Higher Speculations: Grand Theories and Failed Revolutions in Physics and Cosmology
- Downloads：9303
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-10-07 09:54:53
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Helge Kragh
- ISBN：0198726376
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Throughout history， people have tried to construct 'theories of everything': highly ambitious attempts to understand nature in its totality。 This account presents these theories in their historical contexts， from little-known hypotheses from the past to modern developments such as the theory
of superstrings， the anthropic principle， and ideas of many universes， and uses them to problematize the limits of scientific knowledge。 Do claims to theories of everything belong to science at all？ Which are the epistemic standards on which an alleged scientific theory of the universe - or the
multiverse - is to be judged？ Such questions are currently being discussed by physicists and cosmologists， but rarely within a historical perspective。 This book argues that these questions have a history and that knowledge of the historical development of 'higher speculations' may inform and qualify
the current debate on the nature and limits of scientific explanation。
of superstrings， the anthropic principle， and ideas of many universes， and uses them to problematize the limits of scientific knowledge。 Do claims to theories of everything belong to science at all？ Which are the epistemic standards on which an alleged scientific theory of the universe - or the
multiverse - is to be judged？ Such questions are currently being discussed by physicists and cosmologists， but rarely within a historical perspective。 This book argues that these questions have a history and that knowledge of the historical development of 'higher speculations' may inform and qualify
the current debate on the nature and limits of scientific explanation。
Reviews
Reiche
，
The character development was so goooood！
Sharon
，
Loved this fabulous book！
Britney
，
I found the characters， the drama and the whole storyline to be very sensational and engaging。
Golda
，
Stupendous！ Next one please！
Hutcherson Ratings
，
I loved getting to know the various characters。 Exciting and difficult to put down。
Ehmann
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 okey
Moe Balaly
，
As so many sciences have been improved based on uncertain theories， it was amazing to see how many theories are developed by their proponent。 But mostly were wrong from very first step so we never heard them in any school。 Somehow this book a new eyeglasses for science 2。0 version。
esplovago
，
It is astonishing to see how many theories were developed and strongly defensed by their proponent。 However， they turned out （or they were from the beginning） wrong and contemporary physics students never hear about them。These stories are worth reading in order to avoid that fashions dominate physics and science: other authors are warning the community about this risk （see https://www。goodreads。com/book/show/3。。。）。 It is astonishing to see how many theories were developed and strongly defensed by their proponent。 However， they turned out （or they were from the beginning） wrong and contemporary physics students never hear about them。These stories are worth reading in order to avoid that fashions dominate physics and science: other authors are warning the community about this risk （see https://www。goodreads。com/book/show/3。。。）。 。。。more
Marcin
，
Całkiem dobrze się czyta choć jak dla mnie za mało fizyki， a za dużo filozofii。Jak na tak wysoką cenę， książka fatalnie wydana， byle jaki papier i miękka okładka przy książce za 99 zł to brak szacunku dla czytelnika。
Doctor Moss
，
Speculation may be a driving force of scientific progress， but it also leads scientists into almost existential crises。 When theories outrun observation and testing， driven by pure mathematics， or by thought experiments， or by reformations of existing theories and data， scientists wonder whether they are still doing science。 Or are they doing something else， something “philosophical” or religious， or just plain invalid？Kragh’s book takes us through some historical examples of these big theories， Speculation may be a driving force of scientific progress， but it also leads scientists into almost existential crises。 When theories outrun observation and testing， driven by pure mathematics， or by thought experiments， or by reformations of existing theories and data， scientists wonder whether they are still doing science。 Or are they doing something else， something “philosophical” or religious， or just plain invalid？Kragh’s book takes us through some historical examples of these big theories， and then on to discussions of more contemporary examples， such as string theory， multiverse theory， cyclic universe theories， and anthropic reasoning。 I’m in awe of his detailed knowledge of these theories and their historical contexts。 Some， like the vortex theory of Victorian science， were almost unknown to me。 Others， like Eddington’s cosmologies， have aspects and motivations I had known little or nothing about。 The theories themselves are fascinating — that’s just what makes cosmology so compelling。 But what’s poignant throughout the book is the tension between “good science” and speculation。“Good science” is roughly Popperian science — truly scientific theories must be testable， if not technically “falsifiable”， in Popper’s sense。 Good scientists produce theories that generate predictions that can be tested empirically， in the lab or in field observations。 But not all theories fit neatly into the picture of good science。 Contemporary string theory may be the most glaring example， but theorists struggle to produce testable predictions from many well-known and certainly interesting theories， like cyclical or multiple universe theories。 There has always been a rationalist strain in cosmological thinking， if not in physics and astronomy generally。 Rationalism has taken different forms， from Descartes on through to modern mathematical physicists like Dirac。 These are theorists who follow a path of logical or mathematical reasoning， to determine what the universe must be like — Dirac is especially noted for having valued the beauty of mathematics as a key to understanding the universe even in opposition to empirical evidence。There has been a another very interesting strain of rationalism that Kragh does a great job of highlighting。 Eddington， and others， sought a priori knowledge of the structure of the universe via something you might characterize as Kantian rationalism。 Kant produced a revolution in philosophical epistemology with his claim that our intelligible experience of the world， what makes the world understandable at all， is in part a structure provided by （human） reason。 His claim was in fact a response to failures in empiricist accounts of knowledge — that more than just sense impressions， or what we could characterize as the “content” of experience， is required in order to render the world intelligible to us。Eddington and others capitalized on similar insights to claim that we can derive features of the experienced universe in an a priori manner， that the universe must have certain structural features in order for us， or for physicists， to understand it at all。 A trivial， by appearance， example that Kragh cites is that the laws of nature must be consistent over time and place。 Otherwise scientific method， specifically the repeatability of experiments， would not work — we couldn’t repeat an experiment at another time， in another place， and expect the same results。Modern mathematical physicists certainly do not cite Kant as a forebear in pursuing mathematical threads to produce elaborate theories like string theory， or multiverse theory。 But they do seem to be following the insight that either our understanding of the universe or the universe itself is given to us in purely mathematical terms， an insight behind the “mathematical rationalism” that Kragh attributes to Eddington， E。 A。 Milne， and others。Such theories， and the reasoning that produces them， raises the fundamental question， what are the legitimate sources of our knowledge about the universe？ Physicists and cosmologists could， on Popperian grounds， answer the question in such a way as to restrict legitimate knowledge to the observable and testable。 But that stance in itself may imply a questionable metaphysics — that all of reality is observable and testable by humans。 What if cyclical universe theory is true， or multiverse theory， but not even in principle observable by us？ Big cosmological theories attest to an apparently irresistible urge to understand the universe as a whole。 And that urge is not easily confined to strict method。 Kragh even cites the romanticism of early nineteenth century German thought， Schelling in particular， as a challenge to the empirical scientist’s ownership of cosmological understanding。 Perhaps aesthetic considerations， or human emotions， provide a key to cosmological knowledge。 And you don’t have to be a German romantic to think such thoughts — Freeman Dyson， as Kragh， recounts， rejected the heat death theory of the universe’s ultimate fate， on the grounds that such an end to the possibility of life in the universe is just unacceptable。Physicists， as Kragh says， can have a tendency toward intellectual insularity， claiming this big question about the nature of the universe to be theirs and theirs alone。 Members of the physics community， like Eddington or like Frank Tipler （of anthropic cosmological principle fame）， incur the wrath of the good scientist when they stray from those roughly Popperian boundaries of observability and testability。 I have to say it’s a bit ironic that physicists characterize those transgressions as “philosophical” in nature， as if to say， in polite terms， that non-scientific speculation may well have a place in the world， but it is in another less legitimate realm， like philosophy， where strict standards aren’ t required。 In fact， actual philosophy， as practiced by professional philosophers， is not so free-wheeling as they think。 The kind of speculation deemed “philosophical” by such physicists is rarely undertaken by philosophers， but more commonly by people like physicists practicing as amateurs without a license。This is a very good book — not easy reading。 The material is dense， and Kragh is not what I would term a “popularizer”。 There are equations， there are historical references， there are technical and complex issues — so get ready for some serious reading。But I take from my own reading a couple of very important issues that Kragh’s work has helped me to see much more clearly。One is the tension — maybe an unavoidable tension — within scientific cosmology between speculative and empirical science。 The question that cosmologists address is big， and speculation may be both necessary to progress and constantly in need of some sort of containment — the question is what sort of containment is truly legitimate。The other is whether cosmology is truly best left to （scientific） cosmology。 If the question is， what is the nature of the universe， is that really “just” a scientific question？ Or should scientists listen more carefully and embrace the standards of disciplines other than their own， and ways of experiencing the universe other than those deemed legitimate by Popperian science？ 。。。more
Byung Kyu Park
，
From my Amazon Review （written when I was halfway through the book; still correct）:TITLE: Should be a required to reading for all budding theoretical physicists---great insight into process of discovery in physics！REVIEW: If you ever heard the phrase "whig history" （with history of science as a primary example）， you know that history of physics as you learn in classes is an incomplete history， revised to fit the pedagogical purposes， with many of the non-illustrative dead ends and blind alleys o From my Amazon Review （written when I was halfway through the book; still correct）:TITLE: Should be a required to reading for all budding theoretical physicists---great insight into process of discovery in physics！REVIEW: If you ever heard the phrase "whig history" （with history of science as a primary example）， you know that history of physics as you learn in classes is an incomplete history， revised to fit the pedagogical purposes， with many of the non-illustrative dead ends and blind alleys of once-contemporary research programs removed， in the final version that is told to budding physicists and engineers。This is all fine and good when you are training future engineers and even many experimental physicists （physicists make terrible historians anyway）， but for those engaged in fundamental physics research， aimed at discovering new laws of nature， this standard treatment of "history" of physics leaves a large gap in what you ought to know as a worker in a field of few successes and many failures。This is the book that fills in that gap。 It does not shy away from discussing failures of many prominent physicists （such as the better-known numerology of Sir Arthur "Adding One" Eddington）， and it is comprehensive enough to include some speculations that were barely considered scientific even in their time。Although in parts， I felt I enjoyed the book more because of my training in physics （I am a physics instructor at a San Francisco Bay Area community college）， but the book is accessible to anyone with basic understanding of science （if you understand the importance of "falsifiability" to science， then I think you understand and know enough to enjoy this book）。 。。。more
Xander
，
A very interesting book， surprisingly so。 Prior to reading this I thought this book would offer some overview of historical ideas about physics/cosmology。 Nothing could be further from the truth: Kragh offers very detailed and in-depth case studies of the major historical and contemporary attempts of unification of diverse physical theories。 The first part of the book is historical。 Kragh selects: Descartes' vortex theory， Boscovich's atomic theory， the German Naturphilosophie movement， the 19th A very interesting book， surprisingly so。 Prior to reading this I thought this book would offer some overview of historical ideas about physics/cosmology。 Nothing could be further from the truth: Kragh offers very detailed and in-depth case studies of the major historical and contemporary attempts of unification of diverse physical theories。 The first part of the book is historical。 Kragh selects: Descartes' vortex theory， Boscovich's atomic theory， the German Naturphilosophie movement， the 19th century's vortex theory of matter （Kelvin， Pearson， Michelson）， early 20th century's electrical worldview （Mie， Hilbert， Weyl） and rationalistic cosmophysics （Milne， Eddington， Dirac）。 Kragh also looks at the steady state theory （Hoyle， Bondi， Gold） and at S-matrix theory or bootstrap programme （Heisenberg）。 The common theme to all these different theories is that they're all defunct research programmes。 High ambitions， few results。In the second part Kragh sketches the development of modern approaches: time-varying constants （gravitation， fine structure， speed of light）， cyclical universes （Steinhardt and Turok's ekpyrotic model）， the anthropic principle （Carter）， the multiverse hypothesis， string theory （Schwarz-Green， Witten's M-theory）， quantum gravity loops。 Besides these interesting speculations， Kragh also explains the role of cosmobiology and physical eschatology in modern day science （which amounts to nothing but scholastic debate）。 The most interesting part of the book is the final chapter （13） where Kragh summarizes all these earlier ideas and gives his own philosophical analysis of these speculations。 Almost all modern theories of everything are nothing but mathematics - which brings us to importand questions about the very nature science。 What constitutes science？ What is 'the' scientific method？ Is a mathematical model which is not testable （a priori） a description of reality？ What can it possibly mean to say that there are 10。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000。000 （and then some） universes - each with its own unique set of laws and constants？I'm no physicist， but it seems to me that people like Tegmark （who claims that the only reality that exists is mathematical） are doing very interesting things， but it has nothing to do with science。 At the end of the day， this is a epistemological question， which goes back to Plato - and therefore gives the illusion that we haven't really progressed。 But then， if you look back at the scientific progress we made， it is absolutely amazing！ I really like the fact that this book leaves the reader with more questions （about science， about reality， about what it means to be human） than it gives answers。 I was about to give this book four stars， but I will give this book its full five stars。 Thank you Helge Kragh， for these wonderful insights！（Note: this book puts more popular books by authors like Krauss， Greene and Kaku in much needed perspecitive。 The general public might believe each "theory that explains eveything" or get tired of the next same old claim。 ） 。。。more
Liara （ I read dead people）
，
Helge Kragh is definitely underrated。
Karl-O
，
This was a very interesting read about how science works。 It is in part a historical survey of many attempts of unification in physics （such as unifying the physics of the extremely large with that of the extremely small， or finding a “theory of everything”） that turned out to be wrong。 In its second part， it is a look into the current state of affairs in Cosmology， which is the study of the origin and fate of the universe。 Kragh very professionally analyses the historical facts and provides his This was a very interesting read about how science works。 It is in part a historical survey of many attempts of unification in physics （such as unifying the physics of the extremely large with that of the extremely small， or finding a “theory of everything”） that turned out to be wrong。 In its second part， it is a look into the current state of affairs in Cosmology， which is the study of the origin and fate of the universe。 Kragh very professionally analyses the historical facts and provides his own opinions about what he thinks went wrong with all these attempts of unification and/or reductionism of complex phenomena to basic models of reality。 He starts far off with Descartes’ Vortex Theory down to present day concepts such as String Theory， the Multiverse and The Anthropic Principle。Just looking at the Table of Contents will give you an idea about why Kragh wrote this book。 He certainly believes that many ideas of what pass today as mainstream cosmology （namely the above three views / theories） is a form of “higher speculation” that shares much with the previous failed attempts of reductionism by figures like Boscovich， Eddington， Hoyle and even Dirac whose prediction of the positron is a textbook example for many of how science should work。 The interesting fact that I learned about Dirac here was that he predicted additional entities called monopoles which didn’t turn out in experiments along with the positron and therefore joined their predecessors into the dustbin of failed scientific concepts。 The most important message to take away from this book is that science is mostly a historical enterprise。 Scientist do work without much caring about how to do science and/or how philosophy tells them to do it。 They even sometimes don’t care about whether their theories disagree with experiments。 Time is the ultimate arbiter in determining whether a theory will survive or is fruitful。 More often than not， the original scientists stick to their own views up until their deaths， adamantly ignoring evidence to the contrary and trying to modify their hypotheses and/or adding auxiliary ones just to breath life into their facing theories。 Time however， doesn’t care much about all this legwork。 This I suspect is an important contribution to the history of cosmology， though maybe not to philosophy of science with Kuhn already voicing a similar view in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions and subsequent figures developing it further。Some very interesting bits here about Einstein who in his last years dabbled in a sort of a priori rationalistic approach （hence his famous God doesn’t play dice with the world dictum） to physics。 He strongly refused to believe that probabilistic treatments may be the only way to make sense of the micro-world。 His refusal， in a historical context， seems quite a vivid episode in a very long tradition of rationalistic thought， propagated by scientists who wanted to understand reality in terms of notions such as coherence， beauty， comprehensiveness。。etc。 The general view of scientists being only driven by reason is strongly challenged in these pages。 There is a view I read somewhere （probably in Haidt） that those who are most intelligent are the ones who devise ingenious ways to defend their own gut feelings。 This clearly is an overstatement， but you can’t help seeing some truth in it after reading the sort of ingenious but nonsensical ideas some of these scientists put out to defend their pet-theories。 A very interesting personal curiosity was the bit about Krauss and Feynman who more than once criticised String Theory。 Kragh， in an indirect way， praised them both for their approach to science （namely their philosophy of science） though it is well known that both these figures don’t/didn’t have much respect for philosophy。 As I agree with much of what is said about String Theory， this was an important insight for me， especially that I once believed that it is essential to know philosophy in order to do good science。 I’ll certainly read more on the topic and other books by Kragh who is very readable and enjoyable。 。。。more
Drew
，
-- Haven't read it yet， but loved his biography of Dirac years ago。 -- Haven't read it yet， but loved his biography of Dirac years ago。 。。。more
Manny
，