There are, it is true, certain numbers which are important in the
new geometry: they are those giving the measure of intervals. But,
as we have already seen, two points at a finite distance apart do
not have an unambiguous interval; and any two points are at a finite
distance apart. The numbers involved in the notion of interval
are not finite distances, but numbers derivable from the sixteen
coefficients involved in the formula for in
the previous chapter. These coefficients themselves depend upon the
co-ordinate system, but does not. We cannot develop this
theme until we have considered geodesics; it is from them that we must
derive the numbers which have, in the new geometry, the same sort of
physical importance as co-ordinates were supposed to have in the old.
These numbers will be the integrals of taken along certain
geodesics. But, unlike lengths in the old metrical geometry, they are
geometrically insufficient. To avoid irrelevant complications, we may
illustrate this insufficiency by considering the special theory.
The most obvious example of the failure of interval to[Pg 70] constitute a
geometry is derived from consideration of light-rays. The interval
between two events which are parts of the same light-ray is zero.
Suppose now that a light-ray starts from an event , and arrives at
an event at the moment when it reaches , another light-ray
starts from and reaches . Then the interval between
and is zero, that between and is zero, but that
between and may have any time-like magnitude. Euclid proved
that two sides of a triangle are together greater than the third side,
and was criticized on the ground that this proposition was evident even
to asses. But in relativity geometry this proposition is false. In our
triangle , and are zero, while may have any
finite magnitude.
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