Advertisement

Revisiting Einstein’s Happiest Thought. From the Physiology of Perception to Experimental Propositions and Principles in the History of Relativity

  • Richard StaleyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook book series (VCIY, volume 22)

Abstract

Mach has long been an important figure in the history of relativity, but the nature of his role has remained controversial. This essay contributes to this discussion by connecting Mach’s critical philosophical perspective more fully to his diverse experimental research and pedagogical contributions to mechanics, and charting his changing presentations of these over some time. In particular, linking Mach’s early research in sense perception and psychophysics to his conceptual critiques of mechanics offers new perspectives on relativist physics in general and Einstein’s debts to Mach in particular. Mach’s early work on the Doppler effect, together with studies of visual and motor perception explored subtle interrelations between physiology, physics and psychology, and offered new approaches to physiological space and time (which Mach contrasted to geometrical space). These informed the critical conceptual attacks on Newtonian absolutes that Mach famously outlined in The Science of Mechanics in 1883, as well as his positive account of the fundamental laws of physics in terms of experimental propositions and definitions. Mach’s critiques helped form a foundation for later work in electrodynamics in which he did not participate. Yet revisiting Mach’s early work will suggest he was still more important to the development of new approaches to inertia and gravitation than has been commonly appreciated. In addition to what Einstein later called “Mach’s principle,” I argue that a thought experiment on falling bodies in Mach’s Science of Mechanics also provided a point of inspiration for the happy thought that led Einstein to the equivalence principle.

References

  1. Banks, Erik C. 2014. The Realistic Empiricism of Mach, James, and Russell: Neutral Monism Reconceived. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks, Erik C. 2012. Sympathy for the Devil: Reconsidering Ernst Mach’s Empiricism. Metascience 21:321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks, Erik C. 2003. Ernst Mach’s World Elements: A Study in Natural Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour, Julian B. 1989. Absolute or Relative Motion? A study from Machian Point of View of the Discovery and the Structure of Dynamical Theories. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barbour, Julian B. 1990. “The Role Played by Mach’s Principle in the Genesis of Relativistic Cosmology.” In Modern Cosmology in Retrospect, edited by B. Bertotti, et al., 47–66. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barbour, Julian B. 2007. “Einstein and Mach’s Principle.” In The Genesis of General Relativity, vol. 3: Gravitation in the Twilight of Classical Physics, edited by Jürgen Renn and Matthias Schemmel, 569–604. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbour, Julian B., and Herbert Pfister. 1995. Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  8. Blackmore, John T. 1972. Ernst Mach: His Work, Life, and Influence. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Darrigol, Olivier. 2004. The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection. Isis 95:614–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Einstein, Albert. 1907. Über die vom Relativitätsprinzip geforderte Trägheit der Energie. Annalen der Physik 23:371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Einstein, A. 1912. Gibt es eine Gravitationswirkung die der elektromagnetischen Induktionswirkung analog ist? Vierteljahrschrift für gerichtliche Medizin 44:37–40.Google Scholar
  12. Einstein, A. 1916. Ernst Mach. Physikalische Zeitschrift 17:101–104.Google Scholar
  13. Einstein, A. 1918. Prinzipielles zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Annalen der Physik 55:241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Einstein, Albert. 1949. “Autobiographical Notes.” In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, edited by P.A. Schilpp, 2–94. Evanston, IL: The Library of Living Philosophers. Original edition, 1949.Google Scholar
  15. Einstein, Albert. 2002 [1920]. “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt.” In The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1918–1921, Document 31. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hatfield, Gary C. 1990. The Natural and the Normative: Theories of Spatial Perception from Kant to Helmholtz. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heidelberger, Michael. 2010. Functional Relations and Causality in Fechner and Mach. Philosophical Psychology 23 (2):163–172. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515081003727400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henning, Hans. 1915. Ernst Mach als Philosoph, Physiker und Psycholog; eine Monographie. Leipzig: J.A. Barth.Google Scholar
  19. Hoffmann, Christoph. 2009. Representing Difference. Ernst Mach’s and Peter Salcher’s Ballistic-Photographic Experiments, 1886/87. Endeavour 33 (1):18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffmann, Christoph. 2013. Processes on Paper: Writing Procedures as Non-Material Research Devices. Science in Context 26:279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffmann, Christoph, and Peter Berz. 2001. Über Schall: Ernst Machs und Peter Salchers Geschoßfotografien. Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar
  22. Holton, Gerald. 1988. “Mach, Einstein, and the Search for Reality.” In Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein, 237–277. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hui, Alexandra. 2013. The Psychophysical Ear: Musical Experiments, Experimental Sounds, 1840–1910. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Janssen, Michel. 2014. ‘No Success Like Failure...’: Einstein’s Quest for General Relativity, 1907–1920. In The Cambridge Companion to Einstein, eds. Michel Janssen, and Christoph Lehner, 167–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lenoir, Timothy. 1993. The Eye as Mathematician: Clinical Practice, Instrumentation, and Helmholtz’s Construction of an Empiricist Theory of Vision. In Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science, ed. David Cahan, 109–153. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mach, Ernst. 1861. “Über das Sehen von Lagen und Winkeln durch die Bewegung des Auges.” Sitzungsberichte der Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien no. 43:213–224.Google Scholar
  27. Mach, Ernst. 1865. Über Flussigkeiten, welche suspendirte Körperchen enthalten. Annalen der Physik 126:324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mach, Ernst. 1866. Bemerkungen über die Entwicklung der Raumvorstellungen. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik N.F. 49:227–232.Google Scholar
  29. Mach, Ernst. 1868. Ueber Die Definition Der Masse. Repertorium für physikalische Technik, für mathematische und astronomische Instrumentenkunde (Carl’s Repertorium der Physik) 4: 355–359.Google Scholar
  30. Mach, Ernst. 1872. Die Geschichte und die Wurzel des Satzes von der Erhaltung der Arbeit. Prag: J.G. Calve.Google Scholar
  31. Mach, Ernst. 1873(a). Beiträge zur Doppler’schen Theorie der Ton- und Farbenänderung durch Bewegung. Gesammelte Abhandlungen. Prag: J.G. Calve.Google Scholar
  32. Mach, Ernst. 1873(b). Notizbuch, ab 12.4.1873. Deutsches Museum, NL174/507.Google Scholar
  33. Mach, Ernst. 1873(c). Physikalische Versuche über den Gleichgewichtssinn des Menschen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, III Abth. (Nov.):124–140.Google Scholar
  34. Mach, Ernst. 1875. Grundlinien der Lehre von den Bewegungsempfindungen. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  35. Mach, Ernst. 1880. Manuskript Vorlesung. Experimentalphysik; Grundlagen der Mechanik: Statik und Dynamik 1880/81 Winter. Deutsches Museum, NL 174/450.Google Scholar
  36. Mach, Ernst. 1883. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung historisch-kritisch dargestellt. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
  37. Mach, Ernst. 1886. Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
  38. Mach, Ernst. 1897(a). Über Orientierungsempfindungen. Vorträge des Vereines zur Verbreitung naturwissenschaftlicher Kenntnisse in Wien XXXVII (Heft 12).Google Scholar
  39. Mach, Ernst. 1897(b). Über Gedankenexperimente. Zeitschrift für den physikalischen und chemischen Unterricht 10:1–5.Google Scholar
  40. Mach, Ernst. 1901. On Physiological, as Distinguished from Geometrical, Space. The Monist 11 (3):321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mach, Ernst. 1902. On the Psychology and Natural Development of Geometry. The Monist 12 (4):481–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mach, Ernst. 1903. Space and Geometry from the Point of View of Physical Inquiry. The Monist 14 (1):1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mach, Ernst. 1906. Space and Geometry in the Light of Physiological, Psychological and Physical Inquiry. Trans. Thomas J. McCormack. Chicago/London: Open Court.Google Scholar
  44. Norton, John D. 1995. Mach’s Principle Before Einstein. In Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, eds. Julian B. Barbour, and Herbert Pfister, 9–57. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  45. Norton, John D. 2010. How Hume and Mach Helped Einstein Find Special Relativity. In Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science, eds. M. Dickson, and M. Domski, 359–386. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  46. Pesic, Peter. 2013. Helmholtz, Riemann, and the Sirens: Sound, Color, and the ‘Problem of Space’. Physics in Perspective 15:256–294. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-013-0109-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poincaré, Henri. 1902. La Science et l’hypothèse. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  48. Poincaré, Henri. 1904. Wissenschaft und Hypothese. Translated by F. and L. Lindemann. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
  49. Pojman, Paul. 2011. Ernst Mach. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta.Google Scholar
  50. Renn, Jürgen. 2007. The Third Way to General Relativity: Einstein and Mach in Context. In The Genesis of General Relativity, vol. 3: Gravitation in the Twilight of Classical Physics, eds. Jürgen Renn, and Matthias Schemmel, 21–75. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Staley, Richard. 2013. Ernst Mach on Bodies and Buckets. Physics Today 66 (12):42–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Staley, Richard. 2017. Beyond the Conventional Boundaries of Physics: On Relating Ernst Mach’s Philosophy to His Teaching and Research in the 1870s and 80s. In Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, ed. Friedrich Stadler. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Sterrett, Susan G. 1998. Sounds Like Light: Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity and Mach’s Work in Acoustics and Aerodynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 29:1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turner, R. Steven. 1993. Consensus and Controversy: Helmholtz on the Visual Perception of Space. In Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science, ed. David Cahan, 154–203. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
  55. Turner, Roy Steven. 1994. In the Eye’s Mind: Vision and the Helmholtz-Hering Controversy. Princeton/Chichester: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wegener, Daan. 2010. De-Anthropomorphizing Energy and Energy Conservation: The Case of Max Planck and Ernst Mach. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41:146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolters, Gereon. 1987. Mach I, Mach II, Einstein und die Relativitätstheorie: Eine Fälschung und ihre Folgen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolters, Gereon. 2012. Mach and Einstein, or, Clearing Troubled Waters in the History of Science. In Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, eds. Christoph Lehner, Jürgen Renn, and Matthias Schemmel, 39–57. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations