages

  Music To Watch Girls by MJ

  Marvin Jong

  No ratings yet
• From Nomad To Monad

  

  Document145 pages

  From Nomad To Monad

  Chad EL Saleeby

  No ratings yet
• Book 1 Problems

  

  Document19 pages

  Book 1 Problems

  voducdien

  No ratings yet
• De Vermis Mysteriis

  

  Document31 pages

  De Vermis Mysteriis

  Kahel_Seraph

  100% (1)
• Did The Phoecnician Discovered America

  

  Document40 pages

  Did The Phoecnician Discovered America

  Chad EL Saleeby

  No ratings yet
• A Social History of Phoenicia

  

  Document25 pages

  A Social History of Phoenicia

  Chad EL Saleeby

  100% (1)
• Teachings of Lord Chaitanya The Golden Avatara PDF

  

  Document210 pages

  Teachings of Lord Chaitanya The Golden Avatara PDF

  Chad EL Saleeby

  No ratings yet
• Mystery of The Ages

  

  Document318 pages

  Mystery of The Ages

  Unlocked_wisdom

  90% (21)
• The Master Game by Robert S. de Ropp

  

  Document113 pages

  The Master Game by Robert S. de Ropp

  Chad EL Saleeby

  67% (3)
• Letter Carl Jung

  

  Document2 pages

  Letter Carl Jung

  Chad EL Saleeby

  No ratings yet
• The Hand Book of Cyprus

  

  Document162 pages

  The Hand Book of Cyprus

  Chad EL Saleeby

  No ratings yet
• Ugarit and The Bible

  

  Document11 pages

  Ugarit and The Bible

  Chad EL Saleeby

  No ratings yet