Pub Date : 2019-02-07DOI: 10.1007/s00016-019-00236-x
Stefano Salvia
The famous nuclear physicist Bruno Pontecorvo, who defected to the USSR in 1950, was affiliated to the internationalist network called “Partisans of Peace,” founded in 1949. Later renamed the World Peace Council, it was an organization of pacifist scientists, intellectuals, and artists like Frédéric Joliot-Curie and Pablo Picasso that was similar to the Pugwash movement, but part of the Comintern (later Cominform). As noted by Albert Einstein, the Partisans of Peace were “pacifist” in a very particular sense: they strongly criticized Western nuclear policies, but they justified the Soviet atomic programme as inevitable response to them. At the same time, physicists who joined the 1955 Russell–Einstein Manifesto like Joseph Rotblat and Norbert Wiener, or the 1957 G?ttingen Declaration like Otto Hahn and Max Born, were suspicious about the 1955 “Atoms for Peace” program, sponsored by the United States to balance the Soviet influence in Europe as well as in non-aligned countries. I will discuss these different—and partially overlapping—scientific-cooperation networks built in the name of “peace” during the hottest years of the Cold War, when peace itself had become an ideological weapon in the hands of a militarized science.
1950年叛逃到苏联的著名核物理学家布鲁诺·庞特科尔沃(Bruno Pontecorvo)是1949年成立的国际主义组织“和平游击队”(Partisans of Peace)的成员。它后来更名为世界和平委员会,是一个由和平主义科学家、知识分子和艺术家组成的组织,如弗莱姆·约里奥·居里和巴勃罗·毕加索,它类似于帕格沃什运动,但它是共产国际(后来的Cominform)的一部分。正如阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦所指出的那样,和平游击队在某种意义上是“和平主义者”:他们强烈批评西方的核政策,但他们认为苏联的原子计划是对他们的必然回应。与此同时,加入1955年罗素-爱因斯坦宣言的物理学家,如约瑟夫·罗特布拉特和诺伯特·维纳,或1957年的G?像奥托·哈恩和马克斯·伯恩这样的人,对1955年由美国发起的“原子和平”计划持怀疑态度,该计划旨在平衡苏联在欧洲和不结盟国家的影响力。我将讨论这些不同的——部分重叠的——科学合作网络,它们是在冷战最激烈的年代以“和平”的名义建立起来的,当时和平本身已经成为军事化科学手中的意识形态武器。
{"title":"Embattled Cooperation(s): Peaceful Atoms, Pacifist Physicists, and Partisans of Peace in the Early Cold War (1947–1957)","authors":"Stefano Salvia","doi":"10.1007/s00016-019-00236-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-019-00236-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The famous nuclear physicist Bruno Pontecorvo, who defected to the USSR in 1950, was affiliated to the internationalist network called “Partisans of Peace,” founded in 1949. Later renamed the World Peace Council, it was an organization of pacifist scientists, intellectuals, and artists like Frédéric Joliot-Curie and Pablo Picasso that was similar to the Pugwash movement, but part of the Comintern (later Cominform). As noted by Albert Einstein, the Partisans of Peace were “pacifist” in a very particular sense: they strongly criticized Western nuclear policies, but they justified the Soviet atomic programme as inevitable response to them. At the same time, physicists who joined the 1955 Russell–Einstein Manifesto like Joseph Rotblat and Norbert Wiener, or the 1957 G?ttingen Declaration like Otto Hahn and Max Born, were suspicious about the 1955 “Atoms for Peace” program, sponsored by the United States to balance the Soviet influence in Europe as well as in non-aligned countries. I will discuss these different—and partially overlapping—scientific-cooperation networks built in the name of “peace” during the hottest years of the Cold War, when peace itself had become an ideological weapon in the hands of a militarized science.</p>","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"21 1","pages":"43 - 62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-019-00236-x","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"4291900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-12-10DOI: 10.1007/s00016-018-0231-1
Robert Crease, Joseph D. Martin, Peter Pesic
{"title":"Physics Is Its History","authors":"Robert Crease, Joseph D. Martin, Peter Pesic","doi":"10.1007/s00016-018-0231-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0231-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"20 4","pages":"315 - 317"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-018-0231-1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"4415426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-27DOI: 10.1007/s00016-018-0229-8
Andrew Zhang, Andrew Zangwill
Lay people have a large appetite for information about scientific and technological issues that affect them, such as self-driving automobiles, gene manipulation, and climate change. However, this information must be clear and accurate if they are to use it to make informed political decisions. In 1994, the Nobel prize–winning physicist Philip W. Anderson used a newspaper essay to convey his concerns about the fidelity of the communication channels that connect the public to the creators of technical knowledge. He also suggested strategies to improve the quality of that communication. We analyze that essay and other writings by Anderson to identify the origins of his concerns and to place them in the larger context of his scientific philosophy.
非专业人士对影响他们的科技问题的信息有很大的兴趣,比如自动驾驶汽车、基因操纵和气候变化。但是,如果他们要利用这些信息作出明智的政治决定,这些信息必须是清晰和准确的。1994年,诺贝尔奖得主、物理学家菲利普·w·安德森(Philip W. Anderson)在一篇报纸文章中表达了他对将公众与技术知识创造者联系起来的沟通渠道的保真度的担忧。他还提出了提高这种沟通质量的战略。我们分析了这篇文章和安德森的其他作品,以确定他关注的根源,并将它们置于他的科学哲学的更大背景中。
{"title":"Four Facts Everyone Ought to Know about Science: The Two-Culture Concerns of Philip W. Anderson","authors":"Andrew Zhang, Andrew Zangwill","doi":"10.1007/s00016-018-0229-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0229-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Lay people have a large appetite for information about scientific and technological issues that affect them, such as self-driving automobiles, gene manipulation, and climate change. However, this information must be clear and accurate if they are to use it to make informed political decisions. In 1994, the Nobel prize–winning physicist Philip W. Anderson used a newspaper essay to convey his concerns about the fidelity of the communication channels that connect the public to the creators of technical knowledge. He also suggested strategies to improve the quality of that communication. We analyze that essay and other writings by Anderson to identify the origins of his concerns and to place them in the larger context of his scientific philosophy.</p>","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"20 4","pages":"342 - 369"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-018-0229-8","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"5057782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-26DOI: 10.1007/s00016-018-0228-9
Cormac O’Raifeartaigh, Simon Mitton
It is well known that, following the emergence of the first evidence for an expanding universe, Albert Einstein banished the cosmological constant term from his cosmology. Indeed, he is reputed to have labelled the term, originally introduced to the field equations of general relativity in 1917 in order to predict a static universe, his “biggest blunder.” However, serious doubts about this reported statement have been raised in recent years. We interrogate the legend of Einstein’s “biggest blunder” statement in the context of our recent studies of Einstein’s cosmology in his later years. We find that the remark is highly compatible with Einstein’s cosmic models of the 1930s, with his later writings on cosmology, and with independent reports by at least three physicists. We conclude that there is little doubt that Einstein came to view the introduction of the cosmological constant term as a serious error and that he very likely labelled the term his “biggest blunder” on at least one occasion. This finding may be of some relevance for those theoreticians today who seek to describe the recently discovered acceleration in cosmic expansion without the use of a cosmological constant term.
{"title":"Interrogating the Legend of Einstein's “Biggest Blunder”","authors":"Cormac O’Raifeartaigh, Simon Mitton","doi":"10.1007/s00016-018-0228-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0228-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p>It is well known that, following the emergence of the first evidence for an expanding universe, Albert Einstein banished the cosmological constant term from his cosmology. Indeed, he is reputed to have labelled the term, originally introduced to the field equations of general relativity in 1917 in order to predict a static universe, his “biggest blunder.” However, serious doubts about this reported statement have been raised in recent years. We interrogate the legend of Einstein’s “biggest blunder” statement in the context of our recent studies of Einstein’s cosmology in his later years. We find that the remark is highly compatible with Einstein’s cosmic models of the 1930s, with his later writings on cosmology, and with independent reports by at least three physicists. We conclude that there is little doubt that Einstein came to view the introduction of the cosmological constant term as a serious error and that he very likely labelled the term his “biggest blunder” on at least one occasion. This finding may be of some relevance for those theoreticians today who seek to describe the recently discovered acceleration in cosmic expansion without the use of a cosmological constant term.</p>","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"20 4","pages":"318 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-018-0228-9","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"5022669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-21DOI: 10.1007/s00016-018-0226-y
Robert P. Crease, Joseph D. Martin, Peter Pesic
{"title":"On “Minor” Scientists","authors":"Robert P. Crease, Joseph D. Martin, Peter Pesic","doi":"10.1007/s00016-018-0226-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0226-y","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"20 3","pages":"219 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-018-0226-y","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"4813611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-17DOI: 10.1007/s00016-018-0227-x
Robert P. Crease, Vladimir Shiltsev
This article, the second in a series about the Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov (1711–1765), traces his education from his arrival in Moscow in 1731 to study at the Slavic-Greco-Latin Academy, through his admission to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in 1736, to his trip abroad to complete his educational studies from 1736 to 1741. Lomonosov’s story during this time opens a vista on the introduction of modern physics and modern science into Russia. Michael D. Gordin has argued that Peter the Great’s plans to Westernize Russia were more broadly conceived than he is usually credited, with ambitions that exceeded mere utilitarian and pragmatic goals. Lomonosov’s career trajectory is a good example, illustrating how different aspects of the Petrine vision intersected with and reinforced each other. The article ends with Lomonosov’s return to Russia from Germany in 1741, an important landmark in the growth of the Academy and of Russian science.
本文是关于俄罗斯科学家米哈伊尔·罗蒙诺索夫(Mikhail Lomonosov, 1711-1765)的系列文章中的第二篇,追溯了他的教育经历,从1731年来到莫斯科,在斯拉夫-希腊-拉丁学院学习,到1736年被圣彼得堡科学院录取,再到1736年至1741年出国完成学业。在这段时间里,罗蒙诺索夫的故事打开了现代物理学和现代科学进入俄罗斯的前景。迈克尔·d·戈丁(Michael D. Gordin)认为,彼得大帝西化俄罗斯的计划比人们通常认为的要更广泛,他的野心超越了单纯的功利主义和务实目标。罗蒙诺索夫的职业轨迹就是一个很好的例子,说明了彼得林愿景的不同方面是如何相互交叉和加强的。文章以1741年罗蒙诺索夫从德国回到俄罗斯作为结尾,这是科学院和俄罗斯科学发展的一个重要里程碑。
{"title":"Fueling Peter’s Mill: Mikhail Lomonosov’s Educational Training in Russia and Germany, 1731–1741","authors":"Robert P. Crease, Vladimir Shiltsev","doi":"10.1007/s00016-018-0227-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0227-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article, the second in a series about the Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov (1711–1765), traces his education from his arrival in Moscow in 1731 to study at the Slavic-Greco-Latin Academy, through his admission to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in 1736, to his trip abroad to complete his educational studies from 1736 to 1741. Lomonosov’s story during this time opens a vista on the introduction of modern physics and modern science into Russia. Michael D. Gordin has argued that Peter the Great’s plans to Westernize Russia were more broadly conceived than he is usually credited, with ambitions that exceeded mere utilitarian and pragmatic goals. Lomonosov’s career trajectory is a good example, illustrating how different aspects of the Petrine vision intersected with and reinforced each other. The article ends with Lomonosov’s return to Russia from Germany in 1741, an important landmark in the growth of the Academy and of Russian science.</p>","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"20 3","pages":"272 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-018-0227-x","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"4670299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-03DOI: 10.1007/s00016-018-0223-1
Helge Kragh
Maxwell’s celebrated electromagnetic theory of light dates from 1865. Two years later, without appealing to the ether as a carrier of light waves, the Danish physicist Ludvig Lorenz (1829–1891) independently published another electrical theory of light based on optical equations and the novel idea of retarded potentials. In spite of resting on a very different conceptual foundation, Lorenz’s theory led to almost the same results as Maxwell’s. But whereas Maxwell’s field theory heralded a revolution in physics, Lorenz’s alternative was largely forgotten and soon relegated to a footnote in the history of physics. In part based on archival material and other sources in Danish, this paper offers a detailed contextual account of Lorentz’s theory and its reception in the physics community. Moreover, it includes a brief introduction to other of Lorenz’s scientific contributions and discusses the reasons why his electrical theory of light failed to attract serious interest.
{"title":"Ludvig Lorenz and His Non-Maxwellian Electrical Theory of Light","authors":"Helge Kragh","doi":"10.1007/s00016-018-0223-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0223-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Maxwell’s celebrated electromagnetic theory of light dates from 1865. Two years later, without appealing to the ether as a carrier of light waves, the Danish physicist Ludvig Lorenz (1829–1891) independently published another electrical theory of light based on optical equations and the novel idea of retarded potentials. In spite of resting on a very different conceptual foundation, Lorenz’s theory led to almost the same results as Maxwell’s. But whereas Maxwell’s field theory heralded a revolution in physics, Lorenz’s alternative was largely forgotten and soon relegated to a footnote in the history of physics. In part based on archival material and other sources in Danish, this paper offers a detailed contextual account of Lorentz’s theory and its reception in the physics community. Moreover, it includes a brief introduction to other of Lorenz’s scientific contributions and discusses the reasons why his electrical theory of light failed to attract serious interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"20 3","pages":"221 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-018-0223-1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"4123737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-06-26DOI: 10.1007/s00016-018-0224-0
Paul Halpern
In Einstein’s later years, from the late 1920s onward, his reputation in the physics community as an innovator had faded as he pursued increasingly unrealistic unified field theories. Yet from the perspective of the press, his image and ideas were still marketable. We will see how his various attempts to craft a unified field theory generated numerous headlines, despite their lack of experimental evidence or even realistic solutions. We will examine how Einstein’s “latest theory,” became a much sought-after commodity used to generate interest in books, magazines, and newspapers.
{"title":"Celebrity Physicist: How the Press Sensationalized Einstein’s Search for a Unified Field Theory","authors":"Paul Halpern","doi":"10.1007/s00016-018-0224-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0224-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In Einstein’s later years, from the late 1920s onward, his reputation in the physics community as an innovator had faded as he pursued increasingly unrealistic unified field theories. Yet from the perspective of the press, his image and ideas were still marketable. We will see how his various attempts to craft a unified field theory generated numerous headlines, despite their lack of experimental evidence or even realistic solutions. We will examine how Einstein’s “latest theory,” became a much sought-after commodity used to generate interest in books, magazines, and newspapers.</p>","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"20 3","pages":"254 - 271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-018-0224-0","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"5013708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-04-19DOI: 10.1007/s00016-018-0221-3
Alan Chalmers
The gradual emergence of a science of hydrostatics during the course of the seventeenth century is testament to the fact that a technical concept of pressure that was up to the task was far from obvious. The first published version of a theory of hydrostatics containing the essentials of the modern theory appeared in book 2 of Isaac Newton’s Principia. Newton derived the propositions of hydrostatics from a definition of a fluid as a medium unable to withstand a distorting force. Newton’s reasoning required that pressure be understood as a force per unit area acting on either side of imaginary planes within the body of a fluid. For a fluid in equilibrium, the forces at some location within a fluid are independent of the orientation of such planes. As Newton came to realize, within the body of a liquid, pressure acts equally in all directions so that there is no resultant pressing in any direction. Pressure has an intensity but not a direction. In modern terms, it is a scalar, not a vector. Although earlier scholars such as Simon Stevin, Blaise Pascal, and Robert Boyle helped set the scene for Newton’s innovations, they were unable to transcend the common sense of pressure as a directed force acting on the solid surfaces bounding a fluid.
{"title":"How Pressure Became a Scalar, Not a Vector","authors":"Alan Chalmers","doi":"10.1007/s00016-018-0221-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0221-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The gradual emergence of a science of hydrostatics during the course of the seventeenth century is testament to the fact that a technical concept of pressure that was up to the task was far from obvious. The first published version of a theory of hydrostatics containing the essentials of the modern theory appeared in book 2 of Isaac Newton’s <i>Principia</i>. Newton derived the propositions of hydrostatics from a definition of a fluid as a medium unable to withstand a distorting force. Newton’s reasoning required that pressure be understood as a force per unit area acting on either side of imaginary planes within the body of a fluid. For a fluid in equilibrium, the forces at some location within a fluid are independent of the orientation of such planes. As Newton came to realize, within the body of a liquid, pressure acts equally in all directions so that there is no resultant pressing in any direction. Pressure has an intensity but not a direction. In modern terms, it is a scalar, not a vector. Although earlier scholars such as Simon Stevin, Blaise Pascal, and Robert Boyle helped set the scene for Newton’s innovations, they were unable to transcend the common sense of pressure as a directed force acting on the solid surfaces bounding a fluid.</p>","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"20 2","pages":"165 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-018-0221-3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"4738657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-04-11DOI: 10.1007/s00016-018-0222-2
Robert P. Crease, Joseph D. Martin, Peter Pesic
{"title":"When Science and Politics Collide","authors":"Robert P. Crease, Joseph D. Martin, Peter Pesic","doi":"10.1007/s00016-018-0222-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0222-2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"20 2","pages":"163 - 164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-018-0222-2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"4745574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}