Part 10

When we speak of electrons, or negative particles of electricity, in motion, we are speaking of energy in motion. Now these electrons when in motion exhibit properties that are very similar to matter in motion. Whatever deviations there are are due to the enormous velocity of these electrons, and this velocity, as has already been pointed out, is comparable to that of light; whereas before the advent of the electron, the velocity of no particles comparable to that of light had ever been measured.

According to present views "all inertia of matter consists only of the inertia of the latent energy in it; ... everything that we know of the inertia of energy holds without exception for the inertia of matter."

Now it is on the assumption that inertial mass and gravitational "pull" are equivalent that the mass of a body is determined by its weight. What is true of matter should be true of energy.

The special theory of relativity, however, takes into account only inertia ("inertial mass") but not gravitation (gravitational pull or weight) of energy. When a body absorbs energy equation 2 (see Note 4) will record a gain in inertia but not in weight--which is contrary to one of the fundamental facts in mechanics.

This means that a more general theory of relativity is required to include gravitational phenomena. Hence Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Hence the approach to a new theory of gravitation. Hence "the setting up of a differential equation which comprises the motion of a body under the influence of both inertia and gravity, and which symbolically expresses the relativity of motions.... The differential law must always preserve the same form, irrespective of the system of coordinates to which it is referred, so that no system of coordinates enjoys a preference to any other." (For the general form of the equation and for an excellent discussion of its significance, see Freundlich's monograph, pages 27-33.)

TIME, SPACE, AND GRAVITATION

By Prof. Albert Einstein

There are several kinds of theory in physics. Most of them are constructive. These attempt to build a picture of complex phenomena out of some relatively simple proposition. The kinetic theory of gases, for instance, attempts to refer to molecular movement the mechanical thermal, and diffusional properties of gases. When we say that we understand a group of natural phenomena, we mean that we have found a constructive theory which embraces them.

Theories of Principle.--But in addition to this most weighty group of theories, there is another group consisting of what I call theories of principle. These employ the analytic, not the synthetic method. Their starting-point and foundation are not hypothetical constituents, but empirically observed general properties of phenomena, principles from which mathematical formulæ are deduced of such a kind that they apply to every case which presents itself. Thermodynamics, for instance, starting from the fact that perpetual motion never occurs in ordinary experience, attempts to deduce from this, by analytic processes, a theory which will apply in every case. The merit of constructive theories is their comprehensiveness, adaptability, and clarity, that of the theories of principle, their logical perfection, and the security of their foundation.

The theory of relativity is a theory of principle. To understand it, the principles on which it rests must be grasped. But before stating these it is necessary to point out that the theory of relativity is like a house with two separate stories, the special relativity theory and the general theory of relativity.

Since the time of the ancient Greeks it has been well known that in describing the motion of a body we must refer to another body. The motion of a railway train is described with reference to the ground, of a planet with reference to the total assemblage of visible fixed stars. In physics the bodies to which motions are spatially referred are termed systems of coordinates. The laws of mechanics of Galileo and Newton can be formulated only by using a system of coordinates.

The state of motion of a system of coordinates can not be chosen arbitrarily if the laws of mechanics are to hold good (it must be free from twisting and from acceleration). The system of coordinates employed in mechanics is called an inertia-system. The state of motion of an inertia-system, so far as mechanics are concerned, is not restricted by nature to one condition. The condition in the following proposition suffices; a system of coordinates moving in the same direction and at the same rate as a system of inertia is itself a system of inertia. The special relativity theory is therefore the application of the following proposition to any natural process: "Every law of nature which holds good with respect to a coordinate system K must also hold good for any other system K' provided that K and K' are in uniform movement of translation."

The second principle on which the special relativity theory rests is that of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum. Light in a vacuum has a definite and constant velocity, independent of the velocity of its source. Physicists owe their confidence in this proposition to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electro-dynamics.

The two principles which I have mentioned have received strong experimental confirmation, but do not seem to be logically compatible. The special relativity theory achieved their logical reconciliation by making a change in kinematics, that is to say, in the doctrine of the physical laws of space and time. It became evident that a statement of the coincidence of two events could have a meaning only in connection with a system of coordinates, that the mass of bodies and the rate of movement of clocks must depend on their state of motion with regard to the coordinates.

The Older Physics.--But the older physics, including the laws of motion of Galileo and Newton, clashed with the relativistic kinematics that I have indicated. The latter gave origin to certain generalized mathematical conditions with which the laws of nature would have to conform if the two fundamental principles were compatible. Physics had to be modified. The most notable change was a new law of motion for (very rapidly) moving mass-points, and this soon came to be verified in the case of electrically-laden particles. The most important result of the special relativity system concerned the inert mass of a material system. It became evident that the inertia of such a system must depend on its energy-content, so that we were driven to the conception that inert mass was nothing else than latent energy. The doctrine of the conservation of mass lost its independence and became merged in the doctrine of conservation of energy.

The special relativity theory which was simply a systematic extension of the electro-dynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz, had consequences which reached beyond itself. Must the independence of physical laws with regard to a system of coordinates be limited to systems of coordinates in uniform movement of translation with regard to one another? What has nature to do with the coordinate systems that we propose and with their motions? Although it may be necessary for our descriptions of nature to employ systems of coordinates that we have selected arbitrarily, the choice should not be limited in any way so far as their state of motion is concerned. (General theory of relativity.) The application of this general theory of relativity was found to be in conflict with a well-known experiment, according to which it appeared that the weight and the inertia of a body depended on the same constants (identity of inert and heavy masses). Consider the case of a system of coordinates which is conceived as being in stable rotation relative to a system of inertia in the Newtonian sense. The forces which, relatively to this system, are centrifugal must, in the Newtonian sense, be attributed to inertia. But these centrifugal forces are, like gravitation, proportional to the mass of the bodies. Is it not, then, possible to regard the system of coordinates as at rest, and the centrifugal forces as gravitational? The interpretation seemed obvious, but classical mechanics forbade it.

This slight sketch indicates how a generalized theory of relativity must include the laws of gravitation, and actual pursuit of the conception has justified the hope. But the way was harder than was expected, because it contradicted Euclidian geometry. In other words, the laws according to which material bodies are arranged in space do not exactly agree with the laws of space prescribed by the Euclidian geometry of solids. This is what is meant by the phrase "a warp in space." The fundamental concepts "straight," "plane," etc., accordingly lose their exact meaning in physics.

In the generalized theory of relativity, the doctrine of space and time, kinematics, is no longer one of the absolute foundations of general physics. The geometrical states of bodies and the rates of clocks depend in the first place on their gravitational fields, which again are produced by the material system concerned.

Thus the new theory of gravitation diverges widely from that of Newton with respect to its basal principle. But in practical application the two agree so closely that it has been difficult to find cases in which the actual differences could be subjected to observation. As yet only the following have been suggested:

1. The distortion of the oval orbits of planets round the sun (confirmed in the case of the planet Mercury).

2. The deviation of light-rays in a gravitational field (confirmed by the English Solar Eclipse expedition).

3. The shifting of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum in the case of light coming to us from stars of appreciable mass (not yet confirmed).

The great attraction of the theory is its logical consistency. If any deduction from it should prove untenable, it must be given up. A modification of it seems impossible without destruction of the whole.

No one must think that Newton's great creation can be overthrown in any real sense by this or by any other theory. His clear and wide ideas will for ever retain their significance as the foundation on which our modern conceptions of physics have been built.

EINSTEIN'S LAW OF GRAVITATION

By Prof. J. S. Ames Johns Hopkins University

... In the treatment of Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field, several investigators realized the importance of deducing the form of the equations when applied to a system moving with a uniform velocity. One object of such an investigation would be to determine such a set of transformation formulæ as would leave the mathematical form of the equations unaltered. The necessary relations between the new space-coordinates, those applying to the moving system, and the original set were of course obvious; and elementary methods led to the deduction of a new variable which should replace the time coordinate. This step was taken by Lorentz and also, I believe, by Larmor and by Voigt. The mathematical deductions and applications in the hands of these men were extremely beautiful, and are probably well known to you all.

Lorentz' paper on this subject appeared in the Proceedings of the Amsterdam Academy in 1904. In the following year there was published in the Annalen der Physik a paper by Einstein, written without any knowledge of the work of Lorentz, in which he arrived at the same transformation equations as did the latter, but with an entirely different and fundamentally new interpretation. Einstein called attention in his paper to the lack of definiteness in the concepts of time and space, as ordinarily stated and used. He analyzed clearly the definitions and postulates which were necessary before one could speak with exactness of a length or of an interval of time. He disposed forever of the propriety of speaking of the "true" length of a rod or of the "true" duration of time, showing, in fact, that the numerical values which we attach to lengths or intervals of time depend upon the definitions and postulates which we adopt. The words "absolute" space or time intervals are devoid of meaning. As an illustration of what is meant Einstein discussed two possible ways of measuring the length of a rod when it is moving in the direction of its own length with a uniform velocity, that is, after having adopted a scale of length, two ways of assigning a number to the length of the rod concerned. One method is to imagine the observer moving with the rod, applying along its length the measuring scale, and reading off the positions of the ends of the rod. Another method would be to have two observers at rest on the body with reference to which the rod has the uniform velocity, so stationed along the line of motion of the rod that as the rod moves past them they can note simultaneously on a stationary measuring scale the positions of the two ends of the rod. Einstein showed that, accepting two postulates which need no defense at this time, the two methods of measurements would lead to different numerical values, and, further, that the divergence of the two results would increase as the velocity of the rod was increased. In assigning a number, therefore, to the length of a moving rod, one must make a choice of the method to be used in measuring it. Obviously the preferable method is to agree that the observer shall move with the rod, carrying his measuring instrument with him. This disposes of the problem of measuring space relations. The observed fact that, if we measure the length of the rod on different days, or when the rod is lying in different positions, we always obtain the same value offers no information concerning the "real" length of the rod. It may have changed, or it may not. It must always be remembered that measurement of the length of a rod is simply a process of comparison between it and an arbitrary standard, e.g., a meter-rod or yard-stick. In regard to the problem of assigning numbers to intervals of time, it must be borne in mind that, strictly speaking, we do not "measure" such intervals, i.e., that we do not select a unit interval of time and find how many times it is contained in the interval in question. (Similarly, we do not "measure" the pitch of a sound or the temperature of a room.) Our practical instruments for assigning numbers to time-intervals depend in the main upon our agreeing to believe that a pendulum swings in a perfectly uniform manner, each vibration taking the same time as the next one. Of course we cannot prove that this is true, it is, strictly speaking, a definition of what we mean by equal intervals of time; and it is not a particularly good definition at that. Its limitations are sufficiently obvious. The best way to proceed is to consider the concept of uniform velocity, and then, using the idea of some entity having such a uniform velocity, to define equal intervals of time as such intervals as are required for the entity to traverse equal lengths. These last we have already defined. What is required in addition is to adopt some moving entity as giving our definition of uniform velocity. Considering our known universe it is self-evident that we should choose in our definition of uniform velocity the velocity of light, since this selection could be made by an observer anywhere in our universe. Having agreed then to illustrate by the words "uniform velocity" that of light, our definition of equal intervals of time is complete. This implies, of course, that there is no uncertainty on our part as to the fact that the velocity of light always has the same value at any one point in the universe to any observer, quite regardless of the source of light. In other words, the postulate that this is true underlies our definition. Following this method Einstein developed a system of measuring both space and time intervals. As a matter of fact his system is identically that which we use in daily life with reference to events here on the earth. He further showed that if a man were to measure the length of a rod, for instance, on the earth and then were able to carry the rod and his measuring apparatus to Mars, the sun, or to Arcturus he would obtain the same numerical value for the length in all places and at all times. This doesn't mean that any statement is implied as to whether the length of the rod has remained unchanged or not; such words do not have any meaning--remember that we can not speak of true length. It is thus clear that an observer living on the earth would have a definite system of units in terms of which to express space and time intervals, i.e., he would have a definite system of space coordinates (x, y, z) and a definite time coordinate (t); and similarly an observer living on Mars would have his system of coordinates (x', y', z', t'). Provided that one observer has a definite uniform velocity with reference to the other, it is a comparatively simple matter to deduce the mathematical relations between the two sets of coordinates. When Einstein did this, he arrived at the same transformation formulæ as those used by Lorentz in his development of Maxwell's equations. The latter had shown that, using these formulæ, the form of the laws for all electromagnetic phenomena maintained the same form; so Einstein's method proves that using his system of measurement an observer, anywhere in the universe, would as the result of his own investigation of electromagnetic phenomena arrive at the same mathematical statement of them as any other observer, provided only that the relative-velocity of the two observers was uniform.