he thought only, like the physicists of his time, of the static
deformations which have been known as long as there have been men
to observe them. What we have seen about Einsteinian time and space
has taught us that there must be, in addition to these, kinematic
deformations, to which every material object, however rigid it seems,
is liable.
Movement, therefore, displaces lines much more than Baudelaire
supposed, even the lines of the hardest of marble statues. This kind of
deformation, which is pleasant rather than hateful, since it brings us
nearer to the heart of things, has upset the whole of mechanics.
Mechanics is at the foundation of all the experimental sciences,
because it is the simplest, and because the phenomena it studies are
always present—if not exclusively present—amongst the phenomenal
objects of the other sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology.
The converse of this is not true. For instance, there is not a single
phenomenon in chemistry or biology in which one has not to study bodies
in movement, objects endowed with mass and giving out or absorbing
energy. On the other hand, the peculiar aspects of a biological,
chemical, or physical phenomenon, such as the existence of a difference
of potential, an oxidation, or an osmotic pressure, are not always
found in the study of the movements of a ponderable mass and of the
forces which act upon and through it.
Compared with mechanics, the sciences of physics, chemistry, and
biology have, in the order in which we name them, objects of increasing
complexity and generality, or, to put it better, of decreasing
universality. These sciences are mutually dependent in the way that the
trunk, branches, leaves, and flowers of a tree are. They are to some
extent related to each other as are the various parts of the jointed
masts on which military telegraphists fix their antennæ. The lower part
of the mast, the larger part, sustains the whole; but it is the upper
parts which bear the delicate and complicated organs.
The object of the great synthetists in science has always been, and
is, to reduce all phenomena to mechanical phenomena, as Descartes
attempted. Whether these attempts are well-grounded or no, whether
they will some day succeed or are condemned _a priori_ to
failure because physico-biological phenomena involve elements that
are essentially incapable of reduction to mechanical elements, is a
question that has been, and will continue to be, much discussed. But,
however thinkers may differ on that point, they are agreed on this: in
all natural phenomena, in all phenomena that are objects of science,
there is the mechanical element—exclusive in some, the principal
element in others.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account