String theory,Einstein, and the identity of physics: Theory assessment in absence of the empirical

String theorists are certain that they are practicing physicists. Yet, some of their recent critics deny this. This paper argues that this conflict is really about who holds authority in making rational judgment in theoretical physics. At bottom, the conflict centers on the question: who is a proper physicist? To illustrate and understand the differing opinions about proper practice and identity, we discuss different appreciations of epistemic virtues and explanation among string theorists and their critics, and how these have been sourced in accounts of Einstein's biography. Just as Einstein is claimed by both sides, historiography offers examples of both successful and unsuccessful non-empirical science. History of science also teaches that times of conflict are often times of innovation, in which novel scholarly identities may come into being. At the same time, since the contributions of Thomas Kuhn historians have developed a critical attitude towards formal attempts and methodological recipes for epistemic demarcation and justification of scientific practice. These are now, however, being considered in the debate on non-empirical physics.     

哲学家视野中的宇宙图景--雅斯贝尔斯与现代物理学

早期雅斯贝尔斯的现代物理学意识多半闭塞、片面,充满了"新""旧"物理学的无意义的陈词滥调.但是,后期雅斯贝尔斯紧跟时代的步伐,把握了现代物理学革命性发展中的真理内涵,最大限度地容纳了现代物理学理论的广度,为奠定新世界观的基础开辟了广阔的空间.尽管如此,雅斯贝尔斯始终是康德哲学的追随者,对他来说,现代物理学像所有科学一样有其自身的意义和界限.     

满旗流形Sp(3)/T的不变爱因斯坦度量

研究了迷向表示分为9个不可约子空间的满旗流形Sp(3)/T上的不变爱因斯坦度量,计算Sp(3)/T非零结构常数的值,根据其爱因斯坦方程,利用Maple软件得到64个不变爱因斯坦度量(差常数倍的情况下),在等距的意义下,其中有1个凯莱爱因斯坦度量和3个非凯莱爱因斯坦度量.     

物理学--科学的基石--纪念2005"国际物理年"

本文简要介绍了2005年“国际物理年”的由来，回顾了经典物理学的发展历程和20世纪划时代的物理学革命所带来的科技革命以及对社会生活的影响，评述了爱因斯坦1905年所发表的5篇具有划时代意义的论文在科学史上的重要性，以及爱因斯坦在近代物理学革命中的巨大作用．     

爱因斯坦和玻尔的科学创新方法论原则

本文在深入研究、比较爱因斯坦和玻尔科学创新方法及其特点的基础上,揭示了科学创新活动应当遵循的方法论原则,即哲学思想渗透原则、逻辑思维与非逻辑思维相结合原则和思想实验与物质实验相结合原则。     

论直觉在科学创造中的作用

在科学基本原理的创立以及科学命题的验证中,直觉起着重大的作用,而且直觉的信念为科学创造提供了强烈的动机,然后进一步论述了直觉能力就是自由创造力.     

一类无穷级数和的计算方法

雅可比椭圆函数具有双周期性质,可以展开为傅里叶级数,也可以展开为幂级数,对比变量的展开系数,得到了一类无穷求和的解析表达式。Einstein级数具有模变换性质,可以得到无穷求和的恒等式,取模参数为特殊值,就得到了另一类无穷求和的值。     

关于牛顿“碑文”翻译的一个争论

诗人蒲柏曾给牛顿拟过一个碑文，后来虽未予采用，但该诗却流传甚广，很多关于牛顿的文章都引用过它。其后，另一个英国诗人J．C．斯奎尔，按同样的形式又续了一首诗。对于后一首诗准确的理解和翻译，曾经引起了一场很热烈的争论。     

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.     

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.