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
At this stage, a number of popular exponents of non-Euclidean geometry
have fallen into a rather unfortunate error. They have argued that
material bodies under perfect conditions must necessarily behave
like Euclidean solids, for if they behaved like non-Euclidean bodies
when displaced they would squirm and change in shape. As it would be
inadmissible to credit any such distorting influence to that void
which we call empty space, a non-Euclideanism of material bodies would
be debarred on first principles. But these men overlook the fact
that Riemann’s and Lobatchewski’s geometries do not in any way refer
to bodies which squirm and are distorted in any absolute sense as
they move about. The non-Euclidean bodies are merely distorted when
contrasted with Euclidean bodies taken as standards; but it would be
equally true to state that Euclidean bodies likewise would squirm
when displaced if we were to contrast them with non-Euclidean bodies
taken as standards. In any case, both Euclidean and non-Euclidean
bodies behave in a homogeneous way throughout space.[11] By this we
mean that wherever they might be situated in empty space, measurements
computed with them would yield the same numerical results. As for
Euclidean congruence and Euclidean rigidity, it is by no means more
representative of real rigidity than are the non-Euclidean varieties.
There is therefore no reason to appeal to a distorting effect of empty
space in order to account for a possible non-Euclidean behaviour of our
material solids when displaced from point to point. Non-Euclideanism
may or may not exist in real space, but this is a point for physical
measurement and not for philosophy or mathematics to decide.
[Pg 49]
All we can say is that the principle of sufficient reason compels
us to credit empty space with a sameness throughout, and that our
measuring rods and material bodies must also behave homogeneously and
isotropically, as indeed they do in the three geometries discussed.
Only if measurements undertaken with our rods in different parts of
space yielded variable non-homogeneous numerical results should we
have to assume that space was not really empty and that our rods were
subject to local influences.
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