In the established space-time coordinate-transformation (STCT) interpretation of special relativity theory, relativistic changes are consequent upon the Lorentz transformation of coordinate clocks and rods between relatively moving systems. In the proposed alternative interpretation, relativistic changes occur only in association with physical interactions, and are direct alterations in the variables of the observed system. Since space-time and momentum-energy are conjugate four-vectors, transformation of a space or time variable of a system is to be expected only if there is a concomitant transformation (...) of the corresponding momentum or energy variable. The Lorentz invariance of the scalar entropy functionS supports the interaction interpretation; timet=f(S) of a macroscopic, entropy clock should give a Lorentz-invariant time measure, and an illustrative entropy clock is discussed. Noninteracting physical processes may be called Clausius processes, in contrast to Lorentz processes for which there is interaction and associated Lorentz transformation. Changes of energy and frequency, withE=hv, are instances of the parallel relativistic transformations. Likewise, the variation with velocity in decay time of mesons follows directly from the relativistic energy transformation of decay products; this relationship is shown for muons by a simple calculation with β-decay theory. (shrink)

Relative distance and velocity magnitudes between two arbitrarily moving particles are independent of an observer's reference frame, and may be used to construct theoretically a clock whose rate is Lorentz-invariant. This result is in accord with the principle of relativity, using the interaction interpretation: Relativistic changes arise in association with momentum-energy transfer, rather than in consequence of velocity-induced changes in measuring clocks and rods.

The creation-of-matter hypothesis of the Bondi-Gold-Hoyle steady-state cosmology requires that in an infinite time to which the first transfinite number may be assigned the number of atoms of matter produced would be equal to the cardinal number of the set of mathematical points in the continuum. The existence of a set of finite atoms with that cardinal number is physically unacceptable. The argument for the production of a non-denumerable set of atoms, in infinite time, is given in terms of a (...) model which is shown to be isomorphic with the original Cantor "diagonal" proof for the existence of a non-denumerable infinity. An alternative model which meets the requirements of the steady-state theory is presented; in this model, the number of atoms is explicitly no greater than countably infinite, and remains countably infinite as long as the past time of the universe is restricted to the unlimited set of finite unit-time intervals. If the origin of the steady-state universe is taken as being within that infinite set, expressed by the negative natural numbers, the contradiction of an atom at every mathematical point does not arise. The contradiction does arise if the origin is not within the set of finite numbers, and accordingly there is a restriction as to which concept of infinite past may properly be maintained in the steady-state theory. (shrink)

The interaction interpretation of special relativity theory (elaborated in Part I) is discussed in relation to quantum theory. The relativistic transformations (Lorentz processes) of physical variables, on the interaction interpretation, are observation-interaction dependent, just as are the physical values (eigenvalues) of systems described by quantum-theoretic state functions; a common, basic structure of the special relativity and quantum theories can therefore be presented. The constancy of the light speed is shown to follow from interaction-transformations of frequency and wavelength variables. A parallelism (...) is suggested between, on the one hand, the Lorentz-Clausius distinction for relativistic transformations, and, on the other, the distinction between observation-dependent and observation-independent natural processes. The empirical study of rates of macroscopic clocks can provide a critical test of the interaction interpretation and of a possible extension to gravitational time changes; the role of time as prior determinant of natural process is at issue. The Hafele-Keating observations are of general relativity effects on clocks in accelerated motion. (shrink)

The statistical aspects of quantum explanation are intrinsic to quantum physics; individual quantum events are created in the interactions associated with observation and are not describable by predictive theory. The superposition principle shows the essential difference between quantum and non-quantum physics, and the principle is exemplified in the classic single-photon two-slit interference experiment. Recently Mandel and Pfleegor have done an experiment somewhat similar to the optical single-photon experiment but with two independently operated lasers; interference is obtained even with beam intensity (...) so small that only one photon is in the apparatus at a time. The result can be understood in terms of the superposition of states; or, in terms of the Uncertainty Principle, which is found to forbid the determination of which of the two lasers is the source of a given photon (if conditions for interference are to obtain). The Mandel-Pfleegor experiment gives a physical argument against the continuous localization of a photon that is assumed in the hidden variable theories and therefore gives further support for the generally accepted view that an observed entity (observed state) is created in the observation event. This aspect of quantum physics implies a subjectivism on the level of individual quantum-level occurrences, since there is in quantum theory no basis for asserting the existence of the event independently of observation of it. Extension of this subjectivism to large scale, non-quantum phenomena falls within the principles of quantum theory; counter considerations that argue against such an extension are noted. (shrink)

The physics of the past half-century has thoroughly discredited the simple atomistic view that an ultimate explanation of all natural processes may be found in a mechanism of cause-and-effect relations among such clearly defined entities as point-like particles. And yet, physics and the other sciences continue to find nature to be orderly and lawful. How do we reconcile this breakdown of what once seemed to be the causal basis for the order of nature with the continued discovery of new manifestations (...) of that order? The subject book [3] of this paper, written by the Professor of Theoretical Physics and Philosophy of Science at Buenos Aires University, may be considered to be a response to this question. There are many other things too in the book: it provides a much needed collecting, and sorting, of various questions that have been asked and answers that have been given with respect to causality. There are statements in the book that may be justifiably criticised, as I hope later to show; but in all I believe that Professor Bunge has given us a work that makes a contribution of importance to philosophical discussions of causality. (shrink)

It can scarcely be said to be a self-contradictory property to be in two places at the same time any more than for an object to be at two times in the same place. The perplexities of the quantum theory of energy sometimes seem to suggest that the possibility ought not to be overlooked; …A. S. Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation, Cambridge, 1920There are three elements involved in physical time. The most primitive of the three is the fact of extension (...) in time. We express this fact by saying that things “endure” in time, or by saying that the universe is not an event of one moment only. Extension in time is such a fundamental and pervasive element of our experience, that we can hardly define it other than by denotatively indicating it. Time extension is basic to the other two elements of time. (shrink)

Consequences in physical theory of assuming the general relativistic time transformation for the de Broglie frequencies of matter, v = E/h = mc2/h, are investigated in this paper. Experimentally it is known that electromagnetic waves from a source in a gravitational field are decreased in frequency, in accordance with the Einstein general relativity time transformation. An extension to de Broglie frequencies implies mass decrease in a gravitational field. Such a decrease gives an otherwise missing energy conservation for some processes; also, (...) a physical alteration is then associated with change in gravitational potential. Further, the general relativity time transformation that is the source of gravitational action in the weak field (Newtonian) approximation then has a physical correlate in the proposed gravitational mass loss. Rotational motion and the associated equivalent gravitational-field mass loss are considered; an essential formal difference between metric (gravitational) mass loss and special relativity mass increase is discussed. For a spherical, nonrotating mass collapsed to its Schwarzschild radius the postulated mass loss is found to give a 25% decrease in the mass acting as origin of an external gravitational field. (shrink)

Cannon and Jensen assert that data from different national time laboratories give a test of the interaction interpretation of special relativity theory. That interpretation is to be applied, however, to clocks in relative uniform motion, and therefore is not tested by the time-rate effects associated with different terrestrial locations of clocks. Those effects are described by the general theory of relativity, and arise with differences in gravitational potential and state of circular motion of the clocks. An argument by the authors (...) against invariance of entropy clocks, on grounds of neglect of relativity of simultaneity, is also criticized. (shrink)

. In the context of contemporary life questions, especially that of world peace, this essay first develops the view that truth is essentially scientific truth. Although religion gives insights for living, as science encompasses more and more of human experience it reinforces and modifies religious truths with its own firm knowledge. However, because of several limitations, it is concluded that science alone cannot give a complete account of humanity and the universe. For our first beliefs and principles we must look (...) to other kinds of truth, which are in accord with scientific truth but go beyond scientific method in their justification. (shrink)

The experimental situation proposed by Fisk consists of a light source in a system S which sends a signal to two observers, one located at a distance x1 from the source and at rest in S, and the other moving away from the source at a speed v, in such a manner that its position coincides with the point x1 when the light signal reaches x1. The moving observer's coordinate system may be designated as S'. Further, it is assumed that (...) there is a half-silvered mirror associated with the moving observer, and that the light signal reaches the mirror so that part of the signal is received by the S' observer and part is received by the stationary S observer; each observer considers the light to reach him when he is at point x1. (shrink)

Wormald proposes to remove the anomalous absorption of photons in the light clock by making a relativistic correction for absorption frequencies in the mirrors. This would require different corrections for atoms in mirrors 1 and 2, even though both have the same velocity relative to the observer. A relativistic time transformation by direct velocity dependence of time rate is different from a transformation between clocks with Lorentz-invariant proper time readings. With ascription of an invariant proper time to the photon clock, (...) one loses its property of directly illustrating the relativistic time transformation. (shrink)

The light clock (a photon undergoing successive reflections between two particle mirrors a fixed distance apart) has commonly been used as a theoretical confirmation of the special-relativistic slowing of clock rates. In order to obtain that result one must describe the clock photon in a system moving relatively to the clock. However, contradictory frequency transformations for the photon, as observed from the mirrors, are then predicted by relatively moving observers. A correct and consistent analysis utilizes the Lorentz-invariant relative velocity and (...) distance between the mirrors. An invariant time period is also then involved; a parallel is drawn between it and the invariance of cosmic time for internal processes in distant systems. Considering that space-time and momentum-energy are described by conjugate 4-vectors, it is conjectured that a time transformation occurs only in association with a transformation of energy. (shrink)

With the interaction interpretation, the Lorentz transformation of a system arises with selection from a superposition of its states in an observation-interaction. Integration of momentum states of a mass over all possible velocities gives the rest-mass energy. Static electrical and magnetic fields are not found to form such a superposition and are to be taken as irreducible elements. The external superposition consists of those states that are reached only by change of state of motion, whereas the internal superposition contains all (...) the states available to an observer in a single inertial coordinate system. The conjecture is advanced that states of superposition may only be those related by space-time transformations (Lorentz transformations plus space inversion and charge conjugation). The continuum of external and internal superpositions is examined for various masses, and an argument for the unity of the super-positions is presented. (shrink)

Die von Nietzsche und Friedrich Schlegel entwickelten philologischen Theorien weisen bestimmte Ähnlichkeiten auf, die deren grundsätzliche philologische Konzeptionen und Verfahrensweisen bestimmen. Ausgehend von Walter Benjamins Idee einer romantischen Kunstkritik, die ihr Objekt im Moment seiner Kritik verfolkommnet, versucht dieser Beitrag zu demonstrieren, dass Schlegels und Nietzsches Wende von einer auf Praxis bezogenen zu einer fundamental-theoretische orientierten Philologie mit der Formulierung eines Verständnisses der griechischen Kultur verbunden ist, das diese als kritisches Instrument für eine Transformation der gegenwärtigen Kultur anwenden will. (...) Durch dieses gemeinsame kulturkritische Ziel entpuppen sich Schlegel und Nietzsche als Zukunftsphilologen in dem Sinne, dass ihre anwendung philologischer Einsichten auf die zeitgenössische Kulturpraxis die ideologiekritische Tendenz von bestimmten heute praktizierten philologischen Richtungen vorwegnimmt.Nietzsche's and Friedrich Schlegel's philological theories share certain similarities that extend into their deeper philological conceptions and methodologies. Taking at its point of departure Walter Benjamin's notion of a Romantic art criticism that perfects its object in the monument of its critique, this essay attempts to demonstrate that when Schlegel and Nietzsche turn from philological practice to a more fundamental theory of a proper philological methodology, each seeks to formulate an understanding of Greek culture that can be applied as a critical tool for the transformation of their own present-day culture. This common cultural-critical thrust reveals Schlegel and Nietzsche to be future-oriented philologists in the sense that their application of philological insights to contemporary cultural concerns anticipates the ideology-critical direction evident in certain forms of philology as practiced today. (shrink)

"All art should become science and all science art; poetry and philosophy should be made one." Friedrich Schlegel's words perfectly capture the project of the German Romantics, who believed that the aesthetic approaches of art and literature could reveal patterns and meaning in nature that couldn't be uncovered through rationalistic philosophy and science alone. In this wide-ranging work, Robert J. Richards shows how the Romantic conception of the world influenced (and was influenced by) both the lives of the people (...) who held it and the development of nineteenth-century science. Integrating Romantic literature, science, and philosophy with an intimate knowledge of the individuals involved—from Goethe and the brothers Schlegel to Humboldt and Friedrich and Caroline Schelling—Richards demonstrates how their tempestuous lives shaped their ideas as profoundly as their intellectual and cultural heritage. He focuses especially on how Romantic concepts of the self, as well as aesthetic and moral considerations—all tempered by personal relationships—altered scientific representations of nature. Although historians have long considered Romanticism at best a minor tributary to scientific thought, Richards moves it to the center of the main currents of nineteenth-century biology, culminating in the conception of nature that underlies Darwin's evolutionary theory. Uniting the personal and poetic aspects of philosophy and science in a way that the German Romantics themselves would have honored, The Romantic Conception of Life alters how we look at Romanticism and nineteenth-century biology. (shrink)

McCarthy has undertaken an enterprise of enormous scope and considerable interest. One of the virtues of his study is its cross-disciplinary approach. McCarthy has advanced degrees in philosophy and sociology and has done research and lectured extensively in Germany as a guest professor. His book is divided into four major parts. Part 1, “In the Shadow of Ancient Parnassos: The Coming of the Cosmic Night,” has two chapters: “Children of Oedipus and the Tragedy of Modernity: Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche” (...) and “Ancient Economy and Classical Tragedy: Max Weber and Friedrich Nietzsche.” From the discussion of Nietzsche in these two chapters, one gets a clear impression of McCarthy’s scholarly style. There is no postmodern critical gimmickry nor wild free-associationism. His approach is solid, clear, and heavily researched. He is obviously conversant with the major figures who influenced Nietzsche and familiar, as well, with the work of the key interpreters of Nietzsche. In fact, at times, one wishes that there was not quite such a catalogue of references to other figures and influences. Consider the following passage: “Though trained in the neoclassicism of eighteenthand nineteenth-century authors such as Gottsched, Lessing, Klopstock, Wieland, Voss, A.W. Schlegel, Kleist, Goethe, and Schiller, Nietzsche makes a dramatic break with their perspectives in The Birth of Tragedy. Following upon Winckelmann’s view of the beauty, simplicity, and nobility of the Greek spirit, Lessing’s expansion of the structure of tragedy from Aristotle’s Poetics, Goethe’s views on catharsis and reconciliation in Greek tragedy, and Schiller’s adaptation of tragedy in his Kantian aesthetics, Nietzsche develops a theory of tragedy that also incorporates Schopenhauer’s profound existential resignation in the face of the meaninglessness of the world”. (shrink)

McCarthy has undertaken an enterprise of enormous scope and considerable interest. One of the virtues of his study is its cross-disciplinary approach. McCarthy has advanced degrees in philosophy and sociology and has done research and lectured extensively in Germany as a guest professor. His book is divided into four major parts. Part 1, “In the Shadow of Ancient Parnassos: The Coming of the Cosmic Night,” has two chapters: “Children of Oedipus and the Tragedy of Modernity: Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche” (...) and “Ancient Economy and Classical Tragedy: Max Weber and Friedrich Nietzsche.” From the discussion of Nietzsche in these two chapters, one gets a clear impression of McCarthy’s scholarly style. There is no postmodern critical gimmickry nor wild free-associationism. His approach is solid, clear, and heavily researched. He is obviously conversant with the major figures who influenced Nietzsche and familiar, as well, with the work of the key interpreters of Nietzsche. In fact, at times, one wishes that there was not quite such a catalogue of references to other figures and influences. Consider the following passage: “Though trained in the neoclassicism of eighteenthand nineteenth-century authors such as Gottsched, Lessing, Klopstock, Wieland, Voss, A.W. Schlegel, Kleist, Goethe, and Schiller, Nietzsche makes a dramatic break with their perspectives in The Birth of Tragedy. Following upon Winckelmann’s view of the beauty, simplicity, and nobility of the Greek spirit, Lessing’s expansion of the structure of tragedy from Aristotle’s Poetics, Goethe’s views on catharsis and reconciliation in Greek tragedy, and Schiller’s adaptation of tragedy in his Kantian aesthetics, Nietzsche develops a theory of tragedy that also incorporates Schopenhauer’s profound existential resignation in the face of the meaninglessness of the world”. (shrink)

The philosophy of irony has had, since its romantic origins, no good reputation because of its methodological and logical inconclusiveness and its contamination with literature. Whether we talk about Friedrich Schlegel or Paul de Man, about Søren Kierkegaard or Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Rorty or Peter Sloterdijk, the “ironists” are hated because of their ability to say, even on the verge of death: “however”. The charge that philosophy makes against ironists is based on three “suspicions”: 1) that they are (...) not philosophically consistent and, therefore, that they, ultimately, do not know how to ironize themselves; 2) that their irony is only a disguised “egology”, as Hegel would claim and assumes literary forms; 3) finally that they are vitiated by a sort of anthropological “lack of commitment”, or – as Rorty would say – a “lack of solidarity”, and, therefore, they are quite often ineffective and even harmful from a social and political point of view. In the following pages I will try to dissolve these “suspicions” through a close and “ironic” reading of two texts that belong to this tradition of cultural (not only literary) analysis, telling the story of an elective affinity between two emblematic thinkers: Friedrich Schlegel and Paul de Man. (shrink)