Eddington 1927: Einstein’s Principle of Relativity

Einstein

This paper presents Chapter II (sections 1 and 2) from the book THE NATURE OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD by A. S. EDDINGTON. The contents of this book are based on the lectures that Eddington delivered at the University of Edinburgh in January to March 1927.

The paragraphs of original material are accompanied by brief comments in color, based on the present understanding.  Feedback on these comments is appreciated.

The heading below links to the original materials.

.

Einstein’s Principle

The modest observer mentioned in the first chapter was faced with the task of choosing between a number of frames of space with nothing to guide his choice. They are different in the sense that they frame the material objects of the world, including the observer himself, differently; but they are indistinguishable in the sense that the world as framed in one space conducts itself according to precisely the same laws as the world framed in another space. Owing to the accident of having been born on a particular planet our observer has hitherto unthinkingly adopted one of the frames; but he realizes that this is no ground for obstinately asserting that it must be the right frame. Which is the right frame?

At this juncture Einstein comes forward with a suggestion—”You are seeking a frame of space which you call the right frame. In what does its rightness consist?”

You are standing with a label in your hand before a row of packages all precisely similar. You are worried because there is nothing to help you decide which of the packages it should be attached to. Look at the label and see what is written on it. Nothing.

“Right” as applied to frames of space is a blank label. It implies that there is something distinguishing a right frame from a wrong frame; but when we ask what is this distinguishing property, the only answer we receive is “Rightness”, which does not make the meaning clearer or convince us that there is a meaning.

I am prepared to admit that frames of space in spite of their present resemblance may in the future turn out to be not entirely indistinguishable. (I deem it unlikely, but I do not exclude it.) The future physicist might find that the frame belonging to Arcturus, say, is unique as regards some property not yet known to science. Then no doubt our friend with the label will hasten to affix it. “I told you so. I knew I meant something when I talked about a right frame.” But it does not seem a profitable procedure to make odd noises on the off-chance that posterity will find a significance to attribute to them. To those who now harp on a right frame of space we may reply in the words of Bottom the weaver— “Who would set his wit to so foolish a bird? Who would give a bird the lie, though he cry ‘cuckoo’ never so?”

And so the position of Einstein’s theory is that the question of a unique right frame of space does not arise. There is a frame of space relative to a terrestrial observer, another frame relative to the nebular observers, others relative to other stars. Frames of space are relative. Distances, lengths, volumes—all quantities of space-reckoning which belong to the frames—are likewise relative. A distance as reckoned by an observer on one star is as good as the distance reckoned by an observer on another star. We must not expect them to agree; the one is a distance relative, to one frame, the other is a distance relative to another frame. Absolute distance, not relative to some special frame, is meaningless.

Each frame of space is right within itself. It is difficult to determine which frame of reference should be adopted as the standard. Einstein, therefore, focused on the relativity of these frames, and not on some standard. Thus, there is no standard distance. Distances are relative from one frame of space to another, and so are other physical quantities. The only exception is the speed of light which is invariant in all frames of space.

The next point to notice is that the other quantities of physics go along with the frame of space, so that they also are relative. You may have seen one of those tables of “dimensions” of physical quantities showing how they are all related to the reckoning of length, time and mass. If you alter the reckoning of length you alter the reckoning of other physical quantities.

Consider an electrically charged body at rest on the earth. Since it is at rest it gives an electric field but no magnetic field. But for the nebular physicist it is a charged body moving at 1000 miles a second. A moving charge constitutes an electric current which in accordance with the laws of electromagnetism gives rise to a magnetic field. How can the same body both give and not give a magnetic field? On the classical theory we should have had to explain one of these results as an illusion. (There is no difficulty in doing that; only there is nothing to indicate which of the two results is the one to be explained away.) On the relativity theory both results are accepted. Magnetic fields are relative. There is no magnetic field relative to the terrestrial frame of space; there is a magnetic field relative to the nebular frame of space. The nebular physicist will duly detect the magnetic field with his instruments although our instruments show no magnetic field. That is because he uses instruments at rest on his planet and we use instruments at rest on ours; or at least we correct our observations to accord with the indications of instruments at rest in our respective frames of space.

Is there really a magnetic field or not? This is like the previous problem of the square and the oblong. There is one specification of the field relative to one planet, another relative to another. There is no absolute specification.

It is not quite true to say that all the physical quantities are relative to frames of space. We can construct new physical quantities by multiplying, dividing, etc.; thus we multiply mass and velocity to give momentum, divide energy by time to give horse-power. We can set ourselves the mathematical problem of constructing in this way quantities which shall be invariant, that is to say, shall have the same measure whatever frame of space may be used. One or two of these invariants turn out to be quantities already recognised in pre-relativity physics; “action” and “entropy” are the best known. Relativity physics is especially interested in invariants, and it has discovered and named a few more. It is a common mistake to suppose that Einstein’s theory of relativity asserts that everything is relative. Actually it says, “There are absolute things in the world but you must look deeply for them. The things that first present themselves to your notice are for the most part relative.”

In truth, a physical quantity is neither relative nor absolute. It is what it is. The viewpoint from which it is perceived and measured can be local or universal. The universal viewpoint is represented by invariant laws. A universal viewpoint can provide values that can be taken as standard across all frames of space.

The distance across “empty space” is characterized by field-substance and not by material-substance. Distance measured with material units does not take into account the quantization of field-substance. The distance corrected for an invariant law of quantization may approach a standard value.

.

Relative and Absolute Quantities

I will try to make clear the distinction between absolute and relative quantities. Number (of discrete individuals) is absolute. It is the result of counting, and counting is an absolute operation. If two men count the number of people in this room and reach different results, one of them must be wrong.

The measurement of distance is not an absolute operation. It is possible for two men to measure the same distance and reach different results, and yet neither of them be wrong.

I mark two dots on the blackboard and ask two students to measure very accurately the distance between them. In order that there may be no possible doubt as to what I mean by distance I give them elaborate instructions as to the standard to be used and the precautions necessary to obtain an accurate measurement of distance. They bring me results which differ. I ask them to compare notes to find out which of them is wrong, and why? Presently they return and say: “It was your fault because in one respect your instructions were not explicit. You did not mention what motion the scale should have when it was being used.” One of them without thinking much about the matter had kept the scale at rest on the earth. The other had reflected that the earth was a very insignificant planet of which the Professor had a low opinion. He thought it would be only reasonable to choose some more important body to regulate the motion of the scale, and so he had given it a motion agreeing with that of the enormous star Betelgeuse. Naturally the FitzGerald contraction of the scale accounted for the difference of results.

Something discrete can be counted without error because there is a universal demarcation of units. The result is not influenced by the local viewpoint. But distance is a continuous quantity and the universal demarcation of units is not there. The result of measurement can be influenced by local viewpoint.

I am disinclined to accept this excuse. I say severely, “It is all nonsense dragging in the earth or Betelgeuse or any other body. You do not require any standard external to the problem. I told you to measure the distance of two points on the blackboard; you should have made the motion of the scale agree with that of the blackboard. Surely it is common sense to make your measuring scale move with what you are measuring. Remember that next time.”

A few days later I ask them to measure the wavelength of sodium light—the distance from crest to crest of the light waves. They do so and return in triumphal agreement: ”The wave-length is infinite”. I point out to them that this does not agree with the result given in the book (.000059 cm.). “Yes”, they reply, “we noticed that; but the man in the book did not do it right. You told us always to make the measuring scale move with the thing to be measured. So at great trouble and expense we sent our scales hurtling through the laboratory at the same speed as the light.” At this speed the FitzGerald contraction is infinite, the metre rods contract to nothing, and so it takes an infinite number of them to fill up the interval from crest to crest of the waves.

Measuring the distance on a material-substance is different from measuring the distance on a field-substance. The wavelength of material-substance is infinitesimal. So the distance on a material-substance is accounting for a very large number of wavelengths.  The wavelength of field-substance is finite. The distance on a field-substance is not being measured in terms of number of wavelengths, but in material units.  The two measurements are not consistent.

My supplementary rule was in a way quite a good rule; it would always give something absolute—something on which they would necessarily agree. Only unfortunately it would not give the length or distance. When we ask whether distance is absolute or relative, we must not first make up our minds that it ought to be absolute and then change the current significance of the term to make it so.

Nor can we altogether blame our predecessors for having stupidly made the word “distance” mean something relative when they might have applied it to a result of spatial measurement which was absolute and unambiguous. The suggested supplementary rule has one drawback. We often have to consider a system containing a number of bodies with different motions; it would be inconvenient to have to measure each body with apparatus in a different state of motion, and we should get into a terrible muddle in trying to fit the different measures together. Our predecessors were wise in referring all distances to a single frame of space, even though their expectation that such distances would be absolute has not been fulfilled.

As for the absolute quantity given by the proposed supplementary rule, we may set it alongside distances relative to the earth and distances relative to Betelgeuse, etc., as a quantity of some interest to study. It is called “proper-distance”. Perhaps you feel a relief at getting hold of something absolute and would wish to follow it up. Excellent. But remember this will lead you away from the classical scheme of physics which has chosen the relative distances to build on. The quest of the absolute leads into the four-dimensional world.

A more familiar example of a relative quantity is “direction” of an object. There is a direction of Cambridge relative to Edinburgh and another direction relative to London, and so on. It never occurs to us to think of this as a discrepancy, or to suppose that there must be some direction of Cambridge (at present undiscoverable) which is absolute. The idea that there ought to be an absolute distance between two points contains the same kind of fallacy. There is, of course, a difference of detail; the relative direction above mentioned is relative to a particular position of the observer, whereas the relative distance is relative to a particular velocity of the observer. We can change position freely and so introduce large changes of relative direction; but we cannot change velocity appreciably—the 300 miles an hour attainable by our fastest devices being too insignificant to count. Consequently the relativity of distance is not a matter of common experience as the relativity of direction is. That is why we have unfortunately a rooted impression in our minds that distance ought to be absolute.

Different frames of spaces imply different motions. But these motions must be natural that reflect quantization. A standard measure of distance shall take into account the law of natural motion or quantization.

A very homely illustration of a relative quantity is afforded by the pound sterling. Whatever may have been the correct theoretical view, the man in the street until very recently regarded a pound as an absolute amount of wealth. But dire experience has now convinced us all of its relativity. At first we used to cling to the idea that there ought to be an absolute pound and struggle to express the situation in paradoxical statements —the pound had really become seven-and-sixpence. But we have grown accustomed to the situation and continue to reckon wealth in pounds as before, merely recognizing that the pound is relative and therefore must not be expected to have those properties that we had attributed to it in the belief that it was absolute.

Our error is to regard the material unit of length to represent absolute amount of physical quantity, the way some people regard a pound sterling to represent an absolute amount of wealth. The wealth represented by a pound sterling depends on its buying power. Similarly, the material unit of length depends on the natural motion or quantization of substance.

You can form some idea of the essential difference in the outlook of physics before and after Einstein’s principle of relativity by comparing it with the difference in economic theory which comes from recognizing the relativity of value of money. I suppose that in stable times the practical consequences of this relativity are manifested chiefly in the minute fluctuations of foreign exchanges, which may be compared with the minute changes of length affecting delicate experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiment. Occasionally the consequences may be more sensational—a mark-exchange soaring to billions, a high-speed β particle contracting to a third of its radius. But it is not these casual manifestations which are the main outcome. Clearly an economist who believes in the absoluteness of the pound has not grasped the rudiments of his subject. Similarly if we have conceived the physical world as intrinsically constituted out of those distances, forces and masses which are now seen to have reference only to our own special reference frame, we are far from a proper understanding of the nature of things.

The FitzGerald contraction is not real. It is the result of not correcting the units of measure for changing quantization or natural motion. One cannot change the natural motion without also changing the quantization of the substance.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: