Dr. George J. Marklin

STANDARDS OF MEASUREMENT PART I

This article originally appeared in the Proceedings of the Texas
Objectivist Society Conference, Austin, 1994, and has been posted 
elsewhere. It serves as a good introduction to my views on relativity:
	
	The philosophical Premises Underlying the Theory of
		   Relativity and Its Alternative

			by  George Marklin

	A summary of a workshop given at the 1994 TOS conference

	The theory of relativity is widely regarded as one of the
most important discoveries in the history of physics. Its
predictions about the behavior of matter have been tested under
the most extreme conditions and found to be in perfect agreement
with observation. Despite this success, however, there remain a
small number of critics. These critics are uneasy with some
aspects of the theory which are at best counter-intuitive, but
which some physicists (myself included) regard as not making any
sense at all. Two of the strangest tenets of the theory are: (1.)
That the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless
of their state of motion; and (2.) That space is "curved" in a
fourth dimension and hence non-Euclidean.

	The Lorentz ether theory (LET) is the alternative to the
special theory of relativity (STR). It is well known, though not
widely known, that it leads to all the same equations and
predictions as STR. There is no experimental difference between
them. There are, however, philosophical differences. The LET
regards light as a vibrational wave in a physical medium called
the ether. The speed of light is only constant relative to the
ether. Observers in motion relative to the ether would measure
different speeds in accordance with the Galilean transformation
formulas, if they had immutable standards of length and time to
measure with. Ordinary clocks and rulers are not immutable. The
length of rulers and the rate and synchronization of clocks
varies according to their state of motion through the ether in a
manner described by the Lorentz transformation formulas. Thus,
while the speed of light is not actually constant, it can appear
to be constant when it is measured with non-absolute standards.
In STR clocks and rulers are assumed to be immutable when
observed from their own rest frame. But then the constancy of the
speed of light must be introduced as an arbitrary postulate,
unexplained and inexplicable. It is accepted by most physicists
as an article of faith.

	In the general theory of relativity (GTR), if a circle is
constructed around a massive object such as the sun, and if the
circumference and diameter are measured with ordinary rulers,
their ratio will not be equal to pi, contradicting the laws of
Euclidean geometry. This is said to be due to the fact that space
is "curved" in a fourth dimension and therefore inherently non-
Euclidean. This prediction has been essentially confirmed by
experiment, but the interpretation is highly dubious. The
existence of a fourth dimension is an arbitrary fantasy. There is
no evidence for it whatsoever. A more reasonable alternative
would be to suppose that the rulers are being distorted by the
gravitational influence of the sun and are not functioning as
immutable standards, as in the LET. This alternative
interpretation was actually suggested by Einstein himself
["Sidelights on Relativity", Dover 1983] but has been ignored
by the majority of the scientific community. The LET has never
been formally extended to include gravitational effects, although
some significant first steps have been taken by Herbert E. Ives
[J. Opt. Soc. Am., 29, 183 (1939) and 38, 413 (1948)] and by
Robert L. Kirkwood [Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford U. (1950) and Phys.
Rev., 92, 1557 (1953) and 95, 1051 (1954)].

	At current levels of understanding in physics there is no
known way to construct immutable clocks or rulers, but their
existence, at least in principle, must be assumed if the concepts
of length or time are to have any meaning. As Ayn Rand points out
in the first chapter of ITOE:

   "The requirements of a standard of measurement are: that it  
   represent the appropriate attribute, that it be easily   
   perceivable by man and that, once chosen, it remain immutable   
   and absolute whenever used." This is because: "The purpose of  
   measurement is to expand man's range of consciousness, of his   
   knowledge, beyond the perceptual level: beyond the direct power  
   of his senses and the immediate concretes of any given moment.  
   Man can perceive the length of one foot directly; he cannot   
   perceive ten miles. By establishing the relationship of feet to  
   miles, he can grasp and know any distance on earth; by  
   establishing the relationship of miles to light-years, he can   
   know the distances of galaxies."

In other words, we conceive of lengths beyond our range of
perception by means of a mathematical relationship to lengths
that we can perceive. Thus, we can understand what a million
kilometers is if we perceive a meter, and if we understand what
it means to multiply by a million times a thousand. This only
works, however, if the meter is an immutable standard. The laws
of arithmetic do not apply to units which are not immutable. If a
meter could change its length depending on how it was moving or
where it was located, then two meters would not equal two times
one meter, and a million kilometers would be meaningless. The
actual standards of length and time used in the LET are
abstractions, arrived at by correcting for the distortions caused
by motion through the ether or by gravitational fields.

	To summarize: what is relative about the theory of
relativity is the standards of measurement. This makes it
incompatible with Objectivism as well as counter-intuitive to the
average non-philosophical observer.

Return to home page