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 the earth were to defy the tailor and take a straight track.
That would make a horrid wrinkle in the garment; and since the wrinkle
is inconsistent with the laws of empty space, something must be
there—where the wrinkle runs. This “something” need not be matter in
the restricted sense. The things which can occupy space so that it is
not empty in the sense intended in Einstein’s law, are mass
[Pg 129]
(or its equivalent energy) momentum and stress
(pressure or tension). In this case the wrinkle might correspond
to stress. That is reasonable enough. If left alone the earth must
pursue its proper curved orbit; but if some kind of stress or pressure
were inserted between the sun and earth, it might well take another
course. In fact if we were to observe one of the planets rushing off
in a straight track, Newtonians and Einsteinians alike would infer
that there existed a stress causing this behaviour. It is true that
causation has apparently been turned topsy-turvy; according to our
theory the stress seems to be caused by the planet taking the wrong
track, whereas we usually suppose that the planet takes the wrong track
because it is acted on by the stress. But that is a harmless accident
common enough in primary physics. The discrimination between cause and
effect depends on time’s arrow and can only be settled by reference to
entropy. We need not pay much attention to suggestions of causation
arising in discussions of primary laws which, as likely as not, are
contemplating the world upside down.
Although we are here only at the beginning of Einstein’s general theory
I must not proceed further into this very technical subject. The rest
of this chapter will be devoted to elucidation of more elementary
points.
Relativity of Acceleration. The argument in this chapter rests
on the relativity of acceleration. The apple had an acceleration
of 32 feet per second per second relative to the ordinary observer, but
zero acceleration relative to the man in the lift. We ascribe to it
one acceleration or the other according to the frame we happen to be
using, but neither is to be singled out and labelled “true” or absolute
acceleration. That led us to reject the Newtonian conception which
[Pg 130]
singled out 32 feet per second per second as the true acceleration and
invented a disturbing agent of this particular degree of strength.
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