Grete Hermann - Between Physics and Philosophy

285 Pages·2017·4.111 MB·English

by  Bacciagaluppi, Guido;Crull, Elise

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42
Elise Crull
Guido Bacciagaluppi Editors
Grete Hermann
- Between
Physics and
Philosophy
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Volume 42
General Editor
Stephen Gaukroger, University of Sydney
Editorial Advisory Board
Rachel Ankeny, University of Adelaide
Peter Anstey, University of Otago
Steven French, University of Leeds
Koen Vermeir, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven
Ofer Gal, University of Sydney
Clemency Montelle, University of Canterbury
John Schuster, Campion College & University of Sydney
Richard Yeo, Griffith University
Nicholas Rasmussen, University of New South Wales
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5671
Elise Crull Guido Bacciagaluppi
(cid:129)
Editors
Grete Hermann - Between
Physics and Philosophy
123
Editors
Elise Crull GuidoBacciagaluppi
Department ofPhilosophy Descartes Centrefor the History and
TheCity University ofNew York Philosophyof the Sciences andthe
NewYork,NY Humanities
USA Universiteit Utrecht
Utrecht
TheNetherlands
ISSN 0929-6425 ISSN 2215-1958 (electronic)
Studies in History andPhilosophy of Science
ISBN978-94-024-0968-0 ISBN978-94-024-0970-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-024-0970-3
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016949571
©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2016
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:VanGodewijckstraat30,3311GXDordrecht,TheNetherlands
Preface
Our project of a volume on Grete Hermann was born quite fortuitously out of a
larger project on the historical debates surrounding the 1935 paper by Einstein,
Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR), and our collaboration on that project was born even
morefortuitouslyoutofabreakfastconversationinBerlinbetweenoneofus[GB]
and Don Howard, then Ph.D. advisor of the other [EC].1 GB was mentioning to
Don that he wanted to publish a book centred around Erwin Schrödinger’s corre-
spondence about EPR from the summer and autumn of 1935, specifically with
Einstein, Bohr, Born, Pauli, and Teller. GB mentioned it might be fun to include
also a translation of a little-known reply to EPR that Heisenberg had drafted but
neverpublishedandwastuckedaway,inGerman,inanot-so-perfecttranscription,
in Volume 2 of Pauli’s scientific correspondence (Pauli 1985). Don—always keen
to launch new avenues of exploration and collaboration—said that as a matter of
fact he had a graduate student [EC] who was just then working on a translation
of the ‘other’ response to EPR, and why did we not pool our efforts together?
Despitesomeobviousgeographicalobstacles(ECthenattheUniversityofNotre
DameandGBattheUniversityofSydney),afruitfulcollaborationstarted,resulting
inajointpaperatHQ-2(BacciagaluppiandCrull2009)andanonlineversionofour
translationoftheHeisenbergmanuscript(BacciagaluppiandCrull2011).GB’smove
totheUniversityofAberdeen,Scotland,andagenerousgrantfromtheLeverhulme
Trust made things smoother: EC moved to Aberdeen on a two-year Leverhulme
postdoc,andthetrustfundedthreerichsummersofourresearchattheMaxPlanck
InstituteinBerlin,whereweenjoyedthewonderfulhospitalityofChristophLehner
andhisquantumgroup.Tocutalongstoryshort,themainendproductoftheproject
willsoonbecompleted(BacciagaluppiandCrullexpected2018),butourdigginginto
EPR hit a rich vein (among several) that we had not quite expected, namely Grete
Hermann.Inhisdraftreply(andthelettertoPaulithataccompaniedit),Heisenberg
1Thismeetingoccurred duringHQ-1,thefirstofagreatseriesofconferencesontheHistoryof
Quantum Physics, part of a collaboration between the Max Planck Institute for the History of
ScienceinBerlinandanumberofotherinternationalresearchersandgroups.
v
vi Preface
mentionedtheaffinityofhispositionwiththatputforwardbyHermanninherthen
veryrecentessayon‘DienaturphilosophischenGrundlagenderQuantenmechanik.’
Lookingintoitandrelatedmaterial,wewerestruckbytheimportanceofthismaterial,
andtheHeisenbergsideofourresearchsoonincludedasubstantialengagementwith
GreteHermann.
Hermann’snamecontinuedtoappearinavarietyofcontexts,andwedecidedto
organise a workshop on her work and figure. The purpose of the workshop would
betobringtogetherscholars—aswellascolleagues—ofHermanninordertobegin
building a more coherent narrative about her life and work, and the relevance
of these to an array of disciplines: philosophy, physics, ethics, pedagogy, and
politics,tolistbutafew.Thetimingforsuchaworkshopwasalsoidealinvirtueof
coinciding with the vibrant international research programme into the history of
quantum mechanics and its interpretation. Additionally, we were seeing a marked
resurgence in interest regarding Kant’s treatment of the physical sciences and
neo-Kantianapproaches tophilosophy ofscience,two keyareas for understanding
Hermann’s wider philosophic concerns.
The present volumeisinlarge part aproduct ofthisworkshop, which washeld
attheUniversityofAberdeeninearlyMayof2012.Asonecanseefromthelistof
contributors and the schedule of the workshop included with it, recent scholarly
workonHermannwaspresentedbyphysicists,historians,philosophersofscience,
andphilosophersandeducatorsfollowinginHermann’ssteps.Notonlyweretalks
given shedding light on Hermann’s academic and political work, but workshop
attendees were privileged to hear about the personal side of Hermann from erst-
while colleagues and others who knew her, during the panel and general discus-
sions. We invited Rene Saran and Dieter Krohn as people who had worked with
Hermann herself and also invited Fernando Leal and Giulia Paparo as experts on
Hermann’sphilosophicalbackground.LénaSoler,Thomas Filk,MélanieFrappier,
and Michiel Seevinck were invited to speak on work they had done regarding
Hermann’s philosophy of physics.
Muchgoodandlivelydiscussiontookplaceoverthetwodaysoftheworkshop,
and we would be remiss not to extend warm thanks to non-presenting participants
who brought extra richness to the discussion by offering different insights and
knowledge of Hermann. In particular, and in no particular order, we wish to thank
Patricia Shipley (Birkbeck College London) and Sally Redfern (King’s College
London) for their insights into the practical side of Hermann’s teaching, Martin
Jähnert from the Max Planck Institute’s quantum group (MPIWG, Berlin), Gregor
Schiemann (Bergische Universität Wuppertal), with his expertise on both
Heisenberg and natural philosophy, Roberto Angeloni (SPHERE, Paris), and Tom
Scott and Danny McShane (Aberdeen).
Inadditiontocontributionsfromworkshopparticipants, thisbookalso includes
translations of Hermann’s main essay on quantum mechanics—that of 1935—as
wellasthetranslationofahitherto‘lost’manuscriptonindeterminism,from1933.
WehavealsoincludedinthisvolumeanEnglishtranslationofabiographicalessay
on Hermann written by Inge Hansen-Schaberg.
Preface vii
WebegininPartIwiththisbiographicalsketchofHermann,whichaidsinone’s
appreciation of Hermann’s varied accomplishments and deep commitments to
particular principles of thought, life, and action. Hers was a full life, indeed. After
being introduced to the overall trajectory of Hermann’s life, the volume continues
with contributions by Fernando Leal and Giulia Paparo, who highlight (respec-
tively) Hermann’s training under Nelson as a member of the Friesian neo-Kantian
schoolandtheimportanceofthenaturalphilosophicaltraditioninHermann’swork.
In Part II, we present contributions treating Hermann’s philosophy of quantum
mechanics.ThefirstchapterinthispartisbyLénaSoler,oneoftheearliestscholars
torecognisetheimportanceofHermann’sworkinthisareaandbringittotheeyes
of other scholars—not only by editing (with introduction and postface) a French
translation of Hermann’s 1935 essay (Hermann 1935/1996), but also through her
analyses of Hermann’s philosophy (cf. Soler 2006, 2009). The two following
chapters by Thomas Filk and Mélanie Frappier provide detailed analyses of
Hermann’streatmentofHeisenberg’sfamousc-raythoughtexperiment,butinvery
different lights: whereas Filk compares Hermann’s treatment of the microscope
thought experiment to Weizsäcker’s published account of the same, Frappier
considersthec-raymicroscopeasadialecticaltoolused—tosometimesconflicting
ends—by several authors writing at the time of Hermann.
Michiel Seevinck continues the careful investigation of Hermann’s philosophy
of physics in his contribution on Hermann’s discussion of von Neumann’s
well-known proof against hidden variables. Seevinck compares Hermann’s logical
parsingofvonNeumann’sprooftothatcarriedoutbyJ.S.Bellinthe1960s.After
Seevinck’schapter, we turn away from detailed analysis of Hermann’s1935essay
in order to introduce Hermann’s newly discovered 1933 essay on determinism in
quantum mechanics. In this chapter (by EC and GB), we provide an overview of
this fascinating new work and compare it to her 1935 essay. We also situate this
1933paperinhistoricalcontextandconsidertheimplicationsofherhavingsentthe
manuscript to Dirac, Heisenberg, Bohr, and Gustav Heckmann for their feedback.
Afterthisbriefforayintothe1933paper,wereturntothe1935essaywithachapter
byGBcomparingBohr’s‘single-slit’thoughtexperimenttoHermann’smicroscope
and also considering the role of measurement in Bohr, Hermann, and alongside
similar thinking about measurement from Pauli. In the final chapter of Part II, EC
argues that if one considers as fundamental and central to the whole 1935 essay
Hermann’s specific thesis regarding the relative context of observation uniquely
necessitatedbyquantummechanics,novelaspectsofthepapercometolight—among
these,amorenuanced,KantianreadingofBohr’scomplementarityandcorrespon-
dence principles, fascinating insights into the quantum–classical divide, and the
thorough-going‘splittingoftruth’stemmingfromobservationalcontextuality.
PartIIIofthevolumeiscomprisedofthetwotranscriptsofthepaneldiscussion
(with panellists Dieter Krohn, Rene Saran, and Fernando Leal) and the general
discussion held during the Hermann Workshop.
Finally,PartIVpresents,forthefirsttime,Englishtranslationsofthefollowing:
aletterfromGustavHeckmanntoGreteHermanndiscussingthelatter’s1933essay
anditsreceptionbyHeisenbergandothersinCopenhagen,Hermann’s1933essay,
viii Preface
‘Determinism and Quantum Mechanics,’ and her 1935 essay, ‘Natural-
Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.’ All references and quotes
fromHermann’s1933and1935essaysmadeelsewhereinthisvolumerefertoour
English translations, as given here.
TheprimaryhopeofthisvolumeistobringHermanntotheattentionofawider
audience—thatscholarsfromvariousdisciplinesrelevanttoherworkwillcontinue
to explore her significance in their respective contexts. We are encouraged to see,
even in the years since the workshop was held, increased interest in Hermann’s
work. In particular, a German volume put together by Kay Herrmann is forth-
coming(Herrmann2017),whichwillincludefurtheressaysonHermannaswellas
portionsofhercorrespondenceandallhermainworksinmathematics,foundations
of physics, and philosophy of science.
Much interesting work remains to be done on the fascinating life and work of
Grete Hermann, including the following:
(cid:129) Exploring Hermann’s as yet uncharted philosophical discussion of relativity
(Hermann1937)andbringing outtheunderlyingunitybetweenherphilosophy
of science and the rest of her work.
(cid:129) The unifying framework within which Hermann situated her thinking is pro-
vided by Jakob Friedrich Fries’ reading of Kant, as mediated by Leonard
Nelson.Indeed, itappearsthatHermannsawheranalysisofmodernphysicsas
confirming Fries’ own interpretation of Kant’s transcendental idealism. In so
doing, Hermann developed the Friesian approach well beyond Nelson himself,
who died in 1927 and never addressed the challenges posed to Kantianism by
modernphysics.Futureprojectsmightfruitfullyseektosubstantiatethesepoints
in detail.
(cid:129) Besides situating it within the Friesian lineage, the evaluation of Hermann’s
neo-Kantian position will further require comparing her with other prominent
neo-Kantians of the day, such as Reichenbach, Cassirer, and Schlick (with the
last of whom Hermann was engaging directly; cf. Hermann 1936). It also may
be significant that Reichenbach, too, had studied with Noether and had sub-
stantial contacts with Nelson’s circle (Milkov 2013).
(cid:129) Hermann’s position may be further applied to modern Kantian debates. For
instance,Soler(Chap.4)suggeststhatoneofthelessonsofHermann’sworkliesin
howtosubjectasystemlikeKant’stothetestofhistory,i.e.inhowtranscendental
idealismiscompatiblewiththehistoricaldevelopmentofscience.Hermann’swork
isalsodirectlyrelevanttothemoderndebatesaboutaKantian-inspiredunification
of the physical sciences in their necessary and deterministic aspect with the life
sciencesintheirteleologicalaspect(cf.,e.g.,Friedman1992,2013;Zuckert2007;
Massimi2008;MassimiandBreitenbach2016).
(cid:129) Hermann’sanalysisofcausationplaysacrucialrolebothinhermainpaperson
quantum mechanics and in her fundamental paper on ethics of 1953,
‘Conquering Chance’ (Henry-Hermann 1953). Regarding the latter, one-time
WittgensteinexecutorPeterWinch—whotranslatedthepaper(Henry-Hermann
Preface ix
1991)—reportedly stated it was better than anything Wittgenstein himself had
written on the subject. This aspect of her work bears further investigation.
(cid:129) Finally,Hermann’searliestyearswerespentdoingresearchinpuremathematics
under Emmy Noether, in the unique social and political environment of the
Göttingen of the 1920s. Possible research questions on this aspect of Hermann
include understanding her interactions with specific personalities during this
time period (in particular Noether and indirectly Hilbert) and examining the
direct connection between Nelson and Hilbert. Nelson claimed that his work
wasinpartinspiredbyHilbert,andHilbertisknowntohavestronglysupported
Nelson within the faculty. The interplay between the mathematical and philo-
sophical circles at the university is worth exploring and as yet has not been
investigated in sufficient depth.
It goes without saying that a project of this scope is certain to generate a sub-
stantiallistofthanksdue.WeextendheartfeltgratitudetothestaffattheChurchill
Archives Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge, where one of us [GB] located the
‘lost’1933manuscript.BotheditorswishtothanktheLeverhulmeTrust,asalarge
portion of this work was made possible through their generous support (Research
ProjectGrantF/00152/AN).TheHermannWorkshopwouldnothavebeenpossible
without financial assistance from the Centre for the History and Philosophy of
Science, Technology and Medicine at the University of Aberdeen, the School of
Divinity, History and Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen, the Scots
Philosophical Association, the Mind Association, and the British Society for the
PhilosophyofScience;wearegratefulforthesupportprovidedbyeach.Weextend
ourthanksonceagaintothewholequantumgroupattheMaxPlanckInstituteforthe
History of Science in Berlin and to Don Howard for suggesting that we begin this
fruitfulcollaboration.ImportantworkonChaps.8and10wascarriedoutwhileone
of us [EC] held a postdoctoral research position from 2013 to 2014 at the Hebrew
University’sEdelsteinCenter.ShewishestothankOrlyShenkerandmembersofthe
Edelstein Center, as well as folks at the Einstein Archives, for their support—both
financial and academic—during that time. Lisa Frach and Tom Scott are owed
thanks for their important behind-the-scenes contributions to the present volume:
Lisa Frach produced a lovely translation into English of Hansen-Schaberg’s biog-
raphyofHermann(Chap.1),FeddeBenedictuspreparedtheindexandhelpedwith
theproofs,andTomScottrecordedandthentirelesslytranscribed,notonlythepanel
and general discussions from the workshop, but also the Q&A sessions after each
talk.Weareindebtedtoyoufortakingonthispainstakingbutimportantpartofthis
project, Tom! Finally, we would like to thank Stephen Gaukroger as well as Lucy
Fleet and her staff at Springer for their patience, encouragement, and tireless
championingofthesortofcrucial,interdisciplinaryworkwehaveaimedtoprovide
inwhat follows.
New York City Elise Crull
Utrecht Guido Bacciagaluppi
July 2016