History Of Science

"The conception of lines of force was introduced by Faraday to form a mental picture of the processes going on in the electric field. To him these lines were not mere mathematical abstractions. He ascribed to them properties that gave them a real physical significance. They terminate on opposite charges, are always in a state of tension, tending to shorten themselves, and are mutually repellent. The direction of a line of force at any point gives the direction of the field at that point. With the help of these properties of lines of force it is possible to obtain an idea of the distribution of the intensity of the field surrounding electrically charged bodies. The idea of tubes of force has been introduced to make the method of Faraday metrical rather than merely descriptive. A tube of force is obtained by drawing a number of lines of force through the boundary of any small closed curve. The lines then form a tubular surface, which, it can be proved, will never be cut by any lines of force, and the extremities of which enclose equal and opposite charges. By properly choosing the area of the surface enclosed by the curve through which the lines are drawn the extremities of the tube can be made to enclose unit charge. Such a unit tube is called a Faraday tube. Maxwell and J. J. Thomson have made an exhaustive study of these tubes of force and expressed their properties in mathematical terms. The result that interests us here is that a tube of force behaves as though it had inertia, so that in order to move a tube work must be done. This explains why a charge behaves as if it had mass. It must be remarked that the conception of tubes of forces is used here merely to aid in understanding the phenomena. Whether or not tubes of force, or even the ether, possess any physical significance is a question. Modern developments seem to indicate that this question must be answered in the negative."

"Quite undeservedly, the ether has acquired a bad name."

"The absence of effects due to the earth's motion relative to the ether can be explained on the electromagnetic theory if it is supposed that this theory covers all phenomena. This appears to be a strong argument in favor of the purely electrical nature of matter. It will be convenient now to mention the chief electrical theories of atomic structure which have been proposed."

"The significance of the contention that the laws of the several sciences are discontinuous appears chiefly when you thus regard the sciences as corresponding to stages in the process of evolution. ...that means that at certain points in the evolutionary sequence matter begins to behave in essentially new ways, develops novel properties and methods of action which were in no true sense contained in or implied by its earlier characteristics and performances. If, on the other hand, all the laws of biology and chemistry are ultimately reducible to, and deducible from, the laws of some fundamental branch of physics, that means that, in a very thorough-going sense, the first morning of creation wrote what the last dawn of reckoning shall read."

"I feel that we are so close with string theory that—in my moments of greatest optimism—I imagine that any day, the final form of the theory may drop out of the sky and land in someone's lap. But more realistically, I feel that we are now in the process of constructing a much deeper theory than anything we have had before and that well into the twenty-first century, when I am too old to have any useful thoughts on the subject, younger physicists will have to decide whether we have in fact found the final theory."

"We can describe general relativity using either of two mathematically equivalent ideas: curved space-time or metric field. Mathematicians, mystics and specialists in general relativity tend to like the geometric view because of its elegance. Physicists trained in the more empirical tradition of high-energy physics and quantum field theory tend to prefer the field view, because it corresponds better to how we (or our computers) do concrete calculations. ...the field view makes Einstein's theory of gravity look more like the other successful theories of fundamental physics, and so makes it easier to work toward a fully integrated, unified description of all the laws. ...I'm a field man."

"To see what is general in what is particular and what is permanent in what is transitory is the aim of scientific thought. ...[W]e ...endeavour to imagine the world as one connected set of things which underlies all the perceptions of all people."

"More than a hundred years have elapsed since Benjamin Franklin, employing a phraseology now superseded, put forth a theory of matter. It was pronounced "a delusion" by the physicists of the nineteenth century, but the scientists of the twentieth century, according to Sir Oliver Lodge, may be forced to rehabilitate it as the only means of issue from the labyrinth in which all physical study is now involved. ...the Franklin theory is that electricity and matter in combination form a neutral substance, which is the atom of matter as we know it. The most interesting part of the problem for ourselves, says Sir Oliver, is the explanation of matter in terms of electricity, the view that electricity is, as Franklin seems to have supposed, the fundamental "substance." What we men of to-day have been accustomed to regard as an indivisible atom of matter is thus built up out of electricity. All atoms—atoms of all sorts of "substances"—are built up of the same thing. In our day... the theoretical and proximate achievement of what philosophers from Franklin's day to ours have always sought—a unification of matter—is offering itself to physical inquiry."

"From Pappus it appears, however, that the early Mathematicians had at first some reluctance in admitting either the Conic Sections or superior curves in the solution of problems, considering them as not strictly geometrical; but afterwards these lines became objects of much curious investigation, even among the ancients; and in modern times ultimately were of the most extensive utility, both in abstract and in physical science."

"Descartes' importance for science does not lie in the details of his cosmology. His decipherment of Nature might be crude, yet he had the courage to insist that mechanical sense could be made of the workings of Nature, throughout the realms of physics, chemistry, and even physiology. By reasserting the unity and rationality of Nature, he did as much as any man to put seventeenth-century scientists back on the intellectual road first trodden by the Greeks."

"In matter-theory, as in astronomy, the Church's commitment to Aristotle was in due course to prove an embarassment. In both branches of science his speculative distinction between terrestrial and celestial matter was insecure from the very beginning. His own most loyal commentator, ... had already dreamt of a theory unifying all things, and John Philoponos... had rejected the distinction between terrestrial and celestial matter outright. Nevertheless, it was still an axiom of almost a thousand years later."

"Plato wove together separate threads from three earlier philosophers: the mathematics of Pythagoras, the atomism of Demokritos, and the four elements of Empedokles. As happens with the best scientific syntheses, the resulting theory transformed the components from which it started, and was intellectually more powerful than any of them. For these geometrical atoms differed from those of Demokritos in having a limited number of definite shapes, governed by precise mathematical theorems; and furthermore, they were no longer immutable, but could change into one another in ways that could be related back to their geometrical compositions. As a result, Plato could envisage transmutations of a kind that Demokritos did not allow for, and so introduced a new, quantitative element into the analysis of material change. ...For the regular solids can all be built up from two simple triangles... the fundamental elements of his theory."

"We only call an elephant or a bacterium an 'organism' because, by analogy we attribute to those beings a similar unification of sensation and of consciousness to that we are conscious of in ourselves; but in human societies and in humanity this essential indication is lacking, and therefore, however many other indications we may detect that are common to humanity and to an organism, in the absence of that essential indication, the acknowledgement of humanity as an organism is incorrect."

"In the year 1749 he first suggested his idea of explaining the phenomena of thunder-gusts and of the aurora borealis, upon electrical principles. He points out many particulars in which lightning and electricity agree; and he adduces many facts, and reasonings from facts, in support of his positions. In the same year he conceived the astonishingly bold and grand idea of ascertaining the truth of his doctrine, by actually drawing down the lightning, by means of sharp pointed iron rods raised into the region of the clouds. Even in this uncertain state, his passion to be useful to mankind displays itself in a powerful manner. Admitting the identity of electricity and lightning, and knowing the power of points in repelling bodies charged with electricity, and in conducting their fire silently and imperceptibly, he suggested the idea of securing houses, ships, &c. from being damaged by lightning, by erecting pointed rods, that should rise some feet above the most elevated part, and descend some feet into the ground or the water."

"Lagrange's "" is perhaps his most valuable work and still amply repays careful study. ...the full power of the newly developed analysis was applied to the mechanics of points and rigid bodies. The results of Euler, of D'Alembert, and of the other mathematicians of the Eighteenth Century were assimilated and further developed from a consistent point of view. Full use of Lagrange's own made the unification of the varied principles of statistics and dynamics possible..."

"The theories that we describe here provide the basis of progress toward a unification of macroeconomics and microeconomics."

"A scientific hypothesis may be defined in general terms as a provisional or tentative explanation of physical phenomena. But what is an explanation in the true scientific sense? The answers to this question which are given by logicians and men of science, though differing in their phraseology, are essentially of the same import. Phenomena are explained by an exhibition of their partial or total identity with other phenomena. Science is knowledge; and all knowledge, in the language of Sir William Hamilton is a "unification of the multiple." "The basis of all scientific explanation," says Bain, "consists in assimilating a fact to some other fact or facts. It is identical with the generalizing process." And "generalization is only the apprehension of the One in the Many." Similarly Jevons: "Science arises from the discovery of identity amid diversity," and "every great advance in science consists in a great generalization pointing out deep and subtle resemblances." ...the author just quoted in another place: "Every act of explanation consists in detecting and pointing out a resemblance between facts, or in showing that a greater or less degree of identity exists between apparently diverse phenomena." All this may be expressed in familiar language thus: When a new phenomenon presents itself to the man of science or to the ordinary observer, the question arises in the mind of either: What is it?—and this question simply means: Of what known, familiar fact is this apparently strange, hitherto unknown fact a new presentation—of what known, familiar fact or facts is it a disguise or complication? Or, inasmuch as the partial or total identity of several phenomena is the basis of classification (a class being a number of objects having one or more properties in common), it may also be said that all explanation, including explanation by hypothesis, is in its nature classification. Such being the essential nature of a scientific explanation of which an hypothesis is a probatory form, it follows that no hypothesis can be valid which does not identify the whole or a part of the phenomenon, for the explanation of which it is advanced, with some other phenomenon or phenomena previously observed. This first and fundamental canon of all hypothetical reasoning in science is formally resolvable into two propositions, the first of which is that every valid hypothesis must be an identification of two terms—the fact to be explained and a fact by which it is explained; and the second that the latter fact must be known to experience."

"In both quantum theory and general relativity, we encounter predictions of physically sensible quantities becoming infinite. This is likely the way that nature punishes impudent theorists who dare to break her unity. ...If infinities are signs of missing unification, a unified theory will have none. It will be what we call a finite theory."

"Einstein’s dissent from quantum mechanics and immersion in the search for a unified field theory were not failures but anticipations. After all, even if many string theorists would disagree with Einstein about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, much of what goes on in string theory these days looks a lot like what Einstein was doing in his Princeton years, which was trying to find new mathematics that might extend general relativity to a unification of all the forces and particles in nature."

"In Newton's system of mechanics... there is an absolute space and an absolute time. In Einstein's theory time and space are interwoven, and the way in which they are interwoven depends on the observer. Instead of three plus one we have four dimensions."

"There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind."

"Science itself is badly in need of integration and unification. The tendency is more and more the other way … Only the graduate student, poor beast of burden that he is, can be expected to know a little of each. As the number of physicists increases, each specialty becomes more self-sustaining and self-contained. Such Balkanization carries physics, and indeed, every science further away, from natural philosophy, which, intellectually, is the meaning and goal of science."

"Mathematics and logic, historically speaking, have been entirely distinct studies. Mathematics has been connected with science, logic with Greek. But both have developed in modern times: logic has become more mathematical and mathematics has become more logical. The consequence is that it has now become wholly impossible to draw a line between the two; in fact, the two are one. They differ as boy and man: logic is the youth of mathematics and mathematics is the manhood of logic. This view is resented by logicians who, having spent their time in the study of classical texts, are incapable of following a piece of symbolic reasoning, and by mathematicians who have learnt a technique without troubling to inquire into its meaning or justification. Both types are now fortunately growing rarer. So much of modern mathematical work is obviously on the border-line of logic, so much of modern logic is symbolic and formal, that the very close relationship of logic and mathematics has become obvious to every instructed student. The proof of their identity is, of course, a matter of detail: starting with premises which would be universally admitted to belong to logic, and arriving by deduction at results which as obviously belong to mathematics, we find that there is no point at which a sharp line can be drawn, with logic to the left and mathematics to the right. If there are still those who do not admit the identity of logic and mathematics, we may challenge them to indicate at what point, in the successive definitions and deductions of Principia Mathematica, they consider that logic ends and mathematics begins. It will then be obvious that any answer must be quite arbitrary."

"Maxwell got a huge bonus for understanding the unification of electricity and magnetism. He understood the nature of light! When I first heard about this in high school I thought this was the coolest thing, and I still do. It's what we're all trying to do."

"Now what is science? ...it is before all a classification, a manner of bringing together facts which appearances separate, though they are bound together by some natural and hidden kinship."

"A third stage appears between 7 and 8, which we shall call the stage of incipient cooperation. Each player now tries to win, and all, therefore, begin to concern themselves with the question of mutual control and of unification of the rules. But while a certain agreement may be reached in the course of one game, ideas about the rules in general are still rather vague. In other words, children of 7-8, who belong to the same class at school and are therefore constantly playing with each other, give, when they are questioned separately, disparate and often entirely contradictory accounts of the rules observed in playing marbles."

"Ever since Hermann Minkowski's now infamous comments in 1908 concerning the proper way to view space-time, the debate has raged as to whether or not the universe should be viewed as a four-dimensional, unified whole wherein the past, present, and future are regarded as equally real or whether the views espoused by the possibilists, historicists, and presentests regarding the unreality of the future (and, for presentests, the past) are more accurate. Now, a century after Minkowski's proposed block universe first sparked debate, we present a new, more conclusive argument in favor of eternalism."

"It is the opinion of all competent authorities that the fundamental principles of Kant's philosophy declare against the possibility of a unification of knowledge."

"All the early thinkers sought with wonderful perseverance the knowledge of the First Cause. The of Aristotle, though they had been separately recognized, had not all been proclaimed necessary. Aristotle... gave his chief attention to the solution of the problem of First Causes. He maintained that there were four, as follows: First, the Material Cause, or Essence; second, the Substantial [or Formal] Cause; third, the Efficient Cause, or the principle of motion; fourth, the Final Cause, or the Purpose and End."

"The Pythagoreans were the first who attempted a complete classification of the facts of the universe. Their effort, though feeble, was in the right direction; for the first principle of perception is analysis, or classification; and knowledge can never be unified until an ultimate or complete analysis has been performed."

"The unification of knowledge is the natural consequence of the intellectual and moral development of the race."

"In early physical systems we have optics dealing with phenomena perceived by the eye; acoustics treating of auditory percepts, and so on. The subjective concepts of "tone" and "colour" have now been replaced by the objectified concepts of frequency of vibration; and wave-length. The object of this process of elimination is, according to Planck, the striving towards a unification of the whole theoretical system, so that it shall be equally significant for all intelligent beings."

"The most immediate result of this unbalanced specialisation has been that to-day, when there are more "scientists" than ever, there are much less "cultured" men than, for example, about 1750. And the worst is that with these turnspits of science not even the real progress of science itself is assured. For science needs from time to time, as a necessary regulator of its own advance, a labour of reconstitution, and, as I have said, this demands an effort towards unification, which grows more and more difficult, involving, as it does, ever-vaster regions of the world of knowledge. Newton was able to found his system of physics without knowing much philosophy, but Einstein needed to saturate himself with Kant and Mach before he could reach his own keen synthesis."

"Since the ancients made great account of the science of Mechanics in the investigation of natural things; and the moderns, laying aside substantial forms and occult qualities, have endeavoured to subject the phænomena of nature to the laws of mathematics; I have in this treatise cultivated Mathematics... The ancients considered Mechanics in a twofold respect; as rational, which proceeds accurately by demonstration, and practical. To practical Mechanics all the manual arts belong, from which Mechanics took its name. But as artificers do not work with perfect accuracy, it comes to pass that Mechanics is so distinguished from Geometry, that what is perfectly accurate is called Geometrical, what is less so is called Mechanical. But the errors are not in the art, but in the artificers. ...the description of right lines and circles, upon which Geometry is founded, belongs to Mechanics. ...To describe right lines and circles are problems, but not geometrical problems. The solution of these problems is required from Mechanics; and by Geometry the use of them, when so solved, is shewn. And it is the glory of Geometry that from those few principles, fetched from without, it is able to produce so many things. Therefore Geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal Mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. But since the manual arts are chiefly conversant in the moving of bodies, it comes to pass that Geometry is commonly referred to their magnitudes, and Mechanics to their motion. In this sense Rational Mechanics will be the science of motions resulting from any forces whatsoever and of the forces required to produce any motions, accurately proposed and demonstrated. ...we consider chiefly those things which relate to gravity, levity, elastic force, the resistance of fluids, and the like forces whether attractive or impulsive. And therefore we offer this work as mathematical principles of philosophy. For all the difficulty of philosophy seems to consist in this, from the phenomena of motions to investigate the forces of Nature, and then from these forces to demonstrate the other phenomena."

"In whatever they focus on, physicists seek the simplicity in complexity and the unity in diversity. Like philosophers, their intellectual siblings, they are driven by the conviction that the universe is within the human power to understand and that if you look beneath its variety and intricacy, you will find comprehensible rules."

"In both Newton's theory and Maxwell's theory the unification consists, partly, in showing that two different processes or phenomena can be identified, in some way, with each other—that they belong to the same class or are the same kind of thing. Celestial and terrestrial objects are both subject to the same gravitational-force law, and optical and electromagnetic processes are one and the same. Because each of these theories unifies such a diverse range of phenomena, they have traditionally been thought to possess a great deal of explanatory power."

"The object of the book is philosophical, in the sense now accepted by many and by divergent schools—i.e., it desires to contribute something towards a unification of thought."

"The agreement of the results seems to show that light and magnetism are affections of the same substance, and that light is an electromagnetic disturbance propagated through the field according to electromagnetic laws."

"Velocity of transverse undulations in our hypothetical medium, calculated from the electromagnetic experiments of 'MM'. Kohlrausch and Weber, agrees so exactly with the velocity of light calculated from the optical experiments of M. Fizeau, that we can scarcely avoid the conclusion that light consists in the transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena."

"Nature does not begin with elements, as we are obliged to begin with them. It is certainly fortunate... that we can... turn aside our eyes from the over powering unity of the All, and allow them to rest on individual details. But we should not omit, ultimately, to complete and correct our views by a thorough consideration of the things which for the time being we left out of account."

"Heraclitus. ...change and incessant movement is the basis, and the only basis, of all things and that what is illusory is the idea of a central, or indeed of any other, unity: the Universe is a stream of incessant and infinitely minute changes. The Atomists. From this springs naturally the atomistic theory of Leucippus and Democritus. This theory is an endeavour to give a sort of solidity and reality to the mutability of Heraclitus, whilst retaining his controversial advantages in the denial of an all-embracing One. The veritable original of things is taken by these Atomists to be, not one, but innumerable, indefinitely minute, homogeneous atoms, the mere mechanical combination of which makes up the variety of nature."

"Theoretical physicists today have some ideas on how to combine the strong and electroweak forces, and hope eventually to include gravity in a single unified theory of all forces. The very meaning of "unification" in this context is that one harmonizing theoretical structure, mathematical in form, should be made to accommodate formerly distinct theories under one roof. Unification is the theme, the backbone of modern physics, and for most physicists what unification means in practice is the uncovering of tidier, more comprehensive mathematical structures linking separate phenomena."

"I feel that controversies can never be finished, nor silence imposed upon the Sects, unless we give up complicated reasonings in favour of simple calculations, words of vague and uncertain meaning in favour of fixed symbols [characteres]. Thus it will appear that 'every paralogism is nothing but an error of calculation. When controversies arise, there will be no more necessity for disputation between two philosophers than between two accountants. Nothing will be needed but that they should take pen in hand, sit down with their counting-tables and (having summoned a friend, if they like) say to one another: Let us calculate.'"

"Group theory is the mathematical language of symmetry, and it... seems to play a fundamental role in the very structure of nature. ...In the midst of the fomenting of the new twentieth century physics was the... life of the greatest female mathematician who ever lived, Emmy Noether. ...At Göttingen, Noether achieved fame for her research into the fundamental structure of mathematics. However, she stepped briefly into the realm of theoretical physics... is a profound statement, perhaps running as deeply into the fabric of our psyche as the famous theorem of Pythagoras. Noether's theorem directly connects symmetry to physics, and vice versa. It frames our modern concepts about nature and rules modern scientific methodology. ...For scientists it is the guiding light to unraveling nature's mysteries, as they delve into the innermost fabric of matter ...To this task scientists apply ...the great s ...Emmy Noether's work interweaves our understanding of nature—through physics and mathematics—with the beauty and harmony that surrounds us... Noether's theorem provides a natural centerpiece for any discussion that unifies physics and mathematics, such as in the teaching of these... in a way that enlivens them both."

"As long as algebra and geometry travelled separate paths their advance was slow and their applications limited. But when these two sciences joined company, they drew from each other fresh vitality and thenceforward marched on at a rapid pace towards perfection. It is to Descartes that we owe the application of algebra to geometry,—an application which has furnished the key to the greatest discoveries in all branches of mathematics."

"Klein showed that the Reimannian species of non-Euclidean geometry can be developed in a fashion completely analogous to the Lobachevskian type by choosing an "imaginary" absolute, that is, an "imaginary" point pair or conic, and an imaginary value of the constant k. Euclidean geometry can also be treated in the same way by choosing a "degenerate" point pair or conic."

"To define distance in their non-Euclidean geometries, Cayley and Klein proceeded by analogy with a discovery of Laguerre... who had shown that the distances and angles of ordinary Euclidean geometry can be expressed as cross ratios, in other words, that the Euclidean metric geometry is clearly a specialization of projective geometry. The concept of the "absolute" and the definition of distance unified Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries into a single all-embracing theory."

"The decisive step leading to the construction of precise and verifiable scientific theories in place of vague and largely speculative accounts was the involvement of mathematics. This step was made by the Pythagoreans. ...In their philosophy of nature the Pythagoreans began with the principle that number is the essence of all substance. ...forms reduced to numbers. Since number is the essence of any object, the explanation of natural phenomena could be achieved only through number. ...Whether by a lucky stroke or by intuitive genius the Pythagoreans did hit upon two doctrines which later proved to be all important. The first is that nature is built in accordance with mathematical principles, and the second that number relationships reveal the order in nature. They underlie and unify the seeming diversity exhibited by nature."

"To the scientists of 1850, Hamilton's principle was the realization of a dream. ...from the time of Galileo scientists had been striving to deduce as many phenomena of nature as possible from a few fundamental physical principles. ...they made striking progress ...But even before these successes were achieved Descartes had already expressed the hope and expectation that all the laws of science would be derivable from a single basic law of the universe. This hope became a driving force in the late eighteenth century after Maupertuis's and Euler's work showed that optics and mechanics could very likely be unified under one principle. Hamilton's achievement in encompassing the most developed and largest branches of physical science, mechanics, optics, electricity, and magnetism under one principle was therefore regarded as the pinnacle of mathematical physics."

"The mathematician and versatile scientist Pierre L. M. de Maupertuis, a keen student if Newton's work on gravitation, made the next decisive step. Like Euler, Maupertuis studied under John Bernoulli. ...After having worked in the theory of light and gravitation, he announced, in 1744, a new minimum principle, the Principle of Least Action, from which he claimed he could deduce the behavior of light and masses in motion. The principle asserts that nature always behaves so as to minimize an integral known technically as action, and amounting to the integral of the product of mass, velocity, and distance traversed by a moving object. From this principle he deduced the Newtonian laws of motion. With sometimes suitable and sometimes questionable interpretation of the quantities involved, Maupertuis managed to show that optical phenomena, too, could be deduced from this principle. Hence, to an extent at least, he succeeded in uniting the optics of the eighteenth century and mechanical phenomena."