狭义相对论中时空问题的计算

从牛顿绝对时空观和狭义相对论时空观的本质区别出发,归纳出解决狭义相对论中时空问题的一般方法。     

从近距离观察光的衍射现象结果中认识光的波粒二象性

世界万物是由一种物质通过多种多样的运动形成的,很久以前有人称这种物质叫以太,请允许我在这里称其为动子。物质是由动子通过不同的群体运动形式表现出来,而物质之外的时间、空间等元素都是因动子的运动产生或改变。文章将初步建立一个由类似于相对论时空观的时间、空间模型,并用这个模型来辨析相对论的时空理论。通过建立的模型证实相对论的时空理论存在的局限性。     

On miracles and spacetime

What have recently been dubbed two ‘miracles’ of general relativity—(1) that all non-gravitational interactions are locally governed by Poincaré invariant dynamical laws; and (2) that, in the regime of experimental practice in which curvature effects may be ignored, the local Poincaré symmetries of the dynamical laws governing matter fields coincide with the local Poincaré symmetries of the dynamical metric field—remain unaccounted for in that theory. In this paper, I demonstrate that these two ‘miracles’ admit of a natural explanation in one particular successor theory to general relativity—namely, perturbative string theory. I argue that this point has important implications when considering both the ‘chronogeometricity’ (that is, the object in question being surveyed by rods and clocks built from matter fields) and spatiotemporal status of the dynamical metric field in both general relativity and perturbative string theory.     

On the empirical equivalence between special relativity and Lorentz׳s ether theory

In this paper I argue that the case of Einstein׳s special relativity vs. Hendrik Lorentz׳s ether theory can be decided in terms of empirical evidence, in spite of the predictive equivalence between the theories. In the historical and philosophical literature this case has been typically addressed focusing on non-empirical features (non-empirical virtues in special relativity and/or non-empirical flaws in the ether theory). I claim that non-empirical features are not enough to provide a fully objective and uniquely determined choice in instances of empirical equivalence. However, I argue that if we consider arguments proposed by Richard Boyd, and by Larry Laudan and Jarret Leplin, a choice based on non-entailed empirical evidence favoring Einstein׳s theory can be made.     

Mach׳s principle as action-at-a-distance in GR: The causality question

A part of the revival of interest in Mach׳s principle since the early 1960s has involved work by physicists aimed at calculating various sorts of frame-dragging effects by matter shells surrounding an interior region, and arguing that under certain conditions or in certain limits (ideally, ones that can be viewed as plausibly similar to conditions in our cosmos) the frame dragging becomes “complete” (e.g. Lynden-Bell, Katz, & Bičák, 1995) . Such results can bolster the argument for the satisfaction of Mach׳s principle by certain classes of models of GR. Interestingly, the frame-dragging “effect” of (say) a rotational movement of cosmic matter around a central point is argued by these physicists to be instantaneous—not an effect propagating at the speed of light. Not all physicists regard this as unproblematic. But rather than exploring whether there is something unphysical about such instantaneous “action at a distance”, or a violation of the precepts of Special Relativity, I am interested in exploring whether these physicists׳ calculations should be thought of as showing local inertia (resistance to acceleration) to be an effect, with distant matter distributions being the cause. I will try to apply some leading philosophical accounts of causation to the physical models of frame dragging, to see whether they imply that the frame dragging is superluminal causation. I will then offer reflections on the difficulties of applying causal talk in physical theories.     

Principle or constructive relativity

Appealing to Albert Einstein's distinction between principle and constructive theories, Harvey Brown has argued for an interpretation of the theory of relativity as a dynamic and constructive theory. Brown's view has been challenged by Michel Janssen and in this paper I investigate their dispute. I argue that their disagreement appears larger than it actually is due to the two frameworks used by Brown and Janssen to express their respective views: Brown's appeal to Einstein's principle–constructive distinction and Janssen's framing of the disagreement as one over the question whether relativity provides a kinematic or a dynamic constraint. I appeal to a distinction between types of theories drawn by H. A. Lorentz two decades before Einstein's distinction to argue that Einstein's distinction represents a false dichotomy. I argue further that the disagreement concerning the kinematics–dynamics distinction is a disagreement about labels but not about substance. There remains a genuine disagreement over the explanatory role of spacetime geometry and here I agree with Brown arguing that Janssen sees a pressing need for an explanation of Lorentz invariance where no further explanation is needed.     

塞曼效应中磁场强弱的量子力学计算

本文根据狄拉克的相对论量子力学理论,对产生正常塞曼效应(帕邢—巴克效应)和反常塞曼效应的磁场强弱进行了分析,给出了划分强磁场与弱磁场的临界位计算式。计算结果表明与实验值相吻合。     

弯曲空间中电荷的辐射

本文在文〔1〕的基础上得到了相对论加速电荷的电磁场的严格表达式,并计算了它的能量辐射     

The concept of transition and its role in Leibniz’s and Whitehead’s metaphysics of motion

Leibniz’s and Whitehead’s analyses of motion are at the heart of their metaphysical schemes. These schemes are to be considered as two blueprints of a similar metaphysical intuition that emerged during two breakthrough eras, that is, the 17th century and the beginning of the 20th century, and retained the Aristotelian idea that existence requires an active principle. The two philosophers’ attempts to elucidate this idea in the context of their analyses of motion still interact with central, longstanding questions in philosophy, in particular that concerning the ontological status of change. For both thinkers, the phenomenon of motion is an example par excellence, of the metaphysically fundamental principle of action that is required for change in the world. I focus on Leibniz’s and Whitehead’s similar understanding of the concept of transition that is inserted as an essential constitutive component of motion and ensures its status as something real.     

20世纪物理学革命的回顾及思考

20世纪初期发生的现代物理学革命,建立了相对论和量子力学,完成了从经典物理学到现代物理学的转变.本文通过对物理学革命的回顾,讨论了物理学革命对人类社会的作用和影响.