Once Upon Einstein

Abstract

Thibault Damour is a theoretical physicist, and a member of the French Academy of Sciences. This book is the translation, by Eric Novak, of the original French Si Einstein m'etait conté (Le Cherche Midi, 2005). It is neither a book of theoretical physics nor a biography of Einstein. It is not a book of history nor philosophy of science. In Damour's words it was written to encourage the reader to share with Einstein `those times when he understood some part of the hidden order of the universe'. It is a relatively short book, written in a very fluent style, but it deals with all the major problems and achievements of Einstein's works.Starting from special relativity, it continues with general relativity, quantum theories, unified field theory and a brief overview of the actual research related to Einstein's legacy.It is essentially a popular science book with some related exploration in history and philosophy to interpret physical theories. The most important problem discussed by Damour is the nature of time. On this subject, there is a very interesting short paragraph (pp 33--35) dedicated to the reception of the relativity idea by the great writer Marcel Proust and its counterpart within À la Recherche du Temps Perdu. A correct discussion of the implications of a relativistic time should imply the distinction of the different possible interpretations of this concept. Damour seems to conclude that only one interpretation is possible: `time does not exist', flowing of time is an illusion. One has to know that Einstein's ideas on time were related to Spinoza's perspective of a knowledge sub specie aeternitatis. However, other interpretations are possible and are related to the idea of time as an actuality. Damour speaks about the controversy between Einstein and Bergson, but Bergson is considered as a philosopher who did not understand relativity.This philosophical problem of relativistic time is indeed related to a historical problem briefly discussed by Damour (pp 17--21, 48--52 and related endnotes): had Henri Poincaré constructed a special relativistic dynamics before Einstein? There is a long debate on this subject in the literature. Damour's answer is negative and his conclusions seem related to the conservation of a myth of Einstein, that is, the rise of special relativity is considered as a creatio ex nihilo within Einstein's mind and Einstein is considered as the only genius able to conceive the relativity of time. Poincaré's texts are undervalued and misunderstood by Damour's cutting quotations from their context. Damour never quotes La Science et l'Hypothèse (1902): we know it was read by Einstein and here Poincaré first (within chapters already published as separate papers in 1900) stated the relativity of time and of simultaneity. Damour never quotes Poincaré's paper published on 5 June 1905, La dynamique de l'èlectron, which presents the first relativistic dynamics, invariant by Lorentz transformations. Poincaré's (July 1905) introduction of a quadrimensional space-time is considered by Damour only a mathematical artifice (p 51) and Damour never said that Minkowski took this idea from Poincaré! Poincaré's interpretation of relativistic time implies that it is not an illusion but a complex net of different real flows related to different processes.Poincaré and Einstein had different conceptions of Nature at the root of special relativity: respectively an electromagnetic conception (Poincaré) and a semi-mechanist one (Einstein). Thus, the (philosophical) meaning of relativity can be very different from the one presented by Damour.Furthermore, Damour accepts Kantian philosophy as a key to understanding relativity and quantum theories. This perspective seems to me very anachronistic and based on a misunderstanding: an interpretation of 20th century physical theories (relativity and quantum physics) is given within the framework of an 18th century philosophical perspective, created to give a foundation to Newton's theory. Relativity and quantum physics imply a breakdown of Kantian philosophy (see, for instance, G Bachelard's La Philosophie du Non). Relativity of space and time was considered possible only by overcoming the epistemological obstacle of Kantian idealistic foundation of Euclidean geometry and of Newton's absolute space and time. Relativity and quantum theories turn up not only the hierarchy between mathematics and physics, but also between epistemology (and logic) and physics: quantum physics implies not only a new conception of an indeterminate and unpredictable Nature, but a quantum logic too, that is, it implies a change in our way of thinking and knowing. When will the revolutionary impact of 20th century physics be reduced (by physicists themselves) to an already given philosophical framework?