Monthly Archives: April 2019

OT 1948: Aberrations

Reference: DIANETICS: The Original Thesis

This paper presents Chapter 6 from the book DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Hubbard Dianetic Foundation, Inc. (1948).

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

The heading below is linked to the original materials.

.

Aberrations

All aberrations of any kind are of precisely the same nature (as covered in the last chapter). It is the content of the engram which causes the aberration and forms its nature. Complexity amongst engramic contents may demonstrate a most complex aberration.

All aberrations are caused by the same mechanism of formation of the engramic node.

The various commands contained in the engrams, reactivating and modifying the basic dynamic command of the mind, produce abnormal characteristics in the behavior of the analytical mind, which are chronic or sporadic as the engrams occasioning them are restimulated. An entire concept of existence may be built from engramic content. Conflicts in the commands contained in engrams and conflicts between the basic drive and the engramic contents combine into behavior patterns.

The words contained in the painful experience act like hypnotic commands.

When the organism has become so impeded that it can no longer influence or command its environment, it can be considered to be insane in that environment. Change of environment may relieve the condition or, more certainly, the exhaustion of the content of the reactive mind will restore the ability of the analytical mind to solve the problems with which it is confronted.

Insanity comes about when the mental matrix is seriously compromised by these commands.

Whatever the engramic content of the reactive mind and its potential influence upon the behavior of the individual, it does not necessarily follow that the reactive mind need be chronically restimulated. However, when the reactive mind has been restimulated consistently, the analytical mind, called upon to solve the problems around and through antagonistic and incorrect data, may be unable to perform its task. In the absence of disease or injury, any mind not in a physiological amnesia state may be restored to normal function by the removal of the reactive mind. It should be noted however that this is modified by the fact that people who have received insulin shocks, prefrontal lobotomies, electric shocks and other treatments are regarded as equivocal and are temporarily classed with disease cases for lack of adequate observation in this stage of the experimental research.

Aberration may be reduced by minimizing the triggers in the environment. Aberration may be eliminated by assimilating the contents of the engramic node into the mental matrix.

People can be regarded as rational or irrational only insofar as they react in their customary environment. But any person in possession of a reactive mind is an unknown quantity until that reactive mind has been examined.

There are several factors contained in the engrams in the reactive mind which most certainly tend toward aberration. These include engramic commands which derange the time sense of the individual and thus apparently destroy his time track and engrams which contain restimulators of such timelessness and such perceptic content remain thereafter continually with the individual and seem to arrest him or regress him in time. Engrams containing commands which make the individual chronically unable to conceive differences are especially harmful since these tend to compare everything to engramic value and thus cause the individual to arrive at a chronic state of engramic thinking.

The space and time sense of the individual is affected by the engramic node.

The mind resolves problems related to survival, utilizing its ability to conceive similarities and observe differences.

Engrams which destroy or tend to hold in suspension the analytical mind’s ability to conceive associations most influence the apparent intelligence of the mind. But engrams which tend, by their command content, to destroy the mind’s ability to conceive differences may produce severe aberration.

The drive and intelligence of the individual is also affected by the engramic node.

EXAMPLE: “All men are alike,” received as powerful engramic content would tend to compare and associate every man with those men contained in the reactive mind as painful and dangerous.

An aberration may attain any form of complexion. As a rough analogy: a compulsion may be conceived to be an engramic command that the organism must do something; a repression is a command that the organism must not do something; a neurosis is an emotional state containing conflicts and emotional data inhibiting the abilities or welfare of the individual; and a psychosis is a conflict of commands which seriously reduce the individual’s ability to solve his problems in his environment to a point where he cannot adjust some vital phase of his environmental needs.

These aberrations may be classified as compulsions, repressions, neuroses, and psychoses, but the underlying mechanism is the same.

All this variety of manifestation of aberration is occasioned by the pain-enforced commands or contents of engrams.

Physical aberrations are occasioned by engrams when they are not the result of injury or disease; even then, the aspect may be improved by the exhaustion of the reactive mind of the sick individual. The engram cannot manifest itself as a mental aberration without also manifesting itself to some degree as somatic aberration. Removal of the somatic content of engrams which is also necessary to obtain any other relief, can and does occasion glandular readjustment, cellular inhibition and other physiological corrections.

Both mental and physical aberrations have the same source.

.

Final Comments

KEY WORDS: Hypnosis, Shock

Psychology is trying to classify aberrations; but if all aberrations are caused by the same mechanism, then we simply have to understand that mechanism and resolve it.

All aberrations are caused by the formation of engramic nodes that are the result of painful experiences. At the core of each experience is a “shock”. Handling starts with discovering this shock and bringing it fully into awareness.

Next would be bringing into awareness the whole painful experience, which caused the shock. This may be aided by observing the aberration, guessing the content of the painful experience and using it to jog the person’s recall of the actual experience.

The work is harder when very little awareness exists in the person. Here the existing environment could be activating the aberration to an intense degree. A change in environment may definitely help. A calm, natural and uplifting environment may bring a person to a condition where he can recall the shock and painful experience.

The engramic node may be fully discharged by getting more details about other similar experiences, and finding and discussing inconsistencies due to aberrations until they are resolved.

.

Einstein 1938: Relativity and Mechanics

Reference: Evolution of Physics

This paper presents Chapter III, section 8 from the book THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS by A. EINSTEIN and L. INFELD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by Simon and Schuster, New York (1942).

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

The heading below is linked to the original materials.

.

Relativity and Mechanics

The relativity theory arose from necessity, from serious and deep contradictions in the old theory from which there seemed no escape. The strength of the new theory lies in the consistency and simplicity with which it solves all these difficulties, using only a few very convincing assumptions.

Although the theory arose from the field problem, it has to embrace all physical laws. A difficulty seems to appear here. The field laws on the one hand and the mechanical laws on the other are of quite different kinds. The equations of electromagnetic field are invariant with respect to the Lorentz transformation and the mechanical equations are invariant with respect to the classical transformation. But the relativity theory claims that all laws of nature must be invariant with respect to the Lorentz and not to the classical transformation. The latter is only a special, limiting case of the Lorentz transformation when the relative velocities of two CS are very small. If this is so, classical mechanics must change in order to conform with the demand of invariance with respect to the Lorentz transformation. Or, in other words, classical mechanics cannot be valid if the velocities approach that of light. Only one transformation from one CS to another can exist, namely, the Lorentz transformation.

The classical transformation is only a special, limiting case of the Lorentz transformation when the relative velocities of two CS are very small. Classical mechanics cannot be valid if the velocities approach that of light.

It was simple to change classical mechanics in such a way that it contradicted neither the relativity theory nor the wealth of material obtained by observation and explained by classical mechanics. The old mechanics is valid for small velocities and forms the limiting case of the new one.

It would be interesting to consider some instance of a change in classical mechanics introduced by the relativity theory. This might, perhaps, lead us to some conclusions which could be proved or disproved by experiment.

Let us assume a body, having a definite mass, moving along a straight line, and acted upon by an external force in the direction of the motion. The force, as we know, is proportional to the change of velocity. Or, to be more explicit, it does not matter whether a given body increases its velocity in one second from 100 to 101 feet per second, or from 100 miles to 100 miles and one foot per second or from 180,000 miles to 180,000 miles and one foot per second. The force acting upon a particular body is always the same for the same change of velocity in the same time.

We can easily modify the laws of mechanics to be consistent with the laws of field for small velocities. But the assumption (that the force acting upon a particular body is always the same for the same change of velocity in the same time) is not true. Much greater force is required when acting upon an electron for the same change of velocity in the same time, because electron’s mass (inertia) is much smaller. That assumption is valid for matter only for which inertia is very high and constant.

Is this sentence true from the point of view of the relativity theory? By no means! This law is valid only for small velocities. What, according to the relativity theory, is the law for great velocities, approaching that of light? If the velocity is great, extremely strong forces are required to increase it. It is not at all the same thing to increase by one foot per second a velocity of about 100 feet per second or a velocity approaching that of light. The nearer a velocity is to that of light the more difficult it is to increase. When a velocity is equal to that of light it is impossible to increase it further. Thus, the changes brought about by the relativity theory are not surprising. The velocity of light is the upper limit for all velocities. No finite force, no matter how great, can cause an increase in speed beyond this limit. In place of the old mechanical law connecting force and change of velocity, a more complicated one appears. From our new point of view classical mechanics is simple because in nearly all observations we deal with velocities much smaller than that of light.

A body at rest has a definite mass, called the rest mass. We know from mechanics that every body resists a change in its motion; the greater the mass, the stronger the resistance, and the weaker the mass, the weaker the resistance. But in the relativity theory, we have something more. Not only does a body resist a change more strongly if the rest mass is greater, but also if its velocity is greater. Bodies with velocities approaching that of light would offer a very strong resistance to external forces. In classical mechanics the resistance of a given body was something unchangeable, characterized by its mass alone. In the relativity theory it depends on both rest mass and velocity. The resistance becomes infinitely great as the velocity approaches that of light.

Confusion starts with the concept of “Rest Mass.” This may be the mass of a particle at rest in its inertial frame, but it still has velocity on an absolute basis, if its inertia is not infinite. Therefore, the “rest mass” may differ from one inertial frame to another even when this difference is imperceptible for matter because its inertia is very high. The greater velocity means lesser inertia (farther from infinite value). The following statement of Einstein is incorrect, “Not only does a body resist a change more strongly if the rest mass is greater, but also if its velocity is greater.” Actually, the resistance (inertia) becomes infinitely small as the velocity approaches that of light.

The results just quoted enable us to put the theory to the test of experiment. Do projectiles with a velocity approaching that of light resist the action of an external force as predicted by the theory? Since the statements of the relativity theory have, in this respect, a quantitative character, we could confirm or disprove the theory if we could realize projectiles having a speed approaching that of light.

The inertia of a photon is extremely small, and its velocity is extremely high. It simply cannot be pushed to a higher velocity, no matter the amount of force applied. This shows that the idea of relativistic mass does not apply to the moving particle. It is a misinterpretation of what is really going on.

Indeed, we find in nature projectiles with such velocities. Atoms of radioactive matter, radium for instance, act as batteries which fire projectiles with enormous velocities. Without going into detail we can quote only one of the very important views of modern physics and chemistry. All matter in the universe is made up of elementary particles of only a few kinds. It is like seeing in one town buildings of different sizes, construction and architecture, but from shack to skyscraper only very few different kinds of bricks were used, the same in all the buildings. So all known elements of our material world from hydrogen the lightest, to uranium the heaviest are built of the same kinds of bricks, that is, the same kinds of elementary particles. The heaviest elements, the most complicated buildings, are unstable and they disintegrate or, as we say, are radioactive. Some of the bricks, that is, the elementary particles of which the radioactive atoms are constructed, are sometimes thrown out with a very great velocity, approaching that of light. An atom of an element, say radium, according to our present views, confirmed by numerous experiments, is a complicated structure, and radioactive disintegration is one of those phenomena in which the composition of atoms from still simpler bricks, the elementary particles, is revealed.

By very ingenious and intricate experiments we can find out how the particles resist the action of an external force. The experiments show that the resistance offered by these particles depends on the velocity, in the way foreseen by the theory of relativity. In many other cases, where the dependence of the resistance upon the velocity could be detected, there was complete agreement between theory and experiment. We see once more the essential features of creative work in science: prediction of certain facts by theory and their confirmation by experiment.

The Standard Model of Particle Physics lists 17 different elementary particles. A naturally disintegrating heavy nucleus ejects elementary particles at very high velocity. The velocity of an elementary particle is as great as its inertia is small. The experiments referred to by Einstein are simply being misinterpreted.

This result suggests a further important generalization. A body at rest has mass but no kinetic energy, that is, energy of motion. A moving body has both mass and kinetic energy. It resists change of velocity more strongly than the resting body. It seems as though the kinetic energy of the moving body increases its resistance. If two bodies have the same rest mass, the one with the greater kinetic energy resists the action of an external force more strongly.

It is difficult to change the inertia of an elementary particle, so it is difficult to change its intrinsic velocity also. The velocity may be influenced by forces, such as, electromagnetic, gravity and friction; but the intrinsic inertia may try to restore the intrinsic velocity. Einstein’s reference to kinetic energy in the context of mass brings into play the arbitrary velocity of the inertial frame.

Imagine a box containing balls, with the box as well as the balls at rest in our CS. To move it, to increase its velocity, some force is required. But will the same force increase the velocity by the same amount in the same time with the balls moving about quickly and in all directions inside the box, like the molecules of a gas, with an average speed approaching that of light? A greater force will now be necessary because of the increased kinetic energy of the balls, strengthening the resistance of the box. Energy, at any rate kinetic energy, resists motion in the same way as ponderable masses. Is this also true of all kinds of energy?

In case of light, the photons are moving at their natural extremely high velocities. It is not the same situation as the molecules of a gas. Changing the velocities of photons is more difficult because it means changing their inertia (frequency).

The theory of relativity deduces, from its fundamental assumption, a clear and convincing answer to this question, an answer again of a quantitative character: all energy resists change of motion; all energy behaves like matter; a piece of iron weighs more when red-hot than when cool; radiation travelling through space and emitted from the sun contains energy and therefore has mass; the sun and all radiating stars lose mass by emitting radiation. This conclusion, quite general in character, is an important achievement of the theory of relativity and fits all facts upon which it has been tested.

Before one can push a particle moving at high velocity, one needs to catch up with that particle first. Therefore, it is more difficult to further accelerate a moving particle. The difficulty comes from higher velocity and not from higher inertia (mass) as Einstein thinks. But, it is true that radiation has very small inertia (mass) and very high velocity. Inertia and velocity balance each other.

Classical physics introduced two substances: matter and energy. The first had weight, but the second was weightless. In classical physics we had two conservation laws: one for matter, the other for energy. We have already asked whether modern physics still holds this view of two substances and the two conservation laws. The answer is: “No”. According to the theory of relativity, there is no essential distinction between mass and energy. Energy has mass and mass represents energy. Instead of two conservation laws we have only one, that of mass-energy. This new view proved very successful and fruitful in the further development of physics.

We feel the presence of substance due to force moving through a distance. Force and motion can be separated in case of matter, but not in case of field. Therefore, from matter to radiation we are looking at the conservation of a force-motion combination. A combination of force and motion is represented mathematically as momentum, and also as energy.

How is it that this fact of energy having mass and mass representing energy remained for so long obscured? Is the weight of a piece of hot iron greater than that of a cold piece? The answer to this question is now “Yes”, but on p. 43 it was “No”. The pages between these two answers are certainly not sufficient to cover this contradiction.

The difficulty confronting us here is of the same kind as we have met before. The variation of mass predicted by the theory of relativity is immeasurably small and cannot be detected by direct weighing on even the most sensitive scales. The proof that energy is not weightless can be gained in many very conclusive, but indirect, ways.

The reason for this lack of immediate evidence is the very small rate of exchange between matter and energy. Compared to mass, energy is like a depreciated currency compared to one of high value. An example will make this clear. The quantity of heat able to convert thirty thousand tons of water into steam would weigh about one gram! Energy was regarded as weightless for so long simply because the mass which it represents is so small.

The differentiation here should be between mass (inertia, centeredness) and velocity (forward motion, spreading) rather than between mass and energy. Energy is a combination of mass and velocity.

The old energy-substance is the second victim of the theory of relativity. The first was the medium through which light waves were propagated.

The influence of the theory of relativity goes far beyond the problem from which it arose. It removes the difficulties and contradictions of the field theory; it formulates more general mechanical laws; it replaces two conservation laws by one; it changes our classical concept of absolute time. Its validity is not restricted to one domain of physics; it forms a general framework embracing all phenomena of nature.

Aether should be understood as the substance of lowest inertia on the spectrum of substance. The substance of highest inertia is matter (black hole). The law of conservation applies to a combination of inertia and velocity, which is momentum or energy.

.

Final Comment

.

OT 1948: The Basic Individual

Reference: DIANETICS: The Original Thesis

This paper presents Chapter 5 from the book DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Hubbard Dianetic Foundation, Inc. (1948).

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

The heading below is linked to the original materials.

.

The Basic Individual

For the purposes of this work the terms basic individual and Clear are nearly synonymous since they denote the unaberrated self in complete integration and in a state of highest possible rationality; a Clear is one who has become the basic individual through auditing.

The precise personality of the basic individual is of interest to the auditor. His complete characteristic is established by: 1. The strength of his basic DYNAMIC; 2. The relative strengths of his dynamics; 3. The sensitivity, which is to say the intelligence, of his analyzer; 4. The coordination of his motor controls; 5. His physiological and glandular condition; 6. His environment and education.

The experiences of each individual also create an individual composite and so may additionally designate individuality. There are as many distinct individuals on earth as there are men, women and children. That we can establish a common denominator of drive and basic function does not, cannot, and will not, alter the fact that individuals are amazingly varied one from the next.  

The basic individual is defined by a flawless mental matrix, and his “individuality” is defined by the contents of that matrix.

It will be found by experience and exhaustive research, as it has been clinically established, that the basic individual is invariably responsive in all the dynamics and is essentially “good.” There are varying degrees of courage but in the basic individual there is no pusillanimity. The virtues of the basic individual are innumerable. His intentional vices and destructive dramatizations are non-existent. He is in close alignment with that ideal which mankind recognizes as an ideal. This is a necessary part of an auditor’s working knowledge, since deviations from it denote the existence of aberration, and such departures are unnatural and enforced and are no part of the self-determinism of the individual.

The basic individual is essentially “good”.

Man is not a reactive animal. He is capable of self-determinism. He has will power. He ordinarily has high analytical ability. He is rational and he is happy and integrated only when he is his own basic personality.

The most desirable state in an individual is complete self-determinism. Such self-determinism may be altered and shaped to some degree by education and environment, but so long as the individual is not aberrated, he is in possession of self-determinism. So long as he is self-determined in his actions he adjusts himself successfully to the degree that his environment will permit such an adjustment. He will be more forceful, effective and happier in that environment than when aberrated.

The basic individual is completely self-determined.

That the basic personality is “good” does not mean that he cannot be a terribly effective enemy of those things rationally recognizable as destructive to himself and to his.

The basic individual is not a buried unknown or a different person, but an intensity of all that is best and most able in the person. The basic individual equals the same person minus his pain and dramatizations.

The drive strength of the person does not derive from his aberrations. The aberrations lessen the drive strength. Artistry, personal force, personality, all are residual in the basic personality. This is derived from clinical research and experimentation. The only reason an aberree occasionally holds hard to his aberrations is due to the fact that his engrams have a content which forbids their removal.

The flaws in the mental matrix lead to reactive behavior. No positive characteristics derive from that behavior.

The reactive mind consists of a collection of experiences received during an unanalytical moment which contain pain and actual or conceived antagonism to the survival of the individual. An engram is a perceptic entity which can be precisely defined. The aggregate of engrams compose the reactive mind.

The reactive mind refers to the flaws in the mental matrix, collectively.
Pain is the common denominator of the reactive mind. Pain forms the engramic character of the reactive mind that corrupts the logic circuits of the mental matrix.

A new sub-field entitled “Perceptics” has been originated here to define adequately engramic data. Perceptics contains as one of its facets the field of semantics. Precisely as the field of semantics is organized so is organized in perceptics each sensory perception.

“Perceptics” may be another way to refer to the data elements of the mental matrix.

The audio-syllabic communication system of man has its counterpart in various languages observable in lower animals. Words are sounds in syllabic form delivered with a definite timbre, pitch, and volume or sight recognition in each case. Words are a highly specialized form of audio-perceptics. The quality of the sound in uttering the word is nearly as important as the word itself. The written word belongs in part to visio-perceptics. Having but lately acquired his extensive vocabulary, the mind of man is least adjusted to words and their sense. The mind is better able to differentiate amongst qualities of utterance than amongst the meanings of words themselves.

Words are a highly specialized form of audio-perceptics.

Included in perceptics in the same fashion and on the same axioms as semantics are the other sensory perceptions—organic sensation, the tactile sense, the olfactory sense and the senses involved with sight and hearing. Each has its own grouping. And each carries its class of messages with highly complex meanings. Each one of these divisions of the senses is plotted in time according to the earliest or most forceful significances. Each class of messages is so filed as to lead the individual toward pleasure and away from pain. The classifications and study of this varied sensory file has been designated “Perceptics.”

Straightening out of the perceptics in the mental matrix is the essential part of clearing.

Engrams are received into the mind forming a reactive area during moments of lowered analytical awareness of the individual, and they contain physical pain and antagonism to survival. The engram is a packaged perceptic not available to the analytical mind but intimately connected to the physio-animal mind. Under normal conditions it reacts as a dramatization of itself when approximated by the organism’s perceptions of its content in the immediate environment during periods of weariness, illness, or hypnotic moments in the life of the individual.

When the circuit containing engramic data is activated, the contents of that engram are dramatized without much awareness.

When injury or illness supplants the analytical mind producing what is commonly known as “unconsciousness” and when physical pain and antagonism to the survival of the organism are present, an engram is received by the individual. Subsequently, during moments when the potential of the analytical mind is reduced by weariness, illness or similar circumstances, one or more of the perceptics contained in the engram may be observed by the individual in his environment, and without his perceiving that he has observed it (or the identity of it) the individual dramatizes the moment of receipt of the engram.

Any experience, such as, injury, illness, weariness, etc., that reduces awareness shall have relationship with the engramic nodes in the matrix.

An engram impedes one or more dynamics of the basic individual. Being antagonistic to his survival it can be considered analogically to consist of a reverse charge.

As an example, the analytical mind can be said to possess multiple scanners in layers. Ordinary or pleasurable memory can be considered to have, as an analogy only, a positive charge. The multiple scanners are able to sweep these areas and make available memory data to the analytical mind so that it can arrive by various mathematical means at a solution for its various problems.

The engram, as a specific memory package, can be considered to have a reverse charge which cannot be reached by the scanner of the analytical mind but which is directly connected to the motor controls and other physical functions and which can exert, at a depth not nearly as basic as the basic drive but nevertheless low, a hidden influence upon the analytical mind through another circuit. The analytical mind in awareness of now, nevertheless, is unable to discover, without assistance from an auditor, the existence of such an impediment since it was received during a moment of extremely low potential on the part of the analytical mind.

As a further analogy, and for demonstration only, an engram can be considered to be a bundle of perceptions of a precise nature. An engram is an entire dramatic sequence, implanted during unconsciousness, which possesses specific perceptic keys, any one of which, when unanalytically perceived by the individual in his environment, may in greater or lesser degrees set the engram into reaction.

An engramic node is activated when perceptics similar to its content appear in the environment.

Denied to the analytical mind at its reception, it is denied to the analytical mind in its exact character during its dramatization. Its content is literal and, on the physio-animal level, demands action. Man’s analytical ability and his vocabulary are imposed above both the physio-animal mind and the reactive mind, both on the evolutionary time track and in awareness. The charge contained in the engram is inexhaustible and remains reactive in full force whenever keyed into the circuit by restimulators.

An engramic node creates a short circuit in the mental matrix. Since the contents of this node are not assimilated into the mental matrix none of it reaches the awareness level.

Restimulators are those approximations in the environment of an individual of the content of an engram. Restimulators can exist in any of the various senses. The orderly filing of perceptics in the memory does not, apparently, include the content of engrams, these being filed separately under an “immediate danger” heading.

There are three kinds of thought: the first is engramic, or literal. It demands immediate action without examination by the analytical mind. A hand being withdrawn from a hot stove when burned is being governed by the reactive principle, but as the ensuing instant of unconsciousness caused by the shock is ordinarily slight, no real engram can be said to have formed.

The second type of thought is justified thought. Engramic thought is literal, without reason, irrational. Justified thought is the attempt of the analytical mind to explain the reactive, engramic reactions of the organism in the ordinary course of living. Every engram may cause some form of aberrated conduct on the part of the individual. Justified thought is the effort of the conscious mind to explain away that aberration without admitting, as it cannot do normally, that it has failed the organism.

Engramic behavior is not understandable even to the individual, so it gets justified.

The third and optimum type of thought is rational thought. This is the thought used by a “Clear.”

An engram is an apparent surcharge in the mental circuit with certain definite finite content. That charge is not reached or examined by the analytical mind but that charge is capable of acting as an independent command.

When the basic drive of the individual is boosted in potential by an observed necessity, the residual charge in an engram is insufficient to contest, at times, the raised purpose. The analytical mind can then be seen to function in entire command of the organism without serious modification by engramic command.

At other times, hostility in the environment and confusion of the analytical mind combine to reduce the dynamic potential to such a degree that the engramic command, in comparison to the basic drive, can be seen to be extremely powerful. It is at such times, in the presence of even faint restimulators, that the individual most demonstrates his aberrations.

EXAMPLE: Engram received at the age of three and one-half years. Adult preclear. As child in dental chair, against his will, under antagonistic conditions, given nitrous oxide and tricked by dentist. During painful portion of treatment the dentist says, “He is asleep. He can’t hear, feel or see anything. Stay there.”

The perceptics which can be restimulated in this are the quality, pitch and volume of the dentist’s voice; the sound of the dentist’s drill; the slap of the cable running the drill; street noises of a specific kind; the tactile of the mouth being forcibly held open; the smell of the mask; the sound of running water; the smell of nitrous oxide; and in short, several of each perceptic class, excluding only sight.

The effect of this experience, being a part of an engramic chain which contained two earlier experiences, was in some small degree to trance the individual and maintain some portion of him in a regressed state.

This engram is too brief and extraordinarily simple but it will serve as an example to the auditor. The timeless quality of the suggestions, the conceived antagonism, precursors on the engramic chain awakened and re-enforced, all these things confused the time sense of the individual and were otherwise reactive in later life.

For every engram there is a somatic as part of that engram. No aberration exists without its somatics unless it is a racial-educational aberration, in which instance it is compatible with its environment and so is not considered irrational.

Every aberration contains its exact command in some engram.

The numbers of engrams per individual are relatively few. The aberrated condition of the individual does not depend on the number of engrams but the severity of individual engrams.

The numbers of engrams per individual are relatively few.

An engram is severe in the exact ratio that it is conceived by the organism to have been a moment of threat to survival. The character of the threat and the perceptic content produce the aberration. A number of engrams with similar perceptics in an individual produce a complex aberration pattern which nevertheless has for its parts individual engrams.

An aberration is the manifestation of an engram and is serious only when it influences the competence of the individual in his environment.

Engrams are of two types depending upon the duration of restimulation. There are “floaters” and “chronics.” A floater has not been restimulated in the individual during the lifetime succeeding it. A chronic is an engram which has been more or less continuously restimulated so that it has become an apparent portion of the individual. A chronic begins to gather “locks.” A floater has not accumulated locks since it has never been restimulated.

A lock can be conceived to be joined to an engram in such a way that it can be reached by the multiple scanners of the analytical mind which cannot reach the engram. A lock is a painful mental experience. It is or is not regarded by the analytical mind as a source of difficulty or aberration. It is a period of mental anguish and is wholly dependent upon an engram for its pain value. When an engram is activated into a chronic, it accumulates numerous locks along the time track of the individual. The engram itself is not immediately locatable, except somatically, along the time track of the individual. Locks are of some diagnostic value but, as they exist as experiences more or less recallable by the analytical mind, they can be depended upon to vanish upon the removal of the engram from the reactive mind.

To locate the engramic node, one usually follows the somatic associated with it.

The running of a lock as a lock has some value but the exhaustion of locks from an aberrated individual is long and arduous and is seldom productive of any lasting result. Upon the location and exhaustion of the engram from the reactive mind, all of its locks vanish. An engram may exist unactivated as a floater for any number of years or for the entire duration of an individual’s life. At any future moment after the receipt of an engram, whether that time period consists of days or decades, the floater may reactivate at which time it becomes part of the command obeyed by the analytical mind in its efforts to rationalize. The removal of the individual from his restimulators, which is to say, the environment in which the engram was reactive, is in itself a form of therapy, since the engram may then return to its status as a floater.

Hubbard’s locks are simply extensions of the engramic node. You cannot get rid of the locks without discharging the engramic node.

EXAMPLE: Engram—At birth occurs the phrase, “No good,” uttered during a moment of headache and gasping on the part of a child.

Lock: At the age of seven while the child was ill with a minor malady, the mother in a fit of rage said that he was “no good.”

The removal of the engram also removes, ordinarily without further attention, the lock.

Note: Birth remained inactive in the above case as a floater until the moment of reduced analytical power at the age of seven when a birth phrase was repeated. It is worth remarking that the entire content of the birth engram is given simultaneously both to the child and to the mother, with only the difference of somatics. It is further worthy of note that the mother quite often perceives in the child a restimulator and uses against it the phrases which were said when the child gave the mother the greatest pain, namely, birth. The child is then victimized into various psychosomatic ills by the repetition of its birth engram restimulators, which may develop even more seriously into actual disease.

The brain controls the multiple and complex functions of the growth and condition of the organism. Containing organic sensation as one of its perceptics, the engram then, when reactivated, causes a somatic and additionally may deny body fluids, i.e. hormones and blood, to some portion of the anatomy, occasioning psychosomatic ills. The denial of fluid or adequate blood supply may result in a potentially infective area. The psychosomatic reduces the resistance of some portion of the body to actual disease.

Somatic and other sensory errors find their basis in unconscious antagonistic moments. A somatic may be adjusted by an address to a lock but the permanency of adjustment obtains only until such time as the engram is again reactivated, causing another lock.

All aberrations are occasioned by engrams.

An engram is severely painful or severely threatening to the survival of the organism and is an engram only if it cannot be reached by the awake analytical mind.

Hubbard says, “All aberrations are occasioned by engrams.” But the removal of aberrations mean not only the discharge of the painful incident that created the engramic node, but also the removal of all the distortions caused by the engramic node in the surrounding mental matrix.

A simple approximation of the action of an engram can be accomplished by an experiment in hypnotism whereby a positive suggestion which contains a posthypnotic signal is delivered to an amnesia-tranced person. The subject, having been commanded to forget the suggestion when awake, will then perform the act. This suggestion is then actually a light portion of the reactive mind. It is literally interpreted, unquestionably followed, since it is received during a period of unawareness of the analytical mind or some portion of it. The restimulator, which may be the act of the operator adjusting his tie, causes the subject to commit some act. The subject will then try to explain why he is doing what he is doing, no matter how illogical that action may be. The post-hypnotic suggestion is then recalled to the subject’s mind and he remembers it. The compulsion vanishes (unless it is laid upon an actual engram).

The obedience of the subject to the command has, as its source, engramic thought. The explanation by the subject for his own action is the analytical mind observing the organism, which it supposes is in its sole charge, and justifying itself. The release of the post-hypnotic suggestion into the analytical mind brings about rational thought.

The aberration is the manifestation of an engramic thought that has no proper logic underlying it. Therefore, one tries to justify it by long-winded explanations.

Engrams can be considered to be painfully inflicted, often timeless, post-hypnotic suggestions delivered antagonistically to the “unconscious” subject. The posthypnotic suggestion given the subject in the above example would not have any permanent effect on the subject even if it were not removed by the operator, because there was presumed to be no antagonism involved (unless, of course, it rested on a former engram).

The physio-animal mind of an organism never ceases recording on some level. The exact moment when recording begins in an organism has not at this date been accurately determined. It has been found to be very early, probably earlier than four months after conception and five months before birth. In the presence of pain, any moment prior to the age of two years may be considered to be unanalytical. Any painful experience received by the foetus contains its full perceptic package, including darkness.

Once an auditor has worked a prenatal engram and has seen its influence upon the engramic chain and the awake life of the adult, no question will remain in his mind concerning the actuality of the experience. That the foetus does record is attributable to a phenomenon of the extension of perceptions during moments of pain and the absence of the analytical mind.

Engramic node can be formed by a painful birth, or even earlier, during fetal stage, when there is some injury.

Laboratory experiment demonstrates that under hypnosis an individual’s sensory perception may be artificially extended.

The existence of pain in any large degree is sufficient to extend the hearing of the foetus so that it records, during the existence of pain and the presence of exterior sound, the entire and complete record of the experience. As a chronic engram is but precariously fixed on the mind, the syllables or voice timbres contained in the prenatal will reactivate the somatic and the emotional engramic content whenever the approximations of that engram appear in the child’s (or the adult’s) vicinity.

The understanding of language is not necessary to reactivate an engram since the recording of the brain is so precise that the utterance of the identical words in similar tones during later prenatal periods or during birth, or immediately after birth, can and may occasion the original prenatal or any of the prenatals to become reactive, producing locks, injuring the health of the infant or, for that matter, of the foetus.

The perceptics of the foetus are extended only during moments of pain. But a chain of prenatal engrams can occasion a condition wherein the hearing of the foetus is chronically extended, forming numerous locks before birth. These locks will vanish when the actual engrams are discovered and exhausted from the psyched.

A person follows an engramic thought literally as if it is a post-hypnotic suggestion. Such post-hypnotic suggestions can even affect one’s sensory perceptions.

Any painful unanalytical moment containing antagonism is not only a matter of record but a source of potential action in the human organism at any period during its lifetime, reserving, of course, the question of when the foetus first begins to record.

Birth is ordinarily a severely painful unconscious experience. It is ordinarily an engram of some magnitude. Anyone who has been born then possesses at least one engram. Any period of absence of analytical power during receipt of physical pain has some engramic potentiality.

Moments when the analytical power is present in some quantity, when physical pain is absent and only antagonism to the organism is present do not form engrams and are not responsible for the aberration of the individual.

Any confusion, doubt, or inconsistency in thinking observed by the individual must be followed up and resolved.

Sociological maladjustments; parental punishments of a minor sort, even when they include pain; libidos; childhood struggles and jealousies are not capable of aberrating the individual. These can influence the personality and environmental adjustment of the individual but so long as he is not pathologically incompetent, he can and will resolve these problems and remain without aberration.

The human mind is an enormously powerful organism and its analytical ability is great. It is not overlaid above naturally unsocial or evil desires, but is founded upon powerful and constructive basics which only powerful, painful and antagonistic experiences can impede. Engrams will be found to have been conceived by the individual as intensely antagonistic to the survival of the organism.

The discovery of the basic engram is the first problem of the auditor. It normally results in an engramic chain. The content of that chain will be found to be physically severe.

One simply pulls the string on somatic, confusion, concern, etc., and follows the trail. One resolves whatever possible while following the trail until everything is resolved with the discovery and eventual discharge of the engramic node.

An engram is physically painful, is conceived by the organism as an antagonistic threat to its survival, and is received during the absence of the analytical power of the mind. These factors may vary within the engram so that an engram may be of minimal pain, maximal antagonism and minimal absence of the analytical power.

NOTE: ONE HAS AS MUCH FUNCTIONING ANALYZER AS ONE HAS AWARENESS OF NOW.

The body is to some degree reliving the experience of the engram whenever the experience is restimulated. A chronic psychosomatic, such as a painful arm, indicates the chronic, continuous coexistence with NOW of the moment the arm was broken or hurt. Several engrams reactivated into a chronic state bring several moments of unconsciousness, pain, and antagonism into a coexistence with NOW. The engram is a bundle of perceptics which include, as the primary manifestation, organic sensation. The organic sensation is enforced on the members of the body to a greater or lesser degree whenever, and as long as, the engram is restimulated. There is only one psychosomatic command which is common to all engrams. Any engram contains this as part of the command it will enforce upon the body. As a stomach may be made to ache chronically (ulcers), to feel broken, the engram also enforces a command upon the organ of the analytical mind. That command is common to every engram. Engrams are valid only when they are received during a momentary dispersal or shocked, null condition of the analytical mind. Every engram contains and enforces the command on the analytical mind that it has been dispersed and is not operating. This is common to every engram. This is reduction of the intellect by engrams totally aside from specific engramic content. It explains at once insanity and also the remarkable mental facility of a cleared or released individual.

Engram short-circuits the rational operations of the mental matrix and replaces them by the dramatization of its contents.

.

Final Comments

KEY WORDS: Clear, Self-determinism, Engram, Perceptic, Dramatization, Restimulation, Charge, Justification.

The mind of the basic individual functions normally as described under the final comments to the chapter, An Analogy of the Mind. When a person’s mind is cleared of all flaws he becomes the basic individual.

The basic individual is characterized by a flawless mental matrix. His “individuality” is defined by the contents of that matrix. The finer are the data elements in his mental matrix, the more discriminative and intelligent he is. The easier he can access and freely associate the data from mental matrix, the greater is his drive. The basic individual is essentially “good” as his estimation of effort is appropriate for the situation. He is self-determined in that he is in control of his attention.

The drive and intelligence of an individual does not derive from his aberrations. The flaws in the mental matrix lead to irrational behavior only. Hubbard refers to such flaws, collectively, as the “reactive mind”. This is a misnomer because a reaction is not necessarily irrational. Technically, irrationality would consist of a breakdown in consistency and logic among data.

Extreme random motion is felt as pain. Random motion has neither consistency nor logic. This is the makeup of the physically painful experience. When such an experience enters the mind it cannot be broken down into fine data elements and assimilated into the mental matrix. The core of this experience appears as a “shock” to the mental matrix, which shuts its awareness down.

All the circuits associated with this “shock” then form an engramic node that contains all the data of the painful experience. This data is not available to the awareness of mental matrix because it is not assimilated with it. When computations are activated through this engramic node their effect appears as a literal dramatization of the recording. The engramic node enforces the logic of that one-time painful event to all computation passing through it. This corrupts the normal logic of all those mental circuits interrupted by the painful experience.

The engramic node becomes part of mental matrix, but the mental matrix is not aware of it. The illogic of the engramic node radiates out corrupting the logic of all other circuits downstream from it. The mental matrix is unable to figure out the source of this illogic and correct it, so it tries to justify it. Thus, a painful experience may corrupt the logic of a significant portion of the mind by lodging itself as an engramic node.

To locate the engramic node one may follow the initial “shock” of the painful experience and the somatic connected with it. Any consistency associated with that experience when followed may help diffuse the engramic node.

It is possible to handle engramic nodes with expert mindfulness meditation.

.

Einstein 1938: Time, Distance, Relativity

Reference: Evolution of Physics

This paper presents Chapter III, section 7 from the book THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS by A. EINSTEIN and L. INFELD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by Simon and Schuster, New York (1942).

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

The heading below is linked to the original materials.

.

Time, Distance, Relativity

Our new assumptions are:

(1) The velocity of light in vacuo is the same in all CS moving uniformly, relative to each other.

(2) All laws of nature are the same in all CS moving uniformly, relative to each other.

The relativity theory begins with these two assumptions. From now on we shall not use the classical transformation because we know that it contradicts our assumptions.

These assumptions basically are: (1) In the field domain, the velocity is very large and almost constant for different inertias (frequencies). (2) In the material domain, the inertia (mass) is very large and almost constant for different velocities. These are two extreme relationship between velocity and inertia that are observed in reality.

It is essential here, as always in science, to rid ourselves of deep-rooted, often uncritically repeated, prejudices. Since we have seen that changes in (1) and (2) lead to contradiction with experiment, we must have the courage to state their validity clearly and to attack the one possibly weak point, the way in which positions and velocities are transformed from one CS to another. It is our intention to draw conclusions from (1) and (2), see where and how these assumptions contradict the classical transformation, and find the physical meaning of the results obtained.

These two assumptions modify the transformations of positions and velocities among inertial frames traveling at very high velocities. These transformations are different from Galilean transformations that are intuitive to us; but they provide more accurate results.

Once more, the example of the moving room with outside and inside observers will be used. Again a light signal is emitted from the centre of the room and again we ask the two men what they expect to observe, assuming only our two principles and forgetting what was previously said concerning the medium through which the light travels. We quote their answers:

The inside observer: The light signal travelling from the centre of the room will reach the walls simultaneously, since all the walls are equally distant from the light source and the velocity of light is the same in all directions.

The outside observer: In my system, the velocity of light is exactly the same as in that of the observer moving with the room. It does not matter to me whether or not the light source moves in my CS since its motion does not influence the velocity of light. What I see is a light signal travelling with a standard speed, the same in all directions. One of the walls is trying to escape from and the opposite wall to approach the light signal. Therefore, the escaping wall will be met by the signal a little later than the approaching one. Although the difference will be very slight if the velocity of the room is small compared with that of light, the light signal will nevertheless not meet these two opposite walls, which are perpendicular to the direction of the motion, quite simultaneously.

Comparing the predictions of our two observers, we find a most astonishing result which flatly contradicts the apparently well-founded concepts of classical physics. Two events, i.e., the two light beams reaching the two walls, are simultaneous for the observer on the inside, but not for the observer on the outside. In classical physics, we had one clock, one time flow, for all observers in all CS Time, and therefore such words as “simultaneously”, “sooner”, “later”, had an absolute meaning independent of any CS. Two events happening at the same time in one CS happened necessarily simultaneously in all other CS

Assumptions (1) and (2), i.e. the relativity theory, force us to give up this view. We have described two events happening at the same time in one CS, but at different times in another CS. Our task is to understand this consequence, to understand the meaning of the sentence: “Two events which are simultaneous in one CS, may not be simultaneous in another CS

The consequence of these two assumptions is that events that are simultaneous in one CS (coordinate system) may not be simultaneous in another. In other words, the clock does not tick at the same rate in the two coordinate systems traveling at different velocities.

What do we mean by “two simultaneous events in one CS“? Intuitively everyone seems to know the meaning of this sentence. But let us make up our minds to be cautious and try to give rigorous definitions, as we know how dangerous it is to over-estimate intuition. Let us first answer a simple question.

What is a clock?

The primitive subjective feeling of time flow enables us to order our impressions, to judge that one event takes place earlier, another later. But to show that the time interval between two events is 10 seconds, a clock is needed. By the use of a clock the time concept becomes objective. Any physical phenomenon may be used as a clock, provided it can be exactly repeated as many times as desired. Taking the interval between the beginning and the end of such an event as one unit of time, arbitrary time intervals may be measured by repetition of this physical process. All clocks, from the simple hour-glass to the most refined instruments, are based on this idea. With the hour-glass the unit of time is the interval the sand takes to flow from the upper to the lower glass. The same physical process can be repeated by inverting the glass.

At two distant points we have two perfect clocks, showing exactly the same time. This statement should be true regardless of the care with which we verify it. But what does it really mean? How can we make sure that distant clocks always show exactly the same time? One possible method would be to use television. It should be understood that television is used only as an example and is not essential to our argument. I could stand near one of the clocks and look at a televised picture of the other. I could then judge whether or not they showed the same time simultaneously. But this would not be a good proof. The televised picture is transmitted through electromagnetic waves and thus travels with the speed of light. Through television I see a picture which was sent some very short time before, whereas on the real clock I see what is taking place at the present moment. This difficulty can easily be avoided. I must take television pictures of the two clocks at a point equally distant from each of them and observe them from this centre point. Then, if the signals are sent out simultaneously, they will all reach me at the same instant. If two good clocks observed from the mid-point of the distance between them always show the same time, then they are well suited for designating the time of events at two distant points.

Any physical phenomenon may be used as a clock, provided it can be exactly repeated as many times as desired. Each repetition is one unit of time. If two good clocks observed from the mid-point of the distance between them always show the same time, then they are well suited for designating the time of events at two distant points.

In mechanics we used only one clock. But this was not very convenient, because we had to take all measurements in the vicinity of this one clock. Looking at the clock from a distance, for example by television, we have always to remember that what we see now really happened earlier, just as in viewing the setting sun we note the event eight minutes after it has taken place. We should have to make corrections, according to our distance from the clock, in all our time readings.

It is, therefore, inconvenient to have only one clock. Now, however, as we know how to judge whether two, or more, clocks show the same time simultaneously and run in the same way, we can very well imagine as many clocks as we like in a given CS. Each of them will help us to determine the time of the events happening in its immediate vicinity. The clocks are all at rest relative to the CS. They are “good” clocks and are synchronized, which means that they show the same time simultaneously.

There is nothing especially striking or strange about the arrangement of our clocks. We are now using many synchronized clocks instead of only one and can, therefore, easily judge whether or not two distant events are simultaneous in a given CS. They are if the synchronized clocks in their vicinity show the same time at the instant the events happen. To say that one of the distant events happens before the other has now a definite meaning. All this can be judged by the help of the synchronized clocks at rest in our CS.

This is in agreement with classical physics, and not one contradiction to the classical transformation has yet appeared.

For the definition of simultaneous events, the clocks are synchronized by the help of signals. It is essential in our arrangement that these signals travel with the velocity of light, the velocity which plays such a fundamental role in the theory of relativity.

Since we wish to deal with the important problem of two CS moving uniformly, relative to each other, we must consider two rods, each provided with clocks. The observer in each of the two CS moving relative to each other now has his own rod with his own set of clocks rigidly attached.

When discussing measurements in classical mechanics, we used one clock for all CS. Here we have many clocks in each CS. This difference is unimportant. One clock was sufficient, but nobody could object to the use of many, so long as they behave as decent synchronized clocks should.

An event needs its own clock to measure its time. The clocks are all at rest relative to the CS. This helps us judge whether or not two distant events are simultaneous in a given CS. The awareness of the time on the clock travels at the speed of light.

Now we are approaching the essential point showing where the classical transformation contradicts the theory of relativity. What happens when two sets of clocks are moving uniformly, relative to each other? The classical physicist would answer: Nothing; they still have the same rhythm, and we can use moving as well as resting clocks to indicate time. According to classical physics, two events simultaneous in one CS will also be simultaneous in any other CS.

But this is not the only possible answer. We can equally well imagine a moving clock having a different rhythm from one at rest. Let us now discuss this possibility without deciding, for the moment, whether or not clocks really change their rhythm in motion. What is meant by the statement that a moving clock changes its rhythm? Let us assume, for the sake of simplicity, that we have only one clock in the upper CS and many in the lower. All the clocks have the same mechanism, and the lower ones are synchronized, that is, they show the same time simultaneously. We have drawn three subsequent positions of the two CS moving relative to each other. In the first drawing the positions of the hands of the upper and lower clocks are, by convention, the same because we arranged them so. All the clocks show the same time. In the second drawing, we see the relative positions of the two CS some time later. All the clocks in the lower CS show the same time, but the clock in the upper CS is out of rhythm. The rhythm is changed and the time differs because the clock is moving relative to the lower CS. In the third drawing we see the difference in the positions of the hands increased with time.

According to classical physics, two events simultaneous in one CS will also be simultaneous in any other CS. This simultaneity is lost when one CS is at rest and the other moves relative to it at a uniform velocity.

An observer at rest in the lower CS would find that a moving clock changes its rhythm. Certainly the same result could be found if the clock moved relative to an observer at rest in the upper CS; in this case there would have to be many clocks in the upper CS and only one in the lower. The laws of nature must be the same in both CS moving relative to each other.

In classical mechanics it was tacitly assumed that a moving clock does not change its rhythm. This seemed so obvious that it was hardly worth mentioning. But nothing should be too obvious; if we wish to be really careful, we should analyse the assumptions, so far taken for granted, in physics.

If clock time is changing, then “frequency” is changing; and that means inertia is changing. This is not accounted for in the laws of mechanics. This means the laws of nature are not what we think they are; but they must be the same for all inertial CS.

An assumption should not be regarded as unreasonable simply because it differs from that of classical physics. We can well imagine that a moving clock changes its rhythm, so long as the law of this change is the same for all inertial CS.

Yet another example. Take a yardstick; this means that a stick is a yard in length as long as it is at rest in a CS. Now it moves uniformly, sliding along the rod representing the CS. Will its length still appear to be one yard? We must know beforehand how to determine its length. As long as the stick was at rest, its ends coincided with markings one yard apart on the CS. From this we concluded: the length of the resting stick is one yard. How are we to measure this stick during motion? It could be done as follows. At a given moment two observers simultaneously take snapshots, one of the origin of the stick and the other of the end. Since the pictures are taken simultaneously, we can compare the marks on the CS rod with which the origin and the end of the moving stick coincide. In this way we determine its length. There must be two observers to take note of simultaneous events in different parts of the given CS. There is no reason to believe that the result of such measurements will be the same as in the case of a stick at rest. Since the photographs had to be taken simultaneously, which is, as we already know, a relative concept depending on the CS, it seems quite possible that the results of this measurement will be different in different CS moving relative to each other.

We can well imagine that not only does the moving clock change its rhythm, but also that a moving stick changes its length, so long as the laws of the changes are the same for all inertial CS.

We have only been discussing some new possibilities without giving any justification for assuming them.

We remember: the velocity of light is the same in all inertial CS. It is impossible to reconcile this fact with the classical transformation. The circle must be broken somewhere. Can it not be done just here? Can we not assume such changes in the rhythm of the moving clock and in the length of the moving rod that the constancy of the velocity of light will follow directly from these assumptions? Indeed we can! Here is the first instance in which the relativity theory and classical physics differ radically. Our argument can be reversed: if the velocity of light is the same in all CS, then moving rods must change their length, moving clocks must change their rhythm, and the laws governing these changes are rigorously determined.

There is nothing mysterious or unreasonable in all this. In classical physics it was always assumed that clocks in motion and at rest have the same rhythm, that rods in motion and at rest have the same length. If the velocity of light is the same in all CS, if the relativity theory is valid, then we must sacrifice this assumption. It is difficult to get rid of deep-rooted prejudices, but there is no other way. From the point of view of the relativity theory the old concepts seem arbitrary. Why believe, as we did some pages ago, in absolute time flowing in the same way for all observers in all CS? Why believe in unchangeable distance? Time is determined by clocks, space co-ordinates by rods, and the result of their determination may depend on the behaviour of these clocks and rods when in motion. There is no reason to believe that they will behave in the way we should like them to. Observation shows, indirectly, through the phenomena of electromagnetic field, that a moving clock changes its rhythm, a rod its length, whereas on the basis of mechanical phenomena we did not think this happened. We must accept the concept of relative time in every CS, because it is the best way out of our difficulties. Further scientific advance, developing from the theory of relativity, shows that this new aspect should not be regarded as a malum necessarium, for the merits of the theory are much too marked.

Observation shows, indirectly, through the phenomena of electromagnetic field, that a moving clock changes its rhythm, a rod its length, whereas on the basis of mechanical phenomena we did not think this happened.

The theory of relativity gets its validity because it calculates certain observational results better than the classical mechanics. But Einstein does not provide rigorous explanation using a theoretical model. NOTE: Postulates Mechanics now provides this theoretical model (see Final Comment).

So far we have tried to show what led to the fundamental assumptions of the relativity theory, and how the theory forced us to revise and to change the classical transformation by treating time and space in a new way. Our aim is to indicate the ideas forming the basis of a new physical and philosophical view. These ideas are simple; but in the form in which they have been formulated here, they are insufficient for arriving at not only qualitative, but also quantitative conclusions. We must again use our old method of explaining only the principal ideas and stating some of the others without proof.

Our aim is to indicate the ideas forming the basis of a new physical and philosophical view.

To make clear the difference between the view of the old physicist, whom we shall call O and who believes in the classical transformation, and that of the modern physicist, whom we shall call M and who knows the relativity theory, we shall imagine a dialogue between them.

O. I believe in the Galilean relativity principle in mechanics, because I know that the laws of mechanics are the same in two CS moving uniformly relative to each other, or in other words, that these laws are invariant with respect to the classical transformation.

M. But the relativity principle must apply to all events in our external world. Not only the laws of mechanics but all laws of nature must be the same in CS moving uniformly, relative to each other.

The theory of relativity is broadening the observations of laws of nature from matter to field.

O. But how can all laws of nature possibly be the same in CS moving relative to each other? The field equations, that is, Maxwell’s equations, are not invariant with respect to the classical transformation. This is clearly shown by the example of the velocity of light. According to the classical transformation, this velocity should not be the same in two CS moving relative to each other.

M. This merely shows that the classical transformation cannot be applied, that the connection between two CS must be different; that we may not connect co-ordinates and velocities as is done in these transformation laws. We have to substitute new laws and deduce them from the fundamental assumptions of the theory of relativity. Let us not bother about the mathematical expression for this new transformation law, and be satisfied that it is different from the classical. We shall call it briefly the Lorentz transformation. It can be shown that Maxwell’s equations, that is, the laws of field, are invariant with respect to the Lorentz transformation, just as the laws of mechanics are invariant with respect to the classical transformation. Remember how it was in classical physics. We had transformation laws for co-ordinates, transformation laws for velocities, but the laws of mechanics were the same for two CS moving uniformly, relative to each other. We had transformation laws for space, but not for time, because time was the same in all CS. Here, however, in the relativity theory, it is different. We have transformation laws different from the classical for space, time, and velocity. But again the laws of nature must be the same in all CS moving uniformly, relative to each other. The laws of nature must be invariant, not, as before, with respect to the classical transformation, but with respect to a new type of transformation, the so-called Lorentz transformation. In all inertial CS the same laws are valid and the transition from one CS to another is given by the Lorentz transformation.

Classical transformations cannot be applied to the field. In the case of field, Lorentz transformations replace the classical transformations; and the laws of field (Maxwell’s equations) replace the laws of mechanics.

O. I take your word for it, but it would interest me to know the difference between the classical and Lorentz transformations.

M. Your question is best answered in the following way. Quote some of the characteristic features of the classical transformation and I shall try to explain whether or not they are preserved in the Lorentz transformation, and if not, how they are changed.

O. If something happens at some point at some time in my CS, then the observer in another CS moving uniformly, relative to mine, assigns a different number to the position in which this event occurs, but of course the same time. We use the same clock in all our CS and it is immaterial whether or not the clock moves. Is this also true for you?

M. No, it is not. Every CS must be equipped with its own clocks at rest, since motion changes the rhythm. Two observers in two different CS will assign not only different numbers to the position, but also different numbers to the time at which this event happens.

Motion changes the rhythm of the clock. CS will assign different numbers not only to the position, but also to the time at which this event happens.

O. This means that the time is no longer an invariant. In the classical transformation it is always the same time in all CS. In the Lorentz transformation it changes and somehow behaves like the co-ordinate in the old transformation. I wonder how it is with distance? According to classical mechanics a rigid rod preserves its length in motion or at rest. Is this also true now?

M. It is not. In fact, it follows from the Lorentz transformation that a moving stick contracts in the direction of the motion and the contraction increases if the speed increases. The faster a stick moves, the shorter it appears. But this occurs only in the direction of the motion. You see in my drawing a moving rod which shrinks to half its length, when it moves with a velocity approaching ca. [circa] 90 per cent of the velocity of light. There is no contraction, however, in the direction perpendicular to the motion, as I have tried to illustrate in my drawing.

O. This means that the rhythm of a moving clock and the length of a moving stick depend on the speed. But how?

M. The changes become more distinct as the speed increases. It follows from the Lorentz transformation that a stick would shrink to nothing if its speed were to reach that of light. Similarly the rhythm of a moving clock is slowed down, compared to the clocks it passes along the rod, and would come to a stop if the clock were to move with the speed of light, that is, if the clock is a “good” one.

The rhythm of a moving clock and the length of a moving rod depend on the speed. NOTE: Einstein’s interpretation is examined more closely in the Final Comment.

O. This seems to contradict all our experience. We know that a car does not become shorter when in motion and we also know that the driver can always compare his “good” watch with those he passes on the way, finding that they agree fairly well, contrary to your statement.

M. This is certainly true. But these mechanical velocities are all very small compared to that of light, and it is, therefore, ridiculous to apply relativity to these phenomena. Every car driver can safely apply classical physics even if he increases his speed a hundred thousand times. We could only expect disagreement between experiment and the classical transformation with velocities approaching that of light. Only with very great velocities can the validity of the Lorentz transformation be tested.

A mass object cannot be pushed to great velocities without it losing inertia.

O. But there is yet another difficulty. According to mechanics I can imagine bodies with velocities even greater than that of light. A body moving with the velocity of light relative to a floating ship moves with a velocity greater than that of light relative to the shore. What will happen to the stick which shrank to nothing when its velocity was that of light? We can hardly expect a negative length if the velocity is greater than that of light.

M. There is really no reason for such sarcasm! From the point of view of the relativity theory a material body cannot have a velocity greater than that of light. The velocity of light forms the upper limit of velocities for all material bodies. If the speed of a body is equal to that of light relative to a ship, then it will also be equal to that of light relative to the shore. The simple mechanical law of adding and subtracting velocities is no longer valid or, more precisely, is only approximately valid for small velocities, but not for those near the velocity of light. The number expressing the velocity of light appears explicitly in the Lorentz transformation, and plays the role of a limiting case, like the infinite velocity in classical mechanics. This more general theory does not contradict the classical transformation and classical mechanics. On the contrary, we regain the old concepts as a limiting case when the velocities are small. From the point of view of the new theory it is clear in which cases classical physics is valid and wherein its limitations lie. It would be just as ridiculous to apply the theory of relativity to the motion of cars, ships, and trains as to use a calculating machine where a multiplication table would be sufficient.

As an object approaches the velocity of light, its mass must go to zero and not to infinity.

.

Final Comment

.