Physics is a Kind of Metaphysics E.s 1rst Meeting mile Meyerson - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

weissRGB255,250,250

“Physics is a Kind of Metaphysics”

Émile Meyerson and Einstein’s Late Rationalistic Realism Marco Giovanelli

Universität Tübingen

January 22, 2020

• 1/28

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Introduction Introduction

The Philosophical Pilgrimage of Albert Einstein (Holton, 1967–1968) After general relativity Realistic turn

from Machian phenomenalism to scientific realism

literature on quantum mechanics (Fine, 1986; Howard, 1993; Lehner, 2014)

Rationalistic turn

from moderate empiricism to extreme rationalism

literature on general relativity (Norton, 2000; Dongen, 2010; Janssen, 2006)

Paradoxical blend of speculative constructivism (behind unified field theory) + common sense realism (against quantum mechanics)

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Introduction Introduction

This paper: a historiographic contribution to Einstein and Meyerson scholarship

philosopher of physicists ⇐ ⇒ philosophy of the philosophy

a methodological contribution to historical epistemology

history of 20th cent. physics ⇐ ⇒ history of 20th cent. philosophy

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Meyerson’s Épistémologie Meyerson’s Épistémologie

The scientists’ (spontaneous) philosophy of science Epistemological paradox ScThs are explanatory: scientists aim to explain (causa aequat effectum) not to describe ScThs are ontological: scientists take ScTh. literally, and not metaphorically historical investigation (Meyerson circle: Metzger, Koyré = ⇒ Kuhn)

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s first Encounter with Meyerson Einstein’s first Encounter with Meyerson

Debate at the Société française de Philosophie on April 6, 1922

Crowd trying to attend the discussion

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s first Encounter with Meyerson Einstein’s first Encounter with Meyerson

Debate at the Société française de Philosophie on April 6, 1922

Painlevé

Einstein-Meyerson Exchange at the Société Meeting Mathematicians: Hadamard, Cartan, Painlevé Physicists: Langevin, Perrin, Becquerel Philosophers: Bergson, Brunschvicg, Meyerson Meyerson: relativity theory has nothing to do with Mach’s philosophy Einstein: Mach was “a good student of mechanics [mécanicien], but a deplorable philosopher"

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein and the Unified field Theory Program Einstein and the Unified field Theory Program

From general relativity to a unified non-dualistic field theory attempt to overcome a double dualism gµν and ϕµν matter and field find a geometrical structure more general than Riemannian geometry (weaken the compatibility condition between the gµν and Γτ

µν)

search for the field equations governing this structure (recover E. and

• M. equations as spec. cases)

find solutions corresponding to elem. particles (electrons and protons) Weyl (1921a,b) (semi-metric) and Eddington (1921) (affine theory)

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein and the Unified field Theory Program Einstein and the Unified field Theory Program

Turn of 1923, trip to Japan (Travel Diary; CPAE, Vol. 13, Doc. 379; December 30; p. 28v) Einstein’s infatuation with Eddington’s (1921) purely affine theory Γτ

µν =

⇒ field equations, Einstein and Maxwell v. field equations (1rst a) (Einstein, 1923c,d,b) “. . . which is almost a miracle”

“

Unfortunately we are unable here to base ourselves on empirical facts as when deriving the gravitational theory (equality of the inertial and heavy mass), but we are restricted to the criterion of mathematical simplicity which is not free from arbitrariness

Einstein, Nobel prize lecture, 1923”

• equiv. princip =

⇒ gµν math.-spec. method = ⇒ Γτ

µν

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein and the Unified field Theory Program Einstein and the Unified field Theory Program

What is the lesson of relativity theory? Pauli: theory about quantities that are observable in principle (no ether, no inertial frame)

. . . energy, light frequencies, intensities, and phases → matrix mechanics (Born, Pauli, Heisenberg, Jordan)

Einstein: theory about the mathematical structure of field (ϕµν, gµν, ?)

. . . fields as ultimate constituents of reality → unified field theory (Einstein)

“

. . . profound, almost religious, belief in the unity and simplicity of the principles of the structure of the Universe.

Einstein, Discurso de Einstein, Mar. 9, 1923”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein and Meyerson’s Book on Relativity Einstein and Meyerson’s Book on Relativity

“

The idea of the book arose

• n the eve of Einstein’s

arrival in Paris,

• ut
• f

a conversation with Paul Langevin [. . .] on the real- istic nature of relativity

(Meyerson, 1925)”

Discussions with P. Langevin and A. Metz (1923)

• Pub. several chapters as papers

(Meyerson, 1924a,b,c)

• Ms. send to the publ. March

1924

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein and Meyerson’s Book on Relativity Einstein and Meyerson’s Book on Relativity

• Mar. 1925: Einstein trip to

South America Einstein read Meyerson’s book La déduction relativiste (Meyerson, 1925)

• n

the shipboard

• n

March 12, 1925

“

. . . so warm, that one does not feel whether cabin win- dows is open. Read Meyer-

• son. Insightful [Geistreich],

but unfair to the extent that the escapades of Weyl and Eddington are consid- ered essential parts of the theory of relativity. In this

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s Second Meeting with Meyerson Einstein’s Second Meeting with Meyerson

June 1925: Einstein gave Jakob Klatzkin (Jewish Encyclopedia) a note for Meyerson (Einstein to Meyerson, Jun. 16, 1925; CPAE, Vol. 15,

• Doc. 9)

“

I would like to take this opportunity to express my high esteem for your book on relativity that I have studied with great interest and pleasure.

(Einstein to Meyerson, Jun. 16, 1925; CPAE, Vol. 15, Doc. 9)”

December 1925: Meyerson wrote to Einstein asking for detailed comments on his book (Meyerson to Einstein, Dec. 20, 1925; CPAE,

• Vol. 15, Doc. 134, Klatzkin to Einstein, Dec. 30, 1925; CPAE, Vol. 15,
• Doc. 238a).

January 1926: Klatzkin wrote to Meyerson that Einstein in Paris for ICIC (LN) and was ready to write something about the book January, 15 1926 Meyerson invited Einstein to have dinner at his home alongside with Metz (Klatzkin to Meyerson, Jan. 11, 1926; CZA, A408/34)

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book

May 1926: Einstein attempted to convince Springer to translate Meyerson’s book into German (Margerete Hamburger) (Springer to Einstein, May 27, 1926; CPAE, Vol. 15, Doc. 476a)

• Jan. 1927: Metz asked for the confirmation of the discussion that they

had at the Paris dinner (to publish it in his forthcoming book∗) Metz to Einstein, Jan. 20, 1927; CPAE, Vol. 15, Doc. 460

“

What? That demon of the explanation that you [Meyerson] have found in Descartes and others and seemed so foreign to me: Am I [Einstein], therefore, possessed by it myself? This is something I was a hundred leagues from suspecting. Well, I have read your book, and, I must admit, I am convinced . . . .

(Metz to Einstein, Jan. 20, 1927; EA, 18-257)”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book

“

I think you have characterized our conversation correctly. I have no

• bjection to the publication. [. . .] Meyerson’s main idea that the

physicists—the real theoretical physicists—strive for nothing but a logical construction that corresponds to the causal reality similarly to Descartes (or Hegel) seems to me spot-on. The only difference from the old ones is that we are convinced that this construction cannot be found by reason alone. Without a subtle empiricism it is impossible to find a useful basis for the deduction.

(Einstein to Metz, Jan. 23, 1927; CPAE, Vol. 15, Doc. 463)”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book

March 1927 Einstein planned to write a review of Meyerson’s book (Klatzkin to Meyerson, Mar. 18, 1927; CZA, A408/34) April 1927: Metz became aware of Einstein’s intention of publishing an article on Meyerson’s philosophy (Metz to Einstein, Apr. 14, 1927; EA, 18-258). May 1927: Einstein confirmed that he was indeed carefully studying La déduction relativiste to write about it, but he was proceeding slowly. (Einstein to Metz, May 11, 1927; EA, 18-259). May 1927: Meyerson wrote to Einstein soon thereafter: (Meyerson to Einstein, May 28, 1927; EA, 18-279)

“

Nothing, in my career as a philosopher, has made me prouder than the favorable judgment with which you have gratified me

(Meyerson to Einstein, May 28, 1927; EA, 18-279)”

June 1927: Einstein sent the first draft of the review in German: (Einstein to Meyerson, May 28, 1927; EA, 91-254)

“

I have admired your exposition very much

(Einstein to Meyerson, May 28, 1927; EA, 91-254)”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book

Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book

What Einstein liked Rationalism Meyerson does not “censure [tadelt]” the “strongly deductive-constructive, highly abstract character of the theory” (Einstein, 1927, 3). On the contrary, he “finds that this character corresponds to the tendency of the whole development of exact sciences”. Because of this “deductive-constructive character,” Meyerson is not afraid to “compare the theory of relativity in a very insightful manner [geistreicherweise] with Hegel’s and Descartes’ systems”. Realism Meyerson combined the insistence on highly deductive-constructive nature of physical thinking with the conviction that “at the basis of all natural science lies a philosophical realism” (Einstein, 1927, 2). Atoms, fields, etc. are free constructions of the human mind. Nevertheless, physics attributes to these constructions a reality independent of

• bservation which is comparable to the objects of common sense

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Meyerson’s Reply. Randbemerkungen Meyerson’s Reply. Randbemerkungen

• Jun. 1926: Meyerson received the draft of Einstein’s review (Meyerson

to Einstein, Jun. 19, 1927; EA, 18-281).

• Jul. 1926 Meyerson got back to Einstein (Meyerson to Einstein, Jul. 20,

1927; EA, 18-283):

• riginal manuscript of the review (Einstein, 1927)

Metz’s translation into French (EA, 91-236) 5 pages of remarks (Randbemerkungen) (Meyerson, 1927)

Two Remarks Concerning the Review

• Aug. 1927: Einstein’s confirmed the reception, replied to objections, but

no time to modify the review (Einstein to Meyerson, Aug. 31, 1927; EA, 18-284)

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book

Talking at cross-purposes The review is more an exposition of Einstein’s philosophical credo than an assessment of Meyerson’s interpretation of relativity theory Einstein: quasi-religious faith in the rationality of real Meyerson: this faith is ultimately delusory Oct.-Nov. 1927: Back and forth on a possible modification of the review

• Dec. 19: Meyerson’s added some sentences (Meyerson to Einstein, Dec.

19, 1927; EA, 18-293)

• Dec. 24 Einstein quickly gave his imprimatur (Einstein to Meyerson,
• Dec. 25, 1927; EA, 18-294).
• Dec. 26 Meyerson sent the text to the Revue Philosophique (Meyerson

to Einstein, Dec. 26, 1927; EA, 18-295).

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

After the Review: Einstein’s use of Meyerson’s Philosophy After the Review: Einstein’s use of Meyerson’s Philosophy

Einstein’s review of La déduction relativiste published in Spring 1928:

“

It is my conviction that Meyerson’s book is one of the most valuable contribu- tions on the theory of rela- tivity which has been writ- ten from the viewpoint of the theory of knowledge

Einstein, 1928a”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book

Spring 1928: New distant-parallelism field theory (Einstein to Metz,

• Jun. 18, 1928; EA, 18-262, Einstein, 1928b,c)∗

1928-1929: Popular accounts: theory was obtained “in a speculative way” assuming the “formal simplicity of the structure of reality” (Einstein, 1929, 127).

“

Meyerson’s comparison with Hegel’s program [Zielsetzung] certainly has some justification; he illuminates clearly the danger that one here has to fear.

Stodola Festschrif (Dec. 1929)”

“

Meyerson in his brilliant studies on the theory of knowledge [Der geistreiche Erkenntnisstheoretiker Meyerson] justly draws a compari- son of the intellectual attitude of the relativity theoretician with that

• f Descartes or even of Hegel, without thereby implying the censure

which a physicist would read into this.

New York Times and London Time, Feb. 1929”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book Einstein’s Review of Meyerson’s Book

• Nov. 1929: Meyerson-Einstein discussion on quantum mechanics in

Paris (Broadwin to Meyerson, Dec. 16, 1929) Early 1930: Einstein-Meyerson Correspondence on Meyerson’s new book Meyerson, 1931.

• Sep. 1930: Einstein attempted again to find a publisher for the

translation of Meyerson’s book on rel. (Oldenbourg to Einstein, Sep. 8, 1930; EA, 18-300, Einstein to Oldenbourg, Sep. 11, 1930; EA, 18-300)

“

a very remarkable contribution to the philosophical discussion of the theory.

(Einstein to Oldenbourg, Sep. 11, 1930; EA, 18-300)”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson

Moritz Schlick, Otto Neurath, Hans Hahn

Public phase of the Vienna Circle (Schlick-Einstein relationship) = ⇒ metaphysics is non-sensical Einstein’s unified field theory project (Meyerson-Einstein relationship) = ⇒ all physics is metaphysics

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson

Einstein’s philosophical stance around 1930s

“

I find your whole conception, so to speak, too positivistic. [. . .] I put it to you bluntly: Physics is an attempt to construct conceptually a model of the real world as well as of its law-governed structure [. . .]. [Quantum theory] does not provide any model of the real world at all [. . .] but only probabilities which relate to experiences [. . .]. You will be surprised at the ‘metaphysician’ Einstein But every four-and two-legged animal is de facto in this sense a metaphysician

(Einstein to Schlick, Nov. 28, 1930; EA, 21-603)”

Positivists: quantum mechanics provides an algorithm to predict

• bservations, but “renounces the possibility of constructing a model of

reality” (Einstein, 1930, 3) . Metaphysicians: with unified field theory “an attempt is made to construct a model of real” (Einstein, 1930, 3) , a model that explains why the theory makes correct predictions.

“

So last night Schlick read excerpts from a letter of Einstein [. . .] In this letter to Schlick Einstein states very definitively his opposition to positivism and admits to being a metaphysician. Schlick was

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson

common sense realism + speculative rationalism

“

The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science Since, however, sense perception

• nly gives information of this external world or of ‘physical reality’

indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means

(Einstein, 1931, 1)”

“

Many positivists [believe that the only end of science is] to establish connections between the facts of experience, of such a kind that we can predict further occurrences from those already experienced [. . .] There lurks a stronger, more mysterious drive: one wishes to comprehend [begreifen], the being [das Seiende], the real [das Wirkliche] [. . .] [driven by the belief] that the being [das Seiende] should have a completely harmonious structure

(EA, 2110-0, 1,4), 1931”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson

“

The positivists show gen- uine amazement [. . .]. They look upon this atti- tude as though it were the

• utbreak of a mysterious

and contagious infec- tion from some

• utside

malicious metaphysical source

(Broadwin to Meyerson, Feb. 12, 1931; CZA, A408/A 408/13)”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson

“. . . a correspondence with Einstein on the question of realism” (Schlick to Bavink,

• Aug. 1, 1931; SN)

“ . . . article on the question of realism which was mainly meant for the physicists” (Schlick to Carnap, Sep. 19, 1931; SN) Schlick, “Positivismus und Realismus” (Schlick, 1932)

“Einstein [. . .] once said to me: ‘all physics is metaphysics” (Sommerfeld to Schlick, Oct. 17, 1932; SN, my emphasis) “If, according to Einstein, all physics is already metaphysics, I believe, on the

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Meyerson on his Influence on Einstein

Positivists and Metaphysicians: From Schlick to Meyerson

Meyerson on his Influence on Einstein

“

One could even say (perhaps with some irony) that Einstein evidently invented his theory only in order to prove the validity of my schema [. . .] Einstein himself, in presenting his new theory of the field to the readers of the Times of London (04/02/1929–05/02/1929), ex- pressly acknowledged that I had been right to assimilate his research to that of Hegel [. . .] In doing so, he went directly against the numer-

• us attempts of German epistemologists such as Petzoldt, Cassirer,

Schlick, Reichenbach, etc. who draw very different conclusions [. . .] The only name he mentions in this order of ideas is mine (he de- scribes my researches as brilliant). It is not pure vanity. This shows that [. . .] physics, on this crucial point, is in conformity with what I wanted it to be and which seemed at first so paradoxical

(Meyerson to Urbrain, ca. 1932, EMLF, 898)”

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

The Herbert Spencer Lecture at Oxford (1933) The Herbert Spencer Lecture at Oxford (1933)

Rationalistic turn: “In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it to be true that pure thought is competent to comprehend the real, as the ancients

• E. and M.ś

• Positiv. and

Conclusion Conclusion

Einstein’s realist and speculative turn = ⇒ 10-year process in which Meyerson played the role of a phil. sounding board

Schlick = ⇒ Meyerson

physicists’s use of philosophy = ⇒ ex post facto as justification and not as a guiding principle (Beller)

Positivism:quantum mechanics = rationalistic realism:unified field theory

history of physics ⇐ ⇒ history

• f philosophy (&HPS meets

HOPOS) Acknowledgments: Einstein Paper Project (Pasadena)