IMG31

Ernst Mach

by 1905 that hc attendcd scssions of thc Vicnna Philosophical Socicty morę £requently than hc visitcd physical laboratorics or cvcn his own univcrsity institute.²*

11

We havc now como to thc point wherc we must discuss thc factors that led to Ludwig Boltzmann’s tragic dcath. This discussion has be-come necessary becausc of thc occasional eh ar ges lcvclcd against Ernst Mach to the effect that he or his ideas were responsible for what cventually happened.³⁰ The best answer to thcsc suspicions would be a thorough understanding of thc last months of Boltzinann’s lifc as rcmcmbcrcd by Iiis immediate family and friends and as givcn in newspaper accounts of thc timc. Mach believcd that ovcrwork was a contributing factor, and Karl Przibram has suspected angina pectoris, a vcry painful heart discasc. Mcre arc somc quotations introducing other considcrations and detailing aspects of his last days:

Those who knew Boltzmann will remember the pair of heavy highly-powerful spcctacles resting on a dccp groovc in his nose. Por many ycars his eyesight had becn failing, and hc found it incrcasingly diflicult to complctc thc many rcscarchcs which wcrc on his mind.³¹

At thc end Boltzmann had almost complctcly lost his sight. Hc had a lady rcad scicntific articlcs to him during thc last years.³²

In thc fali of last ycar [1905J thc scholar [Boltzmann] dccidcd to visit a mcntal hospital ncar Munich, but he lcft thc asylum a short timc latcr and returned 10 Vicnna.³³

I, myself [Ludwig Flamm], as a student was ablc to hear thc last lecture which Boltzmann hcld on thcorctical physics; it was in thc winter semester 1905/1906. A ncrvous complaint [hcadachcs] prcvcntcd him from continu-ing his tcaching activity. Togcthcr with another student I took and passed my orał cxamination in his Villa in Wahring. On leaving after thc c.\ami-nation was over we hcard from thc front hall his heartrending groans.³¹

His hcadachcs and failing eyesight finally convinced him that hc could ncvcr work again.³⁶

Whcn I [Alois Hoflcr] visitcd him during thc Easter holidays [1906] for thc last timc, hc cxprcsscd his physical and mcntal suffering thus: ‘‘I ncvcr would havc bclicvcd that such an end was possihlc.” ⁸⁰

Boltzmann had announeed Icctures for thc summer semester [1906], hut had to canccl them, bccausc of his ncrvous condition. In informed circlcs one knew that Boltzmann would most probably ncvcr be ablc to cxcrcisc his professorship again. One spokc of how necessary it was to kecp him

A i och vs. Boltzmann, Pianej. Stumpf, and Kulpę

under constant mcdical surveillancc, for hc had 3lrcady madc carlicr attempts at suicidc.³⁷

(And finally thrcc quotation$ relatmg to cvcnts on September 5, 1906)

He had brought his family to Dumo, a smali, bcautiful scasidc resort ncar Gradicka [on thc Adriatic Sca] to go swimming, yet hc was also upset and nervous bccausc hc was anxious to return to Vicnna. His eon dition otherwise sccmcd better. O11 thc day of his dcath Boltzmann showed himsclf to be particularly cxcitcd [erregt]. While his wife and daughter went swimming, he carricd out thc dced.³⁸

He was vcry mclancholy for a long timc and did not want to send his suit to be clcancd bccausc it would mcan a further delay in returning to Vicnna. After his wife left, taking the suit with her, hc hanged himsclf.³⁹

He uscd a short cord from thc crossbars of 3 window cascmenL His daughter was thc first to discovcr thc suicidc.⁴⁰

Ili

In order to understand thc relation bctwccn thc influence of Mach’s philosophy of science and that of Boltzmann it is necessary to be as elear as possible on the philosophical similaritics and differcnccs in the idcas of thc two men. Let mc start by quoting two prominent schol-ars and then give a fundamcntal outline of the basie approaches of Mach and Boltzmann.

Philipp Frank wrotc:

It is said that Boltzmann was so desperatc about thc rcjcction of atomie theory by physicists, resulting from Mach's attacks on it, that hc took his lifc. As a matter of fact this could hardly be truć, sińce Boltzmann was himsclf philosophically speaking, rather a follower of Mach. Boltzmann once said to mc, “You sec, it docsn’t make any~ diffcrcncc to mc if 1 say that the atomie model is only a picturc. I don’t mind this. 1 don’t rcquirc that they havc absolutc, real cxistencc. I don’t say this. ‘An cconomic dc- | scription,’ Mach said. Maybc thc atoms arc an cconomic dcscription. This docsn’t hurt mc vcry much. From thc vicwpoint of the physidst this docsa‘t make a diffcrcncc.” Boltzmann had a philosophical vicwpoint (in science 1 which did not rcquirc that you Bclteve in thc real cxisicnc; of atoms. And thcrc wasn’t, I would say, any opposition to Boltzmann’* physics from thc ve i w point of Mach. This opposition existcd only. so to speak, in thc philosophical rcalm [i.e., in philosophy of naturę, not in philosophy of science].*¹

Paul K. Feyerabend has added (1967):

It is unfortunatc that Boltzmann’s generał philosophy, which is iminutcls conncctcd with his physics, is pracikally unknown, for h>s ideas arc still