DOCSLIB.ORG

Startling Simplicity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Startling Simplicity Startling simplicity P (6) iδui = δL − ( !) d P 1 @L 2 @L (1) k @L (k−1) − dx 1 (1) δui + 1 (2) δui + ··· + 1 (k) δui @ui @ui @ui ( !) d2 P 2 @L 3 @L (1) k @L (k−2) + dx2 2 (2) δui + 2 (3) δui + ··· + 2 (k) δui @ui @ui @ui k dk P k @L ··· + (−1) dxk k (k) δui : @ui On its face, an equation Euler or Lagrange could have written. Direct consequence of additivity, chain rule, and integration by parts. In several independent variables those lines become a sum: @A @A Div(A) = 1 + ··· + n : @x1 @xn Noether’s Aj are not functions. They are differential operators. d The last three lines are a derivative dx . Direct consequence of additivity, chain rule, and integration by parts. In several independent variables those lines become a sum: @A @A Div(A) = 1 + ··· + n : @x1 @xn Noether’s Aj are not functions. They are differential operators. d The last three lines are a derivative dx . On its face, an equation Euler or Lagrange could have written. In several independent variables those lines become a sum: @A @A Div(A) = 1 + ··· + n : @x1 @xn Noether’s Aj are not functions. They are differential operators. d The last three lines are a derivative dx . On its face, an equation Euler or Lagrange could have written. Direct consequence of additivity, chain rule, and integration by parts. Noether’s Aj are not functions. They are differential operators. d The last three lines are a derivative dx . On its face, an equation Euler or Lagrange could have written. Direct consequence of additivity, chain rule, and integration by parts. In several independent variables those lines become a sum: @A @A Div(A) = 1 + ··· + n : @x1 @xn d The last three lines are a derivative dx . On its face, an equation Euler or Lagrange could have written. Direct consequence of additivity, chain rule, and integration by parts. In several independent variables those lines become a sum: @A @A Div(A) = 1 + ··· + n : @x1 @xn Noether’s Aj are not functions. They are differential operators. 1918: not symmetry, but transforming variables: x1;:::; xn ! y1;:::; yn. 1918: defines a divergence as a kind of “expression” – for good reasons we will see. She (like Klein) put “conservation laws” in quote marks. Thus Noether’s originality, generality, simplicity. Noether thought in formulas (always). circa. 1930 1918: defines a divergence as a kind of “expression” – for good reasons we will see. She (like Klein) put “conservation laws” in quote marks. Thus Noether’s originality, generality, simplicity. Noether thought in formulas (always). 1918: not symmetry, but transforming variables: x1;:::; xn ! y1;:::; yn. circa. 1930 for good reasons we will see. She (like Klein) put “conservation laws” in quote marks. Thus Noether’s originality, generality, simplicity. Noether thought in formulas (always). 1918: not symmetry, but transforming variables: x1;:::; xn ! y1;:::; yn. 1918: defines a divergence as a kind of “expression” – circa. 1930 She (like Klein) put “conservation laws” in quote marks. Thus Noether’s originality, generality, simplicity. Noether thought in formulas (always). 1918: not symmetry, but transforming variables: x1;:::; xn ! y1;:::; yn. 1918: defines a divergence as a kind of “expression” – for good reasons we will see. circa. 1930 Thus Noether’s originality, generality, simplicity. Noether thought in formulas (always). 1918: not symmetry, but transforming variables: x1;:::; xn ! y1;:::; yn. 1918: defines a divergence as a kind of “expression” – for good reasons we will see. circa. 1930 She (like Klein) put “conservation laws” in quote marks. Noether thought in formulas (always). 1918: not symmetry, but transforming variables: x1;:::; xn ! y1;:::; yn. 1918: defines a divergence as a kind of “expression” – for good reasons we will see. circa. 1930 She (like Klein) put “conservation laws” in quote marks. Thus Noether’s originality, generality, simplicity. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: Utter generality. It is all simply: A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) Merely put the two together: the result lies on the page before you. (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: Utter generality. It is all simply: A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) Merely put the two together: the result lies on the page before you. (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Her breakthrough: Utter generality. It is all simply: A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) Merely put the two together: the result lies on the page before you. (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Utter generality. It is all simply: A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) Merely put the two together: the result lies on the page before you. (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: It is all simply: A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) Merely put the two together: the result lies on the page before you. (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: Utter generality. A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) Merely put the two together: the result lies on the page before you. (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: Utter generality. It is all simply: Merely put the two together: the result lies on the page before you. (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: Utter generality. It is all simply: A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) the result lies on the page before you. (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: Utter generality. It is all simply: A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) Merely put the two together: (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: Utter generality. It is all simply: A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) Merely put the two together: the result lies on the page before you. Not Noether’s concern.) Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: Utter generality. It is all simply: A combination of the methods of the formal calculus of vari- ations with those of Lie’s group theory. (Noether 1918) Merely put the two together: the result lies on the page before you. (Vast generality ! unforeseen applications. Background. Euler and Lagrange knew roughly: Symmetry $ conservation. Hamilton’s whole method of “ignorable coordinates.” Noether cites complicated derivations of SR and Newtonian mechanics from symmetries; extremely specific on-going GR. Her breakthrough: Utter generality. It
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Century of Mathematics in America, Peter Duren Et Ai., (Eds.), Vol
    Garrett Birkhoff has had a lifelong connection with Harvard mathematics. He was an infant when his father, the famous mathematician G. D. Birkhoff, joined the Harvard faculty. He has had a long academic career at Harvard: A.B. in 1932, Society of Fellows in 1933-1936, and a faculty appointmentfrom 1936 until his retirement in 1981. His research has ranged widely through alge­ bra, lattice theory, hydrodynamics, differential equations, scientific computing, and history of mathematics. Among his many publications are books on lattice theory and hydrodynamics, and the pioneering textbook A Survey of Modern Algebra, written jointly with S. Mac Lane. He has served as president ofSIAM and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Mathematics at Harvard, 1836-1944 GARRETT BIRKHOFF O. OUTLINE As my contribution to the history of mathematics in America, I decided to write a connected account of mathematical activity at Harvard from 1836 (Harvard's bicentennial) to the present day. During that time, many mathe­ maticians at Harvard have tried to respond constructively to the challenges and opportunities confronting them in a rapidly changing world. This essay reviews what might be called the indigenous period, lasting through World War II, during which most members of the Harvard mathe­ matical faculty had also studied there. Indeed, as will be explained in §§ 1-3 below, mathematical activity at Harvard was dominated by Benjamin Peirce and his students in the first half of this period. Then, from 1890 until around 1920, while our country was becoming a great power economically, basic mathematical research of high quality, mostly in traditional areas of analysis and theoretical celestial mechanics, was carried on by several faculty members.
    [Show full text]
  • Grete Hermann on Von Neumann's No-Hidden-Variables Proof
    Challenging the gospel: Grete Hermann on von Neumann’s no-hidden-variables proof M.P Seevinck ∞ ∞ Radboud University University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands May 2012 1 Preliminary ∞ ∞ In 1932 John von Neumann had published in his celebrated book on the Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, a proof of the impossibility of theories which, by using the so- called hidden variables, attempt to give a deterministic explana- tion of quantum mechanical behaviors. ◮ Von Neumann’s proof was sort of holy: ‘The truth, however, happens to be that for decades nobody spoke up against von Neumann’s arguments, and that his con- clusions were quoted by some as the gospel.’ (F. J. Belinfante, 1973) 2 ◮ In 1935 Grete Hermann challenged this gospel by criticizing the von Neumann proof on a fundamental point. This was however not widely known and her criticism had no impact whatsoever. ◮ 30 years later John Bell gave a similar critique, that did have great foundational impact. 3 Outline ∞ ∞ 1. Von Neumann’s 1932 no hidden variable proof 2. The reception of this proof + John Bell’s 1966 criticism 3. Grete Hermann’s critique (1935) on von Neu- mann’s argument 4. Comparison to Bell’s criticism 5. The reception of Hermann’s criticism 4 Von Neumann’s 1932 no hidden variable argument ∞ ∞ Von Neumann: What reasons can be given for the dispersion found in some quantum ensembles? (Case I): The individual systems differ in additional parameters, which are not known to us, whose values de- termine precise outcomes of measurements. = deterministic hidden variables ⇒ (Case II): ‘All individual systems are in the same state, but the laws of nature are not causal’.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematicians Fleeing from Nazi Germany
    Mathematicians Fleeing from Nazi Germany Mathematicians Fleeing from Nazi Germany Individual Fates and Global Impact Reinhard Siegmund-Schultze princeton university press princeton and oxford Copyright 2009 © by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Siegmund-Schultze, R. (Reinhard) Mathematicians fleeing from Nazi Germany: individual fates and global impact / Reinhard Siegmund-Schultze. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-691-12593-0 (cloth) — ISBN 978-0-691-14041-4 (pbk.) 1. Mathematicians—Germany—History—20th century. 2. Mathematicians— United States—History—20th century. 3. Mathematicians—Germany—Biography. 4. Mathematicians—United States—Biography. 5. World War, 1939–1945— Refuges—Germany. 6. Germany—Emigration and immigration—History—1933–1945. 7. Germans—United States—History—20th century. 8. Immigrants—United States—History—20th century. 9. Mathematics—Germany—History—20th century. 10. Mathematics—United States—History—20th century. I. Title. QA27.G4S53 2008 510.09'04—dc22 2008048855 British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available This book has been composed in Sabon Printed on acid-free paper. ∞ press.princeton.edu Printed in the United States of America 10 987654321 Contents List of Figures and Tables xiii Preface xvii Chapter 1 The Terms “German-Speaking Mathematician,” “Forced,” and“Voluntary Emigration” 1 Chapter 2 The Notion of “Mathematician” Plus Quantitative Figures on Persecution 13 Chapter 3 Early Emigration 30 3.1. The Push-Factor 32 3.2. The Pull-Factor 36 3.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Geometry
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Theses Digitization Project John M. Pfau Library 2008 Foundations of geometry Lawrence Michael Clarke Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project Part of the Geometry and Topology Commons Recommended Citation Clarke, Lawrence Michael, "Foundations of geometry" (2008). Theses Digitization Project. 3419. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd-project/3419 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the John M. Pfau Library at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses Digitization Project by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Foundations of Geometry A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Mathematics by Lawrence Michael Clarke March 2008 Foundations of Geometry A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino by Lawrence Michael Clarke March 2008 Approved by: 3)?/08 Murran, Committee Chair Date _ ommi^yee Member Susan Addington, Committee Member 1 Peter Williams, Chair, Department of Mathematics Department of Mathematics iii Abstract In this paper, a brief introduction to the history, and development, of Euclidean Geometry will be followed by a biographical background of David Hilbert, highlighting significant events in his educational and professional life. In an attempt to add rigor to the presentation of Geometry, Hilbert defined concepts and presented five groups of axioms that were mutually independent yet compatible, including introducing axioms of congruence in order to present displacement.
    [Show full text]
  • Neuer Nachrichtenbrief Der Gesellschaft Für Exilforschung E. V
    Neuer Nachrichtenbrief der Gesellschaft für Exilforschung e. V. Nr. 53 ISSN 0946-1957 Juli 2019 Inhalt In eigener Sache In eigener Sache 1 Bericht Jahrestagung 2019 1 Später als gewohnt erscheint dieses Jahr der Doktoranden-Workshop 2019 6 Sommer-Nachrichtenbrief. Grund ist die Protokoll Mitgliederversammlung 8 diesjährige Jahrestagung, die im Juni AG Frauen im Exil 14 stattfand. Der Tagungsbericht und das Ehrenmitgliedschaft Judith Kerr 15 Protokoll der Mitgliederversammlung Laudatio 17 sollten aber in dieser Ausgabe erscheinen. Erinnerungen an Kurt Harald Der Tagungsbericht ist wiederum ein Isenstein 20 Gemeinschaftsprojekt, an dem sich diesmal Untersuchung Castrum Peregrini 21 nicht nur „altgediente“ GfE-Mitglieder Projekt „Gerettet“ 22 beteiligten, sondern dankenswerterweise CfP AG Frauen im Exil 24 auch zwei Doktorandinnen der Viadrina. CfP Society for Exile Studies 25 Ich hoffe, für alle, die nicht bei der Tagung Suchanzeigen 27 sein konnten, bieten Bericht und Protokoll Leserbriefe 27 genügend Informationen. Impressum 27 Katja B. Zaich Aus der Gesellschaft für Exilforschung Exil(e) und Widerstand Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Exilforschung in Frankfurt an der Oder vom 20.-22. Juni 2019 Die Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft fand in diesem Jahr an einem sehr würdigen und dem Geiste der Veranstaltung kongenialen Ort statt, waren doch die Erbauer des Logenhauses in Frankfurt an der Oder die Mitglieder der 1776 gegründeten Freimaurerloge „Zum aufrichtigen Herzen“, die 1935 unter dem Zwang der Nazi-Diktatur ihre Tätigkeit einstellen musste und diese erst 1992 wieder aufnehmen konnte. Im Festsaal des Logenhauses versammelten sich am Donnerstagnachmittag Exilforscher/innen, Studierende und Gäste aus verschiedenen Ländern, darunter etwa 30 Mitglieder der Gesellschaft. Auf die Frage „Was ist die Freimaurerei?“ findet sich auf der Homepage der heute wieder dort arbeitenden Loge eine alte englische Definition, in der es unter anderem heißt: „gegen das Unrecht ist sie Widerstand“.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 INTRO Welcome to Biographies in Mathematics Brought to You From
    INTRO Welcome to Biographies in Mathematics brought to you from the campus of the University of Texas El Paso by students in my history of math class. My name is Tuesday Johnson and I'll be your host on this tour of time and place to meet the people behind the math. EPISODE 1: EMMY NOETHER There were two women I first learned of when I started college in the fall of 1990: Hypatia of Alexandria and Emmy Noether. While Hypatia will be the topic of another episode, it was never a question that I would have Amalie Emmy Noether as my first topic of this podcast. Emmy was born in Erlangen, Germany, on March 23, 1882 to Max and Ida Noether. Her father Max came from a family of wholesale hardware dealers, a business his grandfather started in Bruchsal (brushal) in the early 1800s, and became known as a great mathematician studying algebraic geometry. Max was a professor of mathematics at the University of Erlangen as well as the Mathematics Institute in Erlangen (MIE). Her mother, Ida, was from the wealthy Kaufmann family of Cologne. Both of Emmy’s parents were Jewish, therefore, she too was Jewish. (Judiasm being passed down a matrilineal line.) Though Noether is not a traditional Jewish name, as I am told, it was taken by Elias Samuel, Max’s paternal grandfather when in 1809 the State of Baden made the Tolerance Edict, which required Jews to adopt Germanic names. Emmy was the oldest of four children and one of only two who survived childhood.
    [Show full text]
  • Emmy Noether, Greatest Woman Mathematician Clark Kimberling
    Emmy Noether, Greatest Woman Mathematician Clark Kimberling Mathematics Teacher, March 1982, Volume 84, Number 3, pp. 246–249. Mathematics Teacher is a publication of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). With more than 100,000 members, NCTM is the largest organization dedicated to the improvement of mathematics education and to the needs of teachers of mathematics. Founded in 1920 as a not-for-profit professional and educational association, NCTM has opened doors to vast sources of publications, products, and services to help teachers do a better job in the classroom. For more information on membership in the NCTM, call or write: NCTM Headquarters Office 1906 Association Drive Reston, Virginia 20191-9988 Phone: (703) 620-9840 Fax: (703) 476-2970 Internet: http://www.nctm.org E-mail: [email protected] Article reprinted with permission from Mathematics Teacher, copyright March 1982 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. All rights reserved. mmy Noether was born over one hundred years ago in the German university town of Erlangen, where her father, Max Noether, was a professor of Emathematics. At that time it was very unusual for a woman to seek a university education. In fact, a leading historian of the day wrote that talk of “surrendering our universities to the invasion of women . is a shameful display of moral weakness.”1 At the University of Erlangen, the Academic Senate in 1898 declared that the admission of women students would “overthrow all academic order.”2 In spite of all this, Emmy Noether was able to attend lectures at Erlangen in 1900 and to matriculate there officially in 1904.
    [Show full text]
  • In Der Spannung Pädagogik Und Politik Zum 100. Geburtstag
    In der Spannung zwischen Naturwissenschaft, Pädagogik und Politik Zum 100. Geburtstag von Grete Henry-Hermann Herausgegeben von Susanne Miller und Helmut Müller ( im Auftrag der Philosophisch-Politischen Akademie e.V, Bonn r" In der Spannung zwischen Naturwissenschaft, Pädagogik und Politik ^ I m s» ^91 ^ ^ vy ^ S-. &ä m-: 9 M ^ s ?.-%'? m^.: fl^S ^ ft'f/ • A • . w^ ".;' fe ,, y. ->;t". Kv. jlti s. fö/ •.«•. frX'%i M^ S'f^f^ff .im s .1 Zum 100. Geburtstag von Crete Henry-Hermann ^^ 1S ^•^^•m ".* Zum 100. Geburtstag von Crete Hem'y-Hermann l Inhaltsverzeichnis Vonvort Dieter Krohn: Begrüßung Henning Scherf: Geleitwort des Präsidenten des Senats und Bürgermeisters der Freien Hansestadt Bremen Susanne Miller: Erinnerungen an Grete Henry-Hermann Lena Soler - Grete Henry-Hermanns Alexander Schnell: Beitrag zur Philosophie der Physik Ute Hönnecke: Der heilige Improvisatius — Grete Henry-Hermann als Leiterin der Lehrerausbildung in der Nachh-iegszeit Detlef Albers: Die Grundwerte im Mittelpunkt. Zur Aktualität des politischen Denkens von Grete Henry-Hermann Grete Henry-Hermann: Leonard Nelson und die Grundlagen des freiheitlichen Sozialismus Copyright: Philosophisch-Politische Akademie e. V, Bonn, 2001 Nachdruck nur mit Genehmigimg gestattet. Zum 100. Geburtstag von Crete Henry-Hermann Zum 100. Geburtstag von Crete Henry-Hermann Lena Soler und Alexander Schnell Crete Henry-Hermanns Beiträge zur Philosophie der Physik Wir werden uns deshalb im wesentlichen auf die Schrift von 1935 beschränken. Dieser Text wurde auf Betreiben von Lena Soler hin von Alexander Schnell übersetzt. Wir möchten Ihnen heute die grundlegenden Beiträge Grete Henry-Hermanns Dieses Buch ist 1996, mit einem einleitenden Vorwort und einem kritischen Nachwort zur Philosophie der Physik vorstellen.
    [Show full text]
  • John Von Neumann's “Impossibility Proof” in a Historical Perspective’, Physis 32 (1995), Pp
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by SAS-SPACE Published: Louis Caruana, ‘John von Neumann's “Impossibility Proof” in a Historical Perspective’, Physis 32 (1995), pp. 109-124. JOHN VON NEUMANN'S ‘IMPOSSIBILITY PROOF’ IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ABSTRACT John von Neumann's proof that quantum mechanics is logically incompatible with hidden varibales has been the object of extensive study both by physicists and by historians. The latter have concentrated mainly on the way the proof was interpreted, accepted and rejected between 1932, when it was published, and 1966, when J.S. Bell published the first explicit identification of the mistake it involved. What is proposed in this paper is an investigation into the origins of the proof rather than the aftermath. In the first section, a brief overview of the his personal life and his proof is given to set the scene. There follows a discussion on the merits of using here the historical method employed elsewhere by Andrew Warwick. It will be argued that a study of the origins of von Neumann's proof shows how there is an interaction between the following factors: the broad issues within a specific culture, the learning process of the theoretical physicist concerned, and the conceptual techniques available. In our case, the ‘conceptual technology’ employed by von Neumann is identified as the method of axiomatisation. 1. INTRODUCTION A full biography of John von Neumann is not yet available. Moreover, it seems that there is a lack of extended historical work on the origin of his contributions to quantum mechanics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance for Natural Philosophy of the Move From
    Journal for General Philosophy of Science (2020) 51:627–629 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09533-3 ARTICLE The Signifcance for Natural Philosophy of the Move from Classical to Modern Physics Grete Hermann1 Published online: 10 December 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 SUMMARY—This study shows how, despite the changes it has introduced, modern physics preserves certain fundamental ideas of classical physics (Bohr’s correspondence princi- ple). While it gives up much of the ideal of a mechanistic physics, it still remains tied to Kant’s thesis that the forms of intuition and the categories are the necessary presupposi- tions for the knowledge of nature. 1. The development of modern physics has two distinctive aspects: on the one hand the demand for a revision of almost all fundamental assumptions on which the knowledge of nature has been based until now, and indeed for a revision based on experience; on the other hand the upholding of certain fundamental conceptions of classical physics, which fnds its strongest expression in Bohr’s correspondence principle. Modern physics presents us with the problem within natural philosophy of reconciling these two aspects. 2. The dualism between the wave and particle picture in quantum mechanics, with its consequences for [our] causal command of natural phenomena represents the strongest departure from the classical picture of nature. But this departure is closely connected to a series of earlier transformations in the picture of nature. The frst step in this direction is taken in Maxwell’s theory, which detaches the wave picture from the presupposition of a material support until then taken for granted.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Basic Biographical Facts About Emmy Noether (1882-1935), in Particular on the Discrimination Against Her As a Woman
    Some basic biographical facts about Emmy Noether (1882-1935), in particular on the discrimination against her as a woman LMS-IMA Joint Meeting: Noether Celebration De Morgan House, Tuesday, 11 September, 2018 Reinhard Siegmund-Schultze (University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway) ABSTRACT Although it has been repeatedly underlined that Emmy Noether had to face threefold discrimination in political, racist and sexist respects the last- mentioned discrimination of the three is probably best documented. The talk provides some basic biographical facts about Emmy Noether with an emphasis on the discrimination against her as a woman, culminating for the first time in the struggles about her teaching permit (habilitation) 1915-1919 (main source C. Tollmien). Another focus of the talk will be on the later period of her life, in particular the failed appointment in Kiel (1928), her Born: 23 March 1882 in Erlangen, dismissal as a Jew in 1933 and her last years in the Bavaria, Germany U.S. Died: 14 April 1935 in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, USA Older sources Obituaries by colleagues and students: van der Waerden, Hermann Weyl, P.S. Aleksandrov. Historians: Three women: Auguste Dick (1970, Engl.1981), Constance Reid (Hilbert 1970), and Cordula Tollmien (e.g. 1991 on Noether’s Habilitation); plus Norbert Schappacher (1987). Most material in German, Clark Kimberling (1972) in American Mathematical Monthly mostly translating from Dick and obituaries. Newer Sources Again mostly by women biographers, such as Renate Tobies (2003), Cordula Tollmien (2015), and Mechthild Koreuber (2015). The book below, of which the English version is from 2011, discusses the papers relevant for physics: After going through a girls school she took in 1900 a state exam to become a teacher in English and French at Bavarian girls schools.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Philosophy of Nature -- - by Grete Hermann Translated from the German, with an Introduction, by Dirk Lumma
    The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Philosophy of Nature -- - By Grete Hermann Translated from the German, with an Introduction, by Dirk Lumma HE FOLLOWING ARTICLE BY GRETE HERMANN ARGUABLY occupies an important place in the histo~yof the philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics. The purpose of Hermann's writing on natural phi- losophy is to examine the revision of the law of causality which quantum Tmechanics seems to require at a fundamental level of theoretical description in physics. It is Hermann's declared intention to show that quantum mechanics does not disprove the concept of causaliv, 'fret has clarified [it] and has ~,enzovedfiomit other principles which are not necessarily connected to it."' She attempts to show that this most "obvi- ous" counter-example to the aprioricity of causality, quantztm theor?: is in fact not a counter-example at all. The central claim of Her~nan~z'sessay published in tbe 1930s' implies that quan- tzrm mechanics, "though predictively indeterministic, is retrodictive(y a causal theo~y."" In her argument, Herman11 commits to tbe orthodo.~fi)r~tz~tlntioiz(fquantum 1~2echan- ics characterized in Bohr's enr(?t essays': the quantrrm postulate, the iden that all obser- sntions "disturb" the object ~??rtenz,the fin mework of complcmentn ri~and tbc reqw irr- ment thnt the observing ageuc? be described by means of clnssicnl concepts. From today's point of view, Hermann's essays mtlst also be considered part of the debate about tbe completeness of the quantum mechanical description. For if she succccds, sbe will have rejected all those approaches as futile tvhieh aim to revise quantum theory on the basis of additional parameters in order to reinstate the predictabi1it-j~of specific experimental outcomes.
    [Show full text]