This book gives an analysis of Hertz's posthumously published Principles of Mechanics in its philosophical, physical and mathematical context. In a period of heated debates about the true foundation of physical sciences, Hertz's book was conceived and highly regarded as an original and rigorous foundation for a mechanistic research program. Insisting that a law-like account of nature would require hypothetical unobservables, Hertz viewed physical theories as images of the world rather than the true design behind the phenomena. This paved the (...) way for the modern conception of a model. Rejecting the concept of force as a coherent basic notion of physics he built his mechanics on hidden masses and rigid connections, and formulated it as a new differential geometric language.Recently many philosophers have studied Hertz's image theory and historians of physics have discussed his forceless mechanics. The present book shows how these aspects, as well as the hitherto overlooked mathematical aspects, form an integrated whole which is closely connected to the mechanistic world view of the time and which is a natural continuation of Hertz's earlier research on electromagnetism. Therefore it is also a case study of the strong interactions between philosophy, physics and mathematics. Moreover, the book presents an analysis of the genesis of many of the central elements of Hertz's mechanics based on his manuscripts and drafts. Hertz's research program was cut short by the advent of relativity theory but its image theory influenced many philosophers as well as some physicists and mathematicians and its geometric form had a lasting influence on advanced expositions of mechanics. (shrink)

At the end of the 19th century Oliver Heaviside developed a formal calculus of differential operators in order to solve various physical problems. The pure mathematicians of his time would not deal with this unrigorous theory, but in the 20th century several attempts were made to rigorise Heaviside's operational calculus. These attempts can be grouped in two classes. The one leading to an explanation of the operational calculus in terms of integral transformations (Bromwich, Carson, Vander Pol, Doetsch) and the other (...) leading to an abstract algebraic formulation (Lévy, Mikusiński). Also Schwartz's creation of the theory of distributions was very much inspired by problems in the operational calculus. (shrink)

79. This study of the interaction between mechanics and differential geometry does not pretend to be exhaustive. In particular, there is probably more to be said about the mathematical side of the history from Darboux to Ricci and Levi Civita and beyond. Statistical mechanics may also be of interest and there is definitely more to be said about Hertz (I plan to continue in this direction) and about Poincaré's geometric and topological reasonings for example about the three body problem [Poincaré (...) 1890] (cf. also [Poincaré 1993], [Andersson 1994] and [Barrow-Green 1994]). Moreover, it would be interesting to find out how the 19th century ideas discussed here influenced the developments in the 20th century. Einstein himself is a hotly debated case. Yet, despite these shortcommings, I hope that this paper has shown that the interactions between mechanics and differential geometry is not a 20th century invention. Klein's view (see my Introduction) that Riemannian geometry grew out of mechanics, more specifically the principle of least action, cannot be maintained. On the other hand, when Riemannian geometry became known around 1870 it was immediately used in mechanics by Lipschitz. He began a continued tradition in this field, which had several elements in common with the new view of mechanics conceived by the physicists and explicitly carried out by Hertz. Before 1870 we found only scattered interactions between differential geometry and mechanics and only direct ones for systems of two or three degrees of freedom. For more degrees of freedom the geometrical ideas were in some interesting cases taken over by analogy, but these analogies did not lead to formal introduction of geometries of more than three dimensions. (shrink)

During the first half of the nineteenth century, mathematical analysis underwent a transition from a predominantly formula-centred practice to a more concept-centred one. Central to this development was the reorientation of analysis originating in Augustin-Louis Cauchy's (1789–1857) treatment of infinite series in his Cours d’analyse. In this work, Cauchy set out to rigorize analysis, thereby critically examining and reproving central analytical results. One of Cauchy's first and most ardent followers was the Norwegian Niels Henrik Abel (1802–1829) who vowed to shed (...) some light on the vast darkness in analysis.This paper investigates some important aspects of Abel's contribution to the reorientation in analysis. In particular, it stresses the role for critical revision in the process of rigorization. By critically examining past practice, the new practice sought to explain the relative success of the previous—now outdated—approach. This is illustrated by discussing a number of issues related to Abel's new proof of the binomial theorem (1826) including his reactions to the exception that he encountered to one of the central theorems of Cauchy's theory.Following this discussion, the formation of new concepts as the result of critical revisions is illustrated by analysing the early history of the concept of absolute convergence. Thereby, it is shown how a new concept was distilled, investigated, put to use and eventually superseded. (shrink)