SCIENCE AND SANITY - online book

An Introduction To Non-aristotelian Systems And General Semantics.

Home | About | Philosphy | Contact | Search

So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that
system. (155)                                                                                                   A. EINSTEIN
In the older days we accepted as self-evident the structural assumption that there is sense in such a statement as that an event A on the sun was 'simultaneous' with an event B on the earth. We assumed also that the 'moments of our consciousness' had a universal 'meaning'. We tacitly assumed, for instance, that when we saw or photographed an event on the sun, that it happened just the moment we saw it. Such structural assumptions were rudely disturbed by the discovery of the finite velocity of light. Today we know that when we see or photograph an event on the sun, that event happened approximately eight minutes earlier, as it takes about eight minutes for the light from the sun to reach our earth. We begin to realize that the moments of our perceptions have no universal significance.
We inquire first what we mean structurally by simultaneity. We do not need to go into details. The application of functional and contact methods, even in the rough, will assist us. We can speak in terms of instruments. For instance, we can build a special, very fast moving picture camera, C, with two lenses D and E, at two opposite sides, and a calibrated film, F, running rapidly through the middle of the camera as shown in. Fig. 1. If we focus our double camera on two flashes, A and B, occurring at 'equal distances', L, from the film, we say that the flashes occur simultaneously by definition if the pictures, a and                                 r b of the flashes A and B, appear exactly opposite each other on the film, or if we have one picture. If, under the conditions of the experiment, where the distances between the origins of the flashes and the film are equal, and our film is moving very rapidly, the pictures of the flashes do not occur exactly opposite each other, but one picture is separated from the other, then we have two pictures, and conclude, by definition, that the flashes are not simultaneous.
We introduce this hypothetical instrument to show that, in discussing physics, and the theory of Einstein in physics, we do not speak of 'psychology' or personal 'subjectivity', but that we do deal with the inherent physical sub-