Abstract . The article provides an extended analysis of the philosophical categories “phenomenon and essence”. Derived "GOLDEN RULE", which allows you to quickly distinguish between these categories in scientific theories. The rule made it possible to analyze the paradoxes of special relativity and show Einstein's error in formulating the theory of relativity. Einstein, like most physicists, constantly confused the phenomenon and essence and, as a result, received erroneous (paradoxical) conclusions.
1. Introduction (about "philosophies")
Physicists, as is well known, have long disrespected philosophy. Academician Landau believed: “ Where philosophy begins, science ends there! ". While studying at the university of "philosophy" we fully shared this aphorism of Landau.
This is natural, since modern philosophy has given science nothing but errors and confusion. There are many philosophical schools and directions.
- These are "isms": idealism, materialism, positivism, etc .;
- these are "logies": ontology, phenomenology, etc.
It takes time to figure it all out. We'll do it easier. Obviously, not every system of philosophical trends and knowledge is scientific. Hence the question: which philosophical system should be recognized as "scientific", and which should be attributed to typical speculative or scholastic trends?
I will express here a point of view that was formed on the basis of long-term research. A philosophical system can be considered scientific if it contains a theory of knowledge of objective truth. The theory of knowledge, like any scientific discipline, contains the following main parts:
- A figurative model of the material world around us, its properties, based on common human experience, on historical human practice.
- A set of philosophical categories with mutual connections between them. It has been realized and developed by historical common human practice.
- The laws of dialectics and methods of cognition of the surrounding world (formal double-valued logic, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, etc.).
- . , , .., .. , .
- , .
The last fifth property is something without which any philosophy turns, at best, into a "smart" conversation over a glass of beer, when the result of the discussion has no scientific status. This status is deprived of positivism. This is a pseudo-scientific concept.
The dominance of various forms of positivism at the present time does not mean that materialism is dead. Materialism is alive, although opponents have long tried to "mix it with dirt". The materialistic theory of reflection, which was developed by V.I. Lenin. Therefore, relying on the materialistic theory of cognition of scientific truth, we have the opportunity to explore the paradoxes of SRT.
The study of the essence of the world around us is the basis of our knowledge. We get to know the world through phenomena. We have the following elements of the chain of cognition: cognizing subject + object of research... Please note that information is delivered to the cognizing subject (observer) using some material carriers (light, sound, etc.).
The consequences follow from this.
- The observer receives from the investigated object only part of the information, and not all.
- When transferring information, distortion of this information may occur. Therefore, it is important to know the conditions and factors that influence distortion.
So, we have the following 4 links: the observer, the object of observation, the information carrier, the conditions that affect the transmitted information. The most important for us in cognition and the theory of reflection are the categories " phenomenon-essence ". We will begin our exploration by analyzing these categories.
2. "Golden Rule"
Much has been written about the philosophical categories “APPEARANCE and ESSENCE” in philosophical textbooks and monographs. But if you look for the main features that unite and distinguish these categories, you will not find anything useful in the philosophical literature. Here, relying on the Hegelian statement about these categories (" Essence is, the phenomenon is essential ! " ), We will briefly describe such signs. What can you "get" out of the Hegelian phrase?
There must objectively exist a certain material object or interacting objects that represent a certain "entity" subject to cognition.
There must be a cognizing subject - "the observer”(One or more), for which this“ essence ”appears not directly, but in the form of a“ phenomenon ”. The observer examines the "phenomenon" (registers its presence, measures its parameters, observes, describes characteristics, etc.) in order to understand the essence.
The "phenomenon" registered by the observer depends on the "conditions" of his observation.
These are, perhaps, all the important characteristics of these categories. For illustration, refer to Fig. 1. It depicts a cylinder and cylinder projections onto orthogonal planes. The cylinder is a kind of "entity". The projections of a cylinder on a plane are “phenomena” that are studied (measured) by an observer (or observers). These projections depend on the "condition", i.e. on the orientation of the cylinder axis OO 'relative to the planes. Condition we can change this condition to study the totality of phenomena.
! [] (https://habrastorage.org/webt/sy/fv/pn/syfvpnudevfxvl2hhpcjx3w9hee.png)
Fig. 1.
And here's what's interesting. It is impossible to establish the essence by one phenomenon! Moreover, the observer cannot fully describe the essence by looking at the projections and changing the observation conditions. For example, projections do not give him information about the composition and material of the cylinder, etc. Therefore, they speak of entities of the first and other orders. Nevertheless, even now we can formulate an important "golden rule", which will allow us in the future to easily distinguish essence from phenomenon, and phenomenon from essence:
PHENOMENON depends on the conditions of its observation.
ESSENCE does not depend on these conditions.
3. Phenomenon, entity, observer
Now, as already mentioned, we will give a decoding of philosophical categories and their mutual connection.
Phenomenon. We all know that a phenomenon depends on the conditions of its observation. A certain set of phenomena corresponds to each set of conditions. From the standpoint of the theory of knowledge of objective truth, any phenomenon from a given set is a combination of a particular (characteristic only for a given phenomenon and distinguishing this phenomenon from other phenomena of a given set) and general (i.e., that which remains unchanged, invariant for all phenomena of a given set belonging to a given set of conditions). Any condition changes - the phenomenon also changes, but the investigated object itself does not experience any changes. The essence is invariant and does not depend in any way on the observation conditions.
You have a diamond in your hands. You look at it and study the facets as phenomena. You put the diamond in your pocket. The phenomenon has disappeared. But the essence remained. It's in your pocket.
You can observe the phenomenon, measure its characteristics, photograph. In this sense, the words: "it will seem to us", "we will measure", "we will take pictures", etc. will be equivalent in the sense that they belong to the registration process of the phenomenon. In the word "it seems" there is no illusion, mysticism, but there is a relation to the essence. However, the essence as an invariant representation can be characterized by some invariant parameters and characteristics.
Law. A set of phenomena corresponds to each set of conditions. The dependence of some characteristic of a phenomenon on some specific condition is called a law or pattern. In other words, a regularity is the dependence of any characteristic of a phenomenon on a change in a certain condition with the remaining conditions unchanged. An example of laws (patterns) are the laws of Boyle-Mariotte, Charles, Gay-Lussac for an ideal gas. The conditions (and at the same time parameters) are the volume, pressure and temperature of the gas.
Essence. It is impossible to cognize the essence by one phenomenon or even by one regularity. Cognition of the essence proceeds from the analysis of a set of laws and phenomena, by cutting off the secondary, special, to the isolation of the general, i.e. that which remains unchanged, common to all phenomena and laws. Essence, as general, reflects deep connections and relationships.
The process of knowing the essence is a creative process. There are no recipes for the transition from laws and phenomena to essence. It depends on the worldview, knowledge, talent, intuition and luck of the researcher. The result of the search for an entity is a hypothesis or a model of physical reality. For example, an analysis of the laws of thermodynamics mentioned above allows you to create a model of an ideal gas. This model helps explain thermodynamic phenomena from a unified perspective. This is an entity, so to speak, of the first order.
Observer. It is, have pity, the most important element in the chain of "phenomenon-essence". "The essence is." To whom should the essence appear in the form of a phenomenon? Who should research, measure, photograph, etc. phenomenon and its characteristics? Naturally, this should be done by the observer. In physics, all observers are the same and have no distinguishing features from each other (ideal observers). An observer can also be a physical device that expands the capabilities of a person.
In classical theories, for example, in Newtonian mechanics, there can be a countable set of observers with their own individual frames of reference. If they investigate the same object, then each of them will investigate their own phenomenon, which is different from what other observers see. But for all of them, the essence is one.
In relativistic theories there is no such division into "phenomenon" and "essence". Everything that the observer fixes is existing "in fact without distortion", i.e. actually "essence". The twin is observing the slower pace of life of his moving brother, which means that the brother is "younger" and there is a "slowing down of time" in the moving frame of reference. The researcher observes a "reduction in the length of the ruler" along the direction of its movement; Moreover, each observer has his own essence, which depends on the choice of the frame of reference! How many observers - as many entities!
4. "Thought experiments"
We will note the following. In classical theories, information from an object to an observer was transmitted instantly. This unspoken rule has existed since the time of Newton.
"Instantaneous" information transmission did not lead to distortions associated with the relative movement of the observer and the object.
In relativistic theories, information is delivered to the observer by light beams (with a delay). It is no coincidence that Einstein used light rays in all his thought experiments. The finite speed of light is the cause of distortions in the information received by the observer. Let's look at some examples so that the reader can get comfortable with the use of philosophical categories in the analysis of processes.
Example 1. We offer an illustration for assimilating the differences between the phenomenon from the essence and the essence from the phenomenon.
! [] (https://habrastorage.org/webt/vb/em/kk/vbemkk7fhxhljpk-drfuzdz8sxa.png)
Fig. 2
So, in front of us on the table are two identical vertical rods: Hw and Hb ... They are separated by a concave lens, as shown in Fig. 2
The first observer looks at the structure on the left, the second observer looks at the structure on the right. The right observer sees a black rod H in front of him
b
and through the lens he sees a white rod hw
... It seems to him that the black rod is longer than the white Hb
> hw. The left observer claims the opposite. He considers the white rod to be longer than the black rod, Hw
>. Which of the rods above is really?The answer is obvious even to a person without philosophical education. We directly see the real rods H
w
and Hb
, and through the lens we observe "shortened" rods (phenomena) hw
and Hb
distorted by the lens. We are making a gross mistake if we consider hw and hb to be the real lengths of the rods. Such a mistake is called "identification of the phenomenon and the essence" or "substitution of the essence by the phenomenon."Indeed, we have no right to consider the height of the imaginary image h
w
or hb
as an entity. The quantities hw
or hb
depend on the distance d. Distance d is the observation condition ("golden rule"). Therefore, hw
and Hb
there are characteristics of the phenomenon, i.e. they are a distorted representation of the entity. The quantities Hb
and Hw
do not depend on the condition, i.e. from the distance to the lens d. They are characteristics of the entity. Thus, the contradiction is easily eliminated.We will highlight another important aspect. The "reduced" (observed through the lens) height of the rod is due to the distortion of the front of the light wave. This property associated with a change in the wave front is used in microscopes, telescopes, binoculars, etc.
Let's move on to the paradoxes of SRT, using the "golden rule". Recall that the condition in SRT is the speed of relative motion v. The characteristics that do not depend on the speed v are the characteristics of the entity. If the characteristic depends on the relative velocity v, then it is the characteristic of the phenomenon.
Example 2.(scale compression). Let two observers have the same rulers. The length of the ruler of each observer (twin) is L
0
... When observers fly past each other, they compare the lengths of the rulers.- Observer 1 claims that his ruler L
0
longer than the ruler L2
observer 2, (1). - Observer 2 claims that his ruler L
0
longer than the ruler L2
observer 1, (2).
We see that L
1
and L2
depend on the speed v. Therefore, L1
and L2
there are characteristics of phenomena ("golden rule"). These characteristics differ from the actual length L0
(characteristic of the entity). The reason is the same as in Example 1.The wave front of the selected light beam has different directions in different inertial reference frames. Therefore, the distortion of the wave front leads to an apparent reduction in the length of the moving ruler. We conclude: real space does not depend on the inertial frame of reference, and distortions are caused by a change in the direction of the front of the light wave due to relative motion. The space is common to all systems.
Example 3. (Time dilation). We'll change Einstein's thought experiment a bit. Let both twins have green light emitting LEDs. The oscillation period is T
0
... As in the previous example, the brothers move at a relative speed v. When brothers meet, they compare the periods of the observed fluctuations. The stationary brother 1 sees the yellow glow of the LED of the brother 2 moving past him and the green glow of his LED. The observed oscillation period T2 is longer than the oscillation period T0 of a stationary LED T2
> T0
(3)Moving brother 2 rests in its frame of reference. He sees yellow light coming from the diode of flying brother 1. Observed by brother 2, the oscillation period T
1
greater than the oscillation period T0
fixed LED brother 2, T1
> T0
(4).We are using the golden rule again. Periods T
1
and T2
depend on the speed of relative motion v. Therefore, the periods T1
and T2
there are phenomena. Periods T1
and T2
are distorted projections of the entity T0
into the frame of reference of the moving observer. This phenomenon is called the " transverse Doppler effect ". Real time does not depend on the choice of the inertial reference system. It is the same for all inertial systems.This is natural, although surprising. Many outstanding scientists felt the imperfection of A. Einstein's SRT. For example, renowned Nobel Prize-winning physicist Percy Williams Bridgman joked about " rubber scales and exceptionally mis-running clocks " in Special Relativity.
5. Lenin and Mach
Now we show the stump that Mach stumbled over. IN AND. Lenin in his book "Materialism and Empirio-criticism" smashes his philosophical conclusions. We would like to draw attention to the starting point that marked the beginning of Mach's error. We quote Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism:
“We saw that Marx in 1845, Engels in 1888 and 1892. introduce the criterion of practice into the basis of the theory of knowledge of materialism. Outside of practice, it is scholasticism to pose the question of whether “objective” (ie, objective) “truth” corresponds to human thinking, ”says Marx in the second thesis on Feuerbach. The best refutation of Kantian and Humean agnosticism, as well as other philosophical quirks (Schrullen), is practice, ”Engels repeats. "The success of our actions proves the agreement (correspondence, bbereinstimmung) of our perceptions with the objective (objective) nature of perceived things," Engels objected to agnostics.
Compare this with Mach's reasoning on the criterion of practice. “In everyday thinking and everyday speech, the usually seeming, illusory reality is opposed. Holding a pencil in front of us in the air, we see it in a straight position; lowering it in an inclined position into the water, we see it bent. In the latter case, they say: “the pencil seems bent, but in reality it is straight.” But on what basis do we call one fact reality, and reduce the other to the meaning of an illusion? .. When we make that natural mistake that in extraordinary cases we still wait the occurrence of ordinary phenomena, our expectations, of course, are deceived. But the facts are not to blame for this. It makes sense to talk about an illusion in such cases from a practical point of view, but not at all scientific ...
…. To the same extent, from the scientific point of view, the frequently discussed question, whether the world really exists, or is it just our illusion, no more than a dream, does not make any sense. But even the most incongruous dream is a fact, no worse than any other "(Analysis of Sensations, pp. 18-19)."
Now the floor is to us. We are considering a "pencil", and the pencil we see is a phenomenon. Looking from the end, we will see a hexagon, and looking from the side, we will see a rectangle. If we put the end of the pencil into a glass of water, we will see it “broken”. All these are phenomena behind which the essence was hidden from Mach. Mach got confused, not knowing the criteria for distinguishing phenomenon from essence, and, as a result, fell into idealism.
Lenin further writes: “It is precisely this tortured professorial idealism, when the criterion of practice, which separates the illusion from reality for each and every one, is carried out by E. Mach outside the bounds of science, outside the bounds of the theory of knowledge ”.
To separate the illusion from reality means to separate the phenomenon and the essence, i.e. show: where there is a phenomenon, and where we are talking about the essence.
Have you ever seen how fun the kids from kindergarten laugh when visiting the "laugh room" with crooked mirrors. They know nothing about "phenomena and entities." But they are well aware that the distorted figures they observe are "hocus-pocus" (pretend). They know very well that they do not "curve", but remain the same as they were, in contrast to the "curves of relativists" who consider mirrors "flat" and children - "curves!"
6. Conclusion
We can now draw the following conclusions:
- A. Einstein obtained mathematically correct results (1), (2), (3), (4). However, he gave the wrong explanation for the results obtained. He made erroneous conclusions about "time dilation" and "scale contraction". Here one cannot blame only Einstein for philosophical ignorance. The philosophical literacy of his colleagues was also low and relied on positivism. Even now, leading scientists cannot boast of their ability to apply philosophy to problem analysis!
- The space for all inertial systems is common. There are no real “scale squeezes”.
- Time is the same for all inertial reference systems. There is no real "time dilation" in nature. So, we returned to the classical space-time relations in the framework of the Lorentz transformation.
- It should be understood and recognized that the explanation of the essence of the Lorentz transformation proposed by A. Einstein is based not only on the philosophical ignorance of Einstein, but also on the entire scientific community.
Additional materials
1. V.A. Kuligin, M.V. Korneva, G.A. Kuligina
Einstein's gnoseological error and kinematic phenomena. Part 1. Parametric Galileo transformation Reference
2. V.. Kuligin, M.V. Kornev, G.A. Kuligina
Einstein's gnoseological error and kinematic phenomena. Part 2. Lorentz transformation. Link