Book Review: The Physicist and the Philosopher

Recommendations from Scientific American

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time
by Jimena Canales
Princeton University Press, 2015 (($35))

On April 6, 1922, Einstein clashed with the most famous philosopher of the day, Henri Bergson, about the nature of time. Einstein espoused the picture he formulated in general relativity of time as inseparable from space and lacking the absolute reality that humans tend to perceive in it. Bergson claimed that science alone cannot describe time, which he said was closely intertwined with the “vital impulse” of life and creative expression. Science historian Canales describes how their debate initiated a rift between physics and philosophy, “splitting the century into two cultures and pitting scientists against humanists, expert knowledge against lay wisdom.”

Clara Moskowitz is a senior editor at Scientific American, where she covers astronomy, space, physics and mathematics. She has been at Scientific American for a decade; previously she worked at Space.com. Moskowitz has reported live from rocket launches, space shuttle liftoffs and landings, suborbital spaceflight training, mountaintop observatories, and more. She has a bachelor's degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University and a graduate degree in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

More by Clara Moskowitz
Scientific American Magazine Vol 313 Issue 3This article was originally published with the title “The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 313 No. 3 (), p. 94
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0915-32