Aristotelian physics is a form of natural science described in the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322Ã, BCE). In his work Physics, Aristotle intends to establish the general principle of change that governs all natural bodies, living and non-living, celestial and terrestrial-including all motion, changing to place, changing in size. or number, qualitative change in any form; and "being" (being there, "generation") and "dying" (no more, "corruption").
For Aristotle, "physics" is a broad field that includes subjects such as philosophy of mind, sensory experience, memory, anatomy and biology. This is the foundation of the thinking that underlies much of his work.
Video Aristotelian physics
Metode
nature is everywhere the cause of order.
Though consistent with ordinary human experience, Aristotle's principles are not based on controlled quantitative experiments, so, while they explain many of the vast features of nature, they do not portray our universe appropriately, the quantitative way that is now expected of science. Aristotle's contemporaries such as Aristarchus rejected these principles for the sake of heliocentrism, but their ideas were not widely accepted. Aristotle's principles are hard to deny only through ordinary day-to-day observations, but then the development of the scientific method challenges his view with careful experimentation and measurement, using increasingly advanced technologies such as telescopes and vacuum pumps.
In claiming novelty for their doctrines, the natural philosophers who developed "new science" in the seventeenth century often compared the physics of "Aristotle" with their own physics. Physics of the former kind, they claim, emphasizes qualitative at the expense of quantitative math, is neglected and the appropriate role in physics (especially in the analysis of local movements), and relies on the principle of explanation of suspects as the ultimate cause and "occult" essence. But in his book Physics Aristotle characterizes physics or "natural science" as related to magnitudes ( megethÃÆ'ª ), motion (or "process" or "gradual change" - kinÃÆ'ªsis ), and time ( chronon ) ( Phys III.4 202b30-1). Indeed, Physics is largely concerned with motion analysis, especially local movements, and other concepts which Aristotle assumes are necessary for the analysis.
There is a clear distinction between modern physics and Aristotle, the main being the use of mathematics, largely absent in Aristotle. Some recent studies, however, have re-evaluated Aristotle's physics, emphasizing his empirical validity and continuity with modern physics.
Maps Aristotelian physics
Drafts
Elements and Sphere
Aristotle divides his universe into a "corrupt" terrestrial "realm" and where people live, and moves but instead does not change the celestial sphere.
Aristotle believed that the four classical elements formed everything in the terrestrial sphere: earth, air, fire, and water. He also argues that heaven is made up of a non-weighted, unchangeable (called unchangeable) fifth element called an aether. Aether also has the name "quintessence", which means, literally, "fifth creature".
Aristotle considers heavy substances such as iron and other metals mainly composed of earth elements, with a smaller number of three other terrestrial elements. Another lighter object, he believed, had less soil, relative to the other three elements in their composition.
The four classical elements were not found by Aristotle; they are from Empedocles. During the Scientific Revolution, the ancient theories of the classical elements were found to be incorrect, and replaced by the concept of empirically tested chemical elements.
The heavenly scope
According to Aristotle, the Sun, the Moon, the planets and the stars - are embedded in a perfect concentric "ball of crystal" that rotates eternally at a fixed rate. Since space balls are unable to make changes except rotation, terrestrial fire spaces must take into account the occasional heat, starlight, and meteorites. The lowest moon circle is the only celestial ball that actually touches the changing terrestrial material of the subbunary orb, dragging the fire and clear air underneath it as it spins. Like Homer ÃÆ'Â|there (?????) Ã, - "pure air" of Mount Olympus - is the divine partners of the air inhaled by mortal beings (???, aer ). The space circle consists of special elements of ether, eternal and unchanging, the only ability which is a uniform circular motion at some level (relative to the daily movement of the outer periphery of the fixed star).
The concentric, aetherial, cheek-by-jaw "crystal ball" that carries the Sun, Moon and stars move immutably in an unchanging circular motion. Spheres are embedded in scope to explain the "wandering star" (ie planets, which, compared to the Sun, Moon and stars, seem to move irregularly). Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are the only planets (including minor planets) seen before the invention of the telescope, which is why Neptune and Uranus are not included, nor are there any asteroids. Later, the belief that all the balls are concentric is released in favor of Ptolemy's deferent and epicycle models. Aristotle was subject to astronomers' calculations of the total number of balls and various accounts scoring in the neighborhood of fifty balls. Non-moving motors are assumed for each scope, including "prime mover" for fixed star scopes. The immovable movements do not push the ball (nor can it, be immaterial and dimensionless) but are the ultimate cause of the sphere movement, which they describe in a manner similar to the explanation of "the soul is moved by beauty".
Terrestrial changes
Unlike ether heaven that is eternal and unchanging, each of the four terrestrial elements is capable of transforming into one of the two elements that they share a property with: eg. the cold and wet (water) can turn into hot and wet (air) or cold and dry (earth) and any real change becomes hot and dry (fire) is actually a two-step process. These qualities are based on the actual substance associated with the work it can do; that heating or cooling and drying or wetting. Four elements exist only with respect to this capacity and relative to some potential jobs. The heavenly element is eternal and unchanging, so that only four terrestrial elements are responsible for "coming into" and "vanishing" - or, in Aristotle's terms De Generatione et Corruptione (?????? ???????????), "generation" and "corruption".
Natural place
Aristotelian's explanation of gravity is that all things move toward their natural place. For the elements of earth and water, the place is the center of the universe (geocentric); the natural place of water is the concentric shell around the earth because the earth is heavier; it is submerged in water. The natural place of air is also a concentric shell that surrounds the water; bubble up into the water. Finally, the place of natural fire is higher than the air but under the deepest heavenly sphere (carrying the Moon).
In the Book Delta his Physics (IV.5), Aristotle defines topos (place) in terms of two bodies, one containing the other: "place" is where the first inner surface (the contained body) touches another outer surface (the contained body). This definition remained dominant until the early seventeenth century, although it has been questioned and debated by philosophers since time immemorial. The most significant initial criticism was made in terms of geometry by the 11th century Arabic polymath al-Hasan Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in his book The Discourse in Place .
Natural movement
Terrestrial objects rise or fall, to a greater or lesser extent, according to the ratio of the four elements they compile. For example, the earth, the heaviest element, and water, falls into the center of the cosmos; then the Earth and most of the oceans, will come to rest there. At the opposite extreme, the lightest elements, the air and especially the fire, rise and move away from the center.
Inappropriate elements of substance in Aristotelian theory (or the modern sense of the word). Instead, they are abstractions used to describe the various properties and behaviors of the actual material in terms of the ratio between them.
Motion and change are closely related in Aristotle physics. The motion, according to Aristotle, involves a change from potential to actuality. He gives an example of four types of change, namely changes in substance, quality, quantity and in place.
Aristotle proposed that the speed at which two identical shaped bodies drown or fall is directly proportional to its weight and inversely proportional to the density of the medium it passes. While describing their terminal velocity, Aristotle must establish that there will be no limit to comparing the velocity of atoms falling through a vacuum, (they can move without boundaries because there will be no special place for them to rest in the emptiness). ). But it is now understood that at any time before reaching the terminal velocity in a relatively air-free medium such as resistance, two such objects are estimated to be about the same speed as they experience a force of gravity proportional to their mass and thus have accelerated at almost the same rate. This is especially evident from the 18th century when partial vacuum experiments began to be performed, but about two hundred years earlier Galileo had shown that objects with different weights reached the ground at the same time.
Unnatural movements
Regardless of the natural tendency of terrestrial respiration to rise and falling objects, unnatural or forced movement from side to side occurs as a result of volatile collisions and derivation of objects and transmutations between elements (On Generation and Corruption).
Opportunities
In his book Physics Aristotle tested the accident (?????????, symbebekÃÆ'²s ) that had no reason but by chance. "There is also no definite cause for the accident, but only the opportunity (ie, the tÃÆ'½che ), an uncertain cause (????????? aÃÆ'³riston") "( Metaphysics V, 1025a25).
It is clear that there are principles and causes that can be given and tampered with apart from the real process of generation and destruction; because if this is not true, everything will be a necessity: that is, if there must necessarily be a cause, other than intentional, of what is produced and destroyed. Is this, or not? Yes, if this happens; otherwise not ( Metaphysics VI, 1027a29).
Continuum and vacuum
Aristotle argued against the indivisibles of Democritus (which is quite different from the historical and modern usage of the term "atom"). As a place without anything that is in or in it, Aristotle opposes the possibility of emptiness or emptiness. Because he believes that the velocity of an object is proportional to the force applied (or, in the case of natural motion, the weight of the object) and inversely proportional to the viscosity of the medium, he reasoned that the object moves in the void will move indefinitely fast, - and thus any and all the objects around the void will soon fill it. Emptiness, therefore, can never be formed.
The "cavity" of modern-day astronomy (such as the Local Void adjacent to our own galaxy) has the opposite effect: in the end, the outer body is removed from the vacuum by the gravity of the material outside.
Four causes
According to Aristotle, there are four ways to explain aitia or the cause of change. He writes that "we have no knowledge of anything until we understand why, that is, the cause."
Aristotle argues that there are four kinds of causes.
Materials
The material cause of an object is that it is created. For a table, it might be wooden; for a statue, which may be bronze or marble.
"In one way we say that the content is the one that comes out, as it is, something happens, like bronze for a statue, a silver for a creature, and their genera" (194b2 3). - 6). According to "genera", Aristotle means a more general way of classifying problems (eg "metal"; "matter"); and it will be important. Soon. it extends the range of material causes to enter letters, flames and other elements (physical bodies), parts (whole), and even premises (conclusion: Aristotle repeats this claim, in slightly different terms, in An Post II. 11).
Formal
The formal cause of an object is the essential property that makes it that way. In Books Metaphysics ? Aristotle stresses that forms are closely related to essence and definition. He says for example that the 2: 1 ratio, and the numbers in general, is the cause of the octave.
"Other [causes] are forms and examples: this is the formula (logo) of essence (to ti en einai) , and its genera, eg 2: 1 ratio of octave" ( Phys 11.3 194b26--8)... The form is not just a form... We ask (and this is a relationship with essence, especially in its canonical Aristotelian formulation) is there something. And it is a feature of musical harmonica (first noted and astonished by Pythagoras) that this type of interval does indeed indicate this ratio in some form within the instruments used to make them (pipe length, string, etc.). In a sense, the ratio explains the similarities of all equations, why they are the same.
Efficient
The efficient cause of an object is the main agency by which it takes its form. For example, an efficient infant cause is the parent of the same species and the desk is a carpenter, who knows the shape of the table. In his book Physics II, 194b29--32, Aristotle writes: "there is a major originator of change and cessation, such as the responsible actor [sc. For action] and the father of the child, and general producer of the resulting thing and change of things change ".
The Aristotelian examples here are instructive: one mental case and one physical cause, followed by perfect general characterization. But they hide (or at whatever level fails to make patents) an important feature of Aristotle's concept of an efficient cause, and which serves to distinguish it from most modern homonyms. For Aristotle, any process requires an efficient cause that continues to work as long as it continues. This commitment seems most obvious to the modern eye in Aristotle's discussion of projectile motion: what makes the projectile move after leaving the hand? "Impetus," "momentum," let alone "inertia," is not a possible answer. There must be a different, (at least in some way) mover of a moving object, which is carrying out its propulsive capacity at any time from the projectile flight (see Phys VIII 10 266b29--267a11). Similarly, in every case of animal raising, there are always some things responsible for the survival of that generation, although it may do so with some intervention instrument ( Phys II.3 194b35--195a3).
Final
The last cause is that for the sake of something happening, its purpose or teleological purpose: for seeds germinate, it is a mature plant, to ball at the top of a hill, it comes to rest under, for eyes, it sees, for a knife, it cuts.
Objectives have an explanatory function: it is a common thing, at least in the context of action-askdes. Less than usual is the view held by Aristotle, that finality and purpose must be found throughout nature, for which it is the field of things that contain within them the principles of movement and rest (ie efficient causes); so it makes sense to attribute the goal not only to the natural things themselves, but also to the parts: the parts of the whole are there for the whole. As Aristotle himself notes, "for the sake of" the locus is ambiguous: " A is for the sake of B " can mean that A exists or is done to bring B about; or it could mean that A is for B useful ( An II.4 415b2--3, 20--1); but the two types of finality are, he argues, an important role to play in a natural, as well as deliberative context. So a man can exercise for his health: and so "health," and not just hope to achieve it, is the cause of his actions (this difference is not trivial). But the eyelid by eye (to protect it: PA II.1 3) and eye by animal as a whole (to help it function properly: cf. An II.7).
Biology
According to Aristotle, the science of living things takes place by collecting observations about each kind of natural animal, arranging them into genera and species (the differentiae in History of Animals ) and then going to study the cause ( in the Animal Section and Animal Generation , three major biological works).
Four causes of animal generation can be summarized as follows. Mom and dad represent the material and efficient causes, respectively. The mother provides the problem in which the embryo is formed, while the father provides the agent who informs the material and triggers its development. The formal cause is the definition of a substantial animal creature ( GA I.1 715a4: ho logos tÃÆ'ªs enthusiast ). The last cause is the adult form, which is the end for the development that occurs.
Organisms and mechanisms
The four elements form a uniform material such as blood, flesh and bone, which is the material created from unusual organs (eg heart, liver and hand) "which, in turn, as part, is a problem for the whole functioning body (< i> PA II.1 646a 13--24) ".
[There] is a certain clear conceptual economy of the view that in natural processes naturally things are just trying to realize in full actuality the potential contained within it (indeed, this is what is for them to be natural); on the other hand, as critics of Aristotelianism from the seventeenth century on not slow to show, this economy was won at the expense of serious empirical content. Mechanisms, at least as practiced by Aristotle's contemporaries and predecessors, may be explicitly inadequate - but at least they are an attempt at general accounts given in the reductive terms of the legal relationship between things. Simply introducing what future reductionists will do as "occult quality" does not explain - it's just, in the way of the famous satirical joke, that serves to redraw its effects. Formal talk, or so it says, is empty.
But things are not so gloomy like this. For one thing, there is no point trying to engage in reductionist science if you have no means, empirical and conceptual, to do so successfully: science should not be just a baseless speculative metaphysics. But more than that, there is a point to describe the world in terms teleologically contained: it defines things in a way that atomic speculations do not. And furthermore, Aristotle's conversation about species forms is not as bright as his opponents would be insinuating. He not only says that things do what they do because that's what they do: the essence of his class biology, most clearly exemplified in PA , is to show what kind of function with what, supposing which and which ones are subject to it. And in this sense, formal or functional biology is susceptible to the type of reductionism. We begin, he tells us, with the basic animal types that we all pre-theoretical (though not indefeasibly) recognize (cf. II.4): but we then go to show how the passage they are related to one another: why, for example, that only bloody creatures have lungs, and how certain structures in one species are analogous or homologous to others (such as scales on fish, feathers on birds, hairs in mammals). And the answer, to Aristotle, must be found in economic functioning, and how they all contribute to the overall well-being (the last cause in this sense) of the animal.
- See also Organic form.
Psychology
According to Aristotle, perception and thought are similar, though not exactly the same in perceptions that are only related to external objects acting on our sense organs at any given time, whereas we can think of whatever we choose. The mind is about universal forms, insofar as they have been successfully understood, based on our memory of the existence of examples of the forms directly.
Aristotle's cognitive theory rests on two main pillars: his view of perception and his thought record. Together, they compose most of his psychological writings, and his discussion of other mental states is highly dependent on them. Both of these activities, moreover, are understood analogously, at least with regard to their most basic forms. Each activity is triggered by its object - each one, that is, about what makes it. This simple causal account explains cognitive reliability: perception and thinking is, in essence, a transducer, bringing information about the world into our cognitive system, because, at least in their most basic form, they can not be mistaken about the causes that bring them about ( An III.4 429a13-18). Another more complex mental state is far from perfect. But they are still moored to the world, insofar as they depend on perceptions and perceptions of direct contact and the enjoying mind with their objects.
Medieval comment
Aristotle's motion theory was under criticism and modification during the Middle Ages. Modification begins with John Philoponus in the sixth century, partly accepting Aristotle's theory that "continuity of motion depends on the continued action of a force" but modifies it to include the idea that the thrown body also has a tendency (or "motive force") to move away from whatever causes it to move, a tendency that secures its sustained motion. This impressed virtue will be temporary and self-serving, which means that all movements will tend toward Aristotle's natural form of motion.
In The Book of Healing (1027), the 11th-century Persian polymath Avicenna developed the Philoponean theory into the first coherent alternative to Aristotle's theory. The tendency in Avicennan's motion theory does not eat on its own but a permanent force whose effect is lost only as a result of external agents such as air resistance, makes it "the first to conceive as a permanent type that imparts virtue to non-natural movements". Such a movement ( mayl ) is "almost the reverse of Aristotle's conception of the violent movement of the projectile type, and it is rather reminiscent of the principle of inertia, Newton's first law of motion."
The oldest tire? Miss? brother, Ja'far Muhammad ibn M? ibn Sh? ir (800-873), wrote Astral Motion and The Force of Attraction . Persian physicist, Ibn al-Haytham (965-1039) discusses the theory of inter-body attraction. Apparently he realized the magnitude of acceleration due to gravity and he found that celestial bodies "are responsible for the laws of physics". Persian Polymath, Ab? Rayh? N al-B? R? N? (973-1048) was the first to recognize that acceleration is connected with non-uniform motions (as revealed by Newton's second law of motion). During his debate with Avicenna, al-Biruni also criticized Aristotle's theory of gravity in advance for denying the existence of frivolity or gravity in celestial balls; and, secondly, because his idea of ​​circular motion became the innate possession of heavenly bodies.
In 1121, al-Khazini, in the Book of Wisdom Balance , proposed that gravity and the gravitational potential energy of the body vary depending on the distance from the center of the Earth. Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi (1080-1165) writes al-Mu'tabar , a critique of Aristotle's physics in which he negates Aristotle's idea that a constant force produces a uniform movement, as he realizes that the force applied constantly results in acceleration, the basic law of classical mechanics and the initial shadow of Newton's second law of motion. Like Newton, he describes the acceleration as the rate of change in velocity.
In the 14th century, Jean Buridan developed a theory of encouragement as an alternative to Aristotle's motion theory. The theory of impulse is a precursor of the concept of inertia and momentum in classical mechanics. Buridan and Albert from Saxony also referred to Abu'l-Barakat in explaining that the acceleration of the fall of the body is the result of an increased drive. In the 16th century, Al-Birjandi discussed the possibility of Earth's rotation and, in his analysis of what might happen if the Earth revolved, developed a hypothesis similar to Galileo's notion of "circular inertia." He described it in terms of the following observation tests:
"Small or large rocks will fall to Earth along a line of lines perpendicular to the plane ( sath ) of the horizon, this is witnessed by experience ( tajriba ). And this is perpendicular far from the point of the Earth's spheres and the perceived field ( hissi ) the horizon This point moves with the motion of the Earth and thus there will be no difference in the fall of two stones. "
The life and death of Aristotle physics
The reign of Aristotle physics, the earliest known theory of speculative physics, lasted nearly two millennia. After the work of many pioneers such as Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Descartes and Newton, it became generally accepted that Aristotle's physics was untrue and immortal. Nonetheless, it survived as a scholastic pursuit until the seventeenth century, until the university changed their curriculum.
In Europe, Aristotle's theory was first convincingly discredited by Galileo's study. Using the telescope, Galileo observed that the Moon was not entirely smooth, but had craters and mountains, contrary to Aristotle's idea of ​​a perfectly fine Moon. Galileo also criticized this idea theoretically; A very fine moon will reflect light unevenly like a glossy billiard ball, so that the edge of the moon disc will have a brightness different from the point where the tangent plane reflects sunlight directly into the eye. The rough moon reflects in all directions evenly, leading to a disk with almost the same brightness levels observed. Galileo also observes that Jupiter has a moon - a thing that revolves around a body other than Earth - and records the Venus phase, indicating that Venus (and, by implication, Mercury) surrounds the Sun, not Earth.
According to legend, Galileo dropped the ball with various densities from the Tower of Pisa and found that the lighter and heavier ones fell at almost the same speed. His experiment really happened using balls that rolled up the incline, a shape falling slow enough to be measured without sophisticated instruments.
In relatively dense media such as water, heavier bodies fall faster than the lighter ones. This led Aristotle to speculate that the rate of descent is proportional to the weight and inversely proportional to the medium density. From his experience with objects that fall into the water, he concludes that water is about ten times denser than air. By weighing the volume of compressed air, Galileo points out that this exaggerates the air density by a factor of forty. From his experiments with inclined plane he concludes that if friction is ignored, all objects fall at the same level (which is also not true, since not only friction but also the density of the medium relative to the density of the object must be negligible.) Aristotle correctly notes that medium density is a factor but focusing on weight rather than density Galileo ignores the medium density that leads him to the correct conclusion to vacuum).
Galileo also proposed theoretical arguments to support his conclusions. He asked if two bodies of different weight and different falling levels were tied up by a rope, did the combined system fall faster because it is now more massive, or is the lighter body in the slower fall holding the heavier body? The only convincing answer is: all systems fall at the same level.
Aristotle's followers were aware that the body's falling motion was not uniform, but faster as time went on. Since time is an abstract quantity, peripatetics postulates that its speed is proportional to distance. Galileo determined experimentally that his velocity was proportional to time, but he also provided theoretical argument that speed was not possible in proportion to distance. In modern terms, if the falling rate is proportional to the distance, the differential expression for the y distance traveled after time t is:
dengan kondisi . Galileo menunjukkan bahwa sistem ini akan tetap berada di untuk semua waktu. Jika gangguan mengatur sistem ke dalam gerakan entah bagaimana, objek akan mengambil kecepatan secara eksponensial, tidak secara kuadratis.
Standing on the Moon's surface in 1971, David Scott famously repeated Galileo's experiments by dropping feathers and hammers from each hand at the same time. In the absence of a substantial atmosphere, two objects fall and touch the Moon's surface at the same time.
The first convincing mathematical theory of gravity - in which two masses are attracted to each other by forces whose effect decreases by the inverse square of the distance between them - is Newton's universal law of gravity. This, in turn, was replaced by the general theory of relativity because of Albert Einstein.
As listed in Corpus Aristotelicum
See also
- Minima naturalia , the hylomorphic concept suggested by Aristotle is widely analogous to the speculation of Peripatetic and Scholastic physics to the atoms of Epicureanism
Note
References
Source
- Ragep, F. Jamil (2001). "Tusi and Copernicus: The Motion of the Earth in Context". Science in Context . Cambridge University Press. 14 (1-2): 145-163. doi: 10.1017/s0269889701000060.
- Ragep, F. Jamil; Al-Qushji, Ali (2001). "Releasing Astronomy from Philosophy: An Aspect of Islamic Influence on Science". Osiris, Series 2 . 16 (Science in the Theistic Context: Cognitive Dimensions): 49-64 and 66-71. Bibcode: 2001Osir... 16... 49R. doi: 10.1086/649338.
- H. Carteron (1965) "Did Aristotle Have a Mechanical?" in Articles on Aristotle 1. Science eds. Jonathan Barnes, Malcolm Schofield, Richard Sorabji (London: General Duckworth and Company Limited), 161-174.
Further reading
- Katalin MartinÃÆ'¡s, "Aristotelian Thermodynamics" in Thermodynamics: history and philosophy: facts, trends, debates (Veszprà © m, Hungary 23-28 July 1990), pp. 285-303.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments