The Physicist & Philosopher: Einstein vs. Bergson Debate

[bhobba]

Hi All

Got an interesting audiobook I am listening to right now - The Physicist and The Philosopher - a debate between Henri Bergson and Einstein - on relativity. It is conceded Einstein won. But the thing I find strange is Einstein did not bring out the best argument of all - it's basis on symmetry, but rather on simultaneity. Is this view only of recent origin and not known at that time? The book suggests it was a turning point in the rise of science as the dominant paradigm. Bergson was evidently extremely famous at the time, Einstein's fame on the rise. Later Bergson became less known and Einsteins fame soared.

Anyway so far an interesting listen, although it does contain some common misconceptions such as time stops at the speed of light.

Here is a video about it:


Thanks
Bill

 

[vanhees71]

That's indeed an interesting book. It shows why there was no Nobel prize for Einstein for his general relativty, namely because of Bergson's completely philosophical objections against Einstein's notion of time, which Bergson obviously didn't understand.

 

[bhobba]

which Bergson obviously didn't understand.

True, but somewhat surprising. Bergson was actually a good mathematician, having won prizes in his younger days for his mathematical work. He should have understood it, but something in his choice to pursue philosophy rather than mathematics (which evidently dismayed his math teachers) prevented him.

Thanks
Bill

 

[supernova1054]

Hi All

Got an interesting audiobook I am listening to right now - The Physicist and The Philosopher - a debate between Henri Bergson and Einstein - on relativity. It is conceded Einstein won. But the thing I find strange is Einstein did not bring out the best argument of all - it's basis on symmetry, but rather on simultaneity. Is this view only of recent origin and not known at that time? The book suggests it was a turning point in the rise of science as the dominant paradigm. Bergson was evidently extremely famous at the time, Einstein's fame on the rise. Later Bergson became less known and Einsteins fame soared.

Anyway so far an interesting listen, although it does contain some common misconceptions such as time stops at the speed of light.

Here is a video about it:


Thanks
Bill

I always ponder on the fact that from a photon’s point of view it is already at its destination when it is emitted and hence never existed! I have no idea what that means if anything.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, it's not even a correct description of a photon. So it means nothing.

 

[supernova1054]

How do you describe a photon?

 

[weirdoguy]

from a photon’s point of view

There is no such thing, since photons do not have rest frames.

 

[bhobba]

I always ponder on the fact that from a photon’s point of view it is already at its destination when it is emitted and hence never existed! I have no idea what that means if anything.

The mistake here is assuming the photon has a point of view. It travels at the speed of light - that's all you can say. The Lorentz Transformation's apply to inertial frames which can't travel at the speed of light because in any inertial frame light moves at the speed of light. As Wittgenstein said - Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Interestingly Wittgenstein was a student of Bertrand Russell, who thought Bergson, while acknowledging his literary skills, saw his arguments, at best, just persuasive/emotive speculation, but not at all an example of sound reasoning. Wittgenstein of course went his own way after Russell, but here we do not discuss philosophy - all I will say is the debate between Turing and Wittgenstein on the foundations of Mathematics was quite interesting.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

How do you describe a photon?

Quanta of the quantum EM field that exists everywhere.

Since this is an I level thread, the following gives the detail:
http://www.physics.usu.edu/torre/3700_Spring_2015/What_is_a_photon.pdf

Thanks
Bill

 

[martinbn]

Interesting. It may be (just a guess) that symmetries arguments became more popular after Noether, which at the time of the debate was relatively recent.

Another thing that i find interesting is that often when it comes to Philosophy vs Physics, the people on the side of physics, which often are against philosphy, are better at Philosophy than the Philosophers.

 

[bhobba]

Another thing that i find interesting is that often when it comes to Philosophy vs Physics, the people on the side of physics, which often are against philosphy, are better at Philosophy than the Philosophers.

I have noticed that as well. To be fair there are some philosophers with views I find OK. I will however not name them as it likely will spark way off topic comments.

Thanks
Bill

 

[supernova1054]

The mistake here is assuming the photon has a point of view. It travels at the speed of light - that's all you can say. The Lorentz Transformation's apply to inertial frames which can't travel at the speed of light because in any inertial frame light moves at the speed of light. As Wittgenstein said - Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Interestingly Wittgenstein was a student of Bertrand Russell, who thought Bergson, while acknowledging his literary skills, saw his arguments, at best, just persuasive/emotive speculation, but not at all an example of sound reasoning. Wittgenstein of course went his own way after Russell, but here we do not discuss philosophy - all I will say is the debate between Turing and Wittgenstein on the foundations of Mathematics was quite interesting.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks for your reply. Interesting. Of course I was being facetious about photons point of view. I’m still learning how to use this forum which is quite interesting.

 

[bhobba]

Thanks for your reply. Interesting. Of course I was being facetious about photons point of view. I’m still learning how to use this forum which is quite interesting.

No problemo. Stick around - you will learn a lot. We always welcome new members.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I am about halfway through the book now. Very interesting and defiantly on topic for this forum as far as the history of relativity goes. But personally I find the philosophy vacuous - but anyone interested can read it and make up their own mind on that aspect. Still its very interesting philosophers reaction to relativity, which IMHO mostly ignored its basis in symmetry - but they still tried. The way they did refute it is to doubt the POR, time is different to measured time and similar things. As I said make up your own mind - certainly a book worth a read though.

Thanks
Bill

 

[vanhees71]

Well, history of science sets the records straight. Who cares or even knows about Bergson today? Compare this to the fact that Einstein is well known even to nearly anybody in the broader public, and physics students all over the world learn about his theories at high school. I guess, if Bergson wouldn't have played this role in this debate about the philosophical meaning of relativity, he'd been forgotten at all.

 

[Fred Wright]

With regard to the Einstein-Bergson debate, Bergson was truly out of his league. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
... Bergson published his reflections on Einstein as Duration and Simultaneity (see Mélanges, 1972). There is some controversy surrounding this book. Bergson allowed the book to be reprinted up to the sixth edition in 1931. However Édouard Le Roy claims in a letter from 1953 (well after Bergson’s death) that he often spoke with Bergson about relativity. Le Roy says, “[Bergson] added with insistence that the defective state of his knowledge of mathematics did not allow him to follow the development of generalized relativity in the detail such a development required. Consequently [Bergson] thought it wiser to let the question drop. This is why he refused to let Duration and Simultaneity be reprinted”

 

[Sagittarius A-Star]

This is why he refused to let Duration and Simultaneity be reprinted”

But under archive.org it is still available. Interestingly, the introduction was written by Herbert Dingle, who became later a critic of SR.