The nature of the physical worldEddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Philosophy
The nature of the physical world
Eddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Physics -- Philosophy; Science -- Philosophy
Suppose that we and the nebular physicists survey the world, that is to
say we allocate the surrounding objects to their respective positions
in space. One party, say the nebular physicists, has a large velocity;
their yard-measures will contract and become less than a yard when they
measure distances in a certain direction; consequently they will reckon
distances in that direction too great. It does not matter whether they
use a yard-measure, or a theodolite, or merely judge distances with
the eye; all methods of measurement must agree. If motion caused a
disagreement of any kind, we should be able to determine the motion
by observing the amount of disagreement; but, as we have already
seen, both theory and observation indicate that there is complete
compensation. If the nebular physicists try to construct a square they
will construct an oblong. No test can ever reveal to them that it is
not a square; the greatest advance they can make is to recognise that
there are people in another world who have got it into their heads that
it is an oblong, and they may be broadminded enough to admit that this
point of view, absurd as it seems, is really as defensible as their
own. It is clear that their whole conception of space is distorted as
compared with ours, and ours is distorted as compared with theirs. We
are regarding the same universe, but we have arranged it in different
spaces. The original quarrel as to whether they or we are moving with
the speed of 1000 miles a second has made so deep a cleavage between us
that we cannot even use the same space.
Space and time are words conveying more than one meaning. Space is an
empty void; or it is such and such a number of inches, acres, pints.
Time is an ever-rolling stream; or it is something signalled to us by
wireless. The physicist has no use for vague conceptions; he often has
[Pg 14]
them, alas! but he cannot make real use of them. So when he speaks of
space it is always the inches or pints that he should have in mind. It
is from this point of view that our space and the space of the nebular
physicists are different spaces; the reckoning of inches and pints is
different. To avoid possible misunderstanding it is perhaps better to
say that we have different frames of space—different frames to
which we refer the location of objects. Do not, however, think of a
frame of space as something consciously artificial; the frame of space
comes into our minds with our first perception of space. Consider,
for example, the more extreme case when the FitzGerald contraction is
one-half. If a man takes a rectangle 2″ x 1″ to be a square it is clear
that space must have dawned on his intelligence in a way very different
from that in which we have apprehended 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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account