Vorwort Des Herausgebers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Physics Teaching and Research at Göttingen University 2 GREETING from the PRESIDENT 3
Physics Teaching and Research at Göttingen University 2 GREETING FROM THE PRESIDENT 3 Greeting from the President Physics has always been of particular importance for the Current research focuses on solid state and materials phy- Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. As early as 1770, Georg sics, astrophysics and particle physics, biophysics and com- Christoph Lichtenberg became the first professor of Physics, plex systems, as well as multi-faceted theoretical physics. Mathematics and Astronomy. Since then, Göttingen has hos- Since 2003, the Physics institutes have been housed in a new ted numerous well-known scientists working and teaching physics building on the north campus in close proximity to in the fields of physics and astronomy. Some of them have chemistry, geosciences and biology as well as to the nearby greatly influenced the world view of physics. As an example, Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Biophysical Chemistry, the MPI I would like to mention the foundation of quantum mecha- for Dynamics and Self Organization and the MPI for Solar nics by Max Born and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s. And System Research. The Faculty of Physics with its successful Georg Christoph Lichtenberg and in particular Robert Pohl research activities and intense interdisciplinary scientific have set the course in teaching as well. cooperations plays a central role within the Göttingen Cam- pus. With this booklet, the Faculty of Physics presents itself It is also worth mentioning that Göttingen physicists have as a highly productive and modern faculty embedded in an accepted social and political responsibility, for example Wil- attractive and powerful scientific environment and thus per- helm Weber, who was one of the Göttingen Seven who pro- fectly prepared for future scientific challenges. -
Download Report 2010-12
RESEARCH REPORt 2010—2012 MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Cover: Aurora borealis paintings by William Crowder, National Geographic (1947). The International Geophysical Year (1957–8) transformed research on the aurora, one of nature’s most elusive and intensely beautiful phenomena. Aurorae became the center of interest for the big science of powerful rockets, complex satellites and large group efforts to understand the magnetic and charged particle environment of the earth. The auroral visoplot displayed here provided guidance for recording observations in a standardized form, translating the sublime aesthetics of pictorial depictions of aurorae into the mechanical aesthetics of numbers and symbols. Most of the portait photographs were taken by Skúli Sigurdsson RESEARCH REPORT 2010—2012 MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Introduction The Max Planck Institute for the History of Science (MPIWG) is made up of three Departments, each administered by a Director, and several Independent Research Groups, each led for five years by an outstanding junior scholar. Since its foundation in 1994 the MPIWG has investigated fundamental questions of the history of knowl- edge from the Neolithic to the present. The focus has been on the history of the natu- ral sciences, but recent projects have also integrated the history of technology and the history of the human sciences into a more panoramic view of the history of knowl- edge. Of central interest is the emergence of basic categories of scientific thinking and practice as well as their transformation over time: examples include experiment, ob- servation, normalcy, space, evidence, biodiversity or force. -
Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution
Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution expanded version of lecture presented at American Physical Society meeting, 2/14/10 (Abraham Pais History of Physics Prize for 2009) by Stephen G. Brush* Abstract Does new scientific knowledge come from theory (whose predictions are confirmed by experiment) or from experiment (whose results are explained by theory)? Either can happen, depending on whether theory is ahead of experiment or experiment is ahead of theory at a particular time. In the first case, new theoretical hypotheses are made and their predictions are tested by experiments. But even when the predictions are successful, we can’t be sure that some other hypothesis might not have produced the same prediction. In the second case, as in a detective story, there are already enough facts, but several theories have failed to explain them. When a new hypothesis plausibly explains all of the facts, it may be quickly accepted before any further experiments are done. In the quantum-relativity revolution there are examples of both situations. Because of the two-stage development of both relativity (“special,” then “general”) and quantum theory (“old,” then “quantum mechanics”) in the period 1905-1930, we can make a double comparison of acceptance by prediction and by explanation. A curious anti- symmetry is revealed and discussed. _____________ *Distinguished University Professor (Emeritus) of the History of Science, University of Maryland. Home address: 108 Meadowlark Terrace, Glen Mills, PA 19342. Comments welcome. 1 “Science walks forward on two feet, namely theory and experiment. ... Sometimes it is only one foot which is put forward first, sometimes the other, but continuous progress is only made by the use of both – by theorizing and then testing, or by finding new relations in the process of experimenting and then bringing the theoretical foot up and pushing it on beyond, and so on in unending alterations.” Robert A. -
David E. Rowe Einstein's Allies and Enemies: Debating
DAVID E. ROWE EINSTEIN’S ALLIES AND ENEMIES: DEBATING RELATIVITY IN GERMANY, 1916-1920 In recent years historians of mathematics have been increasingly inclined to study developments beyond the traditional disciplinary boundaries of mathe- matical knowledge.1 Even so, most of us are accustomed to thinking of the relativity revolution as belonging to the history of physics, not the history of mathematics. In my opinion, both of these categories are too narrow to cap- ture the full scope of the phenomena involved, though interactions between the disciplines of physics and mathematics played an enormously important part in this story.2 A truly contextualized history of the relativity revolu- tion surely must take due account of all three scientific aspects of the story – physical, philosophical, and mathematical – recognizing that from the be- ginning Einstein’s theory cut across these disciplinary boundaries. Still, one cannot overlook the deep impact of the First World War and its aftermath as a cauldron for the events connected with his revolutionary approach to gravitation, the general theory of relativity.3 Historians of physics have, however, largely ignored the reception and development of general relativity, which had remarkably little impact on the physics community as a whole. Hermann Weyl raised a similar issue in 1949 when he wrote: “There is hardly any doubt that for physics special relativity theory is of much greater consequence than the general theory. The reverse situation prevails with respect to mathematics: there special relativity theory had comparatively little, general relativity theory very considerable, influ- ence, above all upon the development of a general scheme for differential geometry” (Weyl, 1949, 536–537). -
Things That Talk
MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science 2003 PREPRINT 233 Lorraine Daston and Anke te Heesen Things that Talk Table of Contents Introduction 3 The Glass Flowers Lorraine Daston 5 News, Papers, Scissors Anke te Heesen 33 Things that Talk – Table of Contents 57 Introduction These two essays were written as part of a working group of historians of art and science on “Things that Talk”, organized under the auspices of the research project “The Common Languages of Art and Science” (2001-3) at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin (Dept. II). The other members of the working group were Peter Galison (Harvard University, USA), Caroline A. Jones (MIT, USA and Wissenschafts- kolleg zu Berlin, Germany), Joseph Koerner (University College London, UK), Antoine Picon (Ecole des Ponts et Chausées, Paris, France), Joel Snyder (University of Chicago, USA), Simon Schaffer (University of Cambridge, UK), and Norton Wise (UCLA, USA). The group met three times in Berlin to discuss various versions of members’ essays and, more generally, the place of material culture in the history of science and the history of art. The nine essays, including the two that appear here as a preprint, will be published as a volume by Zone Books. A complete table of contents is appended to this preprint. The aim of the research project was to go beyond cases of historical interactions between art and science to investigate tools (e.g. drawing) and challenges (e.g. representation) common to both. In the case of the working group on “Things that Talk”, the departure point was a shared perplexity about how to capture the thingness of things in our respective disciplines. -
Introduction
Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-01744-3 - Einstein's Opponents: The Public Controversy about the Theory of Relativity in the 1920s Milena Wazeck Excerpt More information Introduction Prague, October 1913. Oskar Kraus, an associate professor of philosophy at the German University, sends alarming letters to Ernst Gehrcke, a physicist at the Reich Institute of Physics and Technology in Berlin: People are suffering from extreme fatigue, and an irritability that is due not least to the absurd theories of the relativists. I have a burning desire to see the source of error revealed for all of the absurdities that you yourself, honored sir, have accurately characterized. I also see that you have already revealed internal contradictions and absurd consequences multiple times. But where is the source of error? Because despite my calculation errors, I am still able to recognize the fact that the theory of relativity is false.1 Kraus excuses himself for literally bombarding Gehrcke with letters in the span of only a few days, in which one letter often revokes the statements made in the preceding one, but he confesses in his despair, “[I] would not know […] anyone else but you who as a specialist would not reject the intervention of a philosopher from the start.”2 Oskar Kraus was not an isolated case. A large number of people who were just as disturbed – including some philosophers and physicists, but many more scientific laypersons – turned to Gehrcke, who had taken a position early on as an opponent of the theory of relativity. Gehrcke’s papers include a large number of letters whose authors critically discuss modern physics, which, in addition to the content of the correspondence itself, is also expressed in the pamphlets against the theory of relativity that are often enclosed.3 Two things stand out about these pamphlets and 1 Kraus to Gehrcke, October 11, 1913, GN 72-A-2. -
Dritten Reich”
4. Mit Charakterst¨arke und Integrit¨at ubernommene¨ Verantwortung im “Dritten Reich” 4.1 Die ersten Jahre der nationalsozialistischen Diktatur Das Jahr 1933 begann mit der wohl folgenschwersten politischen Ver¨anderung Deutschlands (zumindest) im 20. Jahrhundert – der “Machtergreifung” durch die Nationalsozialisten am 30. Januar 77 78 1933: Reichskanzler Heinrich Bruning¨ , der aufgrund seiner strik- ten Sparpolitik ohnehin nicht popul¨ar war, verlor u. a. wegen der Osthilfeverordnung und des Verbots der SA die Unterstutzung¨ des Reichspr¨asidenten Paul von Hindenburg, fur¨ dessen am 10. April 1932 im zweiten Wahlgang (gegen Adolf Hitler und Ernst Th¨almann) erfolgte Wiederwahl er sich sehr stark engagiert hatte. Auf Betrei- ben des (parteilosen) Generals Kurt von Schleicher musste Bruning¨ am 30. Mai 1932 zurucktreten¨ – nach seinen eigenen Worten “hun- dert Meter vor dem Ziel”. Zu seinem Nachfolger ernannte Hinden- burg Franz von Papen79. Nach den Reichstagswahlen vom 6. No- vember 1932, aufgrund deren (ebenso wie bei der Reichstagswahl vom 31. Juli 1932) wiederum keine arbeitsf¨ahige Koalition m¨oglich war, trat das Kabinett Papen am 17. November 1932 zuruck.¨ Nach ergebnislosen Verhandlungen mit Hitler wurde Schleicher am 3. De- zember 1932 zum Reichskanzler berufen und mit der Bildung eines Pr¨asidialkabinetts beauftragt. Hinter seinem Rucken¨ verhandelte je- doch Papen am 22. Januar 1933 im Auftrage Hindenburgs mit Hitler uber¨ dessen Berufung zum Reichskanzler. Nach einem Gespr¨ach mit 77 Der Anfang dieses Abschnitts ist aus Jurgen¨ Elstrodt, Norbert Schmitz: Geschichte der Mathematik an der Universit¨at Munster,¨ Teil I: 1773 – 1945, Munster,¨ 2008, S. 54 ff., ubernommen.¨ 78 Geboren am 26. November 1885 in Munster,¨ Abitur am Gymnasium Pauli- num; in der Weimarer Republik fuhrender¨ Vertreter der Zentrumspartei. -
Lorentz Contraction Vs. Einstein Contraction. Reichenbach and the Philosophical Reception of Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments
Lorentz Contraction vs. Einstein Contraction. Reichenbach and the Philosophical Reception of Miller’s Ether-Drift Experiments Marco Giovanelli Forum Scientiarum — Universität Tübingen, Doblerstrasse 33 72074 Tübingen, Germany [email protected] In 1925 Reichenbach, by reacting to the positive result of Miller’s ether-drift experiments, introduced a distinction between two types of rod contraction in special relativity: a kinematical ‘Einstein contraction,’ which depends on the definition of simultaneity, and a dynamical ‘Lorentz contraction.’ He argued that although both contractions happen to amount to the same Lorentz factor, they are conceptually different. In Reichenbach’s view, only the ‘Lorentz contraction’ is at stake in the Michelson-Morley experiment. The arm of Michelson’s interferometer is shorter than it would have been in classical mechanics in both Einstein and Lorentz’s theories. In both theories, the Lorentz contraction requires an atomistic explanation based on a yet-unknown theory of matter. This paper concludes that Reichenbach’s interpretation of special relativity shares features of the current neo-Lorentzian interpretations. Keywords: Hans Reichenbach • Lorentz Contraction • Special Relativity • Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation Introduction The aspect of Reichenbach’s interpretation of special relativity that has attracted the most attention is probably his famous conventionality of simultaneity—the freedom to choose which events are simultaneous in a given inertial frame depending on the value of the parameter . In a classical paper, David Malament (1977) has famously shown that one cannot allow such a freedom if one believes—as Reichenbach did—in the causal theory of time. Malament’s paper, the epitome of an influential work, has generated an enormous amount of discussion (cf. -
PTR Und PTB: Geschichte Einer Institution PTB-Infoblatt – PTR Und PTB: Geschichte Einer Institution
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Nationales Metrologieinstitut PTR und PTB: Geschichte einer Institution PTB-Infoblatt – PTR und PTB: Geschichte einer Institution PTR und PTB: Geschichte einer Institution Seit 1887 hat genaues Messen eine institutionelle Heimat in Deutschland. Als am 28. März 1887 der erste Etat der Physikalisch-Technischen Reichsanstalt (PTR), der Vorgängerin der PTB, bewilligt wurde, war dies die Geburtsstunde der ersten staatlichen Großforschungseinrichtung und der Be- ginn einer Erfolgsgeschichte, die noch längst nicht zu Ende erzählt ist. Von Ellen und Füßen zum Meter – Werner Siemens – Anfang der Achtzigerjahre des 19. Jahrhun- die Vorgeschichte derts noch nicht geadelt – ist tief beeindruckt von den Fort- schritten der Naturwissenschaft und setzt die gewonnenen Körpergrößen von Herrschern – gerne die Elle oder der Fuß Erkenntnisse industriell um, zum Wohle der aufstrebenden – waren früher beliebte Maße, auf deren Grundlage Handel Industrie- und Exportnation Deutschland. Er liefert mit seinen getrieben wurde. Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts existierten alleine Denkschriften die auch für die Politik einsichtige Begründung auf dem Gebiet des späteren Deutschen Reiches mehr als vierzig für die dringende Notwendigkeit einer PTR und überlässt dem unterschiedliche Ellen mit Längen zwischen 40 cm und 80 cm Deutschen Reich dafür ein privates Gelände in Berlin-Charlot- – ein echtes Hindernis für den Warenaustausch. Mit der Fran- tenburg. zösischen Revolution kam dann der Umbruch auch für die Maßeinheiten: Der Urmeter und das Urkilogramm wurden Zur selben Zeit ist der 1821 in Potsdam geborene Hermann geboren. Es dauerte allerdings noch bis 1875, bis sich die da- Ludwig Ferdinand Helmholtz einer der prägenden Naturwis- mals wichtigsten Industriestaaten auf einen internationalen senschaftler seiner Zeit. Der Physikerkollege James Clerk Max- Vertrag, die Meterkonvention, einigten. -
Appendix a I
Appendix A I Appendix A Professional Institutions and Associations AVA: Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt (see under --+ KWIS) DFG: Deutsche Forschungs-Gemeinschaft (previously --+ NG) German Scientific Research Association. Full title: Deutsche Gemeinschaft zur Erhaltung und Forderung der Forschung (German Association for the Support and Advancement of Sci entific Research). Successor organization to the --+ NG, which was renamed DFG unofficially since about 1929 and officially in 1937. During the terms of its presidents: J. --+ Stark (June 1934-36); R. --+ Mentzel (Nov. 1936-39) and A. --+ Esau (1939-45), the DFG also had a dom inant influence on the research policy of the --+ RFR. It was funded by government grants in the millions and smaller contributions by the --+ Stifterverband. Refs.: ~1entzel [1940]' Stark [1943]c, Zierold [1968], Nipperdey & Schmugge [1970]. DGtP: Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir technische Physik German Society of Technical Physics. Founded on June 6, 1919 by Georg Gehlhoff as an alternative to the --+ DPG with a total of 13 local associations and its own journal --+ Zeitschrift fUr technische Physik. Around 1924 the DGtP had approximately 3,000 members, thus somewhat more than the DPG, but membership fell by 1945 to around 1,500. Chairmen: G. Gehlhoff (1920-31); K. --+ Mey (1931-45). Refs.: Gehlhoff et al. [1920]' Ludwig [1974], Richter [1977], Peschel (Ed.) [1991]' chap. 1, Heinicke [1985]' p. 43, Hoffmann & Swinne [1994]. DPG: Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft German Physical Society. Founded in 1899 a national organization at to succeed the Berlin Physical Society, which dates back to 1845. The Society issued regular biweekly proceedings, reports (Berichte) on the same, as well as the journal: Fortschritte der Physik (since 1845). -
The Eichmann Trial the Eichmann Trial
The Eichmann Trial The Eichmann Trial EUROPEAN JEWRY BEFORE AND AFTER HITLER by SALO W. BARON A HISTORIAN, not an eyewitness or a jurist, I shall concern myself with the historical situation of the Jewish people before, during, and after the Nazi onslaught—the greatest catastrophe in Jewish history, which has known many catastrophes. A historian dealing with more or less contemporary problems con- fronts two major difficulties. The first is that historical perspective usu- ally can be attained only after the passage of time. The second is that much relevant material is hidden away in archives and private collec- tions, which are usually not open for inspection until several decades have passed. In this instance, however, the difficulties have been re- duced. The world has been moving so fast since the end of World War JJ, and the situation of 1961 so little resembles that of the 1930's, that one may consider the events of a quarter of a century ago as belonging almost to a bygone historic era, which the scholarly investigator can view with a modicum of detachment. In fact, a new generation has been growing up which "knew not Hitler." For its part, the older generation is often eager to forget the nightmare of the Nazi era. Hence that period has receded in the consciousness of man as if it had occurred long ago. This article is based on a memorandum that Professor Baron prepared for himself when he was invited to testify at the Eichmann trial, in April 1961, on the Jewish communities destroyed by the Nazis. -
Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the Canal Ray Experiments on Wave-Particle Duality
Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the Canal Ray Experiments on Wave-Particle Duality: Scientific Fraud and Theoretical Biasa Jeroen van Dongen* Institute for History and Foundations of Science Utrecht University PO Box 80.000, 3508 TA Utrecht, the Netherlands & Einstein Papers Project, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 USA Abstract In 1926 Emil Rupp published a number of papers on the interference properties of light emitted by canal ray sources. These articles, particularly one paper that came into being in close collaboration with Albert Einstein, drew quite some attention as they probed the wave versus particle nature of light. They also significantly propelled Rupp’s career, even though that from the outset they were highly controversial. This article will review this episode, and in particular Rupp’s collaboration with Einstein. Evidence that Rupp forged his results is presented and their critical reception in the socially and politically divided German physics community is discussed. These divisions fail to explain the full dynamic; the latter is attempted by turning to the role that theoretical bias on occasion has in assessing experiment. Einstein’s responses in particular are analysed in this context. Introduction: the career of Emil Rupp “[Emil] Rupp, in the late twenties, early thirties, was regarded as the most important and most competent experimental physicist. He did incredible things. [...] Later, it turned out that everything that he had ever published, everything, was forged. This had gone on for ten years, ten years!”1 As this quote of Walther Gerlach illustrates, the first third of the twentieth century witnessed one of the biggest scandals in physics: the rise and fall of Emil Rupp.