Certainly the fact that luminous rays, starting out from their sources
at different speeds, should have the same speed when they reach our
eye, is strange. It upsets our habitual way of looking at things. If
I may venture to use a comparison simply for the purpose of provoking
reflection, not at all in the way of explanation, we have here
something analogous to what happens with the bombs of aviators. Bombs
of a given type, whether released at a height of 5,000 or of 10,000
metres, which therefore have very different downward velocities at
5,000 metres from the ground, have always the same residual velocity
when they reach the ground. This is due to the moderating and
equalising influence of the atmospheric resistance, which prevents the
speed from increasing indefinitely, and makes it constant when it has
attained a certain value.
Must we suppose that there is round our eye and round objects a sort of
field of resistance which sets a similar limit to the light? Who knows?
But perhaps such questions have no meaning for the physicist. He can
know nothing about the behaviour of light except when it leaves its
source or when it reaches the eye, whether armed with instruments or no.
He cannot learn how it behaves during its passage across the
intermediate space, in which there is no matter.
Indeed, the more deeply we study the new physics, the more we see that
it derives almost all its strength from its systematic disdain of all
that is beyond phenomena, all that cannot fall under experimental
observation. It is because it is solely based upon facts (however
contradictory they may be) that our proof of the necessary contraction
of objects owing to their velocity relatively to the observer is so
strong.
* * * * *
We must understand the profound significance of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction. This apparent contraction is by no means due to the
movement of objects relatively to the ether. It is essentially the
effect of the movements of objects and observers relatively to each
other, or relative movements in the sense of the older mechanics.
The greatest relative velocities to which we are accustomed in our
daily life are less than a few kilometres a second. The initial
velocity of the shell fired by “Bertha” was only about 1,300 metres
a second. For movements so slow as this the Relativist contraction
is entirely negligible. Hence, as the classical mechanics had never
observed such contraction, it regarded the shapes and dimensions of
rigid objects as independent of systems of reference.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account