sign in sign up
<<
Home , Henri Bergson

COMMENT BOOKS & ARTS

Henri Bergson (left) ’s theory of relativity was a flawed .

PHYSICS Fighting for Graham Farmelo enjoys an account of Einstein’s clash with Henri Bergson.

ertrand Russell is reputed to have The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, from his theories. Einstein’s reply was terse to said that “science is organized com- Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our the point of rudeness. He said that there were mon sense; philosophy is organized of Time only two ways of understanding time — psy- JIMENA CANALES Bpiffle”. Although probably playful, he chological and physical — and the philoso- Princeton Univ. Press: 2015. was articulating the view of many physi- pher’s time did not exist. The rebuttal lasted cists. Theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg in on 6 April 1922. Bergson was 62 about a minute. That night, Einstein wrote to declared the “unreasonable ineffectiveness” and had long been internationally famous. his wife: “All went brilliantly well.” He believed of philosophy in his field; he was outdone by Einstein, two decades his junior, had recently that Bergson was confused and ignorant HÖHLIG/ULLSTEIN BILD VIA GETTY HÖHLIG/ULLSTEIN Stephen Hawking, who in 2011 pronounced become an even more prominent celebrity, about relativity. Bergson was convinced that philosophy “dead”. Yet only a century ago, the after astronomers gave widely publicized his opponent had not understood him. R: MARTIN BILD VIA GETTY; L: ULLSTEIN two disciplines coexisted happily. empirical support to his general theory of Bergson plainly did not comprehend basic One theoretician who read widely in relativity. aspects of relativity, so it is hardly surpris- philosophy was Albert Einstein. Physicist Their exchange was intellectually sterile. ing that this spat did nothing to make lead- Nándor Balázs, who worked with him in the We do not know exactly what Bergson said, ing theoret­icians reassess the theory. But he early 1950s, told me that Einstein would often but he probably expressed the views out did some damage. In 1922, when Einstein spend hours reading philosophy, and admired in his contentious and Simultane- received a for his “services to the work of seventeenth-century Dutch phi- ity later that year. In it, he chastised relativity theoretical physics”, the citation mentioned losopher . However, he had theory for going beyond physics to become a his work on the photoelectric effect, not rela- little time for those who expatiated on physics “flawed philosophy” that should be strongly tivity. Pressed to explain, Nobel Committee that they did not understand. This seems to resisted. He felt that human president Svante Arrhenius said: “It will be no have been at the root of tensions between Ein- plays a crucial part in our knowledge of the secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in stein and French philosopher Henri Bergson. Universe, so a complete account of time must Paris challenged the theory.” Four years later, Their quarrel about the of time is the reflect its subjective aspects (our Bergson was awarded a Nobel of his own, for of The Physicist and the Philosopher, a of durations of time depend, of course, on the literature. hefty, stimulating study by science historian circumstances in which we them). Canales aims to clarify the of Jimena Canales. Bergson spent half an hour putting his case; the quarrel without taking sides. Reading Canales begins with an account of their it was certain to raise the hackles of Einstein, between the lines, she seems to sympathize meeting, at the French Philosophical Society who strove to remove subjective elements with maverick twentieth-century physicist

286 | NATURE | VOL 521 | 21 MAY 2015 © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT and critic of relativity theory Herbert Dingle, who lamented that in general the scientist “understands what he is doing about as well Books in brief as a centipede understands how he walks”. Einstein does not seem to have spent Moore’s Law: The of Gordon Moore, Silicon Valley’s much time worrying about Bergson’s views, Quiet Revolutionary although he commented on the meeting occa- Arnold Thackray, David C. Brock and Rachel Jones Basic (2015) sionally to friends, not giving any ground. In 1957, experimental chemist Gordon Moore and his colleagues Bergson, by contrast, criticized Einstein’s formed a start-up manufacturing silicon transistors in Mountain relativistic of time and promoted his View, California. Silicon Valley was born, and the prediction known own case indefatigably. He wrote to Einstein’s as Moore’s Law began to play out: the number of transistors in hero, physicist Hendrik Lorentz, who despite integrated circuits started to double every two years. Arnold Thackray, differences with Einstein offered little solace. David Brock and Rachel Jones transform Moore from a man “doing Bergson also conversed with Albert Michel- something inscrutable in the margins” to a comprehensible, fiercely son — a top-drawer experimentalist but not driven technophile who shaped history from the inside out. a deep thinker about relativity — and used his to inform his case against Einstein. Canales does sterling work investigating these Move UP: Why Some Cultures Advance While Others Don’t engagements, and even the largely incoher- Clotaire Rapaille and Andrés Roemer Allen Lane (2015) ent contributions of the . With gross domestic product looking ever thinner as an index Regardless of the views of his few critics, Ein- of success, marketing specialist Clotaire Rapaille and diplomat stein’s concept of time, supported by experi- Andrés Roemer proffer a new analytic tool for gauging progress, ment, became part of the bedrock of physics. informed by behavioural economics, neuroscience and evolutionary In my view, Canales exaggerates Bergson’s psychology. Their R2 Mobility Index rests on a country’s cultural influence on our understanding of time, and capacity to enable upward mobility, and its ability to sensibly underestimates Einstein’s substantial contri- support the basic biological imperatives of security, success, survival bution to philosophy. Throughout his career, and sex. Scandinavian nations top several indices here, but Rapaille he was thoughtful about the philosophy of and Roemer’s provocative synthesis throws up surprises too. physics. With colleague Max Planck, he even helped to create a chair in the philosophy of science at the University of Berlin in the mid- Coastlines: The Story of Our Shore 1920s. Around that time, the of philoso- Patrick Barkham Granta (2015) phy was discounted by several young pioneers “The British Isles,” writes Patrick Barkham, “are more edge than of quantum mechanics, notably Paul Dirac. middle.” Here he pays homage to the chalk cliffs and tidal flats Canales oddly portrays the development of the 17,800-kilometre coastline to mark 50 years of National of quantum physics as an embarrassment Trust protection of more than half of it. Filtered through his hyper- for Einstein, when he was not only one of its observant sensibility, it all becomes fabulously strange: Undercliff pioneers but also perhaps its most astute and near Lyme Regis, for instance, is an active landslide festooned with respected critic. She sees the theory as a vin- botanical oddities and criss-crossed by shrews. Barkham’s tour of the dication of Bergson, whom she credits with wind-scoured spots on this ragged borderland reminds why it has anticipating Werner Heisenberg’s uncer- mesmerized scientists, artists and all those hungering for horizons. tainty by some 20 years. It seems to me fanciful to link Bergson’s long advocacy of indeterminism with Heisenberg’s precise Pax Technica: How the Internet of Things May Set Us Free or Lock concept of the indeterminability of specific Us Up pairs of variables in quantum mechanics. Nor Philip N. Howard Yale University Press (2015) does Canales underline that physicists pro- The Internet of Things could encompass 30 billion connected duced a fully relativistic theory of quantum smart devices — from cars to spectacles — within just five years. mechanics, incorporating Einsteinian time. In analysing this pervasive phenomenon, sociologist Philip Howard She does a fine job, however, of highlighting emphasizes its potential as the titular “pax technica”, binding the lack of constructive engagement between industry and government in “mutual defense pacts, design physicists and , beyond a few collaborations, standards setting and data mining”. Howard duly centres that specialize in the philosophy of notes possible risks, such as intensified mass surveillance, but physics. I sense that many would like to see argues that new devices could become “liberation technologies”. some sort of rapprochement, and I warmly agree. On the evidence presented in this stimulating book, however, such a revolution The of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration into the Wonder is likely only after physicists shed some of the of Consciousness condescension that they sometimes show to Sy Montgomery Atria (2015) disciplines, and after philosophers cut “Twisting, gelatinous, her arms boil up from the water, reaching for from their discourse every last of piffle. ■ mine.” So begins naturalist Sy Montgomery’s close encounter with a giant Pacific octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) in this delightful study of Graham Farmelo is a by-fellow at Churchill cephalopods in the wild, aquaria and labs. Montgomery celebrates the College of the , UK, solitary invertebrates in all their behavioural and physiological glory — and author of Churchill’s Bomb. as playful escapologists, problem-solvers and masters of camouflage e-mail: [email protected] that can taste and might even see with their skin. Barbara Kiser

21 MAY 2015 | VOL 521 | NATURE | 287 © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved