Mind Association

Professor Maxwell on the Relativity of Motion

Author(s): James K. Thacker
Source: Mind, Vol. 4, No. 14 (Apr., 1879), pp. 262-266
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2246672
Accessed: 05/10/2010 07:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and Mind Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Mind.

http://www.jstor.org
262 NotesandDiscussions.

PROFESSOR MAXWELL ON THE RELATIVITY OF MOTION.

UNDER the title Matter and Motion, ProfessorMaxwell furnishes
one of the seriesof " Manuals of Elemenitary Science," published by
the SocietyforPromotingChristianKnowledge. In its hundredand
twenty small pages are presentedthe more importantconceptions
which studentsof physicsand astronoinyhave arrivedat as a means
of graspinsg the phenomenaof the materialuniverse. A prolegomena
physica of this natureis of verygreat utility; but how well adapted
to the general public this attempt by ProfessorMaxwell is, how
digestiblelihelarge amount of nutrimentin this formmay be, we
shall not here surmise. We propose merelyto bringforwardsome
considerationsregardingthe relativityof motion,especiallyin refer-
ence to rotarymotion,whichare containedin the book or suggested
by it.
On page 20, afterspeakingof the positionof a pointas its distances
and directionsfromotherpoints,ProfessorMaxwell says:
"All our knowledge,both of time and place, is essentiallyrelative.
When a man has acquireda habit of puttingwordstogether, without
troubling himselfto formthe thoughtsthat oughtto correspond to them,
it is easyforhim to framean antithesis betweenthis relativeknowledge
and a so-calledabsoluteknowledge, and to pointout our ignorance of the
absolutepositionofa pointas an instanceofthelimitation ofourfaculties.
Anyone,however,whowill tryto imaginethestateof a mindconsciousof
knowingtheabsolutepositionof a pointwill everafterbe contentwith
ourrelativeknowledge."
Having thenestablishedthe factthat our knowledgeor conceptioh
of positioninvolvesonly the geometricalrelationsbetweenpointsand
conisistsentirelyof our knowledgeor conceptionsof those relations,
ProfessorMaxwell proceedsto considermotionand rest,and to show
the relativityof these also. Evidently since position is relative,
motion,whichis the change of position,mustbe relativeto at least
an equal degree. On p. 29 we read
"It is true that whenwe saythat a bodyis at restwe use a formof
wordswhichappearsto assertsomething about that body consideredin
itself,and wemightimaginethatthevelocityofanotherbody,if reckoned
withrespectto a bodyat rest,wouldbe its t-rue and onlyabsolutevelocity.
But thephrase' at resit,'
meansin ordinary language' havingno velocity
withrespectto thaton whichthebody stands,'as, forinstance,thesurface
oftheearthor thedeckof a ship. It cannotbe madeto meanmorethan
this.
" It is therefore
unscientific
to distinguishbetweenrestand motion,as
betweentwo different statesof a bodyin itself,since it is impossible
to
speakofa bodybeingat restor in motion,exceptwithreference expressed
or implied,to someotherbody."
Thus all that we can know or conceive with regard to position,
motion and rest, consistsof the geomietricalrelationsbetween the
pointsconcernedand the changesof thoserelations,and this is indeed
all thatthe wordsposition,restand motionmean.
Let us illustratethis. We will supposethat the universeconsists
 -Notes
and Discussions. 263
of a sphere and a ring, and that the sphere passes and repasses
throughthe ring. And, that this ideal universe be as simple as
possible,let all the pointsof the sphere move in straightlines with
regardto the ring. Thus we will suppose it to swingto and frofor
ever. We will people these bodies. The inhabitantsof the sphere
then will see the ring,approaching,surroundilng and passingthem to
returnand repass. The inhabitantsof the ring will see the sphere
approach,pass throughtheir world,and departto returnand repeat
its motionindefinitely.
Now, it will be qnite in accordance with the ordinaryuse of
languageforthe inhabitantsof the ring to speak of the sphereas in
motion,and for the inhabitantsof the sphereto speak of the ring as
in motion. And if thevwish to representastronomicalphenomenain
their lecture-rooms, the inhabitantsof the ringwill make theirminia-
ture model of a ring stationaryin the-lecture roomiand cause the
sphereto move to and fro throughthis. The conversewill be the
case withthe scientistson the sphere. Nay further, in conceivinogthe
phenomena in their own minds,those on the ring will be apt to
imaginea modelconstructedin one way, those on the spherein the
other. Now, it is evidentthat in both these ways of representing
the actual phenomena,whetherin modelsor imagination,both parties
are right. In the modelsthe sphereand the ring must have specific
relationsof motionor rest to the walls of the lecture-room, just as
theymusthave wires to supportthem and machineryto keep them
going,bhut the relationsto the walls of the lecture-room do not repre-
sent the real,astronomicalfacts any more than do the wiresand the
clockwork. And if,when we imagine the models,we findit easier
to conceive the one thingor the other as at rest with regardto our-
selves,we mustnot forgetthatthis relationis not one that reproduces
what we wish to reproduce,namely,the changes of configuration of
the system.
It is well to become perfectlyclear with regardto this matter.
We must not,for example,imagine thatthe two partiessee different
sides of the same thing. They do in factsee the whole of it.
Nor mustwe regardthe two views as two different theories,each
witha certainnumberof factsin itsfavour. Thereis onlyone theory,
and all the facts sustain it. But there are two different ways of
representing it.
We have spokeilabove of the particlesof the sphere as movingin
straightlines with regard to the ring. We have hereto show that
the expressionmove in straightlines is meaninglesswithoutan ex-
pressed or implied referenceto a body with regard to which the
motionis straight. Suppo.sethata pea is propelledthrougha straight
peashooter. If each point in the peashooteris at rest with regard
to the ring in our formerexample, thenithe inhabitantsof the ring
would say that the pea moved in a straightline. But if the man
with the peashootermoved it about while the pea was goingthrough,
theywould say thatit moved in a curvedline. If he should move
the peashooterso as to keep it at rest in all its pointswith regard
264 NotesandDiscussions.
to the sphere,theinhabitantsofthe spherewouldsay.thatthepea moved
in a straightline, and the inhabitantsof the ringin a curvedline.
Nor would there be any difference betweenthe two views,because
in the one case referenceto the sphere,in the other to the ring,is
understood. It is thereforeevidentthat,in speakingof motion,not
only the amount,but the directionof the motion and the natureof
the trajectoryas beingstraightor curved,containsan implicitreference
to some otherbody.
Now, the question arises to what body is referencehad in the use
ofthe wordstraightin Newton's firstlaw of motion. The law runs:
Every bodyperseveresin its stateof restor of movi,ng uniformly in a
straightline exceptin so far as it is made to changethatstate by
externalforces.
If we confineour attentionto terrestrialphenomena,we find that
the law is in all ordinarycases sensiblytrue,when by straightwe
understandstraightwith referenceto the earth. But betterdevised
experimentsand more accurate observationshow that this is not
exactlytrue,and we are driven to the fixed starsas a basis of refer-
ence. The trajectoriesmust be straightwith regardto these. But
even withregardto these the law does not seem to be perfectlyac-
curate. Still we are not obliged to consider the law as merely
approximative;forwe can definea plane, and pointsin that plane, so
movingwitlhreferenceto real,i.e., material,points,thatthe law shall
hold true to the extent of all our powers-of -scientific observation.
We will illustrateby supposingthatthestarsdid not shine,and hence
were unknownto us, and that we attemptedto apply Newton'slaw
to the motionof bodies on the earth. We should findas beforethat
it was not strictlyaccurate,withreferenceto the earth,and we should
not be able to referto the stars. We might,however,come to con-
ceive of a plane passingthroughthe poles of the earthand turning
about its axis fromn east to west once a day (sidereal),and then we
should findthatthe trajectoriesof the bodies would be almostexactly
straightwith regard to this plane. This plane, althoughimaginary,
is rigorouslydefinedwithregardto real pointson the earth,and other
motionsused as measuresof time. Moreover,the motionwould be
straightwith regardto all planes moved parallel to this plane with a
uniformmotion.
In this way then we may have to posit and define a plane of
referenceamongthe " fixed" stars,a plane not fixed perhaps with
regard to any one of those stars,but whose motion is capable of
definition with referenceto the stars. With regardto this we may
assulneNewton's law perfectlyaccurate,but we mustbear in mind
that,if there is one, there is an infinitenumberof such planes,i.e.,
all thosemoving uniformly parallel with that one whichwe happen
to select.
We now pass to what ProfessorMaxwell says about the motionof
the earth. On page 87 we read:-
' So faras regardsthe geometrical of the earthand the
configuration
heavenlybodies,itis evidently all thesame
 and Discussions.
NSotes 265

Whetherthesun predominant in heaven

Rise on theearth,or earthriseon thesun,'&c., &c.
The distancesbetweenthebodiescomposing theuniverse, whethercelestial
and the anglesbetweenthe linesjoiningthem,areall that
or terrestrial,
withoutan appeal to dynamicalprinciples,
can be ascertaine(d and these
will notbe affectedif anymotionof rotationof the wholesystem, similar
to thatofa rigidbodyabout an axis,is combinedwith the actualmotion.
So that,froma geometrical pointofview,theCopernican according
system,
to whichtheearthrotates, has no advantage, over
exceptthatofsimplicity,
thatin whichtheearthis supposedto be at rest,and theapparent motions
oftheheavenlybodiesto be theirabsolute(sic) motions."
After what has been said, and won our assent,to the effectthat
motionand restare conditionsof relationsbetweenbodies and nothing,
more than this,and as these relationsare, merelythosereferredto
in the passagejust quoted,lines and angles,as beingthe same under
eitherhypothesis,we are unable to see any difference between the
Copernican and Ptolemaic theoryas far as regardsthe real things
which thosetheoriesregard. But it is evident that the phenomena
mightbe modelledrand the modelsconceivedin one way or the other,
and it may be readilyadmitted\ that one way of makingthe orreries,
or drawingthe figures,or conceivingof the phenomelna in miniature,
might be practicallymore convenientthan the other. When the
phenomenaare thus modelledor figuredin imaginationthe difference
betweenthe two conceptionslies in thedifferencebetweenthe relations,
of restor motion,betweenthe images of the astronomicalbodies and
the roomor our own persons. But, as we have said before,these
relationsdo not repeat any astronomicalrelations. While, then,the
differenceis a differenceonly in the scaffolding,it by no means
followsthat the resultsof the improvementin this would be incon-
siderable as regards our real knowledge. Indeed they have been
marvellous.
The word " absolute" appearsin the foregoingquotation,and theim-
plicationis that in the one view the earth,in the otherthe stars,are
" absoluitely" at rest. To decide between theman appeal is made to
dynamicallaws. Inasmuch, however,as these dynamicallaws are
generalisations of modesof changeof configurationofmaterialsystems,
and as these changes have nothinogabsolute in the sense of non-
relativein them,it is evident that the dylnamicallaws can have no
reference to anythingabsolute in thatsense-its ordinarysense. It
remainsthento discoverwhat meaning is to be given to the word
"absolute " in orderthatthestatementof the earth'sabsoluterotation
mnay be, we will not say true,but intelligible. Evidentlyfromthe
appeal to dynamics,this meaningmust have reference to some dyna-
mical law.
We will see what ProfessorMaxwell refersus to. "Newton," he
says, page 88, " was the firstto pointout thatthe absolute motionof
the earthmightbe demonstrated by experimentson the rotationof a
material system,"anid he goes on with some experimentson the
developmentof centrifugalforce by rotation,and concludes with
Foucault's pendulum-experiment.Now the centrifugalforce is a
266 Notesand Discussions.

merecaseofNewton's firstlaw,and Foucault'sexperiment is another,

a littlemorecomplicated.Newton'slawwas withregardto uniform
motionin straight lineswithreference to a plane (orotherbodyof
points)defined in suchand sucha way. The planeinwhichthepen-
dulum, situatedatthepoles,vibrates mustbe atrestwithregardtothis
planeofreference impliedin Newton'slaw. The earth,rotating then
withregardto theplaneof Foucault'spendulum, rotates
withregard
to theplaneof reference oncein twenty-four hours. But theearthis
saidto rotateabsolutelyonce in twenty-four hours,and it is only
provedthatit does so by showing thatit rotateswithregardto the
planeof reference; therefore all thatit meansis thatit rotateswith
respectto the plane of reference." Absolute" motionthenmeans
motionwithregardto a plane(or otherbodyof points)with regard
to whichuninfluenced motionis in straightlines. Since,however,
uninfluenlced motionis in straightlines withregardto an infinite
numberof planes (or otherbodiesof points)movingparalleleachto
itselfwitha uniform motion, it mayseemtrivialto distinguish oneof
theseplanesfromall theothers, buta changeofdirection withregard
to anyoftheseplanesis a changeofdirectionl withregard tothemall.
We maythusspeakof rotationwith regardto all the planesor a
changeofvelocity withregardto themall,whilethemotion not
itself,
thechangeofmotion,at anyinstantis something differentforeach
one of-theseplanes. To this we maythenrefuseto assiona value,
forit mightbe, orrather is, everyvalue. But thedirection orchange
ofvelocity ofthemotionis thesamiie forall of theseplanesof refer-
ence,and to thesewemaygivethename" absolute". It is perhaps to
be,regretted thatthesamewordhas thesetwodifferent meanings, the
one non-relative,and the otherthe technicaland peculiarmeaning
whichwe have described.But so it is and the technicalmeaning
is too differentfromthe ordinary meaningto be at all comparable
withit.
It is hardlynecessary to state that the Ptolemaicdid not differ
fromtheCopernican systemby asserting thatthe earthwas at rest
withregardto a plane withreference to whichuninfluenced motion
was in straightlines. But it is easy to see howtheCopernican con-
ceptionwas muchbetteradaptedto conceivingthe dynamicsof
astronomy than the Ptolemaic. The modelson theformer system
would have made the directions whichthe planetstendedto take
straight lineswithregardto theroom,and hencecoincident withthe
directions whichthe miniature spheresof the orrery wouldactually
take if theywerefree,while,on the otherplan,the bodieswould
have to describecomplexcurvesin the room. This is the grand
advantagein the Copernicanconception, but, we need hardlysay
again,it is oneofmeresubjective logicalconvenience.
JAMESK. THACKER.
U.S.A.
Yale College,