论文网首页|会计论文|管理论文|计算机论文|医药学|经济学论文|法学论文|社会学论文|文学论文|教育论文|理学论文|工学论文|艺术论文|哲学论文|文化论文|外语论文|论文格式
中国论文网

用户注册

设为首页

您现在的位置: 中国论文网 >> 外语论文 >> 其他相关论文 >> 正文 会员中心
 外语翻译论文   语言文化论文   英美文学论文   其他相关论文   学术英语   商务英语   英语教学
TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT IN THE REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY
the revolution in physics at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries was a significant event in both the history of science and the history of philosophy. various schools of philosophy have interpreted this event differently. naturally, this is of concern to marxist philosophy. based on relatively rich original sources, this article analyzes the historical role, philosophical origin, and end result of two schools in this revolution, the mechanical school and critical school. the author offers an interpretation which differs from the traditional one, especially with the respect to the critical school. this paper is intended to promote academic discussion, to further explore the philosophic significance of this scientific revolution, and to enrich teaching and research in natural dialectics.

from the beginning of the eighteenth century, physicists came to regard newtonian mechanics as the research program for all fields of physics, to the extent that it became the supreme authority and ultimate standard of scientific interpretation. until the end of the nineteenth century, physicists almost universally believed that all physical phenomena could be explained from the perspective of mechanics.
however, the end of the nineteenth century witnessed a continuous stream of new experiments and discoveries which severely shook the foundations of physics, leading to a crisis. under such circumstances, some physicists came to doubt the universal application and absolute reliability of the classical theory. one after another, they began to criticize the basic concepts and principles within classical mechanics and to challenge the dominant mechanistic viewpoint. thus, diversity replaced unity, and physicists formed schools which differed from each other even in their basic guiding ideologies. some scholars have divided them into the energetic school, the mechanical school, and, intermediate between these, the critical school. others have identified them as the realist and symbolic schools. i would like to classify them into the mechanical school and the critical school, based on the different attitudes toward classical mechanics.
some previous publications in the soviet union, eastern europe, japan and china have tended to overemphasize the mechanical school and belittle the critical school, even entirely denying its role in the development of physics. i think this is not entirely accurate. this article undertakes a preliminary examination and discussion of this issue, based on the historical context and relevant original sources.

i. two historical roles
what role did each of these two schools play at the turn of the century during the crisis in physics and the beginning of the revolution? first, it must be noted that the mechanical school, which possessed an absolute superiority in numbers, made indelible contributions to the development of classical physics. an early representative of this school, g.r. kirchhoff, did extensive work in electricity and spectral analysis. in 1859 he proposed the law of cavity radiation, which was an important milestone in research on heat radiation. h. von helmholtz made outstanding contributions to thermodynamics and electricity. in 1847 he published an important book, uber die erhaltung der kraft, about energy conservation and conversion. j.c. maxwell contributed to thermodynamics, optics, molecular physics, the theory of the characteristics of fluids, etc. in particular, he proposed the distribution law of molecular motion and the law of equipartition of energy in 1859, and the electromagnetic field equations in 1864, which formed the theoretical foundations for statistical mechanics and electromagneticsm. l. boltzmann, who was still active in physics at the turn of the century, also greatly contributed to the development of kinetic theory, thermodynamics, and statistical mechanics. his probabilistic explanation of the second law of thermodynamics is well known. lord rayleigh made achievements in acoustics and vibration, optical theory, heat radiation, etc. lord kelvin, a veteran in physics, contributed tremendously to theoretical and experimental investigations of heat and electricity. lorentz devoted himself to research on electronic theory from 1875. electron theory, which he published in 1909, was the last great edifice of classical theory. obviously, the contributions of the critical school to classical physics cannot be compared to those of the mechanical school. the latter developed classical theory to perfection, inadvertently providing the necessary conditions for the coming revolution in physics.
however, the mechanical school also inherited “the fanaticism that reduces everything to mechanical motion.”1 in 1847 helmholtz asserted, “we eventually find that all questions related to physics can be reduced to gravitation and repulsion…the mission of physics ends with the simplification of all natural phenomena into force. ”2 on the one hand, maxwell shook the belief that mechanics is the ultimate foundation of all physics with the theory of electromagnetism. on the other hand, they tried every means to stuff their theory into the framework of mechanics.
by the end of the nineteenth century, experimental evidence, such as michelson’s experiment, the specific heat of polyatomic gases and solids, the photoelectric effect, black body radiation, atomic spectra, and particularly the discovery and research on radiation after 1895, had profoundly shaken the whole foundation of physics. nevertheless, the mechanical school still cherished the basic concepts and principles of classical theory within the “treasure box” of “absolutes,” claiming that they are an unalterable “sacred heritage.”3
the celebrated kelvin was keenly interested in the construction of mechanical models of the ether. in 1884 he proclaimed, “i never satisfy myself until i can make a mechanical model of a thing.”4 in 1890, he suggested that electrical effects are caused by the translational movement of ether, that magnetic phenomena can be explained by the rotation of ether, and that light is the result of wavy vibrations within the ether. in 1907, in the last public appearance before his death, he still supported the view that every cubic millimeter in space contains a thousand tons of ether mass. kelvin was often suspicious of new discoveries and theories in physics and was particularly opposed to the theory of the transmutation of elements. in august of 1906, at the age of 82, he stubbornly insisted that radium originally contains helium and therefore the production of helium from radium cannot justify the theory of the transmutation of elements, a theory cleverly fabricated solely for the purpose of explaining the properties of radium. he also attributed the energy of the sun to gravity, opposing explanations which referred to transmutation.
although lorentz actively participated in frontier research in several areas of physics at the turn of the century, he tried very hard to revise old theories and to mediate between mechanics and electrodynamics without violating the framework of classical theories. however, michelson’s 1887 experiment rejected fresnel’s stationary ether theory, a prerequisite of electromagnetic theory, thus attacking its mechanical foundation. lorentz was upset and gloomy, writing in a letter to rayleigh in 1892, “i simply don’t know how to get rid of this contradiction, but i still believe that if we have to discard fresnel’s theory,…we will never have an appropriate theory.”5 in the same year, he proposed the contraction hypothesis to resolve the dilemma. in 1904, following poincare’s suggestion, he obtained the law of corresponding states applicable to effects at all orders and introduced the mathematical transformations which are named after him. lorentz’s theory was very similar in mathematical form to the special theory of relativity, but it differed fundamentally in physical explanation, lacking a thorough redefinition of traditional concepts of space and time. even in his later years, lorentz continued to believe that the ether concept possesses certain advantages. m. born recalled, “when i visited lorentz several years before he died, his suspicion of relativity remained unchanged.”6 according to s.sakata’s recollection, lorentz, facing the new concept of waveparticle duality, despairingly lamented,
people nowadays suggest ideas which are just the opposite of yesterday’s. thus, there’s no criterion for truth. no one knows what science is. i really regret that i didn’t die five years ago, before these contradictions appeared.7
other representatives of the mechanical school behaved similarly. even in 1902, boltzmann still publicly asserted, “mechanics is the foundation on which the whole edifice of theoretical physics is built, the root from which all other branches of science spring.”8 rayleigh carefully analyzed the contradictions between gaseous specific heat experiments and the classical energy equipartition theory. he pointed out that experiments destroy the theory’s “simplicity of calculation.” at the same time, he admitted,”it seems that the hope is to avoid destroying the simplicity of this widely accepted conclusion, energy equipartition.”9 unwilling to break the bonds of the old framework, he also tired hard apply the energy equipartition theory to the ether model in order to explain black body radiation. even at the 1911 solvay conference, he maintained a negative attitude toward the eleven-year-old quantum theory.
the representatives of the critical school are e. mach, h. poincare, p. duhem, w. ostwald, and karl pearson. their attitudes differed completely from those of the mechanical school, and the appeared very early as reformists.
in 1883 mach published his historic work the science of mechanics: a critical and historical account of its development. this book shows that even before a large number of the new experiments and new discoveries which shook the foundations of classical physics appeared, mach had already realized the limitations of the theoretical framework of classical mechanics. (in fact, as early as 1871, in his speech ‘the history and origin of the law of energy conservation,’ he had already presented the basic ideas which later appeared in the book.) adopting a skeptical empiricist approach, he criticized classical mechanics from the point of view of philosophy and logic. as einstein later noted, mach “excellently expressed ideas which at that time had not become public knowledge among physicists.”10
the best known section of mach’s book is a criticism of newton’s concept of absolute time and space. mach wrote, “time is an abstraction. we rely on changes of matter to reach such an abstraction.” so-called absolute time, which is irrelevant to changes in matter, cannot be related to empirical observation. therefore, “it has neither practical nor scientific value.” it is only “an absolutely useless metaphysical concept.”11 for the same reason, absolute space and absolute motion which are irrelevant to anything else are also “purely the products of thinking and rational constructs. they cannot be derived from experience.”12 mach explicitly stated, “if we stand on the facts, we find that we know only relative space and relative motion.”13 “it’s absolutely unnecessary to return to absolute space because the frame of reference, in any situation, is always determined relatively.”14
in the chapter ‘the relation of mechanics to other departments of knowledge,’ mach concentrated on criticizing the mechanical viewpoint, asserting that people have learned from their predecessors a bias, mistakenly regarding the real world as a mechanical machine. as a matter of fact, mechanical knowledge is not necessarily the basis for knowledge obtained gradually later on. when more and more facts are discovered and classified, a totally new concept applicable to universal fields will be developed.”15 mach argued that mechanics does not have the privilege to place itself above other disciplines. “it is a prejudice to regard mechanics as the basis of other branches of physics or to claim that all physical phenomena should be explained from the perspective of mechanics.”16 at that time, only mach explicitly challenged the mechanistic worldview. on the eve of the revolution in physics, he proved to be an instigator.
at the turn of the century, mach’s skeptical attitude, his independent, empiricist position, his powerful criticism of apriorism and the mechanistic viewpoint, and his profound insight into the foundations of classical mechanics produced a strong reaction from einstein. einstein frankly admitted many times that mach “paved the way” for the development of relativity. “i was greatly inspired, directly or indirectly, by hume and mach in particular.”17 einstein also stated,
mach has greatly influenced natural scientists of our generation with his historical, critical work…i believe that even the self-proclaimed critics of mach do not know how many ways of thinking they have absorbed from him as unconsciously as they consumed their mothers’ milk.18
poincare was also engaged in critical research of a similar nature, but his work was based on the considerable experimental data by then available. moreover, as early as 1895 he proposed the universal necessity of principles such as relativity. in 1898 he was the first physicist to point out the speed of light must be assumed to be a constant to all observers and to study the problem of determining the simultaneity of events at two locations by means of exchanging light signals. in science and hypothesis, published in 1902, he once again definitely stated, “not only have we no direct intuition of the equality of two durations, but we have not even a direct intuition of the simultaneity of two events occurring in different places.”19 at the international congress of arts and science in st. louis in 1904, poincare asserted,
according to the relativity principle, the laws of physical phenomena should be the same to fixed observers or to observers moving at a uniform speed. thus, we do not and will not have any way to identify whether we ourselves are moving uniformly.
surprisingly, he even predicted,
maybe we’ll build a brand new mechanics. we’ve succeeded in catching a glimpse of it. within this new mechanics, inertia increases with speed and the speed of light becomes the insurpassable limit. the original, relatively simple mechanics will still remain as a first degree approximation old mechanics can still be discovered in the new mechanics.20
poincare was also acutely aware of the crisis in physics. in the value of science, published in 1905, he wrote, “i believe that there are indications of a serious crisis” pointing to an “approaching transformation”21 in physics. poincare thought that the crisis in physics marks “the eve of revolution,” and the forewarning that physics is entering “an even more important stage.”22 therefore, “be not too anxious. we are sure the patient will not ” die of it, and we may even hope that this crisis will be salutary.23 poincare was optimistic about the future of science. he noted that we already have “the cathode rays, the x-rays, those of uranium and of radium. herein is a whole world which no one suspected. how many unexpected guests must be stowed away!”24 he firmly concluded, “if the past has given us much, we may rest assured that the future will give us still more.”25
although the physicists of the critical school criticized classical mechanics and classical physics, they did not completely reject them. in mechanics, mach highly praised newton’s principia mathematica. he argued that, from a historical point of view, mechanical principles are easily understood and their faults are excusable. they are both effective and valuable within a limited period of time and in certain areas. in the grammar of science pearson remarked, “all that modern science will do to the dynamics of newton and lagrange will be to define precisely within what limits their application is exact, or with what approximation they may be applied if exactness is not to be admitted.”26
poincare also emphasized many times that the basic principles of classical physics are of “high value; they were obtained in seeking what there was in common in the enunciation of numerous physical laws; they represent therefore, as it were, the quintessence of innumerable observations.”27 of course, “it would be necessary to keep a place for them. to determine to exclude them altogether would be to deprive oneself of a precious weapon.”28 speaking of classical physics, he particularly emphasized,
i do not mean it corresponds to no objective reality, nor that it reduces itself to a mere tautology, since, in each particular case, and provided one does not try to push to the absolute, it has perfectly clear meaning…it will disappear only to lose itself in a higher harmony.29
it is particularly worth nothing that poincare directly criticized the erroneous claim that the crisis in physics is an indication of “the bankruptcy of science.” he wrote,
the laity are struck to see how ephemeral scientific theories are. after some years of prosperity, they see them successively abandoned; they see ruins accumulate upon ruins. they foresee that the theories fashionable today will shortly succumb in their turn and hence they conclude that these are absolutely idle. this is what they call the bankruptcy of science.
poincare penetrated to the heart of the matter when he noted, “that kind of skepticism is superficial. they absolutely fall to consider the purposes and functions of scientific theories. otherwise, they would understand that these ruins may be useful.”30 thus, the accusation that the critical school entirely denied the old principles of physics and proclaimed the total collapse of scientific truth is not in accordance with the facts.
it is true that the critical school denied the reality of atoms and molecules. needless to say, that’s where they went astray. however, concrete historical analysis of this issue is required. there was no fully reliable experimental evidence regarding the existence of atoms before the 1908 perrin experiment. relying on his empiricist philosophy, mach rejected atomic theory because “atoms…can never be made the object of sensuous contemplation.”31 poincare merely reserved judgement on this question. he argued that, since the atomic assumption has not been experimentally demonstrated, it cannot be considered either true or false. moreover, its usefulness as a supplementary assumption is not yet determined. in fact, atomic theory encountered some difficulties in explaining problems concerning the second law of thermodynamics, heat of vaporization, osmotic pressure, chemical equilibria, etc. ostwald proposed a theory of energetics based on his search for a common foundation which would integrate physics and chemistry. thus it’s obvious that the major proponents of the critical school disagreed on this issue. moreover, to varying degrees, they later recognized their errors. in 1913 mach admitted that he would have to accept the atomic assumption if it could be shown to be capable of logically connecting observable phenomena which cannot otherwise be connected. after the perrin experiment, ostwald immediately publicly admitted his mistake and wrote in the new edition (1909) of outline of general chemistry,
i am now convinced…that we have recently become possessed of experimental evidence of the discrete or grained nature of matter for which the atomic hypothesis sought in vain for hundreds and thousands of years… [new discoveries] justify the most cautious scientist in now speaking of the experimental proof of the atomic theory of matter.32
in 1912 poincare also solemnly stated, “the long existing mechanical hypothesis is now considered to be fully reliable…atomic theory has achieved an absolute victory…the atom…is now a reality.”33
the critical school also behaved conservatively in some respects in the revolution in physics. now matter how many mistakes they made, however, during the period of crisis in physics at the turn of the century and the early period of revolution, the critical school was essentially reformist and promoted the development of physics.

ii. two philosophical roots
the quite different reactions of the mechanical and critical schools can be partially explained by their philosophical origins.
the mechanical school adhered to the cognitive line of mechanistic materialism which, on the one hand, tremendously promoted the development of classical mechanics and classical physics. on the other hand, to a certain degree it became an obstacle to the development of physics because “it did not understand the relativity of all scientific theories, failed to comprehend dialectics, and exaggerated the role of mechanism,”34 thus basically losing its positive value under the particular historical conditions which existed at the turn of the century.
by insisting on the mechanistic viewpoint, the mechanical school in fact could not follow materialism to its logical conclusion. when a series of new experiments ant the turn of the century sharply contradicted the old theories, the mechanical school opposed the new discoveries and tried to patch up the old theories rather than rigorously adhering to experimental facts and positively attempting to reform physics. thus they consciously or unconsciously diverged from the materialist empiricism which is the heritage of natural scientists.
the mechanical school forgot the everyday worldly origin of the basic concepts and principles within the framework of classical theory. excluding them from the domain of experience, they placed them on a visionary, a priori peak and claimed them to be sacred and inviolable treasures. in essence, they slipped into a priorism. under the domination of such an ideology, of course the mechanical school could not adjust to the development of physics and become reformist.
strangely enough, it was the critical school which truly applied the philosophy of empiricism. although they philosophically gave an opaque and sometimes idealistic explanation of the term ‘experience,’ in scientific practice they insisted on adhering to experimental facts. in the science of mechanics, mach repeatedly emphasized that the essence of nature must not be fabricated by relying on self-evident assumptions. rather, it should be derived from experience. he pointed out,
mechanical laws are in fact very complicated, even though they seem very simple on the surface. these laws stop at a stage of incomplete experience and, indeed, can never be completed. they should never be regarded as mathematically determined truths but rather as formulae which not only can be permanently dominated by experience but also need to be so dominated.35
mechanical principles “cannot be and have never been accepted without being pre-tested by practice. no one can be sure that these principles can be applied to domains which lie outside our experience. in fact, such expansion is useless.”36 based on his empirical philosophy, mach examined the basic concepts of newtonian mechanics one by one. as einstein later noted, he “pulled them down from their a priori olympus,” exposed “their worldly origin,” and liberated them “from enforced taboos.”37 mach’s critical opinions on mechanics led to a heated debate concerning the scientific, historical, and philosophical foundations of classical mechanics and classical physics which exerted a lasting and profound influence.

poincare was also a steadfast empiricist. he insisted, “experiment is the only source of truth. it alone can teach us anything new; it alone can give us certainty. these are two points that can not be questioned.”38 to poincare, “all laws are therefore deduced from experiment…explanations of the universe which are based on unsophisticated assumptions rather than experiment are only illusions.”39 dominated by this empirical philosophy, when poincare confronted the sharp conflict between the new experiments and the old theories, he always tried to reform physics by beginning with the new experimental facts and historical experience, while affirming the inherent value of the old theories. he did not “cut the feet to fit the shoes” by forcing new observations into the domain of the old classical theories, nor did he doubt everything and fall into pessimistic despair. led by his empirical philosophy, he publicly revised his mistakes and abandoned his reservations concerning atomic and quantum theory.
with respect to this empiricism, the following philosophical principles of the critical school are of inspiring significance.
1) the principle of conceptual evolution.
mach believed that concepts are not absolutely, permanently valid. rather, they can evolve. whenever concepts seem inapplicable, they can be revised best and quickest by facts. when a concept which is valid within a specific, narrow scientific field fails to apply to a new area of research, the creation of a new concept which is applicable to a broader research area is required. evolved concepts can not only explain different sciences but can also surpass the limited areas for which they were created and achieve widespread application.40 at the turn of the century when the concepts of physics were undergoing rapid change, this principle of mach’s was obviously of positive value. einstein totally agreed with it and noted that he was greatly inspired by it. he himself significantly expanded and applied this principle.41 sharing einstein’s flexible attitude toward concepts, n. bohr proposed the “correspondence principle.” w. heisenberg even thought that the development of physics is essentially the development of concepts.
2) the principle of the relativity of knowledge.
duhem repeatedly pointed out that “every law of physics is provisional and relative because it is approximate…a law of physics is, properly speaking, neither true nor false, but approximate.”42 of course, dhuem fell into relativism because he could not correctly explain the relativity of truth. however, his principle of the relativity of knowledge undoubtedly includes dialectical elements and played a positive role in denying the absolutist metaphysics of classical theory. similarly, poincare also correctly described the relationship between the relativity and absoluteness of knowledge when he talked about the flexibility of some of the basic principles of physics43 and predicted a general overview of the new mechanics.44 because of this, poincare was able to form relatively correct views concerning the laws of scientific development.
3) conventionalism.
poincare thought that the “character of free convention [is]
recognizable in certain fundamental principles of the sciences…these conventions are the work of the free activity of our mind.” at first glance, this seems to be idealist dogma. however, poincare went on to point out clearly that “liberty is not license…the world [the scholar] thinks he discovers is not simply created by his own caprice.”45 from poincare’s point of view, when selecting among all possible conventions, we are not only “guided by experimental facts” but are also “limited … by the necessity of avoiding all contradiction.”46 he also thought that a generalization is in fact a hypothesis and “ought always, as soon as possible and as often as possible, to be subjected to verification. and, of course, if it does not stand this test, it ought to be abandoned without reserve.”47 obviously, poincare’s statement that “conventions are the product of the free activity of our mind” does not advocate arbitrary fabrication. conventionalism not only frees itself from kant’s a priorism, particularly with respect to absolute metaphysics in the treatment of classical theory, but also breaks away from hume’s empiricism. poincare’s views reflect the need for free creation and free hypothesizing in science and are of positive value to philosophy. the claim that “concept are the creation of thought”, proposed and applied by einstein throughout his scientific work was rooted in poincare’s conventionalism.
these philosophical principles of the critical school contain rich
dialectical features as well as some materialist characteristics. the dialectics, in particular, was lacking in the mechanical school. guided by these inspiring, effective ideological principles, the critical school was able to play a reforming role in the revolution of physics, promoting the development of the relativity and quantum theories. of course, in applying these, they often went to the opposite extreme, forming topsy-turvy views concerning the relationship between matter and consciousness. however, we must not therefore entirely deny the philosophical ideology of the critical school.
lenin noted that, “sophisticated idealism is closer to sophisticated materialism than to naïve materialism.”48 because the critical school was “closer to sophisticated materialism” under the particular historical circumstances, it was able to promote reform in the revolution in physics at the turn of the century.

iii. the inevitable historic path
the representatives of the mechanical school were all masters of science, knowledgeable and talented, and their contributions to classical physics have been universally acclaimed. however, when a series of new experiments shook the foundations of the classical theories that they had painstakingly constructed, they were limited by the traditional mechanical view and were in capable of undertaking the arduous task of the revolution in physics. they approached the threshold of the new physics yet failed to open the gate leading to the new world.
the achievements and talents of the representatives of the critical school also contributed significantly to the development of classical physics. however, in contrast to the mechanical school, their acute thinking and spirit of exploration pioneered the path toward the revolution in physics. nevertheless, they too failed to complete this revolution. they were hindered by their idealist philosophy with its narrow empiricism, that is, by the limitations of positivism, which slowed the development of science and prevented the critical school from carrying the revolution to its logical conclusion.
einstein once criticized mach, saying
i think his weak point is that he more or less believes that science is only a straightening out of the material of experience. that is to say, he fails to identify the elements of free construction in the formation of concepts. in a sense, he thinks that theory results from discovery rather then invention. he goes to extremes, not only taking “perception” as the only subject for study, but even regarding perception itself as the bricks for the construction of the world of reality…if he thoroughly carries through this idea, he not only must deny the atomic theory but must also deny the concept of physical reality.49
this criticism is pertinent and can be applied, in general terms, to the whole critical school. indeed, this school placed an inappropriately strong emphasis on the role of experience, belittling and even entirely denying the function of theory and theoretical thinking in science. mach regarded scientific investigation as merely “brief descriptions of fact”50 he demanded that all that is “redundant [and]…metaphysical” be “eliminated” from science.51 in his view, “the object of science is the connection of phenomena, but the theories are like dry leaves which fall away when they have long ceased to be the lungs of the tree of science.”52 duhem also said, “a physical theory is not expanation,”53 but is only “an economical representation [and] classification [of] experimental laws,”54 a “symbolic relation,”55 pearson thought that physical theory must be satisfied with the describing “how…why remains a mystery.”56 “science for the past is a description, for the future a belief. it is not, and never has been, an explanation. ”57 although phincare, who explicitly opposed belittling the role of theories, recognized that “mathematical physics has an undeniable role to play,”58 he nevertheless limited this role to “editing catalogues.” in his view, “no matter how well a catalogue is edited, it cannot enrich the library.” it only “helps the reader to use its abundant books.”59 therefore, “science is but a system of relationships”60 and nothing but “classifications.”61
for these reasons mach, although he criticized newton’s views on absolute space and time, proposed that the inertia of an object is the result of the interaction between the object and other celestial bodies in space (i.e.; “mach’s principle.”) standing on the threshold of relativity theory, mach failed to discover the principle of relativity. poincare, another pioneer of the theory of relativity, also thought that the principle was merely an experimental law which could be falsified by a single negative case. he argued that the speed of light is constant only within the ether, not universally, and that the apparent invariance within inertial systems is caused only by lorentz’s contraction effect. because he could not shake off the bonds of narrow empiricism, poincare failed to formulate these two hypotheses, derived from a great number of experimental effects, into universal principles. the critical school did not understand that scientific theories are by no means simple descriptions or classifications of experiential facts. they constantly reveal the true nature which is hiding behind phenomena. moreover, theories themselves all have the nature of speculation. the richer the content of a theory, the profounder it is, the more abstract and the farther away from perceptual experience. if we really eliminate “metaphysics”, i.e., rational thinking, from science, then science will lose its soul and will become dead, dry bones.
lenin once said that when natural science “is undergoing intense revolutionary reform in all areas…it can by no means abandon philosophy.”62 during periods of scientific revolution, old scientific concepts which have served as the guiding ideology for scientific research are on the verge of collapse, but new scientific perspectives have not yet appeared or have not yet been established. scientists lack ideological weapons to break the old and establish the new, so they must turn to philosophical analysis to guide reform. at this critical point, further development of natural science is impossible without philosophy. the revolution in physics at the turn of the century clearly demonstrates this.
the above discussion shows that, unlike the mechanical school, the critical school played a positive role in the physics revolution at the turn of the century. however, philosophical limitations prevented the physicists of this school from completing the revolution. as early as the 1840s, marx and engels established dialectical materialism. unfortunately, this revolutionary theory did not spread among physicists. dialectical materialism was preceded by hegel’s theory of dialectics and scientists, repelled by the hegelian style of “natural philosophy”, eventually completely ignored it. therefore, the arduous task of revolution ultimately fell on the shoulders of scientists who absorbed the advantages of both schools, planck and einstein among others.
when planck devoted himself to science, he firmly believed that “the external world is an absolute which exists independently, and the search for the laws which apply to this absolute is the most beautiful task in a scientific career.”63 in his kiel period (1885-1889), planck can be considered to have been a disciple of mach. at that time, he criticized the mechanistic viewpoint. later on, in the struggle against energetics, under the influence of boltzmann, planck realized that mach’s philosophy could not possibly eliminate all the metaphysical elements from the epistemology of physics. therefore, in the 1890s he abandoned mach’s narrow empiricism. in 1897, guided by the materialist ideology which is the heritage of natural scientists, planck shifted to the study of black body radiation. he was searching for sighs of “the absolute” within the radiation spectrum. in october, 1900, he developed an empirical formula for black body radiation based on the available experimental data. after a number of attempts to deduce the formula theoretically, he was eventually forced to reverse his indifference to atomic theory. formerly a critic of boltzmann’s statistical view of the second laws of thermodynamics, he now became a supporter and groped his way to the correct approach. however, unlike the representatives of the mechanical school, planck was not constrained by the mechanistic viewpoint and did not regard boltzmann’s classical theory as dogma. rather, he made breakthroughs in two key areas (the expression of the relationship between entropy and probability and the quantum hypothesis) and finally, on 14 december 1900, planck made his epoch-making discovery. of course, he was not entirely conscious of his pioneering role. rather, to a large extent, his recognition of reality forced him to move in that direction. nevertheless, planck’s work in fact raised the curtain on the revolution in physics, although for some time even he himself failed to realize this. however, planck’s criticism of the mechanistic perspective was not thorough enough. he believed that “it may still be possible to use the mechanistic view to accomplish our research goal…there is no need to be frightened of the possibility of a mechanistic explanation.”64 thus, planck hesitated after taking the first critical step. he suspected his own reasoning and tried very hard to reconcile quantum theory with classical theory, thus staging two tragic retrogressions in 1911 and 1914.
einstein, a great scientific reformer, was philosophically sophisticated. he derived sustenance from both schools, especially from mach and poincare, and was profoundly influenced by hume’s empiricism and spinoza’s rationalism. in scientific research, he believed that “there is an external world, independent of human consciousness, which is the foundation for all natural science.”65 moreover, he actually applied dialectic ideas, which helped him make three simultaneous, surprising, significant discoveries in 1905, thus completely beginning the revolution in physics. einstein’s scientific achievements resulted from the admirable integration of philosophic insights, physical intuition, and mathematical skill.
thus, a group of physicists, represented by einstein, urged by the revolutionary wave, naturally shifted their attention to philosophy of science with which they tempered their ideological weapons. they retained the materialist viewpoint which had been inherited by the mechanical school as well as by natural scientists, and at the same time rejected the mechanistic perspective. they absorbed skeptical empiricist views, conventionalism and some dialectic elements from the critical school, while avoiding its narrow empiricism. in brief, they preserved of the essential tension between two opposing extremes, neither entirely recognizing nor entirely rejecting either school. rather, they made use of the strengths and avoided the weaknesses of each, organically integrating the advantages of both schools, thus completing the task trust upon them by historical circumstances. this is the road of history, twisted yet inevitable. as engels said, “history takes its own steps. no matter how dialectic the eventual processes, dialectics must often wait a long time for history.”66


---------------------------------------------
1 friedrich engels, natural dialectics, the people’s publishing
house, 1972, p.225.
2 h. helmholtz, “on the conservation of force,” in world famous works (in japanese), 65 1973, p.235.
3 albert einstein, the collected works of albert einstein, edited and translated by xu liangying et al., commercial press, 1976, vol.1, pp.85-86.
4 p. duhem, the aim and structure of physical theory, princeton university press, 1954, pp.71-72.
5 r.s. shankland, “michelson-morley experiment,” am. j. phys. 32 (1964), pp.16-35.
6 m. born, physics in my generation, london, 1956, p.192.
7 s. sakata, physics and method, (in japanese), yanbo bookstore, 1951, p.6.
8 l. boltzmann, theoretical physics and philosophical problems, d. reidel publishing co., 1974, p.146.
9 lord rayleigh, “the law of partition of kinetic energy,” phil. mag., 49 (1900), pp.98-118.
10 einstein, op. cit., note 3, vol.1, p.86.
11 e. mach, the science of mechanics: a critical and historical account of its development, translated by t.j. mccormack, 6th ed., open court pub. co., 1960, p.273.
12 ibid., p.280.
13 ibid., p.283.
14 ibid., p.285.
15 ibid., p.597.
16 ibid., p.596.
17 einstein, op. cit., note 3, vol.1, p.86.
18 ibid., p.84.
19 h. poincare, the foundations of science, translated by g.b. halsted, new york, the science press, 1913, pp.92-93.
20 l.p. williams, ed., relativity theory: its origins and impact on modern thought. new york, john & sons, 1968, pp.39-40.
21 poincare, op. cit., note 19, p.297.
22 ibid., p.7.
23 ibid., p.297.
24 ibid., p.152.
25 ibid., p.295.
26 k. pearson, the grammar of science. 3rd ed. london: adam & black, 1911, p.385.
27 poincare, op. cit., note 19, p.143.
28 ibid., p.320.
29 ibid., p.123.
30 ibid., p.140.
31 e.n. hiebert, “the genesis of mach’s early views on atomism,” in r.s. cohen, ed., ernst mach, physicist and philosopher. new york: humanities press, 1970, pp.79-106.
32 d. mellor, the evolution of the atomic theory. amsterdam: elsevier, 1971, p.158.
33 mary jo nye, molecular reality: a perspective on the scientific work of jean perrin. london: 1972, p.157.
34 v.i. lenin, selected works, 2nd ed., beijing: people’s publishing house, 1972, vol. 2, p.316.
35 mach, op. cit., note 11, pp.289-290.
36 ibid., p.280.
37.einstein, op. cit,. note 3, vol. 1, pp.157, 548.
38 poincare, op. cit., note 19, p.127.
39 ibid., pp.280-281.
40 e. mach, analysis of sensations, transl. by hong qian etal., commercial press, 1957, pp.70;96.
41 einstein, op. cit., note 3, vol. 1, p.85.
42 duhem, op. cit., note 4, pp.172, 168.
43 poincare, op. cit., note 19, p.123.
44 ibid., p.319.
45 ibid., p.28.
46 ibid., p.65.
47 ibid., pp.133-134.
48 lenin, notes on philosophy, people’s publishing house, 1961, p.305.
49 einstein, op. cit., note 3, vol. 1, p.438.
50 mach, op. cit., note 40, p.6.
51 ibid., p.4.
52 e.n. hiebert, “ernst mach”, in c.c. gillispie, ed., dictionary of scientific biography. new york: 1970-1977, vol. 8, pp.595-607.
53 duhem, op. cit., note 4, p.19.
54 ibid., p.23.
55 ibid., p.165.
56 pearson, op. cit., note 26, p.120.
57 ibid., p.113.
58 poincare, op. cit., note 19, p.127.
59 ibid., p.130.
60 ibid., p.349.
61 ibid., p.352.
62 lenin, op. cit., note 34, vol. 4, p.610.
63 m. planck, scientific autobiography and other papers. london: 1950, p.13.
64 “the debate about atomic theory and the mechanical viewpoint of nature at the end of the 19th century”, research in the history of science (in japanese) 16 (1977) 199-206.
65 einstein, op. cit., note 3, p.292.
66 engels, op. cit., note 1, p.92.
  • 上一篇外语论文:
  • 下一篇外语论文:
  •  作者:Li Xingmin [标签: ]
    姓 名: *
    E-mail:
    评 分: 1分 2分 3分 4分 5分
    评论内容:
    发表评论请遵守中国各项有关法律法规,评论内容只代表网友个人观点,与本网站立场无关。
    SWOT分析法在民族地区高校思政教育工作中的…
    World Famous Canals世界著名运河一览
    Alice in the Wonderland 爱丽丝梦游仙境
    The Way I Go to School
    The Best Sslesman in the World
    Passage Two
    Ame rican Hospitality美式待客之道
    Wolf Hall——狼性与人性
    Overview of what is a bond and why they …
    An Analysis of Women s Social Status at …
    A Fish Of the World
    Overview of what is a bond and why they …
    | 设为首页 | 加入收藏 | 联系我们 | 网站地图 | 手机版 | 论文发表

    Copyright 2006-2013 © 毕业论文网 All rights reserved 

     [中国免费论文网]  版权所有