The Denver Jewish news., 1920-01-21

form il the two fundamental prin
ciples were compatible. Physics had
to. be modified. The most notable
very rapidly moving mass-points,
and this soon came to be verified in
the case of electrically-laden particles.
The most important result of the
special relativity system concerned the
inert mass of material system. 1t
becomes evident that the inertia of
such system must depend on its en-
ergy-cOntent, so that we were driven
TO the conception that lrert mass was
nothing else than latent energy. The
doctrine of the conservation of mass
lost its independence and became
merged in the doctrine and conserya-
tion of energy.
Far Reaching Consequences.
The special relatively theory, which
was simply systematic extension of
the electrO-dynamics OF Maxwell and
Lorentz. had consequences which
reached beyond itself. Must the indie
pendence of physical laws with regard
to a system of co-ordinates be limited
TO systems of co-ordinates in uniform
movement of translation with regard
to one another? What has nature TO
90 with the coordinate systems that
We propose and with their notions
.Altho it may be necessary to employ
systems of co-Ordinates that we have
selected arbitrarily, the choice should
not be limited in any way so far as
their state of motion Is concerned..
General theory of relatiyity.)
The application of this general the
ory of relativity was found to be in
conflict with well-known expert
ment, according to which it appeared
that the weight and the inertia of Il
body depended on the same constants
fidentity of inert and heavy masses.
Classical Mechanics Forbade.
Consider the case of system of CO.
ordinates which is conceived as being
in stable rotation relative to sys
tenn of inertia in the Newtonian sense.
The forces which, relatively to this
system are centrifugal must. in the
trtia. But these centrifugal forces are,
like gravitation. proportional to the
mass of the bodies. Is II not, then,
possible to regard the system of CO.
ordinates as at rest and the ccntrifu-
gal forces as gravitational? The in
terpretation seemed obvious, but clas-
steal mechanics forbade 1t.
The slight sketch indicates how u
generaliZed theory of relatively must
include the laws of eravitation. and
actual pursuit of the conception has
justified the hope. But the way was
harder than was expected, because it
contradicted Euclidian geometry. In
other words, the laws according to
space do not exactly agree with the
laws of space prescribed by the Eu-
cIidian geometry of solids. This is
what is meant by the phrase IA warp
in space" The fundamental concepts
straight plane" etc, accordingly
lose their exacting meaning in phys
les.
Dethrones Absolute Foundations.
In the generalized theory of rela-
tivity the doctrine of space and time
kinematics is no longer one Of the
absolute foundations of general phys
les. The geometrical states of bodies
and the rates of clocks depend, in the
first place, on their gravitutional fields,
which again are produced by the ma
tcrial systems concerned.
Thus the new theory of gravitation
Gjverges widely from that of Newton
with respect to its basal principle. But
in practical application the two agree
So closely that it has been difficult
to find cases in which the actual diff
rcrences could be subjected to observa
ton. As yet only the following have
nccn suggested:
1. The distortion Of the oval orbits
OF planets round the sun Iconfirmed in
the case of the planet Mercury.
2. The deviation of light rays in
gravitational field Confirmed by the
English Solar Eclipse Expedition.
g. The shifting of spectral lines to-