In an influential lecture held at the University of Cambridge in 1959, British writer and scientist Charles P. Snow lamented the deep separation between the scientific and the humanistic cultures: “Literary intellectuals at one pole – at the other scientists, and as the most representative, the physical scientists. Between the two a gulf of mutual incomprehension — sometimes (particularly among the young) hostility and dislike, but most of all lack of understanding. They have a curious distorted image of each other.” [1]. Today, over 65 years later, the situation does not seem to have improved a great deal. One of the disciplines that certainly has the potential to bridge this apparently irreconcilable gap, and in doing so bringing new insights, is history of science (together perhaps with philosophy of science). However, among working physicists, the history of their discipline does not seem to enjoy a particularly favorable status.
It seems that the history of physics is often regarded by many physicists as occupying a role that oscillates between an intellectual Sunday hobby and a tool for outreach and education. In fact, it is frequently viewed as an activity suited for those not considered sharp enough to engage in active physics research, or for retired physicists who finally have the time to indulge in intellectual curiosities — essentially, an advanced alternative to crosswords or Sudoku. At best, physicists see the history of their discipline as a didactical tool, suitable for communicating science to the general public and to the students. While for the former purpose history focuses mostly on inspirational anecdotes, the latter has the role of forming a full-fledged quasi-historical narrative to create an internal ideology for the community [2]. As remarked by the prominent Danish historian of science Helge Kragh, this working history of physics “is of the same type as the national or religious history that gives to people a common national background or a common identity to a religious community.” [3]. And, as a matter of fact, the standard quasi-historical account presented to physicists portrays the development of physics as a success story of (usually white male) geniuses: solitary heroes that while struggling against the Zeitgeist revolutionize their discipline. This biased reconstruction based on the cult of personality is indeed so close to a religious narrative that professional historians call it “hagiographic history” (a hagiography is an idealized biography of a saint, or an ecclesiastic leader).
But what can history and physics concretely do for each other? First and foremost, the history of physics can serve as a genuine epistemic tool, offering novel insights into scientific ideas and enabling the discovery of unforeseen connections between them—connections that, in turn, can help stimulate the development of new physics. This is especially true in the foundations of physics, where many of the central open problems have persisted for decades—if not over a century—and therefore inherently carry a historical dimension. Moreover, history of physics has the crucial task of providing a context, it supplies the global picture to position physicists’ research in the general status of their discipline, so one can understand on what tradition their ideas stand. It allows an informed comprehension of the acceptance or rejection of useful concepts and the goals that a community has established. It moreover investigates how and why specific concepts and ideas are being developed, ultimately reminding us that science is a human activity, and that knowledge is effectively the result of a historical process rather than of a logical one (as it is often naively portrayed among scientists). Indeed, as pointed out again by Kragh, “history of science can give us a useful reminder that the forms in which science is carried out today are not the only forms possible but a socially conditioned selection among many alternatives. [...] It is history of science in particular which has taught us that the positivist belief in a value-free, culturally independent science is a myth. And it is history of science, more than anything else, philosophy included, that has taught us that the scientific method, perceived as an absolute, canonized doctrine, is an artefact.” [3].
A seriously conducted historical research serves to free physics from the artificial quasi-history made not only exclusively of heroes but solely of successes. The eminent Korean-American historian of science Hasok Chang stresses the importance of reconstructing unsuccessful scientific attempts, as these can help advance the understanding of contemporary science: “In the discarded past of science we can often find something valuable. The history of science presented in science textbooks tends to be a picture of past heroes who anticipated modern knowledge, such as Galileo, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. That has its purpose, but as a professional historian I make it my job to pay more attention to the “losers” of past science. Through such historical work we can recover forgotten ideas and phenomena. A further examination of such recovered knowledge can even lead to new scientific knowledge.” [4]. Moreover, history helps clarify epistemological-methodological debates by investigating the very practice of physics and freeing from the prejudices of a specific cultural context, thereby complementing the role of philosophy of physics. Also Albert Einstein, in a famous passage, supported such a view: “So many people today–and even professional scientists–seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering." [5].
I would like to stress, on the other hand, that a history of physics with the characteristics outlined above necessarily requires a high level of depth and familiarity with the problems it addresses—problems that, in turn, demand a deep understanding of physics itself. For this reason, it must be recognized as a professional and independent field of research. And a sustained, multidisciplinary collaboration between physicists and historians of physics seems to me the most effective approach to address this complexity. On this note, the words of the illustrious particle physicist John Iliopulos are illuminating to witness the complexity of historical research. In fact, while writing a chapter for the series “Studies in CERN history”, he shared his novel awareness about the difficulties of this kind of research: “my respect and my sympathy for historians have considerably increased in the course of this work; so has also my determination never to become one. I fully enjoyed the long hours I spent in the CERN archives reading old documents and manuscript notes, as well as the discussions I had with some of my senior colleagues, but even now, I cannot say that I really know what happened. I know several stories but I cannot reconstruct History.” [6].
For all these reasons, despite this prejudices and indeed the “distorted image of each other”, it seems that time is ripe for historians and physicists to bridge the gap that has kept these disciplines separated in a somewhat artificial way. This is what led me, together with historian of physics Bernadette Lessel, to develop the concept of “History for Physics”: a new way in which professional historians and working physicists are given opportunities to actively collaborate, each bringing in their specific expertise.
IQOQI-Vienna and the Faculty of Physics at the University of Vienna were the institutions that hosted the very first event launching this new concept of interdisciplinary exchange between historians of physics and working physicists. In September 2019, the workshop “History for Physics: Quantum Foundations” introduced the innovative format of the “tandem talk”, in which a physicist and a historian of physics gave a joint presentation, each contributing their perspective and highlighting the interplay between their fields. Following this, and again in collaboration with Bernadette Lessel, we edited a Special Issue of the European Journal of Physics H (EJPH) to further promote and solidify this new approach (see [7] for a detailed account). This initiative culminated in the publication of six tandem papers, each composed of two complementary parts authored by a physicist and a historian of physics, respectively [8]. These contributions demonstrated the power of interdisciplinary dialogue in shedding new light on foundational issues in physics through a historical lens. Building on this momentum, and thanks to the generous support of the QISS consortium, I launched a dedicated visiting program aimed at deepening this collaboration. The program enabled historians of physics to undertake up to two-week research stays at IQOQI-Vienna, while physicists from IQOQI were given the opportunity to visit the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin.
This reciprocal exchange was designed not only to promote intellectual cross-pollination, but also to embed historians more fully into the everyday research environment of a physics institute—an experience that proved mutually enriching. Between 2022 and May 2025 (the end of the funding period), the program supported the visits of Bernadette Lessel, Gustavo Rocha, Gonzalo Gimeno, Mercedes Xipell, Maria Papageorgiou, and Stefano Osnaghi. Their presence and contributions helped to cultivate a richer appreciation of the historical and conceptual dimensions of physics among researchers at IQOQI, while offering historians direct exposure to contemporary debates and practices in quantum foundations.
These first experiments, though still limited in scope, point toward a promising new model for interdisciplinary engagement between physicists and historians of physics. In a recent essay, Laplane et al. address the question “Why does science need philosophy?” [9]. They offer a series of concrete recommendations to bridge the gap between physics and philosophy, such as creating more space for philosophy at scientific conferences or hosting philosophers in research labs and departments. The efforts described here aim to address a similar issue—but in the context of the history of physics—and propose tangible ways to foster collaboration between these disciplines, thereby demonstrating the potential benefits of such an interplay. Regular interactions—such as seminars, collaborative research, and informal exchanges—can be mutually enriching when integrated into physics departments. Ideally, this would include employing trained historians of physics directly within research institutes, where they can actively contribute to the scientific environment.
Beyond their role in providing historical context to scientific concepts, historians of physics could offer dedicated lectures or courses on the historiography of science and its methodologies. These perspectives can encourage physicists to approach problems not solely through abstract, ahistorical formalism, but with an awareness of how concepts have developed over time. Such historical insight may help bring to light foundational questions that have been overlooked or obscured by entrenched theoretical frameworks.
Joint educational efforts—such as co-taught courses, interdisciplinary seminars, or elective modules—could become part of graduate or even undergraduate physics curricula. In some cases, such courses could be made mandatory, potentially alongside training in epistemology. Another valuable model would be to integrate historical components directly into existing physics courses, with historians contributing specific lectures or thematic units. This approach fosters a more reflective, conceptually nuanced scientific education—one that bridges disciplinary boundaries and encourages deeper critical thinking.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the history of physics in challenging established prejudices and fostering critical awareness. History acts as a powerful antidote to scientism and the idealized, almost 'sacred' perception of science as a teleological, infallible, and purely logical enterprise, detached from human nature and its society. It reminds us that science—like all human endeavors—is deeply influenced by its social, political, and cultural context. Reflecting on the past can uncover unexpected patterns, offering fresh inspiration for the development of new scientific ideas and contributing to a modern theory of knowledge—one that fully acknowledges the responsibilities of science.
References
[1] Snow, C. P. 1959. The Two Cultures. London: Cambridge University Press.
[2] Whitaker, M. (1979). History or quasi-history in physics education. Physics Education, 14, 108-112.
[3] An introduction to the Historiography of Science. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[4] Chang, H. 2021. March Session Report: Pais Prize. History and Philosophy Physics Newsletter: A Forum of the American Physical Society, Volume XIV, n. 6. (https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/APS/fc77d112-850f-4db6-997c-e434bd4670b5/UploadedImages/FHPP_Spring_2021_FINAL.pdf)
[5] Letter from Einstein to Robert Thorton. 1944.
[6] John Iliopoulos. 1993. Physics in The CERN Theory Division. Studies in CERN History: https://cds.cern.ch/record/261679/files/CERN-CH-39.pdf.
[7] Lessel, B. From history of physics to “history for physics”. EPJ H 49, 19 (2024). doi.org/10.1140/epjh/s13129-024-00084-5
[8] https://link.springer.com/collections/gafjchfhec
[9] Laplane, L., et al. Why science needs philosophy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019, 116.10: 3948-3952.