.jpg?w=1)
ANOTHER PROPERTY
HEISENBERG, Werner (1901-1976), Physicist. Autograph letter signed to Moritz Schlick (1882-1936), Leipzig, 27 December 1930. 6 pages, 4to, on Institut für theoretische Physik der Universität stationery. Closed tears at folds, small tape reinforcement to edge of center crease of two pages .
细节
HEISENBERG, Werner (1901-1976), Physicist. Autograph letter signed to Moritz Schlick (1882-1936), Leipzig, 27 December 1930. 6 pages, 4to, on Institut für theoretische Physik der Universität stationery. Closed tears at folds, small tape reinforcement to edge of center crease of two pages .
“What Einstein wants, for instance, is full causality in its strictest sense”
A fascinating letter with rich scientific and philosophical content, as Heisenberg places his ideas in relation to those of his major contemporaries: Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, Planck, Born and others, as well as prominent philosophers such as Gustav Bergmann and Immanuel Kant. He writes in response to Schlick’s “interesting essay,” the controversial “Causality in Contemporary Physics.” Heisenberg does not see “what intermediate thing is possible between ‘full’ causality and disorder plus the laws of probability. What Einstein wants, for instance, is full causality in its strictest sense. That is, Einstein hopes it will later be possible, for example, to predict the moment of a ‘transfer’ in the atom on the basis of previously performed experiments.” He is “a bit unhappy about the fact that I’m always cited regarding the teaching on the invalidity of the causal proof, as though I were in opposition to Born’s alterations.” He feels “that the principle of causality doesn’t have any sphere of validity any longer in physics (in the sense that, for instance, stamps from 1929 are no longer valid) —which is not quite the same thing as the claim that it is false…Meanwhile, of course, Planck has put forward a form of the causal proof that certainly is ‘false.’”
Heisenberg is one of the founders of quantum mechanics, which revolutionized physics in the 1920’s, providing a means of understanding atomic and sub-atomic forces in ways that challenged the classical model of physics. His famous uncertainty principle (1927) asserted the limits of our understanding of complementary physical properties: we can know the precise location of a particle, for example, but not its momentum; and vice versa. Here, he addresses with considerable philosophical acumen, how his discoveries conflict not just with classical physics, but with traditional notions in philosophy and logic. “I am completely in agreement with your rejection of Bergmann’s writings and, generally, that of the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori (although physicists will keep on believing it!) Planck, von Leine, Kellner and others still cling to the authority of the good old Königsberg professor [Kant], who would have understood the entire situation easily, if he had only learned non-Euclidean geometry. Still, the possibility to establish postulates remains correct in these judgments a priori, and Kant had almost certainly also thought of these postulates, at least partially…”
He concludes by considering “Bohr’s thoughts on the biological side of modern physics.” There too uncertainty is a factor. “For in the observation of physical processes, the destruction of the object is essential. The question about the connection between thinking and physical processes in the brain is thus in principle not capable of receiving a cut-and-dried answer. It therefore follows, too, that one cannot get closer to the process of thinking through examinations of the brain. Physical methods of examination forego from the beginning the description of the reality that would exist without the destruction of the system.” Letters of Heisenberg with such rich scientific detail are scarce. Schlick was the leading proponent of the new scientific philosophy and its “Logical Positivism” based in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Schlick’s essay discusses the implications of recent work in Quantum Physics and attempts to reframe the principle of causality in such context; it of course references Heisenberg’s own seminal work in the field, with notable attention to his Uncertainty Principle. He was assassinated by a pro-Nazi fanatic in Vienna in 1936.
“What Einstein wants, for instance, is full causality in its strictest sense”
A fascinating letter with rich scientific and philosophical content, as Heisenberg places his ideas in relation to those of his major contemporaries: Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr, Planck, Born and others, as well as prominent philosophers such as Gustav Bergmann and Immanuel Kant. He writes in response to Schlick’s “interesting essay,” the controversial “Causality in Contemporary Physics.” Heisenberg does not see “what intermediate thing is possible between ‘full’ causality and disorder plus the laws of probability. What Einstein wants, for instance, is full causality in its strictest sense. That is, Einstein hopes it will later be possible, for example, to predict the moment of a ‘transfer’ in the atom on the basis of previously performed experiments.” He is “a bit unhappy about the fact that I’m always cited regarding the teaching on the invalidity of the causal proof, as though I were in opposition to Born’s alterations.” He feels “that the principle of causality doesn’t have any sphere of validity any longer in physics (in the sense that, for instance, stamps from 1929 are no longer valid) —which is not quite the same thing as the claim that it is false…Meanwhile, of course, Planck has put forward a form of the causal proof that certainly is ‘false.’”
Heisenberg is one of the founders of quantum mechanics, which revolutionized physics in the 1920’s, providing a means of understanding atomic and sub-atomic forces in ways that challenged the classical model of physics. His famous uncertainty principle (1927) asserted the limits of our understanding of complementary physical properties: we can know the precise location of a particle, for example, but not its momentum; and vice versa. Here, he addresses with considerable philosophical acumen, how his discoveries conflict not just with classical physics, but with traditional notions in philosophy and logic. “I am completely in agreement with your rejection of Bergmann’s writings and, generally, that of the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori (although physicists will keep on believing it!) Planck, von Leine, Kellner and others still cling to the authority of the good old Königsberg professor [Kant], who would have understood the entire situation easily, if he had only learned non-Euclidean geometry. Still, the possibility to establish postulates remains correct in these judgments a priori, and Kant had almost certainly also thought of these postulates, at least partially…”
He concludes by considering “Bohr’s thoughts on the biological side of modern physics.” There too uncertainty is a factor. “For in the observation of physical processes, the destruction of the object is essential. The question about the connection between thinking and physical processes in the brain is thus in principle not capable of receiving a cut-and-dried answer. It therefore follows, too, that one cannot get closer to the process of thinking through examinations of the brain. Physical methods of examination forego from the beginning the description of the reality that would exist without the destruction of the system.” Letters of Heisenberg with such rich scientific detail are scarce. Schlick was the leading proponent of the new scientific philosophy and its “Logical Positivism” based in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Schlick’s essay discusses the implications of recent work in Quantum Physics and attempts to reframe the principle of causality in such context; it of course references Heisenberg’s own seminal work in the field, with notable attention to his Uncertainty Principle. He was assassinated by a pro-Nazi fanatic in Vienna in 1936.