DOCSLIB.ORG

How We Know Gravity Is Not (Just) a Force

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How We Know Gravity Is Not (Just) a Force HOW WE KNOW GRAVITY IS NOT (JUST) A FORCE 30 Jan , 2014 by Brian Koberlein When we think of gravity, we typically think of it as a force between masses. When you step on a scale, for example, the number on the scale represents the pull of the Earth’s gravity on your mass, giving you weight. It is easy to imagine the gravitational force of the Sun holding the planets in their orbits, or the gravitational pull of a black hole. Forces are easy to understand as pushes and pulls. But we now understand that gravity as a force is only part of a more complex phenomenon described the theory of general relativity. While general relativity is an elegant theory, it’s a radical departure from the idea of gravity as a force. As Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and Einstein’s theory is a very extraordinary claim. But it turns out there are several extraordinary experiments that confirm the curvature of space and time. The key to general relativity lies in the fact that everything in a gravitational field falls at the same rate. Stand on the Moon and drop a hammer and a feather, and they will hit the surface at the same time. The same is true for any object regardless of its mass or physical makeup, and this is known as the equivalence principle. Since everything falls in the same way regardless of its mass, it means that without some external point of reference, a free-floating observer far from gravitational sources and a free-falling observer in the gravitational field of a massive body each have the same experience. For example, astronauts in the space station look as if they are floating without gravity. Actually, the gravitational pull of the Earth on the space station is nearly as strong as it is at the surface. The difference is that the space station (and everything in it) is falling. The space station is in orbit, which means it is literally falling around the Earth. The International Space Station orbiting Earth. Credit: NASA This equivalence between floating and falling is what Einstein used to develop his theory. In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line. If you draw a line on a sheet of paper, and then twist or bend the paper, the line will no longer appear straight. In the same way, the straight path of an object is bent when space and time is bent. This explains why all objects fall at the same rate. The gravity warps spacetime in a particular way, so the straight paths of all objects are bent in the same way near the Earth. So what kind of experiment could possibly prove that gravity is warped spacetime? One stems from the fact that light can be deflected by a nearby mass. It is often argued that since light has no mass, it shouldn’t be deflected by the gravitational force of a body. This isn’t quite correct. Since light has energy, and by special relativity mass and energy are equivalent, Newton’s gravitational theory predicts that light would be deflected slightly by a nearby mass. The difference is that general relativity predicts it will be deflected twice as much. Description of Eddington’s experiment from the Illustrated London News (1919). The effect was first observed by Arthur Eddington in 1919. Eddington traveled to the island of Principe off the coast of West Africa to photograph a total eclipse. He had taken photos of the same region of the sky sometime earlier. By comparing the eclipse photos and the earlier photos of the same sky, Eddington was able to show the apparent position of stars shifted when the Sun was near. The amount of deflection agreed with Einstein, and not Newton. Since then we’ve seen a similar effect where the light of distant quasars and galaxies are deflected by closer masses. It is often referred to as gravitational lensing, and it has been used to measure the masses of galaxies, and even see the effects of dark matter. Another piece of evidence is known as the time-delay experiment. The mass of the Sun warps space near it, therefore light passing near the Sun is doesn’t travel in a perfectly straight line. Instead it travels along a slightly curved path that is a bit longer. This means light from a planet on the other side of the solar system from Earth reaches us a tiny bit later than we would otherwise expect. The first measurement of this time delay was in the late 1960s by Irwin Shapiro. Radio signals were bounced off Venus from Earth when the two planets were almost on opposite sides of the sun. The measured delay of the signals’ round trip was about 200 microseconds, just as predicted by general relativity. This effect is now known as the Shapiro time delay, and it means the average speed of light (as determined by the travel time) is slightly slower than the (always constant) instantaneous speed of light. A third effect is gravitational waves. If stars warp space around them, then the motion of stars in a binary system should create ripples in spacetime, similar to the way swirling your finger in water can create ripples on the water’s surface. As the gravity waves radiate away from the stars, they take away some of the energy from the binary system. This means that the two stars gradually move closer together, an effect known as inspiralling. As the two stars inspiral, their orbital period gets shorter because their orbits are getting smaller. Decay of pulsar period compared to prediction (dashed curve). Data from Hulse and Taylor, Plotted by the author. For regular binary stars this effect is so small that we can’t observe it. However in 1974 two astronomers (Hulse and Taylor) discovered an interesting pulsar. Pulsars are rapidly rotating neutron stars that happen to radiate radio pulses in our direction. The pulse rate of pulsars are typically very, very regular. Hulse and Taylor noticed that this particular pulsar’s rate would speed up slightly then slow down slightly at a regular rate. They showed that this variation was due to the motion of the pulsar as it orbited a star. They were able to determine the orbital motion of the pulsar very precisely, calculating its orbital period to within a fraction of a second. As they observed their pulsar over the years, they noticed its orbital period was gradually getting shorter. The pulsar is inspiralling due to the radiation of gravity waves, just as predicted. Illustration of Gravity Probe B. Credit: Gravity Probe B Team, Stanford, NASA Finally there is an effect known as frame dragging. We have seen this effect near Earth itself. Because the Earth is rotating, it not only curves spacetime by its mass, it twists spacetime around it due to its rotation. This twisting of spacetime is known as frame dragging. The effect is not very big near the Earth, but it can be measured through the Lense-Thirring effect. Basically you put a spherical gyroscope in orbit, and see if its axis of rotation changes. If there is no frame dragging, then the orientation of the gyroscope shouldn’t change. If there is frame dragging, then the spiral twist of space and time will cause the gyroscope to precess, and its orientation will slowly change over time. Gravity Probe B results. Credit: Gravity Probe B team, NASA. We’ve actually done this experiment with a satellite known as Gravity Probe B, and you can see the results in the figure here. As you can see, they agree very well. Each of these experiments show that gravity is not simply a force between masses. Gravity is instead an effect of space and time. Gravity is built into the very shape of the universe. Think on that the next time you step onto a scale. Watch on Youtube: “What is Gravity - Full Documentary” https://youtu.be/dplIZUX7tyU Real Questions from online Forums: “Is gravity considered a force in modern physics? Im familiar with Einsteins model of gravity as curves in space- time, and i do realize its not a force in the classical sense, but is it still considered a force? I want to clear up a debate im having with a friend :) My argument is that force is defined as being something that causes a body of mass to accelerate. He argues that the object is not actually accelerating, but appears to be accelerating in a curved space-time.” Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-gravity-a-force.207078/ “Firstly I think shades of this question have appeared elsewhere (like here, or here). Hopefully mine is a slightly different take on it. If I'm just being thick please correct me. We always hear about the force of gravity being the odd-one-out of the four forces. And this argument, whenever it's presented in popular science at least, always hinges on the relative strength of the forces. Or for a more in depth picture this excellent thread. But, having had a single, brief semester studying general relativity, I'm struggling to see how it is viewed as a force at all.A force, as I understand it, involves the interaction of matter particles with each other via a field.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophy and the Physicists Preview
    L. Susan Stebbing Philosophy and the Physicists Preview il glifo ebooks ISBN: 9788897527466 First Edition: December 2018 (A) Copyright © il glifo, December 2018 www.ilglifo.it 1 Contents FOREWORD FROM THE EDITOR Note to the 2018 electronic edition PHILOSOPHY AND THE PHYSICISTS Original Title Page PREFACE NOTE PART I - THE ALARMING ASTRONOMERS Chapter I - The Common Reader and the Popularizing Scientist Chapter II - THE ESCAPE OF SIR JAMES JEANS PART II - THE PHYSICIST AND THE WORLD Chapter III - ‘FURNITURE OF THE EARTH’ Chapter IV - ‘THE SYMBOLIC WORLD OF PHYSICS’ Chapter V - THE DESCENT TO THE INSCRUTABLE Chapter VI - CONSEQUENCES OF SCRUTINIZING THE INSCRUTABLE PART III - CAUSALITY AND HUMAN FREEDOM Chapter VII - THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY NIGHTMARE Chapter VIII - THE REJECTION OF PHYSICAL DETERMINISM Chapter IX - REACTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES Chapter X - HUMAN FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY PART IV - THE CHANGED OUTLOOK Chapter XI - ENTROPY AND BECOMING Chapter XII - INTERPRETATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX BACK COVER Susan Stebbing 2 Foreword from the Editor In 1937 Susan Stebbing published Philosophy and the Physicists , an intense and difficult essay, in reaction to reading the works written for the general public by two physicists then at the center of attention in England and the world, James Jeans (1877-1946) and Arthur Eddington (1882- 1944). The latter, as is known, in 1919 had announced to the Royal Society the astronomical observations that were then considered experimental confirmations of the general relativity of Einstein, and who by that episode had managed to trigger the transformation of general relativity into a component of the mass and non-mass imaginary of the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • The 29 of May Or Sir Arthur and The
    International Journal of Management and Applied Science, ISSN: 2394-7926 Volume-4, Issue-4, Apr.-2018 http://iraj.in THE 29TH OF MAY OR SIR ARTHUR AND THE BENDING LIGHT (TEACHING SCIENCE AND LITERATURE JOINTLY) MICHAEL KATZ Faculty of Education, Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel E-mail: [email protected] Abstract - In this paper I present an instance illustrating a program of joint teaching of science and literature. The instance sketched here rests on recognition that at the age when children read books like Kästner's "The 35th of May" they can already taste notions of Relativity Theory through the story of Eddington's expedition to Principe Island. Eddington's story is briefly recounted here with references to Kästner's book. The relationships thus exhibited between science and fiction, fantasy and reality, theory and actuality, humor and earnestness, should help evoke school age children's interest in science and literature at early stages in their studies' endeavor. Keywords - Bending Light, Fantasy, Gravitation, Relativity, Science and Literature. I. INTRODUCTION South Seas" – a story of adventure and humor by Erich Kästner, the well known German author of The idea that teaching science and humanities in more than a few dearly loved novels, mostly for primary and secondary schools needn't necessarily be children and adolescents. The book was first seen as disjoint objectives is prevalent in the thought published in German in 1931 and in English shortly and practice of more than a few scholars and teachers after. in recent years. Carole Cox [1], for example, unfolds forty strategies of literature based teaching of various Twelve years earlier, in 1919, another journey topics in arts and sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Theory of Gravity Doesn't Predict a Big Bang 12 July 2010, by Lisa Zyga
    Revised theory of gravity doesn't predict a Big Bang 12 July 2010, By Lisa Zyga decades he became more interested in finding a theory to unify gravity and quantum mechanics - a task that is still being studied today. In 1924, Eddington proposed a new “gravitational action” as an alternative to the Einstein-Hilbert action, which could serve as an alternative starting point to general relativity. In astrophysics, a gravitational action is the mechanism that describes how gravity can emerge from space-time being curved by matter and energy. However, Eddington’s theory of gravity only worked for empty space and didn’t Illustration: Time Line of the Universe Credit: include any source of energy such as matter, NASA/WMAP making it an incomplete theory. Since Eddington’s proposal, scientists have attempted various ways of including matter into the (PhysOrg.com) -- The Big Bang theory has formed theory, although they have run into problems. In the basis of our understanding of the universe's this study, Banados and Ferreira have tried a new origins since it was first proposed in 1927 by way to extend the theory to include matter by using Georges Lemaitre. And for good reason: the theory a gravitational action called the Born-Infeld action. is supported by scientists' latest observations and experiments, and is based on Einstein's widely In their analysis, the scientists found that a key accepted theory of general relativity. But scientists characteristic of Eddington’s revised theory of are always on the lookout for any evidence that gravity is that it reproduces Einstein gravity might suggest an alternative to the Big Bang.
    [Show full text]
  • Eddington, Lemaître and the Hypothesis of Cosmic Expansion in 1927
    Eddington, Lemaître and the hypothesis of cosmic expansion in 1927 Cormac O’Raifeartaigh School of Science and Computing, Waterford Institute of Technology, Cork Road, Waterford, Ireland Author for correspondence: [email protected] 1 1. Introduction Arthur Stanley Eddington was one of the leading astronomers and theorists of his generation (Smart et al. 1945; McCrea 1982; Chandrasekhar, S. 1983). An early and important proponent of the general theory of relativity, his 1918 ‘Report on the Relativity Theory of Gravitation’ for the Physical Society (Eddington 1918) provided an early authoritative exposition of the subject for English-speaking physicists (Vibert Douglas 1956 p42; Chandrasekhar 1983 p24). He played a leading role in the eclipse observations of 1919 that offered early astronomical evidence in support of the theory (Vibert Douglas 1956 pp 39-41; Chandrasekhar 1983 pp 24- 29; Kennefick, this volume) while his book ‘Space, Time and Gravitation’ (Eddington 1920) was one of the first popular treatises on general relativity for an English-speaking audience. In addition, Eddington’s textbook ‘The Mathematical Theory of Relativity’ (Eddington 1923) became a classic reference for English-speaking physicists with an interest in relativity (McCrea 1982; Chandrasekhar 1983 p32). Indeed, the book provided one of the first textbook accounts of relativistic models of the cosmos, complete with a discussion of possible links to one of the greatest astronomical puzzles of the age, the redshifts of the spiral nebulae (Eddington 1923 pp 155-170). It seems therefore quite surprising that, when Eddington’s former student Georges Lemaître suggested in a seminal article of 1927 (Lemaître 1927) that a universe of expanding radius could be derived from general relativity, and that the phenomenon could provide a natural explanation for the redshifts of the spiral nebulae, Eddington (and others) paid no attention.
    [Show full text]
  • 90 Years on – the 1919 Eclipse Expedition at Príncipe
    ELLIS ET AL.: 1919 ECLIPSE REVISITED ELLIS ET AL.: 1919 ECLIPSE REVISITED 90 years on – the 1919 ecli pse expedition at Príncipe Richard Ellis, Pedro G Ferreira, Richard Massey and Gisa Weszkalnys return to Príncipe in the International Year of Astronomy to celebrate the 1919 RAS expedition led by Sir Arthur Eddington. he first experiment to observationally stars near the Sun are confirm Einstein’s General Theory of not normally visible, TRelativity was carried out in May 1919, they would be during on a Royal Astronomical Society expedition to a total solar eclipse. observe a total solar eclipse. Sir Arthur Edding- Einstein attempted ton travelled to Príncipe, a small island off the to convince observers west coast of Africa, and sent another team to to measure the gravi- Sobral, Brazil, from where the eclipse would tational deflection. He also be visible. This year, in a new RAS-funded found an enthusiastic expedition organized for the International Year colleague in Erwin of Astronomy, we returned to Príncipe to cel- Findlay-Freundlich, 1: The old plantation buildings at Roça Sundy, Eddington’s base in 1919. ebrate this key experiment that shook the foun- whose expedition to dations of 20th-century science. Russia in August 1914 was scuppered by the America and Africa, but it was important to Since 1687, Sir Isaac Newton’s law of gravity outbreak of war in the very month of the solar be as close as possible to the sub-solar point, had been the workhorse of celestial mechanics. eclipse: as a German national in Russia, he where the Earth’s rotation keeps observers in Newtonian gravity could be used to explain the was arrested.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eclipse to Confirm the General Theory of Relativity - Openmind Search Private Area
    8/9/2015 The Eclipse to Confirm the General Theory of Relativity - OpenMind Search Private area Sharing knowledge for a better future Home The Eclipse to Confirm the General Theory of Relativity The Eclipse to Confirm the General Theory of Relativity Share 20 July 2015 Physics, Science 1 Sign in or register to rate this publication One of the milestones of the science of light commemorated during this International Year of Light and Light-based Technologies is “the embedding of light in cosmology through general relativity in 1915,” that is, the celebration of the centenary of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. As Adolfo de Azcárraga, president of the Spanish Royal Society of Physics (RSEF), points out in his book titled Albert Einstein, His Science and His Time, Einstein’s theory contained a spectacular prediction: “light also possessed ‘weight’, i.e., it should be attracted and deflected by celestial bodies.” Since the equivalence between acceleration and gravity extends to electromagnetic phenomena and light is an electromagnetic wave, light rays should bend in the presence of a gravitational field. Einstein had already realized that the only way to experimentally verify this theoretical prediction was for a total solar eclipse to take place since this would make it possible to photograph a star near the Sun when observed from Earth without the presence of strong sunlight. Well, on May 29, 1919 there would be a solar eclipse, which would be total on some parts of the Earth’s surface and would make it possible to verify that light rays are bent by gravity.
    [Show full text]
  • One of the Most Celebrated Physics Experiments of the 20Th Cent
    Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition Introduction One of the most celebrated physics experiments of the 20th century, a century of many great breakthroughs in physics, took place on May 29th, 1919 in two remote equatorial locations. One was the town of Sobral in northern Brazil, the other the island of Principe off the west coast of Africa. The experiment in question concerned the problem of whether light rays are deflected by gravitational forces, and took the form of astrometric observations of the positions of stars near the Sun during a total solar eclipse. The expedition to observe the eclipse proved to be one of those infrequent, but recurring, moments when astronomical observations have overthrown the foundations of physics. In this case it helped replace Newton’s Law of Gravity with Einstein’s theory of General Relativity as the generally accepted fundamental theory of gravity. It also became, almost immediately, one of those uncommon occasions when a scientific endeavor captures and holds the attention of the public throughout the world. In recent decades, however, questions have been raised about possible bias and poor judgment in the analysis of the data taken on that famous day. It has been alleged that the best known astronomer involved in the expedition, Arthur Stanley Eddington, was so sure beforehand that the results would vindicate Einstein’s theory that, for unjustifiable reasons, he threw out some of the data which did not agree with his preconceptions. This story, that there was something scientifically fishy about one of the most famous examples of an experimentum crucis in the history of science, has now become well known, both amongst scientists and laypeople interested in science.
    [Show full text]
  • + Gravity Probe B
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Gravity Probe B Experiment “Testing Einstein’s Universe” Press Kit April 2004 2- Media Contacts Donald Savage Policy/Program Management 202/358-1547 Headquarters [email protected] Washington, D.C. Steve Roy Program Management/Science 256/544-6535 Marshall Space Flight Center steve.roy @msfc.nasa.gov Huntsville, AL Bob Kahn Science/Technology & Mission 650/723-2540 Stanford University Operations [email protected] Stanford, CA Tom Langenstein Science/Technology & Mission 650/725-4108 Stanford University Operations [email protected] Stanford, CA Buddy Nelson Space Vehicle & Payload 510/797-0349 Lockheed Martin [email protected] Palo Alto, CA George Diller Launch Operations 321/867-2468 Kennedy Space Center [email protected] Cape Canaveral, FL Contents GENERAL RELEASE & MEDIA SERVICES INFORMATION .............................5 GRAVITY PROBE B IN A NUTSHELL ................................................................9 GENERAL RELATIVITY — A BRIEF INTRODUCTION ....................................17 THE GP-B EXPERIMENT ..................................................................................27 THE SPACE VEHICLE.......................................................................................31 THE MISSION.....................................................................................................39 THE AMAZING TECHNOLOGY OF GP-B.........................................................49 SEVEN NEAR ZEROES.....................................................................................58
    [Show full text]
  • Review of L. S. Stebbing, Philosophy and the Physicists
    NEW BOOKS Philosophy and the Physicists. By L. S. STEBBING.(London: Methuen & Co. 1937. Pp. xvi + 295. Price 7s. 6d.) Professor Stebbing's book is intended to assess the philosophical value, if any, of the numerous works in which certain eminent scientists have ex- pounded to the general public what they consider to be the implications of recent developments in mathematical physics. The writers whom she mainly discusses are Sir James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington. She complains, with some justice, that they both "approach their task through an emotional, fog," and both "present their views with an amount of personification and metaphor that reduces them to the level of revivalist preachers." This is a severe judgment, but it appears to me to be amply borne out by my own experience in reading their works, and by the quotations which Miss Stebbing gives. I find myself in complete agreement with her remark on p. I8, that "the fundamental objection to the modes of expression so dear to Eddington and Jeans . is that such writing obfuscates the common reader whilst pretending to enlighten him." The two writers under discussion are, as Miss Stebbing recognizes, of very different calibre when considered as contributors to philosophy. There is no evidence that Jeans has any serious contribution to make, and Miss Stebbing disposes of his puerilities in a couple of chapters. This massacre is too much like knocking down a sitting bird to be of much interest, and Miss Stebbing devotes the rest of her book to the more sportsmanlike exercise of peppering Eddington as he flits from one metaphor to another.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Milne's Influence on Modern Cosmology
    ANNALS OF SCIENCE, Vol. 63, No. 4, October 2006, 471Á481 Edward Milne’s Influence on Modern Cosmology THOMAS LEPELTIER Christ Church, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 1DP, UK Received 25 October 2005. Revised paper accepted 23 March 2006 Summary During the 1930 and 1940s, the small world of cosmologists was buzzing with philosophical and methodological questions. The debate was stirred by Edward Milne’s cosmological model, which was deduced from general principles that had no link with observation. Milne’s approach was to have an important impact on the development of modern cosmology. But this article shows that it is an exaggeration to intimate, as some authors have done recently, that Milne’s rationalism went on to infiltrate the discipline. Contents 1. Introduction. .........................................471 2. Methodological and philosophical questions . ..................473 3. The outcome of the debate .................................476 1. Introduction In a series of articles, Niall Shanks, John Urani, and above all George Gale1 have analysed the debate stirred by Edward Milne’s cosmological model.2 Milne was a physicist we can define, at a philosophical level, as an ‘operationalist’, a ‘rationalist’ and a ‘hypothetico-deductivist’.3 The first term means that Milne considered only the observable entities of a theory to be real; this led him to reject the notions of curved space or space in expansion. The second term means that Milne tried to construct a 1 When we mention these authors without speaking of one in particular, we will use the expression ‘Gale and co.’ 2 George Gale, ‘Rationalist Programmes in Early Modern Cosmology’, The Astronomy Quarterly,8 (1991), 193Á218.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    Beichler (1) Preliminary paper for Vigier IX Conference June 2014 MODERN FYSICS PHALLACIES: THE BEST WAY NOT TO UNIFY PHYSICS JAMES E. BEICHLER Research Institute for Paraphysics, Retired P.O. Box 624, Belpre, Ohio 45714 USA [email protected] Too many physicists believe the ‘phallacy’ that the quantum is more fundamental than relativity without any valid supporting evidence, so the earliest attempts to unify physics based on the continuity of relativity have been all but abandoned. This belief is probably due to the wealth of pro-quantum propaganda and general ‘phallacies in fysics’ that were spread during the second quarter of the twentieth century, although serious ‘phallacies’ exist throughout physics on both sides of the debate. Yet both approaches are basically flawed because both relativity and the quantum theory are incomplete and grossly misunderstood as they now stand. Had either side of the quantum versus relativity controversy sought common ground between the two worldviews, total unification would have been accomplished long ago. The point is, literally, that the discrete quantum, continuous relativity, basic physical geometry, theoretical mathematics and classical physics all share one common characteristic that has never been fully explored or explained – a paradoxical duality between a dimensionless point (discrete) and an extended length (continuity) in any dimension – and if the problem of unification is approached from an understanding of how this paradox relates to each paradigm, all of physics and indeed all of science could be unified under a single new theoretical paradigm. Keywords: unification, single field theory, unified field theory, quantized space-time, five-dimensional space-time, quantum, relativity, hidden variables, Einstein, Kaluza, Klein, Clifford 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 730 Philosophy 425 Sect 01 Philosophy of Science
    730 Philosophy425 Sect 01 PhilosophyofScience Instructor: SidneyFelder,e-mail: [email protected] Rutgers The State University of NewJersey, Spring 2018, Tu&Th4:10-5:50 Weeks 1, 2) Some Views of the Character of Science: T. H.HuxleyThe Method of Scientific Investigation Ernst Mach The Economical Nature of Physics C.S. Peirce The Fixation of Belief; HowtoMakeOur Ideas Clear Weeks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Evidence and Hypothesis: David Hume An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Sections IV-VII) Nelson Goodman The NewRiddle of Induction (in Fact, Fiction and Forecast) Karl Popper Science: Conjectures and Refutations Carl Hempel Studies in the Logic of Confirmation Hermann Weyl Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (Chapter 1) Pierre Duhem Physical Theory and Experiment (in The Aim and StructureofPhysical Theory) Henri Poincar ´e S pace and Geometry (in Science and Hypothesis) Arthur Eddington What is Geometry? (in Space,Time and Gravitation) Albert Einstein Geometry and Experience Weeks 7, 8, 9) Observation, Theory,and Reality Hilary Putnam What Theories are Not Bertrand Russell Similarity of Relations (in Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy) — The Analysis of Matter (chapters XIX, XXIII, and XXIV) L. Wittgenstein Tr actatus Logico-Philosophicus (5.133-5.156, 6.3-6.372) Moritz Schlick Positivism and Realism Weeks 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) Generalizations, Laws, and Probabilities Ernest Nagel The StructureofScience (Chapter 4) Henri Poincar ´e C hance (in Science and Method) J. M. Keynes ATreatise on Probability (Chapters XXIV,XXV,XXVI) Frank RamseyLaw and Causality David Lewis Counterfactual Dependence and Time’sArrow Bertrand Russell On the Notion of Cause Kurt G¨o del A Remark about the Relationship between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy Syllabus Page 1 -2- Weeks 13, 14) Explanation and The Unity of Science Jerry Fodor Special Sciences (or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis) David Albert Physics and Chance (in After Physics) There will be a take-home exam, to be submitted either in class or (if e-mailed) either in PDF or text format.
    [Show full text]