p This monograph brings together into a unified whole the ideas and problems that have been considered in many of my published works (articles in Voprosy filosofii and papers in collective works devoted to the philosophical problems of science, published in Russian, for instance, in the series Dialectical Materialism and Modern Science. Most of the problems or the aspects of them that are treated here have been discussed in my earlier work, but the present book contains new material, additions, and more precise definitions, and also a number of new conclusions. I have been especially interested to show that dialectics and its very important requirement of applying the all-round universal flexibility of concepts objectively is the logic of modern science.

p The basic substance of the book (as its title says) is Marxist-Leninist dialectics in modern physics. Dialectics is not a formal mental construction but rather a living method of cognising nature and of searching for new truths in modern science, and in physics in particular, as far as this book is concerned.

p It is undoubtedly simpler to talk about this than to apply the propositions involved in basic research. It is not up to me to decide how far I have managed to cope with the problems arising. One must, however, emphasise the following specific feature of Marxist-Leninist dialectics today. It is an essential element of the contemporary scientific and technical revolution. Only through creative development of dialectical materialism can we reap the rich results of solving the philosophical problems posed by this revolution. It takes its own course in socialist society, in a form that distinguishes it from the scientific and technical revolution in capitalist society. Only when one has an advanced revolutionary theory can one foresee the course of today’s very complex processes; only advanced Marxist-Leninist theory and its integral component—materialist dialectics—enable us to deal properly with the new problems posed by the evolution of scientific knowledge in our day.

p Conscious dialectics, it seems, makes a scientist really free in his scientific creative work; its consistent application in science is typical of the work of scientists in socialist countries.

p Lenin’s idea that modern physics gives birth to dialectical materialism has been profoundly developed in the theory of 7 relativity, quantum theory, and other branches of modern physics in the broad sense of the term. Without dialectics one cannot deal correctly with problems of the clarity of representation or visualisation of physical concepts and theories, relativity and absoluteness, discontinuity, elementarity, and all the other philosophical problems posed by modern physics. The very methods of theoretical thinking, like those of mathematical hypothesis, fundamental observability, stochastic and structural approaches, and so on, are foreign in their methodological essence to the old philosophy, in which metaphysics and idealistic speculation have, in the last analysis, gained the upper hand. In our book we treat a number of special matters, in particular the degree to which dialectics and materialism (the methods and the world outlook) are applied in the work of those scientists who have created modern physics (scientists who, it would seem, were subjectively remote from dialectics); they applied the laws of materialist dialectics unconsciously and were successful precisely where metaphysics suffered fiasco.

p It may be worth noting, in connection with the issues of dialectics considered here, that several of the ideas and statements in this book, which were formulated in my earlier work, have been supported by others than physicists who consciously hold the principles of dialectical materialism. (I refrain from citing the relevant statements.) Max B,orii, for instance, in a letter to the author of 18 November I960, gave a positive estimate of the idea of the special relativity of the concepts ‘elementary’, ‘complex’, and ‘structure’, in transatomic physics, and called it ’most interesting’.  [7•* ,

p Our monograph does not set out all the important philosophical problems of modern physics in any systematic way. Our analysis is limited to a few fundamental problems of materialist dialectics in modern physics; that is done, 8 however, so that the reader can get an overall picture of the dialectical spirit of physics today.

p We assume that the reader is familiar with the philosophical ideas of the founders of modern physics (the literature is rich; that published recently, especially, provides a quite complete idea of them). We have avoided a didactic presentation with word for word citations of authors’ statements on certain matters, page reference to the relevant publications, and so on.

p Our book has quite a few shortcomings; the author is usually more aware of them than the reader, of course. One oi them, however, needs to be mentioned here.

p We have not, by a long way, taken into account the rich Marxist literature on the philosophical aspects of physics that has appeared in recent years. This shortcoming also applies to the Soviet philosophical literature. I had to finish the book while seriously ill and therefore had to omit man? interesting, important topics.

p In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my friends and colleagues, students and comrades, who helped me with the book, above all Professor V. A. Fock, Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, an outstanding physicist, man of principle, and kind friend of everyone who takes the philosophical issues of science as his basic field of research. The crispness and clarity of his formulations of the philosophical propositions of modern physics, his discussion of major problems of modern science at our meetings, the constant, attention he has given to my work and that of other Marxist philosophers, and his deep dialectical insight helped create that atmosphere in which—and only in which— creative work is possible.

p I would also like to thank Professors Ya. F. Askin and I. S. Narsky for their valuable remarks and kind comments on my book, which they read in manuscript. In addition, I should like sincerely to thank my colleagues in the department of philosophical problems of science at the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences for their stimulating influence and creative contributions when we discussed the themes treated in this book.

M. E. Omelyanovsky