Search

In this article, I discuss the criticisms raised against Thomas Kuhn's Black-Body Theory. These criticisms concern two issues: how to understand Planck's position with regards to the quantization of energy in 1901, and how to understand the book's relation to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Both criticisms, I argue, concern the notion of a paradigm: the first concerns how Boltzmann acted as an exemplar for Planck, and the second whether the book provides a paradigm change. I will then argue that both criticisms presume a conceptualization of paradigms that does not align well with Kuhn's conceptualization of it in both Structure and later work: they assume, more specifically, that sharing a paradigm presupposes sharing an interpretation of it, and that paradigm changes are essentially identical to gestalt switches. On the basis of this, I will then argue that the criticisms are misguided, that Kuhn's position regarding Planck's work is in fact quite close to the indetermination-view developed by some of his critics, and that the book fits Structure quite well. In conclusion, I will then reflect on how the narrative provided in Black-Body Theory connects with Kuhn's views on the relation between history and philosophy of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. In the philosophy of science great attention is traditionally paid to theoretical knowledge. However, scientific theories are considered, as a rule, as something already formed, whereas the analysis of the birth and formation of the theory plays a much smaller role. Among the various issues that arise at the intersection of philosophy and history of science the great attention of researchers is attracted by the question about the nature of scientific revolutions. In this work, the question is studied by examing the Planck’s discovery– whether a conservative in science to make a scientific revolution?Methodology and sources. Methodologically, the work is based on historical and scientific analysis of primary sources (original publications of works of M. Planck, W. Wien, H. Poincare, A. Einstein, L. Boltzmann relating to the period from 1877 to 1912) and research literature (A. Hermann, M. Badino).Results and discussion. The paper according the results of the study of primary sources shows that the only desire Planck in his study of blackbody radiation and the only justification for his “Akt der Verzweilung” (Act of delays) was to obtain a “correct” mathematical formula “at any price”. As for the scientific revolution on 14 December 1900 – date of Planck’s speech at a meeting of the German physical society report on “the Theory of the distribution of the radiation energy of the normal spectrum” – that is the result of later historical reconstruction. Moreover, this “revolution” in 1900, and in subsequent years remained unnoticed by anyone, including Planck himself. Thus, the result of the study is a new look at the specifics of the contribution of the scientist standing on conservative scientific positions in the scientific revolution.Conclusion. Under certain circumstances, the main of which are the character of the task and readiness of the researcher, at least in part to “sacrifice principles” (or to simulate a departure from tradition) for the sake of formal success, the conservator may contribute to the further development of events that will eventually lead to the scientific revolution

Possible reasons are studied why Ladislas (Władysław) Natanson’s paper on the statistical theory of radiation, published in 1911 both in English and in the German translation, was not cited properly in the early history of quantum statistics by outstanding scientists, such as Arnold Sommerfeld, Paul Ehrenfest, Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein. The social and psychological aspects are discussed as background to many so far discussions on the academic evaluation of his theory. In order to avoid in the future such Natansonian cases of very limited reception of valuable scientific works, it is proposed to introduce a digital tag in which all the information of relevant papers published so far should be automatically accumulated and updated.

As the History of Science Society, which is based in America, holds its annual meeting in Utrecht, one of the key academic centers on the European continent, one may surmise that the field has returned home. Yet, this hardly reflects how today's world of scholarship is constituted: in the historiography of science, "provincializing Europe" has become an important theme, while the field itself, as is the case across the world of academia, is centered around a predominantly American literature. At the same time, ever since historians of science emancipated themselves from the sciences a long time ago, they often have appeared, in the public eye, to question rather than to seek to bolster the authority of the sciences. How has this situation come about, and what does it tell us about the world we live in today? What insight is sought and what public benefit is gained by the historical study of science? As we try to answer these questions, we will follow a number of key mid-twentieth-century historians—Eduard Dijksterhuis, Thomas Kuhn, and Martin Klein—in their Atlantic crossings. Their answers to debates on the constitution of the early modern scientific revolution or the novelty of the work of Max Planck will illustrate how notions of "center" and "periphery" have shifted—and what that may tell us about being "in Europe" today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Prilozi za Istrazivanje Hrvatske Filozofske Bastine is the property of Institut za Filosofiju and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Studia Historiae Scientiarum is the property of Jagiellonian University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The cohesion-tension theory of water ascent (C-T) has been challenged over the past decades by a large body of experimental evidence obtained by means of several minimum or non-invasive techniques. The evidence strongly suggests that land plants acquire water through interplay of several mechanisms covered by the multi-force theory of (U. Zimmermann et al. New Phytologist 162: 575-615, 2004). The diversity of mechanisms includes, for instance, water acquisition by inverse transpiration and thermodynamically uphill transmembrane water secretion by cation-chloride cotransporters (L.H. Wegner, Progress in Botany 76:109-141, 2014). This whole plant perspective was opened by Otto Renner at the beginning of the last century who supported experimentally the strictly xylem-bound C-T mechanism, yet anticipated that the water ascent involves both the xylem conduit and parenchyma tissues. The survey also illustrates the known paradigm that new techniques generate new insights, as well as a paradigm experienced by Max Planck that a new scientific idea is not welcomed by the community instantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I suggest a new way to write the gravitational constant that makes all of the Planck units: Planck length, Planck time, Planck mass, and Planck energy more intuitive and simpler to understand. By writing the gravitational constant in a Planck functional form, we can rewrite all of the Planck units (without changing their values). Hopefully this can be a small step on the way to a better understanding of the quantum realm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The endeavor of Otto Sackur (1880-1914) was driven, on the one hand, by his interest in Nernst's heat theorem, statistical mechanics, and the problem of chemical equilibrium and, on the other hand, by his goal to shed light on classical mechanics from the quantum vantage point. Inspired by the interplay between classical physics and quantum theory, Sackur chanced to expound his personal take on the role of the quantum in the changing landscape of physics in the turbulent 1910s. We tell the story of this enthusiastic practitioner of the old quantum theory and early contributor to quantum statistical mechanics, whose scientific ontogenesis provides a telling clue about the phylogeny of his contemporaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To his friends, colleagues, and students, Martin Klein was a gentle and modest man of extraordinary integrity whose stellar accomplishments garnered him many honors. I sketch his life and career, in which he transformed himself from a theoretical physicist at Columbia University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Case Institute of Technology into a historian of physics while on leave at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Study and the University of Leiden and then pursued this field full time at Yale University. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A century ago, George Hartley Bryan (1864-1928) published his classic book, Stability in Aviation. I draw together some strands from events that awakened his interest in the nascent science of aviation, in particular the stability of flight. Prominent among those who influenced him was Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906), who held Bryan in high esteem for his contributions to thermodynamics and kinetic theory. I argue that the seeds of Bryan's interest in aviation were sown at the British Association meeting at Oxford in the summer of 1894, at which Boltzmann was guest of honor. A joint discussion between Section A (Mathematical and Physical Science) and Section G (Mechanical Science) was devoted to the problems of flight, during the course of which Boltzmann revealed a hitherto unsuspected enthusiasm for flying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We organized and led a European study course for American undergraduate university students to explore the early history of relativity and quantum theory. We were inspired by The Physical Tourist articles published in this journal on Munich, Bern, Berlin, Copenhagen, and Göttingen. We describe this adventure both for others wishing to teach such a course and for anyone wishing to walk in the footsteps of the physicists who revolutionized physics in the early decades of the twentieth century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of quantum mechanics in the period 1920–1927 posed challenges to the understanding of causality and its incorporation into the new dynamics. Though aware of these challenges to the classical concepts of causality and to the conservation laws of energy and momentum, Arnold Sommerfeld and the members of his seminar never wavered in their commitment to the conservation laws because of their belief in the “preestablished harmony” between mathematics and physics that Felix Klein, David Hilbert, and Hermann Minkowski had championed. I survey these developments and trace how the concept of causality was reformulated in scattering theory by Gregor Wentzel, Enrico Fermi, and Giulio Racah. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906) died just over a century ago. In commemoration of his death, I sketch his pioneering contributions to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics within the context of his often troubled life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paul Ehrenfest (1880–1933) received his Ph.D. degree at the University of Vienna in 1904 and moved with his wife and young daughter to St. Petersburg in 1907, where he remained until he succeeded Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853–1928) in the chair of theoretical physics at the University of Leiden in 1912. Drawing upon Ehrenfest’s correspondence of the period, we first examine Ehrenfest’s difficult and insecure years in St. Petersburg and then discuss his unsuccessful attempts to obtain a position elsewhere before he was appointed as Lorentz’s successor in Leiden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As President of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society and its successor, the Max Planck Society, from 1946 until 1960, Otto Hahn (1879–1968) sought to portray science under the Third Reich as a purely intellectual endeavor untainted by National Socialism. I outline Hahn’s activities from 1933 into the postwar years, focusing on the contrast between his personal stance during the National Socialist period, when he distinguished himself as an upright non-Nazi, and his postwar attitude, which was characterized by suppression and denial of Germany’s recent past. Particular examples include Hahn’s efforts to help Jewish friends; his testimony for colleagues involved in denazification and on trial in Nuremberg; his postwar relationships with émigré colleagues, including Lise Meitner; and his misrepresentation of his wartime work in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I discuss the family background and early life of the German theoretical physicist Fritz Reiche (1883-1969) in Berlin; his higher education at the University of Berlin under Max Planck (1858-I 947); his subsequent work at the University of Breslau with Otto Lummer (1860-1925); his return to Berlin in 1911, where he completed his Habilitation thesis in 1913, married Bertha Ochs the following year, became a friend of Albert Einstein (1879-1955), and worked during and immediately after the Great War. In 1921 he was appointed as ordentlicher Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Breslau and worked there until he was dismissed in 1933. He spent the academic year 1934-1935 as a visiting professor at the German University in Prague and then returned to Berlin, where he remained until, with the crucial help of his friend Rudolf Ladenburg (1882-1952) and vital assistance of the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars, he, his wife Bertha, and their daughter Eve were able to emigrate to the United States in 1941 (their son Hans had already emigrated to England in 1939). From 1941-1946 he held appointments at the New School for Social Research in New York, the City College of New York, and Union College in Schenectady, New York, and then was appointed as an Adjunct Professor of Physics at New York University, where his contract was renewed year-by-year until his retirement in 1958. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I argue that to understand the life and work of Leo Szilard (1898–1964) we have to understand, first, that he was driven by events to numerous departures, escapes, and exiles, changing his religion, his language, his country of residence, and his scientific disciplines; second, that he was a man haunted by major moral dilemmas throughout his life, burdened by a sincere and grave sense of responsibility for the fate of the world; and third, that he experienced a terrible sense of déjà vu: his excessive sensitivity and constant alertness were products of his experiences as a young student in Budapest in 1919. The mature Szilard in Berlin of 1933, and forever after, was always ready to move. I proceed as follows:After a brief introduction to his family background, youth, and education in Budapest, I discuss the impact of his army service in the Great War and of the tumultous events in Hungary in 1918–1919 on his life and psyche, forcing him to leave Budapest for Berlin in late 1919. He completed his doctoral degree under Max von Laue (1879–1960) at the University of Berlin in 1922 and his Habilitationsschrift in 1925. During the 1920s and early 1930s, he filed a number of patents, several of them jointly with Albert Einstein (1879–1955). He left Berlin in March 1933 for London where he played a leading role in the rescue operations for refugee scientists and scholars from Nazi Germany. He also carried out notable research in nuclear physics in London and Oxford before immigrating to the United States at the end of 1938. He drafted Einstein’s famous letter of August 2, 1939, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, worked in the Manhattan Project during World War II, initiated a petition to President Harry S. Truman not to use the bomb on Japan, and immediately after the war was a leader in the scientists’ movement that resulted in civilian control of nuclear energy. In 1946 he turned to biology, in which his most significant contribution was to formulate a theory of aging. In 1956 von Laue led an effort to invite him to head a new institute for nuclear physics in West Berlin, which he ultimately declined at the end of 1959. He remained in the United States, becoming a highly visible public figure, speaking, writing, and traveling extensively, and even corresponding with Soviet Premier Nikita S.Khrushchev and President John F. Kennedy to promote the international control of nuclear weapons. In retrospect, although Szilard was a man of many missions, his life story could be read as that of a man of conscience with but a single mission, to save mankind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]