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
There is still another point which we must mention. It might be
argued that in Riemann’s geometry of two dimensions, that is to say,
in the geometry of the spherical surface when Euclidean measurements
are adhered to, a straight line on the sphere, being a great circle,
constitutes a closed curve, whereas in Euclidean geometry a straight
line can never constitute a closed curve. Here, however, the
difficulty which arises does not pertain so much to Euclideanism and
non-Euclideanism as to another branch of geometry, Analysis Situs, on
which we shall make a few brief remarks in a note at the end of the
chapter. The fact is that the geometry of the cylinder embedded in
Euclidean space is Euclidean to the same extent as the geometry of the
plane, and yet on a cylinder certain straight lines, namely, the rings
which surround the cylinder, constitute closed curves.
It might be objected that these rings are not Euclidean straight lines.
But here the critic would be confusing geometry and dimensionality.
From the standpoint of two-dimensional Euclidean geometry, the rings on
the cylinder are perfectly straight lines, and it would never enter the
mind of the flat being moving over the cylindrical surface to view them
in any other light. Only when we represent the cylinder’s surface in a
three-dimensional Euclidean space must we regard the rings as curves.
In short, lines that would be straight in two dimensions might be
curved when viewed from the standpoint of a higher dimensionality. By
analogy, lines which would be regarded as straight in three-dimensional
space might be recognised as curved were we to appeal to a fourth
[Pg 64]
dimension. Thus, whichever way we choose to investigate the concept of
straightness, we find that it eludes us more and more.
It appears unnecessary to dwell further on these rather special
problems, for they would lead us too far afield.
Now, finally, there is still another reason, on which we have lightly
touched, which must make us very wary of being led astray by faulty
analogies. When, for instance, we consider the two-dimensional geometry
of a spherical surface embedded in a three-dimensional Euclidean space,
we realise that the surface divides space into an outside and an
inside. We should then be inclined to argue that a three-dimensional
Riemannian or spherical space must also divide four-dimensional space
into an inside and an outside.
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