Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Otto Blüh and Ernst Mach’s Legacy: Inheritance and Task

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ernst Mach – Life, Work, Influence

Part of the book series: Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook ((VCIY,volume 22))

  • 454 Accesses

Abstract

Otto Blüh (1902–1981) was a professor of physics who maintained a lifelong interest in Mach and contributed actively to previous commemorations. Dozent and first assistant at the German University of Prague, he was forced into exile as a result of the German occupation and held research and academic positions in Birmingham (UK), and the universities of British Columbia (Canada) and Vanderbilt (USA). Blüh not only was a pioneer in recognizing the relevance that physics teaching had in Mach’s ideas but developed many of them, highlighting critical thinking, the importance of history and philosophy in physics, bridging specialization and bringing humanism back to science. This paper provides an overview of Otto Blüh’s life and ideas, with a Bildung and Machian character, and their relevance for today.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Otto Blüh, “Ernst Mach- His Life as a Teacher and Thinker”, in: R. S. Cohen and R. Seeger (eds.) Ernst Mach: Physicist and Philosopher (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 6), Dordrecht Holland: D. Reidel PC 1970, pp. 1–22.

  2. 2.

    Otto Blüh, “Ernst Mach as a Teacher and Thinker” in: Physics Today, 20, 6, 1967, pp. 32–42. This contains practically the same text as the previous one, but it was published nearer to the Mach celebrations.

  3. 3.

    Otto Blüh, “Ernst Mach as a historian of physics” in: Centaurus, 13, 1, 1968, pp. 62–84.

  4. 4.

    A similar comment is included in Otto Blüh, “The Galaxies and time” in: The Journal of the Astronomical Society of Canada, XLIII, 5, 1949, pp. 169–180. It is interesting to note that this paper deals with Milne’s cosmological theory, an accepted alternative to Lemaître’s Big Bang that explained observations just with special relativity, without a space expansion.

  5. 5.

    Michael R. Matthews, “Ernst Mach and contemporary science education reforms” in: International Journal of Science Education, 12, 3, 1990, pp. 317–325.

  6. 6.

    Michael R. Matthews, Science Teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York/London: Routledge 1994.

  7. 7.

    Hayo Siemsen, “Resettling the Thoughts of Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle in Europe: The Cases of Finland and Germany” in: Science & Education, 18, 3, 2009, pp. 299–323.

  8. 8.

    Martin Černohorský, “Trojí Instalace Pamětní Desky Ernsta Macha” (The Ernst Mach Memorial Tablet in Brno-Chrlice Mounted Three Times) In: DUB, Petr a Jana Musilová. Ernst Mach – Fyzika – Filosofie – Vzdělávání. 1. vyd. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2010, s. 29–57.

  9. 9.

    Emilie Těšínská, private communication.

  10. 10.

    Doz. Dr. Otto Blüh (Prag) “Ernst Mach. Zu Seinem 100. Geburtstag am 18. Feber 1838” Brünner Tagesbote. Brünn, Freitag 11 feb 1938.

  11. 11.

    Doz. Dr. Otto Blüh (Prag) “Josef Popper-Lynkeus. Geb. am 21. Feber 1838” Brünner Tagesbote. Brünn, Mitwoch, 16 Feb 1938.

  12. 12.

    Goronwy Rees “A Migration of Minds”. Review of “The Intellectual Migration”, by B. Bailyn and D. Fleming in: Encounter, March 1969, pp. 72–76.

  13. 13.

    Michael Stöltzner, “Philipp Frank and the German Physical Society” in The Foundational Debate: Complexity and Constructivity in Mathematics and Physics, Werner Depauli-Schimanovich, Eckehart Köhler, Friedrich Stadler eds., Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands Imprint, Springer 1995. pp. 293–302.

  14. 14.

    Archives of: the Charles University of Prague, the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning (SPSL, Bodleian Library, Oxford, File 1938–46 MS. SPSL 324/6), Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars, (ECADFS, New York Public Library).

  15. 15.

    Otto Blüh’s personal documents, kept by Pamela Bluh.

  16. 16.

    Blüh is referred to as a privatdozent by Emilie Těšínská, “František Záviška (1879–1945) Physiker. Ein grosser Verlust für die tschechische Physik” in Prager professoren 1938–1948, Zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik, eds. Monika Gettler/Alena Miškovà, Klartext 2001, and depicted as a pioneer in the introduction of radioactivity courses at the GUP by Emilie Těšínská Dějiny Jaderných Oborů V Českých Zemích (Československu) Data A Dokumenty (1896–1945). [A History of The Nuclear Fields in The Czech Lands (Czechoslovakia). Historical Data and Documents (1896–1945).] Praha: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, v. v. i., 2010.

  17. 17.

    I am preparing a publication on Blüh’s complete biography and work.

  18. 18.

    Testimonials by Reinhold Fürth and Franz Simon (1938), from note 15.

  19. 19.

    Alena Míšková, “Die “Arisierung” an der Deutschen Universität Prag” in Wissenschaft in den boehmischen Laendern 1939–1945 (Studies in the history of sciences and humanities, vol. 9). Antonin Kostlan ed. KLP, Prague 2004. Pages 97–106.

  20. 20.

    Alena Míšková, “Die Deutsche (Karls-) Universität vom Münchener Abkommen bis zum Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegess” Karls-Universität Prague Verlag Karolinum 2007. Pages 97–106.

  21. 21.

    Arthur Beer, a friend of Otto Blüh’s with whom he kept in contact also after the war is an example of someone who found a good position thanks to Einstein’s help.

  22. 22.

    Izaak Kolthoff, a famous analitycal chemist and professor at the University of Minnesota, who had known Blüh in a visit to the GUP helped him to find a position abroad. (ECADFS).

  23. 23.

    J. L. Heilbron and Robert W. Seidel, Lawrence and His Laboratory, A History of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Volume I, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1990 (p. 450).

  24. 24.

    Otto R. Frisch mentioned Otto Blüh and their difficulties in his letters to Bohr. (Correspondence and personal papers. Trinity College Library, Cambridge).

  25. 25.

    Otto Blüh “Science and Government”, Nature, 147, 298 (1941).

  26. 26.

    Otto Blüh might have met Polanyi at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin around 1928, taking in account they were both interested in gas adsorption.

  27. 27.

    Robert T. Lagemann, To Quarks and Quasars, a History of Physics and Astronomy at Vanderbilt University, Nashville: Wendell Holladay ed. 2000 and the archives of Vanderbilt University.

  28. 28.

    Information provided by Pamela Bluh. Also, United States Social Security Death Index database (Alexandria, Virginia: National Technical Information Service).

  29. 29.

    Dieter Hoffmann and Mark Walker (ed.), The German Physical Society in the Third Reich. Physicists between Autonomy and Accommodation, Cambridge University Press 2011.

  30. 30.

    Otto Blüh, Einführung in die Physik, Berlin: Gebrüder Bornträger, 1937. Prague: Academia Verlagsbuchhandlung 1938.

  31. 31.

    Max von Laue review. Chemiker Zeitung, 1937.

  32. 32.

    Otto Blüh and Joseph D. Elder Principles and Applications of Physic, Edinburgh/New York: Oliver & Boyd/Interscience Publishers 1955.

  33. 33.

    I am preparing a publication on Blüh’s physics textbook and physics teaching ideas.

  34. 34.

    Josep Simon, “Physics textbooks and textbook physics in the XIX and XXth centuries, in: J. Buchwald & R. Fox (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Physics, Oxford Univ. Press, 2013, pp. 651–678.

  35. 35.

    Otto Blüh “Newton and Spinoza” in: Nature 135, 1935, pp. 658–659

  36. 36.

    Otto Blüh “Newton and Spinoza”, Congress of the History of Science; GUERLAC, Henry pres.: ITHACA Actes du dixième Congrès International d’Histoire des Sciences; Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of the History of Science. 1964.

  37. 37.

    Ernst Mach himself defended Meyer’s contribution to the principle of energy conservation in his Mechanics

  38. 38.

    O. Blüh “The Value of Inspiration. A Study on Julius Robert Mayer and Josef Popper-Lynkeus” in Isis: A Journal of the History of Science 43, 1952, pp. 211–220.

  39. 39.

    O. Blüh “Did the Greeks perform experiments?” in: Am. J. Phys. 17, 6, 1949, pp. 384–388.

  40. 40.

    I will just cite some of the published papers titles: “Physics examinations and the new curriculum”, “L. W. Taylor’s challenge to the teacher”, “Physics textbooks-annuals or perennials”, “Physics in Premedical Education”, “Physics for the Biologist”, “The history of Physics and the old humanism”, “Physics and Culture” “On the History and Philosophy of Science. A Reply”. All of them can be easily retrieved in the search engine of the Web of Knowledge on-line as well as that of the American Journal of Physics.

  41. 41.

    “Men of Science and higher education in a democracy” in: Science education, 21, 1, 1941.

  42. 42.

    O. Blüh, “German Education” in: Journal of Education (British), 1946. A proposal for a democratic school in post-war Germany.

  43. 43.

    O. Blüh, “The maladjusted curriculum”, in: The Journal of Education BC, 4, 53, 1960, pp. 53–62.

  44. 44.

    J. M. Levy-Leblond Science in want of culture, Paris: Futuribles 2004. is one of the many references by Levy-Leblond.

  45. 45.

    Yehuda Elkana, “Rethinking-not Unthinking- the Enlightenment” In W. Krull (ed.), Debates on issues of our common future, pp. 283–313. Weilerswist:Velbrück Wissenschaft. 2000.

  46. 46.

    “Blüh is very Germanic in his outlook in the sense that he is much more interested in the philosophical trappings of physics than in the science itself, and his great ideal is writing books on the subject”. Letter from M. Oliphant to Bragg (see footnote 14).

  47. 47.

    “Oliphant might …[guide]…Blüh away from too much philosophy and into more practical needs”. Letter by Bragg to Miss Simpson, secretary of the SPSL (see footnote 14).

  48. 48.

    “I believe that Dr. Blüh has a real contribution to make to the teaching of physics at the college and university level on this side of the Atlantic and I hope, for our own sake, even more than for his, that he will have an opportunity of making it.” (Letter from Lloyd W. Taylor to W. Kaemmpfert, Oberlin College archives).

  49. 49.

    Chapter 49 in this volume is devoted to this skit. On proposal by Chantal Ferrer-Roca, the dialogue Ernst Mach’s ‘Bekehrung’ Zum Atomismus (Ernst Mach’s “Conversion” To Atomism) by Otto Blüh was performed by RRemi Brandner and Wolfgang Nitsch on Saturday, June 18 at the International Conference “Ernst Mach- Life, Work, Influence”, Vienna 2016.

  50. 50.

    The idea of using theatre performances related to the history of science was not popular at that time as it is nowadays. In fact, I will publish an analysis of this skit in such context.

  51. 51.

    Endnote number 25 in reference 1, page 22.

  52. 52.

    Stephen J. Brush, “Mach and Atomism” in: Synthese, 18, 1968, pp. 192–215.

  53. 53.

    John Blackmore (2005) “Philosophie in Österreich 1920–1951, The Vienna and the Brünn Circle, 806–817, in Verdrängter Humanismus- Verzögerte. Aufklärung - Band V, Benedickt et al. eds. WUV, 2006.

  54. 54.

    Philipp Frank, ‘The Importance of Ernst Mach’s Philosophy of Science for Our Times’ (orig. 1917), in: R. S. Cohen and R. Seeger (eds.) Ernst Mach: Physicist and Philosopher (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 6), Dordrecht Holland: D. Reidel PC 1970, pp. 219–234.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dep. Física Aplicada y Electromagnetismo, Universitat de València, València, Spain

    Chantal Ferrer-Roca

Authors
  1. Chantal Ferrer-Roca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chantal Ferrer-Roca .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute Vienna Circle, University of Vienna, Vienna Circle Society, Vienna, Austria

    Friedrich Stadler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ferrer-Roca, C. (2019). Otto Blüh and Ernst Mach’s Legacy: Inheritance and Task. In: Stadler, F. (eds) Ernst Mach – Life, Work, Influence. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04378-0_48

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation