Transcript Niels Bohr, greatest physicist of the 20th century

The development during the present century is characterized by
two theoretical systems essentially independent of each other:
the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. The two systems
do not directly contradict each other; but they seem little adapted
to fusion into one unified theory. For the time being we have to
admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for
physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation. If,
then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics
cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely
invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? I answer
without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and
that we are capable of finding it. I hold it true that pure thought
can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.
-- Albert Einstein, second greatest physicist of the 20th century,
1954
Man on TV: Tonight, on FOX: 'When Dinosaurs Get Drunk'...
Homer: Hmmm... (The dinosaur walks into the tar pit.)
Homer: Heh, heh, heh. Oh, I've been there, man.
Man on TV: ...has been cancelled.
Homer: Huh???
Man on TV: Instead, we bring you 'The Boring World of Niels Bohr'.
Homer: *splats his ice cream sandwich at the TV* My ice cream sandwich!
AND WHERE THE HELL IS THE REMOTE? *talks angrily and tears the couch*
-- Dialogue from "I am a Furious Yellow", Episode #DABF13 of "The Simpsons"
It is wrong to think that the task of
physics is to find out how Nature is.
Physics concerns what we say about
Nature.
-- Niels Bohr, greatest physicist of the 20th century
"A new scientific truth does not establish itself by its enemies being
convinced and expressing their change of opinion, but rather by its
enemies gradually dying out and the younger generation being taught
the truth from the beginning.” -- Max Planck
"... an act of despair ... I was
ready to sacrifice any of my
previous convictions about
physics …”
“a purely formal assumption ...
actually I did not think much
about it..."
What are scientific paradigms and how do they change?
The Bohr-Einstein Debate/Discussion/Exchange on
Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1935 (and beyond)
Søren
Kierkegaard
Ernst Mach
“The more I think about the
physical portion of
Schrodinger's theory, the
more repulsive I find
it...What Schrodinger writes
about the visualizability of
his theory 'is probably not
quite right,' in other words
it's crap.”
“I knew of [Heisenberg's]
theory, of course, but I
felt discouraged, not to
say repelled, by the
methods of
transcendental algebra,
which appeared difficult
to me, and by the lack of
visualizability.”
Since my talks with Bohr often
continued till long after midnight and
did not produce a satisfactory
conclusion, ...both of us became
utterly exhausted and rather
tense…
I had no faith in a theory that
ran completely counter to our
Copenhagen conception.
--Heisenberg, recollection
Solvay Conference 1927
?
Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrodinger,
Stockholm train station 1933
Niels sez…
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.
Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation,
but as a question.
How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have
some hope of making progress.
No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical.
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the
opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
Never express yourself more clearly than you think.
We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say
what is up and what is down. The word “reality” is also a word, a
word which we must learn to use correctly.
When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry.
The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as
with creating images.
“In order to think,
one must
exaggerate.
-- Niels Bohr
“It is therefore not, as is
often assumed, a question
of reinterpretation of
quantum mechanics—the
present system of quantum
mechanics would have to
be objectively false, in
order that another
description of the
elementary processes than
the statistical one be
possible.”
“The von Neumann proof, if
you actually come to grips
with it, falls apart in your
hands! There is nothing to
it. It’s not just flawed, it’s
silly!...When you translate
[his assumptions] into terms
of physical description,
they’re nonsense. You may
quote me on that: The proof
of von Neumann is not
merely false but foolish!”
J. Von Neumann, 1932,
proving the impossibility of
“hidden variable” theories.
J.S. Bell, commenting on his
1964 paper