Conference speakers Einstein Centenary, ENS, Paris 2005
← All recordings

Recorded at Einstein Centenary, ENS, Paris (2005), featuring Conference speakers. From the Michael Wright Collection, held by the Archive Trust for Research in Mathematical Sciences & Philosophy.

Identifier
mw0000688-cc-b_e
Format
Audio recording
Collection
Michael Wright Collection
Repository
Archive Trust for Research in Mathematical Sciences & Philosophy
Rights
Made available for personal scholarly use. Rights in recordings are generally held by the speakers or their estates. If you believe this recording infringes your rights, please contact [email protected].
Transcript
Read the automatically generated transcript

This transcript was generated by speech-recognition software from an archival recording and has not been hand-corrected. It will contain recognition errors — particularly for proper names and technical terminology — so please verify against the audio before quoting. Timestamps play the recording from that moment.

0:00 He never met, and he lived it in his life. And he also thought that he had to understand quantum theory in a way as intuitive. What is the change of the image of the reality that the quantum mechanics gives us? And he said, I don't say that quantum mechanics is false and that I don't believe a priori in probabilities. I said, I have to demonstrate that the probabilities come from somewhere. I have to understand this reality. So this example remains with us, we need to consider that science is part of the culture and try to understand, and this year is the opportunity of this, to understand what Einstein gave us as a living thing. We could not think of a better conclusion, but Mr. has another question. I have a question in fact, always in relation with the difficulties of understanding the theory of relativity. My question is, could we do more precisely the part of intuition and the deduction in Einstein's reasoning? To try to see a little more, how they échafaudaient these theories. You have talked about intuition and deduction in the different debates. Could we do more precisely the part of the two? I think it's a great mystery of the physics. What is the part of the intuition? Professor O'Connor, can you explain your manner of being? What do you think of the intuition and what do you think of the deduction? I come back to the example of the quantum mechanics. It seems personally that to progress, to imagine new experiences, we need images. So we work with simple images, we try to represent a model that allows us to make suggestions of new experiences. The difficulty with the quantum mechanics is that it is constantly ensuring that these images are not... they don't have to train them on a false voice. So there I believe in the management of the mechanics of the quantum, it is to preserve this capacity to make images, all of them being rigorous to make sure that these images are not sources of confusion and errors. So it's a bit of an extremely difficult to make images, to represent something with the images classic, because the images that we forge are imprinted to our everyday experience, quotidien, mais en même temps avoir derrière soi le paravent, la précaution de savoir

2:30 qu'en réalité il faut faire attention et que la mécanique quantique nous tend des pièges et qu'on ne doit pas y tomber dedans. Et vous êtes arrivé d'y tomber ? Bien sûr. Je crois que c'est une belle conclusion. Thank you.