BERGSON Henri Durée et Simultanéité, À propos de la théorie d’Einstein.

Biezunski,M. Einstein à Paris, Presses universitaires de Vincennes, 1991 ; Compagnon, A. & Surprenant, C. « Colloque « Einstein au Collège de France » », La lettre du Collège de France, 44,  2019, 64-65 ; Eisenstaedt, Jean, The Curious History of Relativity : How Einstein’s Theory of Gravity was Lost and found again, Princeton University Press, 2006, p.260.;  Fric, J. « Painlevé, une contribution trop originale à la relativité générale pour avoir été comprise à l’époque ! », Bibnum, 2014. ; Lambert, F.J. Internationalisme scientifique et révolution quantique : les premiers Conseils Solvay », Revue germanique internationale, 12 | 2010, 159-173. Pais, A. “How Einstein Got the Nobel Prize: Why Did the Nobel Committee for Physics Wait so Long before Giving Einstein the Prize, and Why Did They Not Award It for Relativity?” American Scientist, vol. 70, no. 4, 1982, pp. 358–65. 

First edition, inscribed to “à mon cher confrère Marcel Brillouin”

Bergson published this work following the debate he had with Albert Einstein at the French Philosophical Society at the Collège de France on 6 April 1922. Whilst Bergson’s ideas were undoubtedly taking shape before their meeting, the debate appears to have acted as a catalyst.
Several aspects of Einstein’s theories were discussed during the event, at which a number of philosophers spoke. At the end of the session, Bergson took the floor at the invitation of Édouard Le Roy and began by expressing his respect for the scientist: « je commence par dire à quel point j’admire l’œuvre de M. Einstein. Elle me paraît s’imposer à l’attention des philosophes autant qu’à celle des savants. Je n’y vois pas seulement une physique nouvelle, mais aussi, à certains égards, une nouvelle manière de penser. ».

Bergson does not reject Einstein’s theory of relativity, but he questions “the philosophical significance of concepts” and the role of intuition—which the German scientist’s theory reduces to the point of causing him to renounce his concept of duration.

Einstein responds by emphasising psychological time, which he prioritises over philosophical time: « La question se pose donc ainsi : Le temps du philosophe est-il le même que celui du physicien ? Le temps du philosophe, je crois, est un temps psychologique et physique à la fois ; or le temps physique peut être dérivé du temps de la conscience. […] rien dans notre conscience ne nous permet de conclure à la simultanéité des événements […]Il n’y a donc pas un temps des philosophes ; il n’y a qu’un temps psychologique différent du temps du physicien. »

The 1922 debate thus presents two conceptions of time: for Einstein, only measurable time is real, and subjective intuition is merely a matter of psychology. For Bergson, measured time presupposes lived duration, without which it has no meaning. His work Durée et Simultanéité is an attempt to show that special relativity, when properly understood philosophically, does not contradict duration but rather requires it.

Einstein’s visit to France in 1922 was made possible by Paul Langevin, who invited him to give a series of lectures on his new theory of relativity at the Collège de France between 31 March and 7 April. The German scientist spoke in French and adopted an approach that was both didactic and argumentative; he was open to debate and to opposing views. It was within this context that his meeting with Bergson took place, as well as with Brillouin, whom he had already met previously.

Einstein did not merely give lectures during his visit; he also took part in workshops and discussions amongst specialists. These more technical sessions were reserved for a select group of scientists, of whom Brillouin was one.

The latter was not merely a spectator but an active participant in the discussions; whilst Painlevé asked Einstein for clarification on measurable physical quantities, the debate became heated and cacophonous. Brillouin brought it to a halt by writing his contributions on a blackboard, thereby managing to restore order.

Brillouin was an admirer and colleague of Einstein’s; he attended all of Einstein’s scientific lectures in Paris in 1922, as well as, in all likelihood, the more philosophical session at which Bergson spoke.

Brillouin and Einstein met in Belgium in 1911 at the very first Solvay Conference. This international physics congress brought together 21 of Europe’s most renowned physicists; Marcel Brillouin represented France there alongside Marie Curie and Poincaré. Following this meeting, Brillouin was appointed a member of the International Committee of the Solvay International Institute of Physics, which strengthened his position on the European scientific scene and his ties with Einstein. Furthermore, the Collège de France copy (reference number: 11127) of the 1911 Solvay Council report contains numerous handwritten notes by Brillouin commenting on Einstein’s demonstration.

This loyalty to his German colleague reached its peak in 1921, when Brillouin named Einstein as his first choice to receive the Nobel Prize in Physics. He even stated in a letter dated 12 November 1921 addressed to the Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien, which organises the Nobel Prize: Imagine for a moment what the general opinion will be fifty years from now if the name Einstein does not appear on the list of Nobel laureates.’

Brillouin also wrote an article in 1923 entitled ‘The Singular Points of Einstein’s Universe’ for the Journal de Physique et le Radium.

This copy marks the convergence point of a remarkable intellectual triangle: in it, Bergson responds to Einstein, of whom Brillouin had been one of the most ardent defenders since the Solvay Conference of 1911. By dedicating this work to his ‘cher confrère’, the philosopher brings together in a single volume three major figures of 1922, whose reflections on physics and time had an undeniable impact.

Spine fragile with paper torn in several places.