The Analysis of Matter

there is no logical necessity about our fundamental principles. The question of interpretation, it must be admitted, is somewhat difficult when physics is conceived in this very abstract manner. What, for example, is ? We start from a view which is, to a certain extent, intelligible in terms of observation. In the case of a time-like interval, it is the time which elapses between the two events according to a clock, not subject to constraints, which is present at both events. On the earth's surface, the time measured by a clock can be inferred, with suitable precautions, from the visual perceptions of a careful observer. In the case of a space-like interval, is the distance between two events as estimated by measurements carried out on a body which is present at both, and for which the two events are simultaneous. The elementary operation of measuring lengths is here supposed possible. But when we pass from this initial view to the abstract view which is required by the general theory of relativity, the interval can only be actually estimated by using rather elaborate physics to make deductions from what can be[Pg 89] actually observed by means of clocks and footrules. For logical theory, the interval is primitive, but from the point of view of empirical verification it is a complicated function of empirical data, deduced by means of physics in its semi-abstract form. The unity and simplicity of the deductive edifice, therefore, must not blind us to the complexity of empirical physics, or to the logical independence of its various portions. In particular, when the conservation of mass or of momentum appears as an identity, that is only true in the deductive system; in their empirical meaning, these laws are by no means logical necessities. There might easily be a world in which they were false, and it might be capable of a treatment as unified and mathematical as the general theory of relativity; but, if so, the fundamental laws would be different. What is novel and interesting in the point of view we have been considering is the character of the relation between empirical and deductive physics. But there is no real diminution of the need for empirical observation. I do not for a moment suggest that anything in the above is a criticism of Professor Eddington; indeed, I imagine he would regard it as a string of truisms. I have been concerned only to guard against a possible misunderstanding on the part of those who do not feel for mathematics the contempt which is bred of familiarity. In the foregoing remarks, however, we have neglected one important aspect of Eddington's theory. In addition to the fact that the whole general theory of relativity can be deduced from a few simple assumptions, interest attaches to the manner of the deduction and the considerations by which the substantial import of mathematical formulæ is made less, or at least other, than would naturally be supposed. A good example is afforded by a paragraph headed "Interpretation of Einstein's Law of Gravitation."[30] The law concerned is not[Pg 90] , which is not supposed to be quite accurate where stellar distances are concerned; it is the modified law: where must be very small, so small that within the solar system the new law gives the same results, within the limits of observation, as . The new law is shown to be equivalent to the assumption that, in empty space, the radius of curvature in every direction is everywhere But this is interpreted as a law about our measuring rods—namely, that they adjust themselves to the radius of curvature at any place and in any direction. It is interpreted as meaning: "The length of a specified material structure bears a constant ratio to the radius of curvature of the world at the place and in the direction in which it lies." And the following gloss is added: "The law no longer appears to have any reference to the constitution of an empty continuum. It is a law of material structure showing what dimensions a specified collection of molecules must take up in order to adjust itself to equilibrium with the surrounding conditions of the world." In particular, electrons must make these adjustments, and it is suggested elsewhere that the symmetry of an electron and its equality with other electrons are not substantial facts, but consequences of the method of measurement (pp. 153-4). One cannot complain of an author for not doing everything, but at this point most readers will feel a desire for some discussion of the theory of measurement. The elementary meaning of measurement of lengths is derived from superposition of a supposedly rigid body. A rigid body, as Dr Whitehead has pointed out, is primarily one which seems rigid, such as a steel bar in contradistinction to a piece of putty. When I say that a body "seems" rigid, I mean that it looks and feels as if it were not altering its shape and size.[Pg 91] This, so far as it can be relied upon, implies some constant relation to the human body: if the eye and the hand grew at the same rate as the "rigid" body, it would look and feel as if it were unchanging. But if other objects in our immediate environment did not grow meanwhile, we should infer that we and our measure had grown. There would, however, be no meaning in the supposition that all bodies are bigger in certain places than they are in certain others; at least, if we suppose the alteration to be in a fixed ratio. If we do not add this proviso, there is a good meaning in the supposition; in fact, we do actually believe that all bodies are bigger at the equator than at the North Pole, except such as are too small to be visible or palpable. When we say that the length of an object at the equator is one metre, we do not mean that its length is that which the standard metre would have if moved from Paris to the equator. But the expansion of bodies with temperature would have been difficult to discover if it had not been possible to bring bodies of different temperatures into the same neighbourhood and measure them before their temperatures had become equal; it would also have been difficult if all bodies had expanded equally when their temperatures rose. These elementary considerations, along with many others, make rigidity an ideal, which actual bodies approach without attaining. Mere superposition thus ceases to give a measure of length: it gives still a comparison of the two bodies concerned, but not of either with the standard unit of length. To obtain the latter, we have to adjust the immediate results of the operation of measuring, by means of a mass of physical theory. If the measures which we obtain are mutually consistent, that is all we can ask; but it is possible that a change in physical theory might have given other measures which would also have been mutually consistent. Professor Eddington, in the passage which we quoted partially in introducing this discussion, is careful to say that[Pg 92] he is concerned with measurement by direct comparison. He says: "The statement that the radius of curvature is a constant length requires more consideration before its full significance is appreciated. Length is not absolute, and the result can only mean constant relative to the material standards of length used in all our measurements and in particular in those measurements which verify . In order to make a direct comparison the material unit must be conveyed to the place and pointed in the direction of the length to be measured. It is true that we often use indirect methods, avoiding actual transfer or orientation; but the justification of these indirect methods is that they give the same result as a direct comparison, and their validity depends upon the truth of the fundamental laws of nature. We are here discussing the most fundamental of these laws, and to admit the validity of the indirect methods of comparisons at this stage would land us in a vicious circle." I confess that I am puzzled by this passage. Taken in its plain and obvious sense, it means that the standard metre is to be taken from Paris, and used without any corrections for temperature, etc., because as soon as we introduce such corrections we are assuming a great deal of physics, and thus seem to be making ourselves liable to the vicious circle which, we are told, is to be avoided. It is evident, however, that this is not what Professor Eddington means, since he goes on at once to speak of the electron as making the adjustments concerned. Now the electron may be, theoretically, a perfect spatial unit, but we certainly cannot compare its size with that of larger bodies directly, without assuming any previous physical knowledge. It seems that Professor Eddington is postulating an ideal observer, who can see electrons just as directly as (or, rather, much more directly than) we can see a metre rod. In short, his "direct measurement" is an operation as abstract and theoretical as his mathematical symbolism.[Pg 93] That being admitted, we may take the electron as our spatial unit, and ask ourselves what our ideal observer could do with it. He could not take a lot of electrons and place them end on in a row, with a view to measuring a given length, since an infinite force is required to make two electrons touch. To measure ordinary lengths, he would have to take (say) hydrogen at a given temperature and pressure, enclosed in a balloon whose radius is the length to be measured; he could then count the number of electrons in the balloon and take its cube root as a measure of the said length. But to ascertain the temperature and pressure, he will have to make other measurements; moreover, he will have to assume that his balloon is spherical. Altogether, the method does not seem very practical. I have no complete theory of physical measurements to offer, but it seemed desirable to illustrate how difficult it is to say precisely what measurement means in an advanced science such as physics. We have certain postulates, such as "lengths which are equal to the same length are equal to one another," but actual measurements, when made with sufficient accuracy, are not found to verify these postulates. Therefore we invent physical laws to save the postulates. With each fresh law it becomes more difficult to say exactly what we do mean when, e.g., we give the wave-length of a certain line in the spectrum of hydrogen in terms of the metre. (This is particularly odd in view of the fact that these wave-lengths are given to more significant figures than can be warranted by the operations applicable to the standard metre itself, whose length is only known, in comparison with other lengths, to a very moderate degree of approximation.) In physical theory, measurement should rest upon an integration of the formula for . But in physical practice the of that formula can only be determined by means of measurements. Thus the only thing we seem warranted in saying[Pg 94] is this: It is possible to correct the results of actual measurements according to certain known rules, in such a way that the corrected lengths shall satisfy such postulates as Euclid's first axiom; when this is done, we find, by means of physical theory, that all electrons have the same size. But this is not, considered empirically, at all a simple fact. And considered as a statement in the deductive theory it probably has a good meaning, but one which demands much elucidation. Until this is forthcoming, all use of numbers as measures of physical quantities in theoretical physics raises problems, since we do not know what, in theoretical physics, replaces the operation of measurement as conducted in the laboratory and in daily life. The