نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری فلسفه علم، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران، ایران.
2 استاد ممتاز دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
آیا فلسفه برای فیزیک مفید است؟ پاسخ بسیاری از فیزیک‌دانان و فلاسفه مثبت است؛ اما هستند کسانی که مفید بودن فلسفه برای علم را به چالش می‌کشند. سه اعتراض عمده را می‌توان در خط‌فکری این دسته تشخیص داد: 1. اعلام مرگ فلسفه، که بیان می‌دارد فلسفه مرده است و چیز جدیدی به ما نخواهد آموخت؛ 2. استدلال یا چالش تاریخی-ندانم‌گرایانه، که بیان می‌دارد هیچ شاهد تاریخی مبنی بر مفیدبودن فلسفه برای علم وجود ندارد، یا دست‌کم شناخته‌شده نیست. 3. استدلال «جداکردن حساب»، که بیان می‌دارد فلسفه و علم دو حوزۀ کاملاً جداگانه هستند. هدف این مقاله پاسخ‌دادن به این سه اعتراض است؛ اما برای این‌کار مطالعۀ موردی ارتباط نسبیت عام و فلسفه را اساس قرار می‌دهد. با نظر کردن به تاریخچۀ شکل‌گیری و بسط نسبیت عام، استدلال خواهیم کرد که: 1. فلسفه‌ورزی سبب تدقیق و فهم مفاهیم اساسی «هموردایی» و «ناوردایی» شده است. 2. شواهد تاریخی روشنی له تاثیرگذاری مثبت فلسفه بر بسط مفاهیم نسبیت عام، به‌عنوان یکی از مهم‌ترین نظریه‌های فیزیکی و همچنین، شواهد انکارناپذیری له نقش‌آفرینی برخی فلاسفه در تکامل این نظریه وجود دارد. 3. فیزیک و فلسفه، در بحث از پرسش‌های بنیادی، دو حوزۀ به‌شدت درهم‌تنیده هستند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
General Relativity and Philosophy
نویسندگان [English]
- Mohammad Ebrahim Maghsoudi 1
- Mehdi Golshani 2
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Phlosophy of Science, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 Distinguished Professor in Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Is philosophy useful for physics? Many physicists and philosophers believe that it is; but there are those who challenge the usefulness of philosophy for science. Three major objections can be identified in their reasoning: 1. Philosophy’s death diagnosis, which states that philosophy is dead and has nothing new to teach us. 2. Historic-agnostic argument/challenge, which states that there is no historical evidence for the claim that philosophy is useful for science, or if it is, it is unknown to us. 3. The division of property argument, which states that philosophy and science are two distinct fields. The purpose of this article is to respond to these three objections by examining the case study of the relationship between general relativity and philosophy. By looking at the history of the formation and development of general relativity, we will argue that: 1. Philosophy has led to a refinement and deep understanding of the important concepts of covariance and invariance. 2. There is clear historical evidence for the positive influence of philosophy on the development of the core concepts of general relativity, as one of the most important physical theories, as well as the undeniable evidence for the key role of some philosophers in the development of the theory. 3. Physics and philosophy, in seeking answers to fundamental questions, are two highly intertwined fields.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- The role of Philosophy
- Physics and Philosophy
- General Relativity
- Einstein
- Schlick
- Friedman
- Earman and Norton
- Anderson, James L. (1967) Principles of Relativity Physics, Academic Press.
- Callender, C.; Huggett, N. (2004) "Introduction", in Callender, C.; Huggett, N. (eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press.
- Carlip, Steven (2019) General Relativity: A Concise Introduction, Oxford University Press.
- Carroll, Sean M. (2004) Spacetime and Geometry, Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Addison Wesley.
- D’Inverno, Ray (1992) Introducing Einstein’s Relativity, Oxford University Press.
- De Haro, Sebastian (2019) "Science and Philosophy: A Love-Hate Relationship", Foundations of Science, 25: 297–314.
- Earman, J. (2006a) "Two challenges to the requirement of substantive general covariance", Synthese, 148: 443–68.
- Earman, J. (2006b) "The implications of general covariance for the ontology and ideology of spacetime", In Dieks, D. (ed.), The ontology of spacetime, Elsevier: 3–24.
- Earman, J.; Norton, J. (1987) "What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story", British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 38: 515–525.
- Engler, Fynn Ole (2009) "Über das erkenntnistheoretische Raumproblem", in Stadler et al.: 107–145.
- Friedman, Michael (1983) Foundations of space-time theories: Relativistic physics and philosophy of science, Princeton University Press.
- Giovanelli, Marco (2013) "Erich Kretschmann as a Proto-Logical-Empiricist: Adventures and Misadventures of the Point-Coincidence Argument", Studies In History and Philosophy of Science, Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(2): 115–13.
- Golshani, Mehdi (2011) Physics and Philosophy: A Critique of Contemporary Physicists’ Philosophy of Physics, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies Press, Tehran (in Persian)
- Gutfreund, Hanoch; Renn, Jurgen. (2015) "The Road to Relativity", The History and Meaning of Einstein’s “The Foundation of General Relativity, Princeton University Press.
- Gutfreund, Hanoch; Renn, Jurgen. (2017) "The Formative Years of Relativity": The History and Meaning of Einstein’s Princeton Lectures, Princeton University Press.
- Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, L. (2010) The Grand Design, Bantam Books.
- Helzer, Gary (2000) "Special Relativity with Acceleratin", American Mathematical Monthly, 3(107): 219-237.
- Howard, Don A. (2017) "Einstein's Philosophy of Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford. edu/archives/fall2017/entries/einstein-philscience/
- Huggett, Nick (2010) Everywhere and Everywhen: Adventures in Physics and Philosophy, Oxford University Press.
- Johns, Oliver David (2019) "Validity of the Einstein Hole Argument?" Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 68: 62-70. Arxiv: 1907.01614.
- Ladyman, J., Presnell, S. (2020) "The Hole Argument in Homotopy Type Theory", Foundations of Physics, Vol. 50: 319–329.
- Misner, Charles W.; Thorne, Kip S.; Wheeler, John A. (1973) Gravitation, W.H. Freeman.
- Norton John D. (1995) "Did Einstein Stumble? The Debate over General Covariance", Erkenntnis, Vol. 42: 223-245.
- Oberdan, Thomas (2017) "Moritz Schlick", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ win2017/entries/schlick/
- Pooley, Oliver (2010) "Substantive General Covariance: Another Decade of Dispute", in Suàrez M. et al.(eds.) EPSA Philosophical Issues in the Sciences: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association, Springer.
- Rindler, Wolfgang (2006) Essential Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2nd edition), Oxford University Press.
- Roberts, Bryan (2020) "Regarding ‘Leibniz Equivalence", Foundations of Physics, 50: 250–269.
- Rosenberg, Alex (2005) Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction (2nd edition), Routledge.
- Rovelli, Carlo (2018) "Physics Needs Philosophy. Philosophy Needs Physics", Foundations of Physics, 48(5): 481-491.
- Rovelli, Carlo (2008) Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press.
- Sanders, Ko (2020) "What Can (Mathematical) Categories Tell Us about Spacetime?" In Huggett, N., Matsubara, K.; Wuthrich, C. (eds.), Beyond Spacetime: The Foundations of Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press.
- Schlosshauer, Maximillian (ed.) (2011) Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews, Springer-Verlag.
- Smolin, L.; Unger, Robrto M. (2014) The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time, Cambridge University Press.
- Stachel, John (2007) "The First Two Acts, in Janssen, Norton, Renn, Sauer Stachel" (eds.), The Genesis of General Relativity, Springer: 81-111.
- Straumann, Norbert (2013) General Relativity, Springer.
- Stein, Howard (1977) Some Philosophical Prehistory of General Relativity, In Earman, J. et al. (eds.), Foundations of Space-Time Theories, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3-49.
- Weatherall, James O. (2020) "Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) Hole Argument", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 70: 79-87.
- Weatherall, James O. (2016) "Regarding the ‘Hole Argument", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,Vol. 69(2): 329-350.
- Weinberg, Steven (1994) Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Law’s of Nature, Vintage Books.
- Weingard, Robert (1979) "Some Philosophical Aspects of Black Holes", Synthese, vol. 42)1): 191–219.
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله