Part 2

These results were already reached by Lorentz in the course of further developments of his electron theory. Lorentz used a special set of transformation equations[2] for time which implicitly introduced the concept of local time. But he himself failed to attach any special significance to it, and looked upon it rather as a mere mathematical artifice like imaginary quantities in analysis or the circle at infinity in projective geometry. The originality of Einstein at this stage consists in his successful physical interpretation of these results, and viewing them as the coherent organised consequences of a single general principle. Lorentz established the Relativity Theorem[3] (consisting merely of a set of transformation equations) while Einstein generalised it into a Universal Principle. In addition Einstein introduced fundamentally new concepts of space and time, which served to destroy old fetishes and demanded a wholesale revision of scientific concepts and thus opened up new possibilities in the synthetic unification of natural processes.

Newton had framed his laws of motion in such a way as to make them quite independent of the absolute velocity of the earth. Uniform relative motion of ether and matter could not be detected with the help of dynamical laws. According to Einstein neither could it be detected with the help of optical or electromagnetic experiments. Thus the Einsteinian Principle of Relativity asserts that all physical laws are independent of the ‘absolute’ velocity of an observer.

For different systems, the _form_ of all physical laws is conserved. If we chose the velocity of light[4] to be the fundamental unit of measurement for all observers (that is, assume the constancy of the velocity of light in all systems) we can establish a _metric_ “one-one” correspondence between any two observed systems, such correspondence depending only the _relative_ velocity of the two systems. Einstein’s Relativity is thus merely the consistent logical application of the well known physical principle that we can know nothing but _relative_ motion. In this sense it is a further extension of Newtonian Relativity.

On this interpretation, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and “local time” lose their arbitrary character. Space and time as measured by two different observers are naturally diverse, and the difference depends only on their relative motion. Both are equally valid; they are merely different descriptions of the same physical reality. This is essentially the point of view adopted by Minkowski. He considers time itself to be one of the co-ordinate axes, and in his four-dimensional world, that is in the space-time reality, relative motion is reduced to a rotation of the axes of reference. Thus, the diversity in the measurement of lengths and temporal rates is merely due to the static difference in the “frame-work” of the different observers.

The above theory of Relativity absorbed practically the whole of the electromagnetic theory based on the Maxwell-Lorentz system of field equations. It combined all the advantages of classic Maxwellian theory together with an electronic hypothesis. The Lorentz assumption of polarisation doublets had furnished a satisfactory explanation of the Fresnelian convection of ether, but in the new theory this is deduced merely as a consequence of the altered concept of relative velocity. In addition, the theory of Relativity accepted the results of Michelson and Morley’s experiments as a definite principle, namely, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, so that there was nothing left for explanation in the Michelson-Morley experiment. But even more than all this, it established a single general principle which served to connect together in a simple coherent and fruitful manner the known facts of Physics.

The theory of Relativity received direct experimental confirmation in several directions. Repeated attempts were made to detect the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. Any ordinary physical contraction will usually have observable physical results; for example, the total electrical resistance of a conductor will diminish. Trouton and Noble, Trouton and Rankine, Rayleigh and Brace, and others employed a variety of different methods to detect the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, but invariably with the same negative results. _Whether there is an ether or not, uniform velocity with respect to it can never be detected._ This does not prove that there is no such thing as an ether but certainly does render the ether entirely superfluous. Universal compensation is due to a change in local units of length and time, or rather, being merely different descriptions of the same reality, there is no compensation at all.

There was another group of observed phenomena which could scarcely be fitted into a Newtonian scheme of dynamics without doing violence to it. The experimental work of Kaufmann, in 1901, made it abundantly clear that the “mass” of an electron depended on its velocity. So early as 1881, J. J. Thomson had shown that the inertia of a charged particle increased with its velocity. Abraham now deduced a formula for the variation of mass with velocity, on the hypothesis that an electron always remained a _rigid_ sphere. Lorentz proceeded on the assumption that the electron shared in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and obtained a totally different formula. A very careful series of measurements carried out independently by Bücherer, Wolz, Hupka and finally Neumann in 1913, decided conclusively in favour of the Lorentz formula. This “contractile” formula follows immediately as a direct consequence of the new Theory of Relativity, without any assumption as regards the electrical origin of inertia. Thus the complete agreement of experimental facts with the predictions of the new theory must be considered as confirming it as a principle which goes even beyond the electron itself. The greatest triumph of this new theory consists, indeed, in the fact that a large number of results, which had formerly required all kinds of special hypotheses for their explanation, are now deduced very simply as inevitable consequences of one single general principle.

We have now traced the history of the development of the restricted or special theory of Relativity, which is mainly concerned with optical and electrical phenomena. It was first offered by Einstein in 1905. Ten years later, Einstein formulated his second theory, the Generalised Principle of Relativity. This new theory is mainly a theory of gravitation and has very little connection with optics and electricity. In one sense, the second theory is indeed a further generalisation of the restricted principle, but the former does not really contain the latter as a special case.

Einstein’s first theory is restricted in the sense that it only refers to uniform rectilinear motion and has no application to any kind of accelerated movements. Einstein in his second theory extends the Relativity Principle to cases of accelerated motion. If Relativity is to be universally true, then even accelerated motion must be merely _relative motion between matter and matter_. Hence the Generalised Principle of Relativity asserts that “absolute” motion cannot be detected even with the help of gravitational laws.

All movements must be referred to definite sets of co-ordinate axes. If there is any change of axes, the numerical magnitude of the movements will also change. But according to Newtonian dynamics, such alteration in physical movements can only be due to the effect of certain forces in the field.[5] Thus any change of axes will introduce new “geometrical” forces in the field which are quite independent of the nature of the body acted on. Gravitational forces also have this same remarkable property, and gravitation itself may be of essentially the same nature as these “geometrical” forces introduced by a change of axes. This leads to Einstein’s famous Principle of Equivalence. _A gravitational field of force is strictly equivalent to one introduced by a transformation of co-ordinates and no possible experiment can distinguish between the two._

Thus it may become possible to “transform away” gravitational effects, at least for sufficiently small regions of space, by referring all movements to a new set of axes. This new “framework” may of course have all kinds of very complicated movements when referred to the old Galilean or “rectangular unaccelerated system of co-ordinates.”

But there is no reason why we should look upon the Galilean system as more fundamental than any other. If it is found simpler to refer all motion in a gravitational field to a special set of co-ordinates, we may certainly look upon this special “framework” (at least for the

## particular region concerned), to be more fundamental and more natural.

We may, still more simply, identify this particular framework with the special local properties of space in that region. That is, we can look upon the effects of a gravitational field as simply due to the local properties of space and time itself. The very presence of matter implies a modification of the characteristics of space and time in its neighbourhood. As Eddington says “matter does not cause the curvature of space-time. It is the curvature. Just as light does not cause electromagnetic oscillations; it is the oscillations.”

We may look upon this from a slightly different point of view. The General Principle of Relativity asserts that all motion is merely relative motion between matter and matter, and as all movements must be referred to definite sets of co-ordinates, the ground of any possible framework must ultimately be material in character. It _is_ convenient to take the matter actually present in a field as the fundamental ground of our framework. If this is done, the special characteristics of our framework would naturally depend on the actual distribution of matter in the field. But physical space and time is completely defined by the “framework.” In other words the “framework” itself _is_ space and time. Hence we see how _physical_ space and time is actually defined by the local distribution of matter.

There are certain magnitudes which remain constant by any change of axes. In ordinary geometry distance between two points is one such magnitude; so that δ_x²_ + δ_y²_ + δ_z²_ is an invariant. In the restricted theory of light, the principle of constancy of light velocity demands that δ_x²_ + δ_y²_ + δ_z²_ - _c²_δ_t²_ should remain constant.

The _separation ds_ of adjacent events is defined by _ds²_ = -_dx²_ - _dy²_ - _dz²_ + _c²dt²_. It is an extension of the notion of distance and this is the new invariant. Now if _x_, _y_, _z_, _t_ are transformed to any set of new variables _x₁_, _x₂_, _x₃_, _x₄_, we shall get a quadratic expression for

$$ ds^2 = g_{1\;1}x_{1}^2 + 2g_{1\;2}x_{1}x_{2} + ... = \sum g_{i\;j}x_{i}x_{j} $$

where the _g_’s are functions of _x₁_, _x₂_, _x₃_, _x₄_ depending on the transformation.

The special properties of space and time in any region are defined by these _g_’s which are themselves determined by the actual distribution of matter in the locality. Thus from the Newtonian point of view, these _g_’s represent the gravitational effect of matter while from the Relativity stand-point, these merely define the non-Newtonian (and incidentally non-Euclidean) space in the neighbourhood of matter.

We have seen that Einstein’s theory requires local curvature of space-time in the neighbourhood of matter. Such altered characteristics of space and time give a satisfactory explanation of an outstanding discrepancy in the observed advance of perihelion of Mercury. The large discordance is almost completely removed by Einstein’s theory.

Again, in an intense gravitational field, a beam of light will be affected by the local curvature of space, so that to an observer who is referring all phenomena to a Newtonian system, the beam of light will appear to deviate from its path along an Euclidean straight line.

This famous prediction of Einstein about the deflection of a beam of light by the sun’s gravitational field was tested during the total solar eclipse of May, 1919. The observed deflection is decisively in favour of the Generalised Theory of Relativity.

It should be noted however that the velocity of light itself would decrease in a gravitational field. This may appear at first sight to be a violation of the principle of constancy of light-velocity. But when we remember that the Special Theory is explicitly _restricted_ to the case of unaccelerated motion, the difficulty vanishes. In the absence of a gravitational field, that is in any unaccelerated system, the velocity of light will always remain constant. Thus the validity of the Special Theory is completely preserved within its own _restricted_ field.

Einstein has proposed a third crucial test. He has predicted a shift of spectral lines towards the red, due to an intense gravitational potential. Experimental difficulties are very considerable here, as the shift of spectral lines is a complex phenomenon. Evidence is conflicting and nothing conclusive can yet be asserted. Einstein thought that a gravitational displacement of the Fraunhofer lines is a necessary and fundamental condition for the acceptance of his theory. But Eddington has pointed out that even if this test fails, the logical conclusion would seem to be that while Einstein’s law of gravitation is true for matter in bulk, it is not true for such small material systems as atomic oscillator.

Conclusion

From the conceptual stand-point there are several important consequences of the Generalised or Gravitational Theory of Relativity. Physical space-time is perceived to be intimately connected with the actual local distribution of matter. Euclid-Newtonian space-time is _not_ the actual space-time of Physics, simply because the former completely neglects the actual presence of matter. Euclid-Newtonian continuum is merely an abstraction, while physical space-*time is the actual framework which has some definite curvature due to the presence of matter. Gravitational Theory of Relativity thus brings out clearly the fundamental distinction between actual physical space-time (which is non-isotropic and non-Euclid-Newtonian) on one hand and the abstract Euclid-Newtonian continuum (which is homogeneous, isotropic and a purely intellectual construction) on the other.

The measurements of the rotation of the earth reveals a fundamental framework which may be called the “inertial framework.” This constitutes the actual physical universe. This universe approaches Galilean space-time at a great distance from matter.

The properties of this physical universe may be referred to some world-distribution of matter or the “inertial framework” may be constructed by a suitable modification of the law of gravitation itself. In Einstein’s theory the actual curvature of the “inertial framework” is referred to vast quantities of undetected world-matter. It has interesting consequences. The dimensions of Einsteinian universe would depend on the quantity of matter in it; it would vanish to a point in the total absence of matter. Then again curvature depends on the quantity of matter, and hence in the presence of a sufficient quantity of matter space-time may curve round and close up. Einsteinian universe will then reduce to a finite system without boundaries, like the surface of a sphere. In this “closed up” system, light rays will come to a focus after travelling round the universe and we should see an “anti-sun” (corresponding to the back surface of the sun) at a point in the sky opposite to the real sun. This anti-sun would of course be equally large and equally bright if there is no absorption of light in free space.

In de Sitter’s theory, the existence of vast quantities of world-matter is not required. But beyond a definite distance from an observer, time itself stands still, so that to the observer nothing can ever “happen” there. All these theories are still highly speculative in character, but they have certainly extended the scope of theoretical physics to the central problem of the ultimate nature of the universe itself.

One outstanding peculiarity still attaches to the concept of electric force—it is not amenable to any process of being “transformed away” by a suitable change of framework. H. Weyl, it seems, has developed a geometrical theory (in hyper-space) in which no fundamental distinction is made between gravitational and electrical forces.

Einstein’s theory connects up the law of gravitation with the laws of motion, and serves to establish a very intimate relationship between matter and physical space-*time. Space, time and matter (or energy) were considered to be the three ultimate elements in Physics. The restricted theory fused space-time into one indissoluble whole. The generalised theory has further synthesised space-time and matter into one fundamental physical reality. Space, time and matter taken separately are more abstractions. Physical reality consists of a synthesis of all three.

P. C. MAHALANOBIS.

Note A.

For example consider a massive particle resting on a circular disc. If we set the disc rotating, a centrifugal force appears in the field. On the other hand, if we transform to a set of rotating axes, we must introduce a centrifugal force in order to correct for the change of axes. This newly introduced centrifugal force is usually looked upon as a mathematical fiction—as “geometrical” rather than physical. The presence of such a geometrical force is usually interpreted as being due to the adoption of a fictitious framework. On the other hand a gravitational force is considered quite real. Thus a fundamental distinction is made between geometrical and gravitational forces.

In the General Theory of Relativity, this fundamental distinction is done away with. The very possibility of distinguishing between geometrical and gravitational forces is denied. All axes of reference may now be regarded as equally valid.

In the Restricted Theory, all “unaccelerated” axes of reference were recognised as equally valid, so that physical laws were made independent of uniform absolute velocity. In the General Theory, physical laws are made independent of “absolute” motion of any kind.

Footnote 1:

See Note 1.

Footnote 2:

See Note 2.

Footnote 3:

See Note 4.

Footnote 4:

See Notes 9 and 12.

Footnote 5:

Note A.

On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies By A. Einstein.

INTRODUCTION.

It is well known that if we attempt to apply Maxwell’s electrodynamics, as conceived at the present time, to moving bodies, we are led to asymmetry which does not agree with observed phenomena. Let us think of the mutual action between a magnet and a conductor. The observed phenomena in this case depend only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, while according to the usual conception, a distinction must be made between the cases where the one or the other of the bodies is in motion. If, for example, the magnet moves and the conductor is at rest, then an electric field of certain energy-value is produced in the neighbourhood of the magnet, which excites a current in those parts of the field where a conductor exists. But if the magnet be at rest and the conductor be set in motion, no electric field is produced in the neighbourhood of the magnet, but an electromotive force which corresponds to no energy in itself is produced in the conductor; this causes an electric current of the same magnitude and the same career as the electric force, it being of course assumed that the relative motion in both of these cases is the same.

2. Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the “Light-medium” lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption,—an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one—that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity _c_ which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a “Lightäther” will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place.

3. Like every other theory in electrodynamics, the theory is based on the kinematics of rigid bodies; in the enunciation of every theory, we have to do with relations between rigid bodies (co-ordinate system), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. An insufficient consideration of these circumstances is the cause of difficulties with which the electrodynamics of moving bodies have to fight at present.

I.—KINEMATICAL PORTION.

§ 1. Definition of Synchronism.

Let us have a co-ordinate system, in which the Newtonian equations hold. For distinguishing this system from another which will be introduced hereafter, we shall always call it “the stationary system.”

If a material point be at rest in this system, then its position in this system can be found out by a measuring rod, and can be expressed by the methods of Euclidean Geometry, or in Cartesian co-ordinates.

If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, the values of its coordinates must be expressed as functions of time. It is always to be borne in mind that _such a mathematical definition has a physical sense, only when we have a clear notion of what is meant by time. We have to take into consideration the fact that those of our conceptions, in which time plays a part, are always conceptions of synchronism._ For example, we say that a train arrives here at 7 o’clock; this means that the exact pointing of the little hand of my watch to 7, and the arrival of the train are synchronous events.

It may appear that all difficulties connected with the definition of time can be removed when in place of time, we substitute the position of the little hand of my watch. Such a definition is in fact sufficient, when it is required to define time exclusively for the place at which the clock is stationed. But the definition is not sufficient when it is required to connect by time events taking place at different stations,—or what amounts to the same thing,—to estimate by means of time (zeitlich werten) the occurrence of events, which take place at stations distant from the clock.

Now with regard to this attempt;—the time-estimation of events, we can satisfy ourselves in the following manner. Suppose an observer—who is stationed at the origin of coordinates with the clock—associates a ray of light which comes to him through space, and gives testimony to the event of which the time is to be estimated,—with the corresponding position of the hands of the clock. But such an association has this defect,—it depends on the position of the observer provided with the clock, as we know by experience. We can attain to a more practicable result by the following treatment.

If an observer be stationed at A with a clock, he can estimate the time of events occurring in the immediate neighbourhood of A, by looking for the position of the hands of the clock, which are synchronous with the event. If an observer be stationed at B with a clock,—we should add that the clock is of the same nature as the one at A,—he can estimate the time of events occurring about B. But without further premises, it is not possible to compare, as far as time is concerned, the events at B with the events at A. We have hitherto an A-time, and a B-time, but no time common to A and B. This last time (_i.e._, common time) can be defined, if we establish by definition that the time which light requires in travelling from A to B is equivalent to the time which light requires in travelling from B to A. For example, a ray of light proceeds from A at A-time t_{A} towards B, arrives and is reflected from B at B-time t_{B}, and returns to A at A-time t′_{A}. According to the definition, both clocks are synchronous, if

t_{B} - t_{A} = t′_{A} - t_{B}.