The Meaning of Relativity: Four lectures delivered at Princeton University, May, 1921Einstein, Albert
Science
The Meaning of Relativity: Four lectures delivered at Princeton University, May, 1921
Einstein, Albert
Relativity (Physics)
Our previous considerations, based upon the field equations (96),
had for a foundation the conception that space on
the whole is Galilean-Euclidean, and that this character is disturbed
only by masses embedded in it. This conception was
certainly justified as long as we were dealing with spaces of the
order of magnitude of those that astronomy has to do with.
But whether portions of the universe, however large they may
be, are quasi-Euclidean, is a wholly different question. We can
[Pg 104]
make this clear by using an example from the theory of surfaces
which we have employed many times. If a portion of a surface
is observed by the eye to be practically plane, it does not at all
follow that the whole surface has the form of a plane; the surface
might just as well be a sphere, for example, of sufficiently large
radius. The question as to whether the universe as a whole is
non-Euclidean was much discussed from the geometrical point of
view before the development of the theory of relativity. But with
the theory of relativity, this problem has entered upon a new
stage, for according to this theory the geometrical properties of
bodies are not independent, but depend upon the distribution
of masses.
If the universe were quasi-Euclidean, then Mach was wholly
wrong in his thought that inertia, as well as gravitation, depends
upon a kind of mutual action between bodies. For in this case,
with a suitably selected system of co-ordinates, the would
be constant at infinity, as they are in the special theory of relativity,
while within finite regions the would differ from these
constant values by small amounts only, with a suitable choice
of co-ordinates, as a result of the influence of the masses in finite
regions. The physical properties of space would not then be
wholly independent, that is, uninfluenced by matter, but in the
main they would be, and only in small measure, conditioned by
matter. Such a dualistic conception is even in itself not satisfactory;
there are, however, some important physical arguments
against it, which we shall consider.
The hypothesis that the universe is infinite and Euclidean
at infinity, is, from the relativistic point of view, a complicated
hypothesis. In the language of the general theory of relativity
it demands that the Riemann tensor of the fourth rank
[Pg 105]
shall vanish at infinity, which furnishes twenty independent conditions,
while only ten curvature components , enter into
the laws of the gravitational field. It is certainly unsatisfactory
to postulate such a far-reaching limitation without any physical
basis for it.
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