Abstract
The reduction from Einstein's to Newton's gravitation theories (and intermediate steps) is used to exemplify reduction in physical theories. Both dimensionless and dimensional reduction are presented, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are pointed out. It is concluded that neither a completely reductionist nor a completely antireductionist view can be maintained. Only the mathematical structure is strictly reducible. The interpretation (the model, the central concepts) of the superseded theory T′ can at best only partially be derived directly from the superseding theory T; it is severely constrained by the mathematical structure, and it can involve qualitatively different central terms that cannot be logically related between T and T′.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
E. Nagel,The Structure of Science (Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1961).
R. M. Yoshida,Reduction in the Physical Sciences (Dalhousie University Press, Halifax, 1977).
P. K. Feyerabend, “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism,” inMinnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III, H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, eds. (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1962), pp. 28–97.
T. S. Kuhn,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 19709), 2nd edn.
R. M. Wald,General Relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation (Freeman, San Fransisco, 1973).
W. Rindler,Essential Relativity (Springer, New York, 1977), 2nd edn.
T. Damour, “The Problem of Motion in Newtonian and Einsteinian Gravity,” in300 Years of Gravitation. S. Hawking and W. Israel, eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987), pp. 128–198.
R. Geroch,Comm. Math. Phys. 13, 180–193 (1969).
M. Fierz and W. Pauli,Proc. R. Soc. London A 173, 211–232 (1939).
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973), p. 186.
P. Havas and J. N. Goldberg,Phys. Rev. 128, 398 (1962).
S. Deser,Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 1, 9 (1970).
T. Biswas,Am. J. Phys. 56, 1032 (1988).
E. Cartan,Ann. Ecole Norm. 40, 325–412 (1923);41, 1–25 (1924).
K. Friedrichs,Math. Ann. 98, 566–575 (1927).
E. Inönü and E. P. Wigner,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 39, 510 (1953).
P. Havas,Rev. Mod. Phys. 36, 938–965 (1964).
D. B. Malament, “Newtonian Gravity, Limits, and the Geometry of Space and Time,” inFrom Quarks to Quasars, R. G. Colodny, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986), pp. 181–201.
J. Ehlers, “Uber den Newtonschen Grenzwert der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,” inGrundprobleme der modernen Physik, J. Nitschet al., eds. (Bibliographisches Institut, 1981).
E. Ehlers, “On limit relations between, and approximative explanations of, physical theories,” inLogic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, R. Marcuset al., eds. (Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, 1986), pp. 387–403.
E. J. Moniz and D. H. Sharp,Phys. Rev. D 15, 2850 (1977); see also Sec. 3 in F. Rohrlich, “Fundamental Physical Problems of Quantum Electrodynamics,” inFoundations of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics, A. O. Barut, ed. (Plenum Press, New York, 1980).
C. G. Hempel, “On the ‘standard Conception’ of Scientific Theories,” inMinnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IV, M. Radner and S. Winokur, eds. (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1970), pp. 142–163.
C. G. Hempel and P. Oppenheim,Philos. Sci. 15, 135–175 (1948).
C. A. Hooker,Dialogue 20, 38, 201, 496 (1981).
F. Rohrlich,Br. J. Philos. Sci. 39, 295 (1988).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rohrlich, F. The logic of reduction: The case of gravitation. Found Phys 19, 1151–1170 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00731877
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00731877