DOCSLIB.ORG

Newtonian Dynamics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Newtonian Dynamics Newtonian Dynamics Basic Postulates The fundamental notions of Mechanics are the notions of state (of a closed system), time, and evo- lution/motion (for our purposes, the words \evolution" and \motion" are synonyms), all the three being closely related to each other. The closed system is a system that does not interact with the rest of the World. Speaking generally, by the state one means some mathematical object, S (say, a number, or a set of numbers) being a function of a real variable t, which is called time. The evolution/motion is understood as a change of S with t. Finding the function S(t) for a given system is the ultimate goal of Mechanics. It is achieved by knowing the state of the system S(t0) at some initial time moment t0 and utilizing the laws of motion. In the Newtonian picture of the World, any system can be viewed as consisting of point objects, particles. Each particle i is characterized by a radius-vector (position) ri in a d-dimensional space. Typically, d = 3, since this corresponds to our real World, but often problems in d = 3 (we will be also writing 3D) can be reduced to 2D and 1D problems. If a system consists of N particles, then its state is exhaustively described by a set of 2N vectors, S(t) ≡ fri(t); vi(t)g, i = 1; 2; 3;:::;N, where vi stands for the derivative of ri with respect to time (the dot is the standard notation for time-derivative): d v (t) = r (t) ≡ r_ (t) : (1) i dt i i The quantity vi(t) is called velocity of the i-th particle at the time t. The fundamental problem of Mechanics is then formulated as follows. Given the positions (radius-vectors) and velocities of all the particles at some moment t0, find the positions and velocities of the particles at any t > t0. The main axiom of the Newtonian Mechanics (known as the Newton's Second Law) states that the solution to the problem comes from the following system of N equations of motion. N X mi¨ri = Fij (i = 1; 2; 3;:::;N) ; (2) j = 1 (j 6= i) where mi is some positive number characterizing the i-th particle, called its mass; the vector Fij is called the force exerted on the i-th particle by the j-th particle. The symbol ¨ri stands for the second derivative of ri with respect to t, which is called acceleration of the i-th particle: d2 a (t) ≡ ¨r (t) ≡ r (t) = v_ (t) : (3) i i dt2 i i The force Fij describes the interaction of the i-th particle with the j-th one. If Fij = 0, then the interaction is absent. In particular, if Fij = 0 for all j's, then the i-th particle does not interact with all the other particles, in which case Eq. (2) says that acceleration of this particle is identically equal to zero, implying a constant velocity (the so-called Newton's First Law). To complete the main axiom, we need to say something about the structure of Fij's: Otherwise, Eq. (2) will remain quite ambiguous and pretty useless. We will confine ourselves with the very important class of forces of the following form: • First, we postulate that Fij is a function of only two vector variables, ri and rj. With this postulate, both mathematical and physical aspects of the theory become unambiguous: The knowledge of the 1 initial state S(t) implies the knowledge of the forces since the latter are defined by the positions of the particles, and, mathematically, the problem of finding S(t) from S(t0) is a standard Cauchy problem for a system of second-order ordinary differential equations, the existence and uniqueness of the solution being guaranteed by corresponding mathematical theorem. • Second, we postulate that the forces are given by the gradients of certain scalar functions called interaction potentials (the sign minus is a matter of convention1): @ Fij = − Uij(ri; rj) : (4) @ri [The forces obeying Eq. (4) are called potential forces.] Furthermore, we postulate the following structure of Uij(ri; rj): Uij(ri; rj) = Uji(ri; rj) ≡ Uij(rij); rij = jri − rjj : (5) That is we require that the interaction potential between two particles be a function of only the distance between them. Such potentials are called central potentials and corresponding forces are called central forces. From (4), (5) it follows that 1 dUij(rij) Fij = fij(rij)(ri − rj) ; fij(rij) = fji(rij) = − ; (6) rij drij which leads to two very important relations: Fij k (ri − rj) ; (7) Fij = −Fji : (8) The latter relation is known as the Newton's Third Law. Coulomb potential. It will not be an exaggeration to say that the most important example of the interaction potential is γ U (r) = ij ; (9) ij r with the parameter γij depending on the properties of the two particles. In accordance with (7), the force corresponding to this potential is r F (r) = γ ; (10) ij ij r3 the absolute value of the force decays as 1=r2 with the interparticle distance. This example covers two fundamental forces: the Coulomb force between two electrically charged particles and the gravitational force. In the former case, γij is the product of the electric charges of the two particles, while in the latter case it is minus the product of the two masses times the gravitational constant. Galilean Invariance/Relativity The theory (2), (4), (5) features Galilean invariance: The form of the equations remains the same, 0 if instead of the variables frig one introduces the new set of variables, frig, such that 0 ri = ri − v0t ; (11) 1Indeed, the sign could be simply absorbed into U by redefining U ! −U. 2 where v0 is some constant velocity: N @ m ¨r0 = X − U (jr0 − r0 j) : (12) i i @r0 ij i j j=1 i Problem 1. Make sure that this is the case. Note that Eq. (11) leads to the following transformation of the velocities: 0 vi = vi − v0 : (13) 0 The geometrical meaning of the transformation (11) is quite simple: The radius-vector ri is nothing but the radius-vector of the i-th particle with respect to the new origin of coordinates that moves with respect to the old origin with a constant velocity v0. Galilean transformation does not change relative distances and, correspondingly, relative velocities. The deep physical meaning of the Galilean invariance becomes clear from the observation that the theory (2), (4), (5) is supposed to be applicable to the whole World including all possible measuring devices which one can use to measure time and coordinates. And this leads us to the conclusion that once|at the mathematical level|it is impossible to tell the difference between the two sets of 0 variables, frig and frig, then the two sets are physically equivalent|we have no physical way to tell one from another! This property of the theory (2), (4), (5) is called Galilean relativity. Reference Frame After discussing Galilean relativity, and in particular, realizing that all our measuring devices are supposed to obey the laws (2), we have to address the following question. When introducing Eq. (2) we were taking for granted the existence of the set of radius-vectors frig. Now we know that actually there is no unique choice of the set: given one set, we immediately construct a continuum of equivalent sets by Eq. (11). The choice of coordinates becomes ambiguous, and one might suspect that the theory is logically inconsistent. In fact, it is not, but to have a consistent theory we need to add one more axiom that says: There exists at least one way of ascribing coordinates and time moments, such that the equations of motion take on the form (2). Any particular choice of coordinates and time moments is called reference frame. Any reference frame in which Eq. (2) holds true is called inertial reference frame. With the above axiom, the theory goes as follows. The axiom guarantees the existence of at least one inertial reference frame. Galilean relativity then provides a continuum of other inertial reference frames, the choice of a particular one being just a matter of convenience. In a slightly different formulation, we can promote Galilean relativity to the status of general pos- tulate2 by requiring that all the laws of Nature be the same in any (inertial) reference frame obtained from a given one by the transformation (11). In such a formulation, derivation of Eq. (12) from the postulates of Newtonian Mechanics (see Problem 1) has the meaning of consistency theorem stating that the postulates of Newtonian Mechanics are consistent with the Galilean relativity principle. Finally, we observe that Eq. (2) suggests a natural way of choosing an inertial reference frame. Indeed, from this equation it follows that a particle which does not interact with the rest of the particles moves with a constant velocity in any inertial reference frame. Hence, an inertial reference frame can be associated with (formed by) a set of particles that do not interact with each other and the rest of the World, and do not move with respect to each other. We also need a clock. The role 2Analogous to Einstein's relativity principle. 3 of the clock can be played by two particles bound to each other by an attractive Coulomb potential (and not interacting with the rest of the World); the natural time unit corresponds to the period of the orbital motion of the two particles. This completes our construction of consistent Newtonian picture of the World.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Philosophy of Physics
    The Philosophy of Physics ROBERTO TORRETTI University of Chile PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014, Madrid, Spain © Roberto Torretti 1999 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1999 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Sabon 10.25/13 pt. System QuarkXPress [BTS] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available. 0 521 56259 7 hardback 0 521 56571 5 paperback Contents Preface xiii 1 The Transformation of Natural Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century 1 1.1 Mathematics and Experiment 2 1.2 Aristotelian Principles 8 1.3 Modern Matter 13 1.4 Galileo on Motion 20 1.5 Modeling and Measuring 30 1.5.1 Huygens and the Laws of Collision 30 1.5.2 Leibniz and the Conservation of “Force” 33 1.5.3 Rømer and the Speed of Light 36 2 Newton 41 2.1 Mass and Force 42 2.2 Space and Time 50 2.3 Universal Gravitation 57 2.4 Rules of Philosophy 69 2.5 Newtonian Science 75 2.5.1 The Cause of Gravity 75 2.5.2 Central Forces 80 2.5.3 Analytical
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Newtonian Dynamics: an Axiomatic Approach For
    Foundations of Newtonian Dynamics: 1 An Axiomatic Approach for the Thinking Student C. J. Papachristou 2 Department of Physical Sciences, Hellenic Naval Academy, Piraeus 18539, Greece Abstract. Despite its apparent simplicity, Newtonian mechanics contains conceptual subtleties that may cause some confusion to the deep-thinking student. These subtle- ties concern fundamental issues such as, e.g., the number of independent laws needed to formulate the theory, or, the distinction between genuine physical laws and deriva- tive theorems. This article attempts to clarify these issues for the benefit of the stu- dent by revisiting the foundations of Newtonian dynamics and by proposing a rigor- ous axiomatic approach to the subject. This theoretical scheme is built upon two fun- damental postulates, namely, conservation of momentum and superposition property for interactions. Newton’s laws, as well as all familiar theorems of mechanics, are shown to follow from these basic principles. 1. Introduction Teaching introductory mechanics can be a major challenge, especially in a class of students that are not willing to take anything for granted! The problem is that, even some of the most prestigious textbooks on the subject may leave the student with some degree of confusion, which manifests itself in questions like the following: • Is the law of inertia (Newton’s first law) a law of motion (of free bodies) or is it a statement of existence (of inertial reference frames)? • Are the first two of Newton’s laws independent of each other? It appears that
    [Show full text]
  • On the Origin of the Inertia: the Modified Newtonian Dynamics Theory
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Repositori Obert UdL ON THE ORIGIN OF THE INERTIA: THE MODIFIED NEWTONIAN DYNAMICS THEORY JAUME GINE¶ Abstract. The sameness between the inertial mass and the grav- itational mass is an assumption and not a consequence of the equiv- alent principle is shown. In the context of the Sciama's inertia theory, the sameness between the inertial mass and the gravita- tional mass is discussed and a certain condition which must be experimentally satis¯ed is given. The inertial force proposed by Sciama, in a simple case, is derived from the Assis' inertia the- ory based in the introduction of a Weber type force. The origin of the inertial force is totally justi¯ed taking into account that the Weber force is, in fact, an approximation of a simple retarded potential, see [18, 19]. The way how the inertial forces are also derived from some solutions of the general relativistic equations is presented. We wonder if the theory of inertia of Assis is included in the framework of the General Relativity. In the context of the inertia developed in the present paper we establish the relation between the constant acceleration a0, that appears in the classical Modi¯ed Newtonian Dynamics (M0ND) theory, with the Hubble constant H0, i.e. a0 ¼ cH0. 1. Inertial mass and gravitational mass The gravitational mass mg is the responsible of the gravitational force. This fact implies that two bodies are mutually attracted and, hence mg appears in the Newton's universal gravitation law m M F = G g g r: r3 According to Newton, inertia is an inherent property of matter which is independent of any other thing in the universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Newtonian Particles
    Newtonian Particles Steve Rotenberg CSE291: Physics Simulation UCSD Spring 2019 CSE291: Physics Simulation • Instructor: Steve Rotenberg ([email protected]) • Lecture: EBU3 4140 (TTh 5:00 – 6:20pm) • Office: EBU3 2210 (TTh 3:50– 4:50pm) • TA: Mridul Kavidayal ([email protected]) • Web page: https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp19/cse291-d/index.html CSE291: Physics Simulation • Focus will be on physics of motion (dynamics) • Main subjects: – Solid mechanics (deformable bodies & fracture) – Fluid dynamics – Rigid body dynamics • Additional topics: – Vehicle dynamics – Galactic dynamics – Molecular modeling Programming Project • There will a single programming project over the quarter • You can choose one of the following options – Fracture modeling – Particle based fluids – Rigid body dynamics • Or you can suggest your own idea, but talk to me first • The project will involve implementing the physics, some level of collision detection and optimization, some level of visualization, and some level of user interaction • You can work on your own or in a group of two • You also have to do a presentation for the final and demo it live or show some rendered video • I will provide more details on the web page Grading • There will be two pop quizzes, each worth 5% of the total grade • For the project, you will have to demonstrate your current progress at two different times in the quarter (roughly 1/3 and 2/3 through). These will each be worth 10% of the total grade • The final presentation is worth 10% • The remaining 60% is for the content of the project itself Course Outline 1. Newtonian Particles 10.Poisson Equations 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Modified Newtonian Dynamics
    J. Astrophys. Astr. (December 2017) 38:59 © Indian Academy of Sciences https://doi.org/10.1007/s12036-017-9479-0 Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) as a Modification of Newtonian Inertia MOHAMMED ALZAIN Department of Physics, Omdurman Islamic University, Omdurman, Sudan. E-mail: [email protected] MS received 2 February 2017; accepted 14 July 2017; published online 31 October 2017 Abstract. We present a modified inertia formulation of Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) without retaining Galilean invariance. Assuming that the existence of a universal upper bound, predicted by MOND, to the acceleration produced by a dark halo is equivalent to a violation of the hypothesis of locality (which states that an accelerated observer is pointwise inertial), we demonstrate that Milgrom’s law is invariant under a new space–time coordinate transformation. In light of the new coordinate symmetry, we address the deficiency of MOND in resolving the mass discrepancy problem in clusters of galaxies. Keywords. Dark matter—modified dynamics—Lorentz invariance 1. Introduction the upper bound is inferred by writing the excess (halo) acceleration as a function of the MOND acceleration, The modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) paradigm g (g) = g − g = g − gμ(g/a ). (2) posits that the observations attributed to the presence D N 0 of dark matter can be explained and empirically uni- It seems from the behavior of the interpolating function fied as a modification of Newtonian dynamics when the as dictated by Milgrom’s formula (Brada & Milgrom gravitational acceleration falls below a constant value 1999) that the acceleration equation (2) is universally −10 −2 of a0 10 ms .
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Particle Trajectories‡
    1 Variational approach to a theory of CLASSICAL PARTICLE TRAJECTORIES ‡ Introduction. The problem central to the classical mechanics of a particle is usually construed to be to discover the function x(t) that describes—relative to an inertial Cartesian reference frame—the positions assumed by the particle at successive times t. This is the problem addressed by Newton, according to whom our analytical task is to discover the solution of the differential equation d2x(t) m = F (x(t)) dt2 that conforms to prescribed initial data x(0) = x0, x˙ (0) = v0. Here I explore an alternative approach to the same physical problem, which we cleave into two parts: we look first for the trajectory traced by the particle, and then—as a separate exercise—for its rate of progress along that trajectory. The discussion will cast new light on (among other things) an important but frequently misinterpreted variational principle, and upon a curious relationship between the “motion of particles” and the “motion of photons”—the one being, when you think about it, hardly more abstract than the other. ‡ The following material is based upon notes from a Reed College Physics Seminar “Geometrical Mechanics: Remarks commemorative of Heinrich Hertz” that was presented February . 2 Classical trajectories 1. “Transit time” in 1-dimensional mechanics. To describe (relative to an inertial frame) the 1-dimensional motion of a mass point m we were taught by Newton to write mx¨ = F (x) − d If F (x) is “conservative” F (x)= dx U(x) (which in the 1-dimensional case is automatic) then, by a familiar line of argument, ≡ 1 2 ˙ E 2 mx˙ + U(x) is conserved: E =0 Therefore the speed of the particle when at x can be described 2 − v(x)= m E U(x) (1) and is determined (see the Figure 1) by the “local depth E − U(x) of the potential lake.” Several useful conclusions are immediate.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Aquinas on the Separability of Accidents and Dietrich of Freiberg’S Critique
    Thomas Aquinas on the Separability of Accidents and Dietrich of Freiberg’s Critique David Roderick McPike Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate in Philosophy degree in Philosophy Department of Philosophy Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa © David Roderick McPike, Ottawa, Canada, 2015 Abstract The opening chapter briefly introduces the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist and the history of its appropriation into the systematic rational discourse of philosophy, as culminating in Thomas Aquinas’ account of transubstantiation with its metaphysical elaboration of the separability of accidents from their subject (a substance), so as to exist (supernaturally) without a subject. Chapter Two expounds St. Thomas’ account of the separability of accidents from their subject. It shows that Thomas presents a consistent rational articulation of his position throughout his works on the subject. Chapter Three expounds Dietrich of Freiberg’s rejection of Thomas’ view, examining in detail his treatise De accidentibus, which is expressly dedicated to demonstrating the utter impossibility of separate accidents. Especially in light of Kurt Flasch’s influential analysis of this work, which praises Dietrich for his superior level of ‘methodological consciousness,’ this chapter aims to be painstaking in its exposition and to comprehensively present Dietrich’s own views just as we find them, before taking up the task of critically assessing Dietrich’s position. Chapter Four critically analyses the competing doctrinal positions expounded in the preceding two chapters. It analyses the various elements of Dietrich’s case against Thomas and attempts to pinpoint wherein Thomas and Dietrich agree and wherein they part ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Modified Newtonian Dynamics, an Introductory Review
    Modified Newtonian Dynamics, an Introductory Review Riccardo Scarpa European Southern Observatory, Chile E-mail [email protected] Abstract. By the time, in 1937, the Swiss astronomer Zwicky measured the velocity dispersion of the Coma cluster of galaxies, astronomers somehow got acquainted with the idea that the universe is filled by some kind of dark matter. After almost a century of investigations, we have learned two things about dark matter, (i) it has to be non-baryonic -- that is, made of something new that interact with normal matter only by gravitation-- and, (ii) that its effects are observed in -8 -2 stellar systems when and only when their internal acceleration of gravity falls below a fix value a0=1.2×10 cm s . Being completely decoupled dark and normal matter can mix in any ratio to form the objects we see in the universe, and indeed observations show the relative content of dark matter to vary dramatically from object to object. This is in open contrast with point (ii). In fact, there is no reason why normal and dark matter should conspire to mix in just the right way for the mass discrepancy to appear always below a fixed acceleration. This systematic, more than anything else, tells us we might be facing a failure of the law of gravity in the weak field limit rather then the effects of dark matter. Thus, in an attempt to avoid the need for dark matter many modifications of the law of gravity have been proposed in the past decades. The most successful – and the only one that survived observational tests -- is the Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Modified Newtonian Dynamics
    Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Bachelor Thesis University of Groningen Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and a Possible Microscopic Description Author: Supervisor: L.M. Mooiweer prof. dr. E. Pallante Abstract Nowadays, the mass discrepancy in the universe is often interpreted within the paradigm of Cold Dark Matter (CDM) while other possibilities are not excluded. The main idea of this thesis is to develop a better theoretical understanding of the hidden mass problem within the paradigm of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). Several phenomenological aspects of MOND will be discussed and we will consider a possible microscopic description based on quantum statistics on the holographic screen which can reproduce the MOND phenomenology. July 10, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 The Problem of the Hidden Mass . .3 2 Modified Newtonian Dynamics6 2.1 The Acceleration Constant a0 .................................7 2.2 MOND Phenomenology . .8 2.2.1 The Tully-Fischer and Jackson-Faber relation . .9 2.2.2 The external field effect . 10 2.3 The Non-Relativistic Field Formulation . 11 2.3.1 Conservation of energy . 11 2.3.2 A quadratic Lagrangian formalism (AQUAL) . 12 2.4 The Relativistic Field Formulation . 13 2.5 MOND Difficulties . 13 3 A Possible Microscopic Description of MOND 16 3.1 The Holographic Principle . 16 3.2 Emergent Gravity as an Entropic Force . 16 3.2.1 The connection between the bulk and the surface . 18 3.3 Quantum Statistical Description on the Holographic Screen . 19 3.3.1 Two dimensional quantum gases . 19 3.3.2 The connection with the deep MOND limit .
    [Show full text]
  • The Newtonian and Relativistic Theory of Orbits and the Emission of Gravitational Waves
    108 The Open Astronomy Journal, 2011, 4, (Suppl 1-M7) 108-150 Open Access The Newtonian and Relativistic Theory of Orbits and the Emission of Gravitational Waves Mariafelicia De Laurentis1,2,* 1Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Universitá di Napoli " Federico II",Compl. Univ. di Monte S. Angelo, Edificio G, Via Cinthia, I-80126, Napoli, Italy 2INFN Sez. di Napoli, Compl. Univ. di Monte S. Angelo, Edificio G, Via Cinthia, I-80126, Napoli, Italy Abstract: This review paper is devoted to the theory of orbits. We start with the discussion of the Newtonian problem of motion then we consider the relativistic problem of motion, in particular the post-Newtonian (PN) approximation and the further gravitomagnetic corrections. Finally by a classification of orbits in accordance with the conditions of motion, we calculate the gravitational waves luminosity for different types of stellar encounters and orbits. Keywords: Theroy of orbits, gravitational waves, post-newtonian (PN) approximation, LISA, transverse traceless, Elliptical orbits. 1. INTRODUCTION of General Relativity (GR). Indeed, the PN approximation method, developed by Einstein himself [1], Droste and de Dynamics of standard and compact astrophysical bodies could be aimed to unravelling the information contained in Sitter [2, 3] within one year after the publication of GR, led the gravitational wave (GW) signals. Several situations are to the predictions of i) the relativistic advance of perihelion of planets, ii) the gravitational redshift, iii) the deflection possible such as GWs emitted by coalescing compact binaries–systems of neutron stars (NS), black holes (BH) of light, iv) the relativistic precession of the Moon orbit, that driven into coalescence by emission of gravitational are the so–called "classical" tests of GR.
    [Show full text]
  • The Confrontation Between General Relativity and Experiment
    The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment Clifford M. Will Department of Physics University of Florida Gainesville FL 32611, U.S.A. email: [email protected]fl.edu http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~cmw/ Abstract The status of experimental tests of general relativity and of theoretical frameworks for analyzing them are reviewed and updated. Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the E¨otv¨os experiment, tests of local Lorentz invariance and clock experiments. Ongoing tests of EEP and of the inverse square law are searching for new interactions arising from unification or quantum gravity. Tests of general relativity at the post-Newtonian level have reached high precision, including the light deflection, the Shapiro time delay, the perihelion advance of Mercury, the Nordtvedt effect in lunar motion, and frame-dragging. Gravitational wave damping has been detected in an amount that agrees with general relativity to better than half a percent using the Hulse–Taylor binary pulsar, and a growing family of other binary pulsar systems is yielding new tests, especially of strong-field effects. Current and future tests of relativity will center on strong gravity and gravitational waves. arXiv:1403.7377v1 [gr-qc] 28 Mar 2014 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Tests of the Foundations of Gravitation Theory 6 2.1 The Einstein equivalence principle . .. 6 2.1.1 Tests of the weak equivalence principle . .. 7 2.1.2 Tests of local Lorentz invariance . .. 9 2.1.3 Tests of local position invariance . 12 2.2 TheoreticalframeworksforanalyzingEEP. ....... 16 2.2.1 Schiff’sconjecture ................................ 16 2.2.2 The THǫµ formalism .............................
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
    Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature RICHARD RORTY Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey Copyright © 1979 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Includes index. 1. Philosophy. 2. Philosophy, Modern. 3. Mind and body. 4. Representation (Philosophy) 5. Analysis (Philosophy) 6. Civilization-Philosophy. I. Title. B53·R68 190 79- 84013 ISBN 0-691-07236-1 ISBN 0-691-02016-7 pbk. Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from The National Endowment for the Humanities This book has been composed in Linotype Baskerville 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 Second printing, with corrections, 1980 First Princeton Paperback printing, 1980 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 I I 10 TO M. V. R. When we think about the future of the world, we always have in mind its being at the place where it would be if it continued to move as we see it moving now. We do not realize that it moves not in a straight line, but in a curve, and that its direction constantly changes. Philosophy has made no progress? If somebody scratches where it itches, does that count as progress? If not, does that mean it wasn't an authentic scratch? Not an authentic itch? Couldn't this response to the stimulus go on for quite a long time until a remedy for itching is found? Wenn wir an die Zukunft der Welt denken, so meinen wir immer den Ort, wo sie sein wird, wenn sie so weiter Hiuft, wie wir sie jetzt laufen sehen, und denken nieht, da�s sie nieht gerade lauft, sondern in einer Kurve, und ihre Riehtung sieh konstant andert.
    [Show full text]