Easy lessons in Einstein : $b A discussion of the more intelligible features of the theory of relativitySlosson, Edwin E. (Edwin Emery)
Science
Easy lessons in Einstein : $b A discussion of the more intelligible features of the theory of relativity
Slosson, Edwin E. (Edwin Emery)
Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955; Relativity (Physics)
In all such discussions we must bear in mind that “law” in the
scientific sense of the word means, not a commandment or a rule, but
merely a way of working. It is a concise description of how things
behave. There are no laws _in_ Nature; there are only laws
_of_ Nature; that is to say, laws drawn out of Nature (or, if you
prefer Latin to Anglo-Saxon, laws deduced from Nature) by man for his
own convenience in thinking. Physical laws are therefore essentially
psychological; mere memory schemes, calculating machines. The law
of gravitation is no more gravity than the funny wriggles that my
stenographer is making in her notebook are the sounds I am uttering.
To change geometries does not require any such effort as to change
cars. It means merely changing our minds. But this is harder for some
of us than it ought to be. Here is where the theory of relativity
will be of use to us. Poincaré, the French mathematician, cousin of
the late President, said: “These two propositions, ‘the earth turns
round’ and ‘it is more convenient to suppose the earth turns round’
have the same meaning. There is nothing more in the one than in the
other.” If Galileo and his inquisitors had understood the Principle of
Relativity it might have saved them both trouble; the former temporary
imprisonment and the latter everlasting disgrace. A revolution in
science is simply a change in mental attitude. Maybe a political
revolution is no more.
It is disconcerting to the layman to be told, first, that matter
consists of solid round atoms in empty space; next, that it is made
of mere particles of electricity and negative at that; then that it
is constituted out of strains in the ether; again, that the atoms are
bubbles in the ether; and finally, that there is not any ether. But
these various hypotheses are like the crayon strokes that an artist
makes about a figure he is trying to draw. They are all attempts at
preliminary sketches for mental pictures of natural phenomena. We do
not call the geographers inconsistent and contradictory because one
colors Massachusetts red on the map and another colors it green. All
scientific hypotheses are put to the pragmatic test of which works the
best in unlocking the secrets of Nature. Is “wheat” or “sesame” the
magic word? Whether we call a dog “Fido” or “Towser” depends not on
which name is shorter or sounds better but on which the dog answers to.
If gravitation comes to heel better when we say “Einstein” than when
we say “Newton,” all right, we’ll change. I trust that these frivolous
illustrations will not lead my readers to accuse me of treating gravity
with levity.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive