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
We should be led into still greater difficulties if we wished
to represent a three-dimensional non-Euclidean space possessing
various degrees of non-Euclideanism from place to place. Reasoning
by analogy, we should be tempted to say that just as an irregularly
curved surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space yielded
a two-dimensional geometry of varying degrees of non-Euclideanism, so
now all we should have to do would be to conceive of an irregularly
curved three-dimensional surface embedded in a four-dimensional
Euclidean space. But the analogy would be deceptive; for calculation
shows that it would be impossible to represent an arbitrarily curved
three-dimensional surface in a four-dimensional Euclidean space.
In the general case we should have to situate our variously bumped
three-dimensional surface in a six-dimensional Euclidean space. In the
same way, a four-dimensional non-Euclidean space of variable curvature
could be represented only in a ten-dimensional Euclidean space; and so
on.[18]
Now in view of these difficulties, in view of the fact that to
represent a non-Euclidean space of three dimensions in terms of
Euclidean space, we may be compelled to appeal to a Euclidean space
of six dimensions, it is certainly exalting Euclidean space unduly
to regard it as The Space. This is especially obvious when
we remember that we could have conceived of our three-dimensional
[Pg 62]
non-Euclidean space directly, as a result of measurements with
squirming rods, without any reference to Euclidean geometry, and
without ever having had to introduce any greater number of dimensions.
At this juncture the beginner is often inclined to argue as follows:
“You say that non-Euclidean geometry of two dimensions is the
geometry obtained by executing Euclidean measurements on a suitably
curved surface. But your concept of curvature is meaningless unless
we conceive it as contrasted with some pre-existing standard of
straightness. Does not your presentation prove, therefore, that
Euclidean space as representative of flatness or straightness is
logically antecedent to non-Euclidean space, which connotes curvature?”
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