Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
BERGSON
Duration and
Simultaneity
.B413
EINSTEIN'S
THEORY
Henri Bergson
Translated by
Leon Jacobson
Professor of Art, East Carolina College
With an Introduction by
Herbert Dingle
Professor Emeritus of History
and Philosophy
University of
The
of Science
London
Indianapolis
New
York
Kansas City
COPYRIGHT
1965
Librar^r
ot Congress
y
Unked
States of
Catalog Card
First Printing
America
Number
64-66064
Translator's Preface
It
is
we
and
we
time
is
could,
that philosophy
upon
and action
things;
fixity,
on a line.
But, in Bergson's view, despite this normal exteriorization
as a juxtaposition of "instants"
intellect, is still capable of apprehending unibecoming in a vision in which "what was immobile and
frozen in our perception is warmed and set in motion." It is
versal
possible to "reascend the slope of nature" and, by a concentrated effort of attention, by "intuition," to contact directly,
perception; that "our senses and our consciousness have reduced real time and real change to dust in order to facilitate
our action upon things." Nor, certainly, does he condemn
positive science for not being concerned with duration (even
though that
is,
is its
after all, to
compose a world
for us in
which we can,
for the
vi
is,
with scientism.
In the work before us, Bergson argues against the demand
by "the theoreticians of relativity," made in the name of Einstein's
we
Of
moving system
in
and
conception of duration,
it
it is
practical life
is
we
agree to
when we think
translator's preface
the motion
say
we
are dividing
tion that
For
itself.
is
vii.
tracing
we then
mo-
of the
it.
model motion
Time
then seems to us "like the unwinding of a thread, like the journey of the mobile [the earth]
entrusted with measuring it. We shall then say that we have
measured the time of this unwinding and of the universal
unwinding as well." But, if we can correlate these two un-
windings,
it is
we have at our disposal the conwe owe this concept to our ability
only because
must be converted
we do
as soon as
we
in
flow-simultaneities,
to
imbedded
and because the latter are referrable
our own duration, that what we are measuring is time
well as space; and, conversely, if the time being measured
as:
is
viii
it is
not
Now,
it
physicist-observers in a conventionally
system
5'.
mobilized, "referred-to"
himself to
S',
mterchangeability of observers
systems in a state of
theory of special
rela-
it a superior intelligibility."
according to Bergson, that it is in Lorentz'
unilateral," not
Einstein's "bilateral" theory of relativity
that multiple times
can logically be considered real. For, it is
there alone that
a system of reference is regarded as at absolute rest, while
other systems are in absolute motion. These
conditions, found in
Lorentz' theory, do imply the existence
ot multiple times,
all on the same footing
and all "real." Yet,
physicists support
Einstein's, not Lorentz' theory of relativity;
the question
arises as to why they should attribute to
instein a
doctrine properly
ascribable to Lorentz. To
The
fact
is,
confusi n of
Jr
seems almost
inevitable.
,'
ysicist
translator's preface
systems, S
and
S',
them
ix
The
mind
of the physicist,
result
is
that
by
two representareinstated
is
and conceptual"
real, as
much
This point
(Einstein's),
an
demonstration
demonstration
tion
how
question arises as to
physicists
"spatialization"
between
which
time and
real, lived
its
and clock-time of
everyday
that
is,
mask
reality itself,
duration.
Now, given
cists, at least as
much
the goal
and method of
science, physi-
world already
what
is
is
is
taut
immediately in our
gal-
dead comes
and
physicists will
stein's
physics, one, moreover, that tends in the direction of an idealism based upon principles having nothing in common with
those of relativity.
As
dox of the
twin brother, because not only his time but also his bodily
processes
through space.
Appendix, "The Journey in the Projectile." This Appendixes a reply to another French physicist, Becquerel, whose
first
cal
of
T'^
? rests,
Prnft!
wotessor
Dingle
on the
assertion
translator's preface
xi
by Einstein's postulate of
and
it
is
of great importance in
Leon Jacobson
July 1965
CONTENTS
v
Translator's Preface
xv
Introduction
Selected Bibliography
xliii
xlvi
to the
Second Edition
Preface
Chapter One-Half-Relativity
Chapter
Two Complete
Relativity
30
44
67
Chapter FiveLight-Figures
114
127
Final
NoteTime
in Special Relativity
and Space
in General Relativity
in the Projectile
of Acceleration
xiii
157
163
173
177
Introduction
Early
The
and
originally
area of impact
it is
not too
much
to say,
was the
On
dominated
scientific
prehensive and
it
philosophy by ideas of the logical positivist type that originated in relativity theory. But is this a final judgment? The
its
should
I shall
present significance.
like,
specifically
and
scientists
may
XV
XVi
were
If that
discussion
so,
would be
same problem.
and the
tivists
basis
On
rela-
that
and
Paul
left
(p.
its
advocates, Ein-
is
condmioT
^!
u7; r
^
U"
The1a r
rw
0
by dCnyin
v"
ct
We
can
'
of
hi standT
took
tivists'
h ^ been retarded,
proves conclu-
j^^ng
the other.
the difference of interest that ied to
Bereson tn
intuition
PetCr whose a in
g g
naples
i
*e
tial for
"
sivelv
In
Cakulate a hant m time for Peter and
P
r>
Aerebv
y
that
time " which Peter calcurecord is, in fact, time. It is a "phant0 anythin that
Paul experiences.
exactly
S
S
laf^
ates that Paul
s clock will
rwJ? ^
al cu
cakulanon,
io
INTRODUCTION
phantom
time.
with
To
life.
names of
xvii
clocks,
and
all
when
the
could be observed to
it
which,
more) bodies are in relative motion, either of
them can be accorded any motion that one pleases, including
none at all, provided that the other is then given whatever
motion is necessary to preserve the relative motion. That
when two
means
(or
itself,
must age at
This consideration seems
to
me
and
it
With very
argument
just given.
Some
xviii
depending
on reunion one clock were retarded by a quantity
would
phenomenon
that
not,
other
on their relative motion, and the
second.
the
not
and
moved
first
had
the
show that
be
Hence, if the postulate of relativity is true, the clocks must
2. If
3.
will
retarded equally or not at all: in either case, their readings
separation.
agree on reunion if they agreed at
an apparently
repeated the
have
endless succession of such approaches. I
syllogism several times, in several places, but without eliciting
be necessary; but, in
fact,
and without a
its
elements
previously convinced of
This
which of
is
faulty,
it.
is
identify
its
origin,
i"The
2 J.
499.
its
salient features.
INTRODUCTION
From
the time of
Newton up
to the
xix
on which
had
all
necessarily to be erected.
teenth century a
new
tion of physicists;
possibility
Newton
as
in electromagnetic theory.
This experiment
is
now
usually looked
upon
as
an attempt
XX
but
it
was in
fact
much more fundamental than that. It was an attempt to determine whether the earth, or any other body, had an absolute
velocity at all in other words, whether the Newtonian mechanical theory or the Maxwell-Lorentz electromagnetic theory
was to survive. The experiment decided against the MaxwellLorentz theory, and this was Michelson's immediate deduction
from it. In his paper 3 announcing the result of his first per-
bands.
shown
is
that there
The result
to
is
is
thus
is
erroneous."
This seemed conclusive, but it had the embarrassing consequence of depriving electromagnetism of a most successful theory and leaving nothing in its place. Naturally, therefore,
strenuous efforts were made to avoid Michelson's conclusion.
The first comprehensive hypothesis to this end was that of
Lorentz,
was moving or not (although, in fact, there was a real difference between these states) provided that the motion was uniform and that its velocity did not exceed
light. In
that of
mathematical terms, the relation between space and time measurements in relatively moving systems
(which became known
as the "Lorentz transformation")
was such that the electromagnetic equations were invariant
relativity ex-
to it. The
pressed by Newton's first law
of motion was therefore, on this
view, not a characteristic
of nature but a consequence of these
ethereal effects on moving
bodies which operated so as to hide
from view the real state
of motion of a body.
Shortly afterward Einstein
put forward a different theory.
American Journal
of Science,
XXII
(1881), 128.
INTRODUCTION
xxi
motion were
with
is,
ether
made
mere appearance that Lorentz' device had made it, but it laid
on Einstein the obligation to show how two bodies in relative
motion could both be moving with the same velocity c with
respect to the same
beam
of light.
He
from that
clock.
if
his postulates
had
was regarded
A and
both at A,
The
at
some particular
moving toward B.
which it
instant, at
xxii
will
be further from
An
than from Q.
observer with
will
and
observer with Q,
was
to define a
on applying
What
Einstein succeeded
so
differently
postulating physical
effects of
the ether
Slctl
and
an some of them
even think that he discovered the one and
y natural way of timing distant events
instead of inventing
needCd t0
the eIe ctromagnetic equations-I quote
me
hSw
Jus own summary of
The
th
at
catL,rn l?l v ^
it
^ \often
i
^^7? ^
,
The situation
snuanon, however,
hf P
'Albert Einxteir. tl
Nnceton:
wS.^.
nnceton
Princeton in 1921:
without
justiE-
PWion
of light, in that
thC
lme u P on the law of propagation of light-
is
somewhat
/
as
follow. In order to
Relativity,
Umversity Press,
1955), p. 28.
trans.
E.
P.
give
Adam*
INTRODUCTION
XX1U
it is
that Einstein
made
we
wish,
and
Maxweli-
them.
It
must stand or
it
since
it
and
Einstein's
it
very
little
before
World War
I) it
XXIV
of Lorentz"
and
mentioned Einstein
in that connection.
it
name
also
(that
went
is,
des
is
and no7in
P erfeCtl ?
stical It may be illustrated in
y
the simoW
t
T
m2Z
.
*.
Sr
^ m^
^
T
teT?,
oncetoasoSn^f
of relativitv to
docks, A and
and suppose
to Einstein's
marion,
th*'
tlVel
^^
'
PP se there arC
? at rest
"
andl^
lorentz'
im)^^'^**
at
Pemies
(Paris:
Flam-
XXV
INTRODUCTION
that, if there is
of
it
will read
to the point of
an
A and
at high
rest in
then
it.
Now
let
moved from
a third
the point
On both theories
B on arrival. On Lorentz' the-
uniform speed.
motion through the ether has reon Einstein's theory it will be because the definition by which B is set gives it a later time than
its
its
rate of working;
that of C.
We
can
now
metrical aging
see at
not.
(and Paul) record a shorter time for the journey than Peter
and
Peter's clock
however, there
is
is
almost inexplicable.
and not
fact
and
it is
possible,
itself
and show
extreme ingenuity and its apparent success over many decades, it is nevertheless untenable and,
moreover, could have been seen to be so at the very beginning.
us that, notwithstanding
Its
its
its
mathe-
theory;
it
Why,
that,
XXVI
seen clearly
station-
so; 6
do
and, moreover, he must have
that unless his theory required everything observ-
as other
which we
in
theory, as
it
and
so
tions
then stood, was applicable only to uniform mowas not menaced by this fanciful case.
It is easy to say
now
an infinitesimal
human
I,
who remember
We
all
are
if
Rekdvifv"^
Nature,
Relativity,
CXCV
(1962), 985.
of
XXVU
INTRODUCTION
that in
one eminent physicist, Sir Arthur Eddington, confessed
he then
such a case he would reject the law, which nevertheless
to
Einstein
7
hold
can
we
think
not
1
do
accepted unreservedly.
mathematical
other
any
than
have been more disingenuous
physicist, today or at
any time.
would
it.
same time as
yet have returned 197.99 years later-a manifest absurdity.
that the
It should cause no surprise, then, that Einstein felt
technical removal of this problem from the scope of his special
theory rendered the problem innocuous. But this escape, of
course,
dilemma
7 Sir
Cambridge
8
J.
if
motion. 8
New
he generalized the
He
New
chap
3.
Bronowski, in The
later
all
Scientist,
Aug.
many
31,
physicists (for
example,
its
metrical aging
is
reader must be
indeed of
much
left to
XXVUl
bility,
failed.
He met
if it
this situation 9
What
Peter,
has to be shown
is
manner.
that Paul will return
other. If
manner
younger than
is
it is
familiar
the acceleration
making
on
reversal
the journey at
tional fields
must be postulated
Then
gravita-
and
operation of Paul's engine-which, in
to start, reverse,
stop
the
iterTt
evem 0 f
'
nZteL T
ence
fllT'
3151
Cave
n
d
pure fcdo
Lee
but between
wT^
?:
Jv
ore than
to
" ltlCWm
!h
10n
>
ati
9 Albert
Einstein
"
that SUch
real "
and
al fiddS
is
"
al C
-
ThC
Sig'
"fictitious" fields
^ -dings
j
and wha
^^
T
like
gravitational
of the clocks
postulated but not
rdatiVe
docSn
m order to give a rational description
PaLed
Na turwissenschaften
with Pa "l
at the
fe
se
make
this will
observable (like th
ingsof
on the aging
me
m P ared
him
fields
We
be the sa
for both, but on
far apart, in regions of different
T ^^
-^^^T
nificant diffe
at
^zizs:
fields are
when
fields.
ocks)
"Di
VWiom"
''"'o), 697.
xxix
INTRODUCTION
is only the former that the relativity postube independent of the standard of rest.
of the process. It
late requires to
This argument
is,
and
principle sound
I think, in
is legiti-
is
called
upon
to explain the
revolving stellar
phenomenon when
the
But it fails here because the observable phenomena are not the same in the two cases. Suppose a
clock synchronized with Peter's is placed on the star. When
Paul is held to move, his clock is behind this one, by approximately the same amount, when he reaches and when he leaves
the star. When Peter and the star are held to move, however,
the clock on the star is behind Paul's when it reaches him and
earth
is
supposed at
ahead when
rest.
leaves him.
proved.
who
try to reconcile
it
to
be
little
known: most of
rules out.
The
me
who adopt
to
problem would,
think, afford
The
published.
first
statement.
us, nevertheless,
must be
Then
it
rejected: if there
is
faulted,
and
if
there
is
is
is
asym-
essential to
no asymmetrical aging,
XXX
This leads us to seek for the basic error in the theory, for the
and Paul problem merely shows that there is such an
error but does not locate it.
Peter
the
that
is,
is
when
vahd
of relativity.
To
we
see this
ItZlV T*
St
of nature
^
-
'
true representation
U^ih
maUer WhCther we
dn S
'
in^vi^to'
two bodies
is
made
thCOry
acce Pt Einstein's or
ails
>>
ecause
Lorent,
of
tl
IVC
mOU n
for
'
il
does
theory
exam Ple
it
of
*
INTRODUCTION
xxxi
would be needed
When
cases in
this is
once realized
which
it
(1905),
xxxii
DURATION AND
SIMULTANEITY
ascriptions of
the nh
mena
moti n of a
differ He took the relative
magnet anH3
f Wire in
ab Ie respects,
which in a11 observ
the curr
pr duced in the
whichever is
wire is the same
-
"
'
moved
de veloped,
that
B,
*C
not
moved the
current is oh
moved
is
bodies
if
thp
If the coiIis
the magnet
^
hT"
Postulat e
the
T'
space
r to move,
and
if
the
l*^
" becaus we
11 is e
asy to see
that
Phenomenon that
demands a finite
it
is
observed]
would therefor*^
'
true, necessarily
is
P
decent,n on
Doppler
** &
motion (for example, the
effect or
the
" b, ^o
1
independent
is before irredu15
only
when
M mus t
w? t
* which
in
an ther
>
poLT
inevitably
equal?
the attempt
to
T'the
1T CXamP
h^ T'
-
le
t^T^z^^rr*
confrt J
r COI
pari n?
sstrr
a d after
a
that
a
*e
othe r
<* re Petif
,he
ment L I
sr
,
12
wronff ntvT.
g
He
P-ed an7sh o
WCd
tha t
a n accent
P
-
my P rohT
to
tiV
"y
tb eory
'
adva - d the
nC 1 should
have pro?
embarrass *e theory.
Despite
h
kself
untenab e h
^^It ^'
"
Kelativ
btrud es
SO Nearly
did
this a nd
t T
15
who a
it
WOrk b0th
n tlce Was *
taken of this,
N n
^^Tb"
em
Born
-.a
^Z L^ ^
than
Umber
and
~i at
i
Wh/'
S
th,s
tf
the
P ecial ^a-
12
M.Bor,..
Spec .;
'XXv
(1960)
COry f
233
a
an
"
Ep^stemological Appraisal,"
Relatey- ^a /
urej cxcvn
(lQ63)
i2g7
INTRODUCTION
before?
The
answer, I think
of this presently),
(I
XXxiii
of inconsistency in a theory
immunity from
unaware. In
rational criticism of
fact,
however, there
is
To
does so
it
example
But
in fact
no
on
The experiment
is
con-
any, of motion
We
length
between Newtonian mechanics and the Maxwell-Lorentz electromagnetic theory; we must therefore not presuppose that
either of these is true. But that is exactly what has been
done.
When the Maxwell-Lorentz theory is presupposed, only two
explanations are possible: either Newtonian mechanics is
wrong or there has been some disturbing factor that has been
xxxiv
s"o?d
Tt
^S
r ** ahe
ChOSC
the
rP po
that of
lent to
its
ed .
it is
mal
described;
the IT
Beam
who
died
Verifi -tion
of a theory of
COnsistenc y take but
ex P eriment s
>
T" radiation-which
ght in this
postulate" r
tube, some
held t ^
De
high speed, i
ssue from t
ar
ed
by a highly
P
theoreV
mferred as equal
13
made
to
li
vacuum
is
e *cept Ritz,
gen.
Slder
second nnT ate~
that
source
"
ex P erime "t
aract er;
Maxwell-Lorentz
the
MkhdSOn
*
arguments posino- ac
XPen
which it shoConlv
a n
one other example
test Einstein's
and Lorentz
CXPlanati n that
igno^L^
byever y ne
AH
ative
^ ^T^ ^ ^
ySLTafer
autoniatical
m hypothetical
is
equiva-
particles in a
stationary an d others
moving at
J**
technique:
>
Further?
implied in the
*e "particles"
them
as sources
for this
statistics.
The whole
the only
f
exper lment
.
po int 0 f
?l
**
ZM
descrindnT'
have nof
requires that
dUaHty necessar to qualify
y
^
^
d n0t
bey
aT'm
J
P StuIate ^ere
Z/l ^uted-the
stationary
obviously
"For
fallacious
example, that ~*
3 gU
nt is completely
confused.
:ie tthat
h ; is ,
legitimate when such an
is Used
one source of
all the v
a
t"he Whatever
goes n
*
^ide
Really, and to
"
also
Anient)
'
can be determined
u Under
test to
is
but
vacuum
J
determine
INTRODUCTION
to conclude
XXXV
from
this
all
concerning
ory was what he called "half-relativity" or "unilateral relativity": Einstein's was "complete relativity" (see especially
pp.
91-92). This, in view of the intellectual climate of the time,
whom
the equa-
meaning
relatively
were the
essential thing
and
their
trivial.
On
of
the other
own
it.
it unnecessary for him to defend his phiIn that defense he accordingly used reason-
a phantom, that
insisted,
only what
is
is,
perceptible
up
to a point, but
needed.
The
it
breaks
down
The
precisely
analogy
where
is
it is
good
most
to
mind that
all
XXXV1
Id
Ved fr
m be stationed at theP^dings. Properly adjusted
docks could
points considered; the iavelng clock, having been
set, could be
moved mechanically; and
dtr
?" *
examm
Paul', rU t
"
by an y ne at leisure:
the readings
of
* cici 5.
between
that
ldl> even
even
ll?
between
two
would
douhS I
event-: ,t,i,<,
C
mUSt have
^t^?-"^"?
1
state
*an
that
effect,
'
why might
w38
time," in
Bergson'
vi dual,
and a
hving
^me
time.
He
'
SenSC '
sh
^3
C ntestin
con/ am n
individuals can
that if
^rT^
b
would, and he
'
miSt
IS
different
nothin &
The
Einstein
only absolute
events at
the same
Einstein's
7^'
iT
si
faCt ' in
"
theory-an/^'
sight-that the
simult
3 matter
of voluntarv
ri"fi
here between
com P Iete
agreement.
of
of
strikin
no difference
them
J
of view,
Wing t0 their difIerent PointS
Bergson stres^S'
u
dent events
intuitive simultaneity of coinciand Einste
I.
dents. They
simuI taneity of separated
were simn!
y caIIln g attention
same coin.
to different sides of
*J
an evaluatio7of
knowledge,
BeS!'
but I think
>
INTRODUCTION
XXXvii
merely an
can now
be dismissed as purely fictional. "Space-time" is a
mathematical
conception formed by combining the co-ordinates (x,
z,
y,
t)
distorted instruments,
and
it is
the distortions,
then "space-time"
is merely a characteristic of a false theorya conception needed to preserve that theory from immediate
alternatives
We
still
its
source.
there
tion:
seen,
XXXVlll
on
philosophy,
sary experiment
is
performed, therefore,
it
should provide
some real physical evidence concerning the Bergsonian philosophy in place of the false attack he had to meet.
Turning from the future to the past, however, we may say
that in one fundamental respect the
influence on philosophy
of the schools generated by relativity
theory has been unfortunate. Bergson was concerned with
experience, as essential
philosophy must ever be-in his case
pre-eminently with the
experience of the passage of time.
Physics also is concerned
with experiences, but with relatively
trivial ones, that is, those
amenable to measurement." But the
effect of the relativity
theory on philosophy has been to
concentrate attention on the
instruments used to represent experiences
by concepts-in particular, languages-as though
they were the ultimate objects of
philosophical thought. This is the
counterpart of the situation
science, in which mathematics
is in the saddle and rides
physics, so that, for example,
Lorentz' and Einstein's theories
are thought to be identical
because they have the same mathematical structure. The only
difference is that while the linguistic philosophers allow
their symbols to say nothing, the
mathexnaticians make theirs talk
nonsense. This is not to decry
the study of anguages-it
is a necessary study-but
when we
allow it to release us from
the duty of saying something until
"
FOblemS the Pres nt -hi* in all
?
>
Hkel
ikelihood we shall never do,
we go badly astray. If only as a
a revival of interest in
rj
^^
zn::^
tra^.?^^ Ttn
Ber
f. h
^'
An
"
Metaphysics,
INTRODUCTION
xxxix
all
that
it
(and philosophy
on
it
this connec-
depends
in science, because of
its
undue
phythe assessment of
experience. Imagination has been allowed to lead the theoretical scientist into various fields of conceivability, notwith-
is
Hence the
scientist
are,
has not
x*
However reprehensible
The momentous
this
it
however, which
fact,
is
is
to be
importance.
7 ^
"
lut^
d^;o
The
on he
shall
TT T
of
Jel
11
'
^^
.
rl k
rf
is
'
that
nC
now
Truth
-^n
P*"
is
and
thishappens
Possibility;
it fa manifelTf ^
acknowledSed by the mathematical
XylZtoZ H y
'
th
am
SUrC
prediction, or tl
>
Tf'
'
heart of
i^r;:^; z?r
proof that
ft is false
h^eefgiven
answer-from Professor Mav ?
generally
acknowtdged
as
"The
Wkhout
Z^^^^":^
o "whaTtht"f
modern
that the
scientific
development in physics
^^
thf^ j'V********
sLnTf
INTRODUCTION
xli
16
simple fact that the equation y = ax + b can be represented geometrically by a straight line should suffice to show
say: the
no
is
rectilinear.
The
success
There
rial velocities
be attained before long. In terms of the special relativity theory, however, they will be automatically underestimated. What
may happen
is
anybody's guess.
This situation is a natural, though not an inevitable, development from that which faced Bergson. The danger, which I
think he saw instinctively but was not able effectively to avert,
was that of mistaking ideas for experiences, symbols for observations. But at that time it was clearly seen by both sides that
the relation of symbols to experience was an essential part of
the theory, and if it had then been shown, from physical considerations, that Paul would not in fact have aged in the manner that the symbols indicated, the theory would by common
consent have been abandoned. That is not so today. Physical
considerations now count for nothing; the mathematics is all.
If a symbol is given the letter t, then our experiences of time
must necessarily follow the course that the symbol takes in the
logically impeccable theory.
And nobody
conclude as
is
17
M. Born,
Threefold
Xlii
that
it is
lives in their
The
facts
must be
faced.
To
Where
shown by
from
cient influence,
attention to
suffi-
Herbert Dingle
April 1965
Selected Bibliography
Paris:
La Colombe,
1955
Bulletin
de Guyau La Genese
Bergson, Henri. "Analyse de l'ouvrage
philosophique de la France et de
de I'idee de temps," Revue
XXXI
Vetranger,
(1891), 185-190.
L. Andison. New
Creative Mind. Trans. Mabelle
1946.
York: Philosophical Library,
Trans. T. E. Hulme.
Metaphysics.
An Introduction to
The
York:
The
and F. Rothwell.
Laughter. Trans. C. Brereton
New
"The Library
of Liberal Arts,"
No.
10.
New
M. Paul and W.
J.
Palmer.
New
New
York: H.
la relativite"
(Minutes
Carr.
Mind-Energy. Trans. H. Wildon
"Remarques sur
de
Bulletin de la SocUti
from the session of April 6, 1922).
(April
1922), 91-113.
XVII
francaise de Philosophic
of Andre Metz," Revue
-Second Reply to Second Letter
1924), 437-440.
de'philosophie, XXXI (July-August
Temps Reel" (First letter in
.
"Les
Temps
reply to letter of
(1924), 241-260.
.
Fictifs et le
Macmillan
Co., 1913.
xliii
New
XXXI
York:
Xliv
Berteval,
la
W. "Bergson
France
et
Revue philosophique de
et Einstein,"
de Vetranger,
CXXXII
(1942), 17-28.
Busch,
W. Beth and H.
Pos. Amster-
J.
Co., 1949.
o, iy57),
3536.
Dingle, Herbert.
Crawford
to
"The
CLXXIX
ture
"
The
~~n'
MnZ\
of Relativity,"
^ Iock9 8Paradox
15fM57 This
'
\'
\ t
Millan (noted
below).
"Relativity
anide
~Th2v7T IT
elat
Vd
11
-
Science,
is
(ZZ
CXXVII
-P^
r ^
7
Mc-
'^
CT
XXVTT
T?
.
p
PAUL
A
R Sc
-.
p
Livmg Philosophers,
\^mt
McCrae
Na-
article is a reply
bra
brary
v of
o
This
nce
1949.
Evanston, 111,
Pp 537-554
Phll sophy
-
xfOTd: The
The
Li-
XrV
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Einstein, Albert. Relativity:
ory.
Trans. Robert
The
Special
W. Lawson. New
1920.
E. P.
of Relativity. Trans.
1955.
ton: Princeton University Press,
.
The Meaning
Adams. Prince-
Paris:
Le
Circle
du
la
notion d'espace.
Livre, 1957.
152-167.
Dingle's Article RelaMcCrae, W. M. "Criticism of Herbert
Nature, CLXXVII (April 28,
tivity and Space Travel,'"
1956), 783-784.
Metz Andre. La
d'Einstein
et
CXXVI
'Clock
des theories
relativity expose sans formules
dans les
contenues
refutation des erreurs
Preface
plus notoires (Duree et simultaneite).
1923.
by Becquerel. Paris: E. Chiron,
de
et la philosophic: a propos
ouvrages
" Le
les
Temps
d'Einstein
de
et simultaneiU," Revue
l'ouvrage de M. Bergson, Duree
philosophic XXXI (1924), 56-58.
et la relativite. A propos
Voisine, G. "La duree des choses
Revue de philosophic XXII
d'un livre recent de Bergson,"
(1922), 498-522.
Watanabe,
Satosi.
The
present translation
Duree
et
"7,
xlvi
Foreword
to the
Second Edition
(1923)
The text
first,
come
standings.
and the
Preface
A few
reader to understand
own
its
purpose.
We
this
We
Our admiration
work
began
solely for
new
our
was
new ways
of
thinking, our belief that science and philosophy are unlike
disciplines but are meant to implement each other, all this
imbued us with
the desire
of proceeding to a confrontation.
way
men in
6
rated
it,
accompanied
their paradoxical
as
it
Two
different conceptions of
relativity,
"2
Up
conf n,
-nfirm, -hat
we had" of
S
duration. No question has
*
been more
ne*w t ,i k um
y P hll SOph S than that of
<e; and yet they all
n de rl
1
C3pital ira
This'is because
P" an
dZ LZ
1S
'
'
'
Tu
Se
'
J'
STterifST^v
^^^^VT'^l'"
having thor"
"
* "
similar^ a ll'
"
that way. The
analog/ herein
""ween dm!
time and space is, in fact,
whollv extpms.1 o j
1 * is the
of our using
treat the other
T.T
^
S f^^oTf
^t^^,^?
analogy,
like those of
space
that covers
til
a
extended^n
it
il
mg m
WC
visuall
^^*
time or features
sha11 st
P' at *P ace
our conveni-
What
r
The
^
^
pJ^r^' rr
We
had
^
Z^T ^
supped
difficult
has
? *pW
frT,
Hot h
we not g^n L" ve
ence-we
^^
g
a'nH
PU
in
ipt ril
XJ^^T
?
fn
us
time itscIt
it!
IOr resun"ng
a bit further.
e'
u P n a
cl early
it
uId
the most
in the
P ast
and carrying
PREFACE
have carved out of the theory of relativity that which concerns time; we have laid the other problems aside. We thus
remain within the framework of special relativity. Moreover,
the theory of general relativity is itself about to enter there,
We
when
it
CHAPTER ONE
Half-Relativity
The Michelson-Morley
is not exactly
of relativity, even the "special" one,
it expresses
since
experiment,
founded on the Michelson-Morley
form
constant
a
preserving
in a general way the necessity of
The theory
From
that
it,
we do
given
we
it
save
as is usually done. We want to
Einstein's.
and
common-sense time
all
We
We shall
time
thus obtain a certain conception of
Einstein's,
but with
may
ignore
it
as
much
9
as
it
10
as soon as
undergoes
its
influence,
we
believe,
become a philosophy.
This, it appears to us, is where those paradoxes, which have so
alarmed some, so beguiled others, come from. They stem from
an ambiguity. They arise from the fact that two mental views
of relativity, one radical and conceptual, the
other less thoroughgoing and full of imagery, accompany each other
in our
minds without our realizing it, and that the concept undergoes
it
M
Figure
L n,T m
fnS two b
lT
Lolt n nT At
^
oTand 0
^T
io
in
Whkh iS
B While
>
,r.
from
X*
7 "P
g
in t
direction,
from
the other
tW mirrors Perpendicular
from mi
B and
^ough
the glass
rolon g atl on of
to
' efleCted
uper moosed
g 3 SyStCm
be observed
I"!from po
Tb oS
45 to the beam'
Points
relctLw J,
reflected Perpendicularly
'
reflected
'
S3me
line
OM
HALF-RELATIVITY
11
OB are
O to A
beam
is
and return
not in translation
if
the distances
first
beam
OA
to travel
and
from
is
from
to travel
motionless in a
is
to
medium
B and
which
in
light
is
is
same speed in all directions. The appearance of the interference bands will therefore remain the same for any rotation of
the device. It will be the same, in particular, for a 90 rotation
which
OA
cause
will
OB
and
one
another.
journey of the
is
first
we
the exposition
SA
of the
beam
ether.
two
lines
OA
and
We
I
shall call
the
v the speed of
common
length of the
apparatus will be
c + v for the
c*
- vz
2lc 2
21
or
will then
r.
to
be equal
n
traversed by this
Let us
now
c-v
beam
+v
that
is,
to
in the ether to
beam
72
The
earth's
as a rectilinear,
uniform
trans-
ations emitted
do to forget, in all that is about to follow, that the radifrom source S are immediately deposited in the motionless
consequently, in terms of their propagation, independent
12
OA
direction
beam
perpendic ular to
of light
is
is
B and
mirror
to
returns.
at speed
but,
c,
traveling at speed v in
OB, the
21
is
we would
the
This
is
what
- v2
When
was
latter
at B', the
Figure 2
stance covered
*e 00
is
0P
"
ans errmg
transferri
from the
'
first:
d tance cQvered)
^^^
mto
same
^ ^^^^
this last
equality
OB' =
over line
Ofi'O'
^
^
^ ^^^^ ^
we
the value of
obtain by
OP
'
derived
lc
u f
ttherefore
indeed
ic
.
,
and
the
dis-
13
HALF-RELATIVITY
21
2lc
\
to saying that the earth's
amounts
affects the
two passages
differently
c2
and
arms,
its
mis
or
that
OA
if
a rotation im-
and OB,
to
change
bands
happens. The
ought to be observed. But nothing of the sort
year, for differexperiment, repeated at different times of the
has always
ether,
the
to
respect
ent speeds of the earth with
8 Things happen as if the two double
given the same result.
with respect to the
passages were equal, as if the speed of light
were motionless
earth were constant, in short, as if the earth
in the ether.
Here, then,
is
one that
the explanation offered by Lorentz,
Fitzgerald. According to
also occurred to another physicist,
would contract as the result of its motion
them, the line
OA
in such a
as to re-establish equality
way
double passages.
If the length of
becomes l^jl -
^when
covered by the
beam through
21
i
ured as -^-y, but
1-72
this line
at rest,
2J
as^
x
no longer be meas-
will
be
\/*-75
necessary to assume
yjl^ to unity.
Of
course, this
we measure the
contraction overtakes the ruler with which
escapes the terrestrial
object as well as the object itself. It thus
moreover, that
been carried out under such precise conditions,
fad to appear.
not
could
any difference between the two passages of light
3 It has
14
observer.
it
we were
if
in a
at
speed
of
one with
it
Immediately on parting,
v.
S'
its
line at
direction of
But
it
all
directions.
also necessary to
is
know why we
ourselves, in our
turn,
it
The
Now, we
double journey
is
therefore
say that
has elapsed
J,
between the departure
and return of the beam. But the ob/,
equal to
01 at nCe 0131
instead of a longitudinal contraction, a transverse
,
expans, on could
just as well have
been assumed, or even one or the other
have
pr P rtion Regarding
this point, as many others, we
^
been obhged
nh,'
^een
to bypass the
of relativity.
explanations
t^HT
5 It
;Tm
contrar inn
ZlTr
g UrSelVeS
tanehira f of
theory Thl
w7must
Broad
t0
t0
U
K
"
earth.
of simul-
the
"Eucl^M
"KM, Newton,
1920).
15
HALF-RELATIVITY
21
medium, believes
is
really
the motionless
the moving clock recorded time like
21
it
would show an
nevertheless shows
slowly.
If,
is
because
its
c2
\
time
is
elapsing
in the
same
spatial interval
earth
The
motionless ether.
is
it
it
moving
second of the clock attached to the
stationary clock in the
therefore longer than that of the
longer.
is
onlyy,
Since
interval
c
more
He
c2
\
sees that if
not aware of
Its
duration
is
this.
motionless in the
generally, let us again call S a system
at first coincided
and S' a double of this system, which
More
ether
with
it
motion,
its
As
time expands.
S'
An
more slowly.
interval
time comes to occupy the spatial
expanded
drawn-out,
slowing,
same
The
between two positions of the clock hand.
the system,
change
and
motion
every
moreover, obtains for
become representative
each of them could equally well
are found to run
since
of time
status of a clock.
16
terrestrial
have just been assuming, it is true, that the
beam of
observer followed the departure and return of the
We
from
to
A and from A
to
How
places?
end,
let
us recall what
the
of.
is
no
of clock to any
device allowing us to measure an interval of time or
situate two instants
relatin exact relation to one another. In experiments
W*
i LTTu
'
;S
Jy ^
m Co
A poinri
poim Qn
Ca "
^ u*
The
setting
moying
de
of zero on the second
S,mP ly f marki
"&. on the path of the second moving
,
10
0 " 11 to the * "stan, In sh rt> thC
of ze'o" win H
or
,0
understood, in what follows, as the real
0PeraL
respectrvely.
^P
*
mUUane"y wi have
been marked on the two
**
3
1*J
dev><*
17
HALF-RELATIVITY
optical, or,
more
to communicate
nals that the two operators have been obliged
dispatched to the
with each other. The individual at O has
one
A a beam of light intended to return to him immediAnd things have turned out as they did in the Michel-
at
ately.
however, that
son-Morley experiment, with the difference,
had been an
There
mirrors have been replaced by people.
A that the
and
O
understanding between the two operators at
his
would mark a zero at the point where the hand of
would
which the beam
clock would be at the precise instant at
only to mark on his
had
former
the
reach him. Consequently,
latter
and end
on a
line
in fact, that
if
to O', the
to
makes the same run from O to B' as
the
in
But it is different
O', the triangle OB'O' being isosceles.
O to A and vice versa.
from
transmission
case of the signal's
beam
The
from B'
of light
observer
who
is
that
at absolute rest in the ether believes
finds point
coming
to
meet
it.
Or,
if
you
prefer,
he takes
18
is
it,
amount
interval traversed
of the error.
We
the
the
trip
is
If,
the clock
hand was,
moment
then, at the
marked
has been
it is
at point
- of
of the signal's
knows that
really to
is
if
it, it
parts proportional
toc + v
of these two
parts.
We
lv
C2
c-v. Let us
have
it
into
call x the
?L_ = H and
c-v
21
~*
first
therefore
which amounts to
saying that, for the motionless
too close to
the provisional
zero
eave
at a point
be placed
>
server, the
point
to
to be
and'
shall
is
A. But
it
the mo-
simultaneous with
will
that corresponds,
emis-
cal-
21
round
at
beam's
motionless
where
it
Pushed back by
that, if
it is
b, the definitive
zero of the clock at
^ in order tQ haye a
the definitive
^zeros of the
show^
and
dial
two
clocks.
ob-
desired
to
must be
simukaneity
between
*i
0Ught W
Ck hand is at
the Po^t that we shall
toclil^
116 desi
do*
6in
for the time of the
motionL r nTr'u
himself
Cther)
agree
that
,
'
if it
nly a
reed
'
w"h
the clock at O,
it
tells
would
sho*
In that
located at
case,
what
O and
HALF-RELATIVITY
19
happen when
operators, respectively
will
We have just
to
as in returning to
it.
Our two
naturally find that the time for the journey from O to A, computed by means of the two clocks located at O and A respec-
again for the duration of the single trip computed by this new
procedure with two clocks: the constancy of the speed of light
in
will again be established. However, the motionless observer
the ether will be following what has been happening from
point to point. He will realize that the distance covered by the
beam from O to A is proportional to the distance covered from
in the ratio of c + v to c - v, instead of being equal. He
agree
will find that, as the zero of the second clock does not
which
times,
return
and
departure
the
first,
with that of the
to
seem equal when the two clock readings are compared, are
will
really as c + to c-w. There has therefore occurred, he
an
and
traveled
distance
reflect, an error in the length of the
errors
two
the
error regarding the duration of the journey, but
error that
offset each other because it is the same double
earlier presided at the synchronization of the two clocks.
Thus, whether we compute time on only one clock in a parfrom
ticular place or whether we use two clocks at a distance
each other, we obtain the same figure for the speed of light
within the moving system S'. Observers attached to the moving
system will judge that the second experiment confirms the first.
But our motionless spectator, based in the ether, will simply
20
He had
slowly. He
clocks of sys-
tern S'.
too
will
now
reflect that,
running
tem
S',
it,
C'\
us call
let
clock
the
of
line. When
by a dial interval
of ^, there has really elapsed a
i'
ber of seconds
in system
those seeming
seconds
equal to
is
^umslowing
of
each
of a real second.
He
HZ*
will therefore
calculate that if
*e
time really
elapsed
hTwill
11
is-*,
^ ne of the
thC
figure
clock
Ume
<
hy
Moreover,
at
thai
which
Jt
hows
actuall y
iS
*"
^*
Z^
needed
fr
^S^l
f
df
S' r n -
'
'
Cks
ber^ rc"
^
C
When
indefini"e] v
*P*
et c,
'
separated by equal
intervals
\**
21
HALF-RELATIVITY
between two successive clocks made equal trips in both direcshowed the same time,
tions. If all the clocks thus synchronized
it
was
really
same
at the
instant.
Now
who
less state.
sees
how
the opti-
2,
turned back
by^,
by
etc.
Simulta-
been incurvated
neity has changed from real to nominal. It has
into succession.
To sum
up,
we have
just
revealed
observer: the investigation of this point has
movand
system S,
that a system S', born of the doubling of a
singular modifiing in a straight line at a speed v, underwent
moving
cations.
We
as follows:
direction of its
All lengths in S' have contracted in the
in the ratio
motion. The new length is proportional to the old
1.
of
^1-^ to unity.
2.
The
The new
sec ond is
What was
S remain
Any
22
contemporaneous in
S,
have separated
in S
their distance
apart
lv
by
seconds of system
S', if
by
we mean
that
is,
this
di-
whose
is
part of the
is
observer
aware of them.
I shall in that
case
ob-
servers, Peter
other. Peter,
uth.
It
up
,s
to
the
ica ly
and
snmnk
^^^ ^^^
scientifically,
say you?
But
have
&
meter
$
liay alongside
them; and, as the standard of these lengths *
15 thdr
rdation to the *er thus altered, d*
sTanZr
mUS
opt
il
sam
on
T
r
*h 6
P anCt
tain
durati
poinu
'
if
we assume
'
c"T
C pomt
2.
while *l
S' are
t*
c'
that S and
"V*"
Sultan
at
aefinuio
rotat
further, h-
What
was Time, you say
^emain
y U Um more *an one second
ft ^
nC? But
expa nai
to the
a11
* ree
same time
^^li%
do
when
there
<J
23
HALF-RELATIVITY
take a
new view
first
among
if
none of
my
expanded, as if my
lengths had shrunk, as if my time had not
matter, for
ponderable
for
clocks agreed. So much, at least,
what
my
I carry
along with
me
in the
mained
motion
my
more generally,
dimensions retime
and
space
to light, and,
as they were!
of
my
originate in a
waves and electromagnetic disturbances
not adopt
moving system: the experiment proves that they do
way, so
the
on
off
them
drops
its motion. My moving system
light
if
established
vented in order to symbolize the experimentally
of light from the motion
fact of the independence of the speed
ether, before these
of the source that emitted it. Now, in this
events, you
electromagnetic
these
optical facts, in the midst of
perceive
you
what
and
them,
sit motionless. But I pass through
differquite
appear
your fixed observatory happens to
from
The
science of electromagnetism,
24
new speed
each
to
modify
my
in
my
once-established equations
What would
system.
have done
for
in a
universe so constructed?
science
tions
my
time, the
breakup
of
my
simul-
my
taneities,
matter
"There
is,
ments. This
which
every-
reL 1
bom!
Ving S stem in wh
shall
y
I happen to be, I
observatio1" to
axes O'X' , O'Y', O'Z', which are
toZ??*
lines
th
tatioJof
be
and. as
the three
my
it
is
P lan intersecting on
by
its
those
U"
rr;
must find a wav t0 XtU
OX, OY, OZ, or, in other words,
* ?ur
m mCans wh - I shall
all
once and for
1
'
mattos
O'Z' comcided
coincided with
t
to simplify
it,
be defined SinCC
? Stem
repre
of view that the
s iobai
>
abl^knT
see
be framed
u D en
zztv^i
observaS
to set
**>
t
Y P/ nt
from vour
my
^h
>
yours beore
*o
rf the
t
25
HALF-RELATIVITY
worlds S and
S'
of S'. This
quently, O'X' denote the actual direction of motion
glide
being so, it is clear that planes Z'O'X' and X'O'Y' simply
ceaselessly
they
that
respectively,
and
over planes
ZOX
XOY
are equal,
coincide with them and that consequently y and y'
from the
If,
x.
calculate
are then left to
as are z and z'.
at point
clock
moment O' leaves O, I compute a time t' on the
We
to
naturally think of the distance from this point
contraction
plane ZOY as equal to x' + vt'. But in view of the
would not
vt'
x'
length
+
this
attention,
to which you call my
you
call
is
(x'
elapsed for
not forget, moreover, that the time t', which has
is different
me,
shows
me and which my clock at point x', /, z'
time t
from yours. When this clock gave me the f reading, the
1
shown by yours
vx'\
= yt
imcn
is
-^J.
I shall
which I shall show you. For time as for space,
have gone over from my point of view to yours."
same
That is how Paul would reply. And he would at the
equations"
"transformation
time have laid down the famous
the time
more
if
we assume
Einstein's
S
general standpoint, do not imply that system
we
shall
is defi-
after
S, the same
considered from the point of view of
to Paul's
temporal and spatial distortions that Peter attributed
of a single
system. In the hypothesis, hitherto always accepted,
that if S'
obvious
time and of a space independent of time, it is
z' are
moves with respect to S at the constant speed v, if x', y',
ute to
S',
26
the distances
and
distances
from
this
if,
at
we have
x = x' + vt'
y=y'
z = z'.
Moreover, as the same time always unfolds in every system,
we
get
t
But,
= f.
y = y'
(!)
= zf
fact,
tion inside
S',
by-p
What
.
imagine point
parallel to
will be
its
O'X'
ber,
^ming^
composition of
at
speed
speeds.
moving point
who
e q u ations
refers
to his axes
measured by - we must
c2
mo-
x/ measured, of course,
the successive
positions of the
OY, OZ? To
for the
member by
OX,
divide
meffl-
27
HALF -RELATIVITY
although up
till
now mechanics
laid
v" = v +
Accordingly,
if
is
a river
down
that
1/.
bank and
S'
a boat sailing at
on
v + x/,
as
less
xf of
the passenger
is
if,
say,
it, t',
and
that
is,
arrival as
shown on two
clocks
an
placed at its stern and bow respectively (we are imagining
immensely long boat whose clocks could only have been synchronized by signals transmitted at a distance). But, for the
observer motionless on the bank, the boat contracted when it
passed from rest to motion, time expanded on it, its clocks
no longer agreed. In his eyes, the distance walked off on the
the
boat
the passenger is therefore no longer x' (if x' were
by
but x'^jl 1
f but
added
^; and
(
to
t'
He will
is
is
not
not
xf
but
28
that
is,
tn/
He
will then
have
V"=V
1
We
in/
C
ST
2
+ x/
'
xnf
+C2
r;
'
x'-
>
1
/
(2)
c2
IW a
this
6 USUally
is
is important
to d
1
Lorentz equations
in the" course
'
WC have
of
ust reconstituted
Michelson-
29
HALF-RELATIVITY
Morley experiment,
it
to
The
fact
is
assures, in a general
manner, the
invari-
CHAPTER TWO
Complete Relativity
ing
"
W
first
redpr0dty
f motion
"*
m tion;
ly
we shall canT ?.
f
itTwh ich'sF in
taneity
own Let
sav
motion, the
no
relativity,
rT,
vefa'nre
-y-u, systems of reference;
Bmtt
^
\
that the
exmn
breakup of
in^uc^wm b**retamed in Einstein's
theory
as they are:
we have
ther^n
just
about system
work d
in't
S'
simuljust
'
so
tions),
we
shall also
show
ry of relativity
We
been for
^ive
its
cl 3101
pureT
common
through
oT
that of a
si n
absolute point
of refere n
'
'
C minue
se
at the
theory
independent of
durat'
considered in
J/
t
d uble
relativity
tivitv
'
, a motionless
impossible
without
where one
ether.
always
to
passing
still posits an
Even when
we
COMPLETE RELATIVITY
we
31
still
see
it
little
in
the
first;
S and
S'
nation.
From
tion to this.
ence,
is
is
brief, absolute
reinstated
by the imagi-
Whether system
S,
adopted
is
no
objec-
as a system of refer-
it is
at rest
S';
is
equiva-
and
all real.
if
But
if,
That
is
to Ein-
if
we adhere
we
pro-
fictions.
strictly to Einstein's
pear,
to
and
many
meaning
We need
and
time,"
of
"slowing
assign the "distortion of bodies," the
minds
astray.
of a motionless ether
to try to find out
when we
and a privileged
how we ought
to
upon
the
point of view,
32
ab-
S' shifts
with respect to
systems, (3) S
is
S, (2)
same speed
facts,
is
in both
clear that
and the
us
We
be
to S'?
72 Zf
5
low
and
flnmT
'
by EinStdn t0 which
Ber K*n refers was delivered on May
f L eyden. It has been translated by G. B. Jeffrey
y
p
61 alon
S with 'wo other lectures, in Sidelights on
"J ;
Universi[
RrWM
ollows"^ eCaP
e "'
"
'
space wTtho
wo d b '
,S
11
^W
^
end
ny space-t,me
sums up
Einstein
sa ? that
^cording
his view
to the general
as
theory
T^
*TSL"^:
forStandards
fo e
In this
" ting>
Tf reTaHvif
Y SP3Ce
fore
tZ
1922)
Lh
" f
but
aIs
" P ssibilit y of
""g -ds
Ld
interval, i the
physical sense.
thereclocks), nor
But
m*1
this ether
31
00
COMPLETE RELATIVITY
anywhere.
longer absolute stability
we
to say, as
is
We
shall
respect to S or that
rather that S and S are
moving with
thereto* .Me
is
short,
^^
could it bepother
displacement.
a reciprocity of
^conunual
perceived in space otd,'a
lise, since the motion
B and
and
A
consider two pomts
variation of distance? If we
pereye
the
all that
polional change of "one of them,"
in the distance beis the change
ceives and science can note
this fact in the statement
"een them. Language will express
but i,^ would
does. It has die choice;
that A moves or that B
mov
B
and
A
say that
be still closer to experience to
that
more simply,
respect to one another, or,
or longer. The reapro Uy
shorter
grows
given
How
ew
between A and B
of motion is therefore a
We
cou d state
works
science, because science
a priori as a condition of
it
nly'w^
and when a
lengths;
fact of observation.
^^^^^Z^
extremities,^an
^longer
o
the two grows shorter
that the distance between
reducible
is
every motion
To be sure it is far from true that
we
motion,
addition to
it in space. In
what rpe'rceived of
observe only from without,
to
its
scious of producing.
When
>
^city
H
that More
was not without justice
a thousand
and someone else, moving
I am sitting
g quietly,
he
certainly
is
fatigue, it
paTs aw" from ml, reddens with
of motion"
not be
replied
it
thought
as
endowed with
parts
able media, as consisting of
The
2
^^^^^^
*
winch
We
^J^.
reap
<*^^
^^'lue
called
applied to t
(PPidea o motion may not be
to that of!*
and
point
this
attention to
On
1903).
Matiere
et
ity
^ZoLtion
\
dg
la
to
Morale>
214ft.
matter and Memory), pp.
mdmoire (m
memoire
34
who
rest." 8
relativity of the
pensers
we
are.
him
get
More
decide
to run
we
fact,
men and
All
orr,J
in
wlrf
seemed t US
penetr 3 tP n
^derly
in a
Wm
W ;t T
e
bu n
whose trart
10
he himself
Visible
neT'
0
motionT^
other living
ere
this point
IE
this direct
in
absolute
dwelt upon
doubtless ni
<ion,
We have
P a -
eri r
than
"
in
Case of
obtains
'
" " nl
by
f
status of
indent realities analogy that he g ives them
A nd concerning the motions
of matter
in 8
ee ni31if
ne can sa nothing
probY
sg w
g except that there
but by symoarh
'
Mre
"
ta
ophica (1679)
24g
COMPLETE RELATIVITY
35
occur
eyes,
efforts,
which
sci-
clearly relative,
if,
much
as
this is
it felt
is
that
not the
insisted
upon
incapa-
motion at least
attempt provisionally. More than
of this sort.
From
it
a principle
fices
something to
able
and which
36
continues,
it is
respect;
to physics
is
all;
is
neglected, force
introduced. This
is
it
expressed
the
human
the
stroke, a
perhaps
achieved.
One could still grant the relativity of motion for nonaccelerated rectilinear translation;
but the appearing of cenone
trifugal forces in rotational
motion seemed to attest that
tion.
is
rise to
new
ideas. No philosopher
could be entirely
with a theory that
regarded mobility as an ordinary
of reciprocity in
the case of
immanent
for
as a reality
motion-
satisfied
relation
spatial
it
motion
is
observed,
if
we
believed
37
COMPLETE RELATIVITY
inte-
We
be
among visual
so.
of
theory of relativity marks an important date in the history
ideas.
We
we
find in Descartes,
spirit of
modern
science, has
been rendered
it.
motion which
motion.
ceptable by Einstein for accelerated as for uniform
last. It
the
work
is
Einstein's
It is true that this part of
The
reflections
is
upon
motion.
the latter being concerned only with uniform
it
its
yet
declared motion to be reciprocal.
applied
relativity
gone that far openly? Why was the idea of
declared
only hesitantly even to the uniform motion that was
would no longer
relative? Because it was feared that the idea
regards
apply to accelerated motion. But, as soon as a physicist
envisage
to
try
to
has
the relativity of motion as radical, he
this reason,
accelerated motion as relative. Were it still only for
of general
the special theory of relativity drew in its wake that
philosopher only
relativity and could appear convincing to the
to this generalization.
point
But if all motion is relative and if there is no absolute
system
a
inside
observer
of reference, no privileged system, the
by lending
itself
system is
have no way of knowing whether his
wrong
be
in motion or at rest. Nay, let us say that he would
will obviously
Matiire
et
214ft. Cf.
Introduction a
la
wonder about
it, for the question no longer has any meannot present itself in those terms. He is free to rule
whatever he pleases; his system will be motionless, by very
to
ing; it does
definition, if
he makes
it his
of
we
please. It
any system
But
is
as soon as
these two
at rest or in motion,
as
ception,
is
a continuity of extension
more
upon which
express
it
TTT ^
wa tv,
^
ST l
>u-
present
^^
been made
actual case; it
been made but that was
an illusion, as
Proven 8 Matter is therefore immediately
e
a rea lty
'
39
COMPLETE RELATIVITY
visual perception of a
we
colored extension;
tension. It
is
body
is
is
earned out
incapable of
by different animal species. Many are
governed,
are
to
able
are
aoing ahead with it; and those who
nature of
the
and
activity
in this operation, by their type of
nature s
of
out
cut
been
their needs. "Bodies," we wrote, "have
differently
so
much
of things
hand, establishes between it and the rest
be of the artimust
there
what
gather
continuity that we can
of matter into bodies.
ficial and conventional in our division
arrested where our
But, if each body, taken individually and
a being of conpart
great
habits of perception bound it, is in
considered
motion
vention, why would this not be so for the
one moonly
There is
to be affecting this body individually?
we
which
within, and of
tion, we said, which is perceived from
effort
motion that our
are aware as an event in itself: the
we see a motion
when
brings to our attention. Elsewhere,
in
is taking place
change
occur, all we are sure of is that some
this
location of
nature and even the exact
of position
changes
change escape us; we can only note certain
are
changes
aspect, and these
the universe.
that are
its
The
and
visual
surface
without and
made
saying, moreover,
in question.
is
enough.
13. Cf.
218ff.
from
It goes without
visual-is therefore relative.
matter
ponderable
of
that only the motion
The
analysis just
made shows
this
clearly
is
as perceived
a reality, so must be
an absolute characoccur within it-since they have
If color
somehow
motion-even ours
Maliere
et
Chap.
memoire {Matter and Memory),
ana pp.
40
propagated
re-
or
We
^
Te^7v\
tnen
Zthl
^ ^sZ^
ing
not
'
k til
propagation of light
not expect die
Uin
CntireIy
^
W^dSin
w
6
"a
meanintr
I u
hUman W
apply
>
****** * "*
i/thetnSe Th
be attarh^
will serve
them Adding!*
^
^^
-
wIk
indicating theh^
Points
will
^W
PerCCiV'
ed
shall
We **
man ner
gCneral
ht 1
*!?
T-^
sha11
b m
P h ysicist who
**
itS
is
to
building Science
The
system of
referenced [ "*
cou rse, be at rest with respect to
one another
f
that * in the h
relativity, the
yPothesis
system^eference
I*
w
iH itself be motionless all
toe while it
is beinT
f
Bm
fixi ty
npon
it,
in
referring.
of a trihedral
it,
^
^
the
if
What,
" 0t 3
it
it
as
our
retain a
stationary ether
belongs to things
in e
the ether
has
svct^tv.
.
? abs
lute
positions, immobility
not of our decreeing. Once
with the privileged system and
" "
vanishe^T^
wished along
41
COMPLETE RELATIVITY
a matter of
fact, is
in motion. Physics
is
often inter-
and
assumption. But when
is itself
makes
ence in motion,
it is
in
necessarily electing to settle in a third system.
But
in that case
them by turns
it oscillates between the two, immobilizing
the illuentertains
it
through goings and comings so rapid that
sion of leaving
that
we
them both
in motion. It
is
On
we
as
them, the events that unfold in the intervals then passing
than
more
nothing
mere mental views: the events would be
Now
when we
shall
system,
or motion of the system earth with respect to another
42
will be possible to
it
view
it
this
Or
else,
is
located somewhere
if
upon
it.
we
the
refer-
of relativity. It
servers,
over
its
is,
can therefore no
The
system of reference
with a single
trihedral
longer be a single
"system of reference."
and "observers" need not be anything physical; by "clock" we simply mean here an ideal recording of time
according to definite laws or rules, and by "observer," an ideal
observer. "Clocks"
we
are
now
is
nonetheless true
that
tendency not
reference'
to differentiate
was, moreover,
The
immanent
beginning, since
this
And
it
an aggregate system of
may have
the system
no
of
objec-
is
We
having
much
space.
But
it
was
pre-
for not
sufficiently
COMPLETE RELATIVITY
cal to the
43
and
distinctions that
time and
make
it
theory.
its
we have
just
interpretation of Einstein
easy to deal with the
CHAPTER THREE
Succession
Time
and of the
instant;
and
There
flow
and the passing not presupposing states through which we pass; the thing and the
state are only artificially
taken snapshots of the transition; and
this transition, all that
is
itself. It is
it
retains,
is
naturally experienced,
is
duration
itself,
memory
them from being mere snapand disappearing in a present ceaselessly remelody to which we listen with
our eyes closed, heed-
shots appearing
born.
ing
alone,
it
comes
close to coinciding
life;
multiplicity without
divisibility and succession without separation, in
order finally to rediscover basic time. Such
44
45
which we would
immediately perceived duration, without
is
of things?
appears,
"simultaneous" with
it;
to the
s
the part that is around
that
for
think
hold, we
endures in our manner, the same must
to us to
form a
part by which
it,
in turn,
is
if
indefinitely.
surrounded, and so on
universe, that
to
is
Thus
is
instantaneous perception.
way
this
allotting
of seeing things?
it
is
not
perience ends
and theory
consciousness feels
itself
begins.
There
is
no doubt
that our
perception plays
enduring, that our
presented here,
XFor the development of the views
(Time and Free
la conscience
donnees immediate* de
see Essai
men
<
Us
P*
Matiere et
Alan. 1889). mainly Chaps. II and III;
,
creatnce (Crea
VEvolution
Memory), Chaps I and IV;
^^Jon),
o)
C^^.^gS
^^J^
et le
The
just
Cf. those of our works we have
Creative Mind.]
cited.
in
46
and
us,
out the course of our conNext, in assuming that this environment "endures,"
there is no strict proof
that we may find the same duration
again when we change
our surroundings; different durations,
differently rhythmed,
might coexist.
once advanced a theory of that kind with
regard to living species.
distinguished
durations of higher and
lower tension,
of differscious
life."
We
We
characteristic
ent levels
of consciousness,
ranging over the animal kingdom,
anu, we did not
perceive then, nor do we see even today any
reason for extending
this theory of
durations
a multiplicity of
to the physical
universe.
CT OT
world
J^
the
We
We WerC sufficientl
y occupied with our own world
mpetUS that life manifests
there. But if we
To deriH
IT
^i2e tT2eT'
hyP t
and
W
^y
keeTir,
V' ^
USneSSeS
nothing prevent'
nesses as
we niLZ
verse, but
broult
consecutive onef, v
'See Mature
*CL
'lt),
Essai sur
especially
our
resent
p
P h r^al time
had
state o
that
is
one
based upon
Y a
IrJ^T
nSaOUS
"P"
t;
long as we
this scarrll
co
'
in
armZTK
human
would
thesis of a
univeml Th
an
and
lrZT
pp. 82B
^es
to the following:
and
live the
ma& inin g
All
*s
e duration.
many human
But,
conscious-
uW
^^
^^
"
re
f like nature
same
P er ceive in the
rand m
,mm ^iates
'
Memory), Chap. I.
la conscience (Time and Fr
de
47
same rhythm
of duration, so must the two experiences. But the two experiences have a part in common. Through this connecting link,
And,
nesses.
which
by
step, a single
in
we
belief,
proper.
larging,
cal
more
precision into
it
than
is
Each of us is
by a vague effort of imagination,
his
immediate physi-
we
seek to justify
it,
we
catch
and multiplying our consciousness, transporting it to the extreme limits of our outer experience, then,
to the edge of the new field of experience that it has thus dis-
ourselves doubling
closed,
and
so
on indefinitely-they
sprung from ours, similar to ours, which we entrust with forging a chain across the immensity of the universe
and with attesting, through the identity of their inner dura-
sciousnesses
and the contiguity of their outer experiences, the singleof an impersonal time. Such is the hypothesis of common
tions
ness
sense.
We
maintain that
it
to
rigor
48
we wish
to establish is that
we cannot speak
of a reality
it.
The
that
metaphy-
But
if
ture succession, and therefore a before and after, and consequently a bridge between the two (otherwise, there would be
only one of the two, a mere
snapshot); but, once again, it is
impossible to imagine or conceive
a connecting link between
the before
and
after
without an element of
memory
and,
conse-
quently, of consciousness.
We may
sciousness"
perhaps
if
feel averse to
an anthropomorphic sense
is
But
to imagine a thing
that endures, there is
one's own memory and
transport
interior of
it,
word
attached
no need
"con-
to
it-
to take
into the
even attenuated,
the thing.
intensity of
of the variety
We
exists
^lousness, then
independently of any
we
moment brought
summon
first,
Ume
another
thus have
fZTTT
ghmmer of memory
tamtest
and
to go with
it.
We
shall
the
see that
HIT
'
'
COnnecti n;
connect on
-dTaHter
what
is
"h
it
will be,
*
Perpetutally
nnt
not the immediately
if
we
** ****
renewed
prior 'moment.
very
like, this
forgetfulness
We
of
shall nonethe-
49
have introduced memory. To tell the truth, it is impossible to distinguish between the duration, however short it
may be, that separates two instants and a memory that conless
nects
essentially
is
a continuation
of
because
we cannot
is
exists
when
Moreby
over, if real duration becomes divisible, as we
and
means of the community that is established between it
the idea of verifiable equality loses
all
meaning
here.
shall see,
it,
it consists
in itself of an indivisible
and
closed,
total progress. Listen to a melody with your eyes
or an
paper
on
thinking of it alone, no longer juxtaposing
for
one
preserved
imaginary keyboard notes which you thus
and
the other,
then agreed to become simultaneous
which
space;
renounced their fluid continuity in time to congeal in
melody
you will rediscover, undivided and indivisible, the
within
replaced
have
will
or portion of the melody that you
from
considered
pure duration. Now, our inner duration,
something
is
the first to the last moment of our conscious life,
it and,
like this melody. Our attention may turn away from
we try to cut
consequently, from its indivisibility; but when
a flame-we
it, it is as if we suddenly passed a blade through
divide only the space
it
occupied.
When we
its fiery
mobility that
tion.
it
star,
subtends;
it is
this
witness a very
we
from the
mobility that
if
quite clear y
is
it exists,
indivisible
pure durais
vain
50
endlessly prolonged
we
How
do we
first
duration. If I
now open my
my
finger
is
tracing
preserved, where
all is
on the sheet of paper a line that is
unfolded,
juxtaposition and no longer succession; this is the
which is the record of the result of motion, and which will
be
its
symbol
as well.
Now,
is
am
dividing
tracing
it
out.
time
it is
is
perception
meas-
urable time.
We
before
when we
by the shooting
a continuity of
life
star.
Such a
constituted by
con-
the
51
And
still
which
of the unfolded.
because
it is
space.
time.
that each of us
tracing an uninterrupted motion in space from the beginning to the end of his conscious life. We could be walking day
and night. We would thus complete a journey coextensive
with our conscious life. Our entire history would then unfold
is
in a measurable time.
out
if it
prefers to divide
its
attention
and
it
if it
decides to divide
of
them
at will.
This granted,
it is
easy
to see that it is entirely in our interest to take for the "unfolding of time" a motion independent of that of our own body.
In truth, we find it already taken. Society has adopted it for us.
It is
But
if
we
accept
matters
little,
it,
if
we
is
because a
it,
and could
52
exteriorized our
we have
own
dura-
We
shall
we have
more
it
is
We
flows.
stated that
bank of a
two
to be
When we
murmur
in our
we
life's
deeps
choose.
We
that
one and the same time, our attention uniting and yet
dif-
We
therefore call
is our primary idea of simultaneitytwo external flows that occupy the same
becomes equally
theirs
when our
duration
is
thick; real
time has no
never
dura-
instants.
53
instant, as well
as of
simultaneous instants, as soon as we acquire the habit of converting time into space. For, if a duration has no instants,
a line terminates in points. 5 And, as soon as we make a line
correspond to a duration, to portions of this line there must
correspond "portions of duration" and to an extremity of the
an "extremity of duration"; such is the instant something that does not exist actually, but virtually. The instant
line,
instant;
the latter
to say, of space.
is
And
tion against the distance traveled, to make the trajectory coincide with the journey, and then to decompose the motion over
the line as we decompose the line itself; if it has suited us to
single out points
We
motionmere
this process;
we
to those
the
first
who have
is
and
that of spatial-
natural
is
well
known
thickness
size.
54
it is
tively. Its
native to the
recipe
is
Simultaneity of the instant and simultaneity of flow are therefore distinct but complementary things. Without simultaneity
we would not
consider these three terms interchangeable: continuity of our inner life, continuity of a voluntary
of flow,
motion which our mind indefinitely prolongs, and continuity of any motion through space. Real duration and spatialized time would not then be equivalent, and consequently
time in general would no longer exist for us; there would
be only each one's duration. But, on the other hand, this
time can be computed thanks only to the simultaneity of
simultaneities of these
moments with moments of our durawhich are created in the very act of pointing. Of these
two acts, the first is the essential one in the measurement of
time. But without the second, we would have no particular
measurement, we would end up with a figure t representing
tion
anything at
all,
of time. It
is there-
moments
We
first
adding a
55
one that depends upon a synchronizno doubt show how the readings
of two separated clocks C and C, synchronized and showing
ing of clocks.
shall
the
point of view.
we
third,
Now we
The
theory of relativity
is
to one's
correct in so stating;
that
word
simultaneity.
And
like-
if
its
moments
place." It
itself
in
until
is
if
is
now
easily
established between
common
sense
and
science
itself in
the theory of relativity as well.
idea
that the
find in it the
distinction between "small" and "large," "not far apart" and
"very far apart," has no scientific validity and that if we can
We
is
56
and
the event or
astronomy, no science
right to represent the
is
possible
if
clocks.
we deny
No
physics, no
piece
We therefore implicitly grant the possibility of reducing without distorting. We believe that size is not an absolute,
of paper.
among
sizes,
two "neighboring" clocks. And it would not concede the existence of an absolute, intuitively perceived simultaneity between
their readings. More Einsteinian than
Einstein, it would see
simultaneity here only if it had been
able to note identical
readings on two microbial clocks,
signals,
which
clocks.
Our
it
had substituted
absolute simultaneity
taneity because
it
would
synchronized by optical
our two "neighboring"
for
would be
its
relative simul-
their relations.
But
57
these
is
measurable.
and how
It is
As we
shall
beside this
of
its
many
units of
phenomenon.
All other
measurement over the object measmeasuring therefore bears upon the interval
interval escapes
it,
58
we imagine a
spectator-consciousness
tative duration
ac-
whose completely
admits of a more or a
if
quali-
without being
But the change would
less
compare the
flow
of
things with that of the inner life. In the view of science nothing would have changed. Let us go further. The speed of unfolding of this external, mathematical time might become
infinite; all
and future
might be found experienced at a stroke; in place of the unfolding there might be only the unfolded.
The motion representative of time would then have
become a line; to each of
the divisions of this line there
would correspond the same
portion of the unfolded universe
that corresponded to it before
in the unfolding universe;
nothing would have changed in the
eyes of science. Its formulae
and calculations would remain
what they were.
It
true
is
is
ot consciousness as
its
meaning
if
we
thought
an "epiphenomenon" added
of
to cerebral phenomena
wn.cn it would be merely
the result or expression. We cannot dwell here
upon this theory of
consciousness-as-epiphenomenon, which we tend more
and more to consider
arbitrary. We have
in several
W r n tably in thE first three discussed it in detail mSmoire
^'
^apters of Matiire el
Ty) 3nd in
difFerent e ^ys
L'Energie spiritud*
LT
ZZ7/
(Mmd-Energy).
,
made out
mT ^ ^
7
Part F Akan
'
ciou nel; a
ori^
(2)
takCn 1Uerall
y>
J Zfl P mt
ween' C0ntr
and
its
(1)
easily
" would be
spirituelle (Mind-Energ?)
1919) ' PP- 203- 2
23- In the present work, we take connature
it to us, without
theorizing about its
"V"* ^es
59
juxtapose what
become
infinite,
and we
shall
again go over from a universe that unfolds to an unfolded universe, provided that we have been accorded an extra
We
dimension.
shall then have all the endless, piled-up canvasses giving us all the successive images that make up the
entire history of the universe; we shall possess them all together; but we shall have had to pass from a flat to a volumed
universe. It is easy to understand, therefore, why the sole act
of attributing
intervals, it deals
'
Essa * sur
W M),
p. 83.
les
donnies immidiates de
la
60
may
in
as well
which
past, present,
and future
it,
in order to measure
it,
in-
to
by simultaneities which we
do not
they do not endure. They
to
time.
But
if
called time. It
is
up
is
there.
as space.
it.
From
it
It
Our
has
had passed to
closely bound up
inner duration
it
with
it
is
any other motion. The duration of this last motion was thus
measured; we have a definite number of simultaneities; this
will be the measure of time; it
will henceforth be time itself.
of motions,
61
real duration.
Some
will
wonder whether
it is
useful to return to
fact,
it,
and
corrected a mental
which
convert time into space for the purpose of measuring it informs us implicitly of its content. The measurement of a thing
is
nature,
its
and
precisely at this
than
we asked
of
it;
for
we cannot
already elapsed without treating all of time the same way. The
act by which we usher the past and present into space spreads
have
what
it
of the screen
vision of
what lay
the
it is
us,
we who
it is
are passing
actualizes a
is
the meta-
It is
in the spatial representation of time.
inevitable. Clear or confused, it was always the natural metaneed not
Physic of the mind speculating upon becoming.
physic
immanent
We
62
discuss
here,
it
and of
existence
is
replace
still less
why we
plained elsewhere
all things,
a continuity of creation.
to the
immediate;
accept
and
we
it
by another.
We
We
see in
have
ex-
stuff of our
we
present,
between what
line
is
drawing a demarcation
what
without converting
know
of
it
into space
be unfolded. But,
to
it
all
impossible mentally
we
to
we come back
Inevitably
'
must
arise
because
we have no way
of
^-iSS p
tivitv in t ~ ,
oTn
thaT
tu
from
l be
"
tP
^
\^JT
in
SvLd
Ufe
accord
call
'
38
zz
6 Televant Passage
occurs on page 54 of
f ll0WS:
an exhibition of the process
^
W
T*
B
L^T?7*
which
I
mtiaa
?!
mental
Tn
Conc
brid * e: c
f Nature ( c
r,(which
:
work
ta kes the theory off relae
the most
ever Jiia
?
f
t^l^: :z:^^hT
Whitph^H-;
0;)- Thls
h
arable
'
eXhibUs some as
re tm6A
P<** * *e
natUrC 1 believe tha
this doctrine I a*
<
th0U 6h he
'ti'ne' for the fundamental
-
the ?'passage of
nature."
"]
If
63
duration at in-
all
the rest
unfolded
as
universe
which
past that
is,
is
may be representable
We
a vision).
is
tion is considered real and even active can quite readily admit
Minkowski's and Einstein's space-time (in which, it must be
is no longer, as in our
examples above, a dimension completely similar to the others).
On the other hand, you will never derive the idea of a tem-
poral flow
case, to
the
ence,
Is it
and thereforenot
of appearances? Besides,
inner experience
if
sacrifices
nothing of experi-
how can
fore,
But
this is a
tell
by abstraction that
relations: a continual flow from
the truth,
it is
64
we
much trouble in determining the philosophmeaning of Einstein's theories, that is, their relation to
reality. Those whom the paradoxical
appearance of the theories inconvenienced have declared
Einstein's multiple times
there has been so
ical
that Minkowski's
and
Einstein's space-time
is
We
reality
itself,
much and
per-
forAis usk
6
folW^
eaf
defined
wl cLld
jUSt
<
,Vy
n general> l sa
wh *t gn we recognize it,
?
/, S
With
Ut
dassif
Selves within *
u
philosophers
are not in agreement,
and the problem
SoT^-r
school,
r,, ^nstantly
and idealism.
many
65
We
regards the concrete, all charged with quality, as the real; the
latter extracts
and science.
Everyone will surely agree that time is not conceived without a before and an after time is succession. Now we have just
shown that where there is not some memory, some consciousness, real or virtual, established or imagined, actually present
or ideally introduced, there cannot be a before and an after;
there is one or the other, not both; and both are needed to
wish to
even unique. If
sciousness
it is
undoubtedly intervenes
but the physicist has the right and the duty to substitute for
the datum of consciousness something measurable and numerable with which he will henceforward work while granting
"
of the original perception merely for greater convenience. He can do so because, with this original perception
the
name
out of
gg
juxtaposition
affords
it
is
convertible into
that line
conventionally giving
wise you are arbitrarily and
forewarned of thi. so as no
be
name of time. We must
happen
a serious error. What will
to lay ourselves open to
s
hypothes
the
figuring
and
you introduce into your reasoning
on pain of contrathing you called "time" cannot,
that the
diction, be perceived
imaginary,
if
it
they
became
becoming
per-
so that
so, they would change in scale,
what we do not perceive,
Why
not declare
"temporal
these latter unreal, at least as far as their being
to call
goes? I admit that the physicist still finds it convenient
them
times
we shall soon see why. But if we liken these
hurt
other, we fall into paradoxes that have certainly
time;
to the
it.
they have helped popularize
we
surprise if, in the present study,
be no
if
for
require the property of being perceived or perceptible
quesshall not be deciding the
everything held up as real.
We
We are
CHAPTER FOUR
of
Times
theory of relativity:
umversal time;
Minkowski
schema,
projectile;
of the passenger in a
paradoxes
source of all the
the confusion that is the
sil
Let us then
everything
Here
is
finally
we
said
oin
turn to Einstein's time, g
when
at
first
son-Morley apparatus.
in
we
assumed a
its orbit,
and,
The experiment
is
on
^
^ f;
it,
Vf
the Mitfu*
' "
conseo^ently
year
begun again at different times of the
of^gh
Always the bea
for different speeds of our planet.
What
Such is the fact.
behaves as if the earth were motionless.
planet? Is the*Mhe
of speeds of our
cour e
through spac ? Of
earth, absolutely speaking, in motion
and
not; we are at the standpoint of relativity
*
des cribed
orbit
the
absolute motion. When you speak of
point
arbitrarily chosen
earth, you are placing yourself at an
18
ButTrlrwhT'speak
br
sun (o a
of view", that rf the inhabitants of the
system of re ere
habitable). It suits you to adopt this
J>
^
he^mrrr
*hy should the beam of light shot against
I all tn
apparatus take your whim into account? ^
eartn a
the
occurs is the reciprocal displacement of
post
other observation
we can take the
the earth, or any
L,
68
our system of reference. Let us choose the earth. The probneed no longer wonder
lem disappears with regard to it.
as
We
why
is
It is true that, in
our
is
motionless.
eyes, the
regard to the inhabitants of the sun. I say "in our eyes," because, to a solar physicist, the question will no longer concern
the sun;
it is
now
not
is
is
of
still
his.
ought
fore
no more absolute
ciprocal displacement
that gives
while
this
it
rest:
is
convention
what applied
the
system,
an expansion of time
where a clock in S'
over,
69
lengths;
is
becomes
yjl-^- More-
a f number of seconds,
ticks off
ft
of them. Finally,
when
the
lieves;
really
when
these clocks
show him a
of his
c
"
'
clock's
seconds of mine."
S'.
jj;
f
p
$
"jZ;
'
j:
"
t
'(]
)-
with
i:
70
cate-relations that
we
call the
laws of nature.
That
difference
When we
take
moreover, the very condition of this identity.
walking around it,
different photographs of an object while
invariability of
the variability of the details only expresses the
is,
their interrelations, in
object.
Here we
are, then,
times,
But
according to whether they are ruled stationary or moving.
of
theory
the
before
the
definitive form of
this time we are
be
to
are
must ask ourselves how these words
relativity.
We
understood.
consider the plurality of times, going back to our
two systems S and S'. The physicist situated in S adopts his
system as the system of reference. There they are, then, S at
Let us
rest
and
first
S' in
To
attain
physicist begins the Michelson-Morley experiment.
presently
our
limited aim it will be useful to cut the experi-
ment
in two
and
express ourselves.
to
We shall
therefore
assume
we may
if
it,
so
is
return
the physicist's
consciousness has lived a certain duramotion of the clock hands
is a flow contemporaneous
with this inner flow and
serves to measure it.
this point
there is no doubt
or difficulty.
time lived and recorded by
a consciousness is real
by definition
tion; the
On
hin^u
system
C nSidCr a
TT
1^
'
Moriev experiment
Morley
bdng USCd l
ThCre he
is '
or, rather,
he
hi *
in
S'.
He
*y stem
rules
aS
it.
On
71
is,
is
The
time that he
lives,
of course.
The
his
times?
We
we
We
But what then are the multiple times with their unequal
speeds of flow which
the theory of relativity finds in different
systems in accordance
with the speed with which these systems
are propelled?
tem
S', we see
that this time is, indeed, slower than the time
recorded by Peter
in his own system. The former time is there-
72
is not lived by
by Peter. But we know that it
Peter or Paul.
by
either
Paul either. It is therefore not lived
others. But this is
With even more reason is it not lived by
attributed by Peter to Paul s
not saying enough. If the time
anyone, is it at least
system is not lived by Peter, Paul, or
lived by Paul, or,
conceived by Peter as lived or able to be
by somegenerally
more generally, by someone, or still more
kind.
the
of
thing? Looking closely, we see that it is nothing
name
To be sure, Peter pastes a label on this time with Paul's
own
on
it;
but
if
would
also take
its
its
He
is
emptying
outer envelope
(it
alone, in fact,
figures
by which
to
make
these figures
fit
of
is
own
sys-
=== s0
as
of
into a mathematical representation
then,
if
73
am
an
artist
and
have
to portray
two
John and
subjects,
other, two or
James, the one standing next to me and the
life-size and
three hundred yards away. I draw the former
will
ing next to James and also desirous of painting the two
in
and
James
small
very
proceed inversely; he will show John
we
because
But
shall, moreover, both be right.
normal
size.
are
We
justified in
concluding that
stature,
John and James have neither normal nor a midget's
course
or that they have both at once, or anything we like? Of
in
meaning
exact
an
have
not. Shape and size are terms that
the
of
perceive
we
connection with a posed model; it is what
next
height and width of an individual when we are standing
with
body
to him, when we can touch him and measure his
like and ina ruler. Being next to John, measuring him if I
real
tending to paint him in his normal height, I grant him his
size;
permitted to say
my
am simply express-
touching him-even,
if
we may be
the degree
the degree of this impossibility;
so,
is
exactly
directly
mobilize by conceiving as a system of reference, I
measthis
is
it
measure a time that is mine and my system's;
representation
urement which I inscribe in my mathematical
imof the universe for all that concerns my system. But in
have
mobilizing my system, I have set the others moving, and I
set
them moving
speeds.
variously.
different
are
The greater their speed, the further removed they
from
my
their
speed from
immobility. It
my
is
distance of
this greater or lesser
mathewhich I express in
my
zero speed
more or
less
slowed times,
me which
all,
I assign
them
than mine,
of course, slower
James and
or lesser distance between
less. The
by shrinking his figure more or
not preclude
of times which I thus obtain does
same
presupposes it, in the
I express
multiplicity
when
it
74
way
less
up
to the time
The
more
closely.
We
nothing else.
been fired from a cannon attached to the
Let Peter be the one who remains beside the
is
projectile has
motionless earth.
advanced,
we
said, that
The
S.
The
passenger
and
We
flies
We
we
said about Peter: since motion is reciprocal, the two people are
interchangeable. If, earlier, looking into Peter's consciousness, we
witnessed a certain flow, we
are going to find exactly the same
flow in Paul's consciousness.
we said that the first flow lasted two hundred years, the
other flow will also last two
hundred years. Peter and Paul,
earth and projectile, will have
gone through the same duraIf
tion
and aged
equally.
Where then
75
hunderd years
would have to race past on the earth? Has our analysis vaporized them? Not at all! We are going to rediscover them. But
we shall no longer be able to lodge anything in them, neither
beings nor things; and we shall have to look for another way
not to grow old.
Our two people have actually seemed to be living two hundred years at one and the same time because we placed ourselves at both their viewpoints. This was necessary in order to
interpret philosophically Einstein's thesis, which is that of the
gently to idle by for the projectile while two
philosopher
who
this
thing which
ceptible
not for a
procedure
moment
mean
is
its
proper to the
wholeness and
them by
instant,
turns,
up anything
is obliged to
unreservedly to Einstein's theory. He unquestionably begins by
aligning himself with it. He affirms reciprocity. He grants that
view.
we have the choice
Peter's and Paul's point of
between
he chooses one of the two,
for
he
cannot refer events in the universe simultaneouly to two systems with different axes. If he puts himself mentally in Peter's
he will record for Peter the time that Peter records for
himself, namely, the time really lived by Peter, and for Paul
the time that Peter attributes to him. If he is with Paul, he
himself,
will record for
Paul the time that Paul records for
Place,
^he
and uni-
76
Suppose he chooses
Peter. It
is
two
years,
years,
that he
phenomena
dowed with
sv^T
system do^
who
is en-
to Peter.
it*
TT^
rnoT
1 n
And
.
tern's
rf,
ThuJZl S
Wntfen
dow? m
the
1S
^r
Peter. If the
C hC 10 rCCk0n
in the
maintained for
Paul a, ,hJ
consequent
f r
rCaIIy
T ^ **
el^
C troma
phenomena,
along in the sys-
15
Zt 72
Tr
12 e
r P ft
arC
,
ZLZ
'
put
Same
*
t,
C,P
norr^*L7f
and Paul ls
U
u
only the
i
at
ri
? \
CC
c
does
Why
*' rdl" iOM
be recorded by Peter for
"f
as Peter
'
referent. Since
this
is
is
The
Peter's.
77
But
it
is
at-
We
always
to the
are imaginary.
actually
it as follows: the
hypothesis of reciprocity can be expressed
mathematically only in that of nonreciprocity, because to ex-
press
systems of axes
is
The
faculty
of
tem.
its
mathematical
That
is
why
unilateral
and
sys-
matically equivalent, at least in the case at hand. The difference exists here only for the philosopher; it shows up only
we
ask ourselves
what
reality, that
is,
what perceived or
older, that of
the privileged
to
or Paul
is
identical;
What
relativity.
is
at least
78
much
as
common
and the
reciprocity;
reciprocity once
he has done
homage by
it
of the theory
of
system of reference,
He
come
will
to realize
tW
1 Tl1 ^
0
Zo
f'V
TZt Y ?
,
e.
ae,
P^^
le ry
v P IrT
m2l p
n
do! and
2^volume
a projectile,
^ on earth wa
Bol
T^
tMOrie
la
^ U gravitation
forth by Langevin
(Paris: Gauthier-Villan
here
eall
"
y CaS6 '
R!!,
"^
S 1Uti0n
WU
given above completely removes the paraPr blem See the Appendixes at the end of
-
PPOrt Unity t0
u
My
that
^^ ot^TJto^
znZ^L^ZT ^
^
T
^^
Td
Coliesfof
and
* =t
'
/
SXanSit'y
U
kd
r U
C ngreSS f
S na in 1911 " widely known and
18 f Und in
J ean Becquercl'. important work, Le
,?
ly
JtZl wT"C
SanZ T
1 sea
ndred yCarS
.1
drCW
the works
hiS
?
"
CongrTof Boll
tZ Trespace
temPS
XIX (19H), 455-466
coZ:z X*T!
"
ReVU de Meta h si ue
P y 1
consider
is
ys
Y
selve
to
spedai
gene^y"
^^"
^
^
Z
'
et de Morale,
*
oTtT^
reference, to proceed as for
ge0metry Whh Ut
^ate axes, to
cons"n7ekmen "ri
tend not to close
any
struction of an
to the
^
m* *
^ ^
'
e,ementS
*
themselves subordinate
to
o the choice of a
system of reference.
we
we
are
Wnkh
79
be
made
is
an important distinction
here.
to
theoretician of relativity
kept invariable
should he adopt a
cause his
an equivalence
of
among
of notation assure
him
verse taken
nght
(ill
point of view
reference. 5
To
first.
The
an pinion,
for
it
is
only
sciousnesses like
his,
spread across the face of the earth, poseven at every point in the universe. It therefore makes
no difference
that Paul, John, and James are in motion with
sibly
respect to
as
5
In his
Z'""
ple
"don
he does. This
charming
little
Can
relativity
f Relativity
un 'verse.
We
would not go
artamly be
necessary to orient
ed t0 ive
S
that far;
(The General
1920]). H.
Ltd.,
idealist conception of
this physics in
Co.,
an
it
idealist direction
would
if
we
80
point of view; they too are referrers. But the other men will
be no more than referents; for the physicist, they can now
be nothing but empty puppets. If Peter were to concede them
feeling, he would at once lose
his own; they would have
changed from referents to referrers; they would
be physicists
moment when
physicist imagines,
nnf^rU
relativit
relativity,
T?'
,V
V **' "
Tc
^^
h
strictly
f
ther than that
interchangeable; they occupy
thesis
even
if
with respect
to
some
81
privileged system;
and
it is
and that the two systems therefore have the same real
it is, then, even very difficult
to define this identity of
tion
time;
have become
indistinguishable, quite like their measurable
features: the
two systems steadfastly remain what they were
at the
moment we
duplicates of one an-
>jj'
iJ
j;
lo nger
*eir
fate.
uiat the
But we
moment
after,
when we
left
them
3*
~\Z
^C
J%
i.
propounded them,
other,
to
two observers in S and S' live exactly the same durathe two systems thus have the same real time.
tl0n ard
that
system
Ilve
the
will
S';
it
it
the observer we attach to
obbe
will
as in S. At most, it
b i
82
same
as that of S'
and
S,
and
S" and S
is
not the
when we
case, we are
that, consequently,
we
We
judging
it
to
go that
far.
usually
We mean
that
we
see
stead of confining us to
the vague and merely plausible assertion with which we are
generally content.
conclude that,
as far as the universality
of real time is concerned, the theory
ot relativity does not
shake the accepted belief and tends
rather to strengthen it.
We
Let us
now
simultaneities.
But
We
83
the simultaneity
us
its
world,
it is
a simultaneity
r the
He makes
simultaneity.*
6I t
lacking in precision,
is
e psychological
that
itiil^ 31
18
cession"
establishment of a simultaneity,
mUSt
Sti11
'
over
ely a
PP roxi mate simultaneity, the
^
SUffiCIent
else it
'
" n
'
me
events
teru pted to raise the objection that, in prinsimultaneit y at a distance, however small the distance,
3 s y nchroni zing
of clocks. One may reason as follows: "Let us
y Ur intuitive simultaneity
A and B. Either
with'
caused by
to intuitive simul-
EVerythin S rests
-'
cm,
it is
this point
may f course be
ciDl
it is'
to
^rough laboratory
experiments,
am ng which u
y
aware "f
synch r
* Perect simulta neity, but in that case, you are, without being
nly ascertainin a " identity of readings between the two
mzed microbial
clocks of which you spoke earlier, clocks that exist
virtua
y 31 A 3nd B If
you alle Se that y our microbes posted at A and B
have* eC
'
We
Wo 1
Urse t0 'intuitive'
simultaneity for the reading of their apparatus,
repeat our ar
gument by this time imagining submicrobes and
1
l0CkS ln short
the im P recision alwa y s diminishing, we
Would fi rf
the final reckoning, a system of learned simultaneities in* in
de Pe
ent
f intuitive simultaneities; the latter are only confused, apProxi
ate
Provisory visions of the former." But this argument runs
'"bmi"
C
'
'
'
84
moment
that of
its
return.
Now,
it
is
moment
of
its arrival,
upon a synchronizing
of
exchanged between two clocks at a distance from one another make the same trip leaving as returning. Were he to place himself at any point equidistant from the
two clocks, and were his eyes sharp enough, he would grasp
the readings of the two optically synchronized clocks in one
instantaneous intuition and would at that moment see them
To him
which
is
why he
learned simultaneity
there-
calls it simultaneity.
By
we immobilize
it.
Clocks
is
never
to
assume anything more than has actually been found out and actually
ascertained by measurement. It would be to postulate that anterior to our
human knowledge, which is in a perpetual becoming, there is a knowledge
in full, given in eternity in one piece
would be limited
those of relativity.
one
8 We showed further back
(pp. 55-56) and have just repeated that
cannot make a radical distinction between
simuland
local simultaneity
it
taneity at a distance. There is always
a distance which, however small
may be
scopical clocks.
enormous
microto a microbe-builder of
signals
85
made
the same
motionless. If
the
enough
eyes, to
on
Let us then consider system S'. It is clear that the same will
happen for an observer inside this system. This observer takes
s ' as his
system of reference. He therefore renders it motionless.
The
clocks
of his
dicate
optical signals by
then
make
means
of
same trip
clocks show the same time, the simultaneity they
could be lived and become intuitive.
the
in-
$
1
^
;!
i<
Thus, there
taneity
^
.1-1
two systems.
j
B ut
let
us
now
see
how one
S> judges
mtion
tw een
as
f course
in the special case of
.
in the
same
Plane
that he
is
tl0n of
succession,
a grees
1
t
;
its
re mark
CJ
in
and
defini-
to call successive
the
He
concordant
have been synchronized under the conditions that he
i.
^
86
mean
chronized that
two definitions
is
this is precisely
The answer
why
is
whether
But
to see that
To
that
is
verify this,
we have
that
is
S'.
they
it is easy
purely conventional,
not.
we
are going to
come back
We
shall
to a hypothesis
S' is a
assume that
reciprocal
duplicate of S
is
breakup of simultaneity into sucand into a succession more or less slow as the movement of the system becomes more or less rapid, depends only
upon the system's speed, and not at all upon its content. This
cession,
granted,
sympathizing or telepathically
communicating with the two
consciousnesses in S and S'} It is
obvious that there is no objection to this. Indeed, we can
imagine, as just before, that the
duplicate S' has broken away from
S at a certain moment and
is then obliged to return
to it.
have demonstrated that
the observers inside the two
systems will have lived the same
We
total
We
number
this
87
duration in both
is
moment
duration
corresponding
slice.
S' will
Situated like
M,
be the extremity
inside an interval
found,
really be simultaneous
can therefore continue to imagine, as in the past,
We
and absolute
in-
simultaneities
of events.
But,
stood that
*e one
only the physicist in system S exists as a physicistin system S' is merely imagined. Imagined by whom?
Necessarily by the
physicist in system S. The moment we make
s our
system of reference, it is from there, and from there only,
wat a
scientific
observers in
would be
to sanction
systems of
reference
ave been
ne of
e
status of
men
a hHcheated
in the
least
shall
m mentarily
same
88
menreal,
of the physicist in
S.
How will
He
will
theoretical
mark simultaneities where he perceives sucwork out in such a way that the real ex-
periment
give the
server
mS
same
clocks.
S,
iived simultaneities,
not
we
That
does not
from harboring
real,
ot simultaneity
and
succession.
The
ot toeir materiality,
first is
It,?
'
>
arent incurvation
from simultaneity
?
^simultaneity and the
succession belong
an
the second
image
them ^f* f
mirr
*e more, the
into
ces-L xk
to
of
sue-
first
.'a
thingS:
'
in
the
e speed
s^edtattributed
K "?
to
rS that distort
to the system.
The
observer's
greater
incurvation of
is,
is
89
required for
be the
in the absolute, as it
were,
is
located
outside,
whose
relation to the
I
am
note
both.
Now,
is
and returns between points O' and A' makes the same
trip out and back;
if I then work the synchronizing of the two
clocks, respectively
located at O' and A', under the assumption
that the outward and
return passages P and > are equal, I am
m the right. Thus I have two ways of recognizing simultaneity
at this point:
the one, intuitive, by encompassing what occurs
at 0' and
A' in an act of instantaneous vision; the other,
derivative, by consulting
the clocks; and the two results agree.
I now
assume that, nothing of what is happening in system S
leaves
having changed, P
no longer seems equal to A. This is what
happens when an observer outside S' perceives this system in
motion.
Are
all
temporal
going to become
by convention,
if
we
agree to
tem into a
language such as makes
gual
'
to Q.
This
a re] ativist
Perceived
is
what we do
physicist, after
equal to
of systems
which
S'
see the
at the
Recessive,
ut
.
U must e
added,
if I
integrity of physical
XCePti n
in the
" made of course of those relatin S to events located
sale
e plane
perpendicular to the direction of motion.
'
'
90
If
you define
reality
conventional reality.
adjacent
S' is
optically
clocks) coincided
is
simultaneity, because
vertible into intuitive
it
was
its token, because it was consimultaneity, that you called it simultaneity. Now, S> being
ruled in motion, the two kinds of simultaneity no longer coincide;
all that was innate simultaneity
remains innate simultaneity;
but the faster the system's speed,
the greater grows the
inequality between the P and
journeys,
91
it
condemned to a tete-a-tete with reality, acYou would give another name to the
learned simultaneity, at least when you talk philosophy. You
would invent another word for it, any word, but you would
not call it simultaneity, for it owes this name solely to the
poor philosopher,
quainted with
fact that it
it
alone?
simultaneity in S'
denotes this presence. You yourself, morekeep admitting the legitimacy of this original meaning
the word, at the same time as its primacy; for when S' seems
taneity, you keep appealing to the other, the real one, through
your establishment of a "simultaneity" between a clock read-
ing
vastly
you hold on to the word. Indeed, through this word common to both cases and working magically (does not science
of
act upon us
like ancient magic?) you perform a transfusion
to
reality from one
innate
from
simultaneity to the other,
less,
'earned simultaneity.
materiality
and
The
the
of the word, you slip all
second.
solidity of the first meaning into the
meaning
way
system anew.
Fr om the
point of view
relativity,
th e
there
is
unilateral
which we called that of
clock-time,
an absolute time and an absolute
92
We
S',
which continue
to
be
syn-
they have
theory, there
everything
simultaneity there. But what are also in question are the successions and simultaneities defined solely by the appearance
S' are
We
passages
P and
>
appearing unequal
when
when
the observer
is
out-
them broken up
We
We
shall easily
viewpoints
is
to
commit
is
of such a
able to
this error,
Not
93
drawn
just
philosopher, who will picture time altogether differaccording as he takes one position or the other. The
for the
ently
are
devoted to the
relativity of simultaneity
instructive in
this regard.
We
Relativity
demonstration:
>-
>-
M'
TRAIN
TRACK
Figure 3
Suppose that an extremely long train moves on its track at a
speed v, as shown in Figure 3. The passengers on this train will
choose to consider
they will refer
it as their system of reference;
poini on
every event to
the train. Every event that takes place at a
t
The
the track
also takes place at
definition of simultaneity
train.
a particular point on the
to the tram as
respect
with
same
the
is
w h respect to the track. But the following question then arises:
B) siare two
events (for example two flashes of lightening A and
respect
multaneous with respect to the track also simultaneous with
t0 the
answer is in the
train?
shall straightaway show that the
A and B are
negative. In saying
that the two flashes of lightning
We
we mean:
the
J
^
hghtriing
the track) du
occur (an instant recorded with respect to
of the train.
v
" then moves to the
speed
right on the diagram at
94
We
to catch
many
misunderstandings.
train's
AT-
TRAIN
-TRACK
I
M^r
-<-
Figure 4
direction by arrows.
oi the track by other
We
tram and
sure, Hinstem does
not forget
drawing arrows along the
this either
track;
losopher
nature of
But the
time~ that
the track
phi-
the
the
the
ivouviere (P ans:
Gauthier-Villars, 1921),
pp. 21, 22.
95
observer in both
scious
each.
and
now add
letters,
letters
coincide,
independence. Finally, we
for the
line A'B'
is
shall
which
more generally
A and
with respect to
B. So
much
The
points
Figure.
Let us
ground than
the waves advance independently of the motion
flashes of lightning.
no more belong
to the
of their source.
M'
as at
and
if it is
it is
at
M.
If
is
the middle of
at
that we perceive a simultaneity on
M', the middle of B'A', that we shall perceive
AB,
the track,
this
same
Accordingly,
if
we
lived,
really cling to the perceived, to the
what
is
is
simultaneity
selves
train at one
we have refused
fact, looking
to turn physicist. We were not, in
latter
fc* a
mathematical representation of the universe; the
and conmust naturally be
conceived from one point of view
asking
form to the
were
We
laws
mathematical perspective.
of
ourselves
On
what
is real,
that
is,
recorded.
observed and actually
himthere is what he
what he
is-and then there is
transpose,
records of
another's possible recording; this he will
self
records-this,
he notes
as it
96
lead around to his point of view, since every physical representation of the universe has to be referred to a system of reference. But his notation of it will then
no longer correspond to
The
The
of the universe in
which everything
will
be similarly
and the
trans-
objects bound
it.
physicist cannot be at
point M' also. He can only say that he
ideally sees the recording
at M> of a nonsimultaneity between
tne t wo flashes His
mathematical
the observer at
Y
r7,
M,
'
a notation which
lf
prefr' there
is,
is
"
with
ro 7
Id
he
from
on the
wn
Ae n
e
imagined
physi-
H
7^' *
r o
v w
the
d ' wh
What
atL
1S
r:
ly
..
'
k
-
*
He Jouid moreov
-
97
ciprocity of
and
train,
is
philosophical
it in physicist's language,
And
we have
for a
itself,
moment adopted
we
this hy-
are
then speak of a multiplicity of times that
is
them
of
one
if
on the same plane, all real, therefore,
pothesis.
all
real.
We
The
is
is
real,
because
matical, symbolic."
is
W,
N',
F in
system
Figure 5
S' so
arranged on
98
that N' is the same distance I from AT and P'. Let us imagine a
person at N'. At each of the three points M', N', P' a series of
events unfolds constituting the history of the place. At
a parti-
N' and
P',
rest will
and
P',
We
and theclock
being
at P' lag
seconds of system
the system,
it is
the past at
S'.
at N',
M' and
lag
pendicular,
tions,
of place
let
"l7"l
?a
J*
events E>
an
and
K We
and F'
of place
AT and
in the future
This line,
the
number
(the
we
see,
as the
S').
speed of
system increases.
99
at first glance,
the idea
if
him from F, he
exists there,
since
moment
it is
is
"To be
ness.
at
a distance
greater
sure,"
is
we
tell
e imagined,
and that
is
enough
fact; there is
no speed
^ of the fu-
be
ture of place
rightfully to pre-exist in its present, to
preformed there and consequently predetermined." We shall
of
a mirage. Unfortunately, the theoreticians
the
on
have,
have done nothing to dispel it. They
contrary, seen fit
not yet
to intensify it. The moment has
see that
this is
relativity
cme
for
r "k
we
reading
K we
at first
we
just drew.
that,
v f
system S' increases with respect to the system of reference
s But
know, in fact, that
it win not
diverge indefinitely.
the dis***** is no
speed greater than that of light. Hence,
We
to
I Let us
^, cannot exceed
grant
100
We
is
AF
in
an elapsed interval ^
any-
The
plicitly
theoreticians of relativity,
admitted that,
if
it
the observer at
never
N'
will
make
P LangCVin
'
J.
"
'
Hermann,
if
this
is
not a mirage.
We
101
position
of relativity,
in a
if
we make
The
S' a
double of
5,
unfolding the
is
in system S a line
MNP
from which
siders
is.
With
this
everyone agrees.
taneity
two ob-
the simul-
and N',
with what
For the
to the
is
is
is
motionless by hypothesis.
the
To
we
shall
assume in
all
N
N
same event
tWl n
a gain
instantly, a
102
reciprocity;
ics,
that
it is
N,
at
identically perceived
gift of
would perceive
at
and
P.
Let us add that the clocks of S' run for the observer at N'
absolutely like those of S for the observer
at N, since S and S'
are in a state of reciprocal
interchangeable.
When
M, N,
are
P, and
S turned
whose clocks we had optically
synchronized, as we always do
under the assumption of the system's
simultaneity
immobility,
something absolute; I mean that
its clocks having been synchronized by observers necessarily
in the system, on the assumption that optical signals
and P
between two points
make the same trip out and back,
becomes
this assumption
is
definitive, is
system of reference
as
103
and
definitively immobilized.
is
in motion;
in
N' and P' (which the observer in S' supposed and still sup
be making the same trip out and back) now cover
at
poses to
in the
in
system
S',
down
as successive,
f-by
point
AT and
occurring at these
points,
for
him
own
in his
system
surreptitiously
sciousness;
Sln ce it
is
observed,
the observer in
who
Physicist-builder of all science. Consequently, I repeat, as
v increases,
our physicist notes as pushed back ever farther
of
future
place M', advanced ever more into the
it be
always identical event which, whether
an obpart of the really CO nscious present of
M'
or
F,
server at
N',
toerefore,
^easing
is
the
speeds of the system, into the real present of
observer at
N'.
2
e
his
of place
F, which
is
part
of
104
his
written measurements of
physics
(at
least
in
is
we cannot
We
stuff
his content,
of
at
that,
himself
point,
and
whom
it is
the physicist at
himself
whom
he
N needs
reassures.
to reassure at this
He
has to prove
to himself that in
locating
it
in
obliges
that
is
him
105
an event
is, more-
over, a
longs to the
own
and which
observer's present,
be-
place
of
F, but since
time -, since I
I leave it
do not push
it
to
P'
at
things makes him say, "In vain does the observer at N' possess
something of the future of place P' in his present; he cannot
study
it,
influence
it,
or use
it
physical or
but great
this statement;
the philosopher
is
no
not, at
who
M' and
whenever
There
is,
we
at
S'.
up
noted
down by
*e
past of M',
cording to
more or
less
less
back in
is
ac-
always, at
a nd
106
from it and instantly attained its speed. Peter and Paul have
been merged at point N; here they are, at the same instant,
separate at
still
coincide. Let us
now
imagine
what
inhabitant of place
having seen
it
P what was
at P>.
the future of
the present of place P.
f^her
P but
,
ever
at a distance,
him
of
val of time"
makes us
when
see
it
double.
More
a pressure
on the
eyeball
lrlZV
precisely, the
y
greater the speed of
system y. the duplica| of
what
is
cc-
duplicate of
future;
thus finds
what
is
itself
mental
duplicate of S,
speed; for,
past, the
an effect of
107
torsion.
it is
that
is
are affected,
speed,
any system
the
have
S' at rest
have
it
We
move.
it,
then
at
of
appears
between the three points M', N',
its exof
N' by a certain angle, so that one
encroaches
behind in the past while the other
simultaneity
turned about
tremities lags
We
shall presently
show how
it is
Figure 6
its
108
^^ ^w^^^
AB
ZZ^lr ^
^ ^
Ae
iWh
'
recinrn,
B th s y stems
an actual state of
heing interch angeable,
since S' is a dupli-
"
<
cl77t rTl
b erver's vision
S
bv hvnn/h
Se
eau a
Ire
lute m
vT\
or
declare
Tble
Hen J
m2
h thC
u
the
Z2
we
is
on
therefore identical,
of A'B'. How can
'
T*
y?
terms
T^
>
AB
'
kngths
and A B
rbsoluteI ABEquality
and
of
bserver
c mpared
When We assume
'
takes
interchange-
down
or simul-
109
taneity actually
been adopted
must be expressed
other systems
in
perspectively, according
to the
size-scale,
of this distinction. If
we have
where
a living
step
To sum
it all
up,
we have only
size.
attached to the earth, repeatedly performing the Michelson-Morley experiment. But we shall now
imagine him preoccupied above all with what we are calling
pothesis of the physicist
real,
that
is,
perceive.
He
re-
bolic
which
translation of the new
idea into the old language with
he will furnish
and
keep
can
us will make clearer what we
what
accepted.
change of what we had previously
Accordingly, revolving his apparatus 90, at no time of the
we ought
year does
he observe any
speed of light
ev ery
There
e:
P
what?
w ay
J
1
is
fact is
bands.
shift in the interference
How
will declare.
fully explained," our physicist
no difficulty, a problem
of an earth in motion. But
is
Where
is
The
same for
thus the same in every direction, the
"The
s
to
is
in
it
we
raised only because
to
respect
motion with
approaches and moves
m then
HO
to refer
to itself, as it were.
There
problem disappears.
Nevertheless, I have one misgiving.
it is,
all the
somewhere come
to
so;
of
me
as
would
the
inhabitants of an absolutely
motionless system. He will tell
me, as they would have, that I am
deceiving myself, that I have
no right to explain the equal speed
of propagation of light in
every direction by my immobility,
for I am in motion.
But here then is how I reassure
myself. No extraterrestrial
onlooker will ever reproach
me, ever catch me in error, because, examining my units
of measurement for space and time,
observing the moving of
my instruments and the rate of my
clocks, he will note the
following: (1) I undoubtedly attribute
the same speed to light as
he does, even though I am moving
in the direction of the
beam of light and he is motionless;
but
this is because my
units of time then appear to him longer
than his own;
(2) I believe I have established that light is
propagated with the same
speed in every direction; but this is
because I am measuring
distances with a ruler whose length he
sees changing with
its orientation;
(3) do I always find that
ignt has the same
speed, even if I happen
to measure it between two points of its
journey on the earth by noting on
2? T
^^
me
aVCrSe
ever ,1
constant speed. Hence,
I
my
am covered.
critic will find
conclusions sound although,
from his point of view, which
My
now alone
legitimate,
he will reproach
most,
111
established the
direc-
other as to give
a result like
not as I
to
have mistaken
my
since
result
is
admitted to be
correct. Besides,
if
the ob-
In
still
as that of
Michelson
relativity
thus causing
a special
kind of diplopia; the image first perexperiment first begun, doubles into a phantasmal
incurimage where duration
slows down, where simultaneity
ceived, the
ves
into succession,
cha nge.
ls
and where,
This diplopia,
to reassure
artificially
lengths
for that very reason,
in
running (which he really would be running
ce "ain
the
of
center
cases) in arbitrarily making himself the
thinks
he
is
referworld, in
referring everything to his personal system of
ee, and in nevertheless building up a physics that he would
j*e to be universally
now on; he
valid. He can rest easy from
no matknows that the
laws he formulates will be confirmed,
phanter from
the
For
what vantage point we view nature.
him
image of his experiment, an image which shows
device
this experiment would look, if the experimental
tasmal
h w
we
new
motion, to a motionless observer provided with a
distorsystem of
reference, is no doubt a temporal and spatial
in
112
tion of the
among
we
call the
But our
laws of nature.
this,
as
many
pear to
him
as building
up
ap-
will
It
relativity,
physicists
by furnishing the
real
means
We
just as easily
to
phantasmal
We
physicists,
we must
take
systems,
in
118
a greater intelligibility.
it
and
CHAPTER FIVE
The Light-Figures
"Light-lines"
and rigid-lines-the
space-figure;
how
and the
"light-figure"
triple
ettect
of the d 1S sociation;
(1) transverse effect or "expansion of time,"
(2) longitudinal effect or "breakup
of simultaneity,"
(3) transverse-longitudinal effect or
U>rentz contraction"; true
nature of Einstein's time;
transition to the theory
of space-time
to his per-
We
f^
ctminn
all
^1
PhyS1 " St
dos S
^on
ZTaf^i
Teach 1
Cm
y> ^t
Elated
the different
T T ^ *** *~
?
*
2Lsssr
C
2
o^e ^ ^
rdati0nS
s^eT
InTvi wT LeT
the
am ng them and
of
US
; re r^
genesis
ee
e
thus to manifest
"
We fhalT
as to maintain, inside
*****
de monstrate, in more
concrete fashion,
the inrr^c
adiudeed
to
at every
e surface
mner
d the u -
the speed is
thU$ Catch as if n
'
Umes in the theory of relativity.
relations
^^-r
THE LIGHT-FIGURES
motionless system
S.
Up n ^enwehres. The
experiment therefore
Sh
Let
11
the
fitted
return
offers
ex
equal
'
t0 a
'
him^h
0 and
Peedv
Wh
'
VoTt^lf
s
115
V-
^
WU1
bC
As long
"
>
it
moving
at
it?
WC Ca " consider
indifferently, as
singIe ri id " lines at ri ht an les or b
* d ubi
s
S
Y
e r 5 inCS again at right
an
les; the light-figure
'
S
^rigid-figure
01 " 0
As soon as we imagine it in motion,
tWo
figure S j
dlSSOciate
The rigid-figure stays composed of
*
lines
at
3ngleS But the n ht - fi ure
formed
eithe
"h*
y
broken
The d U m
light l
ne
4n& 04 bPr i
"
becomes
dis-
The
along OB becomes a
double light-line stretched
^^nereauvr*
y "es on
<
the
P ortion
clarity,
we
are
116
detaching
sider
in the figure). So
it
much
Let us
con-
its size.
as it
lines, originally
equal, I picture
my
upon
The
tually
we would have said: "It is the rigid spaceits conditions upon the light-figure."
theory of relativity, as
ac-
of
rules.
two
what speed
lines
is
apprises us, in
O^O',, O x A x O\ remain
equal,
is
no
effect,
matter
therefore the
P^
"ytem, but
mLTT/
7 experiment
Michelson-Morley
undertaken
another
his
in
to
system,
this
THE LIGHT-FIGURES
experiment started elsewhere;
performed,
actually
system,
and, therefore, in a
in all this, it is
that,
as yet
it is
117
point, let
shall
separately
duced by motion:
(1) the transverse effect,
as
we
shall see, to
light-figure.
We
which corresponds,
what
ening of time;
for it, is a
(2) the longitudinal effect, which,
breaking up of simultaneity;
the twofold transverse-longi(3)
tudinal effect,
which
is
1-
v increasing
rates
making
practice
all
retreat
telescope.
Or
Jointed sticks
lined
*e
' lke
sticks
X's
with wooden
and the
come
number
is
of our light-figures
one; their multi-
them by
expresses the possible visions had of
merely
ply
Servers
whom
to
JP
ranks.
together and the soldiers close
e eds,
of
spread
soldiers.
made
When we
that
is,
em have; and
different
they seem to be traveling at
relative to
the visions that observers moving
all
to speak,
these virtual visions telescope, so
lnt0
J.
lme
0 i^O' lf
OB
and could
118
return to
with
OB
equal to
it,
when
we
picture
it
and becomes
it
one
is
21.
Its
We
fixed
is
tity of,
these
hinged
sticks
but they
all
fill
lives
a psychological time,
of his
accelerates the
He
more or
less
common
mean
sa y tha <
has lengthened;
bur h P 1 n
that k is no Ion er
S Psychological time. It
is a tZZ
" IOngCr 38 before b * psychological and
mathZ,
t
1
beC me CXclusiveI mathematical, incay
pableTf h
g ny ne S P^ogical time. As soon as a consdousni
,5
saousness would
wish to live one of
these lengthened times
i x. "2*2, etc., these
latter
into
wf
f
'
'
'
'
would immediately
retract
119
THE LIGHT-FIGURES
mates that
in
of
cannot be lived
differently
who
by anyone, neither
perceives
by the S observer
same duration, nor by any other real or possible
observer. They hold on to the name "time" only because the
psychological
first of the
series, namely OB, measured the
duration of the observer in S. Then, by extension, we still
within the
apply the
now
lengthened
supposedly
all
abide
light-lines of the
means, keep
since they
measure no
defi-
rapprochement
explain, in a general way, this
lightbetween
time and light-line?
has the first of the
psychological
lines, OB,
been pasted by the observer in S to his
time to
duration,
imparting then the name and appearance of
the
successive lines
0 2 B 2 etc., by a kind of contamina-
how
fi ut
Why
O^,
tion?
wil1
We
nevertheless
to a
it
new
it
not be without profit to submit
to make a
continuing
first see-while
implicitly;
this question
time-the second
distortion of the
effect of the
figure.
2-
figure grow
As the
light-lines that coincided in the original
^Aer apart( the inequality becomes accentuated between
Wo
0 1A 1
and
A x O v ong
120
nally
the light-line
light-line
OA.
Since, for
us,
is
is
moment A was
the
in
the middle
be at
in
act,
rest or in
of the
OAO
interval.
no way influences
breaks
up among
them.
It
We
lv
1
1
lv
c2
'
j
deP endi
ng upon whether
we
record
it
in
mind of our
more and more behind one another in propor-
it arises,
tions as the
however,
first.
And
among
it is
THE LIGHT-FIGURES
121
continues to exist,
he
BOA; he
OB
to look,
he
duration,
stands before
out ceasing
He
sees,
dissociate as
into two lines of unequal length, the inequality increasing with the speed. All these inequalities have come out
splitting
of the
suits
are
equivalent for
him
is
the
original equality,
cated
the
system
and the resultant breakup of its light-lines enbreakups and successions are hence virtual;
simultaneity
al ities,
all
is
tatable for
it.
lr
nagined, the
And
it is
because
all
these virtu-
Perceived simultaneity
the
real.
perceived
and the
real.
Now, the
tivity
ln ful1
on the theory
Edouard Guillaume
has maintained that
it
of relativity,
essentially consists
tha t in
the
Jnat.
And we
shall
add
we
believe there
is
at least
ingredient, one
that, in isolating this
but
one
de
la Relativiti
1918,
and October-December
(Lausanne, 1921).
1920).
122
briefly
recall
Edouard
le
the penetrating
Roy
set forth
that
perfect-
of time. 2
a brake
upon
new
clock. 3
There
the
comes both the means of measuring time and time itself. But
then, since the light-line
elongates, while remaining itself,
when we imagine as in motion yet leave at rest the system in
which it is observed, we shall
equivalent
obtain multiple,
times;
BMetin de
They
will
be only conceived
times,
Society francaise de
philosophic February 1905.
Ermle Borel, L'espace et le
temps (Paris: F. Mean, 1922) p. 25.
We have called them "mathematical,"
in the course of the present
essay,
order to avoid any confusion.
We
are, indeed, continually comparing them with psychological
mathetime,
la
CL
tM
123
THE LIGHT-FIGURES
which
latter,
is
The
common
the time of
sense.
sum up
briefly.
all
duration only in the case of the system's immobility. In
light-line
and duration,
much
as
time
in the
nothing
first
light-line.
and
As the
to retain of
latter either
thus
lengthens or contracts with the speed of the system, we
paraseems
obtain multiple, contemporaneous times. And that
But, on
because real duration continues to haunt us.
Ae other hand, it becomes very simple and quite n * tur!
j|
time and call
when we
extensible light-line for
doxical
an
inequaland succession instances of equality and
change
between light-lines whose interrelations evidently
substitute
simultaneity
ity
compounding.
always obtain
We
would be incomplete
and longistudying the transverse
their
We must now be present at must
that
connection
upon
we limited ourselves to
lf
shall see
light-lines
how
the
transverse light-lines,
re-
We
cl early
only after
W "Pace,
a d thus
tl
*e,
we
light-line. y
time to a
btm
remains
time but
we have reduced
which lengthens
gathers up,
is
system
as a result of the
ion
makes
and
space,
which
on the way, the space with
time
shall grasp, in concreto, in everyone's
mo
it
124
3.
The
of
first
TRANSVERSE-LONGITUDINAL EFFECT OR
"LORENTZ contraction"
we
making
0 1 B A 0\
1
BOA,
then distorting
it
the
with
125
THE LIGHT-FIGURES
of course,
tion,
less;
is
our
thus, in
OB
figure,
first
and
OA
light-lines
ruled at
picture the
the
the
x.
figure
Clearly not,
if
O'A
because
line, if,
if
0" X B X
shows us,
0" x and B x
really retains
0" 1 B 1
therefore,
the apparatus,
is
raneous,
B x O" x A x
its
0 1 B 1 and
arms of
really represents one of the
O x A x and^O^i
0"x and
on the other hand, that the two moments
The
are successive.
length
0" 1 A 1
x.
ond arm,
distance covered.
is
This
the arithmetical
is
0" 1 A 1 and *e
The length 0"X A X
difference between
easy to calculate.
as the
sum of these
last
complete line
O x A x O\
two lengths
is
equal to
0" X A X
is
since the
-j=^'
O xB x O\,
line
over
Seated at the extremity of one of the apparatus arms
is,
by
'
-7==i
'
c2
-pjje
126
is
therefore
that
lv 2
distance covered
is,
_}L.
And, consequently,
when
We
at rest, becomes
thus actually
redis-
the
time)
In both
cases,
effect,
we can
first
term
what we
involved.
call
We
of a motion mentally
motion, the
zigzag of light
CHAPTER
SIX
Four-Dimensional Space-Time
the idea of a fourth dimension is ushered in; how
immobility is expressed in terms of motion; how time
amalgamates with space the general conception of a
How
it
this
from
reality;
and the
virtual;
Let us
now
distortions.
We
had
to use
it
to give
its
successive
to the abstractions
body
it
theory of relativity and to bring out the postulates
between
us
by
implies. The relation previously established
the
multiple times and psychological time has perhaps become
opening
dearer for it. And perhaps we have seen the door half
through which the idea of a four-dimensional space-time will
of the
be introduced
into the theory. It
is
to space-time that
we
shall
^Ing
is
what
is
Puts in place
of the thing to
The thing
at
is
its
make
it
is
expression.
what
amenable
the
this
Ine
mind
to calculation.
corresponds
given in a real vision; the expression
most to what
we
call a
"phantasmal
vision." Ordinarily,
we
me
we
call real
would be
127
128
me
passing before
L* =
^2
l
"
12
moving system
which
of this system,
How much
~V2
By
because that
I.
of this magnitude.
1?
when
I install
equal to
the square of
it is
S',
the quantity
greater
is it
than
which can be
c2
written as c 2
1
'
lv
But,
'
"
^
c
2
the exact
is
formerly called
we can
say that
what
2 ."
is
Thus,
given
to
129
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
a real observer in S' as the fixity of a spatial
magnitude, as the
a square P, would appear to an imaginary obS as the constancy of the difference between the
invariability of
server in
square of a space
of a time.
and
question
ask ourselves
first
points in a physical
system
how
S' is
how
it
rec-
case.
We
S
will be expressed with respect to axes in system
with respect to
x \,
y\ and
x' 2 , y' 2
it is
clear that
^B = (x'
the
B',
are
we would have
-x' 1 ) 2 + (/2-y'i)2
We
Ae two squares
(x' 2
-*'i)
and
(y' 2
first:
-y\) 2 would
the
sum
of
reraain the
in
would always be equal to WW*. Likewise,
longer
three-dimensional space, points A' and B' being then no
same, since
it
*u
rectangle
now
f the
faces of a trihedral
let
m-
and B'
enters system
us suppose that our observer mentally
us also supLet
in motion.
s with
respect to
pose that he
which
S' is
refers points
ruled
in his
to axes located
new
system, placing
simplified circumhimself, moreover, in the
stances
out
we described further back when we were working
points
*i, y lt z i; x 2 , y 2 , z 2 The
between our
two points will, moreover,
of three
squares (x 2 -
+ (y 2
still
wu
AB
be given as a sum
'
1
But ZCCld
-ytf + ft-*)
'
130
sum
this
for x 2
if
and x 1(
first,
(x' 2
We
vt');
so that the
first
square will be
^(
x '2 -
*'i)
We
just before.
had, in fact, been
considering a certain length A'B' in system 5', that is, the distance separating two instantaneous and simultaneous events
*i =
x 'i + vt\)
-2
*a =
so that our
- L=(x'2 +
F
t;f'
VR
first
2)
and our
original
sum
and
we
is
look
be replaced by
no longer
at
the
invariant.
first
term
of
131
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
(x
-*i)
we
2
,
see
that
it
exceeds
(x' 2
-x'i)
b Y the quantity
\-
V
r2
We
therefore
(* 2
have
- *x) 2 - (x' 2 -
= (*(t a -
X\f
- <*<f 2 - t\f
or
(X,
- Xl - C2(t - tj* =
2
f
(X' 2
X\f - C 2 (f 2 - t\Y
or finally
x a ) +
- yi )a + (z 2 - Zl 2 - c*(t 2 - ttf
(y2
)
= (x'a - x'tf +
a result
(y' a
had considered,
instead of the
- y^) 2 +
(z' 2
sum
of three squares
>
*e expression
(*' S
,
~X' 1 )2 +
(y' a
-y' 1 )2 +
'
(Z a
-ri ) a
ceased to
exist
in space.
Our calculations
toey
actually are.
State at
Nothing would
a bit clumsy.
And
so
2
2
2
(*2 - x x ) 2 + (y 2 y,Y + (z2 - Zl ) - c (<2 - h)
not change
when we subject its component terms to the
entz
transformation. But that would have been to accord
Ual ran k
to every system in which every measurement is
^eemed t0
st
^Pace-time
lmPly to
ne
make use
of
it.
On
own aim
is
132
and
distortions so co-
and
which we
thus
shall pre-
vanished
if
which
- t\ = 0;
t'
cession;
moment.
We
how
the theory
for the
of relativity
would become (x 2 - Xl ) +
_ Zl )2. Nothing prevents
(y 2 - yi y + ( Za
us from imagining spaces of
6
... n dimensions. The
4, 5,
square of the distance between two
points would be given in
them by a sum of 4, 5, 6 ... n squares,
each of these squares
being that of the difference between
the distances from points
A' and B' to one of the 4,
5, 6 ... n planes. Let us then con2
sider our expression (x _ Zi)2 _ c h _ tl )
)* + (y 2 _ j2 +
Xl
2
^
y
If the sum of the first
three terms were constant, it could
express the constancy of the
distance, as we conceived it in our
three-dimensional space before the
theory of relativity. But in
essence the latter consists in
saying that we must introduce the
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
term to get this constancy.
fourth
133
not
seem at
once to be opposed to
this, if
we hold
our expression
2
is preceded
*i)
to
distance:
by a
by the
-t2 and
,
squares.
differences
tive
fi to
from
to z 2 ,
interval
time:
the fourth
n of a s
pace-time
f
continuum
in
^ amalgamated.
Nor
ls
P ln ts A'
^n
and B'
a curve
as so infinitely
element.
"ifinitesimal increase
may
dx and we
Ax
shall
will then
as well
become
differential
have the
Ration
^
itel
ds2 =
Cil
y small
11
tW
both"*
space
we can
rise
dx 2 + dy 2 + dz 2 + dr2
again through a summation of infin-
JfA
'
'
call
AB.
^dx 2 + dy 2 + dzHd^,
We
shall write
134
is
opinion that
calculations.
And
space
is
the genus.
The
We
course we have to follow is then commust begin by seeking the general mean-
The
reader
mental shape
as a
as corresponding to a
hyperbolic space-time.
be
Minkowski's
artifice, described
above, conswts in giving
Euclidean form to this space-time by the substitution of the imaginary
variable ct y^T for
variable fc
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
four-dimensional
fictional
because
spatializing
environment, and if
it
merely symbolizes
this
the
135
environment
is
convention
of
time, the
four-dimensional
and genus will
the space-time of
the theory of relativity will hardly be any
more incompatible with our
long-standing concept of duration
than
ordinary space
with a
stein s
space-time,
a general
attention to
ourselves to
first
apply
the latter.
We
out
reveal
a fourth.
sional
space that
But nothing
is
simpler
if it is
a two-dimen-
we endow with
this
*J*e
of the
hav^
Ve b en
j?
word, will no doubt refuse to heed him; he himsucceed in imagining what his understanding will
abl e to conceive.
^ensional
live in a three-
>
to give
are
to^
o three
S1 nal
we
unima ina
S
jor
&e mi
.
Sl
ia
dimensions, that
environment,
it
we were immersed
would be almost
True,
in a four-
in this
that
way
first
that
seemed
al s ace
Aat of our experience. Therefore, when,
P
wh J
follows, we
use our actually perceived three-dimen-
136
body
matician subject to a
flat
for
that a four-
make
it
would lead
which hasty
inferences
us.
We
moment,
the
do
so: if it
we
also take
We
We
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
necessarily
is
ized
is measured, and therefore, a spatialneed not take the position of relativity: from
a time that
We
time.
137
any standpoint,
mathematical time can be treated as an addidimension of space (we pointed this out more than
tional
thirty
years ago).
plane
to
and,
on
that
this plane, let us consider a mobile
any line whatever, for example, a circumference,
desaibes
starting at
We who
live in
ing a line
In
a three-
MN
g length
The
extremity
describe in
ase at
curve Iaid
temporal details
of
to
moment. 3
Ciirvp"
Thus,
A
ae T
OndT
e .*er
nand
real
it
"S
i
the
moving point
at
this
>
will
entirety:
Mt^u bC
sio
of
visurlzln
alyti"
sional
^ Qfeover,
C Uld
an image.
once the three-dimensional curve, at once both
A
-We
sioi
>al
S1D
2e
curv6 "
spiraigj
Ple calcuIation
k
"
demonstrate
this.
""OWicati-,
wuld
the other.
138
But
is
sented? Does
it
adequate to what
is
repre-
we might think
first
glance
so,
because our
is
lacking.
in
result,
when
the child
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
reads a
actually
by
letter
word
all at
once, he
is
139
spelling
it
virtually
letter.
tion
of interest to science,
our
because
will feel
sions,
mind
able to
mo-
is
this extract
only
becoming or
the curve of n + 1 dimen-
do
so.
In this sense,
already outlined,
curve of
than
claims to represent.
it
But, in
another sense,
adding there,
it is
Plane P, 0 f a
MN
point
of a length varythat led the line
g with the time elapsed. This plane, circle, line, motion,
^ese are the
completely determinate elements of the operation
ln
through
all
out-
ined does
1
m otion
of a different line,
wose extremity
y pIane
earl
y representative of the
s
described
ference
sens e
and
11
am
>
the
P iral contains
Ae motion we
c ntains
less
claim to rediscover in
pi ane figure
an
infinit
well, respec-
of
n UnCed
short, as
it
is doubly inadequate:
'
hothf i
Sh rt and gOCS tGO
reason
thC
far And we can
for
th'W By
addinS a dimension to the space in which we hap-
this re resentation
P
"
pen t0
exist,
-
we can undoubtedly
picture a process or a
140
But
new
thing
is
privileged:
we
shall line
it
up-wrongly-alongside the
others.
eternity; events
file
before us,
it
is
would no
we who would
W
IT
7
C
u*
bCen ima
two-dimensional
"S a
WH bC Ae indefi*elyS extended
plane P.
ini
Each
an instantaneous
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
141
image,
on the screen
to
spontaneously.
be able to
the data
The
of experience or to the
first
images,
cessive
symbolism of
science.
be of the opinion that there really are sucbut not all lined up on a roll of film; and this,
will
two reasons:
j*
(1)
Th^
PreSentS ltseIf t0
cessio
juxtapo
T'
nuned
our consciousness
be our
SC
'
'
OUSneS f choosin
S' actin S' creating. If there is
mccessioT
n
H duration
' il is on ly because reality hesitates, feels
its
way
h UaUy
rkS Ut the unforeseeable novelty. To be
sure,
tne h
C
f absolute
Peat; this
18
CXactly
"
future h1
a ro11
of film a
The
pothers
would
'"''^^oTft^.h
^
P0' 111,
m^m^'"f d
ss, see
t0
L Evolution
we have nothing
Chap. IV.
^^^^
142
do with your
to
ence
so-called unforeseeableness.
to calculate
is
and therefore
to foresee;
an
illusion.
Now, you
is
The aim
we
which
no room
of
sci-
shall therefore
is
perhaps only
in the universe
and
when unfolding
across
in "time."
To
live in
that
is,
that
it
in itemizing
that
it
We
to arise before us and for us, to come toward us. But let us
not forget that all motion is reciprocal or relative: if we peris,
would immediately
it is
ascertain this
spoken,
who
congratulate you
for you are thus going to
me
first
we once showed
(tbid.).
143
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
obtain for
were I to
into
in a three-dimensional space;
to live
something that
and when
I agree
with
it
perhaps absurd in
is
matically conceivable.
in
my
tracted in
a third
cannot correspond to
three-dimensional space,
thing for
Yes,
you,
and
'surface,'
possible
we
U P-
say,
1 see
it is
your
up
P'hng
when
'solid,'
of all
as
we
call
it,
universe;
it is
made
of the
and
future.
also see
your consciousness traveling perpendicularly to these
superimposed 'planes,'
never taking cognizance of any but the
ne
it
jhe
one
crosses,
frnt
it
perceiving
enriching
1
j*
it
as the present,
then remembering
leaves behind,
i ts
". this
past
is
what
have taken
strikes
me
further.
random
"
u " lv erse
Pedant
e
'
by no
144
your present.
It is
my
your
figure to
an hypothesis.
it
Do
telling
specifications,
me
it
does. I
have drawn
events, carved
benefit
from
is
my
"It will give you less, because the heap of piled-up images
comprising every state of the universe contains nothing that
either implies or explains the motion by which your space P
invests
same
fill
am
eyes, this
are
motion
of
We
145
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
framed in others
are
organic,
organic
as the
of
the conscious.
world through
my
I,
my
sciousness
through
a gradual
For me,
time
mind,
what
is
action itself;
ever
and
encroaching
enough to
show
my
most
is
fundamental condition
I perceive its
real
and
upon
me if
necessary;
am
of action what
obligation to live
the
I
coming
it
the
is
the impossibility of
it,
it
is
saying?-it
would be
interval of time,
forward progress as
as
an immediate ex-
we have not
convicted
mere a Ppearance;
P rve
it
of being
you to
if you see it as illusory, it is
But you suspect it as illusory only because you
this.
up
to
yourself are
ancient
stands, because
it does, in fact,
human understanding.
Made to establish laws, that is, to
ract cer
tain unchanging relations from the changing flux
Q{ things,
our understanding
em; the
7 alone exist for
a
tim*
6
be
tial
618
US
that
P ur P ose
>
it;
is
it
in taking
up
fulfills its
function,
Work of
intelligence is the extraction of laws, it is in order
that
aCti n may
know what to take into account so that
our
haVC a better grip on thin s: the " nderstandin&
S
treatd
s
duration as a
deficiency, a pure negation, in order that
'
146
we may be
which
is
posited block.
as easily intersect
lel
to itself
and thus
different direction. 8
You
will
offer
the
this theory,
though
it
is,
may
strictly
147
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
and time just
of space
solid
as legitimate as the
first,
actually your
is
divided into
yours, the
who
what all these experiences of observers attached to and moving with your P'
planes would be, experiences which you merely imagine, I can
inform you that, having the vision of an image composed of
would rank with the others.
But
I,
see
points
they
of
the block,
in
quite
but
it is
another
by
particular
play
direction.
To
set h" ee
duration where
it
once obtained
After the
0ver
a "d
11
would
it, one at a time. Who
method on the same footing with that of the architect and consider
both equivalent? Looking closely, we see that
* architect's method
the
is the only effective way to compose
hitching the stories to
P ac e this
le,
that
is,
to
make
ways to decompose
st
>
then, as
many
it;
it,
of these ways as
we
like.
What
could be
148
way."
Such are the two points we must never lose sight of when
we join time to space by endowing the latter with an extra
dimension. We have taken the most general case; we have not
yet considered the very special look of this new dimension in
the theory of relativity. This is because every time the theoreticians of relativity leave pure science to give us an idea of
the metaphysical reality which that mathematics expresses,
they begin by implicitly allowing the fourth dimension at least
the attributes of the other three, even bringing in something more. In talking about their space-time, they take the
following two points for granted: (1) Every partitioning of it
in space and time must be accorded equal rank (it is true that
in the hypothesis of relativity, these partitionings can only be
made according to a special law, to which we shall soon recur);
(2) our experience of successive events only illumines, one by
one, the points of a line given all at once. They seem not to
have realized that the mathematical expression of time, necessarily imparting to it, in effect, the characteristics of space and
requiring that the fourth dimension, whatever its own qualities, first have those of the other three, will sin both by excess
and
deficiency, as
we have
just
vide a corrective here runs the risk of mistaking the philosophical meaning of the theory of relativity and of giving a
mathematical representation the status of a transcendent real-
We
Before that,
on the theory of
relativity,
we read
and
is
of
in one of the
no
first
great
works
149
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
wondrously anticipated this theory
traveler"
But we must
kowski
no
his "time-
and
now
is
when he had
is
no longer
sum
of four
squares, each
three
Let us
possible.
But
let
us at once
announce the
result
heading. It will
necessarily
inquiry into
new expression of
it.
Against
common
sense
and the
philo-
sophic tradition,
relativity
had
doser inspection,
tone, that
of
the
*e
Phantasmal observers,
suddenly coming to life, would install
himself in the
real duration of the former real observer, who
wuld become
phantasmal in his turn. Thus, the usual idea
real time
quite naturally continues to hold good with, in
Edition, a
mental construction intended to represent how, if
one applies
the Lorentz
the mathematical expres-
equations,
Sl
n of
electromagnetic facts remains the
considered
same
150
beings and objects evolve, the space-time of the theory of relativity is everyone's, for we all make the vague gesture of positing a four-dimensional space-time as soon as we spatialize time;
with anything more than a virtual space-time, that of a physicist imagined as experimenting and no longer that of the
if
the physicist
who happened
to
is in motion
be there abandons it.
Now, he cannot abandon it without installing himself in another system; the latter, which is then at rest, will have a space
and a time as clearly separated as ours. So that a space that
swallows time, and a time that, in turn, absorbs space, are a
time or a space always virtual and merely imagined, never real
and experienced. It is true that the conception of this spacetime will then influence the perception of actual space and
time. Across the time and space we
had always known to be
separate and, for that very reason,
structureless, we shall perceive, as
structure.
shall
"This
is
unfolded. It spatializes
it
by the very
fact that it
(pp. 57ff.)
when we
said
151
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
to interweave only
become
our observer
a different
fictional, let us
system S, immobilizes
it,
We
S',
S'
when
and
to
mentally transfers to
S' en-
ing of space
We
shall
be simplifying
systems S
straight
part of
We
But, as
lished,
soon as he mentally transfers to S, he forgets the estabconcrete invariability of length A'B' or of its square P;
he conceives
ference
it
be given (calling
interval of
time
1
.
L and
2
We who
dif-
Jj
>
and
the
know
system S' as
B', perceived inside
spaces of
sion,
s Pace
*e
we have but
to erect
on
latter a perpendicular
B'C equal to cT, to discern at once
right
Aat the real
observer in S' really perceives side A'B' of the
directly
Wangle as invariable,
S
while the fictional observer in
B'C and
Perceives (or,
rather, conceives) only the other side
be
tte
hypotenuse A'C of this triangle: line A'B' would then
n more
for him than a mental outline by which he completes
152
real in S'
allows
and
him
fictional in S, in
As a
real observer in
S',
motion that the mind imparts to the system. They are all subject to the law that the square
of their space part, diminished
by the square of their time part (we have
agreed to make the
speed of light our unit of time) leaves
a remainder equal to
the invariable square of the straight
line A'B', the latter a line
of pure space, but real. Thus,
we see exactly the relation of
the space-time amalgam to the
separate space and time, which
we had always left side by side even though
we had made an
additional dimension of space
out of time by spatializing it.
This relation becomes quite striking
in the particular case we
have chosen by design, the one in
which line A'B', perceived
by an observer situated in
this
We
The
real
would be only a
spe-
153
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
agine ourselves in
system
S.
The
would be a
broken line like A'C'B' with a null segment C'B', the value
zero
assumed here by c2 T2 being a value like the others. Matheand physicist certainly have the right to express them-
matician
in this way.
agree to claim only that, conA' and B' instantaneous and simultaneous, we simply
have, by hypothesis, that length of space plus a nothing of
perceived length A'B'.
And
if
we
sidering
time.
originally
that
is,
time,
makes the
becomes L 2
to the system
find
again.
them
imagining
it
in motion.
distance
For the observer in S', the
by a zero
between A' and B' was
a length of space I augmented
f time.
When the reality Z2 becomes the virtuality U, the zero
2
t real time
this interblossoms into a virtual time c^T But
val of
ln the
depths of a mirror.
th
fi ut
"See above,
p. 106.
154
way to analyze the operation by which space is added to time, and time to space, in the
theory of relativity. Let us now take the more general case in
which events A' and B' occur at different moments for the ob-
server in
We
S'.
we shall call
we shall desig-
and
f' 2
nate by x' 2 - x\ the distance in space from A' to B', x'2 and x\
being the respective distances from A' and from B' to a point
To
of origin O'.
simplify things,
we
how
S',
shall again
this
time
imagine space
we
that of the
-^5
x '2 ~ *'i) 2 +
by
(r 2 -
t'
x)
c2
Here
again, as
we
see,
a time
to inflate a
space.
But, in
what was
its
originally
(t'
14
12
t\y by
+5(''2 -
W^
c2
The
result
is
is See p. ISO.
"See
p. 181.
been increased by a
155
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE-TIME
which, multiplied by c 2 ,
quantity
square of space.
the
time gathering
ence (x 2
up
space,
- Xj)2 - c 2 ( 2 -
any assigned
But this
tj) 2
we
the
sets
the system in
mind.
What
is
motion.
real,
And
that
is,
the
amalgam
he mentally
exists
only in his
observed or observable,
is
separate
we
all
and
do,
we
the
more or
spatialize
it
less
confusedly,
this
spatialize time,
soon
as
when we
as
time then
remain separately
more precisely, their invariance is transferred to the difference
a
(*2-*i) - 02(^-^)2 only for our phantasmal observers. The
real
no
unaffected: as
val
expression
expression beforehand,
it
will
his
Physical truth:
it
points out
how
behaves with
But
Ae
J
lme;
while
remain what they were, separate from one an^capable of mingling except as the result of a mathematical fiction
intended to symbolize a truth in physics. For
* space and time
which interpenetrate are not the space
? taie of any physicist, real or conceived as such. The real
Ptysicist makes
he
his measurements in the system in which
the latter
er
^ ^elf.
it
as his
156
greater
good of
science.
as real or able to
be
But
by
him imagined
for the
so; to
consciousness to them,
ceased to interpenetrate.
We
We
sidered as interchangeable.
And
we
FINAL NOTE
Time
in Special Relativity
and Space
in
General Relativity
We are now at the end of our
study. It had to bear upon time
and the paradoxes
of time, which we usually associate with the
weory of relativity.
Are
we therefore
J*
Hence
left
it is
in the abstract?
Not
at all,
nor would we
if
we
3 gravitational
field into the simplified reality
intro-
with
whih
toch we have
been occupied until now. Indeed, according to
theory of
general relativity, we can no longer either define
^synchronization of clocks or declare
the speed of light conn a gravitational
*
field. In all strictness, therefore, the
!
P ti ca definition of
time would vanish. As soon as we wish to
meaning t0 the "
time " co-ordinate, we necessarily submit
to th
?>* iltio
in *h
w
4emfinite,
if
them
necessary.
mstant a univer se of
special relativity is tangent to
f general relativit
Moreover, we never have to
'
4e
61* 6
Y-
consider
fields
SPCedS
of
ComP arable
a suffi
special
^e
is
r6 f
relativity
>
rel*
tlVUy
3nd retain
l
special
il
ust as
il
stands
In
this sense
is
to general
1116
int
would be singularly instructive
" P
^thenhl
Pher 11 WOuld bear out e radical ^s^ 11 011
* *e oiII^
* drew between the nature of real time and pure
relativit
"
157
158
by traditional philosophy. And it would perhaps not be without interest for the
physicist. It would reveal that the theory of special relativity
and that of general relativity are not animated by exactly the
same spirit and do not have quite the same meaning. The first,
it must be added, has sprung from a collective effort, while the
second reflects Einstein's own genius. The former provides us,
above all, with a new formula for results already obtained;
it is truly a theory, in the literal sense of the word, a way of
space, improperly considered analogous
viewing.
The
latter
is
essentially a
method
of investigation, an
we need not enter into their comupon the difference between time
space in which he
sition
is
actually located.
He
he
is
referring to a
devices.
The
They
relate
times in which
we do not
we bring with
us,
FINAL NOTE
become the time that
we
159
we
have
system.
intercalated
which
calculations,
is
real time,
this
apply.
which
its finish,
we have made
ments with
results
and
start of his
is
still
the measure-
do the operation's
The others are intermediary between the statelatter
The
the
fied in this.
All are, in fact, measurements of time; and as the
measurement of a thing is, in the eyes of the physicist, that
very thing,
they must all be times for the physicist. But in only
one of
them-we
believe
we have demonstrated
this-is there
succession.
do not
to
th a time
only lengths.
and a
precisely, the
former
is
ut as these
last arise
*
f e first w as
More
pasted to time,
times.
re
realtime,
presupposes
it.
he paradox
begins when we assert that all these times are
a ies
"
that is, things perceived or able to be perceived, lived
"
0r
for
with
be lived
"
f them ~ exce
Pt
.
be
iS
or/
tiorl
its
We
il
attr ibutable to
hysics
Posin g as a metaphysics.
mind cannot
re Slstan
adjust.
ce to a prejudice
of
0r a t
least
any physicist
weaken upon
as such:
To
'
it arises
this contradic-
Prejudices vanish
160
our conviction and even ends by rendering it unshakable, because it reveals in the times of special
relativity one among them excepted times without duration,
in which events cannot succeed each other, nor things subsist,
reflection strengthens
But
exhausts
it
its
is
essence.
mental view of
it.
Let us rather
Descartes reduced matter considered at the instant to extension; physics, in his eyes, attained
study of general
to the real insofar as it was geometrical.
thing
is,
would show
relativity,
justly
is
APPENDIX
The Journey
We have
in the Projectile
of relativity,
ing of objects
by distance.
The
is
clock in
note of its
motion
motion:
is
this
the
way
The
slowing
distance," in
on; it
ll
ject
is
we
we have just
it
in
left,
its
and then
true size
upon reaching a
same
distant
from system
to system,
which he
ch
whom
get, as
'
co
ntradictions; as
a midget,
fi
ide
Phantasmal clock th at
tells
perspective of relativity,
inth
s
time to a
real observer.
thatch
6nough and
th ey are
>
it is
as
midgets
164
shift
me
him
that
his conversation,
no
I shall necessarily end in absurdities or paradoxes; I have
contact
in
normal,
remained
right to bring Peter, who has
with Paul turned midget, to imagine that the latter can speak
with the former, see him, listen to him, perform any action at
image,
all, because Paul, as midget, is only a mental view, an
partisan
both
what
exactly
this
is
Nevertheless,
phantom.
a
in furnishing
tion
is
The
their posi-
indispensa-
its infinite
This
i
M.
We
is
exactly
Painleve.
THE JOURNEY
difficulty in
grasping
it,
and
IN
165
THE PROJECTILE
that
it is
for the relativist physicist, to philosophize in terms of relativity, is to be gathered from a very interesting letter addressed
AB
having
the projectile carrying Paul heads toward B at speed v;
point
arrived at B, the projectile turns around and heads back to
measurements,
compare
again,
A at speed v. Peter and Paul meet
and exchange impressions. I say that they are not in agreement
Paul has
about the duration of the journey: if Peter asserts that
at A,
estimated
has
he
which
time,
stayed away a given length of
much time
Paul will reply that he is quite sure he has not spent that
with a
on the trip, because he has himself calculated its duration
it shorter. Both
found
has
and
way
unit of time defined in the same
be
will
....
right.
am
simultaneity of c
compare adjacent events, to observe a
from the psychologistraying
readings at the same place. We are not
is
to
'"Sent
thepjj^
^^
tinea
BecquLl (1878-1953)
Bergson uu
edition de l'ouvrage de M.
stein et la nouvelle
XXXI
(1924), 241-260.]
js
iden-
166
v.
-v
clarity,
equals
I shall
at the
latter?
One
We know
2).
The
clock at point
therefore records 2 C .
Paul therefore notes that the system earth's clock before which he
passing is one hour ahead of his; of course, he does not have to
push his clock ahead; he records the disagreement. Continuing on
his journey, he notes that the time differences between his clock and
those he successively encounters increase in such proportion to his
own clock-time that, on arriving at B, his clock points to 2 C but the
is
he passes
2C
1,
etc.
We know
THE JOURNEY
IN
THE PROJECTILE
167
added to the times that would be shown had all the clocks been
pushed back to zero. Thus, if we have not interfered with the clocks,
when the projectile recrosses M, Paul's clock will show 1+2 = 3, the
one at point M, 2 + 4=6, and Peter's 4 + 4 = 8.
Behold the result! For Peter, who has remained at A on the earth,
it is indeed eight hours that have elapsed between Paul's departure
and return. But, if we ask "living, conscious" Paul, he will say that
his clock read 0 at departure and reads 4 upon return, that it has
4
recorded a duration of 4, and that he has really been traveling
and not 8 C
it
in clearer terms.
That
stated,
is
it is
it
just as
then
impossible to pre-
is
If
we
at the outset.
we
immo-
relativity,
is
seen
respect to
Science, is
oneself; and, consequently, the physicist-builder of
is acrelativity
of
motionless by definition, once the theory
physicist, as
cepted. It unquestionably occurs to the relativist
reference
to any other physicist, to set in motion the system of
in
which he had
then, willy-nilly,
at first installed himself; but
another, if only for an
this
and
new
it is
system,
then no
we can quite
outside the theory of relativity,
individual, Peter,
readily conceive of an absolutely motionless
cannon; we
at point A, next to an absolutely motionless
a projectile
can also conceive of an individual, Paul, inside
2.
If
we stand
168
am
system of reference,
with Peter,
it is
Peter
who
who
is
motionless;
is
returning to
two systems, S and S', which nothing prevents us from assuming to be identical; and one sees that since Peter and Paul regard themselves, each respectively, as a system of reference and
are thereby immobilized, their situations are interchangeable.
relativity, there
is
no
ob-
saying that
both Peter and Paul, the one absolutely motionless and the
other absolutely in motion, exist at the same time as conscious
jection to expressing ourselves like
anyone
else, to
of relativity, immobility
is
comes immobile which we enter mentally. A "living, conit by hypothesis. In short, Peter
We
shall,
THE JOURNEY
is
IN
169
THE PROJECTILE
him
leave
living
and
more
if I
make him a
that
was Paul who was shot into space and thereby immobi4
then, Paul
Peter's system into a system of reference. But
it
lized
is
is first
moment
of leaving
moment
clearly a living, conscious being at the
conscious
of returning to Peter (he would even remain a living,
Peter;
he
is still
if,
during
this interval,
we
agreed to lay
especially, all
aside all questions of measurement and, more
measuremaking
relativist physics); but, for Peter the physicist,
physicoof
laws
ments and reasoning about them, accepting the
into space, is
mathematical perspective, Paul, once launched
called
no more than a mental view, an image-what I have
It is this Paul
a "phantom" or, again, an "empty puppet."
the state ot
en route (neither conscious nor living, reduced to
It would
an image) who exists in a slower time than Peter's.
motionless system
therefore be useless for Peter, attached to the
particular Paul at
that we call earth, to try to question this
the
moment
vanishes the
he
moment he
What is more, ne
wn
system. The Paul
mind.
touches Peter's
ana
interval,
has lived in the
was interwho
the Paul who has lived in the interval is a Paul
occupied a
changeable with Peter at every moment, who
has impressions
is
a Paul
who
e e
made of
by extension that use has been
^
letter,
above-quoted
"system of reference" in the passage from the
^
n
"changes
y
back,
which it was stated that Paul, in turning
reference." Paul is really, by turns, in systems
in
reference; but neither of these
4
footnote
particular y
motion, is a system of reference. See Appendix III,
^ZTZ
* It is clearly
on pp. 184-185.
^^^JS
^J^w
170
and aged
tell
just as
much
as Peter. Every-
on
his
is
of reference.
world that
is
on
re-
Peter's system,
have yl
^=
i
.
Let
straight line
AB. "I
of an hour recorded
passes the middle
AB
on the
M of the
you
say,
to
2V
I reply:
insofar
Paul
is
according to you, he
all;
for,
is
in
common
sense or
THE JOURNEY
IN
."
We
must
THE PROJECTILE
we must
."
.
And,
not
is,
say,
171
and must
ing
P on
his
moving
clock at the
moment when,
in Peter's
moving clock
that records
its
1.
exist in
own
the moving
tell
system,
The time
on
it if
he became
at this precise
is
real again, I
exactly
the physicist; he
would take his system as the system of reference and immobilize it. His clock would then point to 2-exactly the time to
which Peter's clock pointed. I use the past tense because albut to 1", being now
ready Peter's clock no longer points to
the clock of Peter referent and no longer referrer.
about
I need not pursue the argument. Everything you said
then
the times read by Paul on his clock when he arrives at B,
when he comes back to M, and, finally, when he is about to
not to
touch A and re-enter the system earth, all this applies
moving
conscious Paul, actually looking at his
but to a Paul whom physicist Peter pictures as watching
clock,
living,
this
way and
in this
the physicist must picture
Paul: this disconscious
need not distinguish from a living,
this merely
tinction is the philosopher's concern). It is for
whom
clock (and
will
imagined and referred-to Paul that four-imagined-hours
tor
elapsed
have elapsed while eight-lived-hours will have
nave
will
Peter. But Paul, conscious and therefore referrer,
to him everylived eight hours, since we shall have to apply
thing
we
just said
To sum
about Peter."
many
ways;
crete vision
We
have described
the meaning
this
eaninS m
a
to present
we have sought by many means
established
easily have
of it. One could just as
172
equations. 5
One would
Albert Einstein,
La
APPENDIX
The
II
Reciprocity of Acceleration
we
in the course ot
or
we could
just as well
adm*
the
have taken into account
then have con
gives rise to and
acceleration
S'
is itself
reciprocal
held, for
and
we shah
mo
thX
systems S
that the two
rr plerael *
of ac
admit this reciprocity
i
n
m
which will concer
tion for certain special reasons,
Wcridto*_
dealing with
next Appendix, when we shall be
ae
usually s a,,d
But onealso hesitates because, as it is
One sometimes
hesitates to
ated motion in a
moving system
is
conveyed
s y stei*
.
do not occur symmetrically
fo deal
of reteren
system
less, which has been taken as the
to spcai*
trarV one agrees
&
ing with a train moving on a tracK, 01
trans
umto
motion rema,ris
that
the
lation, it
is
equally
thought, can be attributed
that the
jolt,
and
pi
of the trai
let the speed
it
physicist
stop: the
on
no counterpart
r^J*
d as w
about the moving train cou
by the
the track, which has become mobile
asserts
^^^
u***>
.
the
^^
^
^ ^
HencCj
174
no more
fests itself in
phenomena
at least
describing
what has
its
just
nature.
point
say,
in variable rectilinear
S' is
obvious that
we
physical points,
concerned, everything
Ut
site directions.
would
To
consist, at
The
S' about S.
be examined in the next Appendix.
175
which
t'
judged
is
time
is
elapsing in
S.
Here
Now,
that this
if
we
same
take
is,
S' as
lived,
moreover, actually so
it
ism
that the
word, if there is
will be transferred. In a
as in that of unireciprocity in the case of accelerated motion,
assumed in
form motion, the slowing of time for the system
cases, a slowing
motion will be figured the same way in both
not affecting real time.
imaginary time
t'
S and
S'
S and
S' is
ne
we sometimes substitute
systems endowed
system ruled in motion a number of separate
continue to trea
with different motions, which we nevertheless
we speak o
do this even when
But, without noticing
as a single system.
phenomena
We
often
jt
occur as the result
"inside the system" which
are
it,
shown a passenger
Physical points of
jolted in his
is
which
body
se,by^*
shaken up,
his
examp
for
is
it is
cieany
composed do not^main
^P**^^
do
'not
or
form a single system with the train
fay
etc
and S
selves-as many systems S
Consequently,
of their own
"jolt" as are endowed with motions
,
have tn
in the eyes of the physicist in 5, they
still co
f", etc. The reciprocity is, moreover,
S and S", and between S and S,
install the real physicist,
by
as
between
turns, in i
>>
>
Sand
we
176
be in several
real time
at the
same
time),
he
will find
t",
V",
etc.,
standpoint
and
live the
same
we have
to assume,
it
This means
no asymmetry. 3 From the
to system S.
is
relativity,
celerated as in that of
In short,
matters
moving
whether the motion is uniform or variable: there will always be reciprocity between the
two systems that we bring face to face.
it
little
is what we are about to see with more prethe next Appendix, where we shall consider the
reciprocity of acceleration in all its generality. The points Af
This, moreover,
cision in
and
first
as well.
We
its
visual elements,
and
we keep
APPENDIX
III
We
have
just
this
is
perceived, or perceptible,
and what
is
not.
The
reciprocity
appears only if we
philosopher At
ondary for the physicist, fundamental for the
that acce lerauon
the same time the meaning of the "slowing"
without
is realized
of acceleration
imparts to a
^^
g
;en
^*F
times. But,
of relatm y
form which the theory
that i^
a recent book
exhibits in this case. We take it from
v
Jean Becq
already a classic, the important work of
[Fans.
gravitation
la
Principe de relativite et la theorie de
amine in
178
in a system all of
is,
state of
motion
which dx = dy = dz =
ds = cdr,
a
dr
ds=c
Ja
Ja
We
always zero.
is
there-
0,
dr,'
,s
it.
The
fB
proper-time
dr
to
uniform motion:
tim state of motion there corresponds,
in space-time, a "Worldformed by the block of events
line
P,SItl nS f this
bil *
,
positions that we can plot
in any
6
ZTZZ
AnM
Wo
ber of
lille
t0
moMe aT w
"oner
WC C3n ima&ine an
eVentS
dlstance .at
diK
are^nToSe
Slv
we t
0 "'
Ml
tS
num-
A and ^versing
18
f ll0WS:
infi te
WC nCed
CVent
Wjs;;^
^
hall
its
the
385,11116(1
V
"^
in
uniform
translation.
'imDoS^
T"
be^i^T.ft? ?
SSS^
'
'
<
<
11
^-^
*
"
-eluded
S
+ d<' the SCC nd
referenced
+
Z +
< +
system S; 'these co-ordtat'es"
locate o n*ftf
iftWorld
llne of
infinitely adjacent events
2. two
n whose
C and D,
I
interval is ds; we have 2
M, At
mobile Af 2
is
the ^oTntslrf
7/??^
/j
than
V^
'
"
r~V o;rr;
^*
^M
ma-
iS
St ftCn
nner adopted
d
in the
h present work), in
order to keep S>
*" ?
179
ds2 = c2 dr 2 = c 2 dt 2
c2
[\dt J
\dt)
\dt)
:
C2 dt 2
^1
-^j = a2 C2 dt 2
0)
dr=adt,
which means: the proper-time of a mobile
between two events
2
on its World-line is shorter than the time computed between the
same events in a system in uniform translation; it is as much shorter
as the
greater.
is
(1)
idt,
JA
JtA
the
common
will be.
In other words:
World-line
is
between
lation.
[It is
here
wh
is
important to observe
that, in the
preceding demonstration,
M
M
acceleration of
the absolute
from being
negative, as would happen in the most frequent case, that in
ich the
distances between two events in space is shorter than the path
raversed by
light during the interval of time that separates them. This
is the only
one in which, according to the theory of relativity, one of
6 tWo eve
"ts can act upon the other. This is precisely the hypothesis
wat
8
is
assumed above.
The
factor
|/l --
;s
here designated by
a.
180
We
adt;
if its
acceleraits
speed
No
one could express himself with greater precision. Morefrom the physico-mathematical standpoint, the argument
is irreproachable: the physicist ranks the measurements actually made in one system with those which, from this system,
appear as if actually made in another. It is out of these two
kinds of measurement, merged in the same treatment, that he
over,
observer
it
in actuality.
From
this
compute
comparing only
new point
of view,
the real with the real, or else, the imagined with the imagined,
we
where
We
"a system
all
of
is
let
accelera-
us closely
defined there as
state of motion."
The
S and
and which
is
181
necessarily
lized.
But, the real physicist being in S", the real time, that
the lived
The time
is
time,
now becomes
a slowed time;
is,
is,
motion
it is,
more-
attributed to system S by
S system an observer has been imagas his system of reference. But, once again,
ined
who
takes
it
if
motion, he
is limited to picturing an observer taking S as system of reference. In short, we have in S what we called a
phantom observer, judged to be taking as his system of refer-
(if
is perfect.
The phan-
tom observer in
S, turned real again, would immediately rediscover the real time of system 5", since his system would be
immobilized, since the real physicist would have transported
himself to
changeable.
two systems, as referrers, are interThe phantasmal time would now be elapsing in
it,
since the
S".
e reciprocity
between S"
transport himself
into
S',
182
and
lized
all
would
would pass
with them into S", and it is in S' that time would be real.
We have just considered the relation of motionless S" to S
in uniform translation, then the relation of motionless S" to
5' in
comparing
cist first
is
when
is
complete reciprocity
when
as either referrers,
time, or as referents
cases there
we
There
we
are
leaving
and
S".
remains then to consider directly the relation of S in uniform translation to S' in variable motion. Now we know that
if S is in motion, the physicist who is
found in it is a merely
imagined physicist-the real physicist is in S". The system of
It
happening in
who
is
and
urements
To
and
real,
discover
S'
we
are told
zero.
is
in
procity
183
at a constant speed of
S,
now
motionless. It
between his
is
is
it
ment ago:
rejoined
procity
it
it.
is
clearly
this
of
essence the
system of reference,
in the Absolute, in the presence of
entity
it
an
comparable to the Platonic Idea. Then, when we apply
to specific
systems of reference,
mg and
ysicists,
that
We forget
for a
mode
of representa-
184
tion suitable to the latter and the former at the same time,
and that the expression ds 2 - - dx 2 - dy 2 - dz 2 + c2 dt 2 had been
precisely the result of that search. It
up
is
authority
this difference.
is
In a word, the theory of relativity requires that the physicist be inone of the systems he gives himself, in order to assign from
there a particular motion to each of the other systems, since there is no
absolute motion. He can choose any one of the systems in his universe;
he can, moreover, change systems at any moment; but he is obliged to be
*
stalled in
in
which he
installs
himself
considering, whatever
exists in the
its
system in which he
is
system considered by
be,
his at rest,
rediscover this
him would
our physicist would
when
moving
same
real
time in the
by that very fact, immobilize it, driving out then the phantasmal time
which he had imagined in it and which, in actuality, could not be directly
measured by anyone. But, precisely because he can imagine himself anywhere and shift at each instant, he likes to picture himself everywhere or
nowhere. And, as all systems no longer then appear to him as referred to
one among them-his own-all pass onto the same plane: in
all of them at
once he thus installs physicists who would be kept busy
referring even
though, alone motionless for the moment, our physicist
is really the only
bottom, is what he is doing when he speaks of "systems
of reference in motion." Each of these
systems can undoubtedly become
a system of reference for the physicist actually
referred
bereferrer. This, at
to,
come a
who
will
in which he really
computes time, and from which he then imagines those
systems in motion
185
is
For example, we are told above that "if two idensynchronized clocks are at the same spot in the system
of reference, if we shift one very rapidly and then bring it
of his views.
tical,
we should
moving clock
(the time of
adt." In
it
touches,
indis-
is
only
attributed time; this merely attributed time is the time indicated by a clock hand moving before the gaze of a merely
is
throughout
its
this physicist is
it
again
during the
trip. It
slow-
or that motion.
a gain, is
it
We have shown,
the
since, as
186
ing.
And
that
is
precisely
why
it
upon
it is
arrival.
outside of
it.
In that case,
when we
field," is it
a question
it is
that slows the course of time according to the theory of relativity, since this slowing can never be posited except as a conse-
outside the
by the
field.
On
being
remains a time of unchanging rhythm; only a fictional
time, which cannot be lived by anything or
anyone, has its
lived,
rhythm modified.
Let us take a simple case, selected by Einstein himself, 7 that
of a gravitational field created by the
rotation of a disk. On a
plane S adopted as system of reference and by
that very fact
immobilized, we shall consider a motionless
point 0. On this
plane we shall set a perfectly flat disk whose
center we shall
have coincide with point 0, and we shall
have the disk turn
about a fixed axis perpendicular to the
plane
at this point.
Insofar as
these
clocks
would be
We
'
187
an
effects of a force
observer situated
pushing
lieve,
these
etc.:
is
pres-
them from
moment
pro-
Lorentz equations
increases.
he real observer
situated in what seemed to
tational field?
are P^tured
on ty
tUrn that
'
ne
is,
sees at
it
would
188
upon
setting out
gravitation;
the latter, as gravitation,
changes nothing in the rhythm of
time or in the running of
the clocks; it does so only when it is
construed as motion by a
physicist for whom the clocks and
times of the system,
where he no
longer
have become
we keep our
trav
eled
twarf the
'
S
f disk, will return
periphery of the
to 0 just as it was, running
as before, not having
slowed down. The theory of relativity
UireS
thCre be a sIowin
S down at
prlciseZ/
11
mere mental
is,*
^
T
T
pO^Z?"
112
r
ns - But at that
P recise
at the precise instant
of leavir
the^vSstTn8^'
h^^JZ
fine
^P
by meanstf
system. Is
system"
T, lt true u
that
^
1?
Pher>
the
admissibIe in
"*
*
Tot"motionless *with
< *
respect to the
8 When we
he
'
hilos
^ *
m^tl
another as system of
reTere^ce
terms of motion.
Z moment
'
^ ^ ^ ^^
n ,Ion er ln the
m *? 7
is
^m,
we mean,
Hw
UtSide
h and
he explains gravitation in
189
if
the real
we have the real physicist with his real clock, there is, as we
just saw, the same time. Time undergoes different slowings at
different points
on the
disk;
at these points
cease to
cist
and
whom
for
the disk,
a single system;
tutes
separate systems.
from point
for the
0:
0, who applies the Lorentz formulae; while a dt time elapses at 0, it is a slowed adt time that
our observer will have to attribute to any one of these moving
motionless observer at
points, a
depending, again,
consequently,
upon
trary to
is
what
able time
when
physicist, it
all
its
upon
said, the
"turning"
field
it
point. It ceases to
the physicist
point
0.
infinity of
systems;
finity
and we shall naturally find on them an inof times, all fictional, into which real time will have
been pulverized,
or, rather, evaporated.
To sum up, we have a choice of one of two things. Either
disk
is
solved into
inertia:
e living,
we
it
is
there re-
at
unwind on
course,
190
collectivity;
is
a single
But, in that
case,
we
find the
same time on
it
everywhere.
The Library
Aeschylus, Prometheus
d'Alembert,
of Liberal Arts
Bound
Principles of
Human Knowledge
Preliminary
Discourse to the
J.,
Encyclopedia of Diderot
Aquinas, St. T.,
The
Nature,
Essence,
On
and
On
On
Being and
Free Choice,
the Virtues in
General
New Organon
The
Boccaccio, G.,
Bowman,
P.,
Bradley,
Burke,
C, The Prophetic
C, On Crimes and
"ERoson, H.,
Duration and
Simultaneity
p
>
,oMe,ai,hysic!
Principles,
dialogues,
on the Revolution
France
Selected Writings and
Speeches on America
and Critical
Punishments
E.,
in
Historical
crG
\9
The Absurdity of
Reflections
Dictionary (Selections)
,io
A.,
Christianity
Baudelaire
>
Poetry
On
Works on Vision
Principles of
Burke,
Permanence and
Change
Butler, J., Five Sermons
J., On the Christian Faith
On God and Political Duty
Catullus, Odi et Amo:
Calvin,
Complete Poetry
and
Philosophical
Correspondence
K.,
Cicero,
Cid,
On
the
Commonwealth
The Epic of
the
Croce,
B.,
Guide to Aesthetics
Descartes,
R., Discourse
on
Method
Discourse on Method and
Meditations
Discourse on Method, Optics,
Geometry, and
Meteorology
Meditations
Philosophical Essays
Rules for the Direction of the
Mind
Dewey,
J.,
On
Experience, Nature,
Hamilton, C,
(Selections)
Rousseau: Moralist
Herder,
J.,
Hesiod, Theogony
An Essay of Dramatic
Poesy and Other Essays
Scotus, J., Philosophical
J.,
and Vatican
Doctrines,
Sayings
of the
Fichte,
J.,
Goethe,
J.,
Faust
Faust
and
II (verse)
(prose)
Faust II (prose)
Grant,
F., ed.,
Writings
Feuerbach,
Hymn
Hume,
Understanding
The Grand
Inquisitor
Duns
God, Some
Conversations
Works
Dryden,
in
The Centennial
Buddhism
Hendel, C, Jean-Jacques
and Freedom
Diderot, D., Encyclopedia
Dostoevski,
ed.,
Ancient
Roman
Religion
Hellenistic Religions
Grimmelshausen,
J., Simplicius
Simplicissimus
Jeffery, A.,
Kant,
Essays
ed.,
Islam
Analytic of the
Beautiful
Critique of Practical Reason
First Introduction to the
Critique of Judgment
Foundations of the
Metaphysics of Morals
The Metaphysical Elements of
Justice, Part I of
Metaphysik der Sitten
The Metaphysical Principles
of Virtue, Part II of
Metaphysik der Sitten
On History
Perpetual Peace
I.,
Homburg
Lao Tzu, The Way of Lao Tzu
Lazarillo de Tonnes, The Life of
Leibniz, G.,
Plato, Epistles
Euthydemus
Essays
Lessing, G.,
Locke,
Monadology and
Other Philosophical
J.,
Laocoon
Letter
Concerning
Second Treatise of
Phaedrus
Government
Protagoras
On
Longinus,
Statesman
Great Writing
(On the Sublime)
Lucian, Selected
Lucretius,
Symposium
Theaetetus
Works
Timaeus
On Nature
Machiavelli, N.,
Meno
Phaedo
Toleration
The Art
of
War
Mandragola
Commentaries:
Bluck, R., Plato's
Phaedo
Cornford,
J.,
MlL L,
J. S.,
An
Essay on Government
Cosmology
Plato's Theory of
Knowledge
Hackforth, R., Plato's
Representative
Government
Examination of
Pleasure
Liberty
the Logic of the
Moral
Sciences
Theism
Utilitarianism
C, The
Persian
Nietzsche, F.,
The Use and
of History
Pope, A.,
Hymns
Post,
C,
Abuse
to the Night
and
Other Writings
0c *HAM, W.,
Philosophical
'
W-
Age
Significant Cases in
Constitutional
Law
Quintilian, On
the Early
Education of the
u
Masterworks
the One,
Man
J.,
Discourses on Art
of Prose
Heptaplus
Essay on
ed.,
Reynolds,
0f Reason
BUA Mi RANDOLAj
0n the
dignity of
Man, On
gang and
An
Citizen-Orator
Natural Theology
p
Parkinson
uw t
~a
i- ed.,
^
ftC0D
Phaedrus
British
Writings
Pa?'
Phaedo
Plato's
The Menaechmi
The Rope
Letters
valis,
Plato's
Moliere, Tartuffe
Montesquieu,
and
Plato's
Autobiography
Considerations on
On
On
F., Plato
Parmenides
and
Hadas,
trans.
B.,
Philosophy of Science
Schiller,
J.,
Wilhelm Tell
Contemporary
Philosophical Realism
in
America
Schopenhauer,
A.,
On
the Basis
of Morality
Freedom of
Selby-Bigge,
L.,
the Will
British Moralists
Tolstoy,
Seneca, Medea
Oedipus
Thyestes
Vico, G.
What
is
Art?
B.,
On
the Study
Methods
Our Time
Voltaire, Philosophical Letters
Whitehead,
A., Interpretation of
Science
(Selections)
L.,
Vergil, Aeneid
Enigma
on Philosophy
Xenophon,
in
General
Recollections of
Socrates and Socrates'
Defense Before the Jury