The Ether and Relativity

J. H. Jeans

Editor’s Note

Here the English physicist James Hopwood Jeans responds to a letter from Oliver Lodge criticizing Jeans’ recent claim that the laws of the universe would only be penetrated by the use of mathematics. Jeans affirms his belief that “No one except a mathematician need ever hope fully to understand those branches of science which try to unravel the fundamental nature of the universe—the theory of relativity, the theory of quanta and the wave mechanics.” Lodge suggested that the universe might ultimately turn out to have been created or designed on aesthetic, rather than mathematical lines. If so, one might expect artists, not mathematicians, to be best suited to fundamental science. But Jeans notices no such aptitude in his artist friends.　　中文

I obviously must not ask for space to discuss all the points raised in Sir Oliver Lodge’s interesting letter in Nature of Nov. 22, and so will attempt no reply to those parts of it which run counter to the ordinarily accepted theory of relativity. For I am sure nothing I could say would change his views here. But I am naturally distressed at his thinking I have quoted him with a “kind of unfairness”, and should be much more so, had I not an absolutely clear conscience and, as I think, the facts on my side.　　中文

In the part of my book to which Sir Oliver objects most, I explained how the hard facts of experiment left no room for the old material ether of the nineteenth century. (Sir Oliver explains in Nature that he, too, has abandoned this old material ether.) I then quoted Sir Oliver’s own words to the effect that many people prefer to call the ether “space”, and his sentence, “The term used does not matter much.”　　中文

I took these last words to mean, not merely that the ether by any other name would smell as sweet to Sir Oliver, but also that he thought that “space” was really a very suitable name for the new ether. He now explains he was willing to call the ether “space”, “for the sake of peace and agreement”. If I had thought it was only qua pacifist and not qua scientist that he was willing to call the ether “space”, I naturally would not have quoted him as I did, and will, of course, if he wishes, delete the quotation from future editions of my book. But I did not know his reasons at the time, and so cannot feel that I acted unfairly in quoting his own words verbatim from an Encyclopaedia article.　　中文

Against this, I seem to find Sir Oliver attributing things to me that, to the best of my belief, I did not say at all, as, for example, that a mathematician alone can hope to understand the universe. My own words were (p. 128):

“No one except a mathematician need ever hope fully to understand those branches of science which try to unravel the fundamental nature of the universe—the theory of relativity, the theory of quanta and the wave-mechanics.”　　中文

This I stick to, having had much experience of trying to explain these branches of science to non-mathematicians. In the same way, if the material universe had been created or designed on aesthetic lines—a possibility which others have contemplated besides Sir Oliver Lodge—then artists ought to be specially apt at these fundamental branches of science. I have noticed no such special aptitude on the part of my artist friends. Incidentally, I think this answers the question propounded in the News and Views columns of Nature of Nov. 8, which was, in brief:—If the universe were fundamentally aesthetic, how could an aesthetic description of it possibly be given by the methods of physics? Surely the answer is that if the objective universe were fundamentally aesthetic in its design, physics (defined as the science which explores the fundamental nature of the objective universe) would be very different from what it actually is; it would be a milieu for artistic emotion and not for mathematical symbols. Of course, we may come to this yet, but if so, modern physics would seem rather to have lost the scent.　　中文

However, I am glad to be able to agree with much that Sir Oliver writes, including the quotations from Einstein which he seems to bring up as heavy artillery to give me the final coup de grace:—“In this sense, therefore, there exists an ether”, and so on. On this I would comment that nothing in science seems to exist any more in the good old-fashioned sense—that is, without qualifications; and modern physics always answers the question, “To be or not to be?” by some hesitation compromise, ambiguity, or evasion. All this, to my mind, gives strong support to my main thesis.　　中文

(126, 877; 1930)

J. H. Jeans: Cleveland Lodge, Dorking, Nov. 23.