On criticism of the nature of objectivity in classical continuum physics

Murdoch (J. Elasticity 60, 233-242, 2000) showed that restrictions imposed upon response functions by material frame-indifference are the consequences of five distinct aspects of observer agreement (that is, of 'objectivity') and involve only proper orthogonal tensors. Accordingly it is un...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Continuum mechanics and thermodynamics 2005-05, Vol.17 (2), p.135-148
Main Author: Murdoch, A. I.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Criticism
Elasticity
Mechanics
Theory
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Murdoch (J. Elasticity 60, 233-242, 2000) showed that restrictions imposed upon response functions by material frame-indifference are the consequences of five distinct aspects of observer agreement (that is, of 'objectivity') and involve only proper orthogonal tensors. Accordingly it is unnecessary to invoke the 'principle of invariance under superposed rigid motions' (in the sense of 'one observer, two motions'), which imposes a restriction upon nature. Liu (Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. 16, 177-183, 2003, and Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. 17, 125-133, 2005) has challenged, misinterpreted and misrepresented the content of both Murdoch's work and this work. Here all criticisms of Liu are answered, his 'counter-examples' are used to amplify the tenets of Murdoch's work, and a key modelling issue in the controversy is indicated. Further, the response function restrictions for a given observer, derived on the basis of considering other observers, are shown to be independent of possible differences in the scales of mass, length, and time employed by other observers. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
ISSN:0935-1175
1432-0959
DOI:10.1007/s00161-004-0192-2