Einstein looked at light from a more palpable standpoint. Since Maxwell’s equations said light was a wave, he thought about what would happen if you ran alongside a wave of light. If you were moving at the same speed, it would from your point of view be stagnant and then unable to move from magnetic to electric. Therefore, he said that “all motion is relative” (p116), and the movement of light is constant to all observers, but you can never meet the speed of light. When you measure the speed of light, it will always be c. This theory also shows that time is relative to speed, and "while motion makes lenghts shrink it makes time intervals expand" (p117).
The Michelson and Morley experiment affected this by taking ether out of the equation and showing that the speed of light is not dependant on it. Einstein then demonstrated how the speed of light could be constant no matter where you stand on earth.
I do think this changed the discipline of science because it showed that everything is relative. His insights led to the fact that “time runs more slowly for a moving clock. There is no God-given absolute time that applies to all observers” (p.117). It was a groundbreaking idea that something like time could change based on speed and other factors. In addition it demonstrated the importance of perspective and how different things can be true depending on where you stand.
This reminded me a lot of Kants ‘a priori’, because time according to Kant was a priori, but this discovery challenges what people’s basic understanding of time.
So sort of similar to Sarah's point, I'd agree that Einstein's insight on light changed the discipline of science. Einstein did so by establishing that there are limits, or "restrictions" as it was written, as to what humans can discover about the relativity of motion, which was supported by his theory which stated "... that all motion is relative - which means that anybody is entitled to say that they are at rest, and to measure all motion relative to themselves" (Modern Times, 116). This concept could also, and was, applied later to others sects of scientific study. Those two things collectively seemed to be why Einstein's insight changed the discipline of science.
His insight also expanded upon an already established concept in both history AND science, and a Hegelian one at that. The concept that we do not know what we don't know was very much present in Einstein's insight. Also, like Kant and Hegel, Einstein's insight placed a refined responsibility and pressure even on the observer, which I was excited to see.
To expand on Christian's quote (or really just to add the last sentence in it) "...it follows that they must all find the laws of physics to be the same." This insight would greatly progress science for his work in relativity came to the conclusion represented by the author's analogy, "If I carry out an experiment in my spaceship, traveling at three-quarters of the speed of light relative to the Earth, I must get the same 'answers' as you get in your spaceship, traveling at half the speed of light relative to the Earth." (117,left) So that no matter our movement in the universe, whether we measure the speed of light on one planet or another, at some point or another, the speed should remain constant so that "you can in principle get your own velocity up as close to the speed of light as you like without actually reaching it- but no matter how close you get, when you measure the speed of the light beam itself you will always get the answer c." (117, right), thus this becomes some a priori in our universe, a truth upon which modern science revolves around and seeks to fit within the confines of. If the laws of physics are the same for all men, then that brings the question if man is a part of nature and thus connected with the universe, are the laws of physics inherent in the universe and thus the same for all men?
Emily, I think in your last paragraph you phrased exactly why I think the discipline of science DID change. I feel like science had long been dependent on these "a priori" of sorts and this trend had finally been broken. I mean, even in the experiments we regularly engage in at CSW treats time as a constant (inevitably true) fact.
It seems that changing how we define truth and moving toward relativity and away from absolute truths definitely implies some sort of fundamental change to how we study science. Okay now I'm seeing how Sarah systematically argued this and I couldn't agree more. I would just also add that what Einstein discovered was very much an "insight" and new type a truth that relies on the presence, perspective, and participation of the observer.
"Implications for Science" seems a bit radical an insinuation from the reading; the discipline of science, its methodologies in particular, did not change. It did, however, change the realm of physics dramatically, as well as our perception of the universe. Einstein's insight lay in his ability to think theoretically, allowing him to consider the things possible within the universe that are harder for humans to perceive. I would also like to put forward that Einstein was more a theory- and numbers- based fellow, kind of like Aristotle, who did relatively little experimentation and a LOT of thinking, though unlike Aristotle, he had actually figures to consider.
It seems like Einstein didn’t so much have a great insight about light, he had great insight about motion that had sweeping ramifications when applied to light, but that could be wrong I really know nothing about relativity. Essentially he said that all motion is relative- which means that anyone is entitled to say that they are at rest, and to measure all motion relative to themselves. The role that the Michaelson-Morley experiment played was that experiment established that there is no evidence that the earth moves relative to the ether. This established that there wasn’t a single omnipresent point of reference for motion (?) and that let Einstein say, “Shit, we can use ANYTHING as a point of reference”. But I may be misinterpreting.
“The first signs of just how dramatic a change in the physicists’ conception of the world would be required to explain the behavior of light came soon after Michelson and Morley reported their definitive experimental results in 1887.” (115) While physicists’ conception of the world fundamentally changed, I’m not sure science itself changed but I’m going to wait to commit myself to that.
Also really excited and interested to see elevated importance of the individual and knower because of the theory of special relativity, although I feel like its implications kind of discredit Kant’s ideas about a priori time and to a lesser extent a priori space.
As everyone has already pointed out, the Michaleson-Morley experiment at long last put to rest the well-maintained Victorian idea of ether, proving that the properties necessary for ether to function as it is assumed to are impossible.
Einstein extrapolates on their discovery by further distancing himself from unsupported but assumed "truths," and conceptually deconstructs the tenuous constructs of time: mainly we can't all assume the same clock--God-bestowed or otherwise.
What's been really difficult for me about this (among many other things within the reading...) is applying the ramifications not to the WORLD, to society, but to stick to THE discipline of science. I feel as if I haven't absorbed enough both in the past but even just in last nights reading to be able to witness a/the monumental shift. I'm too inclined to apply Einstein's ideas of relativity to Western conscious and put it in terms of historical--and therefore, universal---context and relevancy. I think this has a lot to do with a stigma I myself at least struggle with in that science and a culture's, society, populations prevailing ideology are viewed as separates. I feel like scientists aren't rockstars in the 21st century the way they were in the 18th, 19th and 20th. We know inventions and how we can utilize them but not the name behind them (save for the corporation of course). Science seemed to touch EVERYTHING back in the day in a way that is far harder to see and appreciate (for ME) in the present. Einstein's theory of relativity changed everything westerner's thought they knew. Why limit this to Science?
Keaton, I agree with what you're saying that Einstein is completely shattering the concept of one universal point of reference, as we can see in the muon experiment (118). He is similarly dismissing the idea of a clockwork universe, and really questioning the intent of the universe.
What really interested me was how scientists and physicists react to these discoveries: "Physicists seem to ignore this remarkable state of affairs, because they know that no material object can ever be accelerated to the speed of light, so no human (or mechanical) observer is ever going to experience this strange phenomena." (119) According to this scientists, it's not really necessary that we understand the workings of the macrouniverse (or microuniverse) if it doesn't affect us. These scientists are sort of the opposites of microhistorians, and it's not just their model that's different, but their fundamental understanding of reality. I would argue that Michelson, Fitzgerald, and Einstein are showing us a specific example (i.e. special theory of relativety) that is speaking to a general theory: that is, that the universe is not intuitive, not predictable, and completely different from the way we perceive it. Even if we aren't able to reach the speed of light, aren't the major concepts that Einstein is getting at affect our lives too?
So, we come again to the inevitable question of truth. If the inner workings of the speed of light don't directly affect us, does it affect Truth? Like both Rachels were getting at in class today, how much do we need to know about the Truth to say that we know the truth? These are questions that are beginning to come up with Einstein and his predecessors.
I hope to go back and read these posts...I'm sure they're awesome. To address the first question, "The insight which led him to the special theory was based on his sound physical intuition about what Maxwell's equations were really saying." (116) By seeing light as a tangible object (I believe someone used the word palpable), Einstein more easily came to conclusions regarding how it interacted with the surrounding universe. Also on pg. 116, "Einstein saw that there is no need to invoke a preferred frame of reference at all. There does not have to be a standard of rest in the Universe against which all velocities are measured. Instead, he said that allmotion is relative." (116) Thus, Einstein conceptualized of light differently than other scientists before him, and did so by abandoning the perspective inherent to a frame of reference. In that a frame of reference was thought to be an a priori to the behavior of light, Einstein gained new knowledge by rejecting an a priori. However, he also synthesized two of Kant's a priori's-time and space to create spacetime, the entity which allowed the beautiful symmetry we see in his special theory of relativity.
Implications for science:
1. corroborating new discoveries with older, more accepted theories (Maxwell's equations)
2. Thinking about things from the Hegelian perspective of the person/object/entity (since my thinking creates the world around me, laws of the world around me conform with the perspective of my own consciousness.) Einstein applied this thinking by understanding the speed/movement of light from the perspective of light, the speed/movement of tardons from their perspective, etc.
3. He reaffirms the importance Kant's theory that man and nature are in accord with one another.
4. He "elevates time to the rank of a creative force."
5. He synthesizes the order of constant physical laws with the flexibility of individual properties.
Einstein made two great contriutions to understanding light. The first was to accept Max Plank's idea of light as composed of distinct quantities, called quanta, rather than waves, and to show how thinking of light in this way explained the photoelectric effect. These quanta of light were eventually called photons. Yet it is characteristic of modern science that light is now thought of as both made of discrete particles, photons, and of waves, and each concept works well for explaining different phenomena. This naturally leads to Einstein's second idea.
Einstein's second contribution was to show that the speed of light, which other theorists, like Maxwell, and experimental scientists, like Michaelson and Morley, had shown was always the same, could be the same because every oserver saw light from a different vantage point. But Einstein showed that this relativity of oservation changed everything that the observer saw and felt, that ojects would get longer as the observer's speed relative to the objects increased, but that time would slow down. But Einstein primarily arrived at his conclusions by reasoning. He said that he was not influenced by the Michelson-Morley measurements of light and motion, and was unsure he even knew of them when he wrote his first papers.
I think Einstein's greatest impact on science was to open up the imagination about the most basic properties of everything we oserve. When Kant proposed that our concepts of time and space were fundamental, a priori knowledge, not derived from observation, this seemed reasonable to many. But Einstein showed that our traditional views of both time and space, and our sense that we knew just where we stood in the universe, were arbitrary, because we did not understand our relatrive position, and the relative position of everyone and everything, to every other thing. Once we became aware of this, however, we could never think of time or space in a simple, three dimensional way. This expansion of the imagination, to which many moden scientists have contributed, is the most characteristic feature of modern science, and of the way we all think, or at least can think, today.
Really great posts tonight!
This was a really difficult reading for me, but very cool stuff.
I thought it was really interesting to see how people kept on testing to find the speed of light, even though all the results were extremely close, the experiments kept on growing and growing, to the point where it was "just for fun" pg 114.
The scientific method kept on becoming more concrete as people looked for the answer of 'what is light.' It forever did change the discipline of history, but I think this evolution of science would of happened no matter, regardless of what question was being asked.
Like many other people have said, I thought it was really cool to see a priori brought up again! I really appreciate Einstein now, and now understand how revolutionary e=mc2 was. He put a priori knowledge into one, simple equation.
Jenny's post made me think about how Einstein is a macrohistorian in the sense that he plays with the huge ideas of motion, time, space, the universe, and whittles them down to whether light is a particle or a wave. Also, we have the idea that we don't need to experience something completely in order to prove it true and to accept as such--we only need to prove its truth according to a model. Maxwell's equations served as model's with which to assess the accuracy of Einstein's theory, and so the fact that we had no empirical experience with muons, tachyons, etc. didn't make a damn bit of difference.
blahh sorry to be so late again, but I wanted to sat something about yesterdays newton reading and I knew if i posted on yesterdays post my post wouldn't get read:
So on page 105 newton is talking about the clockwork of the universe and how the planets move in a predictable way, and how everything has an order to it. Well before we studied the planets order, we didn't know it existed. And every other bunches and bunches of things we've studies in this class, humans didn't know there was an order to until it was discovered. Then it becomes very clear and predictable. "Behavior of everything in the universe is predictable"
Well what if what we do as people or like what we do each day has an exact pattern and every single thing we do is clockwork and it the order/pattern just hasn't been discovered yet? Free will could be completely non-existant.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
