The nature of the physical worldEddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Philosophy
The nature of the physical world
Eddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Physics -- Philosophy; Science -- Philosophy
This is a favourite device that mathematical equations resort to, when
we propound stupid questions. If we tried to find the latitude and
longitude of a point north-east from the north pole we should probably
[Pg 31]
receive the same mathematical answer. “Velocity through aether” is as
meaningless as “north-east from the north pole”.
This does not mean that the aether is abolished. We need an aether.
The physical world is not to be analysed into isolated particles of
matter or electricity with featureless interspace. We have to attribute
as much character to the interspace as to the particles, and in
present-day physics quite an army of symbols is required to describe
what is going on in the interspace. We postulate aether to bear the
characters of the interspace as we postulate matter or electricity
to bear the characters of the particles. Perhaps a philosopher might
question whether it is not possible to admit the characters alone
without picturing anything to support them—thus doing away with aether
and matter at one stroke. But that is rather beside the point.
In the last century it was widely believed that aether was a kind of
matter, having properties such as mass, rigidity, motion, like ordinary
matter. It would be difficult to say when this view died out. It
probably lingered longer in England than on the continent, but I think
that even here it had ceased to be the orthodox view some years before
the advent of the relativity theory. Logically it was abandoned by
the numerous nineteenth-century investigators who regarded matter as
vortices, knots, squirts, etc., in the aether; for clearly they could
not have supposed that aether consisted of vortices in the aether. But
it may not be safe to assume that the authorities in question were
logical.
Nowadays it is agreed that aether is not a kind of matter. Being
non-material, its properties are sui generis. We must determine
them by experiment; and since we have no ground for any preconception,
[Pg 32]
the experimental conclusions can be accepted without surprise or
misgiving. Characters such as mass and rigidity which we meet with in
matter will naturally be absent in aether; but the aether will have
new and definite characters of its own. In a material ocean we can say
that a particular particle of water which was here a few moments ago is
now over there; there is no corresponding assertion that can be made
about the aether. If you have been thinking of the aether in a way
which takes for granted this property of permanent identification of
its particles, you must revise your conception in accordance with the
modern evidence. We cannot find our velocity through the aether; we
cannot say whether the aether now in this room is flowing out through
the north wall or the south wall. The question would have a meaning for
a material ocean, but there is no reason to expect it to have a meaning
for the non-material ocean of aether.
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