Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:56:52.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Newton's Methodology and Mercury's Perihelion Before and After Einstein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

William Harper
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Newton's methodology is significantly richer than the hypothetico-deductive model. It is informed by a richer ideal of empirical success that requires not just accurate prediction but also accurate measurement of parameters by the predicted phenomena. It accepts theory-mediated measurements and theoretical propositions as guides to research. All of these enrichments are exemplified in the classical response to Mercury's perihelion problem. Contrary to Kuhn, Newton's method endorses the radical transition from his theory to Einstein's. The richer themes of Newton's method are strikingly realized in a challenge to general relativity from a new problem posed by Mercury's perihelion.

Type
Physics: New Solutions to Historical Problems
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2007 , pp. 932 - 942
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brackenridge, J. Bruce (1995), The Key to Newton’s Dynamics: The Kepler Problem and the Principia. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brans, C., and Dicke, R. H. (1961), “Mach’s Principle and a Relativistic Theory of Gravitation”, Mach’s Principle and a Relativistic Theory of Gravitation 124:925–935.Google Scholar
Brown, E. W. (1903), “On the Verification of the Newtonian Law”, On the Verification of the Newtonian Law 63:396–397.Google Scholar
Dicke, R. H. (1965), The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity. New York: Gordon & Breach Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicke, R. H., and Goldenberg, H. Mark (1974), “The Oblateness of the Sun”, The Oblateness of the Sun 27:131–182.Google Scholar
Earman, John, and Janssen, Michael (1993), “Einstein’s Explanation of the Motion of Merury’s Perihelion”, in Earman, John, Janssen, Michael, and Norton, John (eds.), The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity. Boston: Bärkhäuser, 129–172.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1915), “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury by Means of the General Theory of Relativity”, Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury by Means of the General Theory of Relativity 11:831–839.Google Scholar
Hall, A. (1894), “A Suggestion in the Theory of Mercury”, A Suggestion in the Theory of Mercury 14:35–46.Google Scholar
Harper, William (2002), “Newton’s Argument for Universal Gravitation”, in Cohen, I. Bernard and Smith, George (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 174–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laplace, Pierre Simon (1798–1825), Celestial Mechanics. Paris: Duprat.Google Scholar
Myrvold, Wayne, and Harper, Willam (2002), “Model Selection, Simplicity, and Scientific Inference”, Model Selection, Simplicity, and Scientific Inference 69:S135–S149.Google Scholar
Newcomb, Simon (1882), “Discussion and Results of Observations on Transits of Mercury from 1677 to 1881”, Discussion and Results of Observations on Transits of Mercury from 1677 to 1881 1:363–487.Google Scholar
Newcomb, Simon (1895), The Elements of the Four Inner Planets and the Fundamental Constants of Astronomy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac (1999), Isaac Newton: The Principia, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and the System of the World. Translated by Cohen, I. Bernard and Whitman, Ann. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pais, Abraham (1982), Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reasenberg, R. D., Shapiro, I. I., MacNeil, P. E., Goldstein, R. B., Breidenthal, J. C., Brenkle, J. P., Cain, D. L., Kaufman, T. M., Komarek, T. A., and Zygielbaum, A. I. (1979), “Viking Relativity Experiment: Verification of Signal Retardation by Solar Gravity”, Viking Relativity Experiment: Verification of Signal Retardation by Solar Gravity 234:L219–L221.Google Scholar
Roseveare, Nicholas T. (1982), Mercury’s Perihelion from Le Verrier to Einstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Irwin (1964), “Fourth Test of General Relativity”, Fourth Test of General Relativity 13:789–791.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Irwin, Ash, Michael E., Ingalls, Richard P., Smith, William B., Campbell, Donald B., Dyce, Rolf B., Jurgens, Raymond F., and Pettengill, Gordon H. (1971), “Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result”, Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result 26:1132–1135.Google Scholar
Smith, George (1999), “How Did Newton Discover Universal Gravity?”, How Did Newton Discover Universal Gravity? 45:32–63.Google Scholar
Smith, George (2001), “The Newtonian Style in Book II of the Principia”, in Buchwald, J. and Cohen, I. B. (eds.), Isaac Newton’s Natural Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 249–311.Google Scholar
Smith, George (2002), “The Methodology of the Principia”, in Cohen, I. Bernard and Smith, George (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 138–173.Google Scholar
Stein, Howard (1970), “On the Notion of Field in Newton, Maxwell, and Beyond”, in Stuewer, R. H. (ed.), Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 264–287.Google Scholar
Stein, Howard (2002), “Newton’s Metaphysics”, in Cohen, I. Bernard and Smith, George (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 256–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valluri, Sree Ram, Wilson, Curtis, and Harper, William (1997), “Newton’s Apsidal Precession Theorem and Eccentric Orbits”, Newton’s Apsidal Precession Theorem and Eccentric Orbits 28:13–27.Google Scholar
Will, Clifford M. (1993), Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Curtis A. (1989), “The Newtonian Achievement in Astronomy”, in René Taton and Curtis Wilson (eds.), The General History of Astronomy, Vol. 2, Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics: Part A; Tycho Brahe to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 233–274.Google Scholar