The theory of relativity and its influence on scientific thoughtEddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Philosophy
The theory of relativity and its influence on scientific thought
Eddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Relativity (Physics); Science -- Philosophy
This contraction of a moving material object was first revealed to us by
the Michelson-Morley experiment; but it is not at all disagreeable to
theoretical anticipations. We have to remember that a rod consists of a
large number of molecules kept in position by their mutual forces. The
chief force is the force of cohesion, and there is little doubt that
this is of electrical nature. But when the rod is set in motion, the
electrical forces inside it must change. For example, each electric
charge when put in motion becomes an _electric current_; and the
currents will exert magnetic attractions on each other which did not
occur in the system at rest. Under the new system of forces the
molecules will have to find new positions of equilibrium; they become
differently spaced; and it is therefore not surprising that the form of
the rod changes. Without going beyond the classical laws of Maxwell we
can anticipate theoretically what will be the new equilibrium state of
the rod, and it turns out to be contracted to the exact amount required
by the Michelson-Morley result.
The contraction of the moving rod ought not to surprise us; it would be
much more surprising if the rod were to maintain the same form in spite
of the alteration of the electrical forces which determine the spacing
of the molecules. But the remarkable thing is that the contraction is
only apparent according to the outlook of the solar observer; and we on
the earth, who travel with the rod, cannot appreciate it. The fact that
the contraction happens to be very small is irrelevant. For convenience
suppose that the earth's velocity is 8,000 times faster, so that the
contraction amounts to something like a half the original, length. We
should still fail to notice it in everyday life. Let us say that the
direction of the earth's motion is vertically upwards.
I turn my arm from horizontal to vertical and it contracts to half its
length. No, you cannot convince me I am wrong; I am not afraid of a
yard-measure. Bring one and measure my arm; first horizontally, the
result is 30 inches; now vertically, the result is 30--half-inches!
Because you must remember that you have turned the scale into the line
of the earth's motion so that each inch-division contracts to half an
inch. 'But we can see that your arm does not contract. Are we not to
trust our eyes?' Certainly not, unless you first correct your visual
impressions for the contraction of the retina in the vertical direction,
and for the effect of our rapid motion on the apparent direction of
propagation of the waves of light. You will find, when you calculate
these corrections, that they just conceal the contraction. 'But if the
contraction takes place, ought one not to feel it happening to the arm?'
Not necessarily; I am an observer on the earth, and my feelings like
other sense-impressions belong to the geocentric outlook on nature,
which Copernicus has persuaded us to abandon.
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