To what extent is the special theory of relativity supported by experience? This question is not easily answered for the reason already mentioned in connection with the fundamental experiment of Fizeau. The special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena1. 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 relativity enables us to predict the effects produced on the light reaching us from the fixed2 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 components3 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 displacement4 of the spectral5 lines of the light transmitted 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 forth6 here. In reality they limit the theoretical 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 introduction of an auxiliary7 hypothesis, which in itself—i.e. without making use of the theory of relativity—appears extraneous8.
It is known that cathode rays and the so-called beta-rays emitted by radioactive substances consist of negatively electrified9 particles (electrons) of very small inertia10 and large velocity11. 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 electrons, we are faced with the difficulty that electrodynamic theory of itself is unable to give an account of their nature. For since electrical masses of one sign repel12 each other, the negative electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered13 under the influence of their mutual14 repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them, the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.1 If we now assume that the relative distances between the electrical masses constituting the electron remain unchanged during the motion of the electron (rigid15 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 purely16 formal points of view, H. A. Lorentz was the first to introduce the hypothesis that the form of the electron experiences a contraction17 in the direction of motion in consequence of that motion. the contracted length being proportional to the expression StartRoot 1 minus StartFraction v squared Over c squared EndFraction EndRoot period This, hypothesis, which is not justifiable18 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 law of motion, without requiring any special hypothesis whatsoever19 as to the structure and the behaviour of the electron. We arrived at a similar conclusion in Section XIII in connection with the experiment of Fizeau, the result of which is foretold20 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 alluded21 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 V that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative 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 importance of the Galileian transformation22 for changing over from one body of reference to another. 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 K′ moving uniformly with respect to K, if we assume that the relations of the Galileian transformation exist between the co-ordinates of K and K′. It thus appears that, of all Galileian co-ordinate systems, one (K) corresponding to a particular state of motion is physically23 unique. This result was interpreted physically by regarding K as at rest with respect to a hypothetical ?ther of space. On the other hand, all coordinate24 systems K′ moving relatively25 to K were to be regarded as in motion with respect to the ?ther. To this motion of K′ against the ?ther (“?ther-drift” relative to K′) were attributed the more complicated laws which were supposed to hold relative to K′. Strictly26 speaking, such an ?ther-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists27 were devoted28 to attempts to detect the existence of an ?ther-drift at the earth’s surface.
In one of the most notable of these attempts Michelson devised a method which appears as though it must be decisive. Imagine two mirrors so arranged on a rigid body that the reflecting surfaces face each other. A ray of light requires a perfectly29 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 T′ 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 v with reference to the ?ther, this time T′ is different when the body is moving perpendicularly30 to the planes of the mirrors from that resulting when the motion is parallel to these planes. Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable31. But the experiment gave a negative result—a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory 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 motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate32 for the difference in time mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in Section XII shows that also from the standpoint of the theory of relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one. But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation33 is incomparably more satisfactory. 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 demonstrate it. Here the contraction of moving bodies follows from the two fundamental principles of the theory, without the introduction of particular hypotheses; and as the prime factor involved in this contraction we find, not the motion 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 for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun.
1 The general theory of relativity renders it likely that the electrical masses of an electron are held together by gravitational forces.
点击收听单词发音
1 phenomena | |
n.现象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 components | |
(机器、设备等的)构成要素,零件,成分; 成分( component的名词复数 ); [物理化学]组分; [数学]分量; (混合物的)组成部分 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 displacement | |
n.移置,取代,位移,排水量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 spectral | |
adj.幽灵的,鬼魂的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 auxiliary | |
adj.辅助的,备用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 extraneous | |
adj.体外的;外来的;外部的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 electrified | |
v.使电气化( electrify的过去式和过去分词 );使兴奋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 inertia | |
adj.惰性,惯性,懒惰,迟钝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 velocity | |
n.速度,速率 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 repel | |
v.击退,抵制,拒绝,排斥 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 scattered | |
adj.分散的,稀疏的;散步的;疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 rigid | |
adj.严格的,死板的;刚硬的,僵硬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 purely | |
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 contraction | |
n.缩略词,缩写式,害病 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 justifiable | |
adj.有理由的,无可非议的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 whatsoever | |
adv.(用于否定句中以加强语气)任何;pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 foretold | |
v.预言,预示( foretell的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 alluded | |
提及,暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 transformation | |
n.变化;改造;转变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 physically | |
adj.物质上,体格上,身体上,按自然规律 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 coordinate | |
adj.同等的,协调的;n.同等者;vt.协作,协调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 relatively | |
adv.比较...地,相对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 physicists | |
物理学家( physicist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 perpendicularly | |
adv. 垂直地, 笔直地, 纵向地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 detectable | |
adj.可发觉的;可查明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 compensate | |
vt.补偿,赔偿;酬报 vi.弥补;补偿;抵消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |