The evolution of scientific thought from Newton to EinsteinD'Abro, A. (Aram)
Science
The evolution of scientific thought from Newton to Einstein
D'Abro, A. (Aram)
Relativity (Physics); Science -- Methodology
In a general way the transformations show us that a field which appears
to be exclusively electric or exclusively magnetic in one Galilean
frame will appear to be electromagnetic in another frame, thereby
compelling us to recognise the relativity of electric and magnetic
forces. We shall see in due course that this relativity of force is
general.
Let us consider another type of phenomenon which is also explained by
the transformations. We refer to the Fresnel convection coefficient
illustrated by Fizeau’s experiment. Experiment proves that the ray
of light progressing through the running water is not carried along
bodily by the water; it lags behind a little. Lorentz who, though he
had discovered the transformations, did not recognise their general
validity, sought to explain this phenomenon by postulating a suitable
electronic constitution for the water. But Einstein by merely applying
the transformations, without having to appeal to our highly problematic
knowledge of the precise electronic constitution of matter, found
that they anticipated Fizeau’s result with marvellous precision; for
according to the transformations, velocities do not add up like
numbers, as they did in classical science. It follows that the velocity
of the light with respect to the tube must necessarily be less than the
velocity of the light through the water plus the velocity of the water
in the tube.[48]
Consider again the FitzGerald contraction. Here Lorentz thought it
permissible to apply the transformations; but owing to the slight
difference in their significance in his theory, he concluded that
a body in motion was really contracted owing to its real motion
through the ether. Although the observer carried along with the body
could not detect the contraction, yet it was physically real and
would be observed by the observer at rest in the ether. A similar
[Pg 150]
interpretation would have to be placed on the slowing down of
phenomena. In Lorentz’s theory the difficulty consisted in accounting
for an identical contraction manifesting itself in exactly the same way
for all bodies, soft or hard. Lorentz again appeals to the electronic
and atomic constitution of matter and has to take into consideration
elastic forces.
With Einstein the explanation is simple. The contraction is due solely
to a modification in our space and time measurements due to relative
motion, and is completely irrelevant to the hardness or softness of
the body, whose atomic or electronic structure need not be taken into
consideration at all. In much the same way an object appears magnified
under the microscope, and this magnification is independent of the
body’s nature.
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