einstein, entropy and anomalies

Daniel Sirtes and Eric Oberheim : Einstein, Entropy and Anomalies

Einstein, Entropy and Anomalies

Daniel Sirtes (Basel) and

Eric Oberheim (HU Berlin)


Outline

1. Einstein’s Prediction, Perrin’s Confirmation and the revision of Classical Thermodynamics

2. Kuhn’s monistic 2-phase model of scientific advance

3. Feyerabend’s in principle argument for pluralism

4. The History of Brownian Motion revisited (again)

5. Conclusions


1. Einstein’s Prediction, Perrin’s Confirmation and the

revision of Classical Thermodynamics

Einstein’s 1905 paper on Brownian Motion: (“Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen”) begins:


“If the movement discussed here can actually be observed […] then classical thermodynamics can no longer be looked upon as applicable with precision to bodies even of dimensions distinguishable in a microscope; […] On the other hand, had the prediction of this movement proved to be incorrect, a weighty argument would be provided against the molecular-kinetic conception of heat.” (Einstein, 1905)


• Einstein made quantitative predictions of Brownian Motion

• Jean Perrin confirmed these predictions experimentally (1908-1911)

• Even the most orthodox adherents of classical thermodynamics (e.g Wolfgang Ostwald) were convinced that the theory had only a limited validity and had to be revised; and that its energicist metaphysics must be omitted.


2. Kuhn’s Monistic 2-phase Model of Scientific Advance


Paradigm1

Unsolved puzzles/possible anomalies

Crisis

Revolution

Paradigm2

Unsolvable puzzle/crisis causing anomaly

Normal Science

Extra-

ordinary

Science


• Kuhn’s model is monistic– There is no need for alternatives– Normal science discovers its own anomalies

• Kuhn’s normal science is (quasi-) dogmatic:– It is neither necessary nor helpful to question

basic assumptions– Puzzle-solving generates unsolvable puzzles– Unsolvable puzzles can lead to crisis

• Kuhn’s model has 2 distinct phases– Basic assumptions should only be challenged

in crisis– Proliferation has a fruitful role only in crisis– Crisis eventually leads to a revolution


3. Feyerabend’s in principle argument for pluralism

• Feyerabend criticized Kuhn’s model, especially the idea of normal science

• Feyerabend claimed that pluralism and anti-dogma-tism are crucial elements of the scientific ethos

• Moreover, pluralism and anti-dogmatism are impor-tant to scientific progress

• Feyerabend developed the following philosophical argument for pluralism out of the history of science:


Importation of anomalies

Paradigm1 Paradigm2

Anomaly

Crisis

Paradigm2*

Problem

Solved Problem


Indirect Refutation of Classical Thermodynamics

CTD STD

ECH MKCH

BM


4. The History of Brownian Motion

revisited (again)• Ronald Laymon contests Feyerabend´s

view. He claims that even without the help of an alternative theory, it was possible to acknowledge BM as an anomaly for classical thermodynamics by excluding all other possible explanations. To substantiate his claim, he refers to Léon Gouy´s experiments of concomitant variation (1888, 1889 & 1895).

• However, Laymon does not take into account four important historical facts:


1. BM’s relevance to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was not recognized between 1828 (Brown’s Paper) and 1888 (Gouy’s Paper).

It was recognized as an anomaly only after the kinetic theory of gas was formulated by Boltzmann & Maxwell (1866).


2. Gouy was a fervent atomist. His claim to have excluded all other possible expla-nations was motivated by his atomist ideas. It was only (if at all) convincing to scientists who had already accepted atomism, and who already thought that the statistical theory of heat was superior to the energicists’ theory of thermodynamics.


3. The most widely accepted theory about BM before the turn of the century (i.e. even after Gouy’s publications) was still Sigmund Exner’s theory that BM is due to small currents in the fluid, which does not conflict with the principles of classical thermo-dynamics.


4. Henri Poincaré concluded his talk at the Congress of Arts and Sciences in St. Louis (1904) presenting Boltzmann´s ideas and Gouy’s experimental results on the exclusion of concomitant variation with these words: “I hasten to say we are not yet there, and as yet nothing proves that the principles [of classical thermodynamics] will not come forth from the combat victorious and intact”

(Poincaré, 1904)


5. Conclusions

• BM’s relevance to the 2nd Law of CTD was only established after an alternative formulation existed.

• A direct refutation of CTD’s formulation of the 2nd Law was not possible.

• An (indirect) refutation of the 2nd Law of CTD was only possible through Einstein’s predictions and Perrin’s confirmation.


5. Conclusions

• Therefore: Einstein’s explanation of BM is an example of an importation of an anomaly that could not have been detected without an alternative.

• This argument supports a plea for more pluralism in science – as otherwise potential anomalies might go undetected, hindering scientific advance.


Einstein, Entropy and Anomalies

Daniel Sirtes (Basel) and

Eric Oberheim (HU Berlin)

einstein, entropy and anomalies

Documents

crisiskuhns model

history of science

principle argument

scientific progressfeyerabend

scientific ethosmoreover

weighty argument

gouys paper

law of thermodynamics