Hereditary Mechanics and Boltzmann

1
BOLTZMANN'S NACHWIRKUNG AND BOLTZMANN'S NACHWIRKUNG AND

HEREDITARY MECHANICS HEREDITARY MECHANICS
Maria Grazia IANNIELLO
Universit di Salerno
Giorgio ISRAEL
Universit di Roma "La Sapienza"
The origins of modern viscoelasticity theories (and, more generally, of
hereditary systems theories) are usually traced back to the work of
Ludwig Boltzmann and Vito Volterra. This indication poses a first task to
the historian: going beyond a generic reference in order to analyze
Boltzmann's and Volterra's contributions and to place them within the
scientific context of their times. However, as one faces this study many
problems arise, so forcing to extend the analysis to a much more complex
framework than a mere description.
Historiography on hereditary theories is extremely poor, being
limited to some papers written by Volterra. In his first writings on these
topics,
1
Volterra appropriately mentioned other contributions preceding his
own work which was considered by him, at least in part, as a development
of Wiechert's, Meyer's and especially Boltzmann's work.
2
However, in his
following papers (especially in his historical writings
3
) these references

1
Volterra V. 1909 c,d.
2
Boltzmann L. 1874, Meyer O.E.1874, Wiechert E. 1893.
3
Volterra V. 1912 b,c.
M.G. Ianniello, G. Israel Boltzmann's Nachwirkung and hereditary mechanics
2
disappeared: to those readers who are not involved in a careful search for its
origins, the mathematical theory of hereditary phenomena appears mainly
as an achievement of Volterra.
However, a superficial analysis of Boltzmann's and Volterra's works
show that this omission is rather unfair: the core of the theory is already
present in Boltzmann's contribution. Therefore, after completing the job of
reconstructing the historical genesis of the theory, the whole story could be
set aside as one of the many cases in which the priority in a discovery has
not been fully acknowledged.
However, a more careful reading of the two scientists' contribution
shows that there are differences in their approaches suggesting an
explanation of the progressive disappearance of the reference to Boltzmann
in Volterra's last works.
First of all, we can point out a difference in the methodological
approach of Boltzmann and Volterra. Following Boltzmann's views, the
mathematical analysis of a specific problem is based on and justified by the
experimental analysis; calculations must be developed up to the point of
making possible an immediate comparison with the experiment.
4
This
experimental concern is much less intense in Volterra's work. For instance,
the specific problem of elastische Nachwirkung which is the starting point
of Boltzmann's contribution, is seen by Volterra more as an empirical
reference than as an experimental context, in order to lay the foundations
of a general theory of hereditary phenomena which Boltzmann's
elastische Nachwirkung theory should be part of.

4
Boltzmann L. 1874, p.619.
3
The difference between an empirical and an experimental approach is
crucial in order to fully understand the main trends of classical mathematical
physics. Following the first approach, in order to build a physico-
mathematical theory, we need only, as a starting point, a set of clearly stated
empirical observations; being then completely free of any care of
experimental verification of the mathematical results. This is the point of
view of the abstract empiricism of the French physico-mathematical
tradition deriving from D'Alembert's and Lagrange's work, which in turn is
rooted in the way how Newtonian mechanics was transplanted to the
continent and in particular to France. Here the empirical approach was
conjugated with the cartesian abstract geometric approach and transformed
in a philosophical reference to Condillac's sensism. One should not
underestimate the influence of this approach on the history of mathematical
physics of countries like France, Italy and England and on the foundation of
scientific branches like analytical mechanics. On the other side, we cannot
speak of a clearly stated theory of an experimental approach before the
work of Joseph Fourier: here we can find the first time a clearly stated
conception of the relationships between mathematical laws and experimental
validation.
So, when speaking of Boltzmann and Volterra, we are facing two
different scientific conceptions springing from two different traditions of
classical mathematical physics. We observed that this difference is quite
evident from the physical side of the question, which was considered by
Boltzmann from an experimental point of view, while Volterra conceived it
as an empirical support to the mathematical structure of the theory.
Apparently less evident is the difference on the mathematical side, since the
4
equations obtained by Boltzmann in 1874 are nothing but the integro-
differential equations which Volterra considered later as the methodological
core of his hereditary theories. However, a more accurate analysis allows to
detect a significant difference, perhaps the most significant one. In order to
explain this aspect we shall give a very short account of the main aspects of
the results of Boltzmann and Volterra.
5
Boltzmann introduced the first time the concept of elastische
Nachwirkung in a paper of 1874.
6
In fact this concept was well known and
studied in the context of an experimental scientific literature and in particular
in some papers of Weber, Kolrausch and, later, of Meyer.
7
These papers
deal with the problems of the torsion of a wire and of the strain of an elastic
horizontal bar: the central hypothesis is that the deformation of the
mechanical system is a function not only of the stress (i.e. of the forces)
acting in the moment of the experiment but also of all the stresses acting on
the system in the all of his past. Boltzmann takes this hypothesis (which is
the core of the concept of elastische Nachwirkung) as a starting point but
blames the papers of Weber, Kolrausch and Meyer for their lack of rigor.
Boltzmann considers an elastic parallelepiped whose edges are parallel
to the coordinate axes and are subjected to a uniform deformation in the
direction of the axes (Fig.1). Following the classical treatment of Clebsch
and Lam
8
it is possible to calculate the forces acting on the unitary
boundary surface and hence the equations of motion and equilibrium. In
fact, if !, ", # are the deformations of the unitary lenghts on the axes x, y,

5
One could find a more detailed account in a forthcoming extended version of this paper.
6
Boltzmann L. 1874.
7
Weber W. 1835, Kolrausch F. 1864, 1866, Meyer O.E. 1874.
8
See Lam G. 1852.
5
z, it easily seen that the force acting on the unitary boundary surface
Fig.1
orthogonal to the x-axis is
[1] N
1
= $ ( ! + " + #) + 2 !
where $ and are the constants of Lam. The expression of the forces
acting on the other faces is quite similar.
Then by assuming the classical approach as his starting point
Boltzmann shows how he intends to modify it:
The forces acting on the boundary surfaces of the parallelepiped at a given instant
do not depend only on the deformations of the body at that time but also on the previous
deformations; nevertheless under the hypothesis that, for a given deformation, the farther
the instant when it took place the smaller the effect it produces; that is the force required
to produce any deformation is smaller if a deformation previously happened in the same
direction. I want to define the circumstance when a deformation which took place
previoulsy reduces the force required to produce a deformation in the same direction as
6
the decreasing in force caused by that previous deformation.
9
In this way, Boltzmann introduces the concept of heredity in a form
which is essentially the same that will be adopted later by Volterra;
furthermore he states what Volterra will consider the fundamental postulate
of the elastic hereditary action, namely that the elastische Nachwirkung
tends to zero when time tends to infinity.
Boltzmann then introduces the hypothesis that if, starting at any instant,
the elastic body undergoes a deformation !(%) in a time interval d%, the
decreasing in force provoked by this deformation on the force acting at the
time t, is proportional to d%, !(%) and to a function of the time t - % = &
before which the deformation happened. It then follows, at least for not too
large deformations, what Boltzmann calls the superposition principle ,
that is the assumption that the decreasing in force produced by a given
deformation, which took place at a past instant of time, doesn't depend on
the states through which the body went in the meantime. Volterra will
make this hypothesis again, in essentially the same form, and call it
principle of invariability of the heredity .
Now Boltzmann is in position to deduce the equations of motion for an
isotropic body undergoing elastische Nachwirkung. First he writes again
the expression of the forces N
i
. In order to do that it is enough to modify
equation [1] assuming that the deformations are no longer constant (and
therefore given by the numbers !, ", #) but that they are functions of time
!(t), "(t), #(t). He keeps the assumption that, at any instant the forces act in

9
Boltzmann L. 1874, p. 620-1.
7
a spatially uniform way in the three directions of the axes. The first and
second term should be modified by two terms representing the decreasing in
force caused by the elastische Nachwirkung as well as all previous forces.
In these two terms the time dependence of the decreasing of force will be
represented by two functions '(t), ((t). One can then write for N
1
:
[2] N
1
= $[!(t) + "(t) + #(t)] + 2 !(t)
)
*
0
"
d&'(&) [!(t-&)+"(t-&)+#(t-&)]) 2)
*
0
"
d&((&)!(t-&) .
Likewise for N
2
and N
3
. Now, generalizing Clebsch's treatment and
using notations similar to Lam, Boltzmann writes the equations of motion
for the case of the component parallel to the x-axis (where T
1
is the
tangential component):
[3]
+
,
-
,
.
N
1
= $(t) + 2
du(t)
dx

)
*
0
"
d&[((&) /(t-&) + 2((&)
du(t-&)
dx
]
T
1
=
dv(t)
dz
+
dw(t)
dy

)
*
0
"
d& ((&)[
dv(t-&)
dz
+
dw(t-&)
dy
]

where u(t), v(t), w(t) are the displacements parallel to the three axes.
This is the general mathematical approach to the problem,which allows,
for any given case, to write the corresponding equation of motion, which
will be given by an integro-differential equation. The functions '(t), ((t) will
be determined, for every particular case, by the experimental analysis. For
the sake of brevity, we point out only the main lines of Boltzmann's
treatment of the problem.
First he considers the case of a cilindric wire with length and radius R,
8
hanging vertically from a fixed end (Fig.2). The axis is supposed to be
oriented like the x-axis and its origin to be coinciding with the upper end of
the wire; the lower end is free and loaded with a weight having a very great
moment of inertia K, so that we can assume that on the wire acts at any
time a uniform torsion.
Fig.2
We pose u = 0 , v =
x z /(t)

, w =
x y /(t)

, where /(t) is
the angle by wich the lower section of the wire is rotated at the instant t
because of the torsion. Then we calculate the moment of all elastic forces
acting on the lower end to obtain the equation of motion (where D is the
moment of the torsion to which the wire is submitted at time t):
9
[4] D K
d
2
/(t)
dt
2
=
#R
4
2
[ /(t)
)
*
0
"
d&'(&)/(t-&) ]
The determination of the form of the function ((t) is experimentally
possible for any specific case. Boltzmann then considers some special
circumstances, which lead him to obtain a particular form for the function
((t). In some cases that allows to obtain particular integrals of equation [4],
or at least some conclusions about the asimptotic behaviour of the solutions.
We can't linger on these developments: we limit ourselves to recall that they
deal essentially with five cases: 1) the wire at the initial time never was
submitted to torsion; 2) the wire undergoes a constant torsion by an angle #
only in the time interval (- %/2, %/2); 3) the wire is not submitted to any
torsion before time t=0, then undergoes a constant moment of torsion; 4)
the wire was rotated by an angle c
"
in the time interval (-", 0) after
which it is not submitted to any force, and therefore rotates at time t by an
angle /' because of the elastische Nachwirkung; 5) the wire, not submitted
to torsion in the time interval (-", -%/2) experienced a torsion between (-%/2,
%/2), after which no force acts on its lower end.
This first part of the article ends with the comparison of the results
obtained in these cases with the experimental results given in several papers
by Kohlrausch, Neesen and Streintz.
In the second part of the article Boltzmann obtains the general form of
the elastic forces in the case when the functions '(t), ((t) have the same
form. We have in this case:
10
[5]
+
,
,
-
,
,
.
N
1
= $/(t) + )
*
0
"
[/(t) - /(t-&)] F(&)
d&
&
+
+ 2
)
*
0
"
[
du(t)
dx

du(t-&)
dx
] f(&)
d&
&
T
1
=
)
*
0
"
[
dv(t)
dz
+
dw(t)
dy

dv(t-&)
dz

dw(t-&)
dy
] F(&)
d&
&

where u(t), v(t), w(t) are the displacements parallel to the axes.
Concerning the two functions F(&) and f(&) it is enough to know that
for an appropriate & they have a constant value, while when & is very great
they tend to 0 so that the following integrals converge:
)
0
*
1
"
f(&)
d&
&
e
)
0
*
1
"
F(&)
d&
&
.
We have therefore that /(t) =
du(t)
dx
+
dv(t)
dy
+
dw(t)
dz
. On a
surface element df normal to the x-axis act the forces N
1
df, T
3
df, T
2
df
parallel to the three axes x, y, z. Likewise for the other axes. Using Lam's
equations of motion we have:
[6]
+
,
-
,
.
1
d
2
u(t)
dt
2
=
dN
1
dx
+
dT
3
dy
+
dT
2
dz
+ X
1
d
2
v(t)
dt
2
=
dT
3
dx
+
dN
2
dy
+
dT
1
dz
+ Y
1
d
2
w(t)
dt
2
=
dT
2
dx
+
dT
1
dy
+
dN
3
dz
+ Z

where is the density and X, Y, Z the accelerating forces acting on the
body from the inside.
These equations are again applied to the case of the wire of Fig.2.
11
Apart from the deformation along the x-axis experienced by the wire
because of the load who only superposes to the oscillatory motion, the
displacements u,v,w take the values:
u = 0 ; v =
z x /(t)

; v =
y x /(t)

We have finally the equation of motion:
[7] D K
d
2
/(t)
dt
2
=
#R
4
2

)
0
*
0
"
[/(t) - /(t-&)] f(&)
d&
&

Boltzmann considers this equation in some special cases. His analysis
mostly employs approximations or Fourier series developments. The article
ends with an experimental appendix in which Boltzmann reports on some
torsion experiments and makes a first comparison between measured values
and theoretical values deduced from his relations.
We have seen therefore that Boltzmann analysis is based on the
classical mathematical elasticity theory and his approach consists in
modifying its structure in order to include the new experimental results in
the framework of a good agreement between the mathematical solution of
the problem and these results.
We already observed that such a link between mathematical analysis of
the problem and experimental verification is characteristic of the
experimental tradition la Fourier. It should however be pointed out
another feature of Boltzmann's approach, i.e. the absence of any interest for
the specific mathematical side. Are there general methods in order to
solve an integro-differential equation?, Could we determine the class of
admissible solutions or demonstrate a theorem of existence and
12
uniqueness? Boltzmann is not interested by questions of this kind, which
have however their root also in the above mentioned tradition la Fourier,
as Poincar pointed out. Even if Boltzmann is to be considered the first
who introduced the use of integro-differential equations we must not
forget that he formulated another famous integro-differential equation, the
transport equation, arising in the determination of the distribution of
particles of an ideal gas in an enclosure of which there is an external force F
he never tackled the above mentioned problems, limiting himself to the
use of techniques like the Fourier series developments.
We shall now tell something about Volterra's contribution.
It would not be correct to present Volterra's interest for the
problematics of systems with memory as a simple prosecution of
Boltzmann's researches on the elastische Nachwirkung. Many others
hints concurred to awake the interest of the italian scientist for that
argument. The connection between the concept of function of lines
(introduced by Volterra in 1887
10
) and that one of an infinite value-
dependent process is quite clear, as in the case of an elastic body submitted,
in its past history, to an infinite number of stresses. It would be reasonable
at least for chronological reasons to suppose that Volterra had
previously know Boltzmann's work on the elastische Nachwirkung; he
did not cite however that class of phenomena, as an empirical justification
for his theory of functions of lines. This is true until 1909. Thus it seems
well-founded to say that Volterra was aware of the existence of many classes
of phenomena whose behaviour was definitely influenced by its past and

10
Volterra V. 1887.
13
that his conceptions of the theory of functions of lines had been widely
influenced by these phenomena; but the theory of the elastische
Nachwirkung did not pay any relevant role.
On the other hand Volterra gave fundamental contributions to the
theory of elasticity, one of his preferred fields of research. In fact in 1907 he
wrote one of his most important memoirs on the theory of elasticity where
he connected the concept of functions of lines with that of elastic
hysteresis.
In 1907 E. Picard had already written about phenomena with
memory in an article which appeared in the first volume of the journal
Scientia ,
11
thus well known in the italian scientific milieu. In this paper
Picard attempted to reconstruct, in front of a general crisis of the foundation
of classical mathematical physics, a coherent frame for mechanics. Here
Picard developed that program of elastic defense of classical which a few
years later Poincare' effectively defined with his metaphore on the necessity
of deforming the frames of classical science in order to preserve its
essential core. Among these frame deformations, according to Picard it
was necessary to abandon the strictly non-hereditary determinism la
Laplace. In the hereditary cases observed Picard it will be perhaps
necessary to give up differential equations in favor of functional equations.
Clearly in his reference to the functional equations he explicitely alluded to
Volterra's mathematical theories. The deep link, both scientific and human
between Volterra and Picard is well known. The correspondence between
the two scientists shows how in 1909 they had reached the idea of giving

11
Picard E. 1907.
14
an explicite name to the functional equations describing those mechanical
phenomena previously christened as hereditary by Picard himself. The
new definition of integro-differential equations was introduced by Volterra
for the first time in the scientific literature in a paper of 1909.
12
In another work that followed soon afterwards,
13
Volterra applied the
integro-differential equations technique to the study of magnetic hysteresis
correcting Hertz's equations by integral terms. In this work appeared the
condition called by Volterra the condition of closed loop (later known as
closed cycle) that is equivalent in the special case of periodic hereditary
coefficients to the superposition principle of Boltzmann.
The way how hereditary theories and integro-differential equations are
introduced by Volterra thus appears largely influenced by a general scientific
program, although inspired by specific applicative themes. The general and
philosophical nature of this approach is clearly seen even in the effort to
construct a mathematical coherent theory as general as possible.
14
Here we
clearly see the difference with Boltzmann's approach.
Reference to Boltzmann's work appeared for the first time in a work
of that same year. The elastische Nachwirkung phenomena are quoted in
the wider class of hereditary phenomena in the sense of Picard.
15
Volterra's
starting point was a general philosophical program quite similar to Picard's
views, i.e. the need to weaken the principle of determinism in view of
studying the new class of phenomena.

12
Volterra V. 1909a (in Opere Matematiche, p.269)..
13
Volterra V. 1909b.
14
E' bene [] osservare [] che il problema della risoluzione delle equazioni integro-differenziali
costituisce in generale un problema essenzialmente distinto dai problemi delle equazioni differenziali a
da quelli ordinarii delle equazioni integrali. (Ibidem , in Opere Matematiche, p. 275).
15
Volterra V. 1909c (in Opere Matematiche, p.288).
15
Mr. Painlev, in the interesting chapter on mechanics of his book: De la mthode
dans les Sciences ,
16
states that, in a certain sense, problems on heredity are but apparent
and that a more perfect knowledge of the constitution of bodies could dispose of them,
through their reduction to non-hereditary form; but whatever opinion one might have on
the subject, as a matter of fact at the present moment it is necessary to take them into
account.
The equations governing some of these problems have been known for a long time.
Thus I will mention those regarding the subsequent elasticity
17
which Boltzmann
18
established in the isotropic case starting from empirical concepts and that Wiechert later
rediscovered under a new perspective.
19
Up to these very last times, however, an analysis was lacking for the general study of
these equations, allowing to treat them in a complete way. I will shortly point out why it is
so. The problems of non-hereditary mechanics and mathematical physics, because of their
very nature, depend on ordinary or partial differential equations; as it is well-known, the
initial data are given by the arbitrary constants or the arbitrary functions arising from the
integration of these equations. On the contrary, in order to deal with the problems of
hereditary mathematical physics, the analysis of differential equations is no longer
sufficient. Since the present state of the system depends on its previous history, and this is
detailed by the values taken by certains parameters during a given time interval, it is clearly
necessary to take into account quantities depending on all the values of these parameters
regarded as functions of time.
20
It is not possible to describe here even roughly (and it would be
somewhat off our point) Volterra's contribution on the general theory of
integro-differential equations and hereditary processes. We shall only recall
that Volterra specific starting point is, like Boltzmann, the problem of the
torsion of a wire. If & is the angle of torsion and M the torsion moment,

16
Painlev P. 1909.
17
This is Volterra's translation of elastische Nachwirkung. In subsequent papers he shall make use of
the term lasticit residuelle.
18
The reference is to Boltzmann L. 1874.
19
The reference is to Wiechert E. 1893.
20
Volterra V. 1909c (in Opere Matematiche, p.288-9).
16
according to Hooke's law, we have:
[8] & = KM (where K is a constant).
The hereditary approach implies the following modification of Hooke's
law:
[9] & = KM + '
where ' is depending from all the values taken by M in the time
interval (-", 0). Then Volterra develops ' in a series analogous toTaylor
series:
[10] ' =
)
*
t
0
t
M(%) '(t;%) d% +
1
2

)
*
t
0
t
M(%
1
) M(%
2
) '(t;%
1
;%
2
) + ...
so obtaining, with a first order approximation:
[11] &(t) = KM(t) +
)
*
t
0
t
M(%) '(t;%) d%
The dynamical equation is obtained in a way different from the one
followed by Boltzmann. Making use of D'Alembert's principle, Volterra
replaces the torsion M with the difference M
$
2
&
$t
2
(where is a constant) . The equation is similar to Boltzmann's
equation:
[12] &(t) = K [M(t)
$
2
&(t)
$t
2
] +
)
0
*
t
0
t
[M(%)
$
2
&(%)
$%
2
]'(t;%) d%
Let us now discuss another aspect of the differences between the
17
approaches of the two scientists. While Boltzmann only emphasizes the
modification of the mathematical form of the forces acting on a body when
not only the deformations of the body in the given moment but also the
effect of the deformations which previously affected it are taken into
account, Volterra emphasizes a different implication of the consideration of
the past stresses. In Volterra's views the consideration of the past stresses
implies that the mechanical evolution of the system is no longer determined
by its initial state but by all its past as well. It is quite obvious that there is
no formal difference between the two points of view. But the different
interpretation of the passage from the ordinary differential equation of
motion to an integro-differential equation which according to the first
approach is seen as a modification of the components of force and according
to the second as the substitution of the vector of numbers giving the initial
conditions with a vector of integrals (i.e. with a functional) has an
important conceptual consequence. In the latter case attention is focused on
the abandonment of the deterministic principle of mechanical phenomena as
a consequence of the fact that we are taking account of the past stresses: the
evolution of the mechanical system is no longer and solely determined by its
initial state (a vector of numbers) but by the whole past of the system
(described as a set of integrals). Volterra emphasizes this aspect more and
more markedly; and, in connection with the growht of this emphasis, the
reference to the elastische Nachwirkung disappears from his writings.
This theme, on the other hand, is totally absent in Boltzmann's work.
The deep implications of hereditary theories on the deterministic
view of mechanical phenomena is confirmed by a dispute which took place
around 1910 on the mechanics of heredity, opposing the orthodox
18
determinist Painlev to Volterra and Picard, who were upholding a less strict
version of determinism.
21
Painlev had thrown his dards against hereditary
theories (clearly having as goals, Picard and Volterra). The argument
developed by Painlev against hereditary theories was inspired by an
orthodox laplacian conception: the evolution of a mechanical system is
strictly determined by its initial state, and appeal to the knowledge of its past
history can only be useful in those cases in which technics is not powerful
enough to determine the initial state of the system with sufficient
approximation. There are, however, no essentially hereditary processes,
since the principle of causality in the form expressed by laplacian
determinism has a universal validity. And Painlev concluded in
extremely drastic and polemical way, observing that the conception
following which, in order to predict the future of a system it is necessary to
know all his past, is the very negation of science.
Volterra's answer was not as sharp, and it shows many similarities to
the soft attitude exhibited by Poincar on this sort of questions. While in the
brief mention given in his 1908 paper, Volterra gave an instrumental
justification of the use of the hereditary point of view, in his answer to
Painlev, written in 1912, he goes a step forward, declaring himself ready, if
necessary, to modify the frames of classical reductionism so as to make it
capable of explaining new classes of phenomena. Therefore, even if not
willing to destroy the principle of determinism, he cannot at the same time
accept the escape of considering hereditary theories as a mere technical
device to be dispended as soon as possible. On the contrary, he stresses

21
For a more detailed account, see Israel G. 1984.
19
again their descriptive and explanatory value, by making a comparison with
the role given by Newton to the concept of action at distance.
This polemics gives us hints for reflection. The introduction of integro-
differential equations and of hereditary theories posed a serious problem to
the supporters of orthodox causality. There comes a spontaneous question:
Why did Boltzmann who was the first to introduce the study of
hereditary phenomena and of integro-differential equations, even in other
contexts not catch this critical element?
The implications of the hereditary theories on the principle of
determinism appear clearly if we observe that its mathematical translation is
the theorem of existence and uniqueness of the solutions of a system of
ordinary differential equations. We should therefore devote our attention to
another chapter of history of science, i.e. the history of the above mentioned
theorem a chapter studied until now in a totally unsatisfactory way.
However unsatisfactory are these histories,
22
it is quite clear that the above
mentioned connection could not be clear before the turn of the century. It is
true that the first versions of this theorem go back to 1820 and in particular
to Cauchy's work, but the point of view was always local. We can find a
more precise definition of the conditions for the existence and uniqueness of
the solutions only in Lipschitz' work in 1868. For a local existence theorem
based only on the continuity hypothesis it is necessary to wait for Picard's
and Peano's contributions at the turn of the century, while results on
uniqueness will be the last ones. Finally it should be observed that the first
steps towards the global analysis of the solutions on which rests the

22
The best reference is Dieudonn J. 1978 (Vol. II, Cap.VIII).
20
possibility of connecting this theorem with the principle of determinism
through the concept of dynamical system starts only at the end of last
century with the work of Poincar on celestial mechanics. We dispose
therefore of a simple answer to the previously posed question concerning
Boltzmann's attitude. The natural answer is that he could not know in
1874 the more general and global version of the existence and uniqueness
theorem, the only one whereby the theorem could be seen as the
mathematical translation of the principle of determinism.
However, we have here a good example of how the more natural
explanations, arising from the chronological development of mathematical
techniques, can generate misleading conclusions.
In fact the connection between the existence and uniqueness theorem
and the principle of determinism has become commonplace, especially in
contemporary mathematical physics, but it does not have any intrinsic basis.
As Mario Bunge observed, this union only makes sense if one admits that
causality were exhausted by uniform, unique, and continuous
succession
23
. Only if the empiricist reduction of becoming to uniform,
unique, and continuous succession in time is accepted, then the reduction of
mathematics of "empirical science" to differential equations may follow.
24
The above point of view is therefore the reflection of a scientific philosophy
that is founded on a special interpretation of the concept of causality and on
the transformation of mechanical atomism in a sort of geometrical
atomism where the continuous point of view has the upper hand. In fact,
history of science gives a good proof of that. Let us recall the first pages of

23
Bunge M. 1959: 1979
3
, p.74.
24
Ibidem , p.75.
21
the Essai Philosophique des Probabilits by Laplace.
25
We find here the
most explicit formulation of Newtonian mechanics program even with
regard to the mathematical aspects. Firstly we have an atomistic approach:
every mechanical system is formed by a very high number of particles
whose motion is determined by Newton's law of dynamics. Secondly, the
motion of bodies is subject to a principle of causality, and therefore to a
strict determinism. The program of mechanics consists in determinating the
specific form of the acting forces, in writing the differential equations of
motion for all the elementary components and in integrating them. This can
all be ready in the above mentioned work of Laplace. However the theorem
of existence and uniqueness was not yet known nor was it under the form
that would have permitted this identification before the end of the 19th
century. This strikingly shows the stricly metaphysical nature of that
program: in fact, Laplace stated the above mentioned connection two
centuries before the final formulation of the theorem.
26

We shall therefore give two quite different answers to our question
concerning Boltzmann's attitude. First Boltzmann did never give any
substantial importance to the consequences deriving from the
mathematical structures he used. Therefore, the absence of a theorem of
existence and uniqueness in the classical form had no meaning to him as to
the problem, whether the phenomena under investigation were or not
essentially ruled by a causal law. Secondly, Boltzmann's mechanism was not
tied to a causal conception based on the deterministic principle typical of the

25
Laplace P.S. de 1825.
26
On this topic see G. Israel, "Il determinismo e la teoria delle equazioni differenziali ordinarie.
Un'analisi retrospettiva a partire dalla meccanica ereditaria", preprint.
22
laplacian physico-mathematical tradition. Therefore, the problem around
which focused the discussion between Picard, Painlev and Volterra, which
was deeply rooted in the French physico-mathematical tradition, could not
attract his attention.
The above mentioned issue leads us to analyze the core of Boltzmann's
scientific conception on the specific question of the relationships between
physics and mathematics in the analysis of physical phenomena.
Not only Boltzmann believed, as it is well known, in an atomistic
conception of physical phenomena, but this conception was so sharp that it
limited the signification of the use of differential equations in order to avoid
any conclusion about the continuous nature of phenomena. To Boltzmann,
differential equations are nothing but a technical tool that one must use very
cautiously in order to avoid contaminating the analysis of physical
phenomena with a continuous approach. Boltzmann's finitism in
mathematics is far more rooted and definitely different from the pre-
intuitionistic finitism of the French functionalist school of which physico-
mathematicians like Volterra, Painlev, Picard e Poincar were followers.
Therefore Boltzmann could not have seen any deterministic implication
deriving from the use of differential equations.
In order to go deeper into the relationships between continuism and
atomism, let us recall something about this connection in the context of the
other tradition. Here the resort to a continuous approach was suggested
by the drawbacks of the strict laplacian-newtonian program. The path
followed implied weakening the atomistic assumption and joining it with a
continuist assumption, in a complex but fertile combination: a combination
that it is very well described by the principle called by Volterra the
23
principle of the passage from the discontinuous to the continuous.
Let us recall the way how D'Alembert, far before Laplace, obtained the
equation of vibrating strings. He started from Bernouilli representation of a
string like a finite system of masses suspended to a thread without mass,
where to each one he applied Newton's equation. D'Alembert by making
the subdivision (or the mass) tend to zero reintroduced a continuous view of
the string, thus replacing the system of Newton's equations with a partial
differential equation. A similar procedure was followed later by Laplace in
order to obtain the equation of the potential of a sphere on a point outside it.
The body was not more represented by means of a set of real
particles but by an abstract and purely mathematical atomistic scheme
centered around the notion of geometric point with a mass. This abstract
and purely geometrical atomism lead to a continuous representation of the
phenomena because the elementary unit is not an indivisible element but an
infinitely divisible one. The ambiguous coexistence between the two
approaches is described very well by Volterra in a paper of 1906.
27
In this approach, differential equations have a fundamental role: they
are, as Fourier said, mathematical Analysis and mathematical Analysis is as
extended as Nature.
28
The passage from discontinuous to continuous
allows us to develop the Newtonian program even if in a less restricted
sense, by the widening of the range of admissible differential equations. For
instance, abandoning the strictly mechanical-atomistic interpretation of heat
phenomena seems at this point the only way to save the core of Newton's
program.

27
Volterra V. 1906 (in Opere Matematiche, p.65).
28
Fourier J. 1821, p.xxiii.
24
Let us now come back to Boltzmann. The fact that Boltzmann wass a
mechanist is almost common knowledge. It is also quite well known that he
was prudent enough not to risk a substantial atomistic interpretation of
phenomena. However, to see Boltzmann's mechanism under the light of the
above mentioned physico-mathematical conception would be completely
misleading. In Boltzmann point of view mechanism is not strictly linked with
determinism. In addition, the continuous representation of phenomena is
only considered nothing more than a mathematical device to be handled
cautiously. The same type of cautiousness if not distrust is shown by him
towards differential equations. This leads to a mechanistic approach that
has little in common with the previous one except for the name. Let's look
at this closer.
Right from the first pages of Boltzmann's Lessons on the Theory of
Gases
29
, one is impressed by the close link established between the
mechanistic and the atomistic point of view; up to the point of blaming the
trend called by him the continental trend, which considers the
assumption that makes heat a motion of particles [as an assumption that]
will one day be considered false and rejected,
30
for having completely
renounced to the mechanistic approach. Boltzmann's approach follows a
different trend opposing the method of mechanical analogy to the one that
he calls the method of purely mathematical formulas and remarking that
experience teaches us that it is almost exclusively through special
mechanical considerations that it was possible to attain new discoveries.
31

29
Boltzmann L. 1895-8.
30
Ibidem , ed. fr.1987, p.2.
31
Ibidem , p.3
25
Meanwhile, it will be necessary to show prudence concerning the real nature
of phenomena.
We should not be misleaded by this prudence. If Boltzmann accepts
what he calls the more modern standpoint that consists in simply
describing the phenomena
32
and admits the well known differential
equations which are related to the internal motions in solid and fluid
bodies,
33
immediately afterwards refers to the very old idea that bodies
do not fill in a mathematically continuous way the space they occupy but
that they are formed by the lowest particles, molecules, whose smallness
isolatedly makes them imperceptible to our sense organs.
34
It should be
observed how by the adverb mathematically, Boltzmann excluded at a
blow any descriptive validity to any kind of schematization based on the so
called passage from discontinuous to continuous. We shall immediately see
how this implies a severe reduction in the descriptive value of differential
equations.
To better clarify the restricted boundaries within which Boltzmann
allows the use of differential equations in mathematical physics, we must
refer to his conception of the foundation of mathematics which is radically
finitistic: Boltzmann excludes any consideration of actual infinite and
considers that in Nature each infinite only implies a passage to a limit.
35
However this would be an insufficient characterization that would not
permit distinguishing Boltzmann's mathematical thought from the one of
any other intuitionist for instance, of the members of the so-called French

32
Ibidem.
33
Ibidem.
34
Ibidem. Our italics.
35
Boltzmann L. 1877a: in Boltzmann 1909, II, p.167.
26
functionalist school, who were yet fully continuist in the field of classical
analysis. The main point is that, for Boltzmann, only mathematical entities
having a physical reality are meaningful. Hence only finite collections of
entities are admissible and the infinite can only be conceived as a limit of
finite collections. However, we should not be misleaded as regards the
meaning of this tendency to a limit: it is not a purely mathematical
procedure. On the contrary, to be fully acceptable it must be justified on the
grounds of procedures which must be concrete, expressed in physical terms
and moreover actually computable. Therefore, the procedures giving rise to
the partial differential equations of classical mathematical physics are only
acceptable to the extent where the procedure of passing from the finite case
to the infinite representation is clearly and concretely defined.
An extremely clear example of this conception of Boltzmann is given
by his justification of Fourier's partial differential equation in heat's theory,
which one can find in his paper Nochmals ber die Atomistik.
36
To conclude, for Boltzmann the concepts of differential and integral
calculus freed from any atomistic representation are purely metaphysical, if
by this term we mean (according to a famous definition of Mach) the things
we have forgotten about how we got them.
37
In another paper on atomistic,
38
Boltzmann contrasts the atomistic
point of view to the approach that he calls phenomenology and that he
defines as the trend to represent limited fields of phenomena by means of
differential equations. He blamed phenomenology for having forgotten

36
Boltzmann L. 1897a: in Boltzmann L. 1905, p.158-9 (fr. transl. in Dugas R. 1959, p.27-8).
37
Ibidem , p.160.
38
Boltzmann L. 1897b.
27
the physical roots of the differential equations.
However, perhaps the most radical criticism about the
phenomenology, which shows the strong opposition of Boltzmann to the
mathematical procedure of the passage from discontinuous to continuous,
consisted in the reproach for resorting to every kind of atomistic
representation just simply in order to find a description of phenomena
without any concern about coherence of these different atomistics. Hence
phenomenology leads only to fragmentary and incoherent representations
of phenomena.
39
So, if differential equations express a phenomenology but do not
express any essential property of phenomena, there is no sense in looking
at them for the principle of causality. No doubt Boltzmann considered that
mechanical phenomena are subject to what he called the principle of
univocal determination of motions without which these phenomena
would not be a scientific subject but only a curiosity. This principle is part of
a general principle of univocal determination of natural processes.
40
But this
principle has little to do with the principle of determinism identified with the
content of the theorem of existence and uniqueness of the solutions of
differential equations. It is enough to say that in hisLessons at the Clark
University of 1899
41
, Boltzmann denied that the initial state of a system
univocally determines its evolution. In fact, this state includes in a close sense
the whole state of the Universe that is never twice the same, and following
Boltzmann, this difficulty could only be overcomed by founding an

39
See once more Boltzmann L. 1897b, p.144-9.
40
See Boltzmann L. 1899 (also in Boltzmann L. 1905, pp.253-307).
41
Ibidem.
28
inductive theory based on Nahewirkungstheorie (or the theory of contact
actions), according to which motion is determined only by the spacial
elements near the region considered. We could say that Boltzmann
conceives determinism only as a local property.
To conclude, Boltzmann's work on hereditary phenomena is the
starting point of a new branch of mathematical physics, but Boltzmann did
not contributed to the development of the branch in the
phenomenological sense. The reasons for that are perhaps now more
clear.
The case study here examined leads us also to identify the differences
between two different trends in mathematical physics at the end of
Einghteenth century: the mechanistic-atomistic, non deterministic point of
view of Boltzmann and the deterministic-continuist French school to which
Volterra belonged. It also shows how unnecessary and unmotivated are the
relations between determinism and the existence and uniqueness theorem of
the solutions of ordinary differential equations: two connections which are
again in fashion today in the wake of the study of the expansive dynamics
and the so-called chaotic systems and which mark the recovery (yet
unexpressed) of the deterministic-mechanistic viewpoint coming from
Laplacian tradition. The groundlessness of the above mentioned connection
shows also why some aspects of the present-day debate on the implications
of the discovery of chaotic systems are meaningless. To those who, like
Prigogine, claim that this discovery leads to the break-down of determinism
from the inside, the laplacian determinist could easily reply that, on the
contrary, this discovery shows the possibility of describing some stochastic
phenomena in the context of the classical deterministic framework. Both are
29
wrong: in fact and on this point we should refer to Boltzmann's teaching
mathematical structures cannot have any implication concerning the
substantial nature of phenomena. We see therefore that historical analysis
can also contribute to a less vague use of some conceptual categories which
are of basic importance in the contemporary scientific debate.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOLTZMANN L. 1874, "Zur Theorie der elastischen Nachwirkung", Wiener
Berichte, 70 , pp. 275-306; reprint. in BOLTZMANN L. 1909, pp.616-644.
BOLTZMANN L. 1877, "ber die Beziehung zwischen dem zweiten Hauptsatze er
mechanischen Wrmetheorie und der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung respektive den Stzen
ber das Wrmegleichgewicht", Wiener Berichte, 76, pp. 373-435 (in Boltzmann L. 1909,
pp. 164-223).
BOLTZMANN L. 1892, ber die Methoden der Theoretischen Physik, Munich (in
Boltzmann L. 1905, pp.1-10).
BOLTZMANN L. 1895-8, Vorlesungen ber die Gastheorie, 2 voll. Leipzig, Barth
(french transl. of A. Galotti with and Introduction and notes of M. Brillouin, 2 voll. Paris,
Gauthier-Villars, 1902-5; reprint, Paris, Gabay, 1987).
BOLTZMANN L. 1897-1904, Vorlesungen ber die Principe der Mechanik, 2 voll.,
Leipzig, Barth.
BOLTZMANN L. 1897a, "Nochmals ber die Atomistik", Wiedemann Annalen, 61
, p. 790 (in Boltzmann L. 1905, pp. 159-161).
BOLTZMANN L. 1897b, "ber die Unentberlichkeit der Atomistik in der
Naturwissenschaften", Wiedemann Annalen, 60, p. 231 (in Boltzmann L. 1905, pp. 141-
157.
BOLTZMANN L. 1899, ber die Grundprinzipien und Grundgleichungen der
Mechanik, Clark University (in Boltzmann L. 1905, pp. 253-307).
BOLTZMANN L. 1900-2, ber die Prinzipien der Mechanik, I, Leipzig, Nov 1900;
30
II , Vienna, Okt.1902 (also in Boltzmann L. 1905, pp. 308-337).
BOLTZMANN L. 1905, Populre Schriften, Leipzig, Barth.
BOLTZMANN L. 1909, Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, I (1865-1874), Leipzig,
Barth.
BRILLOUIN M. 1919, "Actions mcaniques hredit discontinue par
propagation: essai de thorie dynamique de l'atome quanta", Comptes-Rendus de
l'Acadmie des Sciences, 168, pp. 1318-20.
BUNGE M. 1959, Causality and Modern Science, Harvard University Press (3
rd
revised ed. New York, Dover, 1979).
DIEUDONNE' J. 1978, Abreg d'histoire des mathmatiques (1700-1900), 2 voll.,
Paris, Hermann.
DUGAS R. 1950, Histoire de la Mcanique, Neuchtel, Le Griffon.
DUGAS R. 1959, La thorie physique au sens de Boltzmann et ses prolongements
modernes, Neuchtel, Le Griffon.
FOURIER J. 1821, Thorie Analytique de la Chaleur, Paris.
HERTZ H. Untersuchungen ber die Ausbreitung der elektrischen Kraft, Leipzig,
Barth.
ISRAEL G. 1981, "'Rigor' and 'Axiomatics' in Modern Mathematics", Fundamenta
Scientiae, 2, pp. 205-219.
ISRAEL G. 1983, "Vito Volterra e la sua visione dei problemi della fisica", Atti del
III Congresso Nazionale di Storia della fisica, Palermo, 11-16 Ottobre 1982, Palermo,
pp. 199-208.
ISRAEL G. 1984, "Vito Volterra: un fisico matematico di fronte ai problemi della
fisica del Novecento", Rivista di Storia della Scienza, 1, pp.39-72.
ISRAEL G. 1985, "Sulle proposte di Vito Volterra per il conferimento del premio
Nobel per la Fisica a Henri Poincar", Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Storia della
Fisica, Roma, 29 -31 Ottobre 1984 (S. D'Agostino and S. Petruccioli eds.) , Rendiconti
dell'Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei XL, Memorie di Scienze Fisiche e
Naturali, 103, Serie V, Vol.IX, P.II, pp.227-9.
ISRAEL G. 1988, "Volterra's Analytical Mechanics of Biological Associations", to
appear in Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences.
KOLRAUSCH F. 1864, "Ueber die elastische Nachwirkung bei der Torsion", Ann.
der Phys. und Chemie, CXIX, pp. 337-368.
KOLRAUSCH F. 1866, "Beitrge zur Kenntniss der elastischen Nachwirkung",
Ann. der Phys. und Chemie, CXXVIII, pp. 1-20, 207-227, 399-419.
LAME' G. 1852, Leons sur la thorie mathmatique de l'Elasticit des corps
solides, Paris, Bachelier.
LAPLACE O.S. de 1825, Essai philosophique sur les probabilits , Paris, Bachelier
(reprint with an introduction of R. Thom, Paris, Bourgois, 1986).
MEYER O.E. 1874, "Theorie der elastischen Nachwirkung", Ann. der Phys. und
Chemie, CLI, pp. 108-119.
PAINLEVE' P.1910, "Mcanique", in AA.VV., De la Mthode dans les Sciences,
Paris, Alcan, pp. 73-120.
PICARD E. 1907, "La mcanique classique et ses approximations successives",
Scientia, I , pp. 4-15.
PICARD E.1905 La Science Moderne et son tat actuel, Paris, Flammarion.
POINCARE' H. 1911, "Sur la thorie des quanta", Comptes-Rendus de l'Acadmie
des Sciences, Paris, 153, pp. 1103-1108.
POINCARE' H. 1912, "Les rapports de la matire et de l'ther", Journal de
Physique Thorique et Applique, 5
me
Srie, 2 , pp. 347-360.
VOLTERRA V. 1887, "Sopra le funzioni che dipendono da altre funzioni", Nota I,
31
Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei, Ser. 4
a
, Vol. III, pp. 97-105; Nota II, Ibidem, pp.
141-146; Nota III, Ibidem, pp. 153-158 (also in Opere Matematiche, Vol.1, pp. 294-314).
VOLTERRA V. 1906, Leons sur l'intgration des quations diffrentielles aux
drives partielles, Stockholm, Fvrier-Mars 1906, Upsal, Almquist & Nicksell (Paris,
Hermann,1912
2
).
VOLTERRA V. 1907, "Sur l'quilibre des corps lastiques multiplement connexes",
Annales de l'Ecole Normale Suprieure, Ser.3
me
, T. XXIV, pp.401-518 (also in Opere
Matematiche, Vol.3, pp. 153-242).
VOLTERRA V. 1909a, "Sulle equazioni integro-differenziali", Rendiconti
dell'Accademia dei Lincei , Ser. 5
a
, Vol. XVIII, pp. 167-174 (also in Opere Matematiche,
Vol.3, pp. 269-275).
VOLTERRA V. 1909b, "Sulle equazioni dell'elettrodinamica", Rendiconti
dell'Accademia dei Lincei , Ser. 5
a
, Vol. XVIII, pp. 203-211 (also in Opere Matematiche,
Vol.3, pp. 276-284).
VOLTERRA V. 1909c, "Sulle equazioni integro-differenziali della teoria
dell'elasticit", Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei, Ser. 5
a
, Vol. XVIII, pp. 295-301
(also in Opere Matematiche, Vol.3, pp. 288-293).
VOLTERRA V. 1909d, "Equazioni integro-differenziali della elasticit nel caso della
isotropia", Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei, Ser. 5
a
, Vol. XVIII, pp. 577-586 (also in
Opere Matematiche, Vol.3, pp. 294-303).
VOLTERRA V. 1909e, Trois leons sur quelques progrs recents de la physique
mathmatique, Lectures delivered at the Clark University, Worcester, Mass. Sept. 7-11,
1909, Clark University, pp.82 (reprint. in german in Archiv der Math. und Phys. III
R,XXII , pp.97-181 and in Opere Matematiche, Vol.3, pp. 389-470.
VOLTERRA V. 1910, "Questioni generali sulle equazioni integrali ed integro-
differenziali", Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei, Ser. 5
a
, Vol. XIX, pp. 169-180 (also
in Opere Matematiche, Vol.3, pp. 311-322).
VOLTERRA V. 1912a, "Sur les quations intgro-diffrentielles et leurs
applications", Acta Mathematica, 35 , pp. 295-356 (also in Opere Matematiche, Vol.3, pp.
487-538).
VOLTERRA V. 1912b, "L'evoluzione delle idee fondamentali del calcolo
infinitesimale", La Revue du Mois ; reprint in VOLTERRA V. 1913, pp.1-21; in Saggi
Scientifici, Bologna ,Zanichelli, 1920, pp. 159-188 and in Opere Matematiche, Vol.3, pp.
539-553.
VOLTERRA V. 1912c, "L'applicazione del calcolo ai fenomeni di eredit", La Revue
du Mois; reprint in VOLTERRA V. 1913, pp.207-225; in Saggi Scientifici, Bologna,
Zanichelli, 1920, pp. 189-218 and in Opere Matematiche, Vol.3, pp. 554-568.
VOLTERRA V. 1913, Leons sur les fonctions de lignes, Paris Gauthier-Villars.
VOLTERRA V. Opere Matematiche. Memorie e Note, Roma, Accademia Nazionale
dei Lincei, 5 voll.
WEBER W. 1835, "Ueber die Elasticitt der Seidenfden", Ann. der Phys. und
Chemie XXXIV, pp. 247-257.
WHEATON B. 1983, The Tiger and the Shark, New York, Cambridge University
Press.
WIECHERT E. 1893, "Gesetze der elastischen fr konstante Temperatur", Ann. der
Phys. und Chemie, L, pp. 247-257.

Hereditary Mechanics and Boltzmann

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hereditary Mechanics and Boltzmann

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

BOLTZMANN'S NACHWIRKUNG AND BOLTZMANN'S NACHWIRKUNG AND

You might also like