Journal of History of Science, JAPAN
Online ISSN : 2435-0524
Print ISSN : 2188-7535
Volume 39 , Issue 213
Showing 1-11 articles out of 11 articles from the selected issue
  • [in Japanese]
    2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 1-10
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    This paper attempts to explain a part of history related to the protection of wildlife and biological diversity by analyzing a certain person's view of nature. It picks out a zoologist,Shozaburo WATASE (1862-1929). WATASE's two activities, namely to enthusiastically introduce living things and to protect wildlife by establishing and designating natural monuments, seem to us to be a contradiction now. But by analyzing WATASE's discourse, I think they are not. WATASE's arguments for his two activities had trust in the "power of human work" in common. And they commonly set human beings in the absolute position in which he believed they could control nature. Moreover, it has become obvious that both of WATASE's arguments for his two activities were connected with Japanese colonial rules at that time. This fact suggests that to intend to conquer nature or to have trust in exercising the "power of human work" over nature is related to colonial rules, which are the intention and action to expand one's own sphere and rule others. And I think this fact also raises a question for reflective work on the way science should be, because we can regard biology, a part of science, as a form of exercising of the "power of human work".
    Download PDF (1368K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 11-19
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    Edwin Powell Hubble is famous for the discovery of the linear relation between nebulae distances and redshifts, and he is often referred to as a discoverer of "the expanding universe". In fact the relation was received as an empirical evidence for the theory of expanding universe by many scientists within a few year after Hubble had showed it in his 1929's paper. However Hubble never regarded it as self-evident that nebulae redshifts were caused by Doppler effect of nebulae recession. In principle redshift can be produced if light quanta lose energy by some unknown mechanisms on their path from nebulae to us (tired light hypothesis). Hubble never supported only one side of interpretations of redshift, and claimed whether nebulae were actually receding or not must be solved by observation. Moreover,, with R. C. Tolman, Hubble elaborated methods of investigating the nature of the nebulae redshift. Why was he so careful? Hubble often stated his empiric view of science such as agreement is secured by means of observation and experiment. In this respect he sharply contrasted with Arthur Eddington who was a Hubble's comtemporary and enthusiast for the theory of expanding universe. We, however, can not make his empiricism substancial as a unique cause of his careful attitude. We need to see wider context of Hubble's scientific activity. First he had a tool for solving the problem. A new telescope was being constructed in the 1930's. And he played a social role to present scientific problems the 200 inch reflector should challenge. In this strategic context, Hubble shaped the nature of redshifts as one of the major unsolved problems. In that process he used resources such as "tired light hypothesis", a cosmic age contradiction, empirical view of science, new telescope it self. Conversely, the redshifts problem was used as a resource justifying the construction of the 200 inch. These resources can be seen as constraints at the same time which canalized Hubble's activities to a certain direction.
    Download PDF (1179K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 20-29
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    Kiyotugu HIRAYAMA's role in the history of Astronomy in Japan is examined in light of his work on the families of asteroid. In addition to this work, he also published two papers about stellar evolution in 1931. In these he suggested the capture hypothesis theory whereby a star gets mass and energy from the nebulae which captured it. This theory differed significantly from the accepted contemporary theory in two points related to energy source and evolution. The theory linked the source of the energy in stars with Mayer's fall theory and Helmholtz's contraction theory. HIRAYAMA thought that this theory could explain the formation of all stars, including binary stars and star clusters, and even the whole solar system. At that time in Japan, S, TAKEDA's studies of stellar evolution applied mass annihilation theory based on relativity theory. However K. HIRAYAMA didn't apply annihilation theory. Given a dynamic astronomical point of view, it was natural for K. HIRAYAMA to have applied the capture hypothesis rather than the mass annihilation theory. This theory seemed to be farsighted in terms of regarding the solar system formation as a common star one, but we couldn't reduce this so simply, because he suggested his theory on the condition that many stars were in proximity at the formation of binary stars, and star cluster. His theory is similar to Shinzo SHINJYO's theory in that he applied his theory to all stellar evolution. It is interesting to note that they went on to form the non-plusation theory of Cepheid variables from this theory.
    Download PDF (1302K)
  • 2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 30-
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    Download PDF (75K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 31-36
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    This paper deals with Kramers' application of Bohr's correspondence principle to the calculation of line intensities. His results of the Stark effect of hydrogen lines were favorably accepted by.the contemporary quantum physicists. One reason for this is there existed no competitive mathematical manipulation other than Kramers' in the period of old quantum theory. The critical appraisal was later given by SchrSdinger in terms of wave mechanics. However, SchrOdinger's theoretical calculation also contained some disagreement with Stark's empirical results in 1915. This discrepancy was soon eliminated by the more elaborated experiments in 1929. New experiments confirmed the validity of Schrodinger's theoretical result.
    Download PDF (704K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 37-40
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    Download PDF (620K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 41-46
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    Download PDF (767K)
  • 2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 47-
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    Download PDF (3387K)
  • 2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 63-
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    Download PDF (212K)
  • 2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 64-
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    Download PDF (105K)
  • 2000 Volume 39 Issue 213 Pages 65-
    Published: 2000
    Released: August 23, 2021
    JOURNAL OPEN ACCESS
    Download PDF (93K)
feedback
Top