“就像玻尔兹曼之前的热力学。”论爱因斯坦建构论与原理论的区别

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Marco Giovanelli
{"title":"“就像玻尔兹曼之前的热力学。”论爱因斯坦建构论与原理论的区别","authors":"Marco Giovanelli","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.02.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In a 1919 article for the <em>Times</em><span> of London, Einstein declared the relativity theory<span> to be a ‘principle theory’, like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘constructive theory’, like the kinetic theory<span> of gases. The present paper attempts to trace back the prehistory of this famous distinction. It provides a systematic overview of Einstein's repeated use of the relativity theory/thermodynamics analysis after 1905 and inserts it into its historical settings, the early reception of relativity against the background of </span></span></span><em>fin de siècle</em><span> electron theories. Einstein initially used the relativity theory/thermodynamics comparison to address a specific 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 specific 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 effective to search for conditions that constraint the number of possible theories. The constructive/principle theories opposition should be considered not only as abstract classification of theories, but also as Einstein's attempt to formulate a sort of ‘logic of discovery’. The paper argues that most of Einstein's scientific successes were obtained by following the principle strategy. Most of his failures happened when he was forced to fall back to the constructive strategy.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":54442,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","volume":"71 ","pages":"Pages 118-157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.02.005","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Like thermodynamics before Boltzmann.’ On the emergence of Einstein's distinction between constructive and principle theories\",\"authors\":\"Marco Giovanelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.02.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In a 1919 article for the <em>Times</em><span> of London, Einstein declared the relativity theory<span> to be a ‘principle theory’, like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘constructive theory’, like the kinetic theory<span> of gases. The present paper attempts to trace back the prehistory of this famous distinction. It provides a systematic overview of Einstein's repeated use of the relativity theory/thermodynamics analysis after 1905 and inserts it into its historical settings, the early reception of relativity against the background of </span></span></span><em>fin de siècle</em><span> electron theories. Einstein initially used the relativity theory/thermodynamics comparison to address a specific 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 specific 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 effective to search for conditions that constraint the number of possible theories. The constructive/principle theories opposition should be considered not only as abstract classification of theories, but also as Einstein's attempt to formulate a sort of ‘logic of discovery’. The paper argues that most of Einstein's scientific successes were obtained by following the principle strategy. Most of his failures happened when he was forced to fall back to the constructive strategy.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\",\"volume\":\"71 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 118-157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.02.005\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219820300174\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219820300174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

1919年,爱因斯坦在伦敦《泰晤士报》上发表了一篇文章,宣称相对论是一个“原理理论”,就像热力学一样,而不是一个“构造理论”,就像气体的运动论一样。本文试图追溯这一著名区别的史前史。它提供了一个系统的概述爱因斯坦在1905年之后反复使用相对论/热力学分析,并将其插入到它的历史背景中,相对论的早期接受是在电子理论的背景下。爱因斯坦最初用相对论和热力学的比较来解决一个具体的反对意见。在1905年的相对论论文中,他通过将牛顿的粒子动力学应用于相对性原理,确定了电子质量与速度的关系。然而,根据许多人的观点,如果不对电子的结构做一些假设,这个结果是不能被接受的。爱因斯坦回答说,相对论类似于热力学。与通常的物理理论不同,它并不直接试图构建特定物理系统的模型;它为这些理论的可接受性提供了经验动机和数学公式标准。通过修改在极限情况下有效的现有理论,使其符合这些准则,可以得到新的理论。爱因斯坦逐渐将这条防线转变为积极的启发式。与直接寻找新理论相比,寻找限制可能理论数量的条件往往更有效。建设性理论与原理理论的对立不仅应该被视为理论的抽象分类,而且应该被视为爱因斯坦试图形成一种“发现逻辑”。本文认为,爱因斯坦的大部分科学成就都是通过遵循原则策略获得的。他的大多数失败都发生在他被迫退回到建设性策略的时候。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Like thermodynamics before Boltzmann.’ On the emergence of Einstein's distinction between constructive and principle theories

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. It provides a systematic overview of Einstein's repeated use of the relativity theory/thermodynamics analysis after 1905 and inserts it into its historical settings, the early reception of relativity against the background of fin de siècle electron theories. Einstein initially used the relativity theory/thermodynamics comparison to address a specific 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 specific 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 effective to search for conditions that constraint the number of possible theories. The constructive/principle theories opposition should be considered not only as abstract classification of theories, but also as Einstein's attempt to formulate a sort of ‘logic of discovery’. The paper argues that most of Einstein's scientific successes were obtained by following the principle strategy. Most of his failures happened when he was forced to fall back to the constructive strategy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 物理-科学史与科学哲学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics is devoted to all aspects of the history and philosophy of modern physics broadly understood, including physical aspects of astronomy, chemistry and other non-biological sciences. The primary focus is on physics from the mid/late-nineteenth century to the present, the period of emergence of the kind of theoretical physics that has come to dominate the exact sciences in the twentieth century. The journal is internationally oriented with contributions from a wide range of perspectives. In addition to purely historical or philosophical papers, the editors particularly encourage papers that combine these two disciplines. The editors are also keen to publish papers of interest to physicists, as well as specialists in history and philosophy of physics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信