DOCSLIB.ORG

Like Thermodynamics Before Boltzmann. on the Emergence of Einstein’S Distinction Between Constructive and Principle Theories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Like Thermodynamics Before Boltzmann. on the Emergence of Einstein’S Distinction Between Constructive and Principle Theories View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Philsci-Archive Like Thermodynamics before Boltzmann. On the Emergence of Einstein’s Distinction between Constructive and Principle Theories Marco Giovanelli Forum Scientiarum — Universität Tübingen, Doblerstrasse 33 72074 Tübingen, Germany [email protected] How must the laws of nature be constructed in order to rule out the possibility of bringing about perpetual motion? Einstein to Solovine, undated In a 1919 article for the Times of London, Einstein declared the relativity theory to be a ‘principle theory,’ like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘constructive theory,’ like the kinetic theory of gases. The present paper attempts to trace back the prehistory of this famous distinction through a systematic overview of Einstein’s repeated use of the relativity theory/thermodynamics analysis after 1905. Einstein initially used the comparison to address a specic objection. In his 1905 relativity paper he had determined the velocity-dependence of the electron’s mass by adapting Newton’s particle dynamics to the relativity principle. However, according to many, this result was not admissible without making some assumption about the structure of the electron. Einstein replied that the relativity theory is similar to thermodynamics. Unlike the usual physical theories, it does not directly try to construct models of specic physical systems; it provides empirically motivated and mathematically formulated criteria for the acceptability of such theories. New theories can be obtained by modifying existing theories valid in limiting case so that they comply with such criteria. Einstein progressively transformed this line of the defense into a positive heuristics. Instead of directly searching for new theories, it is often more eective to search for conditions which constraint the number of possible theories. The paper argues that the latter was the strategy that led Einstein to most of his major successes. The constructive/principle theories opposition should be considered not only as abstract classication of theories, but also as Einstein’s attempt to formulate a sort of ‘logic of discovery.’ The paper argues that most of Einstein’s scientic successes were obtained by following the principle strategy. Most of his failures happened when he was forced to fall back to the constructive strategy. Keywords: Albert Einstein • Constructive theories • Principle theories • Relativity theory • Electron theories • Scientic discovery Introduction Toward the end of 1919, in a two-column contribution for the Times of London, Einstein (1919d) famously declared relativity theory to be a ‘principle theory,’ like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘constructive theory,’ like the kinetic theory of gases. Over the last decade, this distinction has attracted considerable attention in both the historically and the theoretically-oriented scholarship in the philosophy of physics. On occasion of the centenary of the publication of this brief but iconic article, it might be a good opportunity to try to reconstruct its history and assess its philosophical meaning. As it turns out, its popularity in today scholarship has somewhat hindered the appreciation of its core message. Contemporary philosophers of physics have often believed to have found in Einstein’s sparingly phrased remarks support for their philosophical agenda. However, Einstein’s concerns by writing the article bore probably only a mild relation to those of the participants in today philosophical debate. This paper will argue that the diculties of understanding the constructive/ principle theories opposition is a consequence of its ambiguity. Einstein’s article was, so to speak, at the same time the outline of (a) an ars iudicandi that supply criteria for justication of existing theories; (b) an ars inveniendi, a set of techniques for the discovery of new theories starting from the known ones. The reason of this ambiguity must be probably sought in the motivations with which the 1919 London Times was written. As this paper will try to show, the article should be read not as much as an abstract philosophical reection, but as a personal testimony of a practicing physicist. As Einstein once wrote jokingly to his friend Paul Ehrenfest, he was, with few others, a principle-pincher 1 1 (Prinzipienfuchser), ready to squeeze as much as possible from few fundamental principles, rather than a proigate virtuoso, squandering his calculation mastery in triing puzzle solving (Einstein to Ehrenfest, Sep. 18, 1925; CPAE, Vol. 15, Doc. 71; see Seth, 2010, ch. 6). It was a paper by Francisco Flores, 1999 that, more than two decades ago, attracted new attention toward Einstein’s distinction between constructive/principle theories by recasting in it into the opposition between two forms of explanations, bottom-up and top-down explanations (see also Dieks, 2009; Dorato, 2011; Felline, 2011). Soon thereafter, Jerey Bub (2000) suggested that quantum mechanics, just like special relativity, could be regarded as a ‘theory of principles.’ If the latter was a modication of Newton-Galilei kinematics that satised the light and relativity postulates, matrix mechanics was a modication of classical kinematics that complied with the quantum postulate and the correspondence principle. Quantum mechanics could be then seen as a set of information-theoretic constraints on possible dynamical theories (Clifton, Bub, and Halvorson, 2003). This proposal remained marginal in the literature about the foundation of quantum mechanics. However, at about the same time, Einstein’s distinction between principle and constructive theories became the center of a vaster and still living philosophical debate on the foundation of spacetime theories. When Einstein compared the relativity principle to the second principle of thermodynamics, it was argued, he meant to complain about its lack of explanatory power of special relativity. Einstein ultimately aimed to nd a deeper-level theory that ‘explains’ the relativistic kinematics, just like Ludwig Boltzmann had relied on the kinetic theory to ‘explain’ the increase of entropy. Thus, Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley (2006) famously suggested that special relativity should ultimately take the form of a constructive theory about the material structure of rods and clocks, not dierently from Hendrik A. Lorentz’s ether theory. Michel Janssen and Yuri Balashov (2003) reacted by claiming that special relativity had actually already found its ‘Boltzmann’; Hermann Minkowski had already transformed it into a constitutive theory, a theory about the geometrical structure of spacetime; it is the latter that explains why rods and clocks behave like they do (Stevens, 2014). The claim that in Einstein’s view ‘principle theories’ lack explanatory power has been challenged by Marc Lange (2014). Partly stimulated by this debate, historically oriented scholarship has attempted to clarify Einstein’s princi- ple/constructive theories opposition (Howard, 2005) by showing how it was deeply rooted in the 19th-century physics’ emphasis on the role of general principles (Howard, 2007; see also Stachel, 2000), an epistemological position well-exemplied by the work of Hermann von Helmholtz (Bevilacqua, 1993). Indeed, the German-speaking physics community appears at rst sight as being traversed by the fault line between a principle-based, phe- nomenological approach defended by Gustav Kirchho or Max Planck and a model-based approach of British ascendancy pursued, for example, by Boltzmann (Darrigol, 2018). Nevertheless, Planck agreed with Boltzmann in rejecting the anti-atomism of Ernst Mach and of the energetists, like Wilhelm Ostwald and Georg Helm (Deltete, 1999; Deltete, 2012). However, Planck sided with Pierre Duhem (Bordoni, 2017) against Boltzmann in indicating thermodynamics and not mechanics as model for scientic practice (Wol, 2010). The dierences between the two fractions were ultimately far from being clear-cut. Nevertheless, at the turn of the century, Lorentz (Frisch, 2005, 2011, see also) and Henri Poincaré (Darrigol, 1995b), the other major protagonists of the relativity revolution, could present the opposition between the ‘physics of principles’ and the ‘physics of models’ as commonplace. In a similar vein, in the early 20th-century, Arnold Sommerfeld opposed a ‘physics of problems,’ a style of doing physics based on concrete puzzle solving, to the ‘practice of principles’ defended by Planck (Seth, 2010). As early as 1909, Philip Frank (1909), relying on a distinction introduced by Abel Rey (1908), had already explicitly classied relativity as a ‘conceptual theory’ like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘mechanical theory’ like the kinetic theory of gases. In 1910, Philip Lenard (1911) made a similar remark but using the less common opposition between two types of models, phenomenological models (relations between measurable quantities) and proper models (aether, electrons, etc.). Thus, following the philosophical debate, one might be lead to the conclusion that Einstein’s 1919 distinction between principle and constructive theories represents Einstein’s fundamental insight into the nature of spacetime. On the contrary, by reading the historical literature, one might get the opposite impression that Einstein’s distinction was a rather unoriginal variation on a threadbare 19th-century theme, with which, by 1919, every working physicist was familiar (see, e.g., Sommerfeld, 1915). Both stances grasp indeed part of the truth but
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Albert Einstein
    THE COLLECTED PAPERS OF Albert Einstein VOLUME 15 THE BERLIN YEARS: WRITINGS & CORRESPONDENCE JUNE 1925–MAY 1927 Diana Kormos Buchwald, József Illy, A. J. Kox, Dennis Lehmkuhl, Ze’ev Rosenkranz, and Jennifer Nollar James EDITORS Anthony Duncan, Marco Giovanelli, Michel Janssen, Daniel J. Kennefick, and Issachar Unna ASSOCIATE & CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Emily de Araújo, Rudy Hirschmann, Nurit Lifshitz, and Barbara Wolff ASSISTANT EDITORS Princeton University Press 2018 Copyright © 2018 by The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW press.princeton.edu All Rights Reserved LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA (Revised for volume 15) Einstein, Albert, 1879–1955. The collected papers of Albert Einstein. German, English, and French. Includes bibliographies and indexes. Contents: v. 1. The early years, 1879–1902 / John Stachel, editor — v. 2. The Swiss years, writings, 1900–1909 — — v. 15. The Berlin years, writings and correspondence, June 1925–May 1927 / Diana Kormos Buchwald... [et al.], editors. QC16.E5A2 1987 530 86-43132 ISBN 0-691-08407-6 (v.1) ISBN 978-0-691-17881-3 (v. 15) This book has been composed in Times. The publisher would like to acknowledge the editors of this volume for providing the camera-ready copy from which this book was printed. Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. Printed in the United States of America 13579108642 INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 15 The present volume covers a thrilling two-year period in twentieth-century physics, for during this time matrix mechanics—developed by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Pascual Jordan—and wave mechanics, developed by Erwin Schrödinger, supplanted the earlier quantum theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein and Physics Hundred Years Ago∗
    Vol. 37 (2006) ACTA PHYSICA POLONICA B No 1 EINSTEIN AND PHYSICS HUNDRED YEARS AGO∗ Andrzej K. Wróblewski Physics Department, Warsaw University Hoża 69, 00-681 Warszawa, Poland [email protected] (Received November 15, 2005) In 1905 Albert Einstein published four papers which revolutionized physics. Einstein’s ideas concerning energy quanta and electrodynamics of moving bodies were received with scepticism which only very slowly went away in spite of their solid experimental confirmation. PACS numbers: 01.65.+g 1. Physics around 1900 At the turn of the XX century most scientists regarded physics as an almost completed science which was able to explain all known physical phe- nomena. It appeared to be a magnificent structure supported by the three mighty pillars: Newton’s mechanics, Maxwell’s electrodynamics, and ther- modynamics. For the celebrated French chemist Marcellin Berthelot there were no major unsolved problems left in science and the world was without mystery. Le monde est aujourd’hui sans mystère— he confidently wrote in 1885 [1]. Albert A. Michelson was of the opinion that “The more important fundamen- tal laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote . Our future dis- coveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals” [2]. Physics was not only effective but also perfect and beautiful. Henri Poincaré maintained that “The theory of light based on the works of Fresnel and his successors is the most perfect of all the theories of physics” [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Hermann Minkowski Et La Mathématisation De La Théorie De La Relativité Restreinte 1905-1915
    THÈSE présentée à L’UNIVERSITÉ DE PARIS VII pour obtenir le grade de DOCTEUR Spécialité : Épistémologie et Histoire des Sciences par Scott A. WALTER HERMANN MINKOWSKI ET LA MATHÉMATISATION DE LA THÉORIE DE LA RELATIVITÉ RESTREINTE 1905-1915 Thèse dirigée par M. Christian Houzel et soutenue le 20 décembre 1996 devant la Commission d’Examen composée de : Examinateur : M. Christian Houzel Professeur à l’Université de Paris VII Examinateur : M. Arthur I. Miller Professeur à UniversityCollege London Rapporteur : M. Michel Paty Directeur de recherche, CNRS Rapporteur : M. Jim Ritter Maître de conférences à l’Univ. de Paris VIII S. Walter LA MATHÉMATISATION DE LA RELATIVITÉ RESTREINTE i Résumé Au début du vingtième siècle émergeait l’un des produits les plus remarquables de la physique théorique : la théorie de la relativité. Prise dans son contexte à la fois intellectuel et institution- nel, elle est l’objet central de la dissertation. Toutefois, seul un aspect de cette histoire est abordé de façon continue, à savoir le rôle des mathématiciens dans sa découverte, sa diffusion, sa ré- ception et son développement. Les contributions d’un mathématicien en particulier, Hermann Minkowski, sont étudiées de près, car c’est lui qui trouva la forme mathématique permettant les développements les plus importants, du point de vue des théoriciens de l’époque. Le sujet de la thèse est abordé selon deux axes; l’un se fonde sur l’analyse comparative des documents, l’autre sur l’étude bibliométrique. De cette façon, les conclusions de la première démarche se trouvent encadrées par les résultats de l’analyse globale des données bibliographiques.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Quantum Field Theory
    ADVANCES IN QUANTUM FIELD THEORY Edited by Sergey Ketov Advances in Quantum Field Theory Edited by Sergey Ketov Published by InTech Janeza Trdine 9, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia Copyright © 2012 InTech All chapters are Open Access distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles even for commercial purposes, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. After this work has been published by InTech, authors have the right to republish it, in whole or part, in any publication of which they are the author, and to make other personal use of the work. Any republication, referencing or personal use of the work must explicitly identify the original source. As for readers, this license allows users to download, copy and build upon published chapters even for commercial purposes, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. Notice Statements and opinions expressed in the chapters are these of the individual contributors and not necessarily those of the editors or publisher. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the published chapters. The publisher assumes no responsibility for any damage or injury to persons or property arising out of the use of any materials, instructions, methods or ideas contained in the book. Publishing Process Manager Romana Vukelic Technical Editor Teodora Smiljanic Cover Designer InTech Design Team First published February, 2012 Printed in Croatia A free online edition of this book is available at www.intechopen.com Additional hard copies can be obtained from [email protected] Advances in Quantum Field Theory, Edited by Sergey Ketov p.
    [Show full text]
  • Voigt Transformations in Retrospect: Missed Opportunities?
    Voigt transformations in retrospect: missed opportunities? Olga Chashchina Ecole´ Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France∗ Natalya Dudisheva Novosibirsk State University, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia† Zurab K. Silagadze Novosibirsk State University and Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia.‡ The teaching of modern physics often uses the history of physics as a didactic tool. However, as in this process the history of physics is not something studied but used, there is a danger that the history itself will be distorted in, as Butterfield calls it, a “Whiggish” way, when the present becomes the measure of the past. It is not surprising that reading today a paper written more than a hundred years ago, we can extract much more of it than was actually thought or dreamed by the author himself. We demonstrate this Whiggish approach on the example of Woldemar Voigt’s 1887 paper. From the modern perspective, it may appear that this paper opens a way to both the special relativity and to its anisotropic Finslerian generalization which came into the focus only recently, in relation with the Cohen and Glashow’s very special relativity proposal. With a little imagination, one can connect Voigt’s paper to the notorious Einstein-Poincar´epri- ority dispute, which we believe is a Whiggish late time artifact. We use the related historical circumstances to give a broader view on special relativity, than it is usually anticipated. PACS numbers: 03.30.+p; 1.65.+g Keywords: Special relativity, Very special relativity, Voigt transformations, Einstein-Poincar´epriority dispute I. INTRODUCTION Sometimes Woldemar Voigt, a German physicist, is considered as “Relativity’s forgotten figure” [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Ether and Electrons in Relativity Theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter
    Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter To cite this version: Scott Walter. Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900-1911). Jaume Navarro. Ether and Moder- nity: The Recalcitrance of an Epistemic Object in the Early Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, 2018, 9780198797258. hal-01879022 HAL Id: hal-01879022 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01879022 Submitted on 21 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900–1911) Scott A. Walter∗ To appear in J. Navarro, ed, Ether and Modernity, 67–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018 Abstract This chapter discusses the roles of ether and electrons in relativity the- ory. One of the most radical moves made by Albert Einstein was to dismiss the ether from electrodynamics. His fellow physicists felt challenged by Einstein’s view, and they came up with a variety of responses, ranging from enthusiastic approval, to dismissive rejection. Among the naysayers were the electron theorists, who were unanimous in their affirmation of the ether, even if they agreed with other aspects of Einstein’s theory of relativity. The eventual success of the latter theory (circa 1911) owed much to Hermann Minkowski’s idea of four-dimensional spacetime, which was portrayed as a conceptual substitute of sorts for the ether.
    [Show full text]
  • General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I
    1 GENERAL RELATIVITY AND SPATIAL FLOWS: I. ABSOLUTE RELATIVISTIC DYNAMICS* Tom Martin Gravity Research Institute Boulder, Colorado 80306-1258 [email protected] Abstract Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum. Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed, expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described. 1. Introduction There are two fundamentally different ways to approach relativistic physics. The first approach, which was Einstein's way [1], and which is the standard way it has been practiced in modern times, recognizes the measurement reality of the impossibility of detecting the absolute translational motion of physical systems through the underlying physical substratum and the measurement reality of the limitations imposed by the finite speed of light with respect to clock synchronization procedures. The second approach, which was Lorentz's way [2] (at least for Special Relativity), recognizes the conceptual superiority of retaining the physical substratum as an important element of the physical theory and of using conceptually useful frames of reference for the understanding of underlying physical principles. Whether one does relativistic physics the Einsteinian way or the Lorentzian way really depends on one's motives. The Einsteinian approach is primarily concerned with * http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0006/0006029.pdf 2 being able to carry out practical space-time experiments and to relate the results of these experiments among variously moving observers in as efficient and uncomplicated manner as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Corry L. David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics, 1898-1918
    Archimedes Volume 10 Archimedes NEW STUDIES IN THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 10 EDITOR JED Z. BUCHWALD, Dreyfuss Professor of History, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA. ADVISORY BOARD HENK BOS, University of Utrecht MORDECHAI FEINGOLD, Virginia Polytechnic Institute ALLAN D. FRANKLIN, University of Colorado at Boulder KOSTAS GAVROGLU, National Technical University of Athens ANTHONY GRAFTON, Princeton University FREDERIC L. HOLMES, Yale University PAUL HOYNINGEN-HUENE, University of Hannover EVELYN FOX KELLER, MIT TREVOR LEVERE, University of Toronto JESPER LÜTZEN, Copenhagen University WILLIAM NEWMAN, Harvard University JÜRGEN RENN, Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte ALEX ROLAND, Duke University ALAN SHAPIRO, University of Minnesota NANCY SIRAISI, Hunter College of the City University of New York NOEL SWERDLOW, University of Chicago Archimedes has three fundamental goals; to further the integration of the histories of science and technology with one another: to investigate the technical, social and prac- tical histories of specific developments in science and technology; and finally, where possible and desirable, to bring the histories of science and technology into closer con- tact with the philosophy of science. To these ends, each volume will have its own theme and title and will be planned by one or more members of the Advisory Board in consultation with the editor. Although the volumes have specific themes, the series it- self will not be limited to one or even to a few particular areas. Its subjects include any of the sciences, ranging from biology through physics, all aspects of technology, bro- adly construed, as well as historically-engaged philosophy of science or technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Relativistic Thermodynamics
    C. MØLLER RELATIVISTIC THERMODYNAMICS A Strange Incident in the History of Physics Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser 36, 1 Kommissionær: Munksgaard København 1967 Synopsis In view of the confusion which has arisen in the later years regarding the correct formulation of relativistic thermodynamics, the case of arbitrary reversible and irreversible thermodynamic processes in a fluid is reconsidered from the point of view of observers in different systems of inertia. Although the total momentum and energy of the fluid do not transform as the components of a 4-vector in this case, it is shown that the momentum and energy of the heat supplied in any process form a 4-vector. For reversible processes this four-momentum of supplied heat is shown to be proportional to the four-velocity of the matter, which leads to Otts transformation formula for the temperature in contrast to the old for- mula of Planck. PRINTED IN DENMARK BIANCO LUNOS BOGTRYKKERI A-S Introduction n the years following Einsteins fundamental paper from 1905, in which I he founded the theory of relativity, physicists were engaged in reformu- lating the classical laws of physics in order to bring them in accordance with the (special) principle of relativity. According to this principle the fundamental laws of physics must have the same form in all Lorentz systems of coordinates or, more precisely, they must be expressed by equations which are form-invariant under Lorentz transformations. In some cases, like in the case of Maxwells equations, these laws had already the appropriate form, in other cases, they had to be slightly changed in order to make them covariant under Lorentz transformations.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Einstein Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century Editors David E
    David E. Rowe • Tilman Sauer • Scott A. Walter Editors Beyond Einstein Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century Editors David E. Rowe Tilman Sauer Institut für Mathematik Institut für Mathematik Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany Mainz, Germany Scott A. Walter Centre François Viète Université de Nantes Nantes Cedex, France ISSN 2381-5833 ISSN 2381-5841 (electronic) Einstein Studies ISBN 978-1-4939-7706-2 ISBN 978-1-4939-7708-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7708-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018944372 Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 01A60, 81T20, 83C47, 83D05 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • Figures of Light in the Early History of Relativity (1905–1914)
    Figures of Light in the Early History of Relativity (1905{1914) Scott A. Walter To appear in D. Rowe, T. Sauer, and S. A. Walter, eds, Beyond Einstein: Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century (Einstein Studies 14), New York: Springer Abstract Albert Einstein's bold assertion of the form-invariance of the equa- tion of a spherical light wave with respect to inertial frames of reference (1905) became, in the space of six years, the preferred foundation of his theory of relativity. Early on, however, Einstein's universal light- sphere invariance was challenged on epistemological grounds by Henri Poincar´e,who promoted an alternative demonstration of the founda- tions of relativity theory based on the notion of a light ellipsoid. A third figure of light, Hermann Minkowski's lightcone also provided a new means of envisioning the foundations of relativity. Drawing in part on archival sources, this paper shows how an informal, interna- tional group of physicists, mathematicians, and engineers, including Einstein, Paul Langevin, Poincar´e, Hermann Minkowski, Ebenezer Cunningham, Harry Bateman, Otto Berg, Max Planck, Max Laue, A. A. Robb, and Ludwig Silberstein, employed figures of light during the formative years of relativity theory in their discovery of the salient features of the relativistic worldview. 1 Introduction When Albert Einstein first presented his theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), he began by explaining how his kinematic assumptions led to a certain coordinate transformation, soon to be known as the \Lorentz" transformation. Along the way, the young Einstein affirmed the form-invariance of the equation of a spherical 1 light-wave (or light-sphere covariance, for short) with respect to in- ertial frames of reference.
    [Show full text]
  • Relativistic Mechanics
    Relativistic mechanics Further information: Mass in special relativity and relativistic center of mass for details. Conservation of energy The equations become more complicated in the more fa- miliar three-dimensional vector calculus formalism, due In physics, relativistic mechanics refers to mechanics to the nonlinearity in the Lorentz factor, which accu- compatible with special relativity (SR) and general rel- rately accounts for relativistic velocity dependence and ativity (GR). It provides a non-quantum mechanical de- the speed limit of all particles and fields. However, scription of a system of particles, or of a fluid, in cases they have a simpler and elegant form in four-dimensional where the velocities of moving objects are comparable spacetime, which includes flat Minkowski space (SR) and to the speed of light c. As a result, classical mechanics curved spacetime (GR), because three-dimensional vec- is extended correctly to particles traveling at high veloc- tors derived from space and scalars derived from time ities and energies, and provides a consistent inclusion of can be collected into four vectors, or four-dimensional electromagnetism with the mechanics of particles. This tensors. However, the six component angular momentum was not possible in Galilean relativity, where it would be tensor is sometimes called a bivector because in the 3D permitted for particles and light to travel at any speed, in- viewpoint it is two vectors (one of these, the conventional cluding faster than light. The foundations of relativistic angular momentum, being an axial vector). mechanics are the postulates of special relativity and gen- eral relativity. The unification of SR with quantum me- chanics is relativistic quantum mechanics, while attempts 1 Relativistic kinematics for that of GR is quantum gravity, an unsolved problem in physics.
    [Show full text]