Relasiebegrippe in die lig van die vraag of Einstein in die eerste plek ‘n ‘relatiwiteitsteorie’ ontwikkel het
Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie/South African Journal of Science and Technology
| Field | Value | |
| Title | Relasiebegrippe in die lig van die vraag of Einstein in die eerste plek ‘n ‘relatiwiteitsteorie’ ontwikkel het Relasiebegrippe in die lig van die vraag of Einstein in die eerste plek ‘n ‘relatiwiteitsteorie’ ontwikkel het | |
| Creator | Strauss, Danie F.M. | |
| Description | In die Duitse literatuur word daar dikwels van ‘ideë-geskiedenis‘ gepraat. Dit is daarop gemik om die historiese agtergrond van die keuse en die gebruik van bepaalde terme te verduidelik. In hierdie studie word so ‘n ‘idee-historiese’ benadering gevolg met die eintlike intern-vakwetenskaplike status en strekking van Einstein se bekende teorie (uit die jare 1905 en 1916). Sedert die vroeg-moderne tyd is die klem in die natuurwetenskappe van ‘dingebegrippe’ na ‘relasiebegrippe’ verskuif, terwyl verdere ontwikkelinge die invloed van die historistiese geestesklimaat van die 19de en vroeg-20ste eeu sou weerspieël. Daar word ook aandag gegee aan die wyse waarop Einstein se relatiwiteitsteorie die positiewe element in die verskuiwing na relasiebegrippe ontgin, hoewel die algemeen-bekende naamgewing van sy teorie (bewustelik of onbewustelik) die historistiese Zeitgeist [tydgees] aan die begin van die 20ste eeu tot ‘n mate weerspieël. Tog blyk dit dat hy self die benoeming van die teorie bevraagteken het in die lig van die inherent-teenstrydige aard van die historisme. Hy het immers besef dat konstansie verandering veronderstel; verandering moet, of kan, dus nie beklemtoon word ten koste van konstansie nie. Terselfdertyd omvat die spesiale en algemene dele van sy teorie ‘n insig in die onderskeiding tussen die kinematiese en fisiese aspekte van die werklikheid asook die funderende rol van uniforme beweging ten opsigte van fisiese verandering. Beide hierdie aspekte belig die relasiebegrippe waarvan Einstein gebruik maak, veral soos dit uitgedruk word in sy klem op energie-konstansie, waar die term energie die unieke sin van die fisiese aspek reflekteer en konstansie dié van die kinematiese aspek. Die beredenering van die hele artikel verwys deurgaans terug daarna dat konstansie die basis van dinamiek en verandering vorm en dat Einstein derhalwe in die eerste plek nie ‘n teorie van relatiwiteit ontwikkel het nie, maar ‘n teorie van konstansie. Sy teorie toon dus ook aan dat die historistiese gees van sy tyd inherent problematies is, want historisme beklemtoon verandering ten koste van konstansie: dit alles ten spyte van die feit dat die gees van sy tyd waarskynlik ‘n rol gespeel het die in benoeming van sy teorie, naamlik as ‘n relatiwiteitsteorie. In the German literature the history of ‘ideas’ is often mentioned. Its aim is to account for the historical background of the choice and use of certain terms. In this instance such an ‘idea-historical’ approach is connected to the truly intrinsic scientific status and intention of the well-known theory of Einstein (from the years 1905 and 1916). The emphasis within the natural sciences switched since the early modern era from thing-concepts to relation-concepts, whilst the forthcoming developments eventually revealed the influence of the historicistic spiritual climate of the 19th and the early 20th century. It was also investigated in which way Einstein‘s theory of relativity explored the positive element in the shift from thing-concepts to relation-concepts even though the generally known designation of his theory (consciously or subconsciously) reflected something of the historicistic Zeitgeist [spirit of the time] at beginning of the 20th century. Nonetheless it would turn out that he was not convinced of the intrinsic antinomic nature of historicism, precisely because he realised that constancy underlies change and for that reason it cannot be emphasised at the cost of constancy. At the same time the special and general parts of his theory embody an insight into the distinct nature of the kinematic and physical aspects of reality and of the foundational role of the kinematic in respect of the physical aspect. Both these aspects underly the relation-concepts employed by Einstein, particularly as they are embodied in his emphasis on energy-constancy, where the term energy reflects the unique meaning of the physical aspect and constancy that of the kinematic aspect. The argumentation of the entire article is focused on the insight that constancy forms the basis of dynamics and change and that Einstein consequently did not develop a theory of relativity, but rather a theory of constancy. It follows that his theory at once demonstrates that the historicistic Zeitgeist of his time is intrinsically antinomic in its emphasis on change at the cost of constancy. This, moreover, is true in spite of the fact that the spirit of his time probably played a role in the designation of his theory, namely as a theory of relativity. | |
| Publisher | AOSIS | |
| Date | 2011-06-22 | |
| Identifier | 10.4102/satnt.v30i1.28 | |
| Source | Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie; Vol 30, No 1 (2011); 8 bladsye Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Natuurwetenskap en Tegnologie; Vol 30, No 1 (2011); 8 bladsye 2222-4173 0254-3486 | |
| Language | eng | |
| Relation |
The following web links (URLs) may trigger a file download or direct you to an alternative webpage to gain access to a publication file format of the published article:
https://journals.satnt.aosis.co.za/index.php/satnt/article/view/28/32
https://journals.satnt.aosis.co.za/index.php/satnt/article/view/28/35
https://journals.satnt.aosis.co.za/index.php/satnt/article/view/28/33
https://journals.satnt.aosis.co.za/index.php/satnt/article/view/28/31
https://journals.satnt.aosis.co.za/index.php/satnt/article/downloadSuppFile/28/5
https://journals.satnt.aosis.co.za/index.php/satnt/article/downloadSuppFile/28/6
https://journals.satnt.aosis.co.za/index.php/satnt/article/downloadSuppFile/28/7
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
