Werner HeisenbergRezensionen

2/28/22

> Babelio : https://www.babelio.com/livres/Heisenberg-La-partie-et-le-tout/240288

> L'histoire de la physique atomique nous est contée dans un langage accessible et élégant.
Un livre d'une grande humanité, plus historique que scientifique et c'est justement là tout son intérêt : ce livre fait le lien entre sciences, histoire et philosophie.
Les questions de sens, de conscience, de responsabilité sont posées avec une clarté tout en gardant une grande densité à la réflexion, captivant.
—Danieljean (Babelio)

> LA PARTIE ET LE TOUT, par Werner Heisenberg, trad. Paul Kessler, Albin Michel. Paris, 1972, 333 pp. — AU-DELÀ DE LA SCIENCE ET DES SENS — LA SCIENCE n'a pas cette belle certitude hautaine qu'on lui attribue généralement, et les phrases telles que "la science nous apprend que… ” ne peuvent le plus souvent que recouvrir une somme d'incertitudes et d’approximations, car si, pour le profane, la science équivaut au réel, le savant est, quant à lui, de plus en plus conscient qu'il "fait” le réel.
[…]
LE TÉMOIGNAGE D'UN SAVANT
Avec Werner Heisenberg, nous atteignons au cœur même de ce monde de la physique moderne que nous n'avons abordé jusqu'ici que de façon tangentielle. Heisenberg, on le sait, a été, avec Einstein, Max Planck, Bohr , Dirac et Pauli, l'un des théoriciens les plus audacieux de la physique théorique au cours des cinquante dernières années. On lui doit la formulation de ces fameuses "relations d'incertitudes" auxquelles Einstein, têtu, ne put malgré tout opposer que son célèbre "Dieu ne joue pas aux dés".
Ce qui est intéressant avant tout, dans l'autobiographie de Werner Heisenberg, de 1920 à 1965, ce sont les à-côtés humains de cette grande aventure de la physique moderne, les discussions, les rencontres, les incertitudes. La découverte aussi que ce qui était un jour certitude est le lendemain remis en question, reformulé. Ne prenons ici à témoin que l'exemple de l'atome. Tout le monde « les savants les premiers » pensait avoir bien compris comment était constitué l'atome. On pouvait même en faire un dessin : une forme définie à l'intérieur de laquelle des électrons suivraient des trajectoires comparables à celles du système solaire. Or, cela n'est devenu qu'une pieuse imagerie ne correspondant plus à rien de réel, devant l'incertitude quant à la nature même des électrons, ondes électroniques ou particules ?
"Quand nous descendons au niveau atomique, le monde objectif de l'espace et du temps n'existe plus, et les symboles mathématiques de la physique ne se rapportent qu'à des possibilités, et non à des faits" (Heisenberg).
De même est soulevée, de façon assez spectaculaire, la relativité de l'observation scientifique, par la réflexion suivante d'Einstein à Heisenberg : "Seule la théorie décide de ce que l'on peut observer."
Il faut lire ce livre pour prendre conscience de la constitution de cet univers de la science où le possible et le prévisible jouent un si grand rôle : également, pour y voir comment les savants sont amenés à se poser, en rapport avec leur démarche, des questions touchant les réalités politiques, religieuses, sociales, etc.
Un récit passionnant qui se lit comme un roman et qui nous apprend plus, sans doute, sur la physique moderne que beaucoup de livres scolaires. J'en profite pour souligner l'intérêt tout particulier de cette collection intitulée "Les savants et le monde" d'Albin Michel, dont le livre de Werner Heisenberg est le dernier rejeton. (Jean-Claude DUSSAULT)
—La presse, 25 novembre 1972, D. Arts et lettres, (p. 3)

ER-1

REVIEW OF THE BOOK AS A WHOLE

Really, the title should have warned me that I was unlikely to get along with this book - but it doesn't actually say, Physics and Metaphysics. I have very little time for metaphysics; it's day is long since past (couple of millenia, at least) and it is really only of historical interest to those concerned with understanding nature. Far too much of the book is spent on either; comparing quantum mechanics (QM) with Western metaphysics or pondering unanswerable conundrums, like, "does anything exist when it isn't being observed?" and "what type of reality is really real?" What science does (with increasing precision over time) is attempt to explain the contents and behaviour of nature, not whether it is "dogmatically objective" or some other type of objective or subjective or, who knows, subjunctive or conjunctive or metastatically cancerous...

This comparison with western metaphysics is as profitless as the later (80s-90s) fad for comparison with "eastern philosophy." Metaphysics, regardless of hemisphere did not lead to nuclear reactors and smart phones, so any apparent correspondences are vague, incomplete and of no practical use.

Heisenberg seems inconsistent at times, which is a bit naff in a book on science or philosophy, let alone both. For instance, he states categorically that no human observer is actually necessary in QM but later seems to tacitly assume the opposite. He's also wrong about a few things, but only in the light of 50 years' worth of further scientific investigations.

I also don't know who the intended audience is; he assumes quite a bit of knowledge of both physics and metaphysics - certainly too much of the former for a non-physicist audience now or then and too much of the latter for present-day non-philosophy students.

Probably the only really valuable insight I got from the book was the point that General Relativity isn't a limiting case or approximation of (or to) any other physical theory: it famously can't be integrated into any current quantum theory but it can't be derived from any other classical theory either, not can any other classical theory be derived from it: It just stands there in majestic aloofness. It has done since it was first published and still does now.

The other segment of interest to me was the final chapter on the influence of science in general and modern physics in particular on contemporary society - here's where I think general philosophical thought might profitably be focused, along with close examination of recent history.

The book also seems badly organised; why does the chapter on alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM not follow immediately after the chapter on the Copenhagen Interpretation itself, for instance?

I find it difficult to recommend this book to anybody: if you want to become familiar with the central concepts of QM, The Character of Physical Law by R.P. Feynman is enormously better. Einstein's own book is a much better introduction to Relativity theory (especially if you can remember school algebra). If you are interested in the philosophy of science, this book won't help. It's too out of date to work as an introduction to the state of contemporary fundamental physics. The only bits that seem to remain really relevant are the thoughts about the use of language in science and the thoughts on science's impact on society at large.

Below the line: more or less chapter by chapter thoughts whilst reading.
___________________________________________________________________________
Insufficient room in the status update field so I'm gonna have to post my thoughts here as I go along.

Despite the lack of mathematics, I already can't recommend this for non-physicists: I think they'd be terribly confused and horribly lost by the end of Chapter 2. On the other hand, this might be very good for current physics undergrads who've done an atomic physics course already.

Interesting errors and confusions in Chapter 3:Conservation of energy: Heisenberg states that initially this was believed to be true only statistically for quantum systems but in fact turned out to be exactly true always. This is not correct; conservation of energy can only be said to hold to the accuracy given by - fanfare! - The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle! One of the bizarre consequences of this is the phenomenon of quantum tunneling, which was unknown at the time of publication.

Heisenberg states that quantum mechanical experiments consist of three parts, an initial set up in terms of classical physics, an unobservable part only describable in terms of what we would now call the probability wave-function, and a measurement only describable in terms of classical physics. Only the middle part of this is correct; it is entirely possible to describe an experimental set-up in quantum terms and also the measurement of the result in quantum terms, too. (The middle bit is indeed not describable in any normal sense.) Take the photon double-slit experiment. The emission of the photons can be described quantum mechanically but so can their reception at the detector if you use photo-multiplier detectors, for example.

Ah! I hear you cry, but the real observation is by the human eye, when the flash from the photo-multiplier hits the retina!

Sorry - the optic nerve is a receptor of quanta, too. The whole system is describable quantum mechanically.

Heisenberg then goes on to more or less follow my argument in a vague way. (It's enormously easier to make it precise in the light of half a century's technological advances.)

And here's something really important that we agree on. The human observer is not in any way an essential part of the system. The idea that the entire universe stopped being just a cloud of probabilities the day a sufficiently astute observer appeared is not in any way required by or implicit in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

...and we're only about 1/6th the way through...

Chapter 4: Waffling comparison of ancient Greek philosophy and quantum mechanics. The most important thing here is the bit where he explains the difference i.e. QM is based on experiment where-as ancient Greek philosophy is based on yabbering on without having a clue.

Some interesting points are raised, though; "What's a particle?" is a very hard question to answer in QM. "It's a probability wave packet," isn't a very good answer; it's a form of energy is better (except, what's energy?). Today you might get, "it's a resonance in a field." Leading straight on to, "What's field?" Well, it's something emitted by particles that controls how they interact with each other... This is just wave-particle duality all over again, with waves disguised as fields.

He also expresses the views that the ultimate quantum theory would take the form of a single equation that would yield solutions representing the fundamental particles and the forces between them and that in fact there will turn out to only be one kind of particle that is truly fundamental. The former is the approach taken by current Guess the Lagrangian approaches to the problem and the latter is adopted in string theories (all 10^500 of them...).

Chapter 5: Physics vs. Metaphysics: Physics wins! Or summat.
Is there such a thing as objective reality? Yes! OK - I can agree with that. But I don't really understand when he starts trying to distinguish between types of objective reality. I mean, in science you get successive different theories of the behaviour of objective reality but that doesn't seem to be what is being discussed. It doesn't seem to be the old causality vs. indeterminacy chestnut, either. Colour me baffled - and not caring much, either.

Chapter 6: Relation of QM to other sciences.
Here Heisenberg seems to be groping after a coherent general philosophy of Emergent Behaviour without quite getting there; seems more in the Emergent camp than the Reductionist camp, anyway. One interesting comment is that biology requires physics/chemistry plus "history." The history allows for evolutionary theory by way of genetics. But one could view "history" as actually being emergent from physics by way of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a connection he does not make.

He also discusses the main theories of physics in relation to each other: Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to Special Relativity which assumes an infinite speed of light. It is also an approximation to QM assuming an infinitely small Planck's Constant. Thermodynamics can be understood as a statistical theory of particles and can be derived from either QM or Newton's Laws. But General Relativity sits there looking lonely and mean, yet beautiful, and defying all attempts to integrate it into any other aspect of physics as any kind of limiting case or emergent theory.

The error regarding the description of QM experiments in terms of classical physics is repeated.

Chapter 7: Relativity.
Einstein's book will give you a clearer understanding of Special Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence but you will need to know some (school) algebra. On the other hand, that is a whole book about the same length as this one, not one lecture/chapter. A point re-iterated through out the chapters so far is the use by physicists of ordinary language in specialised ways. This is essential as it turns out that "ordinary" concepts like space and time, on closer examination turn out to be much more subtle and complex phenomena than is readily appreciated in daily life. I think one of the later chapters goes into this in depth.

Heisenberg emphasises that General Relativity is not on a strong experimental footing; it wasn't then but it is now. Some of the cosmological questions raised have been answered, others haven't and recently new and even more freaky ones have been found.

Chapter 8 seems (as far as I can tell) to come down to, "Does the particle exist when you're not looking?" Well, that question isn't any more answerable than the question in classical physics, "Does that brick exist when you're not looking?"
"Looking" here means doing anything in order to verify the existence of the particle/brick. Assuming something doesn't exist when you're not "looking" is essentially Solipsistic/Cartesian and denied by the persistence of macroscopic objects.

The Everett Many Worlds Interpretation hadn't been thought up yet, so isn't discussed. The main focus is on "hidden variables" notions.

I'm getting impatient for this to be over...

The remainder:
A chapter surveying the contemporary state of sub-atomic physics. Of course, it's out of date. Most interesting now for it's speculation that the number of types of truly elementary particles will drop, possibly to one. What happened between then and now is that the number went up for some time, then dropped again as quark-theory was verified and recently went up by one again with the discovery of a "Higgs-like boson." Given the current experimental evidence/hypotheses/theories in cosmology, one would think the number will more likely go up rather than down in the immediate future.
Chapter on language in science and physics in particular in relation to "every-day" language. Perhaps the most obvious pervasive theme of the book.
Final chapter on the effects of modern physics and nuclear physics in particular on society at large and it's mode of thought. More interesting than almost the entirety of the rest of the book.

ENCUENTROS Y CONVERSACIONES CON EINSTEIN Y OTROS

Fragmento:

Encuentros y conversaciones con Albert Einstein
La ciudad de Ulm,en la que nació Einstein, y la Casa Einstein del Ulmer Volkshochschule son sin duda lugares apropiados para hablar de encuentros y conversaciones con él. Aclaremos de entrada que la palabra «encuentros» remite aquí a entrevistas personales, pero también a contactos con su obra; y esos contactos desempeñaron desde muy pronto un papel en mi vida. Empezaré pues, por el primer episodio de esta especie del que guardo recuerdo. Tenía
yo a la sazón 15 años, era alumno del Max-Gymnasium de Munich y me interesaban sobremanera las cuestiones matemáticas. Un día cayó en mis manos un delgado tomito de una colección de monografías científicas, en el cual Einstein exponía en tono divulgador su teoría especial de la relatividad. Su nombre lo había visto de vez en cuando en los periódicos, y de la teoría de la relatividad tenía oído que era muy difícil de encender. Lo cual me incitó naturalmente tanto más, de suerte que intenté penetrar a fondo en este opúsculo. Al cabo de un tiempo creí entender plenamente la parte
matemática —en el fondo no se trataba de otra cosa que de un caso especialmente simple de la transaformación de
Lorentz—, pero no tardé en percatarme de que las verdaderas dificultades de la teoría yacían en otra parte. Allí se nos pedía admitir que el concepto de simultaneidad era problemático y que la cuestión de si dos sucesos acaecidos en lugares diferentes eran o no simultáneos dependía del estado de movimiento del observador. Se me hacía muy cuesta a
arriba penetrar en esta problemática, y ni siquiera el hecho de que Einstein hubiera condimentado aquí y allá el texto con vocativos como «Querido lector» facilitaba para nada la comprensión. Me quedó, eso sí, una clara intuición de adónde quería
llegar Einstein, así como la idea de que sus proposiciones no contenían aparentemente ninguna contradicción in
terna; y por último, claro está, el deseo ardiente de profundizar más tarde en la teoría de la relatividad. Así que para mis ulteriores estudios universitarios me propuse asistir, fuera como fuese, a cualesquiera conferencias sobre dicha teoría.
Fue así como mi inicial deseo de estudiar matemáticas desvió imperceptiblemente hacia la física teórica, de la cual apenas sabía a la sazón ni de qué trataba. Mas tuve la la gran suerte de dar, al comienzo de mis estudios, con un
maestro excelente, Arnold Sommerfeld, que trabajaba en Munich; y la circunstancia de que Sommerfeld defendiera
con entusiasmo la teoría de la relatividad y guardara además con Einstein estrecho contacto personal creó óptimas condiciones para consagrarme en todos los detalles de este nuevo campo de la ciencia. No era infrecuente
que Sommerfeld nos leyera en el seminario las últimas cartas recibidas de Einstein, pidiéndonos luego que entendiéramos
el texto y lo interpretáramos. De esas discusiones me acuerdo aún hoy con gran alegría, porque en mi fuero interno tenía la sensación de casi conocer personalmente a Einstein a través del discurso de Sommerfeld, aunque por aquel entonces jamás le había visto.
Antes de relatar mi primer intento —bien que frustrado— de conocer personalmente a Einstein, tengo que hablar de otro campo de la ciencia que me atrajo a su órbita y en el cual el nombre de Einstein desempeña también un papel importante.

Así, pues, en los primeros años de mis estudios universitarios, cuando yo me esforzaba por ahondar en la física moderna de entonces, topé una y otra vez con el nombre y la obra de Einstein, y mi deseo de conocer personalmente al autor de tantas ideas nuevas crecía de año en año. El primer intento de cumplir ese deseo fracasó. Corría el verano de 1922. La Sociedad de Científicos y Médicos Alemanes había anunciado que, en el congreso a celebrar en Leipzig, Einstein daría una de las conferencias principales, concretamente sobre la teoría general de la relatividad. Sommerfeld me sugirió asistir al
congreso y oír la conferencia de Einstein, con la intención de presentármelo personalmente Pero los tiempos eran de gran inquietud política. El enojo por la derrota de Alemania en la Primera Guerra Mundial y por las duras condiciones de los
vencedores no se había apagado aún, y el desacuerdo acerca de qué hacer llevaba continuamente a situaciones de guerra civil. En aquella época surgieron también los primeros indicios de antisemitismo, patrocinado por círculos de extrema derecha. En el verano de 1922, poco antes de aquel congreso de científicos alemanes, fue asesinado el por entonces ministro de Asuntos Exteriores Walther Rathenau a manos de terroristas nacionalistas. Era un intento consciente de impedir
cualquier paso hacia la «igualación». Las pasiones políticas volvieron a encenderse y el movimiento antisemita comenzó a dirigir su venganza también contra Einstein, por ser judío y gozar de especial prestigio en los círculos cultos de Alemania. Fue así como, justo antes del congreso, se decidió, a petición de Einstein, no ser él en persona quien leyera la conferencia, sino el señor von Laue. Ignorante yo de tal extremo al marchar hacia Leipzig, lo único que me llamó la atención fue la nefanda excitación política que se echaba de ver en la mayoría de los congresistas. Al ir a entrar en el gran salón de actos para asistir a la conferencia de Einstein, un joven me deslizó un panfleto rojo en la mano, en el que más o menos se
decía que la teoría de la relatividad era una especulación judía absolutamente indemostrada y que su inmerecida fama se debía únicamente a la propaganda de los periódicos judíos a favor de su compañero de raza Einstein. Al principio pensé que aquello era obra de un loco, como los que de cuando en cuando asoman la cabeza en los congresos. Mas cuando supe que el panfleto rojo lo distribuían discípulos de uno de los físicos experimentales más famosos de Alemania, al
parecer con su consentimiento, se me vino abajo una de mis más importantes esperanzas. Así que la ciencia también podía
ser emponzoñada por las pasiones políticas...

This book had been sitting on my shelf for decades. Finally got around to reading it. It is for a general audience but one already versed in particle physics. So it is a bit dense. It's interesting from a historical standpoint. One the one hand much hasn't changed since his day. On the other much has but built on the foundation that he and others in the early 20th century created.

Per dirla in maniera tecnica, la teoria dei quanti è un casino. Non tanto dal punto di vista matematico: dopo un po' ci si fa la mano. Il vero problema è che l'interpretazione dei risultati è così lontana dal nostro sentire comune che si cerca più o meno consciamente di riportare tutto alla sana meccanica classica. Heisenberg non è d'accordo, e ha scritto questo libro proprio con lo scopo di mostrare perché i quanta non possono essere studiati con il paradigma non solo scientifico ma anche filosofico dei due millenni e mezzo precedenti. La lunga introduzione di Northrop era troppo piena di paroloni per un'anima semplice come me; Heisenberg scrive in modo molto più comprensibile, ben tradotto da Giulio Gignoli, a parte un po' di pesantezza lessicale dovuta probabilmente ai più di cinquant'anni passati dall'edizione italiana. Diciamo che Heisenberg spiega ben chiaramente che il modo in cui eravamo (siamo?) abituati a comprendere il mondo fisico non funziona più nel caso dei fenomeni quantistici; ma non pensate di trovarci un nuovo modo per leggerli che non sia quello di seguire le formule matematiche e fidarsi di esse :-)

This is really a book about physics that only lightly touches on philosophy. A good reason to read it would be to understand why it is that 20th century physics totally changed the world, something that I think is generally forgotten these days in spite of our (ab)use of technology, the prodigal wunderkind of the advances in science over the last 200 years or so. The thing to remember about Heisenberg's book is that it was written at the height of the Cold War, and therefore beneath the shadow of nuclear weapons... in fact, he states that right on page one. And so his conclusion with its conflicting apocalyptic/utopian possibilities for the future is very much a product of his time. Heisenberg's style is very indirect and hesitant, kind of surprising considering his prominence in the field. Altogether informative, if a bit dated. Lindley's introduction in the 2007 edition is fantastic, and makes up for the timewarp.

La fisica contemporanea ha prodotto un radicale ripensamento dell'idea che l'uomo ha dell'universo, che coinvolge la libertà stessa dell'uomo e incrina la sua convinzione di poter controllare il proprio destino. In nessun ambito della fisica questo risulta evidente come nel Principio di indeterminazione della meccanica quantistica. Heisenberg, scopritore di tale principio, in questo testo ne giudica la portata. La sua riflessione si apre all'intera tradizione del pensiero occidentale e si spinge a indagare gli effetti che la rivoluzione scientifica ha e potrà avere sulla nostra e sulle altre culture.

A collection of eight lectures given by Heisenberg before the discovery of quarks, these lectures capture the physicist's thoughts on topics ranging from reconciling classical physics with quantum mechanics to the role of science and the scientist in international affairs.

The last lecture in the book, "Science and International Understanding", is just as relevant today as it was when Heisenberg addressed it to students of Göttingen University in 1946.

I have long been perplexed by the paradoxes inherent in modern physics. But, the lecturers that I've heard seem to state these paradoxes glibly. They even seem to revel in them as a "pons asinorem" that they've long ago put behind them. I'm interested in Physics but I'm on the side of the bridge that just can't seem to grasp the paradoxes. I thought maybe if I read physics in historical order - starting with Einstein - I would be able to see how the paradoxes arose from solutions to other problems.

Mathematics works like that. Imaginary numbers are a difficult subject to teach if you just "drop it" on students. But if you show how the search for real roots of quadratics lead us through Zero, the negative numbers, and finally to imaginary numbers - they get it.

Well, this was as far as I got.

I understand the concept of the uncertainty principle in that measuring a particle necessarily affects it. I was hoping to explore the roots of the "observer effect" by seeing what else might have been implied by Heisenberg in his own explanation.

I couldn't follow it. I really tried. And I like reading this stuff. Maybe it's lost in translation. Maybe I should've been born in the 19th century. This is a real wall for me. And I dare not contemplate studying physics formally if I can't follow a foundational treatise from 1930. Good luck.

This was a history of physics and the philosophy of natural science, while at the same time being a defense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory. It is grounded in the argument between classical physics and quantum physics that was then ongoing at the time of publication. Heisenberg gives equal time to the detractors of the Copenhagen Interpretation, even as he refutes each one. It is an interesting read today, as much of the old argument has been proven obsolete. A rather difficult read, it is still very much worth the time to complete.

Much of the book is extremely old, but i liked very much the combination of modern physics to ancient philosophical speculation.

[read in french] An excellent summary of Heisenberg's implication in sharing the Copenhagen views on Quantum Physics with the world. Heisenbertg is not writing about the theory itself but how it affects the way the world should be apprehended, and he steps in as most philosophers have not yet grasped what the quantum revolution from the 30's implies in the 50's.
The writing is far from exceptionnal (and should probably be paralleled with Bergson's) but efficient for any reader familiar with the Copenhagen interpretation. (see Nick Herbert's Quantum Reality, or John Gribbin's works on the subject).½

This is really a book about physics that only lightly touches on philosophy. A good reason to read it would be to understand why it is that 20th century physics totally changed the world, something that I think is generally forgotten these days in spite of our (ab)use of technology, the prodigal wunderkind of the advances in science over the last 200 years or so. The thing to remember about Heisenberg's book is that it was written at the height of the Cold War, and therefore beneath the shadow of nuclear weapons... in fact, he states that right on page one. And so his conclusion with its conflicting apocalyptic/utopian possibilities for the future is very much a product of his time. Heisenberg's style is very indirect and hesitant, kind of surprising considering his prominence in the field. Altogether informative, if a bit dated. Lindley's introduction in the 2007 edition is fantastic, and makes up for the timewarp.

Heisenberg, Werner