Abstract
IN Mr. Bertrand Russell's article in the new volumes of the "Encyclopædia Britannica" entitled "Relativity Philosophical Consequences," there occurs the following sentence: "The observer who is often mentioned in expositions of relativity need not be a mind, but may be a photographic plate or any kind of recording instrument." I should like to know how far Mr. Russell can claim to be in agreement with physicists on this point. For my own part it would seem to make complete nonsense of the theory. As I understand the principle of relativity, every object which can be observed, including the measuring rods and clocks which are used to observe, not excepting the retina of the observer's eye, undergoes transformation when the observer passes from one system of reference to another. If it is not so, if there be one piece of matter which can claim to be privileged, be it only a single electron, what, I ask, is the use or meaning of the principle?
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CARR, H. Relativity and the Observer. Nature 119, 199 (1927). https://doi.org/10.1038/119199a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/119199a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.