No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity
Abstract
This book analyzes one of the three great papers Einstein published in
1905, each of which would alter forever the field it dealt with. The
second of these papers, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," had
an impact in a much broader field than electrodynamics: it established
what Einstein sometimes referred to (after 1906) as the "so-called
Theory of Relativity." Miller uses the paper to provide a window into
the intense intellectual struggles of physicists in the first decade of
the 20th century: the interplay between physical theory and empirical
data, the fiercely held notions that could not be articulated clearly or
verified experimentally, the great intellectual investment in existing
theories, data, and interpretations -- and associated intellectual
inertia -- and the drive to the long-sought- for unification of the
sciences. Since its original publication, this book has become a
standard reference and sourcebook for the history and philosophy of
science; however, it can equally well serve as a text in the history of
ideas or of twentieth-century philosophy. From reviews of the previous
edition: ÄMillerÜ has written a superb, perhaps definitive,
historical study of Einstein's special theory of relativity.... One
comes away from the book with a respect for both the creative genius of
the man and his nerve: he simply brushed aside much of the work that was
going on around him. - The New Yorker
... The synonymous "faster-than-light particle" had previously been employed and can still be found, sometimes with faster-than-light abbreviated to FTL. Another synonym employed by Arthur Miller [5] and a few other writers is the adjective "hyperlight". Yet another synonymous adjective is "superlight", an ambiguous term since it can also mean something which is extremely light. ...
... The limerick, soon to become famous, appeared anonymously but was composed by Arthur Reginald Buller, a distinguished British-Canadian botanist. 5 With the acceptance of the special theory of relativity, almost all physicists agreed that superluminal particles or signals cannot possibly be part of nature's fabric. As emphasized by Hans Thirring, a distinguished physicist at the University of Vienna and an expert in Einstein's theory, "actions cannot propagate with velocity greater than that of light, and it follows naturally that neither can material bodies travel at such velocity" [48, p. 77]. ...
... On Gilbert and early anti-relativism, see[41, pp. 84-85].5 Punch 165(19 December 1923), 591. ...
No particle or signal carrying information can travel at a speed exceeding that of light in vacuum. Although this has for a long time been accepted as a law of nature, prior to Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity the possibility of superluminal motion of electrons was widely discussed by Arnold Sommerfeld and other physicists. Besides, it is not obvious that special relativity rules out such motion under all circumstances. From approximately 1965 to 1985, the hypothesis of tachyons moving faster than light was seriously entertained by a minority of physicists. This paper reviews the early history concerning faster-than-light signals and pays particular attention to the ideas proposed in the 1920s by the little-known Ukrainian physicist Lev Strum (Shtrum). As he pointed out in a paper of 1923, within the framework of relativity it is possible for a signal to move superluminally without violating the law of causality. Part of this article is devoted to the personal and scientific biography of the undeservedly neglected Strum, whose career was heavily—and eventually fatally—influenced by the political situation in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Remarkably, to the limited extent that Strum is known today, it is as a literary figure in a novel and not as a real person.
... Levy-Leblond [7] has shown that the additional hypotheses of group law and causality are necessary. We refer to [6,[8][9][10] for discussions of the necessary hypotheses, and also to Miller [11], for a complete historical account of Ignatovski's work. Pedagogical derivations of Lorentz transformations without the second postulate can be found, for example, in [7,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. ...
... Let us denote by L 1 and L 2 , the lengths of the optical paths 1 and 2, respectively, as measured in the lab frame S . From equation (11) we find that the time T 1 for the beam 1 to make a round trip along L 1 is ...
... Naturally, since the invariant speed σ (which is a consequence of the space-time isotropy) can now be identified with the light speed in the aether frame, this result also suggests the non-existence of an aether medium itself because of the inferred invariance of the light waves speed. Also, from equations (11) and (12) one may also check that the null result now also implies the isotropy of the light speed in S , that is, c x (1) ± = c y (2) = c. ...
The so-called principle of relativity is able to fix a general coordinate transformation which differs from the standard Lorentzian form only by an unknown speed which cannot in principle be identified with the light speed. Based on a reanalysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment using this extended transformation we show that such unknown speed is analytically determined regardless of the Maxwell equations and conceptual issues related to synchronization procedures, time and causality definitions. Such a result demonstrates in a pedagogical manner that the constancy of the speed of light does not need to be assumed as a basic postulate of the special relativity theory since it can be directly deduced from an optical experiment in combination with the principle of relativity. The approach presented here provides a simple and insightful derivation of the Lorentz transformations appropriated for an introductory special relativity theory course.
... Levy-Leblond [7] has shown that the additional hypotheses of group law and causality are necessary. We refer to [6,[8][9][10] for discussions of the necessary hypotheses, and also to Miller [11], for a complete historical account of Ignatovski's work. Pedagogical derivations of Lorentz transformations without the second postulate can be found, for example, in [7,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. ...
... Let us denote by L ′ 1 and L ′ 2 , the lengths of the optical paths 1 and 2, respectively, as measured in the lab frame S ′ . From equation (11) we find that the time T ′ 1 for the beam 1 to make a round trip along L ′ 1 is ...
The so-called principle of relativity is able to fix a general coordinate transformation which differs from the standard Lorentzian form only by an unknown speed which cannot in principle be identified with the light speed. Based on a reanalysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment using this extended transformation we show that such unknown speed is analytically determined regardless of the Maxwell equations and conceptual issues related to synchronization procedures, time and causality definitions. Such a result demonstrates in a pedagogical manner that the constancy of the speed of light does not need to be assumed as a basic postulate of the special relativity theory since it can be directly deduced from an optical experiment in combination with the principle of relativity. The approach presented here provides a simple and insightful derivation of the Lorentz transformations appropriated for an introductory special relativity theory course.
... as indicating that the rate of a moving clock, "when viewed from the stationary system," is slower by the factor 7 than the rate of the same clock at rest in the stationary system [4], Later he generalized this statement by declaring that "a living organism after any lengthy flight could be returned to its original spot in a scarcely altered condition, while corresponding organism which had remained in the original position had already long since given way to new generations" and "every happening in a physical system slows down when this system is set in translational motion [9,10], Thus, according to Einstein, not only clocks run slow, but time itself is "dilated" in systems that move with respect to the system considered to be stationary (laboratory). The idea of the slowing down of moving clocks as a strictly kinematic effect was unacceptable to many of Einstein's contemporaries [11], and the idea of time dilation remains to this day one of the most controversial aspects of Einstein's special relativity theory. However, experiments on the radioactive decay of fast mesons show that their decay occurs indeed at a rate slower by the factor /(within experimental errors) than for resting or slowly-moving mesons [12], And the observations of the rate of moving atomic clocks also appear to support the reality of relativistic time dilation [13]. ...
... A point charge q 2 , whose polarity is opposite to that of q x and whose mass is m 0 , is placed on the x axis near the center of the ring at a distance JC from the center and is constrained to move only along the axis. By (11), if q 2 is sufficiently close to the center, so that x< a, which we assume to be the case, the force on q 2 , F = q 2 E, is essentially ...
Recent advances in the theory of electromagnetic retardation have made it possible to derive the basic equations of the special relativity theory and to duplicate the most important practical results of this theory without using the concepts of relativistic length contraction and time dilation. Thus the reality of these concepts appears to be questionable. It is imperative therefore to reexamine the experimental evidence supporting these concepts. The calculations presented in this paper show that some of the experiments allegedly proving the reality of length contraction and time dilation can be unambiguously interpreted as manifestations of velocity-dependent dynamical interactions taking place within the systems involved in the experiments rather than as manifestations of length contraction or time dilation.
... Another yet independent proof of SRT's inconsistency follows. The transformation is based in the mathematical scheme of Michelson-Morley's experiment (MMX) [7]. In it, a light ray is shot onto a mirror making a 45 o with light's path. ...
... Since the contradiction υ = 0&υ = 0 was not detected, SRT progressed into "modern mathematics" and into the "new physics" as being a valid nontrivial (υ = 0) theory. For instance, it was shown by Poincaré [ [7]] that 6) constitutes a commutative group of homeomorphisms under the composition law of transformations, the trivial {Id} group! ...
The fundamental need of consistency in mathematics has been overlooked during the last 200 years, due both to its apparently difficult verification and to philosophi-cal queries, none of them being pertinent enough to blur this ultimate demand. The consistency requirement has been replaced by a kind of conviction that mathematics' development is a natural consequence of its exact, abstract character, logically built from (valid) axioms, definitions, correct algebraic manipulation, construction of models, and so on. This reasoning resumes the belief that mathematical truth is sim-ply an outcome of the soundness of new hypotheses and computations. Historically, nevertheless, daring hypotheses, like d'Alembert's Method in PDEs, Klein's Erlan-gen Program or Einstein's Special Relativity, among others, create new branches of mathematics, without their consistence having been thoroughly tested. In this work we recover a principle that had been intuitively applied by mathematicians up to the 18 th century to check mathematical consistency. This principle simply states that "a valid hypothesis or computation cannot imply 1 = 0". The discov-ery of Peano's axioms in the 19 th century together with the fact that mathematics is founded on the natural numbers theory, lifted this principle to the comfortable condition of a mathematical theorem. It is believed that a minimum of soundness in one's mathematical reasoning totally precludes the idea that this science reduces to studying the properties of {0}! Using this 1 = 0 criterium, the inconsistency of various modern (or pure) mathematics' theories, including the three ones above cited, becomes clear.
... Sommerfeld (Hrsg. 1923) mit Ausschnitten von Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein und Minkowski, sowie ergänzendMiller (1981). ...
... Siehe dazuHentschel (1990) Kap. 2 und dort genannte weiterführende Primär-und Sekundärliteratur zu diesem Phänomen, das Züge einer Massensuggestion trug, die Einstein auch wieder zum Vorwurf gemacht wurde, obgleich er außer der unglücklichen Wortwahl gar nichts zu diesem populären Mißverständnis konnte.19 Siehe dazuMiller (1981) sowieHolton (1969) zum populären Mißverständnis der spez. Relativitätstheorie als einer anangeblich erst durch das Michelson-Morley-Experiment begründeten oder motivierten Theorie. ...
... The backwards causation implied by superluminal signals was commonly known in the early 1920s when laypersons were exposed to the many strange consequences of Einstein's theory of relativity. Readers of Punch, a satirical British weekly magazine, could in 1923 enjoy a limerick that offered a new version of Tolman's paradox:There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light.She went out one dayIn a relative way And returned on the previous night.The limerick, soon to become famous, appeared anonymously but was composed by Arthur Reginald Buller, a distinguished British-Canadian botanist.5 With the acceptance of the special theory of relativity almost all physicists agreed that superluminal particles or signals cannot possibly be part of nature's fabric. ...
No particle or signal carrying information can travel at a speed exceeding that of light in vacuum. Although this has for a long time been accepted as a law of nature, prior to Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity the possibility of superluminal motion of electrons was widely discussed by Arnold Sommerfeld and other physicists. Besides, it is not obvious that special relativity rules out such motion under all circumstances. From approximately 1965 to 1985 the hypothesis of tachyons moving faster than light was seriously entertained by a minority of physicists. This paper reviews the early history concerning superluminal signals and pays particular attention to the ideas proposed in the 1920s by the little known Ukrainian physicist Lev Strum (Shtrum). As he pointed out in a paper of 1923, within the framework of relativity it is possible for a signal to move superluminally without violating the law of causality. Part of this article is devoted to the personal and scientific biography of the undeservedly neglected Strum, whose career was heavily and eventually fatally influenced by the political situation in Stalin's Russia. Remarkably, to the limited extent that Strum is known today, it is as a literary figure in a novel and not as a real person.
... If the very instruments which should indicate a change in the velocity of light are themselves dilated, then any dilation effect will be effectively nullified. This possibility has already been imagined in the 18th century by Boskovich [12] and was later put forward by FitzGerald [13] (see also John Bell [14,15]), Lorentz, Poincaré and others in the context of the ether theory [6]. 2 But what is the point in arguing that the constancy of the speed of light is a convention rather than an empirical finding? ...
The conventionalistic aspects of physical world perception are reviewed with an emphasis on the constancy of the speed of light in relativity theory and the irreversibility of measurements in quantum mechanics. An appendix contains a complete proof of Alexandrov's theorem using mainly methods of affine geometry.
... On these Einstein's ambiguities, I echo here the comments and quotations of the Spanish physicist A. Ruíz de Elvira in his Spanish translation of Einstein's 1905 papers [7, p. 96], which in short says that many apologetic commentators of Einstein, such as A. I. Miller [38] or C. Lanczos [25], are full of praise for these obscurities of genius. To me those obscurities seem more like the tricks of a neophyte who doesn't quite know what he is talking about. ...
Errors are inevitable and necessary for personal learning, and even for the development of scientific theories, once detected and corrected. This article demonstrates the existence of several blunders in a historical article, but that is not its main purpose. The main purpose of this article is to denounce the fact that these errors have gone unnoticed for 117 years. And, above all, that once revealed in detail, as will be done here, these errors will continue to be ignored as if they did not exist. And I have no doubt that they will be ignored, because their author is Albert Einstein and his theories are ``sufficiently confirmed by empirical facts''. Therefore, and as a last resort, I am forced to write this article in a provocative tone, which is not my preferred tone. So, I apologize to all those who feel offended by my provocation, but the destiny of science can only be the truth, and only with the truth can we find the true explanation of the world.
... By using the Lorentz transforms, physicists would be able to compare or transform the mathematical and physical parameters of two different observers in two different frames [2][3][4][5]. Also, Minkowski spacetime has used to investigate the special relativity, as the Lorentz transforms [6][7][8][9]. In the special relativity, the Minkowski four-vectors has used for extracting energy and momentum in 4dimensional spacetime. ...
... By using the Lorentz transforms, physicists would be able to compare or transform the mathematical and physical parameters of two different observers in two different frames [2][3][4][5]. Also, Minkowski spacetime has used to investigate the special relativity, as the Lorentz transforms [6][7][8][9]. In the special relativity, the Minkowski four-vectors has used for extracting energy and momentum in 4dimensional spacetime. ...
The paper investigates physical parameters and the path of the movement of the particles in the spacetime and shows that special relativity is incomplete. The special relativity does not explain the correct relationship between the energy and momentum in the spacetime, so then the energy-momentum equation is incorrect. We present the relationship between the momentum and potential energy in all dimensions in spacetime and compare the extracted equations with the mass-energy equivalence. The potential energy of the three-dimensional particles is good evidence of the correctness of the multi-dimensional energy-momentum equation. For covering these problems, we suggest a new principle law to explain the behavior of the particle, path of the movement, and the relationship between the physical parameters in the different dimensions.
... In the Makowski spacetime, different components could be chosen to extract their relation in the spacetime [9]. If we consider the energy and the momentum as two components, the energymomentum equation would be obtained [10]. ...
We use Generalized Minkowski spacetime and obtain a multi-dimensional energy equation in the spacetimes. We use potential energy and total energy as two components in the Makowski spacetime. We present a new multi-dimensional energy equation that relates the total energy of the multi-dimensional object to its rest mass. The multi-dimensional energy equation shows that at the speed of the light, the kinetic energy of the particle reaches the potential energy multiplied by the speed of the light. At the speed of the light, the kinetic energy will be converted to the potential energy, hence the potential energy in the higher dimension is c times of the potential energy in the previous dimension.
... Then, Einstein entered the arena bringing a new physical structure of a theory as a knowledge drawing on a particular 19 Many years later, this image of mathematics depicted by Maxwell was matched in fact by the passionate opinion of the celebrated mathematician Arnold (1998). 20 Miller, 1981;Darrigol, 2000;Martins, 2005 set of basic principles and concepts (Einstein, 1973). Mathematics could not resolve the debate over the different interpretations; something essential, the heart of the theory, was to be addressed. ...
The relationship between physics and mathematics is reviewed upgrading the common in physics classes’ perspective of mathematics as a toolkit for physics. The nature of the physics-mathematics relationship is considered along a certain historical path. The triadic hierarchical structure of discipline-culture helps to identify different ways in which mathematics is used in physics and to appreciate its contribution, to recognize the difference between mathematics and physics as disciplines in approaches, values, methods, and forms. We mentioned certain forms of mathematical knowledge important for physics but often missing in school curricula. The geometrical mode of codification of mathematical knowledge is compared with the analytical one in context of teaching school physics and mathematics; their complementarity is exemplified. Teaching may adopt the examples facilitating the claims of the study to reach science literacy and meaningful learning.
... ' (7) Therefore, the transformation of the electro-magnetic 4-vector potential ...
In the general relativity theory, we find the electro-magnetic field transformation and the electro-magnetic field equation (Maxwell equation) in Rindler spacetime. Specially, this article say the uniqueness of the accelerated frame because the accelerated frame can treats electro-magnetic field equation.
... It later became a much-celebrated fact that no effect was measured by these experiments. Miller (1981, p. 169) calls on this as a partial explanation of Einstein's remarks: ...
At the age of sixteen, Einstein imagined chasing after a beam of light. He later recalled that the thought experiment had played a memorable role in his development of special relativity. Famous as it is, it has proven difficult to understand just how the thought experiment delivers its results. It fails to generate problems for an ether-based electrodynamics. I propose that Einstein’s canonical statement of the thought experiment from his 1946 “Autobiographical Notes,” makes most sense not as an argument against ether-based electrodynamics, but as an argument against “emission” theories of light.
... But Arthur I Miller said that "almost half a century later James Terrell (1959) showed that the contraction of a moving body in the direction of its motion could not be seen on a photograph." [19] Nor has it been observed in the half century since Terrell's observation. ...
Petr Beckmann's Einstein Plus Two (1987). [2] Beckmann's assumption was that the luminiferous medium, which Michelson failed to detect in 1887, is the local gravitational field, which attenuates with distance from the gravitating body. Overwhelmingly, we are in the Earth's field, which does not rotate with the Earth's rotation. This accounts for the Michelson-Morley null result and predicts an east-west light speed difference and with it a small fringe shift. An "ether" denser near the sun predicts the bending of light rays by Fermat's Principle, and the gravitational red shift. Einstein's equation accounting for Mercury's orbit was published by Paul Gerber, 17 years before general relativity. Both Sagnac (1913) and Michelson-Gale (1924) showed a fringe shift, but were disqualified as tests of SRT because they involved rotating (non-inertial) reference frames. GPS is said to vali-date special relativity because relativistic adjustments are entered into the orbiting clocks and would not syn-chronize without them. But the corrections do not refer clock motion to the observer, as relativity requires, but to the non-rotating Earth centered, inertial reference frame. It is a preferred reference frame — not allowed by SRT. The same criticism applies to the Hafele-Keating experiment (1972), in which atomic clocks flown around the world showed an east-west time difference. After 1916, Einstein restored a "gravitational ether," indistin-guishable from Beckmann's, but played it down. The book concludes that general relativity gives the right re-sults by a roundabout method. SRT has been falsified, unless rescued by the claim that all experiments on the surface of a rotating globe are non-inertial.
... Special relativity (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]) is a theory about the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". ...
A constant one-way light speed is essential for the Theory of Relativity. This detailed study examines two postulates of Special Relativity and concludes that the claim of "constant one-way speed of light" contradicts itself. The equations of Special Relativity are foundations of many physics theories. The findings on controversial Relativity postulates shake the foundation of these theories. Fortunately, equations similar to Special Relativity equations can be derived, assuming that two-way light speed is constant, without the use of Special Relativity Postulates. These new equations provide a better foundation that is compatible with the correct existing physics theories. There is no threat of invalidating all existing physics theories, only incorrect ones. Instead, we can take a new look at some fundamental questions shared among physicists.
O uso adequado história das ciências pode servir como ferramenta didática para complementar e oportunizar o ensino de física. Porém, o fato de educadores não terem instrumentalização em história e filosofia das ciências e a dificuldade de encontrar boas fontes históricas em linguagem acessível, tem criado obstáculos para um uso adequado desse instrumento didático. A fim de contribuir para a construção de interfaces entre história das ciências e ensino, propusemos a realização de uma análise histórica do conteúdo de relatividade especial nos 12 livros didáticos de física aprovados do PNLD 2018. Para apreendermos a análise, realizamos uma leitura do material e construímos seis categorias históricas a posteriori. Essas categorias nortearam uma vasta revisão de literatura em fontes primárias e na história da relatividade especial que culminou na construção de textos de apoio que, em seguida, foram usados para avaliar o conteúdo histórico apresentados nos livros didáticos. A análise apontou que esses livros didáticos apresentam diversas incongruências e anacronismos. Com base nesses resultados, tecemos reflexões e concluímos que é necessário de uma maior aproximação entre educadores científicos e historiadores das ciências para a construção de interfaces entre história e ensino de ciências.
In this paper we consider the value and sense of Einstein's theory of special relativity, because it examines the determinations of physical law as the regulation of nature according to special relativity, and as the determination of the meaning and evidence of gnoseological and ontological implications to make up a physical theory. Einstein's notion of space and time in the special theory of relativity brought a new understanding of space and time. In the pedagogical process, the effect of interdisciplinary relations should be applied. Einstein's understanding of the laws of physics changed their way of understanding. It is good for the student to perceive the basic differences in the concept of time and space in Newton and Einstein, because he will better understand the selected basic differences between classical and modern physics.
This article reviews and illustrates some simple aspects of approximations in physics, which should be useful to students at the undergraduate level.
The paper introduces the energy equation in a multi-dimensional spacetime. Firstly, we use a new relation between kinetic energy and potential energy. Secondly, we obtain total energy based on potential energy and kinetic energy. Thirdly, we present the relationship between the momentum and the kinetic energy, and Finally, we compare the proposed equation with the mass-energy and the energy-momentum equation.
The paper presents the kinetic energy of the particles in the multi-dimensional spacetime. We have used multi-dimensional energy-momentum equation for obtaining a new kinetic energy equation. We introduce new relation between the potential energy and the kinetic energy in the multi-dimensional spacetime. Also, we present one-dimensional kinetic energy and compare it with Newtonian kinetic energy and relativistic kinetic energy. The advantage of the multi-dimensional kinetic energy equation is using at the higher speeds and quantum mechanics.
The theory of relativity was initially conditioned by the unfinished electrodynamics theory. In the theory of relativity Albert Einstein kept some ideas in his mind which was important for the modification of Physics. The two basic principles of special relativity are: (1) the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum (Murkowski space), and (2) all the physical laws remain the same for local inertial frames. In Time Dilation and Length Contraction, Einstein established some notions with a range of anomalies. Time dilates and contracts because of the fluctuation of gravitational influence in numerous space-time. In the theory of equivalence, Einstein explained that gravitational and mass are identical. But this explanation of the principle of equivalence needs more elaboration. The body retains definite shape, size, and density, but it can only express mass with the help of gravitation. Beyond the force, the field body is unable to specific mass. This concept is not incorporated with the idea of the principle of equivalence.
Theory of Relativity has a great impact on every aspect of technical results as well as human life. In this paper, this relation is invented in a new way. We are not able to reach the True value to a measurement or attribute, whatever precautions and conditions are prevailed. Therefore, all results or values are obtained on comparison basis and it may tend or nearer to real or true value only. Index Terms-Theory of Relativity, Time. Truth. Decision.
This study considers the short list of Nature of Science (NOS) features frequently published and widely known in the science education discourse. It is argued that these features were oversimplified and a refinement of the claims may enrich or sometimes reverse them. The analysis shows the need to address the range of variation in each particular aspect of NOS and to illustrate these variations with actual events from the history of science in order to adequately present the subject. Another implication of the proposal is the highlighting of the central role of science educators who, facing various strong claims of researchers in education and philosophy of science, often have difficulty in making a choice of what to teach about NOS. It is suggested that a representative variation with regard to the traditional NOS claims may be appropriate for a genuine understanding of the subject. In that, using the discipline-culture structure of the fundamental theories of physics and addressing the plurality of scientific methods may be helpful in the actual teaching and learning of NOS.
The paper begins by suggesting that the discovery of a theory involves not just the formulation of a theory, but some degree of justification of the theory as well. This will be illustrated by the example of the discovery of the special theory of relativity by Einstein. The paper then goes on to apply this approach to medicine. The discovery of a cure involves first the formulation of a theory to the effect that such and such procedure will result in the disappearance of a disease or condition without unacceptable harm to the patient. The discovery is not complete until a theory of this form (a cure theory) has been confirmed empirically. The final section of the paper will illustrate this general view of discovery by two case histories. The first is the discovery of the statins. The second concerns the drug thalidomide.
To make out in what way Einstein’s manifold 1905 ‘annus mirabilis’ writings hang together one has to take into consideration Einstein’s strive for unity evinced in his persistent attempts to reconcile the basic research traditions of classical physics. Light quanta hypothesis and special theory of relativity turn out to be the contours of a more profound design, mere milestones of implementation of maxwellian electrodynamics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics reconciliation programme. The conception of luminiferous ether was an insurmountable obstacle for Einstein’s statistical thermodynamics in which the leading role was played by the light quanta paper. In his critical stand against the entrenched research traditions of classical physics Einstein was apparently influenced by David Hume and Ernst Mach. However, when related to creative momenta, Einstein’s 1905 unificationist modus operandi was drawn upon Mach’s principle of economy of thought taken in the context of his ‘instinctive knowledge’ doctrine and with promising inclinations of Kantian epistemology presuming the coincidence of both constructing theory and integrating intuition of Principle.
The paper begins by suggesting that the discovery of a theory involves not just the formulation of a theory, but some degree of justification of the theory as well. This will be illustrated by the example of the discovery of the special theory of relativity by Einstein. The paper then goes on to apply this approach to medicine. The discovery of a cure involves first the formulation of a theory to the effect that such and such procedure will result in the disappearance of a disease or condition without unacceptable harm to the patient. The discovery is not complete until a theory of this form (a cure theory) has been confirmed empirically. The final section of the paper will illustrate this general view of discovery by two case histories. The first is the discovery of the statins. The second concerns the drug thalidomide.
Closely related to the development of his properly scientific activity, the philosophical and epistemological structure of Albert Einstein’s scientific work is also marked by a strong underlying unity, which appears in similar forms from the first papers at the turn of the twentieth century to the attempts to construct unified field theories, which unsuccessfully occupied him in the last part of his career. This paper presents some of the main traits that characterised Einstein’s philosophical and epistemological thought: Ernst Mach’s influence and Einstein’s ambivalence towards Mach’s theoretical legacy, the philosophical problem offered by the complex relationship between theory and experience, and the specific image of scientific rationality to which Einstein devoted some of his deepest explicitly philosophical essays.
Figure 9.1 is a picture of the Andromeda Galaxy (M-31), a galaxy within the neighborhood of the galactic cluster that includes the Milky Way, our Galaxy. The Milky Way is some 100,000 light-years in diameter, with its central bulge about 20,000 light-years in depth. That central bulge contains the very massive black hole that drives the kinetics of the Galaxy [Science News, 2005]. In Chapter 8 we have seen that our Solar System is on one of the spiral arms some 32,000 light-years from the center, and there is a group of stars (about seven) that are within 10 light-years of our sun. Beyond that local group, our galactic stars are much more distant. So even if we travel at the speed of light, our nearby star neighbors are up to a 20-year round-trip away. Can we overcome such distances, or are we bound to our Solar System, or at most our nearby stars? That is the question that dominates our view to the future, after the somewhat pessimistic conclusions in Chapter 8.
This paper is focused on the abstractist theory of fictional discourse, namely, the semantic theory according to which fictional names refer to abstract entities. Two semantic problems that arise in relation to that position are analysed: the first is the problem of accounting for the intuitive truth of typically fictive uses of statements containing fictional names; the second is the one of explaining some problematic metafictive uses, in particular, the use of intuitively true negative existentials.
Anyone who studies the history of physics quickly realizes that the history presented in physics textbooks is often inaccurate. I will discuss three episodes from the history of modern physics: (1) Robert Millikan’s experiments on the photoelectric effect, (2) the Michelson-Morley experiment, and (3) the Ellis-Wooster experiment on the energy spectrum in β decay. Everyone knows that Millikan’s work established the photon theory of light and that the Michelson-Morley experiment was crucial in the genesis of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The problem is that what everyone knows is wrong. Neither experiment played the role assigned to it by physics textbooks. The Ellis-Wooster experiment, on the other hand, is rarely discussed in physics texts, but it should be. It led to Wolfgang Pauli’s suggestion of the neutrino. I will present a more accurate history of these three experiments than those given in physics texts.
IN BOHM’S VERSION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS, there simply is no measurement problem since there is no “collapse” of the wave function. That is, Bohm’s theory does not solve the measurement problem because it does not exist there in the first place. Of course, Bohm’s theory is nonlocal (although this nonlocality is of a fairly benign variety). At first sight, it might seem as though nonlocality would make Bohm’s theory incompatible with the special theory of relativity (STR). However, I shall argue this is true only if STR is taken as some metaprinciple that transcends its own empirical basis. If one simply requires that STR provides constraints on what we are, in fact, able to observe, then a theory that has a preferred frame need not make predictions that lack empirical adequacy. Hence, for Bohm’s theory, consideration of the “measurement problem” of relativistic quantum mechanics becomes a discussion about the possibility of superluminal signaling with instantaneous action at a distance and about the empirical covariance of the predictions of such a theory. I shall argue that quantum equilibrium (P = ∣Ψ∣ 2), rather than locality, is the decisive factor.
This authoritative book presents the theoretical development of gravitational physics as it applies to the dynamics of celestial bodies and the analysis of precise astronomical observations. In so doing, it fills the need for a textbook that teaches modern dynamical astronomy with a strong emphasis on the relativistic aspects of the subject produced by the curved geometry of four-dimensional spacetime.
The first three chapters review the fundamental principles of celestial mechanics and of special and general relativity. This background material forms the basis for understanding relativistic reference frames, the celestial mechanics of N-body systems, and high-precision astrometry, navigation, and geodesy, which are then treated in the following five chapters. The final chapter provides an overview of the new field of applied relativity, based on recent recommendations from the International Astronomical Union.
The book is suitable for teaching advanced undergraduate honors programs and graduate courses, while equally serving as a reference for professional research scientists working in relativity and dynamical astronomy.
The authors bring their extensive theoretical and practical experience to the subject. Sergei Kopeikin is a professor at the University of Missouri, while Michael Efroimsky and George Kaplan work at the United States Naval Observatory, one of the world?s premier institutions for expertise in astrometry, celestial mechanics, and timekeeping.
Ernst Mach is the only person whom Einstein included on both the list of physicists he considered his true precursors, and the list of the philosophers who had most affected him. Einstein scholars have been less generous in their estimation of Mach's contributions to Einstein's work, and even amongst the more generous of them, Mach's great achievements in physics are seldom mentioned in this context. This is odd, considering Mach was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics three times. In this paper, I examine some of Mach's work in physics that bears conceptually on Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity ("On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"). Mach was the first to give the correct explanation of the Doppler Effect, and he presented it in a way that Einstein echoes in his 1905 paper: laying out two apparently contradictory principles and showing how both can be retained. It is also notable that Mach's explanation was explicit about not relying on the existence of a medium of transmission for the propagation of light waves. In his work on supersonic shock waves, Mach invokes the constancy of the velocity of sound (i.e., its independence of the motion of the sound source) , just as he had invoked the constancy of the velocity of light in his work on the Doppler Effect for Light. I examine the analogies between light and sound that were drawn upon by Einstein and Mach, as well as one analogy that Einstein could have, but did not make: Cherenkov radiation, or "singing electrons", i.e., cases in which the sound of light in the medium of transmission is exceeded, which results in an optical analogue of supersonic shock waves.
In the general relativity theory, we find the electro-magnetic field transformation and the electro-magnetic field equation (Maxwell equation) in Rindler spacetime. Specially, this article say the uniqueness of the accelerated frame because the accelerated frame can treats electro-magnetic field equation.
In the general relativity theory, we find the electro-magnetic field transformation and the electro-magnetic field equation (Maxwell equation) in Rindler spacetime. Specially, this article say the uniqueness of the accelerated frame because the accelerated frame can treats electro-magnetic field equation.
In the general relativity theory, we find the electro-magnetic field transformation and the electro-magnetic field equation (Maxwell equation) in Rindler spacetime. Specially, this article say the uniqueness of the accelerated frame because the accelerated frame can treats electro-magnetic field equation.
The Einsteinian revolution, which began around 1905, was one of the most remarkable in the history of physics. It replaced Newtonian mechanics, which had been accepted as completely correct for nearly 200 years, by the special and general theories of relativity. It also eliminated the aether, which had dominated physics throughout the nineteenth century. This paper poses the question of why this momentous scientific revolution began. The suggested answer is in terms of the remarkable series of discoveries and inventions which occurred in the preceding decade (1895-1904) and which were the result of technological developments in instrumentation. The paper gives a survey of these inventions and discoveries, which include X-rays, radioactivity (radium and alpha, beta and gamma rays), the electron, wireless transmissions across the Atlantic and the patenting of the first thermionic valve. An attempt is then made to show that it was these developments, which gave rise to special relativity.
Cet article a pour objectif de présenter un compte-rendu accessible de l’immense héritage philosophique de l’œuvre scientifique d’Einstein. Einstein n’était pas un philosophe de métier, mais son raisonnement en sciences physiques portait en soi des conséquences philosophiques qu’il était prêt à explorer. En explorant les conséquences philosophiques de ses travaux scientifiques Einstein s’inscrit dans la démarche de physiciens tels que Newton, Mach, Planck et Poincaré. Einstein déduisait les conséquences philosophiques de la problématique que son travail de physicien faisait surgir. Ces conséquences philosophiques vont de la métaphysique à la philosophie de la physique. Dans une certaine mesure, ces conséquences philosophiques peuvent être considérées comme étant des réponses à des questions philosophiques. On peut noter en particulier, ses vues sur l’aspect représentationnel des théories scientifiques et son insistance, à leur sujet, sur la notion de contraintes. Les travaux sur Einstein ont souvent négligé l’étude des contraintes en philosophie des sciences.
We propose a new model of the interaction between photons and electrons. During this interaction, the photon's direction of movement does not change while new two photons will be created when an electron's speed is less than 0.7071c, the photon will lose energy; when an electron's speed is more than 0.7071c, the photon will gain energy while the electron loses energy. Three physical experiments are proposed. In the first experiment, the electron speed is set to 0.6c and a red-shift is expected to occur. In the second experiment, the electron speed is set to 0.8c and a blue-shift is expected to occur. In the third experiment, the electron speed is set to 0.7071c. The theory predicts that there won't be a photon wavelength change.
In this paper I deal with the sense of mechanics in general, because it studies the values of the physical law as the regulation of nature, as the determination of the sense and evidence of gnoseological and ontological implications to make up the physical theory.
According to the present pluralism in mathematical logic, I translate from classical logic to nonclassical logic the predicates of the classical square of opposition. A similar unique structure is obtained. In order to support this new logical structure, I investigate on the rich legacy of the nonclassical arguments presented by ingenuity by several authors of scientific theories. A comparative analysis of their ways of arguing shows that each of these theories is severed in two parts; the former one proves a universal predicate by an ad absurdum proof. This conclusion of every theory results to be formalised by the A thesis of the new logical structure. Afterwards, this conclusion is changed in the corresponding affirmative predicate, which in the latter part plays the role of a new hypothesis for a deductive development. This kind of change is the same suggested by Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason. Instead, Markov’s principle results to be a weaker logical change, from the intuitionist thesis I in the affirmative thesis I. The relevance of all the four theses of the new logical structure is obtained by studying all the conversion implications of intuitionist predicates. In the appendix, I analyse as an example of the above theories, Markov’s presentation of his theory of real numbers.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.