As against these doubts, it may be said that the general theory has
justified itself by the correctness of all its verifiable consequences.
This is true, and I do not wish to minimize the force of the argument.
But I seem to observe that, in obtaining these results, the theory
does not make use of the full liberty in assignment of co-ordinates
which it claims at the start. In astronomy, its co-ordinates are still
assigned by the usual careful methods, and it is not clear that this
care is useless. From the method of tensors, it seems to follow
that we can employ any co-ordinates subject to the ordinal condition.
But the method of tensors, as used, assumes the formula for interval;
for this reason, Dr Whitehead found it necessary, in his Principle
of Relativity, to give a theory of tensors independent of the
formula for interval. There is thus still legitimate room for doubt as
to whether the formula for interval is really quite independent of the
choice of co-ordinates.
And, apart from this question, there is great difficulty in suggesting
any non-technical meaning for interval; yet such a meaning ought
to exist, if interval is as fundamental as it appears to be in the
theory of relativity. There is difficulty also as to what is meant by
measurement. And there is the feeling that, perhaps, tensor equations
represent purely ordinal properties of the space-time continuum, and
could, by a better[Pg 398] technique, be set forth without the use of any
co-ordinates at all. The necessary technique does not exist at present,
but it is not impossible that it may be created before long.
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
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account