Skip to main content

Einstein and Heisenberg - Konrad Kleinknecht ***

The debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr over quantum physics are well documented, as are the letters that Einstein exchanged with Max Born on the subject, from which many of Einstein's famous quotes are taken. However, less has been said about the opposing views of Einstein and Werner Heisenberg. To make matters more interesting, though both were German physicists, while Einstein would leave Germany forever as a result of the rise of the Nazis, Heisenberg would continue to thrive under the Nazi regime, working on the failed attempt to create a German nuclear weapon.

With this interesting background in mind, I was looking forward to reading Konrad Kleinknecht's book, subtitled 'the controversy over quantum physics'. There is no doubt that Kleinknecht, a professor of experimental physics, knows the science, and there is some interesting material on the development of quantum physics, particularly around the distinction of approach between more philosophical types like Bohr and the more practically-minded approach of some of the other physicists working in the field.

One problem with the book is the way that the timeline jumps around. Heisenberg was a generation younger than Einstein, so the attempt to develop pictures of them in parallel results in a fractured view of the history. For example, we go straight from what Heisenberg was doing in 1921 to Einstein's annus mirabilis of 1905. Later on, it's almost as if we transition to a different book that has been added on to the rest. From chapter 5 onwards there was a significant amount of material that has already been mentioned in earlier chapters. This book would benefit from a good edit.

Another issue is that there is variability in the accuracy of content. One of the good things about Kleinknecht's approach is that he gives us interesting background material, such as a photograph of the Einstein home in Munich and the original manuscript of the uncertainty principle. These parts feel well-researched and with the precision we would expect from an academic. But then, in describing Einstein's paper 'Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content', Kleinknecht tells us the form in which Einstein presented the information from his most famous equation, but uses E and c, where Einstein used L and V. It would have been both interesting and more accurate to mention this.

Kleinknecht goes on to say 'And further, he writes: "An appreciable decrease in the mass of the radium must result. This observation is amusing and intriguing; but whether the Lord God laughed about it, and has been leading me around by the nose is something I cannot know."' The trouble is, in producing this equation, Einstein wasn't talking about radium, and the closest he comes in the paper is to say 'Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. salts of radium).' While Einstein may have written the remarks attributed to him by Kleinknecht, it wasn't in this paper.

A couple of other examples. The Big Bang is said to be 13.8 billion years ago in one part of the book and 13.2 billion in another. And the historical context is way out when we are told that the idea of nuclear fusion in the stars 'was recognised by Hans Albrecht Bethe and Carl-Friedrich von Weizsäcker in 1937' when Eddington suggested fusion was the power source of stars in 1920. There is something of a mix of over-simplification of the history and lack of explanation of technical complexities. For example, on the over-simplification side, there is no mention of Hilbert's attempt to beat Einstein in coming out with a general relativity paper first, and the description of Heisenberg's role in the war would have benefited from content from the transcripts of the secretly recorded Farm House discussions after the war. A good example of the over-use of technical terms without sufficient explanation was when we are told 'In two communications to the Annalen Der Physik on the quantisation as an Eigen-value problem, Schrödinger extended this conception by showing one could construe the Bohr electron orbits in the atom by requiring the the length of the orbit be a [sic] integer multiple of the wavelength, that is, that the electron waves fit within the orbit.' This could do with considerable unpacking in a book that is supposed to be accessible to non-physicists.

Overall, then, there is some good content here, but this book really needs a thorough edit to put it into final form.

Paperback:

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more