What do you think?
Rate this book
Vật lý và triết học: Cuộc cách mạng trong khoa học hiện đại
Ngày nay khi nói về vật lý học hiện đại, ý nghĩ đầu tiên của người ta là vũ khí nguyên tử. Mọi người đều nhận thấy ảnh hưởng to lớn của các vũ khí này đến cấu trúc chính trị của thế giới hiện đại và sẵn sàng thừa nhận rằng ảnh hưởng của vật lý lên tình hình chung là to lớn chưa từng thấy so với trước đây.
Nhưng phải chăng khía cạnh chính trị của vật lý hiện đại thực sự là quan trọng nhất? Khi thế giới đã tự điều chỉnh cấu trúc chính trị của nó cho phù hợp với khả năng kỹ thuật mới thì ảnh hưởng của vật lý hiện đại sẽ còn lại cái gì ?
Nhưng phải chăng khía cạnh chính trị của vật lý hiện đại thực sự là quan trọng nhất? Khi thế giới đã tự điều chỉnh cấu trúc chính trị của nó cho phù hợp với khả năng kỹ thuật mới thì ảnh hưởng của vật lý hiện đại sẽ còn lại cái gì ?
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1958
381 people are currently reading
10813 people want to read
About the author
Werner Heisenberg
124 books385 followersWerner Heisenberg (AKA W. Heisenberg) was a German theoretical physicist who made foundational contributions to quantum mechanics and is best known for asserting the uncertainty principle of quantum theory. In addition, he made important contributions to nuclear physics, quantum field theory, and particle physics.
He won the 1932 Nobel prize in physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics, the application of which has, inter alia, led to the discovery of the allotropic forms of hydrogen".
He won the 1932 Nobel prize in physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics, the application of which has, inter alia, led to the discovery of the allotropic forms of hydrogen".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 205 reviews
February 12, 2016
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.
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.
November 3, 2014
This has got to be one of the most singular reading experiences ever. Ever. Heisenberg's book is so unusual, refreshing and unique - I'm not even sure on which shelf to put it. The funny thing is, this book is not so much about physics, or about philosophy, for that matter. Perhaps a more apt title would be The life and times of Werner H. It reads like a novel, and, in a way, it is a novel. I would call it a "novelized autobiography", for Werner talks about his life, his work, his thoughts in a series of episodes, referencing many political and historical events and famous persons he had a chance to meet. It's all written in a lively style, which is quite unexpected for someone who is deemed to be a great physicist of the 20th century (and physicists are supposed to have dull writing styles :P).
As most people, I'm curious about the lives of people who had done something worthwhile. It's a benevolent kind of curiosity that drives one to ask questions about the person behind that big name; a person with likes, dislikes and quirks, a person who wasn't born with an innate knowledge of his or her discipline, but who had to work to get where he or she is at. And in that regard, Physics and philosophy is a great accomplishment, because we have a chance to get to know the real Werner Heisenberg. Not just the guy who founded matrix mechanics and gave the world the uncertainty principle, but a nature lover with a penchant for music, who had engaged in the works of a youth organization and who had no qualms whatsoever to work as a lumberjack just to alleviate the financial strain from his father.
But all this information is more like a subtext of the book; Heisenberg, for the most part, concentrates on his studies and professional career, and doesn't talk about physics in a textbook manner. Rather, he talks about the problems that preoccupied him at the time, with just enough hints so that readers versed in physics know what he's saying, and that the laymen readers don't get bored.
But for me, the biggest thing Werner accomplished with this book, is the portrayal of the zeitgeist in his country (in his youth) and later on in the world. No, I'm not going to romanticize the time he lived in. We all know about the gruesome things that had happened (time frame: Heisenberg was twelve at the beginning of WWI)... I'm referring to the general climate after the 1st World War. It was a time when people read more, played music together (by and by, Heisenberg was an excellent piano player), and were not afraid to dabble in things that weren't their specialty. Almost everyone had interests on the side, and pretty substantial ones - like reading philosophy books - and even young people were not shy to discuss their personal thoughts on this or that matter. I was amazed at how perceptive many of those young people were at the time (according to the conversations Heisenberg had relayed in the book).
To make things even more exciting, it was a dawn of a new time, the birth of atomic and molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and relativistic physics. So it's not all together surprising that many of the scientists Heisenberg had encountered, even during his university years, ended up as Nobel prize winners. We meet a whole host of them throughout the book, and somehow, we get to know them as people, or at least Heisenberg's impression of them. His teacher Sommerfeld, and his university colleague Pauli; then Bohr himself, Einstein, Schrödinger, Dirac... Just reading about Werner meeting all these people (especially from today's perspective) is totally mind-blowing. It's true that Heisenberg had edited out a large quantity of "physics talk" with them, but he included other conversations which were not so much on philosophy, but more about life and beyond. Those conversation revealed much about the participants. They even managed to endear Niels Bohr to me, and by that alone, you can tell how persuasive Heisenberg's writing is!
I also loved that we got deeper insight into Heisenberg's own thinking processes. His account on how he got to the groundbreaking idea of the uncertainty principle should be mandatory reading. The book is also incredibly witty, especially when Heisenberg paints humorous scenes. And it's chock full of memorable quotes; if I started to quote now, I would probably use up all my characters. If you have a chance to read this book, do it. You won't be sorry.
As most people, I'm curious about the lives of people who had done something worthwhile. It's a benevolent kind of curiosity that drives one to ask questions about the person behind that big name; a person with likes, dislikes and quirks, a person who wasn't born with an innate knowledge of his or her discipline, but who had to work to get where he or she is at. And in that regard, Physics and philosophy is a great accomplishment, because we have a chance to get to know the real Werner Heisenberg. Not just the guy who founded matrix mechanics and gave the world the uncertainty principle, but a nature lover with a penchant for music, who had engaged in the works of a youth organization and who had no qualms whatsoever to work as a lumberjack just to alleviate the financial strain from his father.
But all this information is more like a subtext of the book; Heisenberg, for the most part, concentrates on his studies and professional career, and doesn't talk about physics in a textbook manner. Rather, he talks about the problems that preoccupied him at the time, with just enough hints so that readers versed in physics know what he's saying, and that the laymen readers don't get bored.
But for me, the biggest thing Werner accomplished with this book, is the portrayal of the zeitgeist in his country (in his youth) and later on in the world. No, I'm not going to romanticize the time he lived in. We all know about the gruesome things that had happened (time frame: Heisenberg was twelve at the beginning of WWI)... I'm referring to the general climate after the 1st World War. It was a time when people read more, played music together (by and by, Heisenberg was an excellent piano player), and were not afraid to dabble in things that weren't their specialty. Almost everyone had interests on the side, and pretty substantial ones - like reading philosophy books - and even young people were not shy to discuss their personal thoughts on this or that matter. I was amazed at how perceptive many of those young people were at the time (according to the conversations Heisenberg had relayed in the book).
To make things even more exciting, it was a dawn of a new time, the birth of atomic and molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and relativistic physics. So it's not all together surprising that many of the scientists Heisenberg had encountered, even during his university years, ended up as Nobel prize winners. We meet a whole host of them throughout the book, and somehow, we get to know them as people, or at least Heisenberg's impression of them. His teacher Sommerfeld, and his university colleague Pauli; then Bohr himself, Einstein, Schrödinger, Dirac... Just reading about Werner meeting all these people (especially from today's perspective) is totally mind-blowing. It's true that Heisenberg had edited out a large quantity of "physics talk" with them, but he included other conversations which were not so much on philosophy, but more about life and beyond. Those conversation revealed much about the participants. They even managed to endear Niels Bohr to me, and by that alone, you can tell how persuasive Heisenberg's writing is!
I also loved that we got deeper insight into Heisenberg's own thinking processes. His account on how he got to the groundbreaking idea of the uncertainty principle should be mandatory reading. The book is also incredibly witty, especially when Heisenberg paints humorous scenes. And it's chock full of memorable quotes; if I started to quote now, I would probably use up all my characters. If you have a chance to read this book, do it. You won't be sorry.
May 23, 2017
«فقد فسّر بلانك في أثناء هذه النزهة، كيف أنه لمس إمكانية التوصل إلى كشف، بكل ما تحمله هذه الكلمة من معنى، هذا الكشف لا يُضاهيه إلا اكتشافات نيوتن»
إذن، نحن على موعد مع فيرنر هايزنبرج Werner Heisenberg، ذلك الفتى الألماني المشاكس المحب للعلم، والذي تتلمذ على يد أبرز علماء الفيزياء في زمانه، منهم مثلا سومرفيلد، وصاحب واحد من أكبر المساهمات في نظرية الكوانتم، وهو مبدأ عدم التأكد Uncertainty principle، والحاصل على نوبل في عام ١٩٣٢.
(في نهاية الترجمة العربية، نسخة المركز القومي للترجمة، هناك ملحق يسرد ملخص سيرة شخصية لهايزنبرج ودراسته الجامعية)
يسرد علينا الرجل في مقالاته التي جُمعت في هذا الكتاب، آراءه الفلسفية بخصوص الفيزياء (الحديثة تحديدًا)، وما سببته تلك الفيزياء من تغييرات جذرية في عمق فهمنا للعالم وطريقة عمله، وحتى الأمور التي كنا نعتبرها من البديهيات العقلية مثل الزمن وغيره.
واجهت بعض المشكلات الفيزيائية المجتمع العلمي في نهايات القرن التاسع عشر وبدايات القرن العشرين، منها مثلا مشكلة إشعاع الجسم الأسود، والتي انتهت بالنهاية بفرض بلانك أن الطاقة الكهرومغناطيسية عبارة عن كمات منفصلة، وليست مستمرة كما كان يُعتقد قديمًا.
استخدم أينشتاين هو الآخر فكرة التكميم في تفسيرة لظاهرة التأثير الكهروضوئي والتي استحق من أجلها جائزة نوبل لاحقًا.
توالت بعد ذلك الكشوفات التي ساهمت في بناء نظرية الكم بصورتها الكبيرة، منها مبدأ عدم التأكد لصاحب الكتاب، هايزنبرج. والذي انطوى على نتيجة فلسفية عميقة جدًا وهي أن الطبيعة كأنها تخفى علينا أشياء.
ثم كانت الطبيعة الاحتمالية للجسيمات الصغيرة، والتي ربما كانت النتيجة الأغرب، إذ كيف يمكن أن يتواجد جسيم في أكثر من مكان في نفس الوقت؟
أيضا تأثير المشاهد على الظاهرة (إذ أن الجسيمات تتصرف بشكل ما وأنت لا تراقبها، وتتصرف بشكل آخر وأنت تراقبها)، أفضى لأن يعطي صفة الذاتية للتجربة، وهو ما كان غائبًا في التصور القديم..
أينشتاين نفسه رفض هذه النزعة غير الواقعية للتفسيرات الكوانتية، حتى أنه قال تعليقًا على تأثير المشاهد: «إنني أحبذ أن أعتقد أن القمر موجودًا حتى لو لم أنظر إليه».
يرى كانط، الفيلسوف الألماني الشهير أن هناك جانبًا في حكمنا على الأمور لا يعتمد على الخبرة الحسية، وإنما هي أحكام قبلية - كما أسماها- موجودة في العقل البشري. مثل مبدأ السببية مثلا، فنحن نعتقد أن لكل سبب مسبب، وهذا المبدأ لا يحتاج للخبرة لاستنتاجه.
وعند مقارنة مباديء الفيزياء الحديثة بتلك النظرة الكانطية، سنجد أنها لا تتفق معها، مثل فكرة الزمن النسبي في النسبية.
يستمر هايزنبرج ليوضح المشكلات التي نجمت عن الفيزياء الحديثة، منها مشكلة اللغة مثلا، فنحن بحاجة إلى تعريف جديد للمصطلحات لنستطيع التعبير بها عن تلك المفاهيم الجديدة، ما أدى إلى تطور اللغة بناء على تطور المعرفة العلمية، فكلمات مثل "الطاقة" و"الأنتروبيا" و"الكهرباء" هي أمثلة لما نعنيه بالتطور اللغوي الناتج عن التطور العلمي.
في نهاية الكتاب، هناك ملحق بعنوان «العلم والدين» يكتب فيه هايزنبرج عن مناقشاته مع العلماء حول الارتباط أو الانفصال بين العلم والدين..
الفصل بدأ بمشهد من مؤتمر سولفاي، عندما طرح أحد العلماء سؤالًا: «لماذا أبقى أينشتاين على الإله؟»..
توالت بعدها مناقشات ممتعة جدًا بين ألمع فيزيائيين في القرن العشرين حول القضية..
هايزنبرج، بول ديراك، ماكس بلانك، فولفانج باولي، نيلز بور، وذكرت آراء أينشتاين كذلك..
هايزنبرج نفسه يرى أن الدين لازم وضروري للحفاظ على تماسك المجتمعات..
بوجه عام، الكتاب ثري جدًا جدًا بالأفكار الفلسفية، فهايزنبرج ستشعر أنه فيلسوف أكثر منه عالم فيزياء نظرية. ثم إن طريقة كتابته في حد ذاتها مشوقة وسلسة جدًا.
في الحقيقة، أستطيع أن أقول أن هايزنبرج، إضافة إلى العالم البريطاني الشهير فرانسيس كريك، وأسيموف العالم الأمريكي، هم أكثر ثلاثة علماء استحسنت أسلوب كتابتهم جدًا، وكأنهم أدباء، وإن كان أسيموف فعلا أديب.
وهذه الكتب الثلاثة بالذات هي ما أعطاني ذلك الشهور:
- الفيزياء والفلسفة، هايزنبرج
- طبيعة الحياة، فرانسيس كريك
- بين الأرض والقمر، أسيموف
إذن، نحن على موعد مع فيرنر هايزنبرج Werner Heisenberg، ذلك الفتى الألماني المشاكس المحب للعلم، والذي تتلمذ على يد أبرز علماء الفيزياء في زمانه، منهم مثلا سومرفيلد، وصاحب واحد من أكبر المساهمات في نظرية الكوانتم، وهو مبدأ عدم التأكد Uncertainty principle، والحاصل على نوبل في عام ١٩٣٢.
(في نهاية الترجمة العربية، نسخة المركز القومي للترجمة، هناك ملحق يسرد ملخص سيرة شخصية لهايزنبرج ودراسته الجامعية)
يسرد علينا الرجل في مقالاته التي جُمعت في هذا الكتاب، آراءه الفلسفية بخصوص الفيزياء (الحديثة تحديدًا)، وما سببته تلك الفيزياء من تغييرات جذرية في عمق فهمنا للعالم وطريقة عمله، وحتى الأمور التي كنا نعتبرها من البديهيات العقلية مثل الزمن وغيره.
واجهت بعض المشكلات الفيزيائية المجتمع العلمي في نهايات القرن التاسع عشر وبدايات القرن العشرين، منها مثلا مشكلة إشعاع الجسم الأسود، والتي انتهت بالنهاية بفرض بلانك أن الطاقة الكهرومغناطيسية عبارة عن كمات منفصلة، وليست مستمرة كما كان يُعتقد قديمًا.
استخدم أينشتاين هو الآخر فكرة التكميم في تفسيرة لظاهرة التأثير الكهروضوئي والتي استحق من أجلها جائزة نوبل لاحقًا.
توالت بعد ذلك الكشوفات التي ساهمت في بناء نظرية الكم بصورتها الكبيرة، منها مبدأ عدم التأكد لصاحب الكتاب، هايزنبرج. والذي انطوى على نتيجة فلسفية عميقة جدًا وهي أن الطبيعة كأنها تخفى علينا أشياء.
ثم كانت الطبيعة الاحتمالية للجسيمات الصغيرة، والتي ربما كانت النتيجة الأغرب، إذ كيف يمكن أن يتواجد جسيم في أكثر من مكان في نفس الوقت؟
أيضا تأثير المشاهد على الظاهرة (إذ أن الجسيمات تتصرف بشكل ما وأنت لا تراقبها، وتتصرف بشكل آخر وأنت تراقبها)، أفضى لأن يعطي صفة الذاتية للتجربة، وهو ما كان غائبًا في التصور القديم..
أينشتاين نفسه رفض هذه النزعة غير الواقعية للتفسيرات الكوانتية، حتى أنه قال تعليقًا على تأثير المشاهد: «إنني أحبذ أن أعتقد أن القمر موجودًا حتى لو لم أنظر إليه».
يرى كانط، الفيلسوف الألماني الشهير أن هناك جانبًا في حكمنا على الأمور لا يعتمد على الخبرة الحسية، وإنما هي أحكام قبلية - كما أسماها- موجودة في العقل البشري. مثل مبدأ السببية مثلا، فنحن نعتقد أن لكل سبب مسبب، وهذا المبدأ لا يحتاج للخبرة لاستنتاجه.
وعند مقارنة مباديء الفيزياء الحديثة بتلك النظرة الكانطية، سنجد أنها لا تتفق معها، مثل فكرة الزمن النسبي في النسبية.
يستمر هايزنبرج ليوضح المشكلات التي نجمت عن الفيزياء الحديثة، منها مشكلة اللغة مثلا، فنحن بحاجة إلى تعريف جديد للمصطلحات لنستطيع التعبير بها عن تلك المفاهيم الجديدة، ما أدى إلى تطور اللغة بناء على تطور المعرفة العلمية، فكلمات مثل "الطاقة" و"الأنتروبيا" و"الكهرباء" هي أمثلة لما نعنيه بالتطور اللغوي الناتج عن التطور العلمي.
في نهاية الكتاب، هناك ملحق بعنوان «العلم والدين» يكتب فيه هايزنبرج عن مناقشاته مع العلماء حول الارتباط أو الانفصال بين العلم والدين..
الفصل بدأ بمشهد من مؤتمر سولفاي، عندما طرح أحد العلماء سؤالًا: «لماذا أبقى أينشتاين على الإله؟»..
توالت بعدها مناقشات ممتعة جدًا بين ألمع فيزيائيين في القرن العشرين حول القضية..
هايزنبرج، بول ديراك، ماكس بلانك، فولفانج باولي، نيلز بور، وذكرت آراء أينشتاين كذلك..
هايزنبرج نفسه يرى أن الدين لازم وضروري للحفاظ على تماسك المجتمعات..
بوجه عام، الكتاب ثري جدًا جدًا بالأفكار الفلسفية، فهايزنبرج ستشعر أنه فيلسوف أكثر منه عالم فيزياء نظرية. ثم إن طريقة كتابته في حد ذاتها مشوقة وسلسة جدًا.
في الحقيقة، أستطيع أن أقول أن هايزنبرج، إضافة إلى العالم البريطاني الشهير فرانسيس كريك، وأسيموف العالم الأمريكي، هم أكثر ثلاثة علماء استحسنت أسلوب كتابتهم جدًا، وكأنهم أدباء، وإن كان أسيموف فعلا أديب.
وهذه الكتب الثلاثة بالذات هي ما أعطاني ذلك الشهور:
- الفيزياء والفلسفة، هايزنبرج
- طبيعة الحياة، فرانسيس كريك
- بين الأرض والقمر، أسيموف
November 6, 2023
This is quite a difficult book to read as Werner Heisenberg was a very clever scientist but might not have been the greatest scientific writer.
This book is about the history of ideas and how they have fitted in with classical physics and with quantum physics. The point Heisenberg is making is that words and concepts we're familiar with in daily life tend towards the meaningless in the world of special relativity and quantum physics. Heisenberg goes on to show this affects the nature of what counts as reality to people and confuses their world view.
This book is about the history of ideas and how they have fitted in with classical physics and with quantum physics. The point Heisenberg is making is that words and concepts we're familiar with in daily life tend towards the meaningless in the world of special relativity and quantum physics. Heisenberg goes on to show this affects the nature of what counts as reality to people and confuses their world view.
July 23, 2018
অসাধারণ। হয়তো তেমন কিছুই বলে না, হয়তো প্লাতোরে নিয়া বলা কিছু কথা একটু প্রলাপের দিকেই গেছে, কিন্তু কোপেনহ্যাগেন ধারার ব্যাখ্যা সম্পর্কে হাইজেনবার্গের স্পষ্ট অবস্থান জানা গেলো। দেখা গেলো ওই আমলের পদার্থবিদদের পড়াশুনাটা নেহাত কম ছিলো না, তাই চলে আসছে প্লাতোর টিমীয়াস থেকে শুরু করে কান্টের বকরবকর পর্যন্ত। আমি কোয়ান্টাম ফিজিক্স শিখতে এই বই হাতে নেই নাই, হাতে নিছিলাম হাইজেনবার্গ অবাক করে কী না দেখতে। বইটা সফল, অবাক করে নাই, কিন্তু মুগ্ধ করেছে।
অন্তত শেষ অধ্যায় বাদে বাকীটুকু।
অন্তত শেষ অধ্যায় বাদে বাকীটুকু।
August 22, 2012
Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg Review
Physics and Philosophy is a book published in 1962 by Werner Heisenberg, a “giant of modern physics”, about the theory of Quantum Mechanics and its philosophical implications. This book is certainly best read with prior knowledge of some classical and some quantum physics. I actually read it knowing little or nothing about quantum physics, and the parts that described in detail the physics seemed technical and hard to understand, yet still i could make sense partly of most of it. But then I took a course in quantum cryptography and looking back at it it all makes well enough sense. So knowledge of physics is very highly recommended. As far as the philosophy goes i found it much easier to understand as he talks about high level concepts in ancient greek and renaissance thinking.
If fully understood this book can really help to inform our perception of reality and how quantum mechanics has changed that. Forever we have imagined the world as objectively “real” that whether or not we observe something it is the same, that one thing must be in one single place at any given time, that time and space are infinitely divisible and constant. This book uses the proven theories of quantum mechanics and relativity to help break those notions on what reality truly is and it is this aspect of the book that i find most enthralling. It uses logic, experimental evidence, and facts to undermine objective reality and replace it with a weird, alien view of everything. This book is incredibly important more so for philosophers thank physicists because it breaks many core assumptions down and replaces them with new and strange, yet experimentally proven results that, taken to logical fruition, produce the likes of Schrodinger's Cat which is in a superposition of dead and alive, that is to say, both dead and alive simultaneously. It are these ideas that radically change the basis of much thought ever since the beginning of human history.
I recommend this book only if you have at least a rudimentary understanding of some physics and algebra, and if you are open minded enough to question the very core beliefs of reality, because that can certainly be alot to fully grasp. Otherwise this book can seem very technical when it talks about physics, and strange about philosophy. But if you can understand and accept the statements made here then it is an absolute must read provoking some deep insight into some of the largest and most fundamental questions of reality.
April 5, 2023
Every now and then I think it would be a good idea to become a particle physics guy. It's never gonna happen but it's a nice idea to think about.
September 13, 2023
Brilliant, insightful and uplifting little novella/stream of thought on the infinite universe outside and within.
June 13, 2010
Some Knots Have Knotted Limbs
Toward the end of Physics and Philosophy Werner Heisenberg presciently mentions the incompatibility of quantum mechanics with relativity and the need for coherent concepts that allow for both theories without mathematical inconsistencies. Today unified field theories of quantum gravity that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity are being explored by physicists in proposals like string theory. Heisenberg also mentions that the physicists of his time were discovering elementary particles by experimenting with high-speed particle accelerators (which he calls “big accelerating machines”), referencing a machine in Geneva, what we now know as the operational Large Hadron Collider at CERN that is testing aspects of string theory by attempting to recreate conditions of the universe during the Big Bang.
Heisenberg’s discerning comments about the future are not surprising given the intricate attention he pays to contemporary and historical conditions through contextualizing quantum mechanics in relation to everything from Einstein’s relativity—Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle rebuts Einstein’s notion that probability cannot be expressed in physical reality—to atomic weaponry to Western philosophical thought (Descartes, Berkeley, and Kant).
Heisenberg relates quantum theory to the first conceptions of atomic science, starting with Thales, who says that water is the fundamental substance of reality. After Thales, Anaximander says the fundamental substance is ageless and eternal but nothing that can be known; his student Anaximenes says the fundamental substance is air. Heisenberg notes that Hereclitus’ argument for fire being the fundamental substance comes closest to his contemporary understanding of atomic science if only the word, “fire,” was replaced with the word, “energy.” It was Empedocles who shifted the debate from monism to pluralism by proposing the fundamental substance could not be one substance but instead the four basic elements. When Anaxagoras proposed that matter is composed of small seeds and that all change is caused by mixture and separation, he was just one step to the concept of the atom, which occurred with Leucippus and Democritus proposing that the smallest unit of matter is finite, eternal, and indestructible and that motion is made possible by the empty space between these units. Plato then articulated a theory of matter that combined Democritus’ atomism with the teachings of Empedocles and Pythagoras (who inspired schools of ritualistic Dionysian number theorists who took religious oaths to the tetraktys, the fourth triangular number of 10) to propose that the smallest units of matter are mathematical forms, about which Heisenberg comments, “here it is quite evident that the form is more important than the substance of which it is the form.” Like a poem?
Describing his understanding of the structure of language, Heisenberg quotes from Goethe’s Faust, where Mephistopheles tells the student that while formal education instructs that logic braces the mind “in Spanish boots so tightly laced” and that even spontaneous acts require a sequential process (“one, two, three!”), in truth, “the subtle web of thought/Is like the weaver’s fabric wrought,/One treadle moves a thousand lines,/Swift dart the shuttles to and fro,/Unseen the threads unnumber’d flow,/A thousand knots one stroke combines.” In addition to the swift darts and unseen threads of the imagination science must also be based on logic, open to pattern and swerve. Yet Heisenberg acknowledges there is no adequate language for quantum theory, which suggests that any novel science must concurrently create a novel language—poems?—where a “thousand knots one stroke combines.”
Toward the end of Physics and Philosophy Werner Heisenberg presciently mentions the incompatibility of quantum mechanics with relativity and the need for coherent concepts that allow for both theories without mathematical inconsistencies. Today unified field theories of quantum gravity that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity are being explored by physicists in proposals like string theory. Heisenberg also mentions that the physicists of his time were discovering elementary particles by experimenting with high-speed particle accelerators (which he calls “big accelerating machines”), referencing a machine in Geneva, what we now know as the operational Large Hadron Collider at CERN that is testing aspects of string theory by attempting to recreate conditions of the universe during the Big Bang.
Heisenberg’s discerning comments about the future are not surprising given the intricate attention he pays to contemporary and historical conditions through contextualizing quantum mechanics in relation to everything from Einstein’s relativity—Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle rebuts Einstein’s notion that probability cannot be expressed in physical reality—to atomic weaponry to Western philosophical thought (Descartes, Berkeley, and Kant).
Heisenberg relates quantum theory to the first conceptions of atomic science, starting with Thales, who says that water is the fundamental substance of reality. After Thales, Anaximander says the fundamental substance is ageless and eternal but nothing that can be known; his student Anaximenes says the fundamental substance is air. Heisenberg notes that Hereclitus’ argument for fire being the fundamental substance comes closest to his contemporary understanding of atomic science if only the word, “fire,” was replaced with the word, “energy.” It was Empedocles who shifted the debate from monism to pluralism by proposing the fundamental substance could not be one substance but instead the four basic elements. When Anaxagoras proposed that matter is composed of small seeds and that all change is caused by mixture and separation, he was just one step to the concept of the atom, which occurred with Leucippus and Democritus proposing that the smallest unit of matter is finite, eternal, and indestructible and that motion is made possible by the empty space between these units. Plato then articulated a theory of matter that combined Democritus’ atomism with the teachings of Empedocles and Pythagoras (who inspired schools of ritualistic Dionysian number theorists who took religious oaths to the tetraktys, the fourth triangular number of 10) to propose that the smallest units of matter are mathematical forms, about which Heisenberg comments, “here it is quite evident that the form is more important than the substance of which it is the form.” Like a poem?
Describing his understanding of the structure of language, Heisenberg quotes from Goethe’s Faust, where Mephistopheles tells the student that while formal education instructs that logic braces the mind “in Spanish boots so tightly laced” and that even spontaneous acts require a sequential process (“one, two, three!”), in truth, “the subtle web of thought/Is like the weaver’s fabric wrought,/One treadle moves a thousand lines,/Swift dart the shuttles to and fro,/Unseen the threads unnumber’d flow,/A thousand knots one stroke combines.” In addition to the swift darts and unseen threads of the imagination science must also be based on logic, open to pattern and swerve. Yet Heisenberg acknowledges there is no adequate language for quantum theory, which suggests that any novel science must concurrently create a novel language—poems?—where a “thousand knots one stroke combines.”
July 5, 2012
Heisenberg the famous Nobel Prize winner takes us through the building up of our current understanding of Quantum Reality and the physics that lead up to this. He gives a good discussion of the Uncertainty principle of which he is so famous for and how this will impact the future of physics and how we see the world. The title is misleading however, don't expect much philosophy out of this book, and of course it was written when many ideas of modern physics were not even hardly fleshed out yet. I think this makes it interesting to see where he though physics might go, and compare this to the current state. It makes you wonder what he would have though of the work going on in Geneva, and how he would have looked at some of the physics of today.
August 29, 2023
A captivating read exploring the role Quantum Physics played in the mid-20th century and while this feels pretty dated, it holds many interesting thoughts and ideas.
I actually read Physics and Philosophy by accident – I was actually on the lookout for James Hopwood Jeans' book by the same name and by accident this landed in my lap! But I'm glad it did, because it actually proved to be the more stimulating reading experience or at least the one that I, as a non-physicist, gathered more from. So this Physics and Philosophy takes you to how science got to the point of making Quantum Theory a thing and what that theory entails and from there on explores criticism, counterproposals and the philosophical meaning of such a theory existing.
This really shows how essential language is in bringing science to the people.this Heisenberg targets the layman with this and tries to get his points across without relying on maths, even though that leads to minimal limitations of his explanations (there is a reason science relies on maths, after all), as explored in one of the chapters as well: language shapes our understanding of things, but also means that we can't really articulate everything to everyone, as not everything will be understood in mathematical language by non-mathematicians, while not every mathematical thought can be verbalised otherwise.
It really shows how many crazy discoveries were made in the 20th century. There are so many things we take for granted nowadays that were still a matter of uncertainty just less than a hundred years ago: there was still much questioning about what a particle is, what an atom consists of and if general relativity will ever have experimental proof to back it up (yes, it will). So a lot happened during that period of time, but also a lot has happened since then, so beware a couple of errors and outdated information.
This clearly was written during a time of political tension. There's a long passage in which Heisenberg worries about the role physicists will play in the future of war (Oppenheimer, anyone?) and this obviously reads different knowing that Heisenberg wrote this with the Cold War raging in the background. He worried about nuclear weapons and for a reason obviously, but it feels good to be able to say from the future that other people will have realised as well that there should be some sort of lines that are not to be crossed mindlessly.
So yeah, fun to read – don't expect too much philosophy here, though. It's definitely a physics book, so maybe it's fair to say it's an exploration of physics written by someone who's aware that there are philosophers with ideas and their own lines of thinking as well. Fair to say that what I said about that other Physics & Philosophy book applies here as well: pick this up if you want a history lesson, not so much a physics training.
I actually read Physics and Philosophy by accident – I was actually on the lookout for James Hopwood Jeans' book by the same name and by accident this landed in my lap! But I'm glad it did, because it actually proved to be the more stimulating reading experience or at least the one that I, as a non-physicist, gathered more from. So this Physics and Philosophy takes you to how science got to the point of making Quantum Theory a thing and what that theory entails and from there on explores criticism, counterproposals and the philosophical meaning of such a theory existing.
This really shows how essential language is in bringing science to the people.this Heisenberg targets the layman with this and tries to get his points across without relying on maths, even though that leads to minimal limitations of his explanations (there is a reason science relies on maths, after all), as explored in one of the chapters as well: language shapes our understanding of things, but also means that we can't really articulate everything to everyone, as not everything will be understood in mathematical language by non-mathematicians, while not every mathematical thought can be verbalised otherwise.
It really shows how many crazy discoveries were made in the 20th century. There are so many things we take for granted nowadays that were still a matter of uncertainty just less than a hundred years ago: there was still much questioning about what a particle is, what an atom consists of and if general relativity will ever have experimental proof to back it up (yes, it will). So a lot happened during that period of time, but also a lot has happened since then, so beware a couple of errors and outdated information.
This clearly was written during a time of political tension. There's a long passage in which Heisenberg worries about the role physicists will play in the future of war (Oppenheimer, anyone?) and this obviously reads different knowing that Heisenberg wrote this with the Cold War raging in the background. He worried about nuclear weapons and for a reason obviously, but it feels good to be able to say from the future that other people will have realised as well that there should be some sort of lines that are not to be crossed mindlessly.
So yeah, fun to read – don't expect too much philosophy here, though. It's definitely a physics book, so maybe it's fair to say it's an exploration of physics written by someone who's aware that there are philosophers with ideas and their own lines of thinking as well. Fair to say that what I said about that other Physics & Philosophy book applies here as well: pick this up if you want a history lesson, not so much a physics training.
August 13, 2018
شوربختانه افتخار آشنایی و هم صحبتی با جناب نجفی زاده را نداشته ام اما دورادور از فعالیت های بنیاد ایشان آگاه شده ام. می دانم که پروژه بزرگی پیش رو دارند. این پروژه شامل ده ها عنوان ترجمه از کتاب های فلسفی است و انتظار این است که مجموعه ای مرجع باشد برای علاقمندان و پژوهشگران فلسفه در زمینه فلسفه مدرن و پسامدرن. امیدوارم این پروژه به نتیجه و فرجام شایسته اش برسد.
اما درباره این کتاب! از دید من خواندنش برای علاقمندان به فلسفه یک ضرورت است. این کتاب بیانگر زمینه های شکل گیری یکی از جریان فکری در فلسفه است که از آغاز سده بیستم به این سو در اروپا و امریکای شمالی پا می گیرد. دقیقا مانند گذار از فیزیک کلاسیک به فیزیک کوانتوم! خواننده می تواند یک دگرگونی بنیادین در روش اندیشه ورزی پیش از سده بیستم و پس از آن را دریابد
ای کاش این کتاب پیش از انتشار به دست یک تیم ویراستاری سپرده می شد. هم چنین نسخه پی دی اف آن از دید من به هیچ روی جذابیت یک کتاب دیجیتالی را ندارد و ای کاش با دقت بیشتری روی آن کار می شد.
اما درباره این کتاب! از دید من خواندنش برای علاقمندان به فلسفه یک ضرورت است. این کتاب بیانگر زمینه های شکل گیری یکی از جریان فکری در فلسفه است که از آغاز سده بیستم به این سو در اروپا و امریکای شمالی پا می گیرد. دقیقا مانند گذار از فیزیک کلاسیک به فیزیک کوانتوم! خواننده می تواند یک دگرگونی بنیادین در روش اندیشه ورزی پیش از سده بیستم و پس از آن را دریابد
ای کاش این کتاب پیش از انتشار به دست یک تیم ویراستاری سپرده می شد. هم چنین نسخه پی دی اف آن از دید من به هیچ روی جذابیت یک کتاب دیجیتالی را ندارد و ای کاش با دقت بیشتری روی آن کار می شد.
July 22, 2025
this was fine but, forgive me, I don't believe we won the war just to be lectured on metaphysics by the head of the nazi nuclear program
May 29, 2017
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 :-)
February 16, 2009
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.
April 6, 2013
ok. it's a great book. I'm giving three stars based on my personal experience with this book-- I do not fully understand his composition of this book. I have to ignore many passages to have a holistic impression of what he's arguing about.
Based on what I understand, I would give this book another name: "Language and Dispute: the evolution of human knowledge". I would say it's more about language and reality rather than physics and philosophy. The most charming part of this book to me, is his analysis of the notion of "matter" (or atom, or the essence of objects) about how it evolves from ancient philosophy to classical physics and then to modern physics. He compared the representation of reality with mathematical language and natural language. The use of language is stabilized by the connection between words, but what a word itself is representing is very unstable (alright..uncertain if we like). As a description of the world propagates via linguistic representation, the abstraction and precision of the description becomes lost person by person, or generation by generation... until, some how, modern experimental apparatus widen the spectrum of events can be observed, and save the mental effort for people to achieve that order of abstraction.
I also found the bonus read-on "science and religion" quite interesting. Especially the little story about the debate between Heisenberg, Dirac and Pauli over the relationship between science and religion (I love Pauli the most!). It is a miniature reflection of the book (most likely to be unintended). Apparently, among these three giants of quantum physics, there was a very *uncertain* representation of events by the word "religion" or "God". Some of them referred to a description of reality, while others referred to the utility of that description. And it is fun to see them arguing about the *symbols* rather the reality they each have in mind.
Based on what I understand, I would give this book another name: "Language and Dispute: the evolution of human knowledge". I would say it's more about language and reality rather than physics and philosophy. The most charming part of this book to me, is his analysis of the notion of "matter" (or atom, or the essence of objects) about how it evolves from ancient philosophy to classical physics and then to modern physics. He compared the representation of reality with mathematical language and natural language. The use of language is stabilized by the connection between words, but what a word itself is representing is very unstable (alright..uncertain if we like). As a description of the world propagates via linguistic representation, the abstraction and precision of the description becomes lost person by person, or generation by generation... until, some how, modern experimental apparatus widen the spectrum of events can be observed, and save the mental effort for people to achieve that order of abstraction.
I also found the bonus read-on "science and religion" quite interesting. Especially the little story about the debate between Heisenberg, Dirac and Pauli over the relationship between science and religion (I love Pauli the most!). It is a miniature reflection of the book (most likely to be unintended). Apparently, among these three giants of quantum physics, there was a very *uncertain* representation of events by the word "religion" or "God". Some of them referred to a description of reality, while others referred to the utility of that description. And it is fun to see them arguing about the *symbols* rather the reality they each have in mind.
February 6, 2017
Cuối cùng cũng "luộc" được xong quyển này. Nhìn chung là vừa hài lòng, vừa không hài lòng. Được viết bởi cha đẻ của cơ học lượng tử, một tượng đài c��a vật lý hiện đại, tôi kỳ vọng quyển sách này hay hơn thế. Tuy nhiên, có quá nhiều thuật ngữ và ngôn từ của vật lý và quá ít chất triết học trong quyển sách này, do đó, sẽ là một cuốn sách khá khó đọc cho dân ngoại đạo.
Tuy nhiên, phần triết học ít ỏi trong sách lại không hề là một chủ đề khiêm tốn chút nào, nhất là khi nó gần như là một khẳng định cho quan điểm của tôi về khoa học, tôn giáo và tất nhiên, triết học. Còn gì sung sướng hơn khi được nghe chính một nhà vật lý đoạt giải Nobel khẳng định suy nghĩ của mình là đúng cơ chứ? Sự vô hạn đi kèm tính giới hạn của khoa học; thuyết bất khả tri; vai trò của khoa học và tôn giáo; hai niềm tin ở Chúa; sự hình thành ngôn ngữ; tự nhiên và kỹ thuật; lý thuyết và thực nghiệm.. tất cả đều được nhắc tới trong tác phẩm này.
Một cuốn sách hay là một cuốn sách truyền cảm hứng. Đột nhiên tôi thấy mình tiến thêm một bước gần hơn với chân lý, sau khi đọc xong quyển sách này. Thêm một quy luật nữa mà đầu óc tăm tối của tôi bỗng ngộ ra. Cảm ơn Werner Heisenberg, xin cảm ơn ông!
P/S: Kể ra nên đặt lại tên cho quyển sách là "Một tấn vật lý và một tí triết học" thì sẽ chính xác hơn, tôi nghĩ vậy.
Tuy nhiên, phần triết học ít ỏi trong sách lại không hề là một chủ đề khiêm tốn chút nào, nhất là khi nó gần như là một khẳng định cho quan điểm của tôi về khoa học, tôn giáo và tất nhiên, triết học. Còn gì sung sướng hơn khi được nghe chính một nhà vật lý đoạt giải Nobel khẳng định suy nghĩ của mình là đúng cơ chứ? Sự vô hạn đi kèm tính giới hạn của khoa học; thuyết bất khả tri; vai trò của khoa học và tôn giáo; hai niềm tin ở Chúa; sự hình thành ngôn ngữ; tự nhiên và kỹ thuật; lý thuyết và thực nghiệm.. tất cả đều được nhắc tới trong tác phẩm này.
Một cuốn sách hay là một cuốn sách truyền cảm hứng. Đột nhiên tôi thấy mình tiến thêm một bước gần hơn với chân lý, sau khi đọc xong quyển sách này. Thêm một quy luật nữa mà đầu óc tăm tối của tôi bỗng ngộ ra. Cảm ơn Werner Heisenberg, xin cảm ơn ông!
P/S: Kể ra nên đặt lại tên cho quyển sách là "Một tấn vật lý và một tí triết học" thì sẽ chính xác hơn, tôi nghĩ vậy.
September 11, 2022
Certainly one of the most insightful book I have read this year.
July 31, 2025
This is a really cool book and Heisenberg knows a lot about a lot. His knowledge of physics is of course incredible, but I was surprised to see his knowledge of philosophy. My background is mainly in philosophy so the physics parts were tough to get through, but the philosophy parts were quite a breeze.
He analyzes how our thinking of today has changed compared to the thinking of earlier days. He mainly uses ancient philosophers starting from Thales, and after that he uses a couple figures like Descartes, Hume, and Kant. Besides that he goes quite into depth on what quantum mechanics does different from classical mechanics, down to the ontological level. In this way it is less about the mathematical grounds (although he does state how important that is) but more about the philosophical underpinnings of what this change means. He goes through multiple interpretations and critiques of quantum mechanics throughout the book and also touches a little on the relationship between science and society.
From what I understood, quantum mechanics is not about the inaccurasy of the measurements, but us being fundamentally unable to measure it precisely. We are dealing with particles that are so small, that we cannot remove ourselves as observers from our understanding of it. With the uncertainty principle we either know the momentum completely or the position, never both. Even in an ideal world, for us to be able to see an electron, it must interact with a photon particle. This interaction causes a change. Our influence in seeing the particle must be taken into account.
It does remind me a little bit of Hegel and his stance on art. The idea (as I understand it) is that art has reached its end. Think of photography; before photography, it was art that was the main source of representation. We drew technical drawings because it was impossible to make a picture of it. The highest form of representation was art. Now that has since past, and art has become free of representation. Now that art is free it has completed itself; this completion means that it can reflect on itself. The completion of art then means it can philosophize, it can think about its own condition for existing and its implications. There then exists a complete pluralization of art, because it isn't bound to one form anymore. (I wouldn't say I agree with this, but I wanted to emphasize the idea of self-reflection being the end stage or completion.)
Quantum theory requires us to rethink our ontology. We are not merely passive observers within the world, but active participants. How do we deal with this? How can we still experiment while taking ourselves into account? How can we still get to know more if we stumble on an unhoppable fence? I wouldn't say that I understood Heisenberg completely, but it did get my mind going. Our ideas of the world have an impact on how we act on it, the knowledge we gain must always be a mediated knowledge. But, how do we deal with the boundaries of mediated knowledge?
This book got me thinking about how Heisenberg would have reacted to philosophers like Derrida, Deleuze, and many more, but unfortunately I have no idea. The most contemporary philosophy he touches on is the postivists, but that is only a few sentences.
I have much respect for Heisenberg's knowledge and his stance on what science is and does. He knows on a fundamental level what he says, and that requires years of studying and experience.
He analyzes how our thinking of today has changed compared to the thinking of earlier days. He mainly uses ancient philosophers starting from Thales, and after that he uses a couple figures like Descartes, Hume, and Kant. Besides that he goes quite into depth on what quantum mechanics does different from classical mechanics, down to the ontological level. In this way it is less about the mathematical grounds (although he does state how important that is) but more about the philosophical underpinnings of what this change means. He goes through multiple interpretations and critiques of quantum mechanics throughout the book and also touches a little on the relationship between science and society.
From what I understood, quantum mechanics is not about the inaccurasy of the measurements, but us being fundamentally unable to measure it precisely. We are dealing with particles that are so small, that we cannot remove ourselves as observers from our understanding of it. With the uncertainty principle we either know the momentum completely or the position, never both. Even in an ideal world, for us to be able to see an electron, it must interact with a photon particle. This interaction causes a change. Our influence in seeing the particle must be taken into account.
It does remind me a little bit of Hegel and his stance on art. The idea (as I understand it) is that art has reached its end. Think of photography; before photography, it was art that was the main source of representation. We drew technical drawings because it was impossible to make a picture of it. The highest form of representation was art. Now that has since past, and art has become free of representation. Now that art is free it has completed itself; this completion means that it can reflect on itself. The completion of art then means it can philosophize, it can think about its own condition for existing and its implications. There then exists a complete pluralization of art, because it isn't bound to one form anymore. (I wouldn't say I agree with this, but I wanted to emphasize the idea of self-reflection being the end stage or completion.)
Quantum theory requires us to rethink our ontology. We are not merely passive observers within the world, but active participants. How do we deal with this? How can we still experiment while taking ourselves into account? How can we still get to know more if we stumble on an unhoppable fence? I wouldn't say that I understood Heisenberg completely, but it did get my mind going. Our ideas of the world have an impact on how we act on it, the knowledge we gain must always be a mediated knowledge. But, how do we deal with the boundaries of mediated knowledge?
This book got me thinking about how Heisenberg would have reacted to philosophers like Derrida, Deleuze, and many more, but unfortunately I have no idea. The most contemporary philosophy he touches on is the postivists, but that is only a few sentences.
I have much respect for Heisenberg's knowledge and his stance on what science is and does. He knows on a fundamental level what he says, and that requires years of studying and experience.
July 1, 2025
There is no doubt that one of the main reasons for the stagnation in contemporary physics is the failure of education, and this remarkable book serves as an eminent proof thereof.
To make it clear exactly how shocking quantum mechanics and relativity are, Heisenberg sets out to delineate the entire history of natural philosophy. Starting from Leucippus and Democritus, through Plato and Aristotle, followed by a very brief sketch of scholasticism and an in-depth analysis of early modern philosophy from Descartes to Kant, the narrative eventually arrives at 19-20th century when materialism and logical positivism reigned supreme. Only five chapters later does he start serious discussing science. But he doesn't stop there: 'The real problem behind these many controversies [caused by quantum mechanics] was the fact that no language existed in which one could speak consistently about the new situation' (p. 119). Yes, you guessed correctly, he begins a short treatise on the philosophy of language behind scientific theories.
The fact that this book is titled Physics and Philosophy is very telling, as if the two are separate domains of knowledge. For almost every major breakthrough in the history of science was led by natural philosophers trained in the classical tradition. They knew their Plato, Augustine, and Kant. They conversed in Latin. Some of them even preached from the pulpit about Christ and salvation. And when the generation of Werner Heisenberg passed away, this tradition of natural philosophy was largely forgotten about, and we wonder why Richard Feynman said that no one understands quantum mechanics. The answer is simple: we have not trained a real physicist in a long time. Instead, most students who undergo an undergraduate formation in physics come out engineers, knowing the theory inside out without a slightest understanding thereof. They have mastered techne, but no trace of episteme can be found.
In After Virtue, MacIntyre diagnoses the omission of telos as the root malady of modern moral philosophy. When the concept of virtue is thrown out of window, what's left is the broken pieces of a vase which moral philosophers desperately try, yet fail to glue together. A similar thing might be happening in natural philosophy. Being ignorant of the history of this discourse, the modern physicist becomes another Sisyphus, and modern physics another tragedy of futility.
To make it clear exactly how shocking quantum mechanics and relativity are, Heisenberg sets out to delineate the entire history of natural philosophy. Starting from Leucippus and Democritus, through Plato and Aristotle, followed by a very brief sketch of scholasticism and an in-depth analysis of early modern philosophy from Descartes to Kant, the narrative eventually arrives at 19-20th century when materialism and logical positivism reigned supreme. Only five chapters later does he start serious discussing science. But he doesn't stop there: 'The real problem behind these many controversies [caused by quantum mechanics] was the fact that no language existed in which one could speak consistently about the new situation' (p. 119). Yes, you guessed correctly, he begins a short treatise on the philosophy of language behind scientific theories.
The fact that this book is titled Physics and Philosophy is very telling, as if the two are separate domains of knowledge. For almost every major breakthrough in the history of science was led by natural philosophers trained in the classical tradition. They knew their Plato, Augustine, and Kant. They conversed in Latin. Some of them even preached from the pulpit about Christ and salvation. And when the generation of Werner Heisenberg passed away, this tradition of natural philosophy was largely forgotten about, and we wonder why Richard Feynman said that no one understands quantum mechanics. The answer is simple: we have not trained a real physicist in a long time. Instead, most students who undergo an undergraduate formation in physics come out engineers, knowing the theory inside out without a slightest understanding thereof. They have mastered techne, but no trace of episteme can be found.
In After Virtue, MacIntyre diagnoses the omission of telos as the root malady of modern moral philosophy. When the concept of virtue is thrown out of window, what's left is the broken pieces of a vase which moral philosophers desperately try, yet fail to glue together. A similar thing might be happening in natural philosophy. Being ignorant of the history of this discourse, the modern physicist becomes another Sisyphus, and modern physics another tragedy of futility.
April 19, 2021
talented, brilliant, incredible, amazing, show stopping, spectacular, never the same, totally unique, completely not ever been done before, unafraid to reference or not reference, put it in a blender, shit on it, vomit on it, eat it, give birth to it.
May 29, 2016
Heisenburg traces philosophical thought from Greeks (permanence versus change; ultimate elements of reality) to Descartes (the partition of mind and matter) to Newton (classical physics/mechanics). These philosophical ideas have, Heisenburg writes, formed the way we see the world and the language we use to describe it.
Heisenburg argues that ideas and language pertaining to the empirical world are not adequate to deal with the realities of quantum physics (ultimate reality as energy, out of which sub-particles are formed, the behavior of which can be determined only in terms of probability). Nor are classical descriptions adequate to deal with the realities of relativity theory (light as a universal constant; the stretching, contracting and linking of space and time; the equivalence of mass and energy).
Heisenburg believes that the spread of science around the world can deepen and widen Western philosophical thought that confines our way of seeing the world. He is hopeful that new ways of thinking will also unify cultural differences and eliminate “arms” in the age of nuclear weapons.
Based on what Heisenburg writes, the starting point for a new worldview might have energy as the ultimate reality,* that energy is motion,** motion creates counter motion, that such interactions are rearrangements of energy and matter; and that change and transformation is perpetual. Might this view have implications for our philosophical understanding? Are, for example, freedom (the movement of energy and matter; life’s free movement to seek objects of sustenance to temporarily overcome entropy); equality (balance and the elimination of energy/power differentials); and dialectical processes (movement, counter movement, balance) embedded in the physics of energy and matter?
The Kindle edition was filled with many typographical errors and the introduction to the book was difficult.
*“Energy is in fact the substance from which all elementary particles, all atoms, and therefore all things are made, and energy is that which moves. Energy is a substance, since its total amount does not change, and the elementary particles can actually be made from this substance.”
**A question remains about the nature of motion – whether its source is external (gravitational effects in warped space-time; internal (atoms in motion; dissipation of heat), or both.
Heisenburg argues that ideas and language pertaining to the empirical world are not adequate to deal with the realities of quantum physics (ultimate reality as energy, out of which sub-particles are formed, the behavior of which can be determined only in terms of probability). Nor are classical descriptions adequate to deal with the realities of relativity theory (light as a universal constant; the stretching, contracting and linking of space and time; the equivalence of mass and energy).
Heisenburg believes that the spread of science around the world can deepen and widen Western philosophical thought that confines our way of seeing the world. He is hopeful that new ways of thinking will also unify cultural differences and eliminate “arms” in the age of nuclear weapons.
Based on what Heisenburg writes, the starting point for a new worldview might have energy as the ultimate reality,* that energy is motion,** motion creates counter motion, that such interactions are rearrangements of energy and matter; and that change and transformation is perpetual. Might this view have implications for our philosophical understanding? Are, for example, freedom (the movement of energy and matter; life’s free movement to seek objects of sustenance to temporarily overcome entropy); equality (balance and the elimination of energy/power differentials); and dialectical processes (movement, counter movement, balance) embedded in the physics of energy and matter?
The Kindle edition was filled with many typographical errors and the introduction to the book was difficult.
*“Energy is in fact the substance from which all elementary particles, all atoms, and therefore all things are made, and energy is that which moves. Energy is a substance, since its total amount does not change, and the elementary particles can actually be made from this substance.”
**A question remains about the nature of motion – whether its source is external (gravitational effects in warped space-time; internal (atoms in motion; dissipation of heat), or both.
August 5, 2015
فيرنر هايزنبرج ... لا اعلم أهو فيلسوف عالم أم عالم فيلسوف .... عندما تقرأ في هذا الكتاب هناك صفحات تتكلم على مشكلات فلسفية شديدة التخصص و صفحات أخرى تقفز بك في عواصف الفيزياء النظرية ....
لابد أن يكون موسوعيا .... فقد كتب في الكتاب مقال في اللغة و تأثير الفيزيا على اللغة و تأثير اللغة على النظرة إلى الفيزياء !!
بل و تطرق إلى موضوع السياسة في نهاية الكتاب و اختتم بالدين !
اعشق هؤلاء الموسوعيين ... متخصص يأخذ في تخصصه جائزة نوبل ثم يكتب كتاب ليتعلم منه العوام الفلسفة قبل العلم !
الكتاب يشبه لحد كبير كتاب ستفين هوكنج a brief history of time
فكلاهما تحدث عن تاريخ العلوم و تأثره بتاريخ الفلسفة و كيف واكبو التطور العلمي في الفيزياء النظرية و في تطبيقاتها .... و الجمع بين نظريتي النسبية العامة و نظرية الكم ....
انصح به للمتخصصون في العلوم لاني اتمنى ان يكون للعلماء جانب فلسفي في تفكيرهم و في أطروحاتهم .... كما أنصح به لمثقفي الفلسفة ... خاصة الفلسفة المادية و النفعية و العملية ...!
https://www.google.com.eg/url?sa=i&am...
لابد أن يكون موسوعيا .... فقد كتب في الكتاب مقال في اللغة و تأثير الفيزيا على اللغة و تأثير اللغة على النظرة إلى الفيزياء !!
بل و تطرق إلى موضوع السياسة في نهاية الكتاب و اختتم بالدين !
اعشق هؤلاء الموسوعيين ... متخصص يأخذ في تخصصه جائزة نوبل ثم يكتب كتاب ليتعلم منه العوام الفلسفة قبل العلم !
الكتاب يشبه لحد كبير كتاب ستفين هوكنج a brief history of time
فكلاهما تحدث عن تاريخ العلوم و تأثره بتاريخ الفلسفة و كيف واكبو التطور العلمي في الفيزياء النظرية و في تطبيقاتها .... و الجمع بين نظريتي النسبية العامة و نظرية الكم ....
انصح به للمتخصصون في العلوم لاني اتمنى ان يكون للعلماء جانب فلسفي في تفكيرهم و في أطروحاتهم .... كما أنصح به لمثقفي الفلسفة ... خاصة الفلسفة المادية و النفعية و العملية ...!
https://www.google.com.eg/url?sa=i&am...
February 4, 2015
17:05
----------------
الكتاب يتكلم بشكل عام عن النظريتين اللتان أحدثتا قفزة في فهمنا للطبيعة، وهما النظرية النسبية ونظرية الكم.
ويبين ارتباط الأفكار الفلسفية للفلاسفة بالفيزياء من ناحية أن الفلاسفة أتوا بأفكار ساهمت في تطور العلوم وأخرى وقفت عائق لتطورها، كما أنه من الممكن النظر إلى الأ��كار الفلسفية القديمة من منظار الفيزياء الحديثة بحيث تصبح تلك الأفكار الفلسفية متوافقة مع الفيزياء الحديثة.
ثم يتحدث الكتاب عن اللغة وكونها سببت سوء فهم كبير في فهم النظريتين، وأنها احتاجت للتطور لكي تستخدم مصطلحاتها بشكل أدق في تفسير النظريتين.
كما تكلم الكاتب عن أثر الفيزياء الحديثة في تطور الفكر البشري وبعض المشاكل السياسية التي نشأت بسبب الأسلحة الذرية والنووية ولكن بشكل موجز.
----------------
الكتاب يتكلم بشكل عام عن النظريتين اللتان أحدثتا قفزة في فهمنا للطبيعة، وهما النظرية النسبية ونظرية الكم.
ويبين ارتباط الأفكار الفلسفية للفلاسفة بالفيزياء من ناحية أن الفلاسفة أتوا بأفكار ساهمت في تطور العلوم وأخرى وقفت عائق لتطورها، كما أنه من الممكن النظر إلى الأ��كار الفلسفية القديمة من منظار الفيزياء الحديثة بحيث تصبح تلك الأفكار الفلسفية متوافقة مع الفيزياء الحديثة.
ثم يتحدث الكتاب عن اللغة وكونها سببت سوء فهم كبير في فهم النظريتين، وأنها احتاجت للتطور لكي تستخدم مصطلحاتها بشكل أدق في تفسير النظريتين.
كما تكلم الكاتب عن أثر الفيزياء الحديثة في تطور الفكر البشري وبعض المشاكل السياسية التي نشأت بسبب الأسلحة الذرية والنووية ولكن بشكل موجز.
April 5, 2017
كتاب قيم و رائع للمختصين في مجال الفيزياء و الهندسة حيث يثبت فيه الكاتب ان التطورات الحاصلة في الفيزياء اظهرت بأن الطبيعة لاتسيروفقا لقوانين (الفيزياء الكلاسيكية) و يناقش افكار الفيزياء الحديثة بطريقة فلسفية و يقارنها ببعض الافكار و التقاليد الاقدم عهدا.من الجدير بالذكر ان الكتاب نشر سنة 1958 لذلك قد يمر على القارئ بعض المعلومات كانت ان ذاك في محل شكوك و تم اثباتها تجريبيا في الوقت الحالي.الترجمه جيدة لكتاب فلسفي علمي يصنع فرقا في طريقة تفكير القارئ تجاه العلوم الطبيعية
January 9, 2025
Heisenberg writes about the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics and its philosophical implications. He also takes us through the history of philosophy of matter and how our understanding changed over centuries.
Some of the content in the book is outdated. I am also not much impressed with the writing style.
Some of the content in the book is outdated. I am also not much impressed with the writing style.
November 8, 2011
Very well written book, though the only issue is the incompleteness due to new updates within science that occur after the book has been published.
March 29, 2018
Introduction
--Physics and Philosophy
--Physics and Philosophy
May 8, 2012
The essence of quantum physics from one of it's founder. Mind blowing..
May 19, 2024
Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) è stato un fisico teorico tedesco. È universalmente riconosciuto come uno dei padri fondatori della meccanica quantistica, una delle pietre miliari della fisica moderna. Il suo contributo più famoso è il principio di indeterminazione, enunciato nel 1927. In esso si afferma che è impossibile conoscere simultaneamente e con precisione assoluta sia la posizione che la quantità di moto (ossia la velocità moltiplicata per la massa) di una particella. In termini più semplici, più accuratamente misuriamo la posizione di una particella, meno accuratamente possiamo conoscere la sua velocità, e viceversa. Questo principio non è un limite delle nostre capacità di misurazione, ma una caratteristica intrinseca della natura quantistica.
Heisenberg, con questo principio, ha rivoluzionato la nostra comprensione del mondo microscopico, dimostrando che a livello quantistico la realtà non è deterministica come nelle leggi della fisica classica, ma piuttosto probabilistica. Questa scoperta ha implicazioni profonde non solo per la fisica, ma anche per la filosofia della scienza, poiché mette in discussione la possibilità di una conoscenza completa e deterministica del mondo.
Gran parte del testo si rivolge all'analisi di questo principio e delle sue implicazioni filosofiche.
Notiamo che, in meccanica quantistica, prima che un fenomeno venga misurato, esso esiste in uno stato che possiamo definire "astratto" o "naturale". Questo stato è descritto da una funzione d'onda, che racchiude tutte le possibili informazioni sulla particella, comprese le varie probabilità di trovare la particella in differenti stati di posizione e quantità di moto.
Quando però interveniamo per misurare un fenomeno quantistico, compiamo un atto di osservazione che costringe il sistema a scegliere un valore specifico tra quelli possibili. Questo processo è noto come "collasso della funzione d'onda". Prima della misurazione, la funzione d'onda rappresenta una sovrapposizione di tutti gli stati possibili. Tuttavia, la misurazione riduce questa sovrapposizione a un singolo stato determinato.
In altre parole, il nostro atto di misurazione introduce una forzatura sul sistema quantistico, imponendo una transizione da uno stato indeterminato e probabilistico a uno stato determinato e misurabile. Questo passaggio fa sì che il fenomeno quantistico si sposti da una dimensione "naturale" di possibilità multiple a una dimensione "misurabile" e concreta, dove i valori risultanti sono univocamente determinati. Questa trasformazione, sebbene necessaria per ottenere dati e comprendere la natura, altera la realtà intrinseca del fenomeno, che in assenza di misurazione rimane in un flusso continuo di potenzialità.
Il libro esplora proprio queste implicazioni, mostrando come l'atto di misurazione non sia solo un processo passivo, ma interattivo, che modifica in modo significativo lo stato del sistema osservato. Questo concetto solleva profonde questioni filosofiche sulla natura della realtà e sulla nostra capacità di conoscerla pienamente.
Viene citato anche Bohr, che ci ricorda che, nel dramma dell'esistenza, siamo insieme attori e spettatori.
Attorno a questo nucleo concettuale gravitano alcune interessanti digressioni. Viene succintamente, ma con mirabile precisione, riportata l'evoluzione del pensiero filosofico occidentale, così come le tappe principali dello sviluppo del sapere fisico. In seno a ciò, la parte a mio avviso più interessante è quella in cui, nel 1924, Bohr, Kramers e Slater cercano di risolvere i paradossi del dualismo fra concezione ondulatoria e concezione corpuscolare, prima meramente nascosti dietro al calcolo matematico. Essi proposero il concetto di onda probabilistica: le onde elettromagnetiche venivano interpretate non come onde "reali" ma come onde di probabilità, la cui intensità determina in ogni punto la probabilità dell'assorbimento (o emissione indotta) di un quantum di luce a opera di un atomo.
Prima di allora la probabilità, in matematica o in meccanica statistica, indicava il nostro grado di conoscenza di una situazione effettiva. Invece adesso essa indica una tendenza verso qualche cosa. È una qualità dell'oggetto studiato e non un risultato della nostra mancanza di conoscenza. La si può considerare una versione quantitativa del vecchio concetto di "potenza" della filosofia aristotelica, un qualcosa a metà fra l'idea di un evento e l'evento reale.
Una cosa non può essere allo stesso tempo un corpuscolo (ovvero una sostanza limitata in un piccolissimo volume) e un'onda (un campo che si propaga per un ampio spazio), ma l'una può essere il completamento dell'altra. Questo mi ricorda la coesistenza della realtà ultima e della realtà relativa nel Buddhismo, dove la vacuità e la verità mondana sono viste come due descrizioni del medesimo fenomeno.
Più in generale, attraverso il principio d'indeterminazione ci si allontana da una mentalità binaria che distingue solo fra bianco e nero e si giunge ad apprezzare le sfumature, le possibilità, la coesistenza di stati apparentemente inconciliabili e mutualmente esclusivi.
Tutto ciò ha ricondotto il mio pensiero a un libro che amo: "Il Tao della fisica" di Fritjof Capra.
Heisenberg affronta altresì il tema del linguaggio, analizzandone genesi, natura e limiti. Riconosce inoltre come utopistica l'idea dello scienziato libero ogni volta di adattare il suo pensiero alle nuove scoperte in cui s'imbatte, poiché anch'egli sente il peso della formazione che ha ricevuto nell'arco dell'infanzia e del contesto sociale in cui vive, con i suoi credi e i suoi vincoli. Crede tuttavia che la propagazione del sapere scientifico mitigherà le differenze culturali dei vari popoli, rendendo pian piano più omogenee le diverse culture.
Nell'arco della disquisizione sull'influenza che avrà la scienza sulla politica, ho trovato illuminanti queste sue parole: "Qualsiasi onesta dichiarazione a favore della pace deve essere un'enumerazione dei sacrifici che si è disposti a fare per la sua preservazione."
In esse si manifesta, a mio avviso, la descrizione di questo grande pensatore: una mente limpida, capace di destreggiarsi in molteplici campi dello scibile umano, scevra di pomposo idealismo e sicura davanti alla verità. Valore, questo, forse fin troppo osannato, quasi come se fosse l'unico degno di essere perseguito. Questo, e in generale una innegabile pesantezza, soprattutto per chi fosse alieno a determinati studi, sono gli unici aspetti che ho contestato in seno a una lettura per il resto interessante e formativa.
Heisenberg, con questo principio, ha rivoluzionato la nostra comprensione del mondo microscopico, dimostrando che a livello quantistico la realtà non è deterministica come nelle leggi della fisica classica, ma piuttosto probabilistica. Questa scoperta ha implicazioni profonde non solo per la fisica, ma anche per la filosofia della scienza, poiché mette in discussione la possibilità di una conoscenza completa e deterministica del mondo.
Gran parte del testo si rivolge all'analisi di questo principio e delle sue implicazioni filosofiche.
Notiamo che, in meccanica quantistica, prima che un fenomeno venga misurato, esso esiste in uno stato che possiamo definire "astratto" o "naturale". Questo stato è descritto da una funzione d'onda, che racchiude tutte le possibili informazioni sulla particella, comprese le varie probabilità di trovare la particella in differenti stati di posizione e quantità di moto.
Quando però interveniamo per misurare un fenomeno quantistico, compiamo un atto di osservazione che costringe il sistema a scegliere un valore specifico tra quelli possibili. Questo processo è noto come "collasso della funzione d'onda". Prima della misurazione, la funzione d'onda rappresenta una sovrapposizione di tutti gli stati possibili. Tuttavia, la misurazione riduce questa sovrapposizione a un singolo stato determinato.
In altre parole, il nostro atto di misurazione introduce una forzatura sul sistema quantistico, imponendo una transizione da uno stato indeterminato e probabilistico a uno stato determinato e misurabile. Questo passaggio fa sì che il fenomeno quantistico si sposti da una dimensione "naturale" di possibilità multiple a una dimensione "misurabile" e concreta, dove i valori risultanti sono univocamente determinati. Questa trasformazione, sebbene necessaria per ottenere dati e comprendere la natura, altera la realtà intrinseca del fenomeno, che in assenza di misurazione rimane in un flusso continuo di potenzialità.
Il libro esplora proprio queste implicazioni, mostrando come l'atto di misurazione non sia solo un processo passivo, ma interattivo, che modifica in modo significativo lo stato del sistema osservato. Questo concetto solleva profonde questioni filosofiche sulla natura della realtà e sulla nostra capacità di conoscerla pienamente.
Viene citato anche Bohr, che ci ricorda che, nel dramma dell'esistenza, siamo insieme attori e spettatori.
Attorno a questo nucleo concettuale gravitano alcune interessanti digressioni. Viene succintamente, ma con mirabile precisione, riportata l'evoluzione del pensiero filosofico occidentale, così come le tappe principali dello sviluppo del sapere fisico. In seno a ciò, la parte a mio avviso più interessante è quella in cui, nel 1924, Bohr, Kramers e Slater cercano di risolvere i paradossi del dualismo fra concezione ondulatoria e concezione corpuscolare, prima meramente nascosti dietro al calcolo matematico. Essi proposero il concetto di onda probabilistica: le onde elettromagnetiche venivano interpretate non come onde "reali" ma come onde di probabilità, la cui intensità determina in ogni punto la probabilità dell'assorbimento (o emissione indotta) di un quantum di luce a opera di un atomo.
Prima di allora la probabilità, in matematica o in meccanica statistica, indicava il nostro grado di conoscenza di una situazione effettiva. Invece adesso essa indica una tendenza verso qualche cosa. È una qualità dell'oggetto studiato e non un risultato della nostra mancanza di conoscenza. La si può considerare una versione quantitativa del vecchio concetto di "potenza" della filosofia aristotelica, un qualcosa a metà fra l'idea di un evento e l'evento reale.
Una cosa non può essere allo stesso tempo un corpuscolo (ovvero una sostanza limitata in un piccolissimo volume) e un'onda (un campo che si propaga per un ampio spazio), ma l'una può essere il completamento dell'altra. Questo mi ricorda la coesistenza della realtà ultima e della realtà relativa nel Buddhismo, dove la vacuità e la verità mondana sono viste come due descrizioni del medesimo fenomeno.
Più in generale, attraverso il principio d'indeterminazione ci si allontana da una mentalità binaria che distingue solo fra bianco e nero e si giunge ad apprezzare le sfumature, le possibilità, la coesistenza di stati apparentemente inconciliabili e mutualmente esclusivi.
Tutto ciò ha ricondotto il mio pensiero a un libro che amo: "Il Tao della fisica" di Fritjof Capra.
Heisenberg affronta altresì il tema del linguaggio, analizzandone genesi, natura e limiti. Riconosce inoltre come utopistica l'idea dello scienziato libero ogni volta di adattare il suo pensiero alle nuove scoperte in cui s'imbatte, poiché anch'egli sente il peso della formazione che ha ricevuto nell'arco dell'infanzia e del contesto sociale in cui vive, con i suoi credi e i suoi vincoli. Crede tuttavia che la propagazione del sapere scientifico mitigherà le differenze culturali dei vari popoli, rendendo pian piano più omogenee le diverse culture.
Nell'arco della disquisizione sull'influenza che avrà la scienza sulla politica, ho trovato illuminanti queste sue parole: "Qualsiasi onesta dichiarazione a favore della pace deve essere un'enumerazione dei sacrifici che si è disposti a fare per la sua preservazione."
In esse si manifesta, a mio avviso, la descrizione di questo grande pensatore: una mente limpida, capace di destreggiarsi in molteplici campi dello scibile umano, scevra di pomposo idealismo e sicura davanti alla verità. Valore, questo, forse fin troppo osannato, quasi come se fosse l'unico degno di essere perseguito. Questo, e in generale una innegabile pesantezza, soprattutto per chi fosse alieno a determinati studi, sono gli unici aspetti che ho contestato in seno a una lettura per il resto interessante e formativa.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 205 reviews