1

2
Evolution of Physics

Albert Einstein
2 Evolution of Physics

Books iRead
http://booksiread.org
http://apps.facebook.com/ireadit
http://myspace.com/ireadit

Note: 58 image files are part of this eBook.

They include tables, equations and figures that
could not be represented well as plain text.
Title: Relativity: The Special and General
http://booksiread.org 3

Theory
Author: Albert Einstein
Release Date: February, 2004 [EBook #5001]
[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of sched-
ule] [This file was first posted on April 1, 2002]
Edition: 10
Language: English
4 Evolution of Physics
ALBERT EINSTEIN
REFERENCE
ARCHIVE
RELATIVITY: THE
SPECIAL AND
GENERAL THEORY

Written: 1916 (this revised edition: 1924) Source:

Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920)

5
6 Evolution of Physics

Publisher: Methuen & Co Ltd First Published:

December, 1916 Translated: Robert W. Lawson
(Authorised translation) Transcription/Markup:
Brian Basgen [email protected] Transcription
to text: Gregory B. Newby [email protected]
Thanks to: Einstein Reference Archive (marx-
ists.org) The Einstein Reference Archive is on-
line at: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein
Transcriber note: This file is a plain text ren-
dition of HTML. Because many equations can-
not be presented effectively in plain text, im-
ages are supplied for many equations and for
all figures and tables.
CONTENTS

Preface

Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity

01. Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propo-

sitions 02. The System of Co-ordinates 03. Space
and Time in Classical Mechanics 04. The Galileian
System of Co-ordinates 05. The Principle of
Relativity (in the Restricted Sense) 06. The The-
orem of the Addition of Velocities employed in
Classical Mechanics 07. The Apparent Incom-
patability of the Law of Propagation of Light
with the Principle of Relativity 08. On the Idea
of Time in Physics 09. The Relativity of Simul-

7
8 Evolution of Physics

taneity 10. On the Relativity of the Conception

of Distance 11. The Lorentz Transformation 12.
The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks
in Motion 13. Theorem of the Addition of Veloc-
ities. The Experiment of Fizeau 14. The Hueris-
tic Value of the Theory of Relativity 15. General
Results of the Theory 16. Expereince and the
Special Theory of Relativity 17. Minkowski’s
Four-dimensial Space

Part II: The General Theory of Relativity

18. Special and General Principle of Relativ-

ity 19. The Gravitational Field 20. The Equal-
ity of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an Ar-
gument for the General Postulate of Relativity
21. In What Respects are the Foundations of
Classical Mechanics and of the Special Theory
of Relativity Unsatisfactory? 22. A Few Infer-
ences from the General Principle of Relativity
23. Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring-Rods
http://booksiread.org 9

on a Rotating Body of Reference 24. Euclidean

and non-Euclidean Continuum 25. Gaussian
Co-ordinates 26. The Space-Time Continuum
of the Speical Theory of Relativity Considered
as a Euclidean Continuum 27. The Space-Time
Continuum of the General Theory of Relativity
is Not a Eculidean Continuum 28. Exact For-
mulation of the General Principle of Relativity
29. The Solution of the Problem of Gravitation
on the Basis of the General Principle of Relativ-
ity

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a

Whole

30. Cosmological Difficulties of Netwon’s The-

ory 31. The Possibility of a ”Finite” and yet ”Un-
bounded” Universe 32. The Structure of Space
According to the General Theory of Relativity

Appendices:

01. Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Trans-

10 Evolution of Physics

formation (sup. ch. 11) 02. Minkowski’s Four-

Dimensional Space (”World”) (sup. ch 17) 03.
The Experimental Confirmation of the General
Theory of Relativity 04. The Structure of Space
According to the General Theory of Relativity
(sup. ch 32) 05. Relativity and the Problem
of Space
Note: The fifth Appendix was added by Ein-
stein at the time of the fifteenth re-printing of
this book; and as a result is still under copy-
right restrictions so cannot be added without
the permission of the publisher.
PREFACE

(December, 1916)

The present book is intended, as far as pos-

sible, to give an exact insight into the theory
of Relativity to those readers who, from a gen-
eral scientific and philosophical point of view,
are interested in the theory, but who are not
conversant with the mathematical apparatus of
theoretical physics. The work presumes a stan-
dard of education corresponding to that of a
university matriculation examination, and, de-
spite the shortness of the book, a fair amount
of patience and force of will on the part of the

11
12 Evolution of Physics

reader. The author has spared himself no pains

in his endeavour to present the main ideas in
the simplest and most intelligible form, and on
the whole, in the sequence and connection in
which they actually originated. In the inter-
est of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable
that I should repeat myself frequently, without
paying the slightest attention to the elegance of
the presentation. I adhered scrupulously to the
precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L.
Boltzmann, according to whom matters of ele-
gance ought to be left to the tailor and to the
cobbler. I make no pretence of having withheld
from the reader difficulties which are inherent
to the subject. On the other hand, I have pur-
posely treated the empirical physical founda-
tions of the theory in a ”step-motherly” fashion,
so that readers unfamiliar with physics may
not feel like the wanderer who was unable to
http://booksiread.org 13

see the forest for the trees. May the book bring
some one a few happy hours of suggestive thought!

December, 1916 A. EINSTEIN

PART I THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELA-

TIVITY PHYSICAL MEANING OF GEOMETRI-
CAL PROPOSITIONS

In your schooldays most of you who read

this book made acquaintance with the noble
building of Euclid’s geometry, and you remem-
ber – perhaps with more respect than love –
the magnificent structure, on the lofty stair-
case of which you were chased about for un-
counted hours by conscientious teachers. By
reason of our past experience, you would cer-
tainly regard everyone with disdain who should
pronounce even the most out-of-the-way propo-
sition of this science to be untrue. But per-
haps this feeling of proud certainty would leave
you immediately if some one were to ask you:
14 Evolution of Physics

”What, then, do you mean by the assertion that

these propositions are true?” Let us proceed to
give this question a little consideration.

Geometry sets out form certain conceptions

such as ”plane,” ”point,” and ”straight line,” with
which we are able to associate more or less defi-
nite ideas, and from certain simple propositions
(axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are
inclined to accept as ”true.” Then, on the basis
of a logical process, the justification of which
we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all re-
maining propositions are shown to follow from
those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A propo-
sition is then correct (”true”) when it has been
derived in the recognised manner from the ax-
ioms. The question of ”truth” of the individ-
ual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to
one of the ”truth” of the axioms. Now it has
long been known that the last question is not
http://booksiread.org 15

only unanswerable by the methods of geometry,

but that it is in itself entirely without meaning.
We cannot ask whether it is true that only one
straight line goes through two points. We can
only say that Euclidean geometry deals with
things called ”straight lines,” to each of which
is ascribed the property of being uniquely de-
termined by two points situated on it. The con-
cept ”true” does not tally with the assertions
of pure geometry, because by the word ”true”
we are eventually in the habit of designating al-
ways the correspondence with a ”real” object;
geometry, however, is not concerned with the
relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of
experience, but only with the logical connection
of these ideas among themselves.

It is not difficult to understand why, in spite

of this, we feel constrained to call the proposi-
tions of geometry ”true.” Geometrical ideas cor-
16 Evolution of Physics

respond to more or less exact objects in nature,

and these last are undoubtedly the exclusive
cause of the genesis of those ideas. Geometry
ought to refrain from such a course, in order
to give to its structure the largest possible log-
ical unity. The practice, for example, of seeing
in a ”distance” two marked positions on a prac-
tically rigid body is something which is lodged
deeply in our habit of thought. We are accus-
tomed further to regard three points as being
situated on a straight line, if their apparent po-
sitions can be made to coincide for observation
with one eye, under suitable choice of our place
of observation.

If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we

now supplement the propositions of Euclidean
geometry by the single proposition that two points
on a practically rigid body always correspond to
the same distance (line-interval), independently
http://booksiread.org 17

of any changes in position to which we may

subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean
geometry then resolve themselves into proposi-
tions on the possible relative position of prac-
tically rigid bodies.* Geometry which has been
supplemented in this way is then to be treated
as a branch of physics. We can now legitimately
ask as to the ”truth” of geometrical propositions
interpreted in this way, since we are justified in
asking whether these propositions are satisfied
for those real things we have associated with
the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we
can express this by saying that by the ”truth”
of a geometrical proposition in this sense we
understand its validity for a construction with
rule and compasses.

Of course the conviction of the ”truth” of ge-

ometrical propositions in this sense is founded
exclusively on rather incomplete experience. For
18 Evolution of Physics

the present we shall assume the ”truth” of the

geometrical propositions, then at a later stage
(in the general theory of relativity) we shall see
that this ”truth” is limited, and we shall con-
sider the extent of its limitation.
Notes
*) It follows that a natural object is associ-
ated also with a straight line. Three points A,
B and C on a rigid body thus lie in a straight
line when the points A and C being given, B is
chosen such that the sum of the distances AB
and BC is as short as possible. This incomplete
suggestion will suffice for the present purpose.
THE SYSTEM OF
CO-ORDINATES

On the basis of the physical interpretation of

distance which has been indicated, we are also
in a position to establish the distance between
two points on a rigid body by means of mea-
surements. For this purpose we require a ” dis-
tance ” (rod S) which is to be used once and
for all, and which we employ as a standard
measure. If, now, A and B are two points on
a rigid body, we can construct the line joining
them according to the rules of geometry ; then,

19
20 Evolution of Physics

starting from A, we can mark off the distance

S time after time until we reach B. The number
of these operations required is the numerical
measure of the distance AB. This is the basis of
all measurement of length. *

Every description of the scene of an event or

of the position of an object in space is based
on the specification of the point on a rigid body
(body of reference) with which that event or ob-
ject coincides. This applies not only to scientific
description, but also to everyday life. If I anal-
yse the place specification ” Times Square, New
York,” **A I arrive at the following result. The
earth is the rigid body to which the specification
of place refers; ” Times Square, New York,” is a
well-defined point, to which a name has been
assigned, and with which the event coincides
in space.**B

This primitive method of place specification

http://booksiread.org 21

deals only with places on the surface of rigid

bodies, and is dependent on the existence of
points on this surface which are distinguish-
able from each other. But we can free ourselves
from both of these limitations without altering
the nature of our specification of position. If,
for instance, a cloud is hovering over Times
Square, then we can determine its position rel-
ative to the surface of the earth by erecting a
pole perpendicularly on the Square, so that it
reaches the cloud. The length of the pole mea-
sured with the standard measuring-rod, com-
bined with the specification of the position of
the foot of the pole, supplies us with a com-
plete place specification. On the basis of this
illustration, we are able to see the manner in
which a refinement of the conception of posi-
tion has been developed.

(a) We imagine the rigid body, to which the

22 Evolution of Physics

place specification is referred, supplemented in

such a manner that the object whose position
we require is reached by. the completed rigid
body.

(b) In locating the position of the object, we

make use of a number (here the length of the
pole measured with the measuring-rod) instead
of designated points of reference.

(c) We speak of the height of the cloud even

when the pole which reaches the cloud has not
been erected. By means of optical observations
of the cloud from different positions on the ground,
and taking into account the properties of the
propagation of light, we determine the length
of the pole we should have required in order to
reach the cloud.

From this consideration we see that it will

be advantageous if, in the description of posi-
tion, it should be possible by means of numer-
http://booksiread.org 23

ical measures to make ourselves independent

of the existence of marked positions (possess-
ing names) on the rigid body of reference. In
the physics of measurement this is attained by
the application of the Cartesian system of co-
ordinates.

This consists of three plane surfaces per-

pendicular to each other and rigidly attached
to a rigid body. Referred to a system of co-
ordinates, the scene of any event will be de-
termined (for the main part) by the specifica-
tion of the lengths of the three perpendiculars
or co-ordinates (x, y, z) which can be dropped
from the scene of the event to those three plane
surfaces. The lengths of these three perpendic-
ulars can be determined by a series of manip-
ulations with rigid measuring-rods performed
according to the rules and methods laid down
by Euclidean geometry.
24 Evolution of Physics

In practice, the rigid surfaces which consti-

tute the system of co-ordinates are generally
not available ; furthermore, the magnitudes of
the co-ordinates are not actually determined by
constructions with rigid rods, but by indirect
means. If the results of physics and astron-
omy are to maintain their clearness, the phys-
ical meaning of specifications of position must
always be sought in accordance with the above
considerations. ***

We thus obtain the following result: Every

description of events in space involves the use
of a rigid body to which such events have to
be referred. The resulting relationship takes
for granted that the laws of Euclidean geometry
hold for ”distances;” the ”distance” being rep-
resented physically by means of the convention
of two marks on a rigid body.

Notes
http://booksiread.org 25

* Here we have assumed that there is noth-

ing left over i.e. that the measurement gives
a whole number. This difficulty is got over by
the use of divided measuring-rods, the intro-
duction of which does not demand any funda-
mentally new method.

**A Einstein used ”Potsdamer Platz, Berlin”

in the original text. In the authorised trans-
lation this was supplemented with ”Tranfalgar
Square, London”. We have changed this to ”Times
Square, New York”, as this is the most well
known/identifiable location to English speak-
ers in the present day. [Note by the janitor.]

**B It is not necessary here to investigate

further the significance of the expression ”co-
incidence in space.” This conception is suffi-
ciently obvious to ensure that differences of opin-
ion are scarcely likely to arise as to its applica-
bility in practice.
26 Evolution of Physics

*** A refinement and modification of these

views does not become necessary until we come
to deal with the general theory of relativity, treated
in the second part of this book.
SPACE AND TIME IN
CLASSICAL
MECHANICS

The purpose of mechanics is to describe how

bodies change their position in space with ”time.”
I should load my conscience with grave sins
against the sacred spirit of lucidity were I to
formulate the aims of mechanics in this way,
without serious reflection and detailed expla-
nations. Let us proceed to disclose these sins.

It is not clear what is to be understood here

27
28 Evolution of Physics

by ”position” and ”space.” I stand at the window

of a railway carriage which is travelling uni-
formly, and drop a stone on the embankment,
without throwing it. Then, disregarding the in-
fluence of the air resistance, I see the stone
descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who
observes the misdeed from the footpath notices
that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve.
I now ask: Do the ”positions” traversed by the
stone lie ”in reality” on a straight line or on
a parabola? Moreover, what is meant here by
motion ”in space” ? From the considerations of
the previous section the answer is self-evident.
In the first place we entirely shun the vague
word ”space,” of which, we must honestly ac-
knowledge, we cannot form the slightest con-
ception, and we replace it by ”motion relative
to a practically rigid body of reference.” The po-
sitions relative to the body of reference (railway
http://booksiread.org 29

carriage or embankment) have already been de-

fined in detail in the preceding section. If in-
stead of ” body of reference ” we insert ” sys-
tem of co-ordinates,” which is a useful idea for
mathematical description, we are in a position
to say : The stone traverses a straight line rela-
tive to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached
to the carriage, but relative to a system of co-
ordinates rigidly attached to the ground (em-
bankment) it describes a parabola. With the
aid of this example it is clearly seen that there
is no such thing as an independently existing
trajectory (lit. ”path-curve”*), but only a trajec-
tory relative to a particular body of reference.

In order to have a complete description of

the motion, we must specify how the body al-
ters its position with time ; i.e. for every point
on the trajectory it must be stated at what time
the body is situated there. These data must be
30 Evolution of Physics

supplemented by such a definition of time that,

in virtue of this definition, these time-values
can be regarded essentially as magnitudes (re-
sults of measurements) capable of observation.
If we take our stand on the ground of classi-
cal mechanics, we can satisfy this requirement
for our illustration in the following manner. We
imagine two clocks of identical construction ;
the man at the railway-carriage window is hold-
ing one of them, and the man on the footpath
the other. Each of the observers determines the
position on his own reference-body occupied by
the stone at each tick of the clock he is hold-
ing in his hand. In this connection we have not
taken account of the inaccuracy involved by the
finiteness of the velocity of propagation of light.
With this and with a second difficulty prevailing
here we shall have to deal in detail later.

Notes
http://booksiread.org 31

*) That is, a curve along which the body moves.

THE GALILEIAN SYSTEM OF CO-ORDINATES

As is well known, the fundamental law of the

mechanics of Galilei-Newton, which is known
as the law of inertia, can be stated thus: A body
removed sufficiently far from other bodies con-
tinues in a state of rest or of uniform motion
in a straight line. This law not only says some-
thing about the motion of the bodies, but it also
indicates the reference-bodies or systems of co-
ordinates, permissible in mechanics, which can
be used in mechanical description. The visible
fixed stars are bodies for which the law of iner-
tia certainly holds to a high degree of approxi-
mation. Now if we use a system of co-ordinates
which is rigidly attached to the earth, then, rel-
ative to this system, every fixed star describes
a circle of immense radius in the course of an
astronomical day, a result which is opposed to
32 Evolution of Physics

the statement of the law of inertia. So that if we

adhere to this law we must refer these motions
only to systems of coordinates relative to which
the fixed stars do not move in a circle. A system
of co-ordinates of which the state of motion is
such that the law of inertia holds relative to it is
called a ” Galileian system of co-ordinates.” The
laws of the mechanics of Galflei-Newton can be
regarded as valid only for a Galileian system of
co-ordinates.
THE PRINCIPLE OF
RELATIVITY (IN THE
RESTRICTED
SENSE)

In order to attain the greatest possible clear-

ness, let us return to our example of the railway
carriage supposed to be travelling uniformly.
We call its motion a uniform translation (”uni-
form” because it is of constant velocity and di-
rection, ” translation ” because although the

33
34 Evolution of Physics

carriage changes its position relative to the em-

bankment yet it does not rotate in so doing).
Let us imagine a raven flying through the air
in such a manner that its motion, as observed
from the embankment, is uniform and in a straight
line. If we were to observe the flying raven from
the moving railway carriage. we should find
that the motion of the raven would be one of dif-
ferent velocity and direction, but that it would
still be uniform and in a straight line. Expressed
in an abstract manner we may say : If a mass
m is moving uniformly in a straight line with re-
spect to a co-ordinate system K, then it will also
be moving uniformly and in a straight line rela-
tive to a second co-ordinate system K1 provided
that the latter is executing a uniform transla-
tory motion with respect to K. In accordance
with the discussion contained in the preceding
section, it follows that:
http://booksiread.org 35

If K is a Galileian co-ordinate system. then

every other co-ordinate system K’ is a Galileian
one, when, in relation to K, it is in a condition
of uniform motion of translation. Relative to
K1 the mechanical laws of Galilei-Newton hold
good exactly as they do with respect to K.

We advance a step farther in our generalisa-

tion when we express the tenet thus: If, relative
to K, K1 is a uniformly moving co-ordinate sys-
tem devoid of rotation, then natural phenom-
ena run their course with respect to K1 accord-
ing to exactly the same general laws as with
respect to K. This statement is called the prin-
ciple of relativity (in the restricted sense).

As long as one was convinced that all natu-

ral phenomena were capable of representation
with the help of classical mechanics, there was
no need to doubt the validity of this principle
of relativity. But in view of the more recent de-
36 Evolution of Physics

velopment of electrodynamics and optics it be-

came more and more evident that classical me-
chanics affords an insufficient foundation for
the physical description of all natural phenom-
ena. At this juncture the question of the va-
lidity of the principle of relativity became ripe
for discussion, and it did not appear impossi-
ble that the answer to this question might be in
the negative.

Nevertheless, there are two general facts which

at the outset speak very much in favour of the
validity of the principle of relativity. Even though
classical mechanics does not supply us with a
sufficiently broad basis for the theoretical pre-
sentation of all physical phenomena, still we
must grant it a considerable measure of ” truth,”
since it supplies us with the actual motions of
the heavenly bodies with a delicacy of detail lit-
tle short of wonderful. The principle of relativ-
http://booksiread.org 37

ity must therefore apply with great accuracy in

the domain of mechanics. But that a principle
of such broad generality should hold with such
exactness in one domain of phenomena, and
yet should be invalid for another, is a priori not
very probable.

We now proceed to the second argument, to

which, moreover, we shall return later. If the
principle of relativity (in the restricted sense)
does not hold, then the Galileian co-ordinate
systems K, K1, K2, etc., which are moving uni-
formly relative to each other, will not be equiv-
alent for the description of natural phenomena.
In this case we should be constrained to be-
lieve that natural laws are capable of being for-
mulated in a particularly simple manner, and
of course only on condition that, from amongst
all possible Galileian co-ordinate systems, we
should have chosen one (K[0]) of a particular
38 Evolution of Physics

state of motion as our body of reference. We

should then be justified (because of its mer-
its for the description of natural phenomena)
in calling this system ” absolutely at rest,” and
all other Galileian systems K ” in motion.” If,
for instance, our embankment were the system
K[0] then our railway carriage would be a sys-
tem K, relative to which less simple laws would
hold than with respect to K[0]. This diminished
simplicity would be due to the fact that the car-
riage K would be in motion (i.e.”really”)with re-
spect to K[0]. In the general laws of nature
which have been formulated with reference to
K, the magnitude and direction of the velocity of
the carriage would necessarily play a part. We
should expect, for instance, that the note emit-
ted by an organpipe placed with its axis parallel
to the direction of travel would be different from
that emitted if the axis of the pipe were placed
http://booksiread.org 39

perpendicular to this direction.

Now in virtue of its motion in an orbit round

the sun, our earth is comparable with a rail-
way carriage travelling with a velocity of about
30 kilometres per second. If the principle of
relativity were not valid we should therefore ex-
pect that the direction of motion of the earth at
any moment would enter into the laws of na-
ture, and also that physical systems in their
behaviour would be dependent on the orienta-
tion in space with respect to the earth. For ow-
ing to the alteration in direction of the veloc-
ity of revolution of the earth in the course of a
year, the earth cannot be at rest relative to the
hypothetical system K[0] throughout the whole
year. However, the most careful observations
have never revealed such anisotropic proper-
ties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical
non-equivalence of different directions. This is
40 Evolution of Physics

very powerful argument in favour of the princi-

ple of relativity.

THE THEOREM OF THE ADDITION OF VE-

LOCITIES EMPLOYED IN CLASSICAL MECHAN-
ICS

Let us suppose our old friend the railway

carriage to be travelling along the rails with a
constant velocity v, and that a man traverses
the length of the carriage in the direction of
travel with a velocity w. How quickly or, in other
words, with what velocity W does the man ad-
vance relative to the embankment during the
process ? The only possible answer seems to
result from the following consideration: If the
man were to stand still for a second, he would
advance relative to the embankment through a
distance v equal numerically to the velocity of
the carriage. As a consequence of his walking,
however, he traverses an additional distance w
http://booksiread.org 41

relative to the carriage, and hence also relative

to the embankment, in this second, the dis-
tance w being numerically equal to the velocity
with which he is walking. Thus in total be cov-
ers the distance W=v+w relative to the embank-
ment in the second considered. We shall see
later that this result, which expresses the the-
orem of the addition of velocities employed in
classical mechanics, cannot be maintained ; in
other words, the law that we have just written
down does not hold in reality. For the time be-
ing, however, we shall assume its correctness.

THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE

LAW OF PROPAGATION OF LIGHT WITH THE
PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY

There is hardly a simpler law in physics than

that according to which light is propagated in
empty space. Every child at school knows, or
believes he knows, that this propagation takes
42 Evolution of Physics

place in straight lines with a velocity c= 300,000

km./sec. At all events we know with great ex-
actness that this velocity is the same for all
colours, because if this were not the case, the
minimum of emission would not be observed
simultaneously for different colours during the
eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour.
By means of similar considerations based on
observa- tions of double stars, the Dutch as-
tronomer De Sitter was also able to show that
the velocity of propagation of light cannot de-
pend on the velocity of motion of the body emit-
ting the light. The assumption that this velocity
of propagation is dependent on the direction ”in
space” is in itself improbable.

In short, let us assume that the simple law

of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in
vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at
school. Who would imagine that this simple
http://booksiread.org 43

law has plunged the conscientiously thought-

ful physicist into the greatest intellectual diffi-
culties? Let us consider how these difficulties
arise.

Of course we must refer the process of the

propagation of light (and indeed every other pro-
cess) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate sys-
tem). As such a system let us again choose our
embankment. We shall imagine the air above
it to have been removed. If a ray of light be
sent along the embankment, we see from the
above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted
with the velocity c relative to the embankment.
Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is
again travelling along the railway lines with the
velocity v, and that its direction is the same as
that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course
much less. Let us inquire about the velocity
of propagation of the ray of light relative to the
44 Evolution of Physics

carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply

the consideration of the previous section, since
the ray of light plays the part of the man walk-
ing along relatively to the carriage. The veloc-
ity w of the man relative to the embankment is
here replaced by the velocity of light relative to
the embankment. w is the required velocity of
light with respect to the carriage, and we have

w = c-v.

The velocity of propagation ot a ray of light

relative to the carriage thus comes cut smaller
than c.

But this result comes into conflict with the

principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For,
like every other general law of nature, the law of
the transmission of light in vacuo [in vacuum]
must, according to the principle of relativity, be
the same for the railway carriage as reference-
body as when the rails are the body of refer-
http://booksiread.org 45

ence. But, from our above consideration, this

would appear to be impossible. If every ray of
light is propagated relative to the embankment
with the velocity c, then for this reason it would
appear that another law of propagation of light
must necessarily hold with respect to the car-
riage – a result contradictory to the principle of
relativity.

In view of this dilemma there appears to be

nothing else for it than to abandon either the
principle of relativity or the simple law of the
propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who
have carefully followed the preceding discus-
sion are almost sure to expect that we should
retain the principle of relativity, which appeals
so convincingly to the intellect because it is so
natural and simple. The law of the propagation
of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced
by a more complicated law conformable to the
46 Evolution of Physics

principle of relativity. The development of the-

oretical physics shows, however, that we can-
not pursue this course. The epoch-making the-
oretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on the
electrodynamical and optical phenomena con-
nected with moving bodies show that experi-
ence in this domain leads conclusively to a the-
ory of electromagnetic phenomena, of which the
law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo is a necessary consequence. Prominent
theoretical physicists were theref ore more in-
clined to reject the principle of relativity, in spite
of the fact that no empirical data had been found
which were contradictory to this principle.

At this juncture the theory of relativity en-

tered the arena. As a result of an analysis of
the physical conceptions of time and space, it
became evident that in realily there is not the
least incompatibilitiy between the principle of
http://booksiread.org 47

relativity and the law of propagation of light,

and that by systematically holding fast to both
these laws a logically rigid theory could be ar-
rived at. This theory has been called the special
theory of relativity to distinguish it from the ex-
tended theory, with which we shall deal later.
In the following pages we shall present the fun-
damental ideas of the special theory of relativ-
ity.
48 Evolution of Physics
ON THE IDEA OF
TIME IN PHYSICS

Lightning has struck the rails on our railway

embankment at two places A and B far distant
from each other. I make the additional asser-
tion that these two lightning flashes occurred
simultaneously. If I ask you whether there is
sense in this statement, you will answer my
question with a decided ”Yes.” But if I now ap-
proach you with the request to explain to me
the sense of the statement more precisely, you
find after some consideration that the answer

49
50 Evolution of Physics

to this question is not so easy as it appears at

first sight.

After some time perhaps the following an-

swer would occur to you: ”The significance of
the statement is clear in itself and needs no
further explanation; of course it would require
some consideration if I were to be commissioned
to determine by observations whether in the ac-
tual case the two events took place simultane-
ously or not.” I cannot be satisfied with this an-
swer for the following reason. Supposing that
as a result of ingenious considerations an able
meteorologist were to discover that the light-
ning must always strike the places A and B
simultaneously, then we should be faced with
the task of testing whether or not this theoreti-
cal result is in accordance with the reality. We
encounter the same difficulty with all physical
statements in which the conception ” simulta-
http://booksiread.org 51

neous ” plays a part. The concept does not ex-

ist for the physicist until he has the possibility
of discovering whether or not it is fulfilled in
an actual case. We thus require a definition
of simultaneity such that this definition sup-
plies us with the method by means of which,
in the present case, he can decide by experi-
ment whether or not both the lightning strokes
occurred simultaneously. As long as this re-
quirement is not satisfied, I allow myself to be
deceived as a physicist (and of course the same
applies if I am not a physicist), when I imagine
that I am able to attach a meaning to the state-
ment of simultaneity. (I would ask the reader
not to proceed farther until he is fully convinced
on this point.)

After thinking the matter over for some time

you then offer the following suggestion with which
to test simultaneity. By measuring along the
52 Evolution of Physics

rails, the connecting line AB should be mea-

sured up and an observer placed at the mid-
point M of the distance AB. This observer should
be supplied with an arrangement (e.g. two mir-
rors inclined at 900 )whichallowshimvisuallytoobservebothplacesA

I am very pleased with this suggestion, but

for all that I cannot regard the matter as quite
settled, because I feel constrained to raise the
following objection:

”Your definition would certainly be right, if

only I knew that the light by means of which the
observer at M perceives the lightning flashes
travels along the length A arrow M with the
same velocity as along the length B arrow M.
But an examination of this supposition would
only be possible if we already had at our dis-
posal the means of measuring time. It would
thus appear as though we were moving here in
a logical circle.”
http://booksiread.org 53

After further consideration you cast a some-

what disdainful glance at me – and rightly so –
and you declare:

”I maintain my previous definition neverthe-

less, because in reality it assumes absolutely
nothing about light. There is only one demand
to be made of the definition of simultaneity,
namely, that in every real case it must supply
us with an empirical decision as to whether or
not the conception that has to be defined is ful-
filled. That my definition satisfies this demand
is indisputable. That light requires the same
time to traverse the path A arrow M as for the
path B arrow M is in reality neither a supposi-
tion nor a hypothesis about the physical nature
of light, but a stipulation which I can make of
my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition
of simultaneity.”

It is clear that this definition can be used to

54 Evolution of Physics

give an exact meaning not only to two events,

but to as many events as we care to choose, and
independently of the positions of the scenes of
the events with respect to the body of reference
* (here the railway embankment). We are thus
led also to a definition of ” time ” in physics. For
this purpose we suppose that clocks of identical
construction are placed at the points A, B and
C of the railway line (co-ordinate system) and
that they are set in such a manner that the po-
sitions of their pointers are simultaneously (in
the above sense) the same. Under these condi-
tions we understand by the ” time ” of an event
the reading (position of the hands) of that one
of these clocks which is in the immediate vicin-
ity (in space) of the event. In this manner a
time-value is associated with every event which
is essentially capable of observation.

This stipulation contains a further physical

http://booksiread.org 55

hypothesis, the validity of which will hardly be

doubted without empirical evidence to the con-
trary. It has been assumed that all these clocks
go at the same rate if they are of identical con-
struction. Stated more exactly: When two clocks
arranged at rest in different places of a reference-
body are set in such a manner that a particular
position of the pointers of the one clock is si-
multaneous (in the above sense) with the same
position, of the pointers of the other clock, then
identical ” settings ” are always simultaneous
(in the sense of the above definition).

Notes

*) We suppose further, that, when three events

A, B and C occur in different places in such
a manner that A is simultaneous with B and
B is simultaneous with C (simultaneous in the
sense of the above definition), then the crite-
rion for the simultaneity of the pair of events A,
56 Evolution of Physics

C is also satisfied. This assumption is a phys-

ical hypothesis about the the of propagation of
light: it must certainly be fulfilled if we are to
maintain the law of the constancy of the veloc-
ity of light in vacuo.
THE RELATIVITY OF
SIMULATNEITY

Up to now our considerations have been re-

ferred to a particular body of reference, which
we have styled a ” railway embankment.” We
suppose a very long train travelling along the
rails with the constant velocity v and in the di-
rection indicated in Fig 1. People travelling in
this train will with a vantage view the train as a
rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system); they
regard all events in

Fig. 01: file fig01.gif

57
58 Evolution of Physics

reference to the train. Then every event which

takes place along the line also takes place at a
particular point of the train. Also the definition
of simultaneity can be given relative to the train
in exactly the same way as with respect to the
embankment. As a natural consequence, how-
ever, the following question arises :

Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of light-

ning A and B) which are simultaneous with ref-
erence to the railway embankment also simul-
taneous relatively to the train? We shall show
directly that the answer must be in the nega-
tive.

When we say that the lightning strokes A

and B are simultaneous with respect to be em-
bankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted
at the places A and B, where the lightning oc-
curs, meet each other at the mid-point M of
the length A arrow B of the embankment. But
http://booksiread.org 59

the events A and B also correspond to posi-

tions A and B on the train. Let M1 be the mid-
point of the distance A arrow B on the travelling
train. Just when the flashes (as judged from
the embankment) of lightning occur, this point
M1 naturally coincides with the point M but it
moves towards the right in the diagram with the
velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in
the position M1 in the train did not possess this
velocity, then he would remain permanently at
M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of
lightning A and B would reach him simultane-
ously, i.e. they would meet just where he is
situated. Now in reality (considered with refer-
ence to the railway embankment) he is hasten-
ing towards the beam of light coming from B,
whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light
coming from A. Hence the observer will see the
beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will
60 Evolution of Physics

see that emitted from A. Observers who take

the railway train as their reference-body must
therefore come to the conclusion that the light-
ning flash B took place earlier than the light-
ning flash A. We thus arrive at the important
result:

Events which are simultaneous with refer-

ence to the embankment are not simultaneous
with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativ-
ity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-
ordinate system) has its own particular time ;
unless we are told the reference-body to which
the statement of time refers, there is no mean-
ing in a statement of the time of an event.

Now before the advent of the theory of rel-

ativity it had always tacitly been assumed in
physics that the statement of time had an ab-
solute significance, i.e. that it is independent
of the state of motion of the body of reference.
http://booksiread.org 61

But we have just seen that this assumption is

incompatible with the most natural definition
of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption,
then the conflict between the law of the prop-
agation of light in vacuo and the principle of
relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.

We were led to that conflict by the consid-

erations of Section 6, which are now no longer
tenable. In that section we concluded that the
man in the carriage, who traverses the distance
w per second relative to the carriage, traverses
the same distance also with respect to the em-
bankment in each second of time. But, accord-
ing to the foregoing considerations, the time re-
quired by a particular occurrence with respect
to the carriage must not be considered equal to
the duration of the same occurrence as judged
from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence
it cannot be contended that the man in walk-
62 Evolution of Physics

ing travels the distance w relative to the railway

line in a time which is equal to one second as
judged from the embankment.
Moreover, the considerations of Section 6 are
based on yet a second assumption, which, in
the light of a strict consideration, appears to be
arbitrary, although it was always tacitly made
even before the introduction of the theory of rel-
ativity.
ON THE RELATIVITY
OF THE
CONCEPTION OF
DISTANCE

Let us consider two particular points on the

train * travelling along the embankment with
the velocity v, and inquire as to their distance
apart. We already know that it is necessary to
have a body of reference for the measurement
of a distance, with respect to which body the

63
64 Evolution of Physics

distance can be measured up. It is the sim-

plest plan to use the train itself as reference-
body (co-ordinate system). An observer in the
train measures the interval by marking off his
measuring-rod in a straight line (e.g. along the
floor of the carriage) as many times as is neces-
sary to take him from the one marked point to
the other. Then the number which tells us how
often the rod has to be laid down is the required
distance.

It is a different matter when the distance

has to be judged from the railway line. Here
the following method suggests itself. If we call
A1 andB 1 thetwopointsonthetrainwhosedistanceapartisrequired, the
−judgedf romtheembankment.T hesepointsAandBof theembankmen
rodalongtheembankment.

A priori it is by no means certain that this

last measurement will supply us with the same
result as the first. Thus the length of the train
http://booksiread.org 65

as measured from the embankment may be dif-

ferent from that obtained by measuring in the
train itself. This circumstance leads us to a
second objection which must be raised against
the apparently obvious consideration of Section
6. Namely, if the man in the carriage covers the
distance w in a unit of time – measured from
the train, – then this distance – as measured
from the embankment – is not necessarily also
equal to w.
Notes
*) e.g. the middle of the first and of the hun-
dredth carriage.
66 Evolution of Physics
THE LORENTZ
TRANSFORMATION

The results of the last three sections show that

the apparent incompatibility of the law of prop-
agation of light with the principle of relativity
(Section 7) has been derived by means of a con-
sideration which borrowed two unjustifiable hy-
potheses from classical mechanics; these are as
follows:

(1) The time-interval (time) between two events

is independent of the condition of motion of the
body of reference.

67
68 Evolution of Physics

(2) The space-interval (distance) between two

points of a rigid body is independent of the con-
dition of motion of the body of reference.

If we drop these hypotheses, then the dilemma

of Section 7 disappears, because the theorem
of the addition of velocities derived in Section
6 becomes invalid. The possibility presents it-
self that the law of the propagation of light in
vacuo may be compatible with the principle of
relativity, and the question arises: How have
we to modify the considerations of Section 6 in
order to remove the apparent disagreement be-
tween these two fundamental results of expe-
rience? This question leads to a general one.
In the discussion of Section 6 we have to do
with places and times relative both to the train
and to the embankment. How are we to find
the place and time of an event in relation to the
train, when we know the place and time of the
http://booksiread.org 69

event with respect to the railway embankment

? Is there a thinkable answer to this question
of such a nature that the law of transmission of
light in vacuo does not contradict the principle
of relativity ? In other words : Can we con-
ceive of a relation between place and time of
the individual events relative to both reference-
bodies, such that every ray of light possesses
the velocity of transmission c relative to the em-
bankment and relative to the train ? This ques-
tion leads to a quite definite positive answer,
and to a perfectly definite transformation law
for the space-time magnitudes of an event when
changing over from one body of reference to an-
other.

Before we deal with this, we shall introduce

the following incidental consideration. Up to
the present we have only considered events tak-
ing place along the embankment, which had
70 Evolution of Physics

mathematically to assume the function of a straight

line. In the manner indicated in Section 2 we
can imagine this reference-body supplemented
laterally and in a vertical direction by means
of a framework of rods, so that an event which
takes place anywhere can be localised with ref-
erence to this framework. Fig. 2 Similarly, we
can imagine the train travelling with the veloc-
ity v to be continued across the whole of space,
so that every event, no matter how far off it
may be, could also be localised with respect
to the second framework. Without committing
any fundamental error, we can disregard the
fact that in reality these frameworks would con-
tinually interfere with each other, owing to the
impenetrability of solid bodies. In every such
framework we imagine three surfaces perpen-
dicular to each other marked out, and desig-
nated as ” co-ordinate planes ” (” co-ordinate
http://booksiread.org 71

system ”). A co-ordinate system K then corre-

sponds to the embankment, and a co-ordinate
system K’ to the train. An event, wherever it
may have taken place, would be fixed in space
with respect to K by the three perpendiculars x,
y, z on the co-ordinate planes, and with regard
to time by a time value t. Relative to K1, the
same event would be fixed in respect of space
and time by corresponding values x1, y1, z1,
t1, which of course are not identical with x, y,
z, t. It has already been set forth in detail how
these magnitudes are to be regarded as results
of physical measurements.

Obviously our problem can be exactly for-

mulated in the following manner. What are the
values x1, y1, z1, t1, of an event with respect to
K1, when the magnitudes x, y, z, t, of the same
event with respect to K are given ? The relations
must be so chosen that the law of the transmis-
72 Evolution of Physics

sion of light in vacuo is satisfied for one and

the same ray of light (and of course for every
ray) with respect to K and K1. For the relative
orientation in space of the co-ordinate systems
indicated in the diagram ([7]Fig. 2), this prob-
lem is solved by means of the equations :

eq. 1: file eq01.gif

y1 = y z1 = z

eq. 2: file eq02.gif

This system of equations is known as the ”

Lorentz transformation.” *

If in place of the law of transmission of light

we had taken as our basis the tacit assump-
tions of the older mechanics as to the absolute
character of times and lengths, then instead of
the above we should have obtained the follow-
ing equations:

x1 = x - vt y1 = y z1 = z t1 = t

This system of equations is often termed the

http://booksiread.org 73

” Galilei transformation.” The Galilei transfor-

mation can be obtained from the Lorentz trans-
formation by substituting an infinitely large value
for the velocity of light c in the latter transfor-
mation.

Aided by the following illustration, we can

readily see that, in accordance with the Lorentz
transformation, the law of the transmission of
light in vacuo is satisfied both for the reference-
body K and for the reference-body K1. A light-
signal is sent along the positive x-axis, and this
light-stimulus advances in accordance with the
equation

x = ct,

i.e. with the velocity c. According to the

equations of the Lorentz transformation, this
simple relation between x and t involves a re-
lation between x1 and t1. In point of fact, if
we substitute for x the value ct in the first and
74 Evolution of Physics

fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation,

we obtain:
eq. 3: file eq03.gif
eq. 4: file eq04.gif
from which, by division, the expression
x1 = ct1
immediately follows. If referred to the sys-
tem K1, the propagation of light takes place ac-
cording to this equation. We thus see that the
velocity of transmission relative to the reference-
body K1 is also equal to c. The same result
is obtained for rays of light advancing in any
other direction whatsoever. Of cause this is not
surprising, since the equations of the Lorentz
transformation were derived conformably to this
point of view.
Notes
*) A simple derivation of the Lorentz trans-
formation is given in Appendix I.
THE BEHAVIOUR OF
MEASURING-RODS
AND CLOCKS IN
MOTION

Place a metre-rod in the x1-axis of K1 in such a

manner that one end (the beginning) coincides
with the point x1=0 whilst the other end (the
end of the rod) coincides with the point x1=I.
What is the length of the metre-rod relatively to
the system K? In order to learn this, we need

75
76 Evolution of Physics

only ask where the beginning of the rod and

the end of the rod lie with respect to K at a
particular time t of the system K. By means of
the first equation of the Lorentz transformation
the values of these two points at the time t = 0
can be shown to be

eq. 05a: file eq05a.gif

eq. 05b: file eq05b.gif

the distance between the points being eq. 06

.

But the metre-rod is moving with the veloc-

ity v relative to K. It therefore follows that the
length of a rigid metre-rod moving in the direc-
tion of its length with a velocity v is eq. 06 of a
metre.

The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion

than when at rest, and the more quickly it is
moving, the shorter is the rod. For the velocity
v=c we should have eq. 06a ,
http://booksiread.org 77

and for stiII greater velocities the square-

root becomes imaginary. From this we con-
clude that in the theory of relativity the velocity
c plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can
neither be reached nor exceeded by any real
body.

Of course this feature of the velocity c as

a limiting velocity also clearly follows from the
equations of the Lorentz transformation, for these
became meaningless if we choose values of v
greater than c.

If, on the contrary, we had considered a metre-

rod at rest in the x-axis with respect to K, then
we should have found that the length of the rod
as judged from K1 would have been eq. 06 ;

this is quite in accordance with the principle

of relativity which forms the basis of our con-
siderations.

A Priori it is quite clear that we must be

78 Evolution of Physics

able to learn something about the physical be-

haviour of measuring-rods and clocks from the
equations of transformation, for the magnitudes
z, y, x, t, are nothing more nor less than the re-
sults of measurements obtainable by means of
measuring-rods and clocks. If we had based
our considerations on the Galileian transfor-
mation we should not have obtained a contrac-
tion of the rod as a consequence of its motion.

Let us now consider a seconds-clock which

is permanently situated at the origin (x1=0) of
K1. t1=0 and t1=I are two successive ticks of
this clock. The first and fourth equations of the
Lorentz transformation give for these two ticks
:

t=0

and

eq. 07: file eq07.gif

As judged from K, the clock is moving with

http://booksiread.org 79

the velocity v; as judged from this reference-

body, the time which elapses between two strokes
of the clock is not one second, but
eq. 08: file eq08.gif
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a
consequence of its motion the clock goes more
slowly than when at rest. Here also the veloc-
ity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting
velocity.
80 Evolution of Physics
THEOREM OF THE
ADDITION OF
VELOCITIES. THE
EXPERIMENT OF
FIZEAU

Now in practice we can move clocks and measuring-

rods only with velocities that are small com-
pared with the velocity of light; hence we shall
hardly be able to compare the results of the

81
82 Evolution of Physics

previous section directly with the reality. But,

on the other hand, these results must strike
you as being very singular, and for that reason
I shall now draw another conclusion from the
theory, one which can easily be derived from
the foregoing considerations, and which has been
most elegantly confirmed by experiment.

In Section 6 we derived the theorem of the

addition of velocities in one direction in the form
which also results from the hypotheses of clas-
sical mechanics- This theorem can also be de-
duced readily horn the Galilei transformation
(Section 11). In place of the man walking in-
side the carriage, we introduce a point moving
relatively to the co-ordinate system K1 in ac-
cordance with the equation

x1 = wt1

By means of the first and fourth equations

of the Galilei transformation we can express x1
http://booksiread.org 83

and t1 in terms of x and t, and we then obtain

x = (v + w)t

This equation expresses nothing else than

the law of motion of the point with reference to
the system K (of the man with reference to the
embankment). We denote this velocity by the
symbol W, and we then obtain, as in Section 6,

W=v+w A)

But we can carry out this consideration just

as well on the basis of the theory of relativity.
In the equation

x1 = wt1 B)

we must then express x1and t1 in terms of x

and t, making use of the first and fourth equa-
tions of the Lorentz transformation. Instead of
the equation (A) we then obtain the equation

eq. 09: file eq09.gif

which corresponds to the theorem of addi-

tion for velocities in one direction according to
84 Evolution of Physics

the theory of relativity. The question now arises

as to which of these two theorems is the bet-
ter in accord with experience. On this point
we axe enlightened by a most important ex-
periment which the brilliant physicist Fizeau
performed more than half a century ago, and
which has been repeated since then by some of
the best experimental physicists, so that there
can be no doubt about its result. The experi-
ment is concerned with the following question.
Light travels in a motionless liquid with a par-
ticular velocity w. How quickly does it travel
in the direction of the arrow in the tube T (see
the accompanying diagram, Fig. 3) when the
liquid above mentioned is flowing through the
tube with a velocity v ?

In accordance with the principle of relativity

we shall certainly have to take for granted that
the propagation of light always takes place with
http://booksiread.org 85

the same velocity w with respect to the liquid,

whether the latter is in motion with reference to
other bodies or not. The velocity of light relative
to the liquid and the velocity of the latter rela-
tive to the tube are thus known, and we require
the velocity of light relative to the tube.

It is clear that we have the problem of Sec-

tion 6 again before us. The tube plays the part
of the railway embankment or of the co-ordinate
system K, the liquid plays the part of the car-
riage or of the co-ordinate system K1, and fi-
nally, the light plays the part of the

Figure 03: file fig03.gif

man walking along the carriage, or of the

moving point in the present section. If we de-
note the velocity of the light relative to the tube
by W, then this is given by the equation (A) or
(B), according as the Galilei transformation or
the Lorentz transformation corresponds to the
86 Evolution of Physics

facts. Experiment * decides in favour of equa-

tion (B) derived from the theory of relativity,
and the agreement is, indeed, very exact. Ac-
cording to recent and most excellent measure-
ments by Zeeman, the influence of the velocity
of flow v on the propagation of light is repre-
sented by formula (B) to within one per cent.

Nevertheless we must now draw attention to

the fact that a theory of this phenomenon was
given by H. A. Lorentz long before the statement
of the theory of relativity. This theory was of
a purely electrodynamical nature, and was ob-
tained by the use of particular hypotheses as
to the electromagnetic structure of matter. This
circumstance, however, does not in the least di-
minish the conclusiveness of the experiment as
a crucial test in favour of the theory of relativ-
ity, for the electrodynamics of Maxwell-Lorentz,
on which the original theory was based, in no
http://booksiread.org 87

way opposes the theory of relativity. Rather has

the latter been developed trom electrodynam-
ics as an astoundingly simple combination and
generalisation of the hypotheses, formerly inde-
pendent of each other, on which electrodynam-
ics was built.
Notes
*) Fizeau found eq. 10 , where eq. 11
is the index of refraction of the liquid. On
the other hand, owing to the smallness of eq.
12 as compared with I,
we can replace (B) in the first place by eq.
13 , or to the same order of approximation by
eq. 14 , which agrees with Fizeau’s result.
88 Evolution of Physics
THE HEURISTIC
VALUE OF THE
THEORY OF
RELATIVITY

Our train of thought in the foregoing pages can

be epitomised in the following manner. Experi-
ence has led to the conviction that, on the one
hand, the principle of relativity holds true and
that on the other hand the velocity of transmis-
sion of light in vacuo has to be considered equal

89
90 Evolution of Physics

to a constant c. By uniting these two postulates

we obtained the law of transformation for the
rectangular co-ordinates x, y, z and the time t
of the events which constitute the processes of
nature. In this connection we did not obtain the
Galilei transformation, but, differing from clas-
sical mechanics, the Lorentz transformation.

The law of transmission of light, the accep-

tance of which is justified by our actual knowl-
edge, played an important part in this process
of thought. Once in possession of the Lorentz
transformation, however, we can combine this
with the principle of relativity, and sum up the
theory thus:

Every general law of nature must be so con-

stituted that it is transformed into a law of ex-
actly the same form when, instead of the space-
time variables x, y, z, t of the original coordinate
system K, we introduce new space-time vari-
http://booksiread.org 91

ables x1, y1, z1, t1 of a co-ordinate system K1.

In this connection the relation between the or-
dinary and the accented magnitudes is given by
the Lorentz transformation. Or in brief : Gen-
eral laws of nature are co-variant with respect
to Lorentz transformations.
This is a definite mathematical condition that
the theory of relativity demands of a natural
law, and in virtue of this, the theory becomes
a valuable heuristic aid in the search for gen-
eral laws of nature. If a general law of nature
were to be found which did not satisfy this con-
dition, then at least one of the two fundamen-
tal assumptions of the theory would have been
disproved. Let us now examine what general
results the latter theory has hitherto evinced.
92 Evolution of Physics
GENERAL RESULTS
OF THE THEORY

It is clear from our previous considerations that

the (special) theory of relativity has grown out
of electrodynamics and optics. In these fields
it has not appreciably altered the predictions
of theory, but it has considerably simplified the
theoretical structure, i.e. the derivation of laws,
and – what is incomparably more important – it
has considerably reduced the number of inde-
pendent hypothese forming the basis of theory.
The special theory of relativity has rendered the

93
94 Evolution of Physics

Maxwell-Lorentz theory so plausible, that the

latter would have been generally accepted by
physicists even if experiment had decided less
unequivocally in its favour.

Classical mechanics required to be modified

before it could come into line with the demands
of the special theory of relativity. For the main
part, however, this modification affects only the
laws for rapid motions, in which the velocities
of matter v are not very small as compared with
the velocity of light. We have experience of such
rapid motions only in the case of electrons and
ions; for other motions the variations from the
laws of classical mechanics are too small to make
themselves evident in practice. We shall not
consider the motion of stars until we come to
speak of the general theory of relativity. In ac-
cordance with the theory of relativity the ki-
netic energy of a material point of mass m is
http://booksiread.org 95

no longer given by the well-known expression

eq. 15: file eq15.gif

but by the expression

eq. 16: file eq16.gif

This expression approaches infinity as the

velocity v approaches the velocity of light c. The
velocity must therefore always remain less than
c, however great may be the energies used to
produce the acceleration. If we develop the ex-
pression for the kinetic energy in the form of a
series, we obtain

eq. 17: file eq17.gif

When eq. 18 is small compared with unity,

the third of these terms is always small in com-
parison with the second,

which last is alone considered in classical

mechanics. The first term mc2 doesnotcontainthevelocity, andreq
mass; dependsonthevelocity.W eshallspeakof itsessentialsignif ican

The most important result of a general char-

96 Evolution of Physics

acter to which the special theory of relativity

has led is concerned with the conception of mass.
Before the advent of relativity, physics recog-
nised two conservation laws of fundamental im-
portance, namely, the law of the canservation
of energy and the law of the conservation of
mass these two fundamental laws appeared to
be quite independent of each other. By means
of the theory of relativity they have been united
into one law. We shall now briefly consider how
this unification came about, and what meaning
is to be attached to it.

The principle of relativity requires that the

law of the concervation of energy should hold
not only with reference to a co-ordinate system
K, but also with respect to every co-ordinate
system K1 which is in a state of uniform mo-
tion of translation relative to K, or, briefly, rela-
tive to every ” Galileian ” system of co-ordinates.
http://booksiread.org 97

In contrast to classical mechanics; the Lorentz

transformation is the deciding factor in the tran-
sition from one such system to another.

By means of comparatively simple consider-

ations we are led to draw the following conclu-
sion from these premises, in conjunction with
the fundamental equations of the electrodynam-
ics of Maxwell: A body moving with the velocity
v, which absorbs * an amount of energy E[0] in
the form of radiation without suffering an alter-
ation in velocity in the process, has, as a con-
sequence, its energy increased by an amount

eq. 19: file eq19.gif

In consideration of the expression given above

for the kinetic energy of the body, the required
energy of the body comes out to be

eq. 20: file eq20.gif

Thus the body has the same energy as a

body of mass
98 Evolution of Physics

eq.21: file eq21.gif

moving with the velocity v. Hence we can

say: If a body takes up an amount of energy
E[0], then its inertial mass increases by an amount

eq. 22: file eq22.gif

the inertial mass of a body is not a constant

but varies according to the change in the energy
of the body. The inertial mass of a system of
bodies can even be regarded as a measure of
its energy. The law of the conservation of the
mass of a system becomes identical with the
law of the conservation of energy, and is only
valid provided that the system neither takes up
nor sends out energy. Writing the expression
for the energy in the form

eq. 23: file eq23.gif

we see that the term mc2 , whichhashithertoattractedouratten

∗bef oreitabsorbedtheenergyE[0].

A direct comparison of this relation with ex-

http://booksiread.org 99

periment is not possible at the present time

(1920; see *** Note, p. 48), owing to the fact
that the changes in energy E[0] to which we can
Subject a system are not large enough to make
themselves perceptible as a change in the iner-
tial mass of the system.

eq. 22: file eq22.gif

is too small in comparison with the mass m,

which was present before the alteration of the
energy. It is owing to this circumstance that
classical mechanics was able to establish suc-
cessfully the conservation of mass as a law of
independent validity.

Let me add a final remark of a fundamental

nature. The success of the Faraday-Maxwell in-
terpretation of electromagnetic action at a dis-
tance resulted in physicists becoming convinced
that there are no such things as instantaneous
actions at a distance (not involving an interme-
100 Evolution of Physics

diary medium) of the type of Newton’s law of

gravitation. According to the theory of relativ-
ity, action at a distance with the velocity of light
always takes the place of instantaneous action
at a distance or of action at a distance with an
infinite velocity of transmission. This is con-
nected with the fact that the velocity c plays a
fundamental role in this theory. In Part II we
shall see in what way this result becomes mod-
ified in the general theory of relativity.
Notes
*) E[0] is the energy taken up, as judged from
a co-ordinate system moving with the body.
**) As judged from a co-ordinate system mov-
ing with the body.
***[Note] The equation E = mc2 hasbeenthoroughlyprovedtime
EXPERIENCE AND
THE SPECIAL
THEORY OF
RELATIVITY

To what extent is the special theory of rela-

tivity supported by experience? This question
is not easily answered for the reason already
mentioned in connection with the fundamen-
tal experiment of Fizeau. The special theory of
relativity has crystallised out from the Maxwell-

101
102 Evolution of Physics

Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena.

Thus all facts of experience which support the
electromagnetic theory also support the theory
of relativity. As being of particular importance,
I mention here the fact that the theory of rela-
tivity enables us to predict the effects produced
on the light reaching us from the fixed stars.
These results are obtained in an exceedingly
simple manner, and the effects indicated, which
are due to the relative motion of the earth with
reference to those fixed stars are found to be in
accord with experience. We refer to the yearly
movement of the apparent position of the fixed
stars resulting from the motion of the earth round
the sun (aberration), and to the influence of
the radial components of the relative motions of
the fixed stars with respect to the earth on the
colour of the light reaching us from them. The
latter effect manifests itself in a slight displace-
http://booksiread.org 103

ment of the spectral lines of the light transmit-

ted to us from a fixed star, as compared with
the position of the same spectral lines when
they are produced by a terrestrial source of light
(Doppler principle). The experimental arguments
in favour of the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, which
are at the same time arguments in favour of
the theory of relativity, are too numerous to be
set forth here. In reality they limit the theo-
retical possibilities to such an extent, that no
other theory than that of Maxwell and Lorentz
has been able to hold its own when tested by
experience.

But there are two classes of experimental

facts hitherto obtained which can be represented
in the Maxwell-Lorentz theory only by the in-
troduction of an auxiliary hypothesis, which in
itself – i.e. without making use of the theory of
relativity – appears extraneous.
104 Evolution of Physics

It is known that cathode rays and the so-

called b-rays emitted by radioactive substances
consist of negatively electrified particles (elec-
trons) of very small inertia and large velocity.
By examining the deflection of these rays under
the influence of electric and magnetic fields, we
can study the law of motion of these particles
very exactly.

In the theoretical treatment of these elec-

trons, we are faced with the difficulty that elec-
trodynamic theory of itself is unable to give an
account of their nature. For since electrical
masses of one sign repel each other, the nega-
tive electrical masses constituting the electron
would necessarily be scattered under the influ-
ence of their mutual repulsions, unless there
are forces of another kind operating between
them, the nature of which has hitherto remained
obscure to us.* If we now assume that the rel-
http://booksiread.org 105

ative distances between the electrical masses

constituting the electron remain unchanged dur-
ing the motion of the electron (rigid connection
in the sense of classical mechanics), we arrive
at a law of motion of the electron which does
not agree with experience. Guided by purely
formal points of view, H. A. Lorentz was the first
to introduce the hypothesis that the form of the
electron experiences a contraction in the direc-
tion of motion in consequence of that motion.
the contracted length being proportional to the
expression

eq. 05: file eq05.gif

This, hypothesis, which is not justifiable by

any electrodynamical facts, supplies us then
with that particular law of motion which has
been confirmed with great precision in recent
years.

The theory of relativity leads to the same

106 Evolution of Physics

law of motion, without requiring any special hy-

pothesis whatsoever as to the structure and the
behaviour of the electron. We arrived at a simi-
lar conclusion in Section 13 in connection with
the experiment of Fizeau, the result of which is
foretold by the theory of relativity without the
necessity of drawing on hypotheses as to the
physical nature of the liquid.

The second class of facts to which we have

alluded has reference to the question whether
or not the motion of the earth in space can be
made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We
have already remarked in Section 5 that all at-
tempts of this nature led to a negative result.
Before the theory of relativity was put forward,
it was difficult to become reconciled to this neg-
ative result, for reasons now to be discussed.
The inherited prejudices about time and space
did not allow any doubt to arise as to the prime
http://booksiread.org 107

importance of the Galileian transformation for

changing over from one body of reference to an-
other. Now assuming that the Maxwell-Lorentz
equations hold for a reference-body K, we then
find that they do not hold for a reference-body
K1 moving uniformly with respect to K, if we as-
sume that the relations of the Galileian trans-
formstion exist between the co-ordinates of K
and K1. It thus appears that, of all Galileian
co-ordinate systems, one (K) corresponding to a
particular state of motion is physically unique.
This result was interpreted physically by re-
garding K as at rest with respect to a hypo-
thetical ther of space. On the other hand, all
coordinate systems K1 moving relatively to K
were to be regarded as in motion with respect to
the ther. To this motion of K1 against the ther
(”ther-drift ” relative to K1) were attributed the
more complicated laws which were supposed
108 Evolution of Physics

to hold relative to K1. Strictly speaking, such

an ther-drift ought also to be assumed relative
to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of
physicists were devoted to attempts to detect
the existence of an ther-drift at the earth’s sur-
face.

In one of the most notable of these attempts

Michelson devised a method which appears as
though it must be decisive. Imagine two mir-
rors so arranged on a rigid body that the re-
flecting surfaces face each other. A ray of light
requires a perfectly definite time T to pass from
one mirror to the other and back again, if the
whole system be at rest with respect to the ther.
It is found by calculation, however, that a slightly
different time T1 is required for this process, if
the body, together with the mirrors, be moving
relatively to the ther. And yet another point: it
is shown by calculation that for a given velocity
http://booksiread.org 109

v with reference to the ther, this time T1 is dif-

ferent when the body is moving perpendicularly
to the planes of the mirrors from that resulting
when the motion is parallel to these planes. Al-
though the estimated difference between these
two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and
Morley performed an experiment involving in-
terference in which this difference should have
been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave
a negative result – a fact very perplexing to physi-
cists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the the-
ory from this difficulty by assuming that the
motion of the body relative to the ther produces
a contraction of the body in the direction of mo-
tion, the amount of contraction being just suf-
ficient to compensate for the differeace in time
mentioned above. Comparison with the discus-
sion in Section 11 shows that also from the
standpoint of the theory of relativity this solu-
110 Evolution of Physics

tion of the difficulty was the right one. But on

the basis of the theory of relativity the method
of interpretation is incomparably more satisfac-
tory. According to this theory there is no such
thing as a ” specially favoured ” (unique) co-
ordinate system to occasion the introduction of
the ther-idea, and hence there can be no ther-
drift, nor any experiment with which to demon-
strate it. Here the contraction of moving bodies
follows from the two fundamental principles of
the theory, without the introduction of partic-
ular hypotheses ; and as the prime factor in-
volved in this contraction we find, not the mo-
tion in itself, to which we cannot attach any
meaning, but the motion with respect to the
body of reference chosen in the particular case
in point. Thus for a co-ordinate system moving
with the earth the mirror system of Michelson
and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened
http://booksiread.org 111

for a co-ordinate system which is at rest rela-

tively to the sun.
Notes
*) The general theory of relativity renders it
likely that the electrical masses of an electron
are held together by gravitational forces.
112 Evolution of Physics
MINKOWSKI’S
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL
SPACE

The non-mathematician is seized by a mysteri-

ous shuddering when he hears of ”four-dimensional”
things, by a feeling not unlike that awakened by
thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more
common-place statement than that the world in
which we live is a four-dimensional space-time
continuum.

Space is a three-dimensional continuum. By

113
114 Evolution of Physics

this we mean that it is possible to describe the

position of a point (at rest) by means of three
numbers (co-ordinales) x, y, z, and that there
is an indefinite number of points in the neigh-
bourhood of this one, the position of which can
be described by co-ordinates such as x[1], y[1],
z[1], which may be as near as we choose to the
respective values of the co-ordinates x, y, z, of
the first point. In virtue of the latter property
we speak of a ” continuum,” and owing to the
fact that there are three co-ordinates we speak
of it as being ” three-dimensional.”

Similarly, the world of physical phenomena

which was briefly called ” world ” by Minkowski
is naturally four dimensional in the space-time
sense. For it is composed of individual events,
each of which is described by four numbers,
namely, three space co-ordinates x, y, z, and a
time co-ordinate, the time value t. The” world”
http://booksiread.org 115

is in this sense also a continuum; for to every

event there are as many ”neighbouring” events
(realised or at least thinkable) as we care to
choose, the co-ordinates x[1], y[1], z[1], t[1] of
which differ by an indefinitely small amount
from those of the event x, y, z, t originally con-
sidered. That we have not been accustomed
to regard the world in this sense as a four-
dimensional continuum is due to the fact that
in physics, before the advent of the theory of
relativity, time played a different and more in-
dependent role, as compared with the space co-
ordinates. It is for this reason that we have
been in the habit of treating time as an inde-
pendent continuum. As a matter of fact, ac-
cording to classical mechanics, time is abso-
lute, i.e. it is independent of the position and
the condition of motion of the system of co-
ordinates. We see this expressed in the last
116 Evolution of Physics

equation of the Galileian transformation (t1 =

t)

The four-dimensional mode of consideration

of the ”world” is natural on the theory of rel-
ativity, since according to this theory time is
robbed of its independence. This is shown by
the fourth equation of the Lorentz transforma-
tion:

eq. 24: file eq24.gif

Moreover, according to this equation the time

difference Dt1 of two events with respect to K1
does not in general vanish, even when the time
difference Dt1 of the same events with refer-
ence to K vanishes. Pure ” space-distance ” of
two events with respect to K results in ” time-
distance ” of the same events with respect to K.
But the discovery of Minkowski, which was of
importance for the formal development of the
theory of relativity, does not lie here. It is to be
http://booksiread.org 117

found rather in the fact of his recognition that

the four-dimensional space-time continuum of
the theory of relativity, in its most essential for-
mal properties, shows a pronounced relation-
ship to the three-dimensional continuum of Eu-
clidean geometrical space.* In order to give due
prominence to this relationship, however, we
must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an
imaginary magnitude eq. 25 proportional to it.
Under these conditions, the natural laws satis-
fying the demands of the (special) theory of rela-
tivity assume mathematical forms, in which the
time co-ordinate plays exactly the same role as
the three space co-ordinates. Formally, these
four co-ordinates correspond exactly to the three
space co-ordinates in Euclidean geometry. It
must be clear even to the non-mathematician
that, as a consequence of this purely formal
addition to our knowledge, the theory perforce
118 Evolution of Physics

gained clearness in no mean measure.

These inadequate remarks can give the reader

only a vague notion of the important idea con-
tributed by Minkowski. Without it the general
theory of relativity, of which the fundamental
ideas are developed in the following pages, would
perhaps have got no farther than its long clothes.
Minkowski’s work is doubtless difficult of ac-
cess to anyone inexperienced in mathematics,
but since it is not necessary to have a very ex-
act grasp of this work in order to understand
the fundamental ideas of either the special or
the general theory of relativity, I shall leave it
here at present, and revert to it only towards
the end of Part 2.

Notes

*) Cf. the somewhat more detailed discus-

sion in Appendix II.

PART II THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELA-

http://booksiread.org 119

TIVITY SPECIAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF

RELATIVITY

The basal principle, which was the pivot of

all our previous considerations, was the special
principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the
physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let as
once more analyse its meaning carefully.

It was at all times clear that, from the point

of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion
must be considered only as a relative motion.
Returning to the illustration we have frequently
used of the embankment and the railway car-
riage, we can express the fact of the motion
here taking place in the following two forms,
both of which are equally justifiable :

(a) The carriage is in motion relative to the

embankment, (b) The embankment is in motion
relative to the carriage.

In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage,

120 Evolution of Physics

serves as the body of reference in our state-

ment of the motion taking place. If it is sim-
ply a question of detecting or of describing the
motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to
what reference-body we refer the motion. As
already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it
must not be confused with the much more com-
prehensive statement called ”the principle of rel-
ativity,” which we have taken as the basis of our
investigations.

The principle we have made use of not only

maintains that we may equally well choose the
carriage or the embankment as our reference-
body for the description of any event (for this,
too, is self-evident). Our principle rather as-
serts what follows : If we formulate the general
laws of nature as they are obtained from expe-
rience, by making use of

(a) the embankment as reference-body, (b)

http://booksiread.org 121

the railway carriage as reference-body,

then these general laws of nature (e.g. the

laws of mechanics or the law of the propagation
of light in vacuo) have exactly the same form in
both cases. This can also be expressed as fol-
lows : For the physical description of natural
processes, neither of the reference bodies K, K1
is unique (lit. ” specially marked out ”) as com-
pared with the other. Unlike the first, this latter
statement need not of necessity hold a priori; it
is not contained in the conceptions of ” motion”
and ” reference-body ” and derivable from them;
only experience can decide as to its correctness
or incorrectness.

Up to the present, however, we have by no

means maintained the equivalence of all bodies
of reference K in connection with the formula-
tion of natural laws. Our course was more on
the following Iines. In the first place, we started
122 Evolution of Physics

out from the assumption that there exists a

reference-body K, whose condition of motion is
such that the Galileian law holds with respect
to it : A particle left to itself and sufficiently
far removed from all other particles moves uni-
formly in a straight line. With reference to K
(Galileian reference-body) the laws of nature were
to be as simple as possible. But in addition to
K, all bodies of reference K1 should be given
preference in this sense, and they should be
exactly equivalent to K for the formulation of
natural laws, provided that they are in a state
of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion
with respect to K ; all these bodies of refer-
ence are to be regarded as Galileian reference-
bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity
was assumed only for these reference-bodies,
but not for others (e.g. those possessing mo-
tion of a different kind). In this sense we speak
http://booksiread.org 123

of the special principle of relativity, or special

theory of relativity.

In contrast to this we wish to understand by

the ”general principle of relativity” the follow-
ing statement : All bodies of reference K, K1,
etc., are equivalent for the description of natu-
ral phenomena (formulation of the general laws
of nature), whatever may be their state of mo-
tion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to
be pointed out that this formulation must be
replaced later by a more abstract one, for rea-
sons which will become evident at a later stage.

Since the introduction of the special prin-

ciple of relativity has been justified, every in-
tellect which strives after generalisation must
feel the temptation to venture the step towards
the general principle of relativity. But a sim-
ple and apparently quite reliable consideration
seems to suggest that, for the present at any
124 Evolution of Physics

rate, there is little hope of success in such an

attempt; Let us imagine ourselves transferred
to our old friend the railway carriage, which is
travelling at a uniform rate. As long as it is
moving unifromly, the occupant of the carriage
is not sensible of its motion, and it is for this
reason that he can without reluctance interpret
the facts of the case as indicating that the car-
riage is at rest, but the embankment in motion.
Moreover, according to the special principle of
relativity, this interpretation is quite justified
also from a physical point of view.

If the motion of the carriage is now changed

into a non-uniform motion, as for instance by
a powerful application of the brakes, then the
occupant of the carriage experiences a corre-
spondingly powerful jerk forwards. The retarded
motion is manifested in the mechanical behaviour
of bodies relative to the person in the railway
http://booksiread.org 125

carriage. The mechanical behaviour is differ-

ent from that of the case previously considered,
and for this reason it would appear to be im-
possible that the same mechanical laws hold
relatively to the non-uniformly moving carriage,
as hold with reference to the carriage when at
rest or in uniform motion. At all events it is
clear that the Galileian law does not hold with
respect to the non-uniformly moving carriage.
Because of this, we feel compelled at the present
juncture to grant a kind of absolute physical
reality to non-uniform motion, in opposition to
the general principle of relatvity. But in what
follows we shall soon see that this conclusion
cannot be maintained.
126 Evolution of Physics
THE
GRAVITATIONAL
FIELD

”If we pick up a stone and then let it go, why

does it fall to the ground ?” The usual answer
to this question is: ”Because it is attracted by
the earth.” Modern physics formulates the an-
swer rather differently for the following reason.
As a result of the more careful study of elec-
tromagnetic phenomena, we have come to re-
gard action at a distance as a process impos-

127
128 Evolution of Physics

sible without the intervention of some interme-

diary medium. If, for instance, a magnet at-
tracts a piece of iron, we cannot be content to
regard this as meaning that the magnet acts
directly on the iron through the intermediate
empty space, but we are constrained to imagine
– after the manner of Faraday – that the mag-
net always calls into being something physi-
cally real in the space around it, that something
being what we call a ”magnetic field.” In its turn
this magnetic field operates on the piece of iron,
so that the latter strives to move towards the
magnet. We shall not discuss here the justi-
fication for this incidental conception, which is
indeed a somewhat arbitrary one. We shall only
mention that with its aid electromagnetic phe-
nomena can be theoretically represented much
more satisfactorily than without it, and this ap-
plies particularly to the transmission of electro-
http://booksiread.org 129

magnetic waves. The effects of gravitation also

are regarded in an analogous manner.

The action of the earth on the stone takes

place indirectly. The earth produces in its sur-
rounding a gravitational field, which acts on the
stone and produces its motion of fall. As we
know from experience, the intensity of the ac-
tion on a body dimishes according to a quite
definite law, as we proceed farther and farther
away from the earth. From our point of view
this means : The law governing the proper-
ties of the gravitational field in space must be
a perfectly definite one, in order correctly to
represent the diminution of gravitational action
with the distance from operative bodies. It is
something like this: The body (e.g. the earth)
produces a field in its immediate neighbour-
hood directly; the intensity and direction of the
field at points farther removed from the body
130 Evolution of Physics

are thence determined by the law which gov-

erns the properties in space of the gravitational
fields themselves.

In contrast to electric and magnetic fields,

the gravitational field exhibits a most remark-
able property, which is of fundamental impor-
tance for what follows. Bodies which are mov-
ing under the sole influence of a gravitational
field receive an acceleration, which does not in
the least depend either on the material or on
the physical state of the body. For instance,
a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall in ex-
actly the same manner in a gravitational field
(in vacuo), when they start off from rest or with
the same initial velocity. This law, which holds
most accurately, can be expressed in a different
form in the light of the following consideration.

According to Newton’s law of motion, we have

(Force) = (inertial mass) x (acceleration),

http://booksiread.org 131

where the ”inertial mass” is a characteristic

constant of the accelerated body. If now gravi-
tation is the cause of the acceleration, we then
have

(Force) = (gravitational mass) x (intensity of

the gravitational field),

where the ”gravitational mass” is likewise a

characteristic constant for the body. From these
two relations follows:

eq. 26: file eq26.gif

If now, as we find from experience, the ac-

celeration is to be independent of the nature
and the condition of the body and always the
same for a given gravitational field, then the ra-
tio of the gravitational to the inertial mass must
likewise be the same for all bodies. By a suit-
able choice of units we can thus make this ratio
equal to unity. We then have the following law:
The gravitational mass of a body is equal to its
132 Evolution of Physics

inertial law.

It is true that this important law had hith-

erto been recorded in mechanics, but it had not
been interpreted. A satisfactory interpretation
can be obtained only if we recognise the follow-
ing fact : The same quality of a body manifests
itself according to circumstances as ” inertia ”
or as ” weight ” (lit. ” heaviness ’). In the follow-
ing section we shall show to what extent this is
actually the case, and how this question is con-
nected with the general postulate of relativity.

We imagine a large portion of empty space,

so far removed from stars and other apprecia-
ble masses, that we have before us approxi-
mately the conditions required by the funda-
mental law of Galilei. It is then possible to
choose a Galileian reference-body for this part
of space (world), relative to which points at rest
remain at rest and points in motion continue
http://booksiread.org 133

permanently in uniform rectilinear motion. As

reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest
resembling a room with an observer inside who
is equipped with apparatus. Gravitation natu-
rally does not exist for this observer. He must
fasten himself with strings to the floor, other-
wise the slightest impact against the floor will
cause him to rise slowly towards the ceiling of
the room.

To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed

externally a hook with rope attached, and now
a ” being ” (what kind of a being is immaterial to
us) begins pulling at this with a constant force.
The chest together with the observer then be-
gin to move ”upwards” with a uniformly accel-
erated motion. In course of time their velocity
will reach unheard-of values – provided that we
are viewing all this from another reference-body
which is not being pulled with a rope.
134 Evolution of Physics

But how does the man in the chest regard

the Process ? The acceleration of the chest will
be transmitted to him by the reaction of the
floor of the chest. He must therefore take up
this pressure by means of his legs if he does not
wish to be laid out full length on the floor. He is
then standing in the chest in exactly the same
way as anyone stands in a room of a home on
our earth. If he releases a body which he pre-
viously had in his land, the accelertion of the
chest will no longer be transmitted to this body,
and for this reason the body will approach the
floor of the chest with an accelerated relative
motion. The observer will further convince him-
self that the acceleration of the body towards
the floor of the chest is always of the same mag-
nitude, whatever kind of body he may happen
to use for the experiment.

Relying on his knowledge of the gravitational

http://booksiread.org 135

field (as it was discussed in the preceding sec-

tion), the man in the chest will thus come to the
conclusion that he and the chest are in a grav-
itational field which is constant with regard to
time. Of course he will be puzzled for a moment
as to why the chest does not fall in this gravi-
tational field. just then, however, he discovers
the hook in the middle of the lid of the chest
and the rope which is attached to it, and he
consequently comes to the conclusion that the
chest is suspended at rest in the gravitational
field.

Ought we to smile at the man and say that

he errs in his conclusion ? I do not believe we
ought to if we wish to remain consistent ; we
must rather admit that his mode of grasping
the situation violates neither reason nor known
mechanical laws. Even though it is being ac-
celerated with respect to the ”Galileian space”
136 Evolution of Physics

first considered, we can nevertheless regard the

chest as being at rest. We have thus good grounds
for extending the principle of relativity to in-
clude bodies of reference which are accelerated
with respect to each other, and as a result we
have gained a powerful argument for a gener-
alised postulate of relativity.

We must note carefully that the possibility

of this mode of interpretation rests on the fun-
damental property of the gravitational field of
giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what
comes to the same thing, on the law of the equal-
ity of inertial and gravitational mass. If this
natural law did not exist, the man in the accel-
erated chest would not be able to interpret the
behaviour of the bodies around him on the sup-
position of a gravitational field, and he would
not be justified on the grounds of experience in
supposing his reference-body to be ” at rest.”
http://booksiread.org 137

Suppose that the man in the chest fixes a

rope to the inner side of the lid, and that he at-
taches a body to the free end of the rope. The
result of this will be to strech the rope so that
it will hang ” vertically ” downwards. If we ask
for an opinion of the cause of tension in the
rope, the man in the chest will say: ”The sus-
pended body experiences a downward force in
the gravitational field, and this is neutralised
by the tension of the rope ; what determines
the magnitude of the tension of the rope is the
gravitational mass of the suspended body.” On
the other hand, an observer who is poised freely
in space will interpret the condition of things
thus : ” The rope must perforce take part in the
accelerated motion of the chest, and it trans-
mits this motion to the body attached to it. The
tension of the rope is just large enough to ef-
fect the acceleration of the body. That which
138 Evolution of Physics

determines the magnitude of the tension of the

rope is the inertial mass of the body.” Guided
by this example, we see that our extension of
the principle of relativity implies the necessity
of the law of the equality of inertial and gravita-
tional mass. Thus we have obtained a physical
interpretation of this law.

From our consideration of the accelerated

chest we see that a general theory of relativ-
ity must yield important results on the laws of
gravitation. In point of fact, the systematic pur-
suit of the general idea of relativity has supplied
the laws satisfied by the gravitational field. Be-
fore proceeding farther, however, I must warn
the reader against a misconception suggested
by these considerations. A gravitational field
exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact
that there was no such field for the co-ordinate
system first chosen. Now we might easily sup-
http://booksiread.org 139

pose that the existence of a gravitational field is

always only an apparent one. We might also
think that, regardless of the kind of gravita-
tional field which may be present, we could al-
ways choose another reference-body such that
no gravitational field exists with reference to it.
This is by no means true for all gravitational
fields, but only for those of quite special form.
It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body
of reference such that, as judged from it, the
gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety)
vanishes.

We can now appreciate why that argument

is not convincing, which we brought forward
against the general principle of relativity at theend
of Section 18. It is certainly true that the ob-
server in the railway carriage experiences a jerk
forwards as a result of the application of the
brake, and that he recognises, in this the non-
140 Evolution of Physics

uniformity of motion (retardation) of the car-

riage. But he is compelled by nobody to refer
this jerk to a ” real ” acceleration (retardation) of
the carriage. He might also interpret his experi-
ence thus: ” My body of reference (the carriage)
remains permanently at rest. With reference to
it, however, there exists (during the period of
application of the brakes) a gravitational field
which is directed forwards and which is vari-
able with respect to time. Under the influence
of this field, the embankment together with the
earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner
that their original velocity in the backwards di-
rection is continuously reduced.”

IN WHAT RESPECTS ARE THE FOUNDATIONS

OF CLASSICAL MECHANICS AND OF THE SPE-
CIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY UNSATISFAC-
TORY?

We have already stated several times that

http://booksiread.org 141

classical mechanics starts out from the follow-

ing law: Material particles sufficiently far re-
moved from other material particles continue
to move uniformly in a straight line or con-
tinue in a state of rest. We have also repeat-
edly emphasised that this fundamental law can
only be valid for bodies of reference K which
possess certain unique states of motion, and
which are in uniform translational motion rel-
ative to each other. Relative to other reference-
bodies K the law is not valid. Both in classical
mechanics and in the special theory of relativ-
ity we therefore differentiate between reference-
bodies K relative to which the recognised ” laws
of nature ” can be said to hold, and reference-
bodies K relative to which these laws do not
hold.

But no person whose mode of thought is log-

ical can rest satisfied with this condition of things.
142 Evolution of Physics

He asks : ” How does it come that certain reference-

bodies (or their states of motion) are given pri-
ority over other reference-bodies (or their states
of motion) ? What is the reason for this Prefer-
ence? In order to show clearly what I mean by
this question, I shall make use of a comparison.

I am standing in front of a gas range. Stand-

ing alongside of each other on the range are two
pans so much alike that one may be mistaken
for the other. Both are half full of water. I no-
tice that steam is being emitted continuously
from the one pan, but not from the other. I am
surprised at this, even if I have never seen ei-
ther a gas range or a pan before. But if I now
notice a luminous something of bluish colour
under the first pan but not under the other, I
cease to be astonished, even if I have never be-
fore seen a gas flame. For I can only say that
this bluish something will cause the emission of
http://booksiread.org 143

the steam, or at least possibly it may do so. If,

however, I notice the bluish something in nei-
ther case, and if I observe that the one contin-
uously emits steam whilst the other does not,
then I shall remain astonished and dissatisfied
until I have discovered some circumstance to
which I can attribute the different behaviour of
the two pans.

Analogously, I seek in vain for a real some-

thing in classical mechanics (or in the special
theory of relativity) to which I can attribute the
different behaviour of bodies considered with
respect to the reference systems K and K1.*
Newton saw this objection and attempted to in-
validate it, but without success. But E. Mach
recognsed it most clearly of all, and because of
this objection he claimed that mechanics must
be placed on a new basis. It can only be got rid
of by means of a physics which is conformable
144 Evolution of Physics

to the general principle of relativity, since the

equations of such a theory hold for every body
of reference, whatever may be its state of mo-
tion.
Notes
*) The objection is of importance more espe-
cially when the state of motion of the reference-
body is of such a nature that it does not require
any external agency for its maintenance, e.g.
in the case when the reference-body is rotating
uniformly.
A FEW INFERENCES
FROM THE
GENERAL
PRINCIPLE OF
RELATIVITY

The considerations of Section 20 show that the

general principle of relativity puts us in a po-
sition to derive properties of the gravitational
field in a purely theoretical manner. Let us sup-

145
146 Evolution of Physics

pose, for instance, that we know the space-time

” course ” for any natural process whatsoever,
as regards the manner in which it takes place
in the Galileian domain relative to a Galileian
body of reference K. By means of purely the-
oretical operations (i.e. simply by calculation)
we are then able to find how this known natu-
ral process appears, as seen from a reference-
body K1 which is accelerated relatively to K.
But since a gravitational field exists with re-
spect to this new body of reference K1, our con-
sideration also teaches us how the gravitational
field influences the process studied.

For example, we learn that a body which is

in a state of uniform rectilinear motion with re-
spect to K (in accordance with the law of Galilei)
is executing an accelerated and in general curvi-
linear motion with respect to the accelerated
reference-body K1 (chest). This acceleration or
http://booksiread.org 147

curvature corresponds to the influence on the

moving body of the gravitational field prevailing
relatively to K. It is known that a gravitational
field influences the movement of bodies in this
way, so that our consideration supplies us with
nothing essentially new.

However, we obtain a new result of funda-

mental importance when we carry out the anal-
ogous consideration for a ray of light. With re-
spect to the Galileian reference-body K, such
a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with
the velocity c. It can easily be shown that the
path of the same ray of light is no longer a
straight line when we consider it with refer-
ence to the accelerated chest (reference-body
K1). From this we conclude, that, in general,
rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in grav-
itational fields. In two respects this result is of
great importance.
148 Evolution of Physics

In the first place, it can be compared with

the reality. Although a detailed examination of
the question shows that the curvature of light
rays required by the general theory of relativity
is only exceedingly small for the gravitational
fields at our disposal in practice, its estimated
magnitude for light rays passing the sun at graz-
ing incidence is nevertheless 1.7 seconds of arc.
This ought to manifest itself in the following
way. As seen from the earth, certain fixed stars
appear to be in the neighbourhood of the sun,
and are thus capable of observation during a
total eclipse of the sun. At such times, these
stars ought to appear to be displaced outwards
from the sun by an amount indicated above, as
compared with their apparent position in the
sky when the sun is situated at another part
of the heavens. The examination of the correct-
ness or otherwise of this deduction is a problem
http://booksiread.org 149

of the greatest importance, the early solution of

which is to be expected of astronomers.[2]*

In the second place our result shows that,

according to the general theory of relativity, the
law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two funda-
mental assumptions in the special theory of rel-
ativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies
with position. Now we might think that as a
consequence of this, the special theory of rela-
tivity and with it the whole theory of relativity
would be laid in the dust. But in reality this
is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special theory of relativity cannot claim an un-
linlited domain of validity ; its results hold only
so long as we are able to disregard the influ-
150 Evolution of Physics

ences of gravitational fields on the phenomena

(e.g. of light).

Since it has often been contended by oppo-

nents of the theory of relativity that the special
theory of relativity is overthrown by the general
theory of relativity, it is perhaps advisable to
make the facts of the case clearer by means of
an appropriate comparison. Before the devel-
opment of electrodynamics the laws of electro-
statics were looked upon as the laws of electric-
ity. At the present time we know that electric
fields can be derived correctly from electrostatic
considerations only for the case, which is never
strictly realised, in which the electrical masses
are quite at rest relatively to each other, and to
the co-ordinate system. Should we be justified
in saying that for this reason electrostatics is
overthrown by the field-equations of Maxwell in
electrodynamics ? Not in the least. Electrostat-
http://booksiread.org 151

ics is contained in electrodynamics as a limiting

case ; the laws of the latter lead directly to those
of the former for the case in which the fields are
invariable with regard to time. No fairer destiny
could be allotted to any physical theory, than
that it should of itself point out the way to the
introduction of a more comprehensive theory,
in which it lives on as a limiting case.

In the example of the transmission of light

just dealt with, we have seen that the general
theory of relativity enables us to derive theoret-
ically the influence of a gravitational field on the
course of natural processes, the Iaws of which
are already known when a gravitational field is
absent. But the most attractive problem, to the
solution of which the general theory of relativ-
ity supplies the key, concerns the investigation
of the laws satisfied by the gravitational field
itself. Let us consider this for a moment.
152 Evolution of Physics

We are acquainted with space-time domains

which behave (approximately) in a ” Galileian
” fashion under suitable choice of reference-
body, i.e. domains in which gravitational fields
are absent. If we now refer such a domain to a
reference-body K1 possessing any kind of mo-
tion, then relative to K1 there exists a gravi-
tational field which is variable with respect to
space and time.[3]** The character of this field
will of course depend on the motion chosen for
K1. According to the general theory of relativity,
the general law of the gravitational field must
be satisfied for all gravitational fields obtainable
in this way. Even though by no means all grav-
itationial fields can be produced in this way,
yet we may entertain the hope that the general
law of gravitation will be derivable from such
gravitational fields of a special kind. This hope
has been realised in the most beautiful manner.
http://booksiread.org 153

But between the clear vision of this goal and its

actual realisation it was necessary to surmount
a serious difficulty, and as this lies deep at the
root of things, I dare not withhold it from the
reader. We require to extend our ideas of the
space-time continuum still farther.

Notes

*) By means of the star photographs of two

expeditions equipped by a Joint Committee of
the Royal and Royal Astronomical Societies, the
existence of the deflection of light demanded
by theory was first confirmed during the solar
eclipse of 29th May, 1919. (Cf. Appendix III.)

**) This follows from a generalisation of the

discussion in Section 20

BEHAVIOUR OF CLOCKS AND MEASURING-

RODS ON A ROTATING BODY OF REFERENCE

Hitherto I have purposely refrained from speak-

ing about the physical interpretation of space-
154 Evolution of Physics

and time-data in the case of the general theory

of relativity. As a consequence, I am guilty of a
certain slovenliness of treatment, which, as we
know from the special theory of relativity, is far
from being unimportant and pardonable. It is
now high time that we remedy this defect; but
I would mention at the outset, that this matter
lays no small claims on the patience and on the
power of abstraction of the reader.

We start off again from quite special cases,

which we have frequently used before. Let us
consider a space time domain in which no grav-
itational field exists relative to a reference-body
K whose state of motion has been suitably cho-
sen. K is then a Galileian reference-body as
regards the domain considered, and the results
of the special theory of relativity hold relative to
K. Let us supposse the same domain referred
to a second body of reference K1, which is ro-
http://booksiread.org 155

tating uniformly with respect to K. In order to

fix our ideas, we shall imagine K1 to be in the
form of a plane circular disc, which rotates uni-
formly in its own plane about its centre. An
observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K1 is sensible of a force which acts outwards
in a radial direction, and which would be inter-
preted as an effect of inertia (centrifugal force)
by an observer who was at rest with respect
to the original reference-body K. But the ob-
server on the disc may regard his disc as a
reference-body which is ” at rest ” ; on the basis
of the general principle of relativity he is jus-
tified in doing this. The force acting on him-
self, and in fact on all other bodies which are
at rest relative to the disc, he regards as the
effect of a gravitational field. Nevertheless, the
space-distribution of this gravitational field is
of a kind that would not be possible on New-
156 Evolution of Physics

ton’s theory of gravitation.* But since the ob-

server believes in the general theory of relativ-
ity, this does not disturb him; he is quite in
the right when he believes that a general law
of gravitation can be formulated- a law which
not only explains the motion of the stars cor-
rectly, but also the field of force experienced by
himself.

The observer performs experiments on his

circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods.
In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at ex-
act definitions for the signification of time- and
space-data with reference to the circular disc
K1, these definitions being based on his obser-
vations. What will be his experience in this en-
terprise ?

To start with, he places one of two iden-

tically constructed clocks at the centre of the
circular disc, and the other on the edge of the
http://booksiread.org 157

disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We

now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at
the same rate from the standpoint of the non-
rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged
from this body, the clock at the centre of the
disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the
edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in
consequence of the rotation. According to a re-
sult obtained in Section 12, it follows that the
latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower
than that of the clock at the centre of the cir-
cular disc, i.e. as observed from K. It is obvious
that the same effect would be noted by an ob-
server whom we will imagine sitting alongside
his clock at the centre of the circular disc. Thus
on our circular disc, or, to make the case more
general, in every gravitational field, a clock will
go more quickly or less quickly, according to
the position in which the clock is situated (at
158 Evolution of Physics

rest). For this reason it is not possible to ob-

tain a reasonable definition of time with the aid
of clocks which are arranged at rest with re-
spect to the body of reference. A similar diffi-
culty presents itself when we attempt to apply
our earlier definition of simultaneity in such a
case, but I do not wish to go any farther into
this question.

Moreover, at this stage the definition of the

space co-ordinates also presents insurmount-
able difficulties. If the observer applies his stan-
dard measuring-rod (a rod which is short as
compared with the radius of the disc) tangen-
tially to the edge of the disc, then, as judged
from the Galileian system, the length of this rod
will be less than I, since, according to Section
12, moving bodies suffer a shortening in the di-
rection of the motion. On the other hand, the
measaring-rod will not experience a shortening
http://booksiread.org 159

in length, as judged from K, if it is applied to

the disc in the direction of the radius. If, then,
the observer first measures the circumference
of the disc with his measuring-rod and then the
diameter of the disc, on dividing the one by the
other, he will not obtain as quotient the familiar
number p = 3.14 . . ., but a larger number,[4]**
whereas of course, for a disc which is at rest
with respect to K, this operation would yield p
exactly. This proves that the propositions of
Euclidean geometry cannot hold exactly on the
rotating disc, nor in general in a gravitational
field, at least if we attribute the length I to the
rod in all positions and in every orientation.
Hence the idea of a straight line also loses its
meaning. We are therefore not in a position to
define exactly the co-ordinates x, y, z relative to
the disc by means of the method used in dis-
cussing the special theory, and as long as the
160 Evolution of Physics

co- ordinates and times of events have not been

defined, we cannot assign an exact meaning to
the natural laws in which these occur.
Thus all our previous conclusions based on
general relativity would appear to be called in
question. In reality we must make a subtle de-
tour in order to be able to apply the postulate
of general relativity exactly. I shall prepare the
reader for this in the following paragraphs.
Notes
*) The field disappears at the centre of the
disc and increases proportionally to the distance
from the centre as we proceed outwards.
**) Throughout this consideration we have
to use the Galileian (non-rotating) system K as
reference-body, since we may only assume the
validity of the results of the special theory of
relativity relative to K (relative to K1 a gravita-
tional field prevails).
EUCLIDEAN AND
NON-EUCLIDEAN
CONTINUUM

The surface of a marble table is spread out in

front of me. I can get from any one point on
this table to any other point by passing contin-
uously from one point to a ” neighbouring ” one,
and repeating this process a (large) number of
times, or, in other words, by going from point to
point without executing ”jumps.” I am sure the
reader will appreciate with sufficient clearness

161
162 Evolution of Physics

what I mean here by ” neighbouring ” and by ”

jumps ” (if he is not too pedantic). We express
this property of the surface by describing the
latter as a continuum.

Let us now imagine that a large number of

little rods of equal length have been made, their
lengths being small compared with the dimen-
sions of the marble slab. When I say they are
of equal length, I mean that one can be laid
on any other without the ends overlapping. We
next lay four of these little rods on the mar-
ble slab so that they constitute a quadrilateral
figure (a square), the diagonals of which are
equally long. To ensure the equality of the di-
agonals, we make use of a little testing-rod. To
this square we add similar ones, each of which
has one rod in common with the first. We pro-
ceed in like manner with each of these squares
until finally the whole marble slab is laid out
http://booksiread.org 163

with squares. The arrangement is such, that

each side of a square belongs to two squares
and each corner to four squares.

It is a veritable wonder that we can carry out

this business without getting into the greatest
difficulties. We only need to think of the follow-
ing. If at any moment three squares meet at
a corner, then two sides of the fourth square
are already laid, and, as a consequence, the
arrangement of the remaining two sides of the
square is already completely determined. But
I am now no longer able to adjust the quadri-
lateral so that its diagonals may be equal. If
they are equal of their own accord, then this is
an especial favour of the marble slab and of the
little rods, about which I can only be thankfully
surprised. We must experience many such sur-
prises if the construction is to be successful.

If everything has really gone smoothly, then

164 Evolution of Physics

I say that the points of the marble slab con-

stitute a Euclidean continuum with respect to
the little rod, which has been used as a ” dis-
tance ” (line-interval). By choosing one corner
of a square as ” origin” I can characterise every
other corner of a square with reference to this
origin by means of two numbers. I only need
state how many rods I must pass over when,
starting from the origin, I proceed towards the
” right ” and then ” upwards,” in order to arrive
at the corner of the square under considera-
tion. These two numbers are then the ” Carte-
sian co-ordinates ” of this corner with reference
to the ” Cartesian co-ordinate system” which is
determined by the arrangement of little rods.

By making use of the following modification

of this abstract experiment, we recognise that
there must also be cases in which the experi-
ment would be unsuccessful. We shall suppose
http://booksiread.org 165

that the rods ” expand ” by in amount propor-

tional to the increase of temperature. We heat
the central part of the marble slab, but not the
periphery, in which case two of our little rods
can still be brought into coincidence at every
position on the table. But our construction of
squares must necessarily come into disorder
during the heating, because the little rods on
the central region of the table expand, whereas
those on the outer part do not.

With reference to our little rods – defined

as unit lengths – the marble slab is no longer
a Euclidean continuum, and we are also no
longer in the position of defining Cartesian co-
ordinates directly with their aid, since the above
construction can no longer be carried out. But
since there are other things which are not in-
fluenced in a similar manner to the little rods
(or perhaps not at all) by the temperature of
166 Evolution of Physics

the table, it is possible quite naturally to main-

tain the point of view that the marble slab is
a ” Euclidean continuum.” This can be done in
a satisfactory manner by making a more sub-
tle stipulation about the measurement or the
comparison of lengths.

But if rods of every kind (i.e. of every ma-

terial) were to behave in the same way as re-
gards the influence of temperature when they
are on the variably heated marble slab, and if
we had no other means of detecting the effect
of temperature than the geometrical behaviour
of our rods in experiments analogous to the
one described above, then our best plan would
be to assign the distance one to two points on
the slab, provided that the ends of one of our
rods could be made to coincide with these two
points ; for how else should we define the dis-
tance without our proceeding being in the high-
http://booksiread.org 167

est measure grossly arbitrary ? The method of

Cartesian coordinates must then be discarded,
and replaced by another which does not as-
sume the validity of Euclidean geometry for rigid
bodies.* The reader will notice that the situa-
tion depicted here corresponds to the one brought
about by the general postitlate of relativity (Sec-
tion 23).

Notes

*) Mathematicians have been confronted with

our problem in the following form. If we are
given a surface (e.g. an ellipsoid) in Euclidean
three-dimensional space, then there exists for
this surface a two-dimensional geometry, just
as much as for a plane surface. Gauss under-
took the task of treating this two-dimensional
geometry from first principles, without making
use of the fact that the surface belongs to a
Euclidean continuum of three dimensions. If
168 Evolution of Physics

we imagine constructions to be made with rigid

rods in the surface (similar to that above with
the marble slab), we should find that different
laws hold for these from those resulting on the
basis of Euclidean plane geometry. The surface
is not a Euclidean continuum with respect to
the rods, and we cannot define Cartesian co-
ordinates in the surface. Gauss indicated the
principles according to which we can treat the
geometrical relationships in the surface, and
thus pointed out the way to the method of Riem-
man of treating multi-dimensional, non-Euclidean
continuum. Thus it is that mathematicians long
ago solved the formal problems to which we are
led by the general postulate of relativity.
GAUSSIAN
CO-ORDINATES

According to Gauss, this combined analytical

and geometrical mode of handling the problem
can be arrived at in the following way. We imag-
ine a system of arbitrary curves (see Fig. 4)
drawn on the surface of the table. These we
designate as u-curves, and we indicate each
of them by means of a number. The Curves
u= 1, u= 2 and u= 3 are drawn in the dia-
gram. Between the curves u= 1 and u= 2 we
must imagine an infinitely large number to be

169
170 Evolution of Physics

drawn, all of which correspond to real numbers

lying between 1 and 2. fig. 04 We have then a
system of u-curves, and this ”infinitely dense”
system covers the whole surface of the table.
These u-curves must not intersect each other,
and through each point of the surface one and
only one curve must pass. Thus a perfectly def-
inite value of u belongs to every point on the
surface of the marble slab. In like manner we
imagine a system of v-curves drawn on the sur-
face. These satisfy the same conditions as the
u-curves, they are provided with numbers in a
corresponding manner, and they may likewise
be of arbitrary shape. It follows that a value of
u and a value of v belong to every point on the
surface of the table. We call these two num-
bers the co-ordinates of the surface of the ta-
ble (Gaussian co-ordinates). For example, the
point P in the diagram has the Gaussian co-
http://booksiread.org 171

ordinates u= 3, v= 1. Two neighbouring points

P and P1 on the surface then correspond to the
co-ordinates

P: u,v

P1: u + du, v + dv,

where du and dv signify very small numbers.

In a similar manner we may indicate the dis-
tance (line-interval) between P and P1, as mea-
sured with a little rod, by means of the very
small number ds. Then according to Gauss we
have

ds2 = g[11]du2 + 2g[12]dudv = g[22]dv2

where g[11], g[12], g[22], are magnitudes which

depend in a perfectly definite way on u and
v. The magnitudes g[11], g[12] and g[22], de-
termine the behaviour of the rods relative to
the u-curves and v-curves, and thus also rel-
ative to the surface of the table. For the case
in which the points of the surface considered
172 Evolution of Physics

form a Euclidean continuum with reference to

the measuring-rods, but only in this case, it is
possible to draw the u-curves and v-curves and
to attach numbers to them, in such a manner,
that we simply have :

ds2 = du2 + dv2

Under these conditions, the u-curves and v-

curves are straight lines in the sense of Eu-
clidean geometry, and they are perpendicular
to each other. Here the Gaussian coordinates
are samply Cartesian ones. It is clear that Gauss
co-ordinates are nothing more than an associ-
ation of two sets of numbers with the points of
the surface considered, of such a nature that
numerical values differing very slightly from each
other are associated with neighbouring points ”
in space.”

So far, these considerations hold for a con-

tinuum of two dimensions. But the Gaussian
http://booksiread.org 173

method can be applied also to a continuum of

three, four or more dimensions. If, for instance,
a continuum of four dimensions be supposed
available, we may represent it in the following
way. With every point of the continuum, we as-
sociate arbitrarily four numbers, x[1], x[2], x[3],
x[4], which are known as ” co-ordinates.” Adja-
cent points correspond to adjacent values of the
coordinates. If a distance ds is associated with
the adjacent points P and P1, this distance be-
ing measurable and well defined from a phys-
ical point of view, then the following formula
holds:

ds2 = g[11]dx[1]2 +2g[12]dx[1]dx[2]....g[44]dx[4]2 ,

where the magnitudes g[11], etc., have val-

ues which vary with the position in the contin-
uum. Only when the continuum is a Euclidean
one is it possible to associate the co-ordinates
x[1] . . x[4]. with the points of the continuum
174 Evolution of Physics

so that we have simply

ds2 = dx[1]2 + dx[2]2 + dx[3]2 + dx[4]2 .

In this case relations hold in the four-dimensional

continuum which are analogous to those hold-
ing in our three-dimensional measurements.

However, the Gauss treatment for ds2 which

we have given above is not always possible. It
is only possible when sufficiently small regions
of the continuum under consideration may be
regarded as Euclidean continua. For example,
this obviously holds in the case of the marble
slab of the table and local variation of temper-
ature. The temperature is practically constant
for a small part of the slab, and thus the ge-
ometrical behaviour of the rods is almost as
it ought to be according to the rules of Eu-
clidean geometry. Hence the imperfections of
the construction of squares in the previous sec-
tion do not show themselves clearly until this
http://booksiread.org 175

construction is extended over a considerable por-

tion of the surface of the table.

We can sum this up as follows: Gauss in-

vented a method for the mathematical treat-
ment of continua in general, in which ” size-
relations ” (” distances ” between neighbouring
points) are defined. To every point of a contin-
uum are assigned as many numbers (Gaussian
coordinates) as the continuum has dimensions.
This is done in such a way, that only one mean-
ing can be attached to the assignment, and that
numbers (Gaussian coordinates) which differ
by an indefinitely small amount are assigned
to adjacent points. The Gaussian coordinate
system is a logical generalisation of the Carte-
sian co-ordinate system. It is also applicable to
non-Euclidean continua, but only when, with
respect to the defined ”size” or ”distance,” small
parts of the continuum under consideration be-
176 Evolution of Physics

have more nearly like a Euclidean system, the

smaller the part of the continuum under our
notice.

THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE SPE-

ICAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY CONSIDERED
AS A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM

We are now in a position to formulate more

exactly the idea of Minkowski, which was only
vaguely indicated in Section 17. In accordance
with the special theory of relativity, certain co-
ordinate systems are given preference for the
description of the four-dimensional, space-time
continuum. We called these ” Galileian co-ordinate
systems.” For these systems, the four co-ordinates
x, y, z, t, which determine an event or – in
other words, a point of the four-dimensional
continuum – are defined physically in a sim-
ple manner, as set forth in detail in the first
part of this book. For the transition from one
http://booksiread.org 177

Galileian system to another, which is moving

uniformly with reference to the first, the equa-
tions of the Lorentz transformation are valid.
These last form the basis for the derivation of
deductions from the special theory of relativ-
ity, and in themselves they are nothing more
than the expression of the universal validity of
the law of transmission of light for all Galileian
systems of reference.

Minkowski found that the Lorentz transfor-

mations satisfy the following simple conditions.
Let us consider two neighbouring events, the
relative position of which in the four-dimensional
continuum is given with respect to a Galileian
reference-body K by the space co-ordinate dif-
ferences dx, dy, dz and the time-difference dt.
With reference to a second Galileian system we
shall suppose that the corresponding differences
for these two events are dx1, dy1, dz1, dt1.
178 Evolution of Physics

Then these magnitudes always fulfil the con-

dition*

dx2 + dy2 + dz2 - c2 dt2 = dx12 + dy12 + dz12 −

c2 dt12.

The validity of the Lorentz transformation

follows from this condition. We can express this
as follows: The magnitude

ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2 - c2 dt2,

which belongs to two adjacent points of the

four-dimensional space-time continuum, has the
same value for all selected (Galileian) reference-
bodies. If we replace x, y, z, sq. rt. -I . ct , by
x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4], we also obtaill the result
that

ds2 = dx[1]2 + dx[2]2 + dx[3]2 + dx[4]2 .

is independent of the choice of the body of

reference. We call the magnitude ds the ” dis-
tance ” apart of the two events or four-dimensional
points.
http://booksiread.org 179

Thus, if we choose as time-variable the imag-

inary variable sq. rt. -I . ct instead of the real
quantity t, we can regard the space-time con-
tintium – accordance with the special theory of
relativity – as a ”, Euclidean ” four-dimensional
continuum, a result which follows from the con-
siderations of the preceding section.

Notes

*) Cf. Appendixes I and 2. The relations

which are derived there for the co-ordlnates them-
selves are valid also for co-ordinate differences,
and thus also for co-ordinate differentials (in-
definitely small differences).

THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GEN-

ERAL THEORY OF REALTIIVTY IS NOT A ECULIDEAN
CONTINUUM

In the first part of this book we were able

to make use of space-time co-ordinates which
allowed of a simple and direct physical inter-
180 Evolution of Physics

pretation, and which, according to Section 26,

can be regarded as four-dimensional Cartesian
co-ordinates. This was possible on the basis of
the law of the constancy of the velocity of tight.
But according to Section 21 the general theory
of relativity cannot retain this law. On the con-
trary, we arrived at the result that according to
this latter theory the velocity of light must al-
ways depend on the co-ordinates when a grav-
itational field is present. In connection with
a specific illustration in Section 23, we found
that the presence of a gravitational field invali-
dates the definition of the coordinates and the
ifine, which led us to our objective in the special
theory of relativity.

In view of the resuIts of these considerations

we are led to the conviction that, according to
the general principle of relativity, the space-
time continuum cannot be regarded as a Eu-
http://booksiread.org 181

clidean one, but that here we have the general

case, corresponding to the marble slab with lo-
cal variations of temperature, and with which
we made acquaintance as an example of a two-
dimensional continuum. Just as it was there
impossible to construct a Cartesian co-ordinate
system from equal rods, so here it is impossible
to build up a system (reference-body) from rigid
bodies and clocks, which shall be of such a na-
ture that measuring-rods and clocks, arranged
rigidly with respect to one another, shaIll indi-
cate position and time directly. Such was the
essence of the difficulty with which we were
confronted in Section 23.

But the considerations of Sections 25 and

26 show us the way to surmount this difficulty.
We refer the fourdimensional space-time con-
tinuum in an arbitrary manner to Gauss co-
ordinates. We assign to every point of the con-
182 Evolution of Physics

tinuum (event) four numbers, x[1], x[2], x[3],

x[4] (co-ordinates), which have not the least di-
rect physical significance, but only serve the
purpose of numbering the points of the contin-
uum in a definite but arbitrary manner. This
arrangement does not even need to be of such
a kind that we must regard x[1], x[2], x[3], as
”space” co-ordinates and x[4], as a ” time ” co-
ordinate.

The reader may think that such a descrip-

tion of the world would be quite inadequate.
What does it mean to assign to an event the
particular co-ordinates x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4], if
in themselves these co-ordinates have no sig-
nificance ? More careful consideration shows,
however, that this anxiety is unfounded. Let us
consider, for instance, a material point with any
kind of motion. If this point had only a momen-
tary existence without duration, then it would
http://booksiread.org 183

to described in space-time by a single system of

values x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4]. Thus its permanent
existence must be characterised by an infinitely
large number of such systems of values, the co-
ordinate values of which are so close together
as to give continuity; corresponding to the ma-
terial point, we thus have a (uni-dimensional)
line in the four-dimensional continuum. In the
same way, any such lines in our continuum
correspond to many points in motion. The only
statements having regard to these points which
can claim a physical existence are in reality
the statements about their encounters. In our
mathematical treatment, such an encounter is
expressed in the fact that the two lines which
represent the motions of the points in ques-
tion have a particular system of co-ordinate val-
ues, x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4], in common. After ma-
ture consideration the reader will doubtless ad-
184 Evolution of Physics

mit that in reality such encounters constitute

the only actual evidence of a time-space nature
with which we meet in physical statements.

When we were describing the motion of a

material point relative to a body of reference, we
stated nothing more than the encounters of this
point with particular points of the reference-
body. We can also determine the correspond-
ing values of the time by the observation of en-
counters of the body with clocks, in conjunc-
tion with the observation of the encounter of
the hands of clocks with particular points on
the dials. It is just the same in the case of
space-measurements by means of measuring-
rods, as a litttle consideration will show.

The following statements hold generally : Ev-

ery physical description resolves itself into a
number of statements, each of which refers to
the space-time coincidence of two events A and
http://booksiread.org 185

B. In terms of Gaussian co-ordinates, every such

statement is expressed by the agreement of their
four co-ordinates x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4]. Thus in
reality, the description of the time-space con-
tinuum by means of Gauss co-ordinates com-
pletely replaces the description with the aid of
a body of reference, without suffering from the
defects of the latter mode of description; it is
not tied down to the Euclidean character of the
continuum which has to be represented.
186 Evolution of Physics
EXACT
FORMULATION OF
THE GENERAL
PRINCIPLE OF
RELATIVITY

We are now in a position to replace the pro. vi-

sional formulation of the general principle of
relativity given in Section 18 by an exact for-
mulation. The form there used, ”All bodies of

187
188 Evolution of Physics

reference K, K1, etc., are equivalent for the de-

scription of natural phenomena (formulation of
the general laws of nature), whatever may be
their state of motion,” cannot be maintained,
because the use of rigid reference-bodies, in the
sense of the method followed in the special the-
ory of relativity, is in general not possible in
space-time description. The Gauss co-ordinate
system has to take the place of the body of ref-
erence. The following statement corresponds to
the fundamental idea of the general principle
of relativity: ”All Gaussian co-ordinate systems
are essentially equivalent for the formulation of
the general laws of nature.”

We can state this general principle of rel-

ativity in still another form, which renders it
yet more clearly intelligible than it is when in
the form of the natural extension of the spe-
cial principle of relativity. According to the spe-
http://booksiread.org 189

cial theory of relativity, the equations which ex-

press the general laws of nature pass over into
equations of the same form when, by making
use of the Lorentz transformation, we replace
the space-time variables x, y, z, t, of a (Galileian)
reference-body K by the space-time variables
x1, y1, z1, t1, of a new reference-body K1. Ac-
cording to the general theory of relativity, on
the other hand, by application of arbitrary sub-
stitutions of the Gauss variables x[1], x[2], x[3],
x[4], the equations must pass over into equa-
tions of the same form; for every transforma-
tion (not only the Lorentz transformation) cor-
responds to the transition of one Gauss co-ordinate
system into another.

If we desire to adhere to our ”old-time” three-

dimensional view of things, then we can char-
acterise the development which is being under-
gone by the fundamental idea of the general
190 Evolution of Physics

theory of relativity as follows : The special the-

ory of relativity has reference to Galileian do-
mains, i.e. to those in which no gravitational
field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference-
body serves as body of reference, i.e. a rigid
body the state of motion of which is so chosen
that the Galileian law of the uniform rectilinear
motion of ”isolated” material points holds rela-
tively to it.

Certain considerations suggest that we should

refer the same Galileian domains to non-Galileian
reference-bodies also. A gravitational field of
a special kind is then present with respect to
these bodies (cf. Sections 20 and 23).

In gravitational fields there are no such things

as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus
the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no
avail in the general theory of relativity. The mo-
tion of clocks is also influenced by gravitational
http://booksiread.org 191

fields, and in such a way that a physical defini-

tion of time which is made directly with the aid
of clocks has by no means the same degree of
plausibility as in the special theory of relativity.

For this reason non-rigid reference-bodies are

used, which are as a whole not only moving
in any way whatsoever, but which also suffer
alterations in form ad lib. during their mo-
tion. Clocks, for which the law of motion is
of any kind, however irregular, serve for the
definition of time. We have to imagine each
of these clocks fixed at a point on the non-
rigid reference-body. These clocks satisfy only
the one condition, that the ”readings” which
are observed simultaneously on adjacent clocks
(in space) differ from each other by an indefi-
nitely small amount. This non-rigid reference-
body, which might appropriately be termed a
”reference-mollusc”, is in the main equivalent
192 Evolution of Physics

to a Gaussian four-dimensional co-ordinate sys-

tem chosen arbitrarily. That which gives the
”mollusc” a certain comprehensibility as com-
pared with the Gauss co-ordinate system is the
(really unjustified) formal retention of the sepa-
rate existence of the space co-ordinates as op-
posed to the time co-ordinate. Every point on
the mollusc is treated as a space-point, and ev-
ery material point which is at rest relatively to it
as at rest, so long as the mollusc is considered
as reference-body. The general principle of rel-
ativity requires that all these molluscs can be
used as reference-bodies with equal right and
equal success in the formulation of the general
laws of nature; the laws themselves must be
quite independent of the choice of mollusc.

The great power possessed by the general

principle of relativity lies in the comprehensive
limitation which is imposed on the laws of na-
http://booksiread.org 193

ture in consequence of what we have seen above.

THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF GRAV-

ITATION ON THE BASIS OF THE GENERAL PRIN-
CIPLE OF RELATIVITY

If the reader has followed all our previous

considerations, he will have no further difficulty
in understanding the methods leading to the
solution of the problem of gravitation.

We start off on a consideration of a Galileian

domain, i.e. a domain in which there is no grav-
itational field relative to the Galileian reference-
body K. The behaviour of measuring-rods and
clocks with reference to K is known from the
special theory of relativity, likewise the behaviour
of ”isolated” material points; the latter move
uniformly and in straight lines.

Now let us refer this domain to a random

Gauss coordinate system or to a ”mollusc” as
reference-body K1. Then with respect to K1
194 Evolution of Physics

there is a gravitational field G (of a particular

kind). We learn the behaviour of measuring-
rods and clocks and also of freely-moving mate-
rial points with reference to K1 simply by math-
ematical transformation. We interpret this be-
haviour as the behaviour of measuring-rods,
docks and material points tinder the influence
of the gravitational field G. Hereupon we intro-
duce a hypothesis: that the influence of the
gravitational field on measuringrods, clocks and
freely-moving material points continues to take
place according to the same laws, even in the
case where the prevailing gravitational field is
not derivable from the Galfleian special care,
simply by means of a transformation of co-ordinates.

The next step is to investigate the space-time

behaviour of the gravitational field G, which was
derived from the Galileian special case simply
by transformation of the coordinates. This be-
http://booksiread.org 195

haviour is formulated in a law, which is always

valid, no matter how the reference-body (mol-
lusc) used in the description may be chosen.

This law is not yet the general law of the

gravitational field, since the gravitational field
under consideration is of a special kind. In or-
der to find out the general law-of-field of gravi-
tation we still require to obtain a generalisation
of the law as found above. This can be obtained
without caprice, however, by taking into con-
sideration the following demands:

(a) The required generalisation must likewise

satisfy the general postulate of relativity.

(b) If there is any matter in the domain un-

der consideration, only its inertial mass, and
thus according to Section 15 only its energy is
of importance for its etfect in exciting a field.

(c) Gravitational field and matter together must

satisfy the law of the conservation of energy
196 Evolution of Physics

(and of impulse).

Finally, the general principle of relativity per-

mits us to determine the influence of the grav-
itational field on the course of all those pro-
cesses which take place according to known
laws when a gravitational field is absent i.e.
which have already been fitted into the frame of
the special theory of relativity. In this connec-
tion we proceed in principle according to the
method which has already been explained for
measuring-rods, clocks and freely moving ma-
terial points.

The theory of gravitation derived in this way

from the general postulate of relativity excels
not only in its beauty ; nor in removing the de-
fect attaching to classical mechanics which was
brought to light in Section 21; nor in interpret-
ing the empirical law of the equality of inertial
and gravitational mass ; but it has also already
http://booksiread.org 197

explained a result of observation in astronomy,

against which classical mechanics is powerless.

If we confine the application of the theory

to the case where the gravitational fields can
be regarded as being weak, and in which all
masses move with respect to the coordinate sys-
tem with velocities which are small compared
with the velocity of light, we then obtain as a
first approximation the Newtonian theory. Thus
the latter theory is obtained here without any
particular assumption, whereas Newton had to
introduce the hypothesis that the force of at-
traction between mutually attracting material
points is inversely proportional to the square of
the distance between them. If we increase the
accuracy of the calculation, deviations from the
theory of Newton make their appearance, prac-
tically all of which must nevertheless escape
the test of observation owing to their smallness.
198 Evolution of Physics

We must draw attention here to one of these

deviations. According to Newton’s theory, a planet
moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would
permanently maintain its position with respect
to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the mo-
tion of the fixed stars themselves and the ac-
tion of the other planets under consideration.
Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the
planets for these two influences, and if New-
ton’s theory be strictly correct, we ought to ob-
tain for the orbit of the planet an ellipse, which
is fixed with reference to the fixed stars. This
deduction, which can be tested with great ac-
curacy, has been confirmed for all the planets
save one, with the precision that is capable of
being obtained by the delicacy of observation
attainable at the present time. The sole excep-
tion is Mercury, the planet which lies nearest
the sun. Since the time of Leverrier, it has been
http://booksiread.org 199

known that the ellipse corresponding to the or-

bit of Mercury, after it has been corrected for
the influences mentioned above, is not station-
ary with respect to the fixed stars, but that it
rotates exceedingly slowly in the plane of the
orbit and in the sense of the orbital motion. The
value obtained for this rotary movement of the
orbital ellipse was 43 seconds of arc per cen-
tury, an amount ensured to be correct to within
a few seconds of arc. This effect can be ex-
plained by means of classical mechanics only
on the assumption of hypotheses which have
little probability, and which were devised solely
for this purponse.

On the basis of the general theory of relativ-

ity, it is found that the ellipse of every planet
round the sun must necessarily rotate in the
manner indicated above ; that for all the plan-
ets, with the exception of Mercury, this rotation
200 Evolution of Physics

is too small to be detected with the delicacy of

observation possible at the present time ; but
that in the case of Mercury it must amount to
43 seconds of arc per century, a result which is
strictly in agreement with observation.

Apart from this one, it has hitherto been

possible to make only two deductions from the
theory which admit of being tested by observa-
tion, to wit, the curvature of light rays by the
gravitational field of the sun,*x and a displace-
ment of the spectral lines of light reaching us
from large stars, as compared with the corre-
sponding lines for light produced in an analo-
gous manner terrestrially (i.e. by the same kind
of atom).** These two deductions from the the-
ory have both been confirmed.

Notes

*) First observed by Eddington and others in

1919. (Cf. Appendix III, pp. 126-129).
http://booksiread.org 201

**) Established by Adams in 1924. (Cf. p.

132)

PART III CONSIDERATIONS ON THE UNI-

VERSE AS A WHOLE COSMOLOGICAL DIFFI-
CULTIES OF NEWTON’S THEORY

Part from the difficulty discussed in Section

21, there is a second fundamental difficulty at-
tending classical celestial mechanics, which, to
the best of my knowledge, was first discussed
in detail by the astronomer Seeliger. If we pon-
der over the question as to how the universe,
considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the
first answer that suggests itself to us is surely
this: As regards space (and time) the universe
is infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that
the density of matter, although very variable
in detail, is nevertheless on the average every-
where the same. In other words: However far
we might travel through space, we should find
202 Evolution of Physics

everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars

of approrimately the same kind and density.

This view is not in harmony with the the-

ory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires
that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum,
and that as we proceed outwards from this cen-
tre the group-density of the stars should dimin-
ish, until finally, at great distances, it is suc-
ceeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The
stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the
infinite ocean of space.*

This conception is in itself not very satisfac-

tory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads
to the result that the light emitted by the stars
and also individual stars of the stellar system
are perpetually passing out into infinite space,
never to return, and without ever again com-
ing into interaction with other objects of nature.
http://booksiread.org 203

Such a finite material universe would be des-

tined to become gradually but systematically
impoverished.

In order to escape this dilemma, Seeliger sug-

gested a modification of Newton’s law, in which
he assumes that for great distances the force
of attraction between two masses diminishes
more rapidly than would result from the in-
verse square law. In this way it is possible
for the mean density of matter to be constant
everywhere, even to infinity, without infinitely
large gravitational fields being produced. We
thus free ourselves from the distasteful concep-
tion that the material universe ought to pos-
sess something of the nature of a centre. Of
course we purchase our emancipation from the
fundamental difficulties mentioned, at the cost
of a modification and complication of Newton’s
law which has neither empirical nor theoretical
204 Evolution of Physics

foundation. We can imagine innumerable laws

which would serve the same purpose, without
our being able to state a reason why one of
them is to be preferred to the others ; for any
one of these laws would be founded just as little
on more general theoretical principles as is the
law of Newton.

Notes

*) Proof – According to the theory of New-

ton, the number of ”lines of force” which come
from infinity and terminate in a mass m is pro-
portional to the mass m. If, on the average,
the Mass density p[0] is constant throughout
tithe universe, then a sphere of volume V will
enclose the average man p[0]V. Thus the num-
ber of lines of force passing through the sur-
face F of the sphere into its interior is propor-
tional to p[0] V. For unit area of the surface of
the sphere the number of lines of force which
http://booksiread.org 205

enters the sphere is thus proportional to p[0]

V/F or to p[0]R. Hence the intensity of the field
at the surface would ultimately become infinite
with increasing radius R of the sphere, which
is impossible.
206 Evolution of Physics
THE POSSIBILITY
OF A ”FINITE” AND
YET ”UNBOUNDED”
UNIVERSE

But speculations on the structure of the uni-

verse also move in quite another direction. The
development of non-Euclidean geometry led to
the recognition of the fact, that we can cast
doubt on the infiniteness of our space without
coming into conflict with the laws of thought or

207
208 Evolution of Physics

with experience (Riemann, Helmholtz). These

questions have already been treated in detail
and with unsurpassable lucidity by Helmholtz
and Poincar, whereas I can only touch on them
briefly here.

In the first place, we imagine an existence in

two dimensional space. Flat beings with flat im-
plements, and in particular flat rigid measuring-
rods, are free to move in a plane. For them
nothing exists outside of this plane: that which
they observe to happen to themselves and to
their flat ” things ” is the all-inclusive reality of
their plane. In particular, the constructions of
plane Euclidean geometry can be carried out by
means of the rods e.g. the lattice construction,
considered in Section 24. In contrast to ours,
the universe of these beings is two-dimensional;
but, like ours, it extends to infinity. In their
universe there is room for an infinite number
http://booksiread.org 209

of identical squares made up of rods, i.e. its

volume (surface) is infinite. If these beings say
their universe is ” plane,” there is sense in the
statement, because they mean that they can
perform the constructions of plane Euclidean
geometry with their rods. In this connection
the individual rods always represent the same
distance, independently of their position.

Let us consider now a second two-dimensional

existence, but this time on a spherical surface
instead of on a plane. The flat beings with their
measuring-rods and other objects fit exactly on
this surface and they are unable to leave it.
Their whole universe of observation extends ex-
clusively over the surface of the sphere. Are
these beings able to regard the geometry of their
universe as being plane geometry and their rods
withal as the realisation of ” distance ” ? They
cannot do this. For if they attempt to realise
210 Evolution of Physics

a straight line, they will obtain a curve, which

we ” three-dimensional beings ” designate as a
great circle, i.e. a self-contained line of defi-
nite finite length, which can be measured up
by means of a measuring-rod. Similarly, this
universe has a finite area that can be compared
with the area, of a square constructed with rods.
The great charm resulting from this considera-
tion lies in the recognition of the fact that the
universe of these beings is finite and yet has no
limits.

But the spherical-surface beings do not need

to go on a world-tour in order to perceive that
they are not living in a Euclidean universe. They
can convince themselves of this on every part
of their ” world,” provided they do not use too
small a piece of it. Starting from a point, they
draw ” straight lines ” (arcs of circles as judged
in three dimensional space) of equal length in
http://booksiread.org 211

all directions. They will call the line joining

the free ends of these lines a ” circle.” For a
plane surface, the ratio of the circumference of
a circle to its diameter, both lengths being mea-
sured with the same rod, is, according to Eu-
clidean geometry of the plane, equal to a con-
stant value p, which is independent of the di-
ameter of the circle. On their spherical sur-
face our flat beings would find for this ratio the
value

eq. 27: file eq27.gif

i.e. a smaller value than p, the difference

being the more considerable, the greater is the
radius of the circle in comparison with the ra-
dius R of the ” world-sphere.” By means of this
relation the spherical beings can determine the
radius of their universe (” world ”), even when
only a relatively small part of their worldsphere
is available for their measurements. But if this
212 Evolution of Physics

part is very small indeed, they will no longer be

able to demonstrate that they are on a spheri-
cal ” world ” and not on a Euclidean plane, for
a small part of a spherical surface differs only
slightly from a piece of a plane of the same size.

Thus if the spherical surface beings are liv-

ing on a planet of which the solar system occu-
pies only a negligibly small part of the spherical
universe, they have no means of determining
whether they are living in a finite or in an infi-
nite universe, because the ” piece of universe ”
to which they have access is in both cases prac-
tically plane, or Euclidean. It follows directly
from this discussion, that for our sphere-beings
the circumference of a circle first increases with
the radius until the ” circumference of the uni-
verse ” is reached, and that it thenceforward
gradually decreases to zero for still further in-
creasing values of the radius. During this pro-
http://booksiread.org 213

cess the area of the circle continues to increase

more and more, until finally it becomes equal
to the total area of the whole ” world-sphere.”

Perhaps the reader will wonder why we have

placed our ” beings ” on a sphere rather than on
another closed surface. But this choice has its
justification in the fact that, of all closed sur-
faces, the sphere is unique in possessing the
property that all points on it are equivalent. I
admit that the ratio of the circumference c of
a circle to its radius r depends on r, but for a
given value of r it is the same for all points of
the ” worldsphere ”; in other words, the ” world-
sphere ” is a ” surface of constant curvature.”

To this two-dimensional sphere-universe there

is a three-dimensional analogy, namely, the three-
dimensional spherical space which was discov-
ered by Riemann. its points are likewise all
equivalent. It possesses a finite volume, which
214 Evolution of Physics

is determined by its ”radius” (2p2R3). Is it pos-

sible to imagine a spherical space? To imagine
a space means nothing else than that we imag-
ine an epitome of our ” space ” experience, i.e.
of experience that we can have in the movement
of ” rigid ” bodies. In this sense we can imagine
a spherical space.

Suppose we draw lines or stretch strings in

all directions from a point, and mark off from
each of these the distance r with a measuring-
rod. All the free end-points of these lengths lie
on a spherical surface. We can specially mea-
sure up the area (F) of this surface by means of
a square made up of measuring-rods. If the
universe is Euclidean, then F = 4pR2 ; if it
is spherical, then F is always less than 4pR2.
With increasing values of r, F increases from
zero up to a maximum value which is deter-
mined by the ” world-radius,” but for still fur-
http://booksiread.org 215

ther increasing values of r, the area gradually

diminishes to zero. At first, the straight lines
which radiate from the starting point diverge
farther and farther from one another, but later
they approach each other, and finally they run
together again at a ”counter-point” to the start-
ing point. Under such conditions they have
traversed the whole spherical space. It is eas-
ily seen that the three-dimensional spherical
space is quite analogous to the two-dimensional
spherical surface. It is finite (i.e. of finite vol-
ume), and has no bounds.

It may be mentioned that there is yet an-

other kind of curved space: ” elliptical space.”
It can be regarded as a curved space in which
the two ” counter-points ” are identical (indis-
tinguishable from each other). An elliptical uni-
verse can thus be considered to some extent as
a curved universe possessing central symme-
216 Evolution of Physics

try.

It follows from what has been said, that closed

spaces without limits are conceivable. From
amongst these, the spherical space (and the el-
liptical) excels in its simplicity, since all points
on it are equivalent. As a result of this discus-
sion, a most interesting question arises for as-
tronomers and physicists, and that is whether
the universe in which we live is infinite, or whether
it is finite in the manner of the spherical uni-
verse. Our experience is far from being suf-
ficient to enable us to answer this question.
But the general theory of relativity permits of
our answering it with a moduate degree of cer-
tainty, and in this connection the difficulty men-
tioned in Section 30 finds its solution.

THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING

TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

According to the general theory of relativity,

http://booksiread.org 217

the geometrical properties of space are not in-

dependent, but they are determined by matter.
Thus we can draw conclusions about the ge-
ometrical structure of the universe only if we
base our considerations on the state of the mat-
ter as being something that is known. We know
from experience that, for a suitably chosen co-
ordinate system, the velocities of the stars are
small as compared with the velocity of trans-
mission of light. We can thus as a rough ap-
proximation arrive at a conclusion as to the na-
ture of the universe as a whole, if we treat the
matter as being at rest.

We already know from our previous discus-

sion that the behaviour of measuring-rods and
clocks is influenced by gravitational fields, i.e.
by the distribution of matter. This in itself is
sufficient to exclude the possibility of the ex-
act validity of Euclidean geometry in our uni-
218 Evolution of Physics

verse. But it is conceivable that our universe

differs only slightly from a Euclidean one, and
this notion seems all the more probable, since
calculations show that the metrics of surround-
ing space is influenced only to an exceedingly
small extent by masses even of the magnitude
of our sun. We might imagine that, as regards
geometry, our universe behaves analogously to
a surface which is irregularly curved in its indi-
vidual parts, but which nowhere departs appre-
ciably from a plane: something like the rippled
surface of a lake. Such a universe might fit-
tingly be called a quasi-Euclidean universe. As
regards its space it would be infinite. But cal-
culation shows that in a quasi-Euclidean uni-
verse the average density of matter would nec-
essarily be nil. Thus such a universe could not
be inhabited by matter everywhere ; it would
present to us that unsatisfactory picture which
http://booksiread.org 219

we portrayed in Section 30.

If we are to have in the universe an average

density of matter which differs from zero, how-
ever small may be that difference, then the uni-
verse cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the con-
trary, the results of calculation indicate that if
matter be distributed uniformly, the universe
would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since
in reality the detailed distribution of matter is
not uniform, the real universe will deviate in in-
dividual parts from the spherical, i.e. the uni-
verse will be quasi-spherical. But it will be nec-
essarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us
with a simple connection * between the space-
expanse of the universe and the average density
of matter in it.

Notes

*) For the radius R of the universe we obtain

the equation
220 Evolution of Physics

eq. 28: file eq28.gif

The use of the C.G.S. system in this equa-

tion gives 2/k = 1. 08.102 7; pistheaveragedensityof thematterandki

APPENDIX I SIMPLE DERIVATION OF THE

LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION (SUPPLEMENTARY
TO SECTION 11)

For the relative orientation of the co-ordinate

systems indicated in Fig. 2, the x-axes of both
systems pernumently coincide. In the present
case we can divide the problem into parts by
considering first only events which are localised
on the x-axis. Any such event is represented
with respect to the co-ordinate system K by the
abscissa x and the time t, and with respect to
the system K1 by the abscissa x’ and the time
t’. We require to find x’ and t’ when x and t are
given.

A light-signal, which is proceeding along the

positive axis of x, is transmitted according to
http://booksiread.org 221

the equation

x = ct

or

x - ct = 0 . . . (1).

Since the same light-signal has to be trans-

mitted relative to K1 with the velocity c, the
propagation relative to the system K1 will be
represented by the analogous formula

x’ - ct’ = O . . . (2)

Those space-time points (events) which sat-

isfy (x) must also satisfy (2). Obviously this will
be the case when the relation

(x’ - ct’) = l (x - ct) . . . (3).

is fulfilled in general, where l indicates a con-

stant ; for, according to (3), the disappearance
of (x - ct) involves the disappearance of (x’ - ct’).

If we apply quite similar considerations to

light rays which are being transmitted along the
negative x-axis, we obtain the condition
222 Evolution of Physics

(x’ + ct’) = (x + ct) . . . (4).

By adding (or subtracting) equations (3) and

(4), and introducing for convenience the con-
stants a and b in place of the constants l and ,
where

eq. 29: file eq29.gif

and

eq. 30: file eq30.gif

we obtain the equations

eq. 31: file eq31.gif

We should thus have the solution of our prob-

lem, if the constants a and b were known. These
result from the following discussion.

For the origin of K1 we have permanently

x’ = 0, and hence according to the first of the
equations (5)

eq. 32: file eq32.gif

If we call v the velocity with which the origin

of K1 is moving relative to K, we then have
http://booksiread.org 223

eq. 33: file eq33.gif

The same value v can be obtained from equa-

tions (5), if we calculate the velocity of another
point of K1 relative to K, or the velocity (directed
towards the negative x-axis) of a point of K with
respect to K’. In short, we can designate v as
the relative velocity of the two systems.

Furthermore, the principle of relativity teaches

us that, as judged from K, the length of a unit
measuring-rod which is at rest with reference
to K1 must be exactly the same as the length,
as judged from K’, of a unit measuring-rod which
is at rest relative to K. In order to see how the
points of the x-axis appear as viewed from K, we
only require to take a ” snapshot ” of K1 from K;
this means that we have to insert a particular
value of t (time of K), e.g. t = 0. For this value of
t we then obtain from the first of the equations
(5)
224 Evolution of Physics

x’ = ax

Two points of the x’-axis which are sepa-

rated by the distance Dx’ = I when measured
in the K1 system are thus separated in our in-
stantaneous photograph by the distance

eq. 34: file eq34.gif

But if the snapshot be taken from K’(t’ = 0),

and if we eliminate t from the equations (5), tak-
ing into account the expression (6), we obtain

eq. 35: file eq35.gif

From this we conclude that two points on

the x-axis separated by the distance I (relative
to K) will be represented on our snapshot by the
distance

eq. 36: file eq36.gif

But from what has been said, the two snap-

shots must be identical; hence Dx in (7) must
be equal to Dx’ in (7a), so that we obtain

eq. 37: file eq37.gif

http://booksiread.org 225

The equations (6) and (7b) determine the con-

stants a and b. By inserting the values of these
constants in (5), we obtain the first and the
fourth of the equations given in Section 11.

eq. 38: file eq38.gif

Thus we have obtained the Lorentz transfor-

mation for events on the x-axis. It satisfies the
condition

x’2 - c2 t0 2 = x2 − c2 t2...(8a).

The extension of this result, to include events

which take place outside the x-axis, is obtained
by retaining equations (8) and supplementing
them by the relations

eq. 39: file eq39.gif

In this way we satisfy the postulate of the

constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo for
rays of light of arbitrary direction, both for the
system K and for the system K’. This may be
shown in the following manner.
226 Evolution of Physics

We suppose a light-signal sent out from the

origin of K at the time t = 0. It will be propa-
gated according to the equation

eq. 40: file eq40.gif

or, if we square this equation, according to

the equation

x2 + y2 + z2 = c2 t2 = 0...(10).

It is required by the law of propagation of

light, in conjunction with the postulate of rel-
ativity, that the transmission of the signal in
question should take place – as judged from K1
– in accordance with the corresponding formula

r’ = ct’

or,

x’2 + y’2 + z’2 - c2 t0 2 = 0...(10a).

In order that equation (10a) may be a conse-

quence of equation (10), we must have

x’2 + y’2 + z’2 - c2 t0 2 = s(x2 + y2 + z2 − c2 t2)(11).

Since equation (8a) must hold for points on

http://booksiread.org 227

the x-axis, we thus have s = I. It is easily seen

that the Lorentz transformation really satisfies
equation (11) for s = I; for (11) is a consequence
of (8a) and (9), and hence also of (8) and (9). We
have thus derived the Lorentz transformation.

The Lorentz transformation represented by

(8) and (9) still requires to be generalised. Ob-
viously it is immaterial whether the axes of K1
be chosen so that they are spatially parallel
to those of K. It is also not essential that the
velocity of translation of K1 with respect to K
should be in the direction of the x-axis. A sim-
ple consideration shows that we are able to con-
struct the Lorentz transformation in this gen-
eral sense from two kinds of transformations,
viz. from Lorentz transformations in the special
sense and from purely spatial transformations.
which corresponds to the replacement of the
rectangular co-ordinate system by a new sys-
228 Evolution of Physics

tem with its axes pointing in other directions.

Mathematically, we can characterise the gen-
eralised Lorentz transformation thus :
It expresses x’, y’, x’, t’, in terms of linear
homogeneous functions of x, y, x, t, of such a
kind that the relation
x’2 + y’2 + z’2 - c2 t0 2 = x2 + y2 + z2 − c2 t2(11a).
is satisficd identically. That is to say: If
we substitute their expressions in x, y, x, t, in
place of x’, y’, x’, t’, on the left-hand side, then
the left-hand side of (11a) agrees with the right-
hand side.
APPENDIX II
MINKOWSKI’S
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL
SPACE (”WORLD”)
(SUPPLEMENTARY
TO SECTION 17)

We can characterise the Lorentz transformation

still more simply if we introduce the imaginary

229
230 Evolution of Physics

eq. 25 in place of t, as time-variable. If, in

accordance with this, we insert

x[1] = x x[2] = y x[3] = z x[4] = eq. 25

and similarly for the accented system K1,

then the condition which is identically satisfied
by the transformation can be expressed thus :

x[1]’2 + x[2]’2 + x[3]’2 + x[4]’2 = x[1]2 + x[2]2 +

x[3]2 + x[4]2 (12).

That is, by the afore-mentioned choice of ”

coordinates,” (11a) [see the end of Appendix II]
is transformed into this equation.

We see from (12) that the imaginary time co-

ordinate x[4], enters into the condition of trans-
formation in exactly the same way as the space
co-ordinates x[1], x[2], x[3]. It is due to this fact
that, according to the theory of relativity, the ”
time ”x[4], enters into natural laws in the same
form as the space co ordinates x[1], x[2], x[3].

A four-dimensional continuum described by

http://booksiread.org 231

the ”co-ordinates” x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4], was called

”world” by Minkowski, who also termed a point-
event a ” world-point.” From a ”happening” in
three-dimensional space, physics becomes, as
it were, an ” existence ” in the four-dimensional
” world.”

This four-dimensional ” world ” bears a close

similarity to the three-dimensional ” space ” of
(Euclidean) analytical geometry. If we introduce
into the latter a new Cartesian co-ordinate sys-
tem (x’[1], x’[2], x’[3]) with the same origin, then
x’[1], x’[2], x’[3], are linear homogeneous func-
tions of x[1], x[2], x[3] which identically satisfy
the equation

x’[1]2 + x0 [2]2 + x0 [3]2 = x[1]2 + x[2]2 + x[3]2

The analogy with (12) is a complete one. We

can regard Minkowski’s ” world ” in a formal
manner as a four-dimensional Euclidean space
(with an imaginary time coordinate) ; the Lorentz
232 Evolution of Physics

transformation corresponds to a ” rotation ” of

the co-ordinate system in the fourdimensional
” world.”

APPENDIX III THE EXPERIMENTAL CONFIR-

MATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF REL-
ATIVITY

From a systematic theoretical point of view,

we may imagine the process of evolution of an
empirical science to be a continuous process
of induction. Theories are evolved and are ex-
pressed in short compass as statements of a
large number of individual observations in the
form of empirical laws, from which the general
laws can be ascertained by comparison. Re-
garded in this way, the development of a sci-
ence bears some resemblance to the compila-
tion of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a
purely empirical enterprise.

But this point of view by no means embraces

http://booksiread.org 233

the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over

the important part played by intuition and de-
ductive thought in the development of an exact
science. As soon as a science has emerged from
its initial stages, theoretical advances are no
longer achieved merely by a process of arrange-
ment. Guided by empirical data, the investiga-
tor rather develops a system of thought which,
in general, is built up logically from a small
number of fundamental assumptions, the so-
called axioms. We call such a system of thought
a theory. The theory finds the justification for
its existence in the fact that it correlates a large
number of single observations, and it is just
here that the ” truth ” of the theory lies.

Corresponding to the same complex of em-

pirical data, there may be several theories, which
differ from one another to a considerable ex-
tent. But as regards the deductions from the
234 Evolution of Physics

theories which are capable of being tested, the

agreement between the theories may be so com-
plete that it becomes difficult to find any deduc-
tions in which the two theories differ from each
other. As an example, a case of general inter-
est is available in the province of biology, in the
Darwinian theory of the development of species
by selection in the struggle for existence, and
in the theory of development which is based on
the hypothesis of the hereditary transmission
of acquired characters.

We have another instance of far-reaching agree-

ment between the deductions from two theo-
ries in Newtonian mechanics on the one hand,
and the general theory of relativity on the other.
This agreement goes so far, that up to the pre-
seat we have been able to find only a few deduc-
tions from the general theory of relativity which
are capable of investigation, and to which the
http://booksiread.org 235

physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead,

and this despite the profound difference in the
fundamental assumptions of the two theories.
In what follows, we shall again consider these
important deductions, and we shall also dis-
cuss the empirical evidence appertaining to them
which has hitherto been obtained.

(a) Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury

According to Newtonian mechanics and New-

ton’s law of gravitation, a planet which is re-
volving round the sun would describe an ellipse
round the latter, or, more correctly, round the
common centre of gravity of the sun and the
planet. In such a system, the sun, or the com-
mon centre of gravity, lies in one of the foci of
the orbital ellipse in such a manner that, in
the course of a planet-year, the distance sun-
planet grows from a minimum to a maximum,
and then decreases again to a minimum. If
236 Evolution of Physics

instead of Newton’s law we insert a somewhat

different law of attraction into the calculation,
we find that, according to this new law, the
motion would still take place in such a man-
ner that the distance sun-planet exhibits peri-
odic variations; but in this case the angle de-
scribed by the line joining sun and planet dur-
ing such a period (from perihelion–closest prox-
imity to the sun–to perihelion) would differ from
3600 .T helineof theorbitwouldnotthenbeaclosedonebutinthecourseof

According also to the general theory of rel-

ativity, which differs of course from the theory
of Newton, a small variation from the Newton-
Kepler motion of a planet in its orbit should
take place, and in such away, that the angle de-
scribed by the radius sun-planet between one
perhelion and the next should exceed that cor-
responding to one complete revolution by an
amount given by
http://booksiread.org 237

eq. 41: file eq41.gif

(N.B. – One complete revolution corresponds

to the angle 2p in the absolute angular mea-
sure customary in physics, and the above ex-
pression giver the amount by which the radius
sun-planet exceeds this angle during the inter-
val between one perihelion and the next.) In
this expression a represents the major semi-
axis of the ellipse, e its eccentricity, c the ve-
locity of light, and T the period of revolution
of the planet. Our result may also be stated
as follows : According to the general theory of
relativity, the major axis of the ellipse rotates
round the sun in the same sense as the orbital
motion of the planet. Theory requires that this
rotation should amount to 43 seconds of arc
per century for the planet Mercury, but for the
other Planets of our solar system its magnitude
should be so small that it would necessarily es-
238 Evolution of Physics

cape detection. *

In point of fact, astronomers have found that

the theory of Newton does not suffice to cal-
culate the observed motion of Mercury with an
exactness corresponding to that of the delicacy
of observation attainable at the present time.
After taking account of all the disturbing in-
fluences exerted on Mercury by the remaining
planets, it was found (Leverrier: 1859; and New-
comb: 1895) that an unexplained perihelial move-
ment of the orbit of Mercury remained over, the
amount of which does not differ sensibly from
the above mentioned +43 seconds of arc per
century. The uncertainty of the empirical re-
sult amounts to a few seconds only.

(b) Deflection of Light by a Gravitational Field

In Section 22 it has been already mentioned

that according to the general theory of relativ-
ity, a ray of light will experience a curvature of
http://booksiread.org 239

its path when passing through a gravitational

field, this curvature being similar to that ex-
perienced by the path of a body which is pro-
jected through a gravitational field. As a result
of this theory, we should expect that a ray of
light which is passing close to a heavenly body
would be deviated towards the latter. For a ray
of light which passes the sun at a distance of D
sun-radii from its centre, the angle of deflection
(a) should amount to

eq. 42: file eq42.gif

It may be added that, according to the the-

ory, half of Figure 05 this deflection is produced
by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun,
and the other half by the geometrical modifica-
tion (” curvature ”) of space caused by the sun.

This result admits of an experimental test

by means of the photographic registration of
stars during a total eclipse of the sun. The
240 Evolution of Physics

only reason why we must wait for a total eclipse

is because at every other time the atmosphere
is so strongly illuminated by the light from the
sun that the stars situated near the sun’s disc
are invisible. The predicted effect can be seen
clearly from the accompanying diagram. If the
sun (S) were not present, a star which is prac-
tically infinitely distant would be seen in the
direction D[1], as observed front the earth. But
as a consequence of the deflection of light from
the star by the sun, the star will be seen in
the direction D[2], i.e. at a somewhat greater
distance from the centre of the sun than corre-
sponds to its real position.

In practice, the question is tested in the fol-

lowing way. The stars in the neighbourhood of
the sun are photographed during a solar eclipse.
In addition, a second photograph of the same
stars is taken when the sun is situated at an-
http://booksiread.org 241

other position in the sky, i.e. a few months ear-

lier or later. As compared whh the standard
photograph, the positions of the stars on the
eclipse-photograph ought to appear displaced
radially outwards (away from the centre of the
sun) by an amount corresponding to the angle
a.

We are indebted to the [British] Royal Soci-

ety and to the Royal Astronomical Society for
the investigation of this important deduction.
Undaunted by the [first world] war and by dif-
ficulties of both a material and a psychologi-
cal nature aroused by the war, these societies
equipped two expeditions – to Sobral (Brazil),
and to the island of Principe (West Africa) – and
sent several of Britain’s most celebrated astronomers
(Eddington, Cottingham, Crommelin, Davidson),
in order to obtain photographs of the solar eclipse
of 29th May, 1919. The relative discrepancies
242 Evolution of Physics

to be expected between the stellar photographs

obtained during the eclipse and the comparison
photographs amounted to a few hundredths of
a millimetre only. Thus great accuracy was
necessary in making the adjustments required
for the taking of the photographs, and in their
subsequent measurement.

The results of the measurements confirmed

the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory man-
ner. The rectangular components of the ob-
served and of the calculated deviations of the
stars (in seconds of arc) are set forth in the fol-
lowing table of results :

Table 01: file table01.gif

(c) Displacement of Spectral Lines Towards

the Red

In Section 23 it has been shown that in a

system K1 which is in rotation with regard to
a Galileian system K, clocks of identical con-
http://booksiread.org 243

struction, and which are considered at rest with

respect to the rotating reference-body, go at rates
which are dependent on the positions of the
clocks. We shall now examine this dependence
quantitatively. A clock, which is situated at a
distance r from the centre of the disc, has a ve-
locity relative to K which is given by

V = wr

where w represents the angular velocity of

rotation of the disc K1 with respect to K. If v[0],
represents the number of ticks of the clock per
unit time (” rate ” of the clock) relative to K when
the clock is at rest, then the ” rate ” of the clock
(v) when it is moving relative to K with a velocity
V, but at rest with respect to the disc, will, in
accordance with Section 12, be given by

eq. 43: file eq43.gif

or with sufficient accuracy by

eq. 44: file eq44.gif

244 Evolution of Physics

This expression may also be stated in the

following form:

eq. 45: file eq45.gif

If we represent the difference of potential of

the centrifugal force between the position of the
clock and the centre of the disc by f, i.e. the
work, considered negatively, which must be per-
formed on the unit of mass against the cen-
trifugal force in order to transport it from the
position of the clock on the rotating disc to the
centre of the disc, then we have

eq. 46: file eq46.gif

From this it follows that

eq. 47: file eq47.gif

In the first place, we see from this expres-

sion that two clocks of identical construction
will go at different rates when situated at differ-
ent distances from the centre of the disc. This
result is aiso valid from the standpoint of an
http://booksiread.org 245

observer who is rotating with the disc.

Now, as judged from the disc, the latter is in

a gravititional field of potential f, hence the re-
sult we have obtained will hold quite generally
for gravitational fields. Furthermore, we can
regard an atom which is emitting spectral lines
as a clock, so that the following statement will
hold:

An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency

which is dependent on the potential of the grav-
itational field in which it is situated.

The frequency of an atom situated on the

surface of a heavenly body will be somewhat
less than the frequency of an atom of the same
element which is situated in free space (or on
the surface of a smaller celestial body).

Now f = - K (M/r), where K is Newton’s con-

stant of gravitation, and M is the mass of the
heavenly body. Thus a displacement towards
246 Evolution of Physics

the red ought to take place for spectral lines

produced at the surface of stars as compared
with the spectral lines of the same element pro-
duced at the surface of the earth, the amount
of this displacement being

eq. 48: file eq48.gif

For the sun, the displacement towards the

red predicted by theory amounts to about two
millionths of the wave-length. A trustworthy
calculation is not possible in the case of the
stars, because in general neither the mass M
nor the radius r are known.

It is an open question whether or not this

effect exists, and at the present time (1920) as-
tronomers are working with great zeal towards
the solution. Owing to the smallness of the
effect in the case of the sun, it is difficult to
form an opinion as to its existence. Whereas
Grebe and Bachem (Bonn), as a result of their
http://booksiread.org 247

own measurements and those of Evershed and

Schwarzschild on the cyanogen bands, have placed
the existence of the effect almost beyond doubt,
while other investigators, particularly St. John,
have been led to the opposite opinion in conse-
quence of their measurements.

Mean displacements of lines towards the less

refrangible end of the spectrum are certainly re-
vealed by statistical investigations of the fixed
stars ; but up to the present the examination of
the available data does not allow of any definite
decision being arrived at, as to whether or not
these displacements are to be referred in real-
ity to the effect of gravitation. The results of
observation have been collected together, and
discussed in detail from the standpoint of the
question which has been engaging our atten-
tion here, in a paper by E. Freundlich entitled
”Zur Prfung der allgemeinen Relativit&umlaut;ts-
248 Evolution of Physics

Theorie” (Die Naturwissenschaften, 1919, No.

35, p. 520: Julius Springer, Berlin).

At all events, a definite decision will be reached

during the next few years. If the displacement
of spectral lines towards the red by the gravita-
tional potential does not exist, then the general
theory of relativity will be untenable. On the
other hand, if the cause of the displacement of
spectral lines be definitely traced to the grav-
itational potential, then the study of this dis-
placement will furnish us with important infor-
mation as to the mass of the heavenly bodies.
[5][A]

Notes

*) Especially since the next planet Venus has

an orbit that is almost an exact circle, which
makes it more difficult to locate the perihelion
with precision.

The displacentent of spectral lines towards

http://booksiread.org 249

the red end of the spectrum was definitely es-

tablished by Adams in 1924, by observations
on the dense companion of Sirius, for which the
effect is about thirty times greater than for the
Sun. R.W.L. – translator

APPENDIX IV THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE

ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF
RELATIVITY (SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION
32)

Since the publication of the first edition of

this little book, our knowledge about the struc-
ture of space in the large (” cosmological prob-
lem ”) has had an important development, which
ought to be mentioned even in a popular pre-
sentation of the subject.

My original considerations on the subject were

based on two hypotheses:

(1) There exists an average density of matter

in the whole of space which is everywhere the
250 Evolution of Physics

same and different from zero.

(2) The magnitude (” radius ”) of space is in-

dependent of time.

Both these hypotheses proved to be consis-

tent, according to the general theory of rela-
tivity, but only after a hypothetical term was
added to the field equations, a term which was
not required by the theory as such nor did it
seem natural from a theoretical point of view (”
cosmological term of the field equations ”).

Hypothesis (2) appeared unavoidable to me

at the time, since I thought that one would get
into bottomless speculations if one departed from
it.

However, already in the ’twenties, the Rus-

sian mathematician Friedman showed that a
different hypothesis was natural from a purely
theoretical point of view. He realized that it
was possible to preserve hypothesis (1) without
http://booksiread.org 251

introducing the less natural cosmological term

into the field equations of gravitation, if one was
ready to drop hypothesis (2). Namely, the orig-
inal field equations admit a solution in which
the ” world radius ” depends on time (expand-
ing space). In that sense one can say, accord-
ing to Friedman, that the theory demands an
expansion of space.

A few years later Hubble showed, by a spe-

cial investigation of the extra-galactic nebulae
(” milky ways ”), that the spectral lines emit-
ted showed a red shift which increased regu-
larly with the distance of the nebulae. This can
be interpreted in regard to our present knowl-
edge only in the sense of Doppler’s principle, as
an expansive motion of the system of stars in
the large – as required, according to Friedman,
by the field equations of gravitation. Hubble’s
discovery can, therefore, be considered to some
252 Evolution of Physics

extent as a confirmation of the theory.

There does arise, however, a strange diffi-

culty. The interpretation of the galactic line-
shift discovered by Hubble as an expansion (which
can hardly be doubted from a theoretical point
of view), leads to an origin of this expansion
which lies ” only ” about 109 yearsago, whilephysicalastronomym

I further want to rernark that the theory of

expanding space, together with the empirical
data of astronomy, permit no decision to be
reached about the finite or infinite character of
(three-dimensional) space, while the original ”
static ” hypothesis of space yielded the closure
(finiteness) of space.

K = co-ordinate system x, y = two-dimensional

co-ordinates x, y, z = three-dimensional co-ordinates
x, y, z, t = four-dimensional co-ordinates

t = time I = distance v = velocity

F = force G = gravitational field

http://booksiread.org 253

This file should be named relat10.zip and

contains numerous image files for equations.