베르그송과 아인슈타인의 상대성 이론

Abstract

The time and space in I. Newton's physics are considered independent from each other and finite in magnitude. But in rational thinking the time and space are considered independent and infinite so that there must arise many antinomies in considering the characteristics of space and time. On these account, I. Kant took these as the form of the sense-perception. Because there can be any contradictory thing in the nature. According to him human mind don't know the thing itself but only phenomena. In modern times we can overcome the antinomies of space and time through the concept of A. Einstein's four dimentional space-time. Einstein's special relativity theory was established through the explaining the result of Michelson-Morley's experiment by Lorenz's transformation theory of electro- magnetic field. According to the Einstein's special relativity theory, we can explain the result of Michelson-Moley's experiment through time-space's retardation-contraction, if we postulate the observer's experience of the constant speed of light in spite of the movement of the observer. If we enlarge this concept into the gravitational field we can get Einstein's general relativity theory which explains the gravitational field by the four dimentional space-time which we cannot represent in our mind. H. Bergson reject the four dimentional space-time, because of the impossibility of the representation of space -time. H. bergson said that all things are flowing which we can perceive the only its duration through the perceptional intuition. the concept of space is a false concept made by the intellect which analyse things in order to operate things to make. Thinking about reality can follow different approaches, e.g. a geometrical or a physical approach, both of which are abstractions from reality. Until the 20th century most philosophers dealt simultaneously with the key-words matter, space and time, struggling with their meaning and how they could be related. Substantialist regarded matter as a property of space &time, relationalist regarded space &time as properties of matter, and idealists regarded space, time &matter as properties of consciousness. Those views predominantly presupposed 3-dimensional Euclidian space and linear time. By the beginning of the 20th century it became clear that some physical as well as some metaphysical problems refused to be solved within these frameworks. Two scientists developed by that time profound and revolutionary thoughts about time, space and matter: the metaphysician Bergson and the theoretical physician Einstein had a debate: Real or virtual – that’s the question. How is time experienced and thought of, perceived and conceived? Are specific properties that have been ascribed to time by philosophers, psychologists and physicists real or only virtual? Bergson contrasts psychological time with mathematical/physical time. The first is the real, lived time of our experience in which a manyfold of durations relates to different levels of consciousness. The second is the scientific, virtual time of experiments in which a multiplicity of clock-times (time-representations) relates to different observers and different ways of measurement. Because Bergson regards the latter, geometrized times, as being spacial reductions, they, like all derived concepts and laws, don’t open our minds to duration as creative evolution. Regarding Relativity theory, Bergson states that in any system at rest, time and space are cleary separated and that virtual space-time is only related to moving systems – and a moving system is always another system, sc. not the system in which our consciousness experiences real life. He reasons in duration and simultaneity that in the special relativity theory there is no objective way to determine which system is at rest and which system moves, which means that there is a symmetry of motion as a reciprocal relation, and that therefore the paradoxical relativistic effects (like time dilation and length contraction) have to be virtual: because of the symmetry it should work both ways but it can’t be “real” both ways. On the other hand he accepts the general relativity theory space-time curvature as being real. And he appreciated the relativity theory fact that the succession of events is the same in all frames of reference, which in his view strengthened the objective status of becoming. In this Essay, I suggested that he missed the relation of the relativistic effects with the general relativity theory's accelleration/gravitation. Perhaps due to his firm stand in conscious intuition, Bergson seemed to have trouble accepting the counter-intuitive implications of relativity theory. Einstein pointed out that this was by no means a necessary trouble in the light of Bergson’s own philosophical views, because (consciously) experienced events (simultaneous or non-simultaneous) still are independent of any chosen system. But this does not imply that one consciousness can be regarded to be the lynchpin around which all frames of reference are organized. One could say: if Bergson in system B accellerates and moves fast compared to system A (e.g. the earth), Bergson’s consciousness (sc duration) in system B really changes.