Category Archives: Physics Book

The Physics Book.

Eddington 1927: Astronomer Royal’s Time

August 30, 2018 – 2:57 PM
time-illusion

Reference: The Book of Physics

Note: The original text is provided below.
Previous / Next

Summary

Eddington starts this section by pointing out how time is perceived for everyday use is so very different from the time we sense subjectively. The fact is that the time for everyday use is based on the behavior of matter; but the time that we sense subjectively is based on the behavior of our thoughts. We may say that changes in matter provide the perception of “matter-time” for everyday use; and changes in thought provide the perception of “thought-time” that we have consciousness of.

The matter-time has been woven into the structure of the classical physical scheme. But it is not the same as the thought-time that we are conscious of. The difference becomes obvious when we are waiting in the doctor’s office; the time appears to pass very slowly.

Eddington talks about how Einstein’s theory links the nature of time to the nature of space. This means matter-time has the same relationship with matter-space, as thought-time has with thought-space. Eddington identifies thought-time as “interval,” but it is actually “thought-interval” and not “matter-interval.” When we represent the enduring world as a three-dimensional space leaping from instant to instant through time, we are relating matter-space to matter-interval, and not to thought-interval.

Eddington then considers the situation, “If two people meet twice they must have lived the same time between the two meetings, even if one of them has travelled to a distant part of the universe and back in the interim.” In this case, the thought-interval will be very different for the two people, but their matter-interval will be the same.

Eddington then states, “If the speed of travel is very great we may find that, whilst the stay-at-home individual has aged 70 years, the traveler has aged 1 year.” This is obviously false because body would respond to the matter-interval, which is the same for both individuals. This confusion is due to incomplete math of the special theory of relativity, which does not take into account the relationship between speed and rigidity of substance.

Matter will not stay matter at terrific speeds. It will reduce to electromagnetic radiation. The math of Special relativity is applicable only  within the range of speeds that matter can have; and that too in an approximate manner.

.

Comments

I could not summarize the misinterpretations in this chapter without commenting on it within the summary itself. It is interesting to see an established scientist misinterpreting the incomplete mathematics of a theory.

.

Original Text

I have sometimes thought it would be very entertaining to hear a discussion between the Astronomer Royal and, let us say, Prof. Bergson on the nature of time. Prof. Bergson’s authority on the subject is well known; and I may remind you that the Astronomer Royal is entrusted with the duty of finding out time for our everyday use, so presumably he has some idea of what he has to find. I must date the discussion some twenty years back, before the spread of Einstein’s ideas brought about a rapprochement. There would then probably have been a keen disagreement, and I rather think that the philosopher would have had the best of the verbal argument. After showing that the Astronomer Royal’s idea of time was quite nonsensical, Prof. Bergson would probably end the discussion by looking at his watch and rushing off to catch a train which was starting by the Astronomer Royal’s time. 

Whatever may be time de jure, the Astronomer Royal’s time is time de facto. His time permeates every corner of physics. It stands in no need of logical defence; it is in the much stronger position of a vested interest. It has been woven into the structure of the classical physical scheme. “Time” in physics means Astronomer Royal’s time. You may be aware that it is revealed to us in Einstein’s theory that time and space are mixed up in a rather strange way. This is a great stumbling-block to the beginner. He is inclined to say, “That is impossible. I feel it in my bones that time and space must be of entirely different nature. They cannot possibly be mixed up.” The Astronomer Royal complacently retorts, “It is not impossible. I have mixed them up.” Well, that settles it. If the Astronomer Royal has mixed them, then his mixture will be the groundwork of present-day physics. 

We have to distinguish two questions which are not necessarily identical. First, what is the true nature of time? Second, what is the nature of that quantity which has under the name of time become a fundamental part of the structure of classical physics? By long history of experiment and theory the results of physical investigation have been woven into a scheme which has on the whole proved wonderfully successful. Time—the Astronomer Royal’s time—has its importance from the fact that it is a constituent of that scheme, the binding material or mortar of it. That importance is not lessened if it should prove to be only imperfectly representative of the time familiar to our consciousness. We therefore give priority to the second question. 

But I may add that Einstein’s theory, having cleared up the second question, having found that physical time is incongruously mixed with space, is able to pass on to the first question. There is a quantity, unrecognized in pre-relativity physics, which more directly represents the time known to consciousness. This is called proper-time or interval. It is definitely separate from and unlike proper-space. Your protest in the name of commonsense against a mixing of time and space is a feeling which I desire to encourage. Time and space ought to be separated. The current representation of the enduring world as a three-dimensional space leaping from instant to instant through time is an unsuccessful attempt to separate them. Come back with me into the virginal four-dimensional world and we will carve it anew on a plan which keeps them entirely distinct.  We can then resurrect the almost forgotten time of consciousness and find that it has a gratifying importance in the absolute scheme of Nature. 

But first let us try to understand why physical time has come to deviate from time as immediately perceived. We have jumped to certain conclusions about time and have come to regard them almost as axiomatic, although they are not really justified by anything in our immediate perception of time. Here is one of them. 

If two people meet twice they must have lived the same time between the two meetings, even if one of them has travelled to a distant part of the universe and back in the interim. 

An absurdly impossible experiment, you will say. Quite so; it is outside all experience. Therefore, may I suggest that you are not appealing to your experience of time when you object to a theory which denies the above statement? And yet if the question is pressed most people would answer impatiently that of course the statement is true. They have formed a notion of time rolling on outside us in a way which makes this seem inevitable. They do not ask themselves whether this conclusion is warranted by anything in their actual experience of time. 

Although we cannot try the experiment of sending a man to another part of the universe, we have enough scientific knowledge to compute the rates of atomic and other physical processes in a body at rest and a body travelling rapidly. We can say definitely that the bodily processes in the traveler occur more slowly than the corresponding processes in the man at rest (i.e. more slowly according to the Astronomer Royal’s time). This is not particularly mysterious; it is well known both from theory and experiment that the mass or inertia of matter increases when the velocity increases. The retardation is a natural consequence of the greater inertia. Thus so far as bodily processes are concerned the fast-moving traveler lives more slowly. His cycle of digestion and fatigue; the rate of muscular response to stimulus; the development of his body from youth to age; the material processes in his brain which must more or less keep step with the passage of thoughts and emotions; the watch which ticks in his waistcoat pocket; all these must be slowed down in the same ratio. If the speed of travel is very great we may find that, whilst the stay-at-home individual has aged 70 years, the traveler has aged 1 year. He has only found appetite for 365 breakfasts, lunches, etc.; his intellect, clogged by a slow-moving brain, has only traversed the amount of thought appropriate to one year of terrestrial life. His watch, which gives a more accurate and scientific reckoning, confirms this. Judging by the time which consciousness attempts to measure after its own rough fashion—and, I repeat, this is the only reckoning of time which we have a right to expect to be distinct from space—the two men have not lived the same time between the two meetings. 

Reference to time as estimated by consciousness is complicated by the fact that the reckoning is very erratic. “I’ll tell you who Time ambles withal, who Time trots withal, who Time gallops withal, and who he stands still withal.” I have not been referring to these subjective variations. I do not very willingly drag in so unsatisfactory a time-keeper; only I have to deal with the critic who tells me what “he feels in his bones” about time, and I would point out to him that the basis of that feeling is time lived, which we have just seen may be 70 years for one individual and 1 year for another between their two meetings. We can reckon “time lived” quite scientifically, e.g.  by a watch travelling with the individual concerned and sharing his changes of inertia with

velocity. But there are obvious drawbacks to the general adoption of “time lived”. It might be useful for each individual to have a private time exactly proportioned to his time lived; but it would be extremely inconvenient for making appointments. Therefore the Astronomer Royal has adopted a universal time-reckoning which does not follow at all strictly the time lived.

According to it the time-lapse does not depend on how the object under consideration has moved in the meanwhile. I admit that this reckoning is a little hard on our returned traveler, who will be counted by it as an octogenarian although he is to all appearances still a boy in his teens. But sacrifices must be made for the general benefit. In practice we have not to deal with human beings travelling at any great speed; but we have to deal with atoms and electrons travelling at terrific speed, so that the question of private time-reckoning versus general time-reckoning is a very practical one. 

Thus in physical time (or Astronomer Royal’s time) two people are deemed to have lived the same time between two meetings, whether or not that accords with their actual experience. The consequent deviation from the time of experience is responsible for the mixing up of time and space, which, of course, would be impossible if the time of direct experience had been rigidly adhered to. Physical time is, like space, a kind of frame in which we locate the events of the external world. We are now going to consider how in practice external events are located in a frame of space and time. We have seen that there is an infinite choice of alternative frames; so, to be quite explicit, I will tell you how I locate events in my frame. 

.

By vinaire | Comments (0)

Eddington 1927: Is the Fitzgerald Contraction Real

August 29, 2018 – 11:07 AM
Rocket Contracted

Reference: The Book of Physics

Note: The original text is provided below.
Previous / Next

Summary


This section considers the reality of the Fitzgerald contraction. Eddington doesn’t commit to a definite answer. He believes Fitzgerald contraction to be relative and not absolute. Its value is based on the relative frame of space. It is not an absolute value that is real.

The absolute frame of space was mathematically introduced by Einstein in his general theory of relativity by using a four-dimensional co-ordinate system that included time.

.

Comments

The frame of space is based on the relative velocity of the observer, therefore, it is not real. It is only part of a mathematical process. In reality, the Fitzgerald contraction will occur only when the rod accelerates, because that would be an absolute framework.

According to the theory of Substance, matter is already in a very accelerated state compared to energy because, as a substance, it is much more condensed than energy. It may be accelerated further to become as condensed as the black hole, but not much beyond that.

The opposite of contraction is expansion. It will occur when the force being applied to accelerate the object is taken away. If acceleration is taken away from matter, it would expand into energy. Further taking away of acceleration may expand energy into aether.

.

Original Text

I am often asked whether the FitzGerald contraction really occurs. It was introduced in the first chapter before the idea of relativity was mentioned, and perhaps it is not quite clear what has become of it now that the theory of relativity has given us a new conception of what is going on in the world. Naturally my first chapter, which describes the phenomena according to the ideas of classical physics in order to show the need for a new theory, contains many statements which we should express differently in relativity physics.

Is it really true that a moving rod becomes shortened in the direction of its motion? It is not altogether easy to give a plain answer. I think we often draw a distinction between what is true and what is really true. A statement which does not profess to deal with anything except appearances may be true; a statement which is not only true but deals with the realities beneath the appearances is really true.

You receive a balance-sheet from a public company and observe that the assets amount to such and such a figure. Is this true? Certainly; it is certified by a chartered accountant. But is it really true? Many questions arise; the real values of items are often very different from those which figure in the balance-sheet. I am not especially referring to fraudulent companies. There is a blessed phrase “hidden reserves”; and generally speaking the more respectable the company the more widely does its balance-sheet deviate from reality. This is called sound finance. But apart from deliberate use of the balance-sheet to conceal the actual situation, it is not well adapted for exhibiting realities, because the main function of a balance-sheet is to balance and everything else has to be subordinated to that end.

The physicist who uses a frame of space has to account for every millimeter of space—in fact to draw up a balance-sheet, and make it balance. Usually there is not much difficulty. But suppose that he happens to be concerned with a man travelling at 161,000 miles a second. The man is an ordinary 6-foot man. So far as reality is concerned the proper entry in the balance-sheet would appear to be 6 feet. But then the balance sheet would not balance. In accounting for the rest of space there is left only 3 feet between the crown of his head and the soles of his boots. His balance-sheet length is therefore “written down” to 3 feet.

The writing-down of lengths for balance-sheet purposes is the FitzGerald contraction. The shortening of the moving rod is true, but it is not really true. It is not a statement about reality (the absolute) but it is a true statement about appearances in our frame of reference.  (The proper-length is unaltered; but the relative length is shortened. We have already seen that the word “length” as currently used refers to relative length, and in confirming the statement that the moving rod changes its length we are, of course, assuming that the word is used with its current meaning.) An object has different lengths in the different spaceframes, and any 6-foot man will have a length 3 feet in some frame or other. The statement that the length of the rapid traveler is 3 feet is true, but it does not indicate any special peculiarity about the man; it only indicates that our adopted frame is the one in which his length is 3 feet. If it hadn’t been ours, it would have been someone else’s.

Perhaps you will think we ought to alter our method of keeping the accounts of space so as to make them directly represent the realities. That would be going to a lot of trouble to provide for what are after all rather rare transactions. But as a matter of fact we have managed to meet your desire. Thanks to Minkowski a way of keeping accounts has been found which exhibits realities (absolute things) and balances. There has been no great rush to adopt it for ordinary purposes because it is a four-dimensional balance-sheet.

.

By vinaire | Comments (0)

Eddington 1927: Nature’s Plan of Structure

August 28, 2018 – 9:19 PM
Nature-Plan

Reference: The Book of Physics

Note: The original text is provided below.
Previous / Next

Summary

We need to find Nature’s own frame of space. But nature may not have such a frame. We may have to take a different approach. According to Eddington, the recognition of relativity leads us to seek a new way of unravelling the complexity of natural phenomena.

.

Comments

This new way of unravelling the complexity of natural phenomena was provided by Einstein. But now there is another approach possible using the Theory of Substance, that does not require much change from classical conceptions.

.

Original Text

Let us now return to the observer who was so anxious to pick out a “right” frame of space. I suppose that what he had in mind was to find Nature’s own frame—the frame on which Nature based her calculations when she poised the planets under the law of gravity, or the reckoning of symmetry which she used when she turned the electrons on her lathe. But Nature has been too subtle for him; she has not left anything to betray the frame which she used. Or perhaps the concealment is not any particular subtlety; she may have done her work without employing a frame of space. Let me tell you a parable.

There was once an archaeologist who used to compute the dates of ancient temples from their orientation. He found that they were aligned with respect to the rising of particular stars. Owing to precession the star no longer rises in the original line, but the date when it was rising in the line of the temple can be calculated, and hence the epoch of construction of the temple is discovered. But there was one tribe for which this method would not work; they had built only circular temples. To the archaeologist this seemed a manifestation of extraordinary subtlety on their part; they had hit on a device which would conceal entirely the date when their temples were constructed. One critic, however, made the ribald suggestion that perhaps this particular tribe was not enthusiastic about astronomy.

Like the critic I do not think Nature has been particularly subtle in concealing which frame she prefers. It is just that she is not enthusiastic about frames of space. They are a method of partition which we have found useful for reckoning, but they play no part in the architecture of the universe. Surely it is absurd to suppose that the universe is planned in such a way as to conceal its plan. It is like the schemes of the White Knight—

But I was thinking of a plan
To dye one’s whiskers green,
And always use so large a fan
That they could not be seen.

If this is so we shall have to sweep away the frames of space before we can see Nature’s plan in its real significance. She herself has paid no attention to them, and they can only obscure the simplicity of her scheme. I do not mean to suggest that we should entirely rewrite physics, eliminating all reference to frames of space or any quantities referred to them; science has many tasks to perform, besides that of apprehending the ultimate plan of structure of the world. But if we do wish to have insight on this latter point, then the first step is to make an escape from the irrelevant space-frames.

This will involve a great change from classical conceptions, and important developments will follow from our change of attitude. For example, it is known that both gravitation and electric force follow approximately the law of inverse-square of the distance. This law appeals strongly to us by its simplicity; not only is it mathematically simple but it corresponds very naturally with the weakening of an effect by spreading out in three dimensions. We suspect therefore that it is likely to be the exact law of gravitational and electric fields. But although it is simple for us it is far from simple for Nature. Distance refers to a space-frame; it is different according to the frame chosen. We cannot make sense of the law of inverse-square of the distance unless we have first fixed on a frame of space; but Nature has not fixed on any one frame. Even if by some self-compensation the law worked out so as to give the same observable consequences whatever space-frame we might happen to choose (which it does not) we should still be misapprehending its real mode of operation. In chapter VI we shall try to gain a new insight into the law (which for most practical applications is so nearly expressed by the inverse-square) and obtain a picture of its working which does not drag in an irrelevant frame of space. The recognition of relativity leads us to seek a new way of unravelling the complexity of natural phenomena.

.

By vinaire | Comments (0)

Eddington 1927: Einstein’s Principle of Relativity

August 28, 2018 – 10:14 AM
Einstein

Reference: The Book of Physics

Note: The original text is provided below.
Previous / Next

Summary

Einstein starts with the same dilemma that Newton did: there is no criterion for absolute rest. Therefore, a scale for absolute motion does not exist. We know the velocity of Earth relative to Sun; but we cannot say anything about the absolute motion of Earth. Einstein saw each observer having his own frame of space based on his relative speed. There was no absolute frame of space.

All measurable quantities of physics seem to depend on the frame of space, and, therefore, they are also relative. Even the electric and magnetic fields show up to be relative. However, it is possible to construct new physical quantities by multiplying, dividing, etc., that are invariant with respect to the frame of space. Relativity physics is especially interested in invariants. One or two of these invariants turn out to be quantities already recognized in pre-relativity physics; “action” and “entropy” are the best known.

.

Comments

In truth, a scientific observer has neither location nor speed. If there is an invariant it would be found in the substance of the universe that is being observed.

.

Original Text

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.

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.”

.

By vinaire | Comments (0)

Eddington 1927: “Common Sense” Objections

August 27, 2018 – 7:38 PM
Argument

Reference: The Book of Physics

Note: The original text is provided below.
Previous / Next

Summary

Eddington says that some people are skeptical about the contraction of measuring rods. There exists deep conditioning about location in space. When we sense objects and their locations in space, we have a frame of space. But this frame of space changes when we are in motion at high speeds.

This shows that “right” location in space cannot be nearly so important and fundamental as it is made out to be in the Newtonian scheme of things. The Newtonian idea of location contains some truth and some padding.

.

Comments

What actually is missing in Newtonian scheme of things is the relationship between inertia and motion. The frame of space does not depend on the relative speed of the observer. It depends on the acceleration of the object with resulting change in its inertia.

.

Original Text

Before going further I must answer the critic who objects in the name of common sense. Space—his space—is so vivid to him. “This object is obviously here; that object is just there. I know it; and I am not going to be shaken by any amount of scientific obscurantism about contraction of measuring rods.”

We have certain preconceived ideas (about location in space) which have come down to us from ape-like ancestors. They are deeply rooted in our mode of thought, so that it is very difficult to criticize them impartially and to realise the very insecure foundation on which they rest. We commonly suppose that each of the objects surrounding us has a definite location in space and that we are aware of the right location. The objects in my study are actually in the positions where I am “aware” that they are; and if an observer (on another star) surveying the room with measuring rods, etc., makes out a different arrangement of location, he is merely spinning a scientific paradox which does not shake the real facts of location obvious to any man of common sense. This attitude rejects with contempt the question, “How am I aware of the location?” If the location is determined by scientific measurements with elaborate precautions, we are ready enough to suggest all sorts of ways in which the apparatus might have misbehaved; but if the knowledge of location is obtained with no precautions, if it just comes into our heads unsought, then it is obviously true and to doubt it would be flying in the face of common sense! We have a sort of impression (although we do not like to acknowledge it) that the mind puts out a feeler into space to ascertain directly where each familiar object is. That is nonsense; our common sense knowledge of location is not obtained that way. Strictly it is sense knowledge, not common sense knowledge. It is partly obtained by touch and locomotion; such and such an object is at arm’s length or a few steps away. Is there any essential difference (other than its crudity) between this method and scientific measurements with a scale? It is partly obtained by vision—a crude version of scientific measurement with a theodolite. Our common knowledge of “where things are” is not a miraculous revelation of unquestionable authority; it is inference from observations of the same kind as, but cruder than, those made in a scientific survey. Within its own limits of accuracy the scheme of location of objects that I am instinctively “aware” of is the same as my scientific scheme of location, or frame of space.

When we use a carefully made telescope lens and a sensitized plate instead of the crystalline lens and retina of the eye we increase the accuracy but do not alter the character of our survey of space. It is by this increase of refinement that we have become “aware” of certain characteristics of space which were not known to our ape-like ancestor when he instituted the common ideas that have come down to us. His scheme of location works consistently so long as there is no important change in his motion (a few miles a second makes no appreciable difference); but a large change involves a transition to a different system of location which is likewise self-consistent, although it is inconsistent with the original one. Having any number of these systems of location, or frames of space, we can no longer pretend that each of them indicates “just where things are”. Location is not something supernaturally revealed to the mind; it is a kind of conventional summary of those properties or relations of objects which condition certain visual and tactual sensations.

Does not this show that “right” location in space cannot be nearly so important and fundamental as it is made out to be in the Newtonian scheme of things? The different observers are able to play fast and loose with it without ill effects.

Suppose that location is, I will not say, entirely a myth, but not quite the definite thing it is made out to be in classical physics; that the Newtonian idea of location contains some truth and some padding, and it is not the truth but the padding that our observers are quarrelling over. That would explain a great deal. It would explain, for instance, why all the forces of Nature seem to have entered into a conspiracy to prevent our discovering the definite location of any object (its position in the “right” frame of space); naturally they cannot reveal it, if it does not exist.

.

By vinaire | Comments (0)