DOCSLIB.ORG

Experiment, Time and Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Experiment, Time and Theory Faculty of Arts Thesis for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy at the University of Antwerp to be defended by Jan Potters Experiment, Time and Theory On the Scientific Exploration of the Unobservable Antwerp 2019 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Bert Leuridan Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte Verhandeling neergelegd voor de graad van Doctor in de Wijsbegeerte Aan de Universiteit Antwerpen Verdedigd door Jan Potters Experiment, Tijd en Theorie Over de wetenschappelijke exploratie van het onobserveerbare Antwerpen 2019 Promotor: Prof. Dr. Bert Leuridan L'anthropologie est l`apour nous le rappeler, le passage du temps peut s'interpr´eterde multiples fa¸cons,comme cycle ou comme d´ecadence, comme chute ou comme instabilit´e,comme retour ou comme pr´esence continu´ee.Appelons temporalit´e l'interpr´etationde ce passage pour bien la distinguer du temps. Les modernes ont pour particularit´ede comprendre le temps qui passe comme s'il abolissait r´eellement le pass´e derri`ere lui. Ils se prennent tous pour Attilla derri`ere qui l'herbe ne repoussait plus. Ils ne se sentent pas ´eloign´esdu Moyen Age^ par un certain nombre de si`ecles,mais s´epar´esde lui par des r´evolutionscoperniciennes, des coupures ´epist´emologiques, des ruptures ´epist´emiquesqui sont tellement radicales que plus rien ne survit en eux de ce pass´e{ que plus rien ne doit survivre en eux de ce pass´e. Nous n'avons jamais et´ e´ modernes Bruno Latour Contents Contents v Acknowledgments vii Introduction 1 1 Manipulation and the Realist Anthropology 3 1.1 Introduction . .3 1.2 Hacking's Anthropological Origin-Myth . .4 1.3 Realism and its arguments . .6 1.3.1 Putnam's No Miracles-Argument . .6 1.3.2 The Underdetermination Argument . 10 1.3.3 Van Fraassen and Inference to the Best Explanation . 12 1.3.4 Laudan and the Pessimistic Meta-Induction . 15 1.3.5 Scientific Realism: Anthropology, Strategy and Hypothesis . 18 1.4 Manipulability and the Realist Strategy . 19 1.4.1 Ian Hacking: Manipulating the Unobservable . 19 1.4.2 Nancy Cartwright: Constructing Nomological Machines . 22 1.4.3 Manipulability and the Realism-Issue . 28 1.5 Manipulability and its Relation to Theory . 32 1.5.1 Margaret Morrison: Manipulability and Theory . 33 1.5.2 Michela Massimi: Manipulability and Phenomena . 34 1.5.3 Theodore Arabatzis: Manipulability and History . 36 1.6 Research Question . 37 2 Experiment and the Electron's Velocity-Dependence of Mass 41 2.1 Introduction . 41 2.2 Kaufmann's First Experiments and the Electromagnetic Electron . 43 2.3 Lorentz's Deformable Electron and the Principle of Relativity . 57 2.4 Kaufmann's Final Run of Experiments . 66 2.5 Early Relativistic Responses to Kaufmann's Experiments . 71 2.6 Discussing Kaufmann's Experimental Set-Up . 78 2.7 Planck's Dynamics: Quanta, Relativity and the Electron . 93 2.8 Einstein and von Laue on the Electron . 107 2.9 Investigating the Electron's Dynamics . 125 3 Experiment and the State of Magnetization of Superconductors 129 3.1 Introduction . 129 3.2 Lippmann's Theorem, Perfect Conductors and Frozen In Fields . 132 v Contents 3.3 Kamerlingh Onnes and Tuyn's Experiments . 134 3.4 Overturning the Classical Electron . 143 3.5 Experiment and Superconducting Phenomena . 152 3.6 Superconductors and Phenomenological Theories . 170 3.7 Superconductors, Diamagnetism and Experiment . 183 3.8 Investigating the State of Magnetization . 193 4 Manipulation and an Epistemology of Exploration 197 4.1 Introduction . 197 4.2 Exploration in Experimentation and Modeling . 199 4.2.1 Steinle and Exploratory Experimentation . 199 4.2.2 Massimi and Exploratory Modeling . 201 4.2.3 Uljana Feest and the Process of Stabilization . 203 4.3 Stabilization, Exploration and Experimental Inferences . 206 4.3.1 Exploration and the Electron's Velocity-Dependent Mass . 208 4.3.2 Exploration and Superconductivity's State of Magnetization . 218 4.3.3 Manipulability, Exploration and Stabilization . 229 4.3.4 Exploration and the Realist Anthropology . 235 Conclusion 241 Appendix A Experimental Inferences and Interpretations 251 Bibliography 255 Abstract 275 vi Acknowledgments According to the views elaborated in this dissertation, research is to be character- ized as exploration. Such exploration happens in a space of possibilities, and the subject of this dissertation concerns the epistemological factors that shape and con- strain this space. But, of course, research does not happen in an epistemological vacuum. Material and social factors equally well play an important role in shaping, constraining and sustaining the way in which research is carried out. While I have not been able, unfortunately, to pay much attention to these factors in what is to follow, I cannot let those that have sustained my research go unnoticed. The first person who I would like to thank is my supervisor, Bert Leuridan. Over the years, he has given me space to explore and elaborate my own thoughts, while sustaining me at every moment by means of comments, remarks, criticism and support. My work has improved tremendeously thanks to him, and I am sure that without his clear and analytic eye this dissertation would have been at least twice as long without containing more information. Besides Bert, there are many other wonderful people in the Antwerp philosophy department that have made my time there a pleasure. I would like to thank them not only for providing an intellectually stimulating environment, but equally well for all the pleasant, non-philosophical lunch breaks we had. My gratitude goes out to Sydney, Thomas, Raoul, Marco, Jasper, Farid, Jan, Ludger, Karim, Erik, Els, Henk, Thomas, Laura, Katrien, Nele, Leen, Zuzanna, Hannah, Jo and many others. I have been fortunate to be able to go beyond Antwerp as well. From Ghent, I would like to acknowledge Fons, Pieter, Wim, Laura, Boris, Barnaby, Sylvia, Fien, and Inge. From my time in Cambridge, I would like to thank Hasok Chang, Richard Staley, Joe Martin, Matt Farr, Jeremy Butterfield, Catarina Madruga, Caterina Sch¨urch, George Vardulakis, Melissa Mouthaan and Lorien Sabatino. From my visits to T¨ubingen,I want to extend my gratitude to Marco Giovanelli, Harvey Brown, Dennis Lehmkuhl, Thomas Ryckman, Jeroen van Dongen and Daniel Olson. From conferences throughout the years, there are too many people to mention, although a few deserve one: Massimiliano Simons, Brandon Boesch, and Philipp Haueis. Luckily, life is more than philosophy. I have had the great luck to have friends that reminded me often enough that there are other things to do than write or read: Pieter, Bart, Joshua, Wesley, Jef, Wout, Bob, Senne, Seppe, Raf, Gert, Jonas, Nick, Kristof, Michael, Bob, Jan, Lander, Jan, Beth, Emmanuelle, Ben, Griet, Sophie, Renate, Victor, Quinten, Maarten, Nelis, Tomas, Na¨ım, Camille, Jesse, Florian, Mathijs, Freek, Jonathan, Elisabeth, Katrin, Hanne, Karen, Joris, Niels, Sanne, Sander, Nick, Eefke, David, Tom, Thomas, Dorien, Ruth, Merel, Bernard, Ad`ele, Emilien, Caroline, Filip, Yentl, Stijn, Kamiel, Josip, Frederik, Jan, Lucas, Siemen and many others. Some people are more important for the writing of a dissertation than others. vii Contents Besides Bert, I want to give a special thanks to Fons, Pieter, and Joshua, who read parts of this work. Further, I want to thank my family, my sisters Marie and Ren´ee,my brother Jef, and especially my parents from the bottom of my heart, for supporting me and for providing a warm and loving home. Finally, there is one person whom I cannot thank enough, since she has been with me every step of the way: lots of love to Veerle, to whom I dedicate this work. viii Introduction This dissertation is concerned with an investigation of how we are to conceptualize the success of scientific experiments, in the sense of experiments providing informa- tion about what is investigated, if we do not characterize them purely in terms of ob- servation. In chapter 1, I will present a discussion of one particular non-observation- focused approach to scientific experimentation, namely Nancy Cartwright's and Ian Hacking's manipulability-idea. Elaborating how this idea emerged, how Cartwright and Hacking saw it as a solution to problems that plagued observation-focused pro- posals, and how their alternative in turn was problematized, will lead me to the formulation of the research question that is to guide and structure this dissertation: [Research Question]: How are we to characterize the information pro- vided by experimental manipulations? In chapters 2 and 3, I will then investigate this question by means of a discussion of two historical episodes involving experimental manipulations that were, for a certain time, seen as successful, but which were later reconceptualized in such a way that the experiments were no longer seen as providing the information assumed earlier. On the basis of these investigations, I will then elaborate in chapter 4 what I will call an epistemology of exploration for experimental manipulations, to be developed on the basis of work by Friedrich Steinle, Michela Massimi and Uljana Feest. Before proceeding, however, I will provide a short overview of where this disser- tation comes from, since, as will become clear near the end of this work, a part of research concerns conceptualizing and reconceptualizing its own history. The origi- nal goal of my PhD was to investigate how a naturalistic approach to metaphysics was possible from a practice-based view on science. As I put it in my research pro- posal: \My main objective is to develop a framework for naturalistic metaphysical inquiry that can give naturalistic metaphysicians a better understanding of what is metaphysically useful about scientific practice and how it can constrain their in- quiry". As one can already see from the few paragraphs written above, this goal has shifted quite a lot over the years.
Recommended publications
  • Albert Einstein

    Albert Einstein

    THE COLLECTED PAPERS OF Albert Einstein VOLUME 15 THE BERLIN YEARS: WRITINGS & CORRESPONDENCE JUNE 1925–MAY 1927 Diana Kormos Buchwald, József Illy, A. J. Kox, Dennis Lehmkuhl, Ze’ev Rosenkranz, and Jennifer Nollar James EDITORS Anthony Duncan, Marco Giovanelli, Michel Janssen, Daniel J. Kennefick, and Issachar Unna ASSOCIATE & CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Emily de Araújo, Rudy Hirschmann, Nurit Lifshitz, and Barbara Wolff ASSISTANT EDITORS Princeton University Press 2018 Copyright © 2018 by The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 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 press.princeton.edu All Rights Reserved LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA (Revised for volume 15) Einstein, Albert, 1879–1955. The collected papers of Albert Einstein. German, English, and French. Includes bibliographies and indexes. Contents: v. 1. The early years, 1879–1902 / John Stachel, editor — v. 2. The Swiss years, writings, 1900–1909 — — v. 15. The Berlin years, writings and correspondence, June 1925–May 1927 / Diana Kormos Buchwald... [et al.], editors. QC16.E5A2 1987 530 86-43132 ISBN 0-691-08407-6 (v.1) ISBN 978-0-691-17881-3 (v. 15) This book has been composed in Times. The publisher would like to acknowledge the editors of this volume for providing the camera-ready copy from which this book was printed. Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. Printed in the United States of America 13579108642 INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 15 The present volume covers a thrilling two-year period in twentieth-century physics, for during this time matrix mechanics—developed by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Pascual Jordan—and wave mechanics, developed by Erwin Schrödinger, supplanted the earlier quantum theory.
  • Einstein and Physics Hundred Years Ago∗

    Einstein and Physics Hundred Years Ago∗

    Vol. 37 (2006) ACTA PHYSICA POLONICA B No 1 EINSTEIN AND PHYSICS HUNDRED YEARS AGO∗ Andrzej K. Wróblewski Physics Department, Warsaw University Hoża 69, 00-681 Warszawa, Poland [email protected] (Received November 15, 2005) In 1905 Albert Einstein published four papers which revolutionized physics. Einstein’s ideas concerning energy quanta and electrodynamics of moving bodies were received with scepticism which only very slowly went away in spite of their solid experimental confirmation. PACS numbers: 01.65.+g 1. Physics around 1900 At the turn of the XX century most scientists regarded physics as an almost completed science which was able to explain all known physical phe- nomena. It appeared to be a magnificent structure supported by the three mighty pillars: Newton’s mechanics, Maxwell’s electrodynamics, and ther- modynamics. For the celebrated French chemist Marcellin Berthelot there were no major unsolved problems left in science and the world was without mystery. Le monde est aujourd’hui sans mystère— he confidently wrote in 1885 [1]. Albert A. Michelson was of the opinion that “The more important fundamen- tal laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote . Our future dis- coveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals” [2]. Physics was not only effective but also perfect and beautiful. Henri Poincaré maintained that “The theory of light based on the works of Fresnel and his successors is the most perfect of all the theories of physics” [3].
  • Hermann Minkowski Et La Mathématisation De La Théorie De La Relativité Restreinte 1905-1915

    Hermann Minkowski Et La Mathématisation De La Théorie De La Relativité Restreinte 1905-1915

    THÈSE présentée à L’UNIVERSITÉ DE PARIS VII pour obtenir le grade de DOCTEUR Spécialité : Épistémologie et Histoire des Sciences par Scott A. WALTER HERMANN MINKOWSKI ET LA MATHÉMATISATION DE LA THÉORIE DE LA RELATIVITÉ RESTREINTE 1905-1915 Thèse dirigée par M. Christian Houzel et soutenue le 20 décembre 1996 devant la Commission d’Examen composée de : Examinateur : M. Christian Houzel Professeur à l’Université de Paris VII Examinateur : M. Arthur I. Miller Professeur à UniversityCollege London Rapporteur : M. Michel Paty Directeur de recherche, CNRS Rapporteur : M. Jim Ritter Maître de conférences à l’Univ. de Paris VIII S. Walter LA MATHÉMATISATION DE LA RELATIVITÉ RESTREINTE i Résumé Au début du vingtième siècle émergeait l’un des produits les plus remarquables de la physique théorique : la théorie de la relativité. Prise dans son contexte à la fois intellectuel et institution- nel, elle est l’objet central de la dissertation. Toutefois, seul un aspect de cette histoire est abordé de façon continue, à savoir le rôle des mathématiciens dans sa découverte, sa diffusion, sa ré- ception et son développement. Les contributions d’un mathématicien en particulier, Hermann Minkowski, sont étudiées de près, car c’est lui qui trouva la forme mathématique permettant les développements les plus importants, du point de vue des théoriciens de l’époque. Le sujet de la thèse est abordé selon deux axes; l’un se fonde sur l’analyse comparative des documents, l’autre sur l’étude bibliométrique. De cette façon, les conclusions de la première démarche se trouvent encadrées par les résultats de l’analyse globale des données bibliographiques.
  • Voigt Transformations in Retrospect: Missed Opportunities?

    Voigt Transformations in Retrospect: Missed Opportunities?

    Voigt transformations in retrospect: missed opportunities? Olga Chashchina Ecole´ Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France∗ Natalya Dudisheva Novosibirsk State University, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia† Zurab K. Silagadze Novosibirsk State University and Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia.‡ The teaching of modern physics often uses the history of physics as a didactic tool. However, as in this process the history of physics is not something studied but used, there is a danger that the history itself will be distorted in, as Butterfield calls it, a “Whiggish” way, when the present becomes the measure of the past. It is not surprising that reading today a paper written more than a hundred years ago, we can extract much more of it than was actually thought or dreamed by the author himself. We demonstrate this Whiggish approach on the example of Woldemar Voigt’s 1887 paper. From the modern perspective, it may appear that this paper opens a way to both the special relativity and to its anisotropic Finslerian generalization which came into the focus only recently, in relation with the Cohen and Glashow’s very special relativity proposal. With a little imagination, one can connect Voigt’s paper to the notorious Einstein-Poincar´epri- ority dispute, which we believe is a Whiggish late time artifact. We use the related historical circumstances to give a broader view on special relativity, than it is usually anticipated. PACS numbers: 03.30.+p; 1.65.+g Keywords: Special relativity, Very special relativity, Voigt transformations, Einstein-Poincar´epriority dispute I. INTRODUCTION Sometimes Woldemar Voigt, a German physicist, is considered as “Relativity’s forgotten figure” [1].
  • Ether and Electrons in Relativity Theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter

    Ether and Electrons in Relativity Theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter

    Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter To cite this version: Scott Walter. Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900-1911). Jaume Navarro. Ether and Moder- nity: The Recalcitrance of an Epistemic Object in the Early Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, 2018, 9780198797258. hal-01879022 HAL Id: hal-01879022 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01879022 Submitted on 21 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900–1911) Scott A. Walter∗ To appear in J. Navarro, ed, Ether and Modernity, 67–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018 Abstract This chapter discusses the roles of ether and electrons in relativity the- ory. One of the most radical moves made by Albert Einstein was to dismiss the ether from electrodynamics. His fellow physicists felt challenged by Einstein’s view, and they came up with a variety of responses, ranging from enthusiastic approval, to dismissive rejection. Among the naysayers were the electron theorists, who were unanimous in their affirmation of the ether, even if they agreed with other aspects of Einstein’s theory of relativity. The eventual success of the latter theory (circa 1911) owed much to Hermann Minkowski’s idea of four-dimensional spacetime, which was portrayed as a conceptual substitute of sorts for the ether.
  • Corry L. David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics, 1898-1918

    Corry L. David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics, 1898-1918

    Archimedes Volume 10 Archimedes NEW STUDIES IN THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 10 EDITOR JED Z. BUCHWALD, Dreyfuss Professor of History, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA. ADVISORY BOARD HENK BOS, University of Utrecht MORDECHAI FEINGOLD, Virginia Polytechnic Institute ALLAN D. FRANKLIN, University of Colorado at Boulder KOSTAS GAVROGLU, National Technical University of Athens ANTHONY GRAFTON, Princeton University FREDERIC L. HOLMES, Yale University PAUL HOYNINGEN-HUENE, University of Hannover EVELYN FOX KELLER, MIT TREVOR LEVERE, University of Toronto JESPER LÜTZEN, Copenhagen University WILLIAM NEWMAN, Harvard University JÜRGEN RENN, Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte ALEX ROLAND, Duke University ALAN SHAPIRO, University of Minnesota NANCY SIRAISI, Hunter College of the City University of New York NOEL SWERDLOW, University of Chicago Archimedes has three fundamental goals; to further the integration of the histories of science and technology with one another: to investigate the technical, social and prac- tical histories of specific developments in science and technology; and finally, where possible and desirable, to bring the histories of science and technology into closer con- tact with the philosophy of science. To these ends, each volume will have its own theme and title and will be planned by one or more members of the Advisory Board in consultation with the editor. Although the volumes have specific themes, the series it- self will not be limited to one or even to a few particular areas. Its subjects include any of the sciences, ranging from biology through physics, all aspects of technology, bro- adly construed, as well as historically-engaged philosophy of science or technology.
  • Rostislaw Kaischew and His Trace in the Fundamental Science. a Brief Historical Overview of the Genesis and Rise of Sofia School of Crystal Growth M

    Rostislaw Kaischew and His Trace in the Fundamental Science. a Brief Historical Overview of the Genesis and Rise of Sofia School of Crystal Growth M

    Bulgarian Chemical Communications, Volume 49 Special Issue C (pp. 23 – 41) 2017 Rostislaw Kaischew and his trace in the fundamental science. A brief historical overview of the genesis and rise of Sofia School of crystal growth M. Michailov Rostislaw Kaischew Institute of Physical Chemistry, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Аcad. G. Bonchev Str., bl. 11, 1113 Sofia,Bulgaria The process of nucleation and growth of crystals has great educational, historical and moral standing. is one of the most exotic phenomena in nature. This is because the birth and rise of the scientific Starting from disordered ensembles and small schools and their ideas mirror the noetic values of clusters of single atoms and molecules, matter mankind at the actual historical time [9-12]. organizes itself in beautiful figures and shapes with Prof. Iwan Stranski and prof. Rostislaw immaculate symmetry and ordering, ideal cubes, Kaischew, the founders of the most famous pyramids, needles, dendrites. These ensembles of Bulgarian scientific school have a dramatic crystal shapes and their divine beauty attend our personal and scientific destiny. Their illustrious entire being and consciousness, our entire life, they academic and research activity plays a key role in are everywhere around us. This incredible art of Bulgarian science as well as in the development of nature is generated spontaneously, without any the most important scientific institutions – the „St. influence of human mind, thinking, desire or action. Kliment Ohridski“ University of Sofia and the Why is this occurring and how? Where the science Bulgarian Academy of Sciences [2,4,5]. meets the unfathomable loveliness and marvelous aesthetics of the art of crystal growth? A substantial contribution in answering these fundamental questions of condensed matter physics is given by a very bright generation of Bulgarian scientists in the last century [1-8].
  • Beyond Einstein Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century Editors David E

    Beyond Einstein Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century Editors David E

    David E. Rowe • Tilman Sauer • Scott A. Walter Editors Beyond Einstein Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century Editors David E. Rowe Tilman Sauer Institut für Mathematik Institut für Mathematik Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany Mainz, Germany Scott A. Walter Centre François Viète Université de Nantes Nantes Cedex, France ISSN 2381-5833 ISSN 2381-5841 (electronic) Einstein Studies ISBN 978-1-4939-7706-2 ISBN 978-1-4939-7708-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7708-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018944372 Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 01A60, 81T20, 83C47, 83D05 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, 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. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
  • Oxford Today 2009, Reproduced with Kind Permission of the the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford

    Oxford Today 2009, Reproduced with Kind Permission of the the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford

    A refuge for the persecuted, release for the fettered mind An organisation set up in 1933 to find work for refugee academics is still very much in business. Georgina Ferry reports. Seventy years ago, on 5 February 1939, the great and the good of Oxford poured into the Sheldonian to hear distinguished speakers address 'The Problem of the refugee Scholar'. The aim was to persuade the University and its colleges to open their hearts and their pockets to academics from countries where fascism had deprived them of their livelihood and of the opportunity to teach and research. On the platform was Lord Samuel, former Home Secretary and head of the Council for German Jewry, and Sir John Hope Simpson, the former Indian civil servant whose subsequent career as a colonial administrator had frequently focused on migration, forced and otherwise, in countries as diverse as Kenya and Palestine. Both were Balliol men. Distinguished Oxford figures including the Master of Balliol, A D Lindsay, the Provost of Oriel, Sir William David Ross, and the regius Professor of Medicine, Sir Edward Farquhar Buzzard - had worked indefatigably over the previous five years to create the conditions in which the University would be prepared to stage a high-profile event in such a cause. It all began in 1933, when Sir William Beveridge, then director of the London School of Economics (and subsequently Master of Univ), was on a study trip to Vienna. Reading in a newspaper that, since Adolf Hitler's recent rise to power, Jewish and other non-Nazi professors were losing their jobs in German universities, Beveridge returned to England and mobilised many of his influential friends to form the academic assistance Council (AAC).
  • Figures of Light in the Early History of Relativity (1905–1914)

    Figures of Light in the Early History of Relativity (1905–1914)

    Figures of Light in the Early History of Relativity (1905{1914) Scott A. Walter To appear in D. Rowe, T. Sauer, and S. A. Walter, eds, Beyond Einstein: Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century (Einstein Studies 14), New York: Springer Abstract Albert Einstein's bold assertion of the form-invariance of the equa- tion of a spherical light wave with respect to inertial frames of reference (1905) became, in the space of six years, the preferred foundation of his theory of relativity. Early on, however, Einstein's universal light- sphere invariance was challenged on epistemological grounds by Henri Poincar´e,who promoted an alternative demonstration of the founda- tions of relativity theory based on the notion of a light ellipsoid. A third figure of light, Hermann Minkowski's lightcone also provided a new means of envisioning the foundations of relativity. Drawing in part on archival sources, this paper shows how an informal, interna- tional group of physicists, mathematicians, and engineers, including Einstein, Paul Langevin, Poincar´e, Hermann Minkowski, Ebenezer Cunningham, Harry Bateman, Otto Berg, Max Planck, Max Laue, A. A. Robb, and Ludwig Silberstein, employed figures of light during the formative years of relativity theory in their discovery of the salient features of the relativistic worldview. 1 Introduction When Albert Einstein first presented his theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), he began by explaining how his kinematic assumptions led to a certain coordinate transformation, soon to be known as the \Lorentz" transformation. Along the way, the young Einstein affirmed the form-invariance of the equation of a spherical 1 light-wave (or light-sphere covariance, for short) with respect to in- ertial frames of reference.
  • Like Thermodynamics Before Boltzmann. on the Emergence of Einstein’S Distinction Between Constructive and Principle Theories

    Like Thermodynamics Before Boltzmann. on the Emergence of Einstein’S Distinction Between Constructive and Principle Theories

    Like Thermodynamics before Boltzmann. On the Emergence of Einstein’s Distinction between Constructive and Principle Theories Marco Giovanelli Forum Scientiarum — Universität Tübingen, Doblerstrasse 33 72074 Tübingen, Germany [email protected] How must the laws of nature be constructed in order to rule out the possibility of bringing about perpetual motion? Einstein to Solovine, undated In a 1919 article for the Times of London, Einstein declared the relativity theory to be a ‘principle theory,’ like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘constructive theory,’ like the kinetic theory of gases. The present paper attempts to trace back the prehistory of this famous distinction through a systematic overview of Einstein’s repeated use of the relativity theory/thermodynamics analysis after 1905. Einstein initially used the comparison to address a specic objection. In his 1905 relativity paper he had determined the velocity-dependence of the electron’s mass by adapting Newton’s particle dynamics to the relativity principle. However, according to many, this result was not admissible without making some assumption about the structure of the electron. Einstein replied that the relativity theory is similar to thermodynamics. Unlike the usual physical theories, it does not directly try to construct models of specic physical systems; it provides empirically motivated and mathematically formulated criteria for the acceptability of such theories. New theories can be obtained by modifying existing theories valid in limiting case so that they comply with such criteria. Einstein progressively transformed this line of the defense into a positive heuristics. Instead of directly searching for new theories, it is often more eective to search for conditions which constraint the number of possible theories.
  • Like Thermodynamics Before Boltzmann. on the Emergence of Einstein’S Distinction Between Constructive and Principle Theories

    Like Thermodynamics Before Boltzmann. on the Emergence of Einstein’S Distinction Between Constructive and Principle Theories

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Philsci-Archive Like Thermodynamics before Boltzmann. On the Emergence of Einstein’s Distinction between Constructive and Principle Theories Marco Giovanelli Forum Scientiarum — Universität Tübingen, Doblerstrasse 33 72074 Tübingen, Germany [email protected] How must the laws of nature be constructed in order to rule out the possibility of bringing about perpetual motion? Einstein to Solovine, undated In a 1919 article for the Times of London, Einstein declared the relativity theory to be a ‘principle theory,’ like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘constructive theory,’ like the kinetic theory of gases. The present paper attempts to trace back the prehistory of this famous distinction through a systematic overview of Einstein’s repeated use of the relativity theory/thermodynamics analysis after 1905. Einstein initially used the comparison to address a specic objection. In his 1905 relativity paper he had determined the velocity-dependence of the electron’s mass by adapting Newton’s particle dynamics to the relativity principle. However, according to many, this result was not admissible without making some assumption about the structure of the electron. Einstein replied that the relativity theory is similar to thermodynamics. Unlike the usual physical theories, it does not directly try to construct models of specic physical systems; it provides empirically motivated and mathematically formulated criteria for the acceptability of such theories. New theories can be obtained by modifying existing theories valid in limiting case so that they comply with such criteria. Einstein progressively transformed this line of the defense into a positive heuristics.