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 any rate, once the existence of a universal type of time-congruence
is conceded, the problem is to select some particular phenomenon
which can be studied with a minimum of contingency and a maximum of
certainty. Now, when we consider the astronomical definition in terms
of the earth’s rotation, we realise that were it not for the fact that
we had started by assuming the absolute accuracy of Newton’s law, the
corrections we made in order to account for the peculiarities of the
[Pg 80]
lunar motion would have to be discarded or replaced by others. If,
therefore, any doubt were to be cast on the accuracy of Newton’s law
or on those of mechanics, corresponding modifications would ensue for
our definition of time-congruence. But it is obvious that we have no
right to assume that Newton’s law or those of mechanics are above all
suspicion. The laws of physical science present no a priori
inevitableness; and our sole reason for accepting them is because
they appear to be borne out to a high degree of approximation when we
compare their rational consequences with the results of observation.
Approximation is thus all we can aspire to in physical science;
and even classical scientists recognised the possibility that more
precise observation might prove Newton’s law and those of mechanics to
stand in need of correction. All that could be asserted was that the
corrections would certainly be very slight, far too slight to entail
any perceptible change in our understanding of time-congruence when
applied to the processes of commonplace observation.
We now come to Einstein’s definition. As we shall see, it does not
differ in spirit from the definitions of classical science; its
sole advantage is that it entails a minimum of assumptions, and is
susceptible of being realised in a concrete way permitting a high
degree of accuracy in our measurements. Einstein’s definition is, then,
as follows: If we consider a ray of light passing through a Galilean
frame, its velocity in the frame will be the same regardless of
the relative motion of the luminous source and frame, and regardless
of the direction of the ray. It follows that a definition of
equal durations in the frame will be given by measuring equal spatial
stretches along the path of the ray, and asserting that the wave front
will describe these equal stretches in equal times.
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