A Question About "relativity"

[SaxonViolence]

Has everyone read Einstein's book "Relativity"?

 

{It's a Blue Book and surprisingly thin...}

 

It is an accessible book describing Relativity in terms that a layman can understand—with some thought.

 

My question is about a short section in the end.

 

Einstein says:

 

"Imagine a box.

 

"Obviously the space inside the box is 'Inside the Box'.

 

"Now imagine a much smaller Box inside the first Box.

 

"Is the space in Box _small a contiginous space with Box?_large"

_{Einstein says there is no clear answer. Largely a matter of opinion.}

 

_{However he goes on to say:}

 

_{"But suppose that Box small begins to rotate rapidly and simultaneously moving randomly about inside Box large?"}

 

_{Einstein doesn't say, but I assume that all collisions with the walls of Box large are perfectly elastic.}

 

_{"There is still no right or wrong answer; but we are far less likely to think of Space small box being a contiginous subset of Space large box.}

 

_{"Increasingly, Modern Science is coming to Believe that Empty Space is an Infinite Number of Such Boxes."}

 

_{What in the Hell is Einstein talking about here?}

 

_{Does each Box have One much smaller spinning and cavorting Box inside of itself ad infinitum?}

 

_{Or is there an Infinite Number of Boxes smalls spinning and cavorting inside box large?}

 

_{If so, do the Infinite Spinning Boxes smalls freely interpenetrate each other or do they collide?}

 

_{If they collide—well if there is an Infinite Number and they can't interpenetrate—how do they all fit?}

 

_{And we can imagine either an Infinite Number of Interpenetrating Box smalls or a Finite Number of Box smalls—just enough to fit comfortably...}

 

_{But each one having an either Infinite Number of Smaller Interpenetrating—OR—A Finite Number of Colliding Boxes inside itself...}

 

_{Each one of which contains Smaller and Smaller Boxes ad infinitum...}

 

_{{And what happens if Box small(4) spins Clockwise while Box small(5) inside Box small(4) spins Counterclockwise?}}

 

_{And once we're clear on precisely Which of these Imagination Stretching Scenarios that Einstein wants us to Envision...}

 

_{Just what does this have to do with Real Empty Space?}

 

_{What things led Physicists in Einstein's to play with such Concepts?}

 

_{What is the Current Thinking?}

 

 

_{Saxon Violence}

Edited August 14, 2013 by SaxonViolence

[CraigD]

Has everyone read Einstein's book "Relativity"?

SV, are you referring to Relativity: The Special and General Theory?

 

I've read some, but not all, of an English translation of this book

 

{It's a Blue Book and surprisingly thin...}

According to amazon.com, the paperback English language translation, the paperback of Relativity: The Special and General Theory is 110 pages - thin compared to, say, a present day novel, but not unusually so for a math or physics monograph.

 

 

My question is about a short section in the end.

 

Einstein says:

 

"Imagine a box.

 

"Obviously the space inside the box is 'Inside the Box'.

...

I can't find this text in either the Wikisource online copy of the book, or via the "search inside" function for it at amazon.com.

 

Can you find an online reference to the parts you're referring to, in the wikisource copy linked above or elsewhere.

[SaxonViolence]

This is the Book.

 

I'm pretty sure that I still have my copy, but it isn't at hand.

 

{I have hundreds of books stacked everywhere.}

 

Pretty sure that it's in Chapter XXXII.

 

I'll try to find a copy online.

 

 

Saxon Violence

 

Found the book online.

 

Nowhere was the curious Gedanken Experiment I recalled.

 

I read it somewhere.

 

Probably a Physics text. It wouldn't have stuck in my mind all these years if it was the Ravings of a Theosophist or Keynesian...

 

Sigh...

 

Sorry.

Table of Contents.pdf

Edited August 15, 2013 by SaxonViolence

[SaxonViolence]

Found it!

 

Here is where it begins:

 

"When a smaller box s is situated, relatively at rest, inside the hollow space of a larger box S, then the hollow space of s is a part of the hollow space of S, and the same "space", which contains both of them, belongs to each of the boxes. When s is in motion with respect to S, however, the concept is less simple. One is then inclined to think that s encloses always the same space, but a variable part of the space S. It then becomes necessary to apportion to each box its particular space, not thought of as bounded, and to assume that these two spaces are in motion with respect to each other.

 

Before one has become aware of this complication, space appears as an unbounded medium or container in which material objects swim around. But it must now be remembered that there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other.

 

The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other.

 

This latter idea is indeed logically unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable rôle even in scientific thought.

 

But what about the psychological origin of the concept of time? This concept is undoubtedly associated with the fact of "calling to mind", as well as with the differentiation between sense experiences and the recollection of these. Of itself it is doubtful whether the differentiation between sense experience and recollection (or simple re-presentation) is something psychologically directly given to us. Everyone has experienced that he has been in doubt whether he has actually experienced something with his senses or has simply dreamt about it. Probably the ability to discriminate between these alternatives first comes about as the result of an activity of the mind creating order."

 

 

Saxon Violence

 

BIG PS: I Think this was included as an Appendix in my copy of the Einstein Book...

Boxes.pdf

Edited August 15, 2013 by SaxonViolence

[CraigD]

I think this short (about 6200 word) paper – "Relativity and the Problem of Space" Albert Einstein (1952) – is more important as a point of philosophy, science history and Einstein biography than physics.

 

It helps to understand this paper to put it in its historical context. 1952 finds Einstein, at 73 years old, 30 years since winning the Nobel prize in Physics, arguably the most popularly famous scientists and history and person who most people would, if asked, name as smartest person on Earth. For the last 25 years, he’s worked mainly on his unified field theory, an attempt to describe all the fundamental forces that few of his scientific peers feel holds much promise. He has serious misgivings about the philosophical ramifications of quantum mechanics, a branch of physics he was instrumental in founding, but has not done major worked in or paid serious attention to for decades.

 

In 3 years, an old circulatory system abnormality, treated surgically in 4 years earlier, in 1948, will leave him dead at age 76.

 

He ends this 1952 with a restatement of his long-standing misgiving about quantum mechanics –

In conformity with the present form of the quantum theory, it believes that the state of a system cannot be specified directly, but only in an indirect way by a statement of the statistics of the results of measurement attainable on the system. The conviction prevails that the experimentally assured duality of nature (corpuscular and wave structure) can be realised only by such a weakening of the concept of reality. I think that such a far-reaching theoretical renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge…

– and an appeal for people not to abandon the search for a successful unified field theory like the one he’s failed, and almost certainly knows he’ll never, find –

and that one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory.

This isn’t science itself – it’s guidance and advice to scientists.

 

The “boxes“ examples in this paper seem to me to be toward 2 goals: considering the origins of pre-scientific, psychological ideas that led to the modern scientific concepts of space and time; and assert that and explain why the scientific descendents of these ideas were needed to arrive at the theory of Relativity.

 

"When a smaller box s is situated, relatively at rest, inside the hollow space of a larger box S, then the hollow space of s is a part of the hollow space of S, and the same "space", which contains both of them, belongs to each of the boxes. When s is in motion with respect to S, however, the concept is less simple. One is then inclined to think that s encloses always the same space, but a variable part of the space S. It then becomes necessary to apportion to each box its particular space, not thought of as bounded, and to assume that these two spaces are in motion with respect to each other.

This likely suffers from time, translation from German to English, and most, from not allowing us to interactively discuss it with Einstein himself, but I think I get the gist of it, and don’t think it’s terribly complicated or deep.

 

It’s just saying that it’s easy to describe the relationship of volume of space – a box – enclosed contained in another volume of space – a bigger box – when the 2 volumes are at rest relative to one another, because then one is just a proper subset of the other, equivalent to their geometric intersection. Describing the relationship when the boxes are in motion relative to one another is more complicated, because their geometric intersection changes with time.

 

Whether I found them deep or not, though, I found the thoughts of a smart, famous guy like Einstein, and note how his hunches and misgivings are still around in various forms in the thoughts of philosophy and science enthusiasts and pros.

[SaxonViolence]

While we're discussing Einstein...

 

I have read many times that Einstein—along with many other Physicists—Was a "Hiss-Poor Mathematician".

 

I think it was Heisenberg who did some of the early work on using Matrixes in Quantum Mechanics.

 

Apparently he made some rather intuitive leaps Mathematically—but it got the right answers.

 

And some Mathematicians were rather excited by what they saw as ground-breaking advancements in Matrix theory.

 

Reportedly, some famous Mathematician ran into Heisenberg and told him with great enthusiasm that he'd put some much-needed rigor into Heisenberg's methods.

 

Heisenberg appeared to have no idea what Mathematical Rigor was, or why it mattered.

 

{Neither did Srinivasa Ramanujan apparently...}

 

I also read that Mathematicians are thrilled by String Theory.

 

They say:

 

"Even if it is disproven as a Physics Theory, it is Fascinating Theoretically—and will almost certainly become a permanent fixture in Mathematics.

 

It unites every branch of Mathematics (except Number Theory) in a single unified whole."

 

Last account I had, some Maverick Physics Theoreticians were trying to figure out how to Bring in Number Theory as well...

 

Can you please explain to me—I am hopeless at Mathematics...

 

I can barely Differentiate and can only do the sketchiest Integrations—and then only after a recent review...

 

How Dudes like Einstein and Heisenburg can be thought of as "Dumb Asses" by Professional Mathematicians?

 

And can you Explain the Term/Specialty "Mathematical Physics"...

 

As opposed to "Non-Mathematical Physics"??? :blink:

 

 

Saxon Violence

Edited August 17, 2013 by SaxonViolence