Even as a musician can recognize his Mozart, Beethoven, or Schubert after hearing the first few bars, so can a mathematician recognize his Cauchy, Gauss, Jacobi, Helmholtz, or Kirchhoff after the first few pages. The French writers reveal themselves by their extreme formal elegance, while the English, especially Maxwell, by their dramatic sense. Who, for example, is not familiar with Maxwell's memoirs on his dynamic theory of gases? ... The variations of the velocities are, at first, developed majestically; then from one side enter the equations of state; and from the other side, the equations of motion in a central field. Ever higher soars the chaos of formulae. Suddenly, we hear, as from kettle drums, the four beats "put n = 5". The evil spirit V (the relative velocity of the two molecules) vanishes; and, even as in music, a hitherto dominating figure in the bass is suddenly silenced, that which had seemed insuperable has been overcome as if by a stroke of magic. This is not the time to ask why this or that substitution. If you are not swept along with the development, lay aside the paper. Maxwell does not write programme music with explanatory notes. ... One result after another follows in quick succession till at last, as the unexpected climax, we arrive at the conditions for thermal equilibrium together with the expressions for the transport coefficients. The curtain then falls!
Austrian physicist and philosopher (1844–1906)
Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann (February 20, 1844 – September 5, 1906) was an Austrian physicist and philosopher famous for his founding contributions in the fields of statistical mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. He was one of the most important advocates for atomic theory which was still highly controversial.
From: Wikiquote (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Native Name:
Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann
From Wikidata (CC0)
Let us now tum to the second matter in dispute between us [about the rejection of philosophy in virtually all senses]. That the majority of students don't understand philosophy doesn't bother me. But can any two people understand philosophical [i.e. metaphysical] questions [and agree upon what it is that they understand]? Is there any sense at all in breaking one's head over such questions? Shouldn't the irresistible pressure [Drang] to philosophize be compared with the nausea caused by migraine headaches? As if something could still struggle its strangled way out, even though nothing is actually there at all? My opinion about the high, majestic task of philosophy is to make things clear, in order to finally heal mankind from these terrible migraine headaches. Now, I am one who hopes not to make you angry by my forthrightness, but the first duty of philosophy as love of wisdom is complete frankness. Through my study of Schopenhauer, I am learning Greek ways of thinking again, but piecemeal.
· ... Philosophy gets on my nerves. If we analyse the ultimate ground of everything, then everything finally falls into nothingness. But I have decided to resume my lectures again and look the Hydra of doubt straight in the eye, and it can be quite ominous [verhängnisvoll] if one values one's life. The title [Principles of Natural Philosophy] doesn't tell us anything coherent .... [it is] essentially a joke . . . . I must take care that the lecture is adequate. great difficulties; one doesn't really know what natural philosophy is ...