History Memorable quotes in the history of physics

[hutchphd]

Lets get the classics out:

Well then let us not forget Applied Physics

Oppenheimer:
"Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds"

Dom Perignon:
"Brothers, I am drinking the stars!"

oopsy : Brothers

 

[marcusl]

This is another follow up in my campaign to have a separate forum for history of science. Similar to my on-going thread Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics? this one would be about specific quotes.

What are some of the memorable quotes said by physicists? [I will allow mathematicians this time]

See also this thread for other quotes:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...l-about-the-minds-of-great-scientists.767804/

 

[Hornbein]

Well then let us not forget Applied Physics

Oppenheimer:
"Now I am become Death, destroyer of worlds"

Dom Perignon:
"Bothers, I am drinking the stars!"

?

 

[pines-demon]

Dom Perignon:
"Bothers, I am drinking the stars!"

If I Wikipedia is right, this is apocryphal and was used in advertisements in the 19th century...

 

[hutchphd]

Well that's disappointing.....a high point of monastic culture reduced to a catchphrase. Don Draper actually does rule the world

 

[sbrothy]

Always found this pretty poetic. Also, it establishes perspective.

"The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended: some few red wisps, ashes, and smoke. Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the slow fading of the suns, and we try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."

-- George Lemaître

 

[sbrothy]

This one is worthy of qoutation too... It's about the "demon core" 1946 accident at Los Alamos involving Dr. Louis Slotin. From reading the article I seem to pick up that security was a little lax, but I won't be the judge of that. Pretty dark stuff though...

EDIT:

Forgot the real source of the qoutation:

While he was waiting for death in his hospital room at Los Alamos the authorities issued a special citation which was read to him (Canada's History):

“Dr. Slotin’s quick reaction at the immediate risk of his own life prevented a more serious development of the experiment which would certainly have resulted in the death of the seven men working with him, as well as serious injury to others in the general vicinity. He had that to think about as the darkness closed in.”

 

[pines-demon]

This one is worthy of qoutation too... It's about the "demon core" 1946 accident at Los Alamos involving Dr. Louis Slotin. From reading the article I seem to pick up that security was a little lax, but I won't be the judge of that. Pretty dark stuff though...

EDIT:

Forgot the real source of the qoutation:

While he was waiting for death in his hospital room at Los Alamos the authorities issued a special citation which was read to him (Canada's History):

“Dr. Slotin’s quick reaction at the immediate risk of his own life prevented a more serious development of the experiment which would certainly have resulted in the death of the seven men working with him, as well as serious injury to others in the general vicinity. He had that to think about as the darkness closed in.”

Speaking of this incident, there is also Slotin own first reaction just after having seen the blue light and opened the core:

Well, that does it.

Reference:

• L. Calloway, "Nuclear Naiveté", Albuquerque Journal (1995)

as remembered by his colleague Raemer Schreiber

 

[sbrothy]

Yeah sorry. Don't know what happened. It got posted before I found the real source. I have to stay away from those public computers. I have no idea what the people setting them up was thinking when they did it. I mean what possible security hole do they think they closed by disabling copy/paste?

Anyway, thank you.

 

[sbrothy]

Speaking of this incident, there is also Slotin own first reaction just after having seen the blue light and opened the core:

Reference:

• L. Calloway, "Nuclear Naiveté", Albuquerque Journal (1995)

as remembered by his colleague Raemer Schreiber

"Well that does it."

Reminds me of this quote (which I don't know the source of):

"Succint is verbose for terse."

"Laconic" might fit in there too. :P

 

[sbrothy]

Always found this pretty poetic. Also, it establishes perspective.

"The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended: some few red wisps, ashes, and smoke. Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the slow fading of the suns, and we try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."

-- George Lemaître

In general, I think George Lemaître is very quotable, and had a unique perspective with his theological approach to physics. I'm an atheist myself. I think that when we die it's like turning off a light switch; eternal oblivion, but I appreciate a little metaphysics in my ontology.

 

[fresh_42]

In general, I think George Lemaître is very quotable, and had a unique perspective with his theological approach to physics. I'm an atheist myself. I think that when we die it's like turning off a light switch; eternal oblivion, but I appreciate a little metaphysics in my ontology.

"Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses." ~ Georges Lemaitre

 

[BillTre]

"Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses." ~ Georges Lemaitre

Not an unreasonable approach. However, I'm not religious in any way.
It is not an outlook that blocks communication with those with contrary opinions.

About a year ago one of my best friends died. He was such a case. We had very similar interests except he was religious, went to church and sang in choirs.
Sometimes we discussed religion related issues like what happens when you die and how life was initiated as well as a lot of normal scientific issues. These were fun discussions.

 

[Hornbein]

"If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses."

Heaven would then be occupied solely by physics PhDs. It would be a lot like PhysicsForums. Reader may judge whether this would be an improvement.

I once tried to read the doctrine of the Trinity. It is truly abstruse. I got the impression it was constructed by a committee who wanted to show respect for everyone's views. If no one could understand the doctrine then no one could be offended by it. It's kind of clever....

CJ Jung wrote that he couldn't understand it. He hoped that when he received his first Communion his clergyman father would reveal the truth. But Dad said, "Sorry son, I never was able to understand the doctrine of the Trinity."

It is a fact of human psychology that belief in this doctrine that no one understood was considered critically important. This is proof that in human society it is of no importance to understand what you believe in. Your true role is to pretend that you believe in it. So I suppose the way it would work is that when Saint Peter at the gates of Heaven asks whether you believe in relativity you just bow your head and say "Yes, by all that is holy."

For such disbelief Isaac Newton was in danger of losing his chair at Trinity College. Other noted disbelievers included George Washington -- who wisely kept quiet about this and kept attending Trinity Church -- Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.

 

[pines-demon]

The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.

• Karl Popper, Ch. 2 "On the Problem of a Theory of Scientific Method", Section XI: Methodological Rules as Conventions, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

 

[fresh_42]

• Karl Popper, Ch. 2 "On the Problem of a Theory of Scientific Method", Section XI: Methodological Rules as Conventions

I have this book, and it contains a facsimile (plus a fair copy, since Einstein had terrible handwriting) with a letter from Einstein as a response to Popper's book. There is an interesting comment about quantum physics:

In my opinion, the current, essentially statistical description [of quantum physics, ed.] is only a transitional stage.

Einstein was definitely no friend of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle!

Edit: I think it is the same book, but I'm not sure. Mine is "Logik der Forschung" (Logic of Resaerch). And I was surprised that Einstein didn't use Sütterlin.

 

[pines-demon]

Arhur Eddington:

The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

The Nature of the Physical World (1928)

 

[sbrothy]

Stumbled across this one by Friedrich Gauss. It kinda reveals his view on philosophy:

"When a philosopher says something that is true then it is trivial. When he says something that is not trivial then it is false."
---- Friedrich Gauss

Brought a little smile to my face.

 

[sbrothy]

This one by David Hilbert perhaps reveals that he lived in another, maybe more simple, time:

"A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street."
---- David Hilbert (1862-1943)

I'd like to see him explain the Standard Model, or "just" QED or QCD to even a smart John or Jane Doe. I suspect it would end in frustration, if not outright violence.

EDIT:

@martinbn pointed out, rightly, that these are not mathematical theories, so... bad examples I guess. Thanks @martinbn

 

[sbrothy]

Not an unreasonable approach. However, I'm not religious in any way.
It is not an outlook that blocks communication with those with contrary opinions.

About a year ago one of my best friends died. He was such a case. We had very similar interests except he was religious, went to church and sang in choirs.
Sometimes we discussed religion related issues like what happens when you die and how life was initiated as well as a lot of normal scientific issues. These were fun discussions.

Yeah, it's not impossible to have a good exchange with a religious person, but talking to some of them is like discussing reality with a psychotic. Which reminds me of this qoute:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and wont change the subject."
---- Winston Churchill

Not a physics one, I know, but kinda applicable anyway. Sadly I might say.

And now I'm on the non-physics ones this one is my absolute favorite:

"
-- You Sir, will either die upon the gallows or of a social disease.
-- That depends, Sir, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress.
"

This one's been attributed to so many people I'm not sure who's the correct one. See e.g.:

Origin of above quote

 

[martinbn]

This one by David Hilbert perhaps reveals that he lived in another, maybe more simple, time:

"A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street."
---- David Hilbert (1862-1943)

I'd like to see him explain the Standard Model, or "just" QED or QCD to even a smart John or Jane Doe. I suspect it would end in frustration, if not outright violence.

Well, these are not mathematical theories, and he only said that you can explain it to the first person, not that this person should be able to understand it.

 

[sbrothy]

Well, these are not mathematical theories, and he only said that you can explain it to the first person, not that this person should be able to understand it.

Yeah OK. bad examples, I admit. But if "explain to X" doesn't mean "making X understand", then what does it mean? Performing a monologue?

 

[Hornbein]

Yeah, it's not impossible to have a good exchange with a religious person, but talking to some of them is like discussing reality with a psychotic. Which reminds me of this qoute:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and wont change the subject."
---- Winston Churchill

Not a physics one, I know, but kinda applicable anyway. Sadly I might say.

And now I'm on the non-physics ones this one is my absolute favorite:

"
-- You Sir, will either die upon the gallows or of a social disease.
-- That depends, Sir, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress.
"

This one's been attributed to so many people I'm not sure who's the correct one. See e.g.:

Origin of above quote

The article says Samuel Foote replying to the 4th Earl of Sandwich.

These bon mots always get streamlined and if uttered by the nonfamous are then misattributed to others if more fame. I'm all right with that. One of the misattributed repliers here is John Wilkes, quite a character.

He was a member of the Knights of St Francis of Wycombe, also known as the Hellfire Club or the Medmenham Monks, and was the instigator of a prank that may have hastened its dissolution. The club had many distinguished members, including John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich and Sir Francis Dashwood. Wilkes reportedly brought a mandrill, dressed in a cape and horns and his natural features made even more striking with daubs of phosphorus, into the rituals performed at the club, producing considerable mayhem among the inebriated initiates.[7]

Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.

My fave is "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." It was actually "Hell is paved with good intentions," spoken by Samuel Johnson. Back in those days before telephones people socialized at dinner parties. If like Samuel one could come up with such zingers off the cuff one could eat out every night. If you were a true social lion you could visit five such gatherings in a single night.

In the early days of the telephone such communication was considered rude. The form of a polite request was to take the trouble to show up at someone's house unannounced and present your card. The butler might untruthfully inform you that Misses Higginbotham was not at home. Should you be received then you would be escorted to the parlor, a sort of decompression chamber where you cooled your heels while the host or hostess dressed for the occasion. The mansion of a well-healed socialite would include a ballroom, put to good use as often as 'twas practical.

In London the mail was delivered four or five times a day. When visiting new lands it was essential to carry letters of recommendation in order to gain entrance to higher circles. Circulating there were charming con men and characters such as Franz Mesmer, Benjamin Franklin, Friedrich Nietzsche, or young Albert Einstein. Scandalous love affairs were frowned upon but secretly approved of as delectable grist for the rumor mill. The real rule was that while unmarried women must remain chaste, after having been wedded and produced a male heir then anything was fair game. Lustful women would marry so that once having done their duty they could join in on the fun.

In in the Vienna of Austria-Hungary the maid was expected to introduce male progeny into the art of love. Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel personally experienced this in the 1920's. Hey, I'm on topic.

More on John Wilkes may be viewed at https://science1arts2and3politics.substack.com/p/history-meet-john-wilkes

 

[sbrothy]

The article says Samuel Foote replying to the 4th Earl of Sandwich.

These bon mots always get streamlined and if uttered by the nonfamous are then misattributed to others if more fame. I'm all right with that. One of the misattributed repliers here is John Wilkes, quite a character.




My fave is "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." It was actually "Hell is paved with good intentions," spoken by Samuel Johnson. Back in those days before telephones people socialized at dinner parties. If like Samuel one could come up with such zingers off the cuff one could eat out every night. If you were a true social lion you could visit five such gatherings in a single night.

In the early days of the telephone such communication was considered rude. The form of a polite request was to take the trouble to show up at someone's house unannounced and present your card. The butler might untruthfully inform you that Misses Higginbotham was not at home. Should you be received then you would be escorted to the parlor, a sort of decompression chamber where you cooled your heels while the host or hostess dressed for the occasion. The mansion of a well-healed socialite would include a ballroom, put to good use as often as 'twas practical.

In London the mail was delivered four or five times a day. When visiting new lands it was essential to carry letters of recommendation in order to gain entrance to higher circles. Circulating there were charming con men and characters such as Franz Mesmer, Benjamin Franklin, Friedrich Nietzsche, or young Albert Einstein. Scandalous love affairs were frowned upon but secretly approved of as delectable grist for the rumor mill. The real rule was that while unmarried women must remain chaste, after having been wedded and produced a male heir then anything was fair game. Lustful women would marry so that once having done their duty they could join in on the fun.

In in the Vienna of Austria-Hungary the maid was expected to introduce male progeny into the art of love. Nobel Prize winner Eric Kandel personally experienced this in the 1920's. Hey, I'm on topic.

More on John Wilkes may be viewed at https://science1arts2and3politics.substack.com/p/history-meet-john-wilkes

Sorry for taking this thread completely off track. I'm not going to link to Wikipedia but documentation for this should be ease to find (if not so simple to understand):

What I've come to understand is that in Japan house numbering goes by architectural technicalities, so have virtually nothing to do with geography. Imagine delivering post in Japan! The first few times must be a nightmare!

 

[Hornbein]

What I've come to understand is that in Japan house numbering goes by architectural technicalities, so have virtually nothing to do with geography. Imagine delivering post in Japan! The first few times must be a nightmare!

Japanese side streets don't have names. Instead each city is divided into sections of maybe 30 blocks. Each block has a number. There isn't any particular pattern to this number. Then there is a secondary number for the house which doesn't necessarily have a pattern either. Sometimes there will be a sign with a map that has all the block numbers and even the names of the inhabitants of each house. But how does anyone find the sign?

I can attest that the inhabitants can't deal with it either, even if the place you are looking for is only a few blocks away. Such an orderly nation with this random system....

 

[sbrothy]

Japanese side streets don't have names. Instead each city is divided into sections of maybe 30 blocks. Each block has a number. There isn't any particular pattern to this number. Then there is a secondary number for the house which doesn't necessarily have a pattern either. Sometimes there will be a sign with a map that has all the block numbers and even the names of the inhabitants of each house. But how does anyone find the sign?

I can attest that the inhabitants can't deal with it either, even if the place you are looking for is only a few blocks away. Such an orderly nation with this random system....

Yeah, it's quite a contrast to the picture one ordinarily have of Japan.

 

[Hornbein]

Yeah, it's quite a contrast to the picture one ordinarily have of Japan.

It IS an extremely orderly nation. Sometimes it's hard to believe unless you experience it personally.

 

[Hornbein]

Well, these are not mathematical theories, and he only said that you can explain it to the first person, not that this person should be able to understand it.

Yeah OK. bad examples, I admit. But if "explain to X" doesn't mean "making X understand", then what does it mean? Performing a monologue?

I guess the idea is that you have to be able to make someone understand it. It's OK to chose the ideal understander. Conversely, if you cannot explain it to the ideal understander then likely you yourself do not have a clear understanding (or are just plain old wrong).

Right now I'm using ChatGPT to write a computer program that will do hypergeometry. With AI the whole game is describing clearly what I want.

 

[sbrothy]

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think

"[...] the first man whom you meet on the street [...]"

sounds like choosing the ideal understander.

 

[fresh_42]

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think

"[...] the first man whom you meet on the street [...]"

sounds like choosing the ideal understander.

I think Hilbert was right. His quotation means, either you can describe your theory by the crucial elements that led to the results, or you haven't understood the crucial elements yourself. He certainly didn't mean to explain all technical elements of QED or QCD.