On the Weak Measurement of Velocity in Bohmian Mechanics

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

On the Weak Measurement of Velocity in Bohmian Mechanics Quantum Physics Without Quantum Philosophy Detlef Dürr • Sheldon Goldstein • Nino Zanghì Quantum Physics Without Quantum Philosophy 2123 Authors Dr. Detlef Dürr Sheldon Goldstein Mathematisches Institut Department of Mathematics, Rutgers Universität München State University of New Jersey München, Germany Piscataway New Jersey, USA Nino Zanghì Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Genova (INFN) Università di Genova, Genova, Italy ISBN 978-3-642-30689-1 ISBN 978-3-642-30690-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-30690-71 Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2012952411 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Foreword In an ideal world, this book would not occasion any controversy. It provides the artic- ulation and analysis of a physical theory, presented with more clarity and precision than is usual in a work of physics. A reader might start out predisposed towards the theory, or skeptical, or neutral, but should in any case be impressed by the pellucid explication. The theory, in various incarnations, postulates exact physical hypotheses about what exists in the world, and precise, universal, mathematically defined laws that determine how those physical entities behave. Large, visible objects (such as planets, or rocks, or macroscopic laboratory equipment) are postulated to be collec- tions of small objects (particles). Since the theory specifies how the small objects behave, it automatically implies how the large, visible objects behave. It is then just a matter of analysis to determine what the theory predicts about the outcomes of experiments and other sorts of observable phenomena, and to compare these predic- tions with empirical data. So long as those predictions prove accurate (they do), the theory must be regarded as a candidate for the true theory of the physical universe. It has to face competition from other empirically accurate theories, and there might be disputes over which of the various contenders is the most promising. But a fair competition requires that all the contestants be judged on their merits, which de- mands that each be clearly and sympathetically presented. This book supplies such a presentation. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. On certain topics, cool rational judgment is hard to find, and quantum mechanics is one of those topics. For reasons rooted in the tortuous history of the theory1, clear and straightforward physical the- ories that can account for the phenomena treated by quantum mechanics are viewed with suspicion, if not downright hostility. These phenomena, it is said, admit of no clear or “classical” explanation, and anyone who thinks that they do has not appre- ciated the revolutionary character of the quantum world. In order to “understand” quantum phenomena, it is said, we must renounce classical logic, or amend classical probability theory, or admit a plethora of invisible universes, or recognize the cen- tral role that conscious observers play in production of the physical world. Lest the 1 A useful account of that history may be found in the book of James Cushing [1]. v vi Foreword reader think I am exaggerating, there are many clear examples of each of these. The Many Worlds interpretation posits that whenever quantum theory seems to present a probability, there is in fact a multiplicity: Schrödinger’s cat splits into a myriad of cats in each experiment, some of which are alive and some dead. Defenders of the “consistent histories” approach insist that classical logic must be abandoned: in some cases, the claim P can be true and the claim Q can be true but the conjunction “P and Q” be not only not true, but meaningless.2 David Mermin, in a famous article on Bell’s theorem [2], asserts that “[w]e now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks.” These sorts of extraordinary claims should not be dismissed out of hand. Perhaps the world is so strange that “classical” modes of thought are incapable of compre- hending it. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And one would hope that such extreme positions would only be advocated if one were certain that nothing less radical could be correct. Surely, one imagines, these sorts of claims would not be made if some clear, precise theory that uses classical probability theory and classical logic, a theory that postulates only one, commonplace world in which observers are just complicated physical systems interacting by the same physical laws as govern everything else, actually existed. Surely, one imagines, respected physicists would not be driven to these extreme measures unless no alternative were available. But such an alternative is available, and has been for almost as long as the quantum theory itself has existed. It was first discovered by Louis de Broglie, and later rediscovered by David Bohm. It goes by the names “pilot wave theory” and “causal interpretation” and “ontological interpretation” and “Bohmian mechanics.” It is the main subject of this book. How could the most prominent physicists of the last century have failed to rec- ognize the significance of Bohmian mechanics? This is a fascinating question, but subsidiary to our main task. The important thing is to become convinced that they did fail to recognize its significance. Consider one example. In his classic Lectures on Physics, Richard Feynman introduces his students to quantum theory by means of an experiment: In this chapter, we shall tackle immediately the mysterious behavior in its most strange form. We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We cannot explain the mystery in the sense of “explaining” how it works. We will tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics. [3, p. 37-2] The experiment Feynman describes is the two-slit interference experiment for elec- trons.An electron beam, shot through a barrier with two holes in it, forms interference bands on a distant screen. The bands are formed by individual marks on the screen, one for each electron. They form even when the intensity of the beam is so low that only one electron at a time passes through the device. What does Feynman find so mysterious about this phenomenon? He considers the most straightforward, obvious attempt to understand it: “The first thing we would say 2 Cf. Omnes [4] or Griffiths [5]. Foreword vii is that since they come in lumps, each lump, which we may as well call an electron, has come either through hole 1 or hole 2. [3, p. 37–6 ]” This leads him to what he calls Proposition A: Each electron either goes through hole 1 or it goes through hole 2. [3, p. 37-6] The burden of Feynman’s argument is then to show that Proposition A is false: it is not the case that each electron goes through exactly one of the two holes. In order to prove this, he suggests that we “check this idea by experiment.” First, block up hole 2 and count the number of electrons that arrive at each part of the screen, yielding a distribution P1. Then, block up hole 1 and count the arrival rates to get another distribution P2. Finally, note that the distribution of electrons on the screen when both holes are open, P12, is not the sum of P1 and P2. This is an empirical result that cannot be denied. But what, exactly, does it imply? Feynman asserts that these phenomena simply cannot be explained if we accept Proposition A: It is all quite mysterious. And the more you look at it, the more mysterious it seems. Many ideas have been concocted to try to explain the curve for P12 in terms of individual electrons going around in complicated ways through the holes. None of them has succeeded. None of them can get the right curve for P12 in terms of P1 and P2. [3. p. 37–6] The reader should now turn to p. 13 of the introduction and study the diagram to be found on that page. The diagram depicts the trajectories of individual electrons in the two-slit experiment according to Bohmian mechanics. Note that each electron does go through exactly one slit, validating Proposition A. Note also that the trajectories do not look particularly “complicated.” And the visual simplicity of the diagram fails to convey the mathematical simplicity of the exact equations: the trajectories of the electrons are guided by the wavefunction in the simplest, most straightforward possi- ble way. Feynman’s claim about the impossibility of understanding this experiment consistent with electrons following continuous trajectories, and hence consistent with Proposition A, is flatly false. It had been known to be false since 1927, when de Broglie first presented the pilot wave theory, and its falsity was reinforced in 1952 when Bohm published the theory again.
Recommended publications
  • The Essential Turing: Seminal Writings in Computing, Logic, Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life: Plus the Secrets of Enigma
    The Essential Turing: Seminal Writings in Computing, Logic, Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life: Plus The Secrets of Enigma B. Jack Copeland, Editor OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS The Essential Turing Alan M. Turing The Essential Turing Seminal Writings in Computing, Logic, Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life plus The Secrets of Enigma Edited by B. Jack Copeland CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Taipei Toronto Shanghai With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © In this volume the Estate of Alan Turing 2004 Supplementary Material © the several contributors 2004 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2004 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
    [Show full text]
  • Spectrum July Aug 2016.Pub
    Inside this issue: The Spectrum The Calendar 2 The Newsletter for the Buffalo Astronomical Obs report 3 Association NSN Pins 6 Creativity Day 7 Fred Hoyle 9 Wilson Star Search 14 Star Chart 16 17 “New” Mars Trek 18 Map 19 July/August Volume 18, Issue 4 ElecƟon 2016 Results Elecon 2016 is complete and the winners have been chosen President Elect: Mike Anzalone Vice President Elect: Mike Humphrey Secretary Elect: Neal Ginsberg Treasurer Elect: DaRand Land At Large Director Elect: Taylor Cramer Congratulaons to All! 1 BAA Schedule of Astronomy Fun for 2016 Public Nights and Events Public Nights ‐ First Saturday of the Month March through October. 2016 TentaƟve Schedule of Events: July 9 Wilson Star Search July 30 BAA annual star party at BMO Aug 6 Public Night BMO 5pm Wild Fesval, followed by Bring a dish to pass picnic then Public Night BMO Aug 13 Wilson Star Search‐ think meteors! Sep 2/3/4 Black Forest (Rain Fest) Star Party Cherry Springs Pa. Sep 3 Public Night BMO Sep 9 BAA Meeng Sept 10 Wilson Star Search Oct 1 Public Night BMO Oct 8 Wilson Star Search Oct 14 BAA meeng Nov 11 BAA meeng Dec 9 BAA Holiday party 2 Observatory Report Ah Summer is here. The nights are short, HOT and buggy. But have no fear! Dennis B is here. He has donated a window air condioner. Now we can enjoy cool bug free imaging at the Observatory. Life is good once again :‐) The new cooling fans for the C‐14 are installed and seem to be working.
    [Show full text]
  • The Physical Tourist Physics in Bristol*
    Phys. perspect. 10 (2008) 468–480 1422-6944/08/040468–13 DOI 10.1007/s00016-008-0398-y The Physical Tourist Physics in Bristol* Michael Berry and Brian Pollard** We trace the history of physics in Bristol, before and after the foundation of the University,describ- ing the important locations and events and contributions by notable individuals.As well as the Nobel prizewinners Paul Dirac,Cecil Powell,and Nevill Mott,these include Arthur Tyndall,Charles Frank, Yakir Aharonov, and David Bohm. Key words: Bristol; University of Bristol; Henry Herbert Wills; Paul A.M. Dirac;Arthur P. Chattock; Silvanus P.Thompson; Arthur M. Tyndall; Nevill F. Mott; Cecil F. Powell; Charles Frank; Maurice Pryce; Andrew Keller; John Ziman. Bristol Science Prehistory The River Severn, whose estuary broadens into the Bristol Channel separating Eng- land and Wales, possesses the world’s second-highest tidal range.As well as causing the celebrated Severn Bore – a undular hydraulic jump, in which very high tides travel upstream in the form of a great wave – these tides made navigation difficult. Therefore it was natural that in the early Middle Ages the port city of Bristol was founded not on the Severn but ten miles upstream on one of its tributaries, the River Avon (not to be confused with Shakespeare’s river of the same name). With its access to the Atlantic and therefore the Americas, Bristol established itself as the country’s leading maritime city in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Even before the foundation of its University College in 1876, Bristol had become a center for science and physics-based technology.
    [Show full text]
  • John Ward: Memoir of a Theoretical Physicist
    Submitted to Biographical Memoirs of the Royal Society John Ward: Memoir of a Theoretical Physicist Norman Dombey De partment of Physics and Astronomy University of Sussex Brighton UK BN1 9QH August 4 2020 To the Memory of Kate Pyne and Freeman Dyson who encouraged me to write this memoir of John Ward but were not able to see it. Abstract A scientific biography of John Ward, who was responsible for the Ward Identity in quantum electrodynamics; the first detailed calculation of the quantum entanglement of two photons in electron-positron annihilation with Maurice Pryce; the prediction of neutral weak currents in electroweak theory with Sheldon Glashow and Abdus Salam, and many other major calculations in theoretical physics. 1 2 SECTION HEADINGS Page 1. Introduction 3 2. Early Years 4 3. Oxford and Quantum Entanglement 5 4. Quantum Electrodynamics and the Ward Identity 9 5. Salam and Gauge Theories 14 6. An Itinerant Physicist and Statistical Physics 19 7. Macquarie 20 8. Fermi, Ulam and Teller 22 9. Epilogue 37 10. Acknowledgements 41 3 1) Introduction John Clive Ward was a theoretical physicist who made important contributions to two of the principal subjects in twentieth century elementary particle physics, namely QED (quantum electrodynamics) and electroweak theory. He was an early proponent of the importance of gauge theories in quantum field theory and their use in showing the renormalisation of those theories: that is to remove apparent infinities in calculations. He showed that gauge invariance implies the equality of two seemingly different renormalised quantities in QED, a relationship now called the Ward Identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Thompson's History
    THE HISTORY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS IN BRISTOL: 1948 to1988 N. Thompson October 1992 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 RECAPITULATION 5 (a) Appointment of Mott as Professor 8 (b) The Beginnings of Cosmic Ray Research 10 (c) Other Pre-war Research 12 (d) Post-war Planning 15 Appendix to Chapter 2 18 3 ADMINISTRATION (a) Organisation and Committees 20 (b) The Director of the Laboratory 27 (c) Policy and Planning 31 4 RESEARCH AND RESEARCH WORKERS (a) Theoretical Physics 41 (b) Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics 50 (c) Experimental Solid State Physics 59 (d) Applied Optics 65 (e) Polymers 74 5 TEACHING (a) History at Faculty Level 79 (b) The Physics Curriculum 86 (c) Laboratory Work and Tutorials 93 (d) Examinations and Assessment 98 (e) Graduate Teaching 103 (f) Extra Mural Teaching 106 6 PREMISES 107 7 STATISTICS (a) Undergraduate Numbers 118 (b) Survival Rates 126 (c) Applications and Admissions 129 (d) Graduate Student Numbers 133 (e) Academic Staff 134 (f) Non-academic Staff 136 8 FINANCE (a) General survey 138 (b) Powell and Cosmic Ray Research 141 (c) Funding of Graduate Students 143 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In 1956 Professor A.M. Tyndall, who had retired as Head of the Physics Department in 1948, wrote a "History of the Department of Physics in Bristol, 1876 - 1948, with Personal Reminiscences." This was not published, but one or two typescript copies are still in existence, including one in the University library. His final sentence is, "But the full history of the department since 1948 is a subject for others to write at some future date." Since I was a member of the Department from 1933 to 1975, continuously except for four years during the war, I feel bound to admit the force of the suggestion, made by some of my friends, that I should contribute the next chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Familytree.Post1800met.20210419.Pdf
    Johann Friedrich Gmelin Nicolas Louis Vauquelin Thomas Jones Franz August Wolf Georg Friedrich Hildebrandt Abraham Gotthelf Kastner Georg Christoph Lichtenberg Friedrich Stromeyer John Hudson Johann Salomo Schweigger Heinrich Wilhelm Brandes Hans Christian Oersted Claude Louis Berthollet Antoine Francois de Fourcroy Abraham Gottlob Werner U. Gottingen U. Cambridge U. Nuremburg U. Gottingen U. Copenhagen 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac Carl Friedrich Christian Mohs Johann Afzelius 1801 U. Paris U. Freiburg 1801 1801 Jons Jacob Berzelius Johann Friedrich Blumenbach 1802 Uppsala U. 1802 Karl Casar von Leonhard Johann Friedrich August Gottling Georg von Vega 1803 U. Gottingen 1803 Karl Wilhelm Gottlob Kastner Ignaz Lindner Jean-Baptiste Fourier U. Jena U. Vienna 1805 1805 1805 Claude-Louis Navier 1806 Ecole Polytechnique 1806 1807 Rene Just Hauy 1808 Christian Samuel Weiss Carl Friedrich Gauss 1809 U. Leipzig 1809 Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel John Dawson Karl von Langsdorf U. Gottingen 1810 1810 Adam Sedgwick Martin Ohm Joseph Franz von Jacquin 1811 U. Cambridge U. Erlangen-Nuremberg 1811 1811 Leopold Gmelin Christian Gerling 1812 U. Gottingen U. Gottingen 1812 1812 Jacques Etienne Berard Giuseppe 1813 U. Paris U. 1813 1 Eilhard Mitscherlich Carl Friedrich Phillip von Martius Jean-Baptiste Joseph Delambre Johannes Theodorus Rossijn 1814 U. Gottingen U. Erlangen-Nuremberg 1814 1814 Gerard Moll Jan Hendrik van Swinden John Gough U. Utrecht 1815 1815 Pieter Johannes Uylenbroek George Peacock William Whewell 1816 U. Amsterdam U. Cambridge U. Cambridge 1816 1816 1816 Andreas von Ettingshausen 1817 U. Vienna 1817 1818 Richard Van Rees 1819 U. Utrecht 1819 1820 Heinrich Rose 1821 U. Kiel 1821 August Kunzek Heinrich Georg Bronn Friedrich Wilhelm August Argelander 1822 U.
    [Show full text]
  • A Piece of Apparatus Designed by Boltzmann To
    Newsletter No 22 August 2007 Cover picture: An early demonstration version of a light modulator, rather grandly called an Acetylene Photophone c1920. Taken from ‘The Moon Element’ by E.E. Fournier D’Albe. TF Unwin, 1924. Contents Editorial 2 Meetings Reports Physics at the Clarendon Laboratory 3 Lectures: Theoretical Physics in Oxford by Roger Elliot 4 Frederick Lindemann by Adrian Fort 12 Features: Why Physics Needs Oral History by Jim Grozier 22 Sir Joseph Rotblat and the Forgotten Physicists by Neil Brown 30 Physics in Heaven and on Earth by Peter Schuster 34 Hibbert’s Magnetic Balance by Stuart Leadstone 38 Book reviews Thomas Young – The last Man Who Knew Everything 51 From Clockwork to Crapshoot – A History of Physics 58 Patrick Blackett – Sailor, Scientist and Socialist 61 Book notices 67 Letters 68 Web news 70 Forthcoming meetings 71 Committee and contacts 72 2 Editorial The history of physics (and of chemistry and mathematics) gets little serious exposure in the popular media and comic, almost never. But do you remember the 60’s American comedian, pianist (and mathematician), Tom Lehrer, who sang a song, the words of which consisted of nothing (well, almost) but the chemical elements? He also sang about the Russian mathematician, Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky, (famous for his introducing non-Euclidian geometry), and told a story of a remote tribe in the Andes who furtively practised gargling, passing the secret down from father to son as part of their oral tradition. As he would have said, that last was just a sneaky way of commenting that our oral tradition is none too strong but on page 22, Jim Grozier presents a thoughtful case for pursuing this aspect with all vigour, in his article on a history of the Neutron Electric Dipole Moment.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty
    Quantum Physics Without Quantum Philosophy Detlef Dürr • Sheldon Goldstein • Nino Zanghì Quantum Physics Without Quantum Philosophy 2123 Authors Dr. Detlef Dürr Sheldon Goldstein Mathematisches Institut Department of Mathematics, Rutgers Universität München State University of New Jersey München, Germany Piscataway New Jersey, USA Nino Zanghì Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Genova (INFN) Università di Genova, Genova, Italy ISBN 978-3-642-30689-1 ISBN 978-3-642-30690-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-30690-71 Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2012952411 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) Foreword In an ideal world, this book would not occasion any controversy. It provides the artic- ulation and analysis of a physical theory, presented with more clarity and precision than is usual in a work of physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Bruno Touschek in Glasgow. the Making of a Theoretical Physicist Giulia Pancheri 1, Luisa Bonolis2 1)INFN, Laboratori Nazionali Di Frascati, P.O
    INFN-2020-03/LNF MIT-CTP/5201 Bruno Touschek in Glasgow. The making of a theoretical physicist Giulia Pancheri 1, Luisa Bonolis2 1)INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, P.O. Box 13, I-00044 Frascati, Italy 2) Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Boltzmannstraße 22, 14195 Berlin, Germany Abstract In the history of the discovery tools of last century particle physics, central stage is taken by elementary particle accelerators and in particular by colliders. In their start and early development, a major role was played by the Austrian born Bruno Touschek, who pro- posed and built the first electron positron collider, AdA, in Italy, in 1960. In this note, we present a period of Touschek’s life barely explored in the literature, namely the five years he spent at University of Glasgow, first to obtain his doctorate in 1949 and then as a lecturer. We shall highlight his formation as a theoretical physicist, his contacts and corre- spondence with Werner Heisenberg in Gottingen¨ and Max Born in Edinburgh, as well as his close involvement with colleagues intent on building modern particle accelerators in Glasgow, Malvern, Manchester and Birmingham. We shall discuss how the Fuchs affair, which unraveled in early 1950, may have influenced his decision to leave the UK, and how contacts with the Italian physicist Bruno Ferretti led Touschek to join the Guglielmo Marconi Physics Institute of University of Rome in January 1953. Ich will ein Physiker werden I want to become a physicist, Bruno Touschek, 1946 arXiv:2005.04942v1 [physics.hist-ph] 11 May 2020 e-mail:[email protected],[email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN CEDRIC SHEPHERDSON John Cedric Shepherdson 1926–2015
    JOHN CEDRIC SHEPHERDSON John Cedric Shepherdson 1926–2015 MODEST, METICULOUS, MASTERFUL. The first word seems to be mentioned by everyone who knew him. The second is obvious to anyone who reads his work and especially those who worked with him. The last is not adequately remarked on: his range was exceptional. His career comprised not so much in asking (and answering) groundbreaking questions, but more in answering questions others might (or should) have asked but did not; or even questioning what had been done and clarifying—and some- times correcting—in a way that gave the mathematics extra insights, solidity and depth. He was the master craftsman whose deft touch some- times perfected, sometimes mended, sometimes completed the work of others and thereby opened the way to the next stage. Yet his modesty meant that each of his achievements was initially known only to a small group, be it colleagues or friends or family. It also means that this mem- oir’s main aim is to continue the process of revelation that began at his memorial service in February 2015, where both family and colleagues were surprised to learn many things they had never known about him. John Cedric Shepherdson came from a long line of Yorkshire folk on both sides. The male line started out and, for a long time, did not move far from High Catton, about 9 miles east of York, while the female line came from Bradford. John’s great-great-grandfather, John Shepherdson, who was born in 1790 or 1791, was a carpenter, but the male line, from his only child, Henry Johnson Shepherdson (1814–95), on, were all teachers with one exception.
    [Show full text]