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
Furthermore, it should also be noted that every precise physical
experiment that it has been possible to accomplish has verified the
anticipations of the Lorentz-Einstein transformations; it is owing to
this fact that the theory was not abandoned years ago. This in itself
should warn us against asserting that the transformations possess no
physical significance.
Thus far we have been concerned with generalities and have merely
attempted to show why Bergson’s solution of the problem must be
discarded on first principles. Leaving aside this aspect of the
question, it is instructive to consider the formal proof which he
presents in support of his contentions.
He appears to realise that the entire matter hinges on the measure
of physical reality which should be credited to the Lorentz-Einstein
transformations. Accordingly, he attempts to prove that these
transformations do not represent reality, but possess a mere fictitious
mathematical significance having nothing in common with the physical
world. He calls them “phantasmatical,” contending that mathematicians,
not being trained in philosophy, are severely handicapped when
they attempt to interpret their equations, and are incapable of
distinguishing mathematical fictions from physical reality. So
Bergson proceeds to demonstrate the fictitious significance of the
transformations.
He first serves us with a series of arguments based on the principle
of the relativity of motion itself. In the very first paragraph,
however, he confuses the relativity of Galilean motion with the
complete relativity of all motion, Newtonian and special relativity
with visual relativity, velocity with acceleration. All these errors
relate to classical science itself; and it is obviously quite
impossible to discuss Einstein’s theory intelligently until we have
acquired at least an elementary knowledge of classical mechanics.
Following this philosophical demonstration, he goes on to give us a
mathematical one; but all he succeeds in proving is that he has not the
slightest conception of the most elementary properties of mathematical
transformations.
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