Q&A: The Theory of Relativity
The Theory of Relativity
Question
Hi,
In my attempt to understand the theory of special relativity (on the conceptual level, not in terms of its physical equations), the following explanation occurred to me. Einstein is not claiming that space in itself is relative, but only that what appears actually to the person measuring it is relative. Therefore, even if physically the measurement values change depending on the observer’s frame of reference (his speed, etc.), that does not say the first thing about those entities called space and time. So from the scientific standpoint (as expressed in the act of measurement and the mathematical description of that measurement), space and time do indeed appear to us as relative. However, from the standpoint of the overall truth (the philosophical one), we must not conclude that their real nature is derived from the measurements.
In sum: the whole “relativistic” legacy of the theory exists on the scientific level, and perhaps the epistemic one, but not beyond that. The attempt to derive far-reaching conclusions from it about the relativity of our world is biased and mistaken.
Do you agree?
Answer
I don’t see any difference between this claim and our other claims about the world. You can always say that what we are saying refers to phenomena and not to noumena. According to Kant, all our statements are really about that. What is special about relativity דווקא? To the same extent, you could say that only from our perspective do bodies fall to the earth, but in actual reality the bodies remain in the air.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t see a difference. As I understand it, this is a question in psychology (where it is easier to get confused).
There is a distinction that I discussed elsewhere that exists within relativity itself, between relative time and absolute time, which also appears in it (t and tau). The feeling of the passage of relative time (that it flows) is across the fixed axis. If there were no additional axis, there would be no sense to the feeling that time flows. Flows across what? (Everything else flows across time itself. So across what does time flow?). See Column 33.
Perhaps the distinction you are talking about in relativity regarding time (and what about space?) is a reflection of the two separate levels (the scientific and the philosophical) that I was referring to. My feeling is that we are talking about the same thing (please don’t take the word “my feeling” too literally).
Thank you.
My question to you was based on the assumption that the explanation here goes beyond the distinction between phenomena and noumena.
The standard (and boring) skeptic can indeed say about anything that it only appears that way, but maybe in actual reality it is different.
But apparently even that skeptic would distinguish between the phenomenon of bodies appearing to fall downward (though perhaps that is only a Kantian “illusion” or “phenomenon”) and certain interpretations of relativity (according to which the “observed” space and time can be completely different from space and time as they really are).
There are far more people—including “serious” people, scientists and philosophers—who claim that it is obvious that time and space are relative (because it has been scientifically “proven” to be so) than people who claim that bodies remain in the air.
As I understand it, both these and those are mistaken, except that in the first case (relativity) it seems to me easier to get confused and be taken in by the skeptic’s claim.
True?