Full download test bank at ebook textbookfull.

com

Space Time and the Limits of Human

Understanding 1st Edition Shyam

CLICK LINK TO DOWLOAD

https://textbookfull.com/product/space-time-
and-the-limits-of-human-understanding-1st-
edition-shyam-wuppuluri/

textbookfull
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Map and the Territory Exploring the Foundations of

Science Thought and Reality 1st Edition Shyam Wuppuluri

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-map-and-the-territory-
exploring-the-foundations-of-science-thought-and-reality-1st-
edition-shyam-wuppuluri/

The Map and the Territory Exploring the Foundations of

Science Thought and Reality Shyam Wuppuluri

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-map-and-the-territory-
exploring-the-foundations-of-science-thought-and-reality-shyam-
wuppuluri/

Understanding Space Time and Causality Modern Physics

and Ancient Indian Traditions B V Sreekantan

https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-space-time-and-
causality-modern-physics-and-ancient-indian-traditions-b-v-
sreekantan/

Human Duties and the Limits of Human Rights Discourse

1st Edition Eric R. Boot (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/human-duties-and-the-limits-of-
human-rights-discourse-1st-edition-eric-r-boot-auth/
The Future of Human Space Exploration 1st Edition
Giovanni Bignami

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-future-of-human-space-
exploration-1st-edition-giovanni-bignami/

The Invention of Time and Space Origins Definitions

Nature Properties 1st Edition Patrice F. Dassonville

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-invention-of-time-and-space-
origins-definitions-nature-properties-1st-edition-patrice-f-
dassonville/

Archaeology and Heritage of the Human Movement into

Space Space and Society 2015th Edition Beth Laura
Oleary

https://textbookfull.com/product/archaeology-and-heritage-of-the-
human-movement-into-space-space-and-society-2015th-edition-beth-
laura-oleary/

Translation across Time and Space 1st Edition Wafa Abu

Hatab

https://textbookfull.com/product/translation-across-time-and-
space-1st-edition-wafa-abu-hatab/

Demanding Energy: Space, Time and Change 1st Edition

Allison Hui

https://textbookfull.com/product/demanding-energy-space-time-and-
change-1st-edition-allison-hui/
 T H E F R O N T I E R S C O L L E C T I O N

Shyam Wuppuluri
Giancarlo Ghirardi (Eds.)

SPACE , TIME
AND THE LIMITS
OF HUMAN
U NDERSTANDING
Foreword by John Stachel and
Afterword by Noam Chomsky

123
THE FRONTIERS COLLECTION

Series editors
Avshalom C. Elitzur
Iyar The Israel Institute for Advanced Research, Rehovot, Israel
e-mail: [email protected]

Laura Mersini-Houghton
Department of Physics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
NC 27599-3255, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

T. Padmanabhan
Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), Pune, India
e-mail: [email protected]

Maximilian Schlosshauer
Department of Physics, University of Portland, Portland, OR 97203, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

Mark P. Silverman
Department of Physics, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 06106, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

Jack A. Tuszynski
Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]

Rüdiger Vaas
Center for Philosophy and Foundations of Science, University of Giessen,
35394 Giessen, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
THE FRONTIERS COLLECTION

Series Editors
A.C. Elitzur L. Mersini-Houghton T. Padmanabhan M. Schlosshauer
M.P. Silverman J.A. Tuszynski R. Vaas

The books in this collection are devoted to challenging and open problems at the
forefront of modern science, including related philosophical debates. In contrast to
typical research monographs, however, they strive to present their topics in a
manner accessible also to scientifically literate non-specialists wishing to gain
insight into the deeper implications and fascinating questions involved. Taken as a
whole, the series reflects the need for a fundamental and interdisciplinary approach
to modern science. Furthermore, it is intended to encourage active scientists in all
areas to ponder over important and perhaps controversial issues beyond their own
speciality. Extending from quantum physics and relativity to entropy, conscious-
ness and complex systems—the Frontiers Collection will inspire readers to push
back the frontiers of their own knowledge.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5342

For a full list of published titles, please see back of book or springer.com/series/5342
Shyam Wuppuluri ⋅ Giancarlo Ghirardi
Editors

Space, Time and the Limits

of Human Understanding

123
Editors
Shyam Wuppuluri Giancarlo Ghirardi
R. N. Podar School (CBSE) Abdus Salam International Centre for
Podar Educational Complex Theoretical Physics
Mumbai Trieste
India Italy

ISSN 1612-3018 ISSN 2197-6619 (electronic)

THE FRONTIERS COLLECTION
ISBN 978-3-319-44417-8 ISBN 978-3-319-44418-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-44418-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016950405

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Chapter 15 is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). For further details see license information in the chapter.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Vox audita perit litera scripta manet,
The thing heard perishes but the written
word remains
—Latin Maxim.
Foreword

First of all, let me thank Mr. Shyam Wuppuluri for his years of effort devoted to
inspiring, assembling, and editing this volume. Rather than attempting to comment
on the papers in it, I shall try to outline my approach to some issues that the reader
may find helpful to bear in mind when reading these papers. Unfortunately, the
concepts needed to discuss these issues are so interrelated that I have not found it
possible to provide a simple, sequential introduction to these concepts. Indeed, they
are inextricably intermingled in my presentation.
Every human community is based on an interrelated complex of labor processes
that enable the community not just to survive but that, if successful, enable it to
grow and thrive. Each such labor process involves three elements: the labor of a
group of people using some tools to act upon the initial objects of labor (the “raw
materials”). The goal of this process is action upon these initial objects in such a
way as to produce final objects (the “finished products”) that will benefit at least
some members of the community.
But not all tools and initial objects are external to the members of the com-
munity. Language—and other symbolic systems that language enables people to
create—allows them to form conceptual systems, some of which in turn become
intellectual tools that can be used to modify the initial conceptual systems and to
create new ones.
In other words, not all labor need to be manual. Just as important is intellectual
labor. Like all forms of labor, intellectual labor starts from some object—in this
case a conceptual object—and works on this object with the aim of modifying it to
produce a new conceptual object (see my paper “Problems not Disciplines”). There
are many types of intellectual tools (art, literature, religion, etc.) but most important
for the questions discussed in this volume are the scientific disciplines, including
both the so-called natural and social sciences (better called the human sciences—the
Geisteswissenschaften in German).
Why include the social sciences? As in all other forms of labor, a successful
intellectual labor process is ultimately the result of the collective labor of more than
one individual: knowledge is our name for such results. Rather than being an

vii
viii Foreword

individual problem, as it has been treated in Western philosophy since the time of
Descartes, the problem of knowledge is a social problem (see my paper Where is
Knowledge?). And it should always be borne in mind that the ultimate goal of all
intellectual labor is to provide additional resources to some human community for
action upon the material world and, intended or not, to produce changes in the
community itself.
As noted already, in the case of intellectual labor the objects of labor are
complexes of concepts; and the collective labor acting upon these complexes is that
of some intellectual community. When it is successful, new knowledge is our name
for the results of such a process of intellectual labor. And it is important to bear in
mind that knowledge itself is indeed a process that will never end as long as
intellectual communities continue to exist. So one should be suspicious of any
proposed axiomatization of some realm of human knowledge, especially if it is
accompanied by claims of the closure of what should be an open, unending process.
An important philosophical issue is the distinction between the conceptual
objects that constitute our knowledge and the objects of that knowledge, and the
relation between these two. Such philosophical doctrines as conflicts as empiricism,
rationalism, naturalism, materialism and idealism depend on the answer to this
question. Suffice it to say that I regard the goal of action on the objects of
knowledge as primary. The introduction of a new conceptual object, or the modi-
fication of an existing one, must make clear its relation to some object(s) of
knowledge. In the case of physical concepts, such as space and time, this means that
their definition must be accompanied by some account of the means by which an
ideal measurement of this quantity can be carried out.
Let me emphasize: I am not maintaining that it is meaningful because it is
measurable; rather that because it is meaningful it must in principle be measurable.
No one has stated this lesson more eloquently than Gaston Bachelard:
In order to embody new experimental evidence, it is necessary to deform the original
concepts, study the conditions of applicability of these concepts, and above all incorporate
the conditions of applicability of a concept into the very meaning of the concept. … The
classic division that separates a theory from its application ignores this necessity to
incorporate the conditions of applicability into the very essence of the theory (La formation
de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin. 1938, pg. 61; transl. by J.S.).

Like all tools, intellectual tools themselves may become the object of a labor
process aimed at improving their effectiveness—indeed one tool may even be set
aside totally in favor of some new tool. The prime example is relation between
language, the first intellectual tool, and logic. Logic is a tool created for the
improvement of language when it is applied to certain subjects. Indeed, one should
rather say “logics,” since more than one consistent logical system may be employed
in the critical reconstruction of a language. So one might say that logic is about
language and language is about the world. Often this two-step relation is reduced to
a one-step relation: logic is about the world—a view I have criticized for decades
[A] logic always has some language as its object. The more formalized one wants the logic
to be, the more formalized the language must be. … Since a logic presupposes a language,
Foreword ix

the objects logic studies must be linguistic objects. I believe in the existence of other objects
which are quite independent of language; but such objects, in contrast to linguistic refer-
ences to them, cannot have a logic. Lest this be thought a mere verbal quibble, let me point
out that someone who believed that all reality was fundamentally conceptual in nature
could meaningfully and non-metaphorically speak of the logic of the world.

The doctrine that all relations are fundamentally logical relations and that there is hence no
basic distinction between logic and ontology is not unknown in the philosophical literature.
… It has even been given a name, “panlogism” … However, if one does adopt this position,
it should be done with full awareness, and not tacitly through acceptance of a certain
approach to quantum logic” (excerpts from “Do Quanta Need a New Logic?”).

I maintain that, in this respect, mathematics is similar to logic. Mathematical

structures do not apply directly to the world, but to other conceptual structures that
have been created to apply to some aspects of the world. Again this two-step
relation is often short-circuited with the assertion that mathematical structures apply
directly to the world (see Where is Knowledge?). In the case of physical structures,
the easiest way to see the fallacy of such an assertion is by looking the question of
units. In order to quantify any physical concept, a system of appropriate units must
be introduced; and it is only the ratio of some physical quantity to its unit that is a
pure number, and the usual mathematical relation between two such physical
concepts can only be applied to pure numbers. To define the distance between two
points, one must first specify some unit of distance, and the numerical value of the
distance between these points is then the ratio of that distance specified in these
units divided by this unit of distance. Given a set of such primary units, secondary
units may then be computed. For example, in order to specify the velocity of some
object one must divide a spatial distance by a temporal interval; so units of space
and time must first be specified.
Finally, let me turn to the concepts of space and time. If we now consider the
objects of the dynamical natural sciences, their objects themselves are processes
(e.g., mechanical, electromagnetic, quantum, etc.). As long as the Newtonian
worldview prevailed, it made sense to consider such processes as composed of a
sequence of states, one for each value of the absolute time. But with the advent
of the special theory of relativity, and even more the general theory of relativity, a
viewpoint based on states is no longer tenable. The processes are primary; and any
introduction of a temporal sequence of states—to the extent that it is possible—is
quite secondary and dependent on additional definitions. A number of theoretical
physicists have emphasized the primacy of process, including Lee Smolin:
Relativity theory and quantum theory each. tell us—no, better, they scream at us—that our
world is a history of processes. Motion and change are primary. Nothing is, except in a very
approximate and temporary sense. How something is, or what its state is, is an illusion. It
may be a useful illusion for some purposes, but if we want to think fundamentally we must
not lose sight of the essential fact that ‘is’ is an illusion. So to speak the language of the new
physics we must learn a vocabulary in which process is more important than, and prior to
stasis (Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. Basic Books, 2001).
x Foreword

To put it another way, the four-dimensional concept of space–time is primary, its

possible division into three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time is quite
secondary and depends on the introduction of additional concepts.
What about time, the reader may object? Surely this is a primary concept. Here
one must make a distinction between two concepts of time that are often conflated:
between what I have called local time and global time (see “Albert Einstein: A Man
for the Millennium”). To clarify what I mean by the concept of the local time
between two events, I often draw an analogy between this concept and the concept
of the spatial distance between two places. It is well known that the distance
between two different places depends on the spatial path between them. The
shortest distance is along the straightest path between them. The local time between
two non-coincident events in space–time depends on the spatiotemporal path
between them. That is the analogy; the difference is that the longest local time
interval between the two events is along the straightest path in space–time has. As
alluded to above in the discussion of units, it is the local time that is measured by
clocks and the spatial distance that is measured by rulers (“measuring rods”).
Clearly, when one speaks of two non-coincident events as “taking place at the
same time,” it cannot be the concept of local time that is involved. Indeed it is here
that the concept of global time enters the story. When the Newtonian worldview
prevailed, the additional concept of the absolute time provided such a definition
of the global time. Two non-coincident events either occurred at the same absolute
time or one preceded the other, and clocks measured this absolute time in a
path-independent way. Once the concept of absolute time was abandoned, clocks
measured only the path-dependent local time, and two non-coincident events might
or might not be connected by a temporal path. Given an initial event, all events not
connected to it by a timeline path form an entire region of space–time that has been
called the elsewhere of the event. The concept of global time amounts to some
definition of a three-dimensional slice of this four-dimensional elsewhere; and in
general nothing physically significant can depend on this definition.
The great divide between general relativity and all previous dynamical theories
is that they were all based on fixed and given space–time structures. All dynamical
processes took place on the fixed and given stage provided by these structures. In
contrast, general relativity has no such fixed structures. All space–time structures
are themselves dynamical entities, subject to field equations. So that until a solution
to these field equations is specified, no answers to questions about space–time
structures can be given. As I have put it elsewhere: in all the rest of physics,
“where” and “when” are parts of the question; in general relativity, “where” and
“when” are parts of the answer.
I do not expect the reader to uncritically accept my viewpoint on these issues;
but hope that he or she will bear in mind the need for adopting some standpoint
about them when confronting many of the questions discussed in this volume.

John Stachel
Foreword xi

Appendix

Those interested in further exploring my approach to these questions may want to

start with: Where is Knowledge? in Joseph Kouneiher et al, eds., Frontiers of
Fundamental Physics/The Eleventh International Symposium, AIP Conference
Proceedings, vol. 1446 (American Institute of Physics, 2012), pp. 312–334. Some
other relevant papers of mine (many of them may be found at this website: http://
www.bu.edu/cphs/ces/research/papers-by-stachel/) are:
• “Do Quanta Need a New Logic?” In From Quarks to Quasars/ Philosophical
Problems of Modern Physics, edited by Robert Colodny, pp. 229–347. Pitts-
burgh: U. of Pittsburgh Press, 1986.
• “Quantum Logic,” in The Philosophy of Science/An Encyclopedia, vol. 2,
Sahotra Sarkar and Jessica Pfeffer, eds. (New York/Abington: Routledge),
pp. 633–644 (2005).
• “Structure, Individuality and QG,” in D.P. Rickles, S. French and J. Saatsi, eds.,
Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity (Oxford University Press),
pp. 53–82 (2006).
• Albert Einstein: A Man for the Millenium?, in L. Mornas and J. Diaz Alonzo,
eds., A Century of Relativity Physics/ERE 2005 XXVII Spanish Relativity
Meeting: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 841 (American Institute of Physics,
2006).
• Problems not Disciplines, in J. Renn and K. Gavroglu, eds, Positioning the
History of Science (Springer 2007) pp. 163–167.
• The Story of Newstein or: Is Gravity Just Another Pretty Force?, in J. Renn (ed.)
The Genesis of General Relativity, Vol. 4, Theories of Gravitation in the Twi-
light of Classical Physics: The Promise o f Mathematics and the Dream of a
Unified Theory (Springer 2007), pp. 421–458.
• Prolegomena to any future quantum gravity, in D. Oriti (ed.), Approaches to
Quantum Gravity, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).
• John Stachel and Kaća Bradonjić, Quantum Gravity: Meaning and Measure-
ment, in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 2013.
• The Hole Argument and Some Physical and Philosophical Implications, Living
Reviews in Relativity, vol. 17, 2014, pp. 1–66.
Preface

This book offers, to a diverse nonspecialist audience, a panorama of contextual

perspectives on the topics of space and time. Almost every field has in its language,
a notion of space and time. This duo is intertwined into the fabric of our existence.
If you are an aficionado of classical music, you would see that absolute music and
programmed music differ not only in their nature but also in purpose. While the
former is composed for its own sake, the latter is composed keeping in mind a
context. Akin to this, space and time, have been analyzed either for their own sake
or to fit a context and thereby to serve some purpose. To each his own.
When this collection was planned, it seemed natural to organize the articles,
written by towering figures belonging to seven diverse fields, into various sections
to facilitate a better understanding. And with the hope that a global meaning would
emerge from such contextual viewpoints when the dots are connected. We thus
segregated this volume into various fields, namely philosophy, physics, mathe-
matics, biology/cognitive science, logic/computer science and a section ‘Miscel-
laneous’ which includes literature, space–time geography and art.
Einstein once remarked, “Space and Time are modes by which we think and not
a condition in which we live.” The Philosophy section is therefore devoted to some
foundational and metaphysical aspects of Space and Time, which are intuitive in
nature. Articles contain views of philosophers like Descartes, Newton, Leibniz,
Hume, Kant, Poincare, Cassirer, Sartre, Husserl, etc., on space and time. In addition
to the western philosophy, two articles are dedicated to elaborating on the views of
space and time of the Indian schools of thought—Vedic and Nyaya. It also contains
a treatise on the nature of space and time.
Thinking often gets translated into a theory after it passes the toll gate of the
scientific method, which not only verifies the claims experimentally but also checks
their consistency. The Physics section is aimed at providing a clear and precise
account of empirical/physical status of space and time. Its articles cover topics
ranging from relativity theory to quantum theory, ideas of Minkowski, Einstein, and
Hermann Weyl, and others, and some more recent advances in our understanding of
Space and Time.

xiii
xiv Preface

The Book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics, as Galileo

remarked. The next section deals with the mathematical foundations of space and
time. Articles address themes such as the nature of metric, manifolds, spatial
relationships, and the nature of the continuum. They draw from the works of Euclid,
Leibniz, Einstein, Hermann Weyl, Grothendieck, and others, thereby trying to
analyze and model the notions of Space and Time from a mathematical setting.
These contributions are both pedagogical and expository in nature.
Space and time are intangible. But our consciousness paints them for us all the
time. Be it when our house is packed with guests or when a deadline is pressing.
But what are these notions produced by our brains? The section Biology/Cognitive
Science deals with spatial and temporal perceptions and how they are grounded in
our cognition, space in biological systems, time in biological systems (circadian
rhythms) and time from an evolutionary perspective.
Merrick Furst once remarked, “The biggest difference between time and space is
that you can’t reuse time.” Within the computational context, we concern ourselves
with storage (space), computing time (time) and their associated complexities. This
section, Logic/Computer Science, deals with topics such as computational com-
plexity, space–time tradeoffs in analytic engines and topics in classical and modern
logic that pertain to the second part of the title, limits of human
understanding/thinking. It offers a concise account of the logician Kurt Godel’s
work which includes his incompleteness theorems, their impact on theoretical
physics and economics and his views on time.
The last section, ‘Miscellaneous’, contains handpicked articles which elucidate
the notions of space and time with in the fields of literature, space–time geography
and visual arts.
An intriguing foreword by Prof. John Stachel and a captivating afterword by
Prof. Noam Chomsky add icing to the cake. All the 44 authors have taken utmost
care to keep the articles as nontechnical as possible and self-contained. They have
included an appendix with their articles (when needed) to furnish the technicalities
for those keen to explore deeper.
During my undergraduate days, I, like many others, was deeply influenced by
the fresh worldview found in Douglas Hofstadter’s books. He is in a sense the ‘Pied
Piper’, that Hermann Weyl once addressed David Hilbert as, who seduced many
rats to follow him into the deep river of thinking. His emphasis that analogy making
is at the core of our cognition, motivated me and eventually led to inception of this
volume.
An original thinker belonging to any domain of science should be Sherlock’ian
in many aspects. Just as Holmes decodes the mysterious stick figures inscribed on
the walls (The adventure of the Dancing Men) by finding patterns and thereby
extracting meanings, the true pursuit of science begins with decoding such ana-
logical stick figures painted by Mother Nature on the canvas of perceived reality.
They can be tracks on bubble chambers or patterns within numbers. In such a
Preface xv

pursuit, one greatly benefits from knowledge of diverse fields which can trigger
cross-domain analogies. We sincerely hope, through this erudite volume, that a
symphony of patterns and a tapestry of intuitions will emerge, providing a holistic
insight into the questions: ‘What is Space?’ and ‘What is Time?’

Juhu, Mumbai Shyam Wuppuluri

Acknowledgements

Of course Rome was neither built in a day nor by a single person! I am very
fortunate to find a lot of people who went out of their way to support me in this
endeavor. Chronologically, I would like to thank Prof. John Stachel from the
bottom of my heart for agreeing to write a foreword and guiding me patiently all
through since the project’s inception. His support kick-started the project. My
decision to proceed with Springer owed much to the wonderful association with the
editor, Dr. Angela Lahee, who has played a role not less than that of a guardian
angel concerning this project. Her unparalleled expertise, enthusiasm, and patience,
coupled with timely and valuable advice are gratefully acknowledged. The project
could not have been in better hands than hers.
While the overall structure and contents were in place, with 38 authors on board
but still moored in the harbor, I sought a co-editor, who would provide me with
feedback. Little did I know that Prof. Giancarlo Ghirardi, a close associate of Prof.
John Stewart Bell, would be the one to join me in this journey as a co-editor.
Despite his health issues he took out time from his busy academic life and dealt
with the project with care and patience. I have greatly benefited from his associ-
ation, humility, wisdom, and support. Language definitely fails to translate the
gratitude I have towards him. My heartfelt thanks to Prof. Noam Chomsky, who
does not need an introduction. I am yet to find an adjective which has not been used
previously to describe his multifaceted personality. Though I feel guilty that I
cannot take the name of each author, I would like to thank every author, whole-
heartedly, for their efforts and especially those who generously and patiently col-
laborated, incorporating the feedback and customizing the article. I am fortunate to
have such associations. Sadly I must mention that Prof. Jonathan Borwein, who not
only contributed to this volume but also leaves behind a wealth of other intellectual
achievements, died on 2nd August, 2016. Mourning his passing, I would like to
warmly acknowledge his efforts and support. The fact that he will continue to live
through his works offers great solace to all his admirers.

xvii
xviii Acknowledgements

I would also like to thank people, who though are not directly connected to this
project, have influenced me, positively, in many ways. After all action at a distance
has its place in physics!
I would like to thank from the bottom of my heart—Prof. Sujatha Ramdorai,
who has been a beacon of support, not just to me but to many others who are
passionate about science. My existence owes a lot to the solacing support she
offered at various times. I would also like to thank Mr. M. G. Subramanian for
teaching me the art of online communication, during my formative years. I would
like to express my gratitude towards the director-principal Mrs. Avnita Bir and
Podar management for always supporting me.
Lastly I would like to thank Prof. R. Sridharan, who, though he never taught me
directly, nevertheless has inspired me deeply through his writings, humanity,
humility, intellect and emphasis on quality. The relationship that I share with him is
that of an arbitrary pebble with an ocean ingente—whose deep bond is both
unbeknownst to the passersby and undisturbed by the chaotic wind.
Such is the stance of unsung bonds and friendships whose existence forms a
fragrant and radiant twine which is stitched alongside with the other dull cords of
humdrum routines into the robe of hermit’s life—which is what makes his life both
interesting and worth living!

Juhu, Mumbai Shyam Wuppuluri

Contents

Part I Philosophy
1. Space as a Source and as an Object of Knowledge:
The Transformation of the Concept of Space
in the Post-Kantian Philosophy of Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Francesca Biagioli
2. Time in Physics and Time in Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
E.C.G. Sudarshan
3. Time and Space in Ancient India: Pre-philosophical Period . . . . . . 23
Nataliya Yanchevskaya and Michael Witzel
4. Śrīharṣa on the Indefinability of Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Jonathan Duquette and Krishnamurti Ramasubramanian
5. From Time to Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Nathan Salmon
6. Why Spacetime Has a Life of Its Own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
James Robert Brown
7. The Phenomenology of Space and Time: Husserl,
Sartre, Derrida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Hans Herlof Grelland
8. Space, Time, and (How They) Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Valia Allori
9. Relativity Theory May not Have the Last Word on the Nature
of Time: Quantum Theory and Probabilism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Nicholas Maxwell

xix
xx Contents

Part II Physics
10. Nature’s Book Keeping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Gerard ’t Hooft
11. Spacetime and Reality: Facing the Ultimate Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Vesselin Petkov
12. The Future’s Not Ours to See . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Anthony Sudbery
13. Hermann Weyl’s Space-Time Geometry and Its Impact
on Theories of Fundamental Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Norbert Straumann
14. Matter, Space, Time, and Motion: A Unified Gravitational
Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
C.S. Unnikrishnan
15. An Anomaly in Space and Time and the Origin of Dynamics . . . . . 185
Joan A. Vaccaro
16. Space, Time, and Adynamical Explanation in the Relational
Blockworld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
W.M. Stuckey, Michael Silberstein and Timothy McDevitt
17. Spacetime Is Doomed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
George Musser

Part III Mathematics

18. Geometry and Physical Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Mary Leng
19. The Geometry of Manifolds and the Perception of Space . . . . . . . . 239
Raymond O. Wells Jr.
20. Paradox? the Mathematics of Space-Time and the Limits
of Human Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Paul Ernest
21. “Now” Has an Infinitesimal Positive Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Reuben Hersh
22. What’s Wrong with the Platonic Ideal of Space and Time? . . . . . . 279
Lorenzo Sadun
23. The Fundamental Problem of Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Julian Barbour
24. General Relativity, Time, and Determinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
James Isenberg
Contents xxi

25. Topos Theoretic Approach to Space and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Goro C. Kato

Part IV Biology/Cognitive Science

26. Syntactic Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Rajesh Kasturirangan
27. Time Measurement in Living Systems: Human Understanding
and Health Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Lakshman Abhilash and Vijay Kumar Sharma
28. The Cellular Space—The Space of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Pier Luigi Luisi
29. The Consciousness of Space, the Space of Consciousness . . . . . . . . . 359
Mauro Bergonzi and Pier Luigi Luisi
30. Time and Suffering: False Metaphors, (De-)Synchronous
Times, and Internal Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Norman Sieroka
31. Evolutionary Time and the Creation of the Space of Life . . . . . . . . 381
Randall E. Auxier

Part V Logic/Computer Science

32. A Computational Mathematics View of Space, Time
and Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
David H. Bailey and Jonathan M. Borwein
33. ‘Photographing the Footsteps of Time’: Space and Time
in Charles Babbage’s Calculating Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
Doron Swade
34. The Black Hole in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Alexander Keewatin Dewdney
35. Gödel Incompleteness and the Empirical Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
N.C.A. da Costa and F.A. Doria
36. Gödel’s Ontological Dreams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
Gary Mar

Part VI Miscellaneous
37. The Novel and the Map: Spatiotemporal Form and Discourse
in Literary Cartography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
Robert T. Tally Jr.
xxii Contents

38. Time, Space, and the Human Geographies of Opportunity . . . . . . . 487

Donald G. Janelle
39. Losing Time and Space: Experiencing Immersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
Diana J. Reichenbach
Science, Mind, and Limits of Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
Authors Information—Affiliation/Mailing Address
and Email Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
Titles in this Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
About the Editors

Shyam Wuppuluri is working as a research associate for R. N. Podar

institute. A computer science graduate, he has a long-standing interest in various
areas of mathematics, theoretical physics, philosophy and cognitive science.
E-mail: [email protected]
Giancarlo Ghirardi served as the director of the Department of Theoretical
Physics at University of Trieste for more than two decades. He is now the President
of the Consortium for Physics of the University of Trieste and Consultant and
Member of the Academic Board of the ICTP, Trieste. Giancarlo made important
contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics, particularly through the
GRW interpretation that was proposed jointly with Rimini and Weber. He has
authored many articles and books, and organized many conferences. An intellec-
tual leader, he is a recipient of many honors, accolades and international awards.
E-mail: [email protected]

xxiii
 Part I
Philosophy
Chapter 1
Space as a Source and as an Object
of Knowledge: The Transformation
of the Concept of Space
in the Post-Kantian Philosophy
of Geometry

Francesca Biagioli

1.1 Introduction

This paper deals with the transformation of the concept of space in the post-Kantian
philosophy of geometry from the second half of the nineteenth century to the early
twentieth century. Kant famously characterized space and time as forms of intu-
itions, which lie at the foundations of the apodictic knowledge of mathematics. The
success of his philosophical account of space was due not least to the fact that
Euclidean geometry was widely considered to be a model of apodictic certainty at
that time. However, such later scientific developments as non-Euclidean geometries
and the general theory of relativity called into question the certainty of Euclidean
geometry and posed the problem of reconsidering space not so much as a source of
knowledge, but as an open question for empirical research.
The first section offers a discussion of the main objections against Kant’s view of
space as a source of knowledge. The opposed view of space as an object of
knowledge emerged in geometrical empiricism, a tradition that can be traced back to
such mathematicians as Carl Friedrich Gauss, Nikolai Lobachevsky, Bernhard
Riemann, Richard Dedekind, and Felix Klein, and that found one of its clearest
expressions in the epistemological writings of the physiologist and physicist Her-
mann von Helmholtz. The second section provides a general introduction to the new
phase of this debate inaugurated by Einstein’s general theory of relativity of 1915. On
the one hand, Einstein relied on geometrical empiricism for the view that geometry
has an empirical meaning. On the other hand, he distanced himself from the received
view of space by claiming that the general covariance of his field equations removed
from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity. In the third section,

F. Biagioli (✉)
University of Konstanz, Zukunftskolleg, P.O. Box 216, 78457 Konstanz, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 3

S. Wuppuluri and G. Ghirardi (eds.), Space, Time and the Limits of Human
Understanding, The Frontiers Collection, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-44418-5_1
4 F. Biagioli

I discuss two different strategies for a philosophical account of the transformation of

the concept of space from a Kantian perspective: (1) Hermann Weyl vindicated the
foundational role of the Kantian concept of space by observing that any coordinate
assignment, even in Einstein’s relativistic space-time theory, presupposes the ideal
perspective of the transcendental subject for its setting; (2) Ernst Cassirer emphasized
the heuristic aspect of the concept of space as a hypothetical system of mathematical
relations. Although both strategies offer a possible philosophical account of space
informed by the sciences, I argue that Cassirer’s focus on the structure of spatial
notions, rather than their subjective origin, had the advantage of reflecting a variety of
uses of spatial concepts in human culture and art, which he considered to be no less
essential than scientific concepts to a philosophical account of the concept of space.

1.2 Three Roads to Geometrical Empiricism

in the Nineteenth Century

1.2.1 The Philosophical

The first motivation for geometrical empiricism was to overcome some of the
philosophical difficulties of Kant’s account of space in the Critique of Pure Reason.
Kant characterized space and time by distinguishing these concepts from sensa-
tions, on the one side, and general concepts, on the other. The first distinction is in
terms of form and matter of appearance: “Since that within which the sensations can
alone be ordered and placed in a certain form cannot itself be in turn sensation, the
matter of all appearance is only given to us a posteriori, but its form must all lie
ready for it in the mind a priori, and can therefore be considered separately from all
sensation” (Kant [1], A20/B34). More specifically, space and time are forms of
intuition, according to Kant, insofar as the order of appearance is directly present to
the mind in the localization of objects in space and time. Therefore, he claimed that
space is a necessary representation, which lies at the foundation of all outer intu-
itions (A24/B38). Kant went on to argue that space differs from general concepts in
the way in which it is related to its parts: whereas general concepts contain a finite
collection of possible instantiations under them, any limitation of space, including
infinite division, lies in a single concept of space as one of its parts. Therefore, he
characterized space as an intuition that lies at the origin of knowledge concerning
external reality. The principles of (Euclidean) geometry offered the first example of
conceptual knowledge derived from intuition with apodictic certainty (A25/B39).
One classical objection to this view is that it presupposed the syllogistic logic of
Kant’s time, according to which logical reasoning is restricted to finite domains and
construction in intuition is necessary to justify existential assumptions concerning
infinite domains (e.g., the parallel to a given line from a point outside it and
1 Space as a Source and as an Object of Knowledge … 5

incommensurable magnitudes).1 After the emergence of mathematical logic in the

nineteenth century, it became possible to account for the same distinction in terms
of two different means of logical proof or rules of quantification. This approach to
Kant’s intuition, which is known as “logical,” goes back to Cassirer [3] and was
given a modern formulation by Hintikka [4]. Alternative approaches include the
phenomenological approach advocated by Parsons [5], among others, based on the
fact that immediacy is no less essential than singularity to the Kantian conception of
space. But how to accommodate the former feature of intuition with the discovery
of non-Euclidean geometry in the nineteenth century? Not only does such a dis-
covery contradict the view that Euclidean geometry is evidently true, but the
question arises whether geometric knowledge can be true at all.
In order to overcome this difficulty, Friedman [6] argued for mediating between
these two approaches in line with Helmholtz’s geometrical empiricism. On the
other hand, Helmholtz ruled out the view of geometrical axioms as evident truths by
explaining how basic geometric notions are derived by observation and experience
of rigid motions. On the other hand, he inferred a naturalized form of intuition by
considering the possible changes of perspective of a perceiving subject. As
Helmholtz [7, p. 162] put it, “Kant’s doctrine of the a priori given forms of intuition
is a very fortunate and clear expression of the state of affairs; but these forms must
be devoid of content and free to an extent sufficient for absorbing any content
whatsoever that can enter the relevant form of perception.” Helmholtz believed that
the form/content distinction deserved a new formulation after the emergence of
experimental psychology of vision, on the one hand, and non-Euclidean geometry,
on the other.

1.2.2 The Natural

Helmholtz’s naturalization of the Kantian theory of perception goes back to his

1855 lecture “Über das Sehen des Menschen.” On that occasion—Helmholtz was
delivering the Kant Memorial Lecture as a Professor of Physiology at the
University of Königsberg—he maintained that Kant’s view that the perception of
physical objects presupposes some subjective forms of intuition received an
empirical confirmation in Johannes Müller’s theory of specific nerve energies.
Müller showed that sensuous qualities depend not so much on the perceived object
as on the constitution of our nerves in the case of perceptions usually associated
with light. His theory accounted for the fact that the same visual sensation can have
different causes (e.g., an electric current or a blow to the eye). Vice versa, light does
not necessarily cause visual sensations, but, for example, ultraviolet rays cause only
chemical reactions.

1
Several examples are discussed in Friedman [2, Ch. 1].
6 F. Biagioli

Helmholtz was Müller’s student in Berlin and relied on the same experimental
methodology. However, he developed an original approach to visual perception in
his Handbuch der physiologischen Optik (1867). Helmholtz advocated a theory of
local signs, according to which sensations are signs for their stimuli. According to
him, visual perception depends on our capacity to interpret those signs by drawing
unconscious inferences from nerve stimuli to existing objects. Such a capacity
deserves an empirical explanation in terms of psychological—rather than purely
physiological—processes. Therefore, Helmholtz called his approach “empirist” and
contrasted it with nativist views.2 In this connection, he distanced himself from
Kant’s conception of space and time as pure intuitions, whose form can be defined
independently of any empirical content. Not only did Kant overlook the empirical
conditions for the formation of these concepts, but his theory of pure sensibility led
his followers to assume that there are innate laws grounded in the form of spatial
intuition, that is, the axioms of (Euclidean) geometry (Helmholtz [9], p. 456).
As it emerges most clearly in Helmholtz’s later paper “Die Tatsachen in der
Wahrnehmung” (1878), Helmholtz’s criticism did not rule out the possibility of
generalizing the Kantian notion of form of spatial intuition to all possible combi-
nations of contents. After the passage quoted above, Helmholtz went on to say that
“the axioms of geometry limit the form of intuition of space in such a way that it
can no longer absorb every thinkable content, if geometry is at all supposed to be
applicable to the actual world. If we drop them, the doctrine of the transcendentality
of the form of intuition is without any taint. Here Kant was not critical enough in his
critique; but this is admittedly a matter of theses coming from mathematics, and this
bit of critical work had to be dealt with by the mathematicians” (Helmholtz [7],
p. 162).3 Furthermore, Helmholtz believed that even his empiricist epistemology
relied ultimately on the assumption of a lawful course of nature, which sometimes
he presented as a condition of the possibility of experience in Kant’s sense.4
I turn back to the latter issue in connection with Cassirer’s theory of the sym-
bolic forms of experience. The following section offers a brief overview of different
positions on geometrical empiricism in nineteenth-century mathematics.

2
See [8, Ch. 5]. Helmholtz addressed two different questions. The first concerned the
two-dimensionality of vision. At the time Helmholtz was writing, the dominant view endorsed by
Johannes Müller, among others, was that a two-dimensional, spatial representation is primitively
given in vision. In this view, only the perceptions of depth and of distance (i.e., the kind of
perceptions that presuppose three-dimensionality) have to be learned. By contrast, Helmholtz
sought to derive all spatial representations from the association of nonspatial sensations. The
second question concerned the singularity of vision. Helmholtz called nativist Müller, Ewald
Hering, and all those who derived the singularity of vision from the supposition of an anatomical
connection between the two retinas.
3
For a discussion of Helmholtz’s claims about the “transcendental” status of space, see Biagioli
[10].
4
See, e.g., Helmholtz [7, p. 142]. Notice, however, that there were important turning points in
Helmholtz’s relation to Kant in this regard. Cf. Hatfield [8] and Hyder [11].
1 Space as a Source and as an Object of Knowledge … 7

1.2.3 The Mathematical

The third road to geometrical empiricism goes back to the first attempts to rethink
the question concerning the form of physical space after the discovery of
non-Euclidean geometry.5 Different hypotheses about the existence and the number
of parallel lines to a given line had been explored in the eighteenth-century by such
mathematicians as Girolamo Saccheri, Johann Heinrich Lambert, and Adrien-Marie
Legendre. However, it was only in the 1820s that János Bolyai and Nikolai
Lobachevsky, independently of each other, developed a system of geometry based
on the denial of Euclid’s parallel postulate. Lobachevsky was also one of the first to
address the question whether non-Euclidean theorems (e.g., the proposition that the
sum of the angles in a triangle is less than 180°, which followed from the denial of
the parallel postulate) can be tested empirically by using astronomical
measurements.
Although such an experiment proved to be impractical, much of the debate that
followed from Riemann to Einstein concerned the possibility to explore the link
between geometry and experience. As Gauss (in [13], p. 87) put it in a letter to
Bessel dated April 9, 1830, “the theory of space has an entirely different place in
knowledge from that occupied by pure mathematics. There is lacking throughout
our knowledge of it the complete persuasion of necessity (also of absolute truth)
which is common to the latter; we must add in humility that if number is exclu-
sively the product of our mind, space has a reality outside our mind and we cannot
completely prescribe its laws.” On the one hand, Gauss’s remark is reminiscent of
Newton’s view of geometry as the part of mechanics that deals with measurement
in the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica [14]. On the other hand, by
1830, Gauss had enough knowledge of non-Euclidean geometry to see that there
might be different possible hypotheses when it comes to the laws of space.6
A further development of this tradition is found in Gauss’s student’s, Bernhard
Riemann, habilitation lecture of [17] “Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie
zu Grunde liegen” and in a series of papers published by Helmholtz between 1868
and 1878 and later collected by Paul Hertz and Moritz Schlick in the centenary
edition of Helmholtz’s Epistemological Writings (1977).7 Both Riemann and
Helmholtz started with a general notion of space as a manifold, comparable with
such empirical manifolds as color and tone systems, in order to then pose the
question of the necessary and sufficient conditions for introducing metrical rela-
tions. In this regard, Riemann showed the possibility of formulating infinitely many

5
For an introductory account of the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry and its prehistory, see
Engel and Stäckel [12].
6
Sartorius von Waltershausen [15, p. 81] reported that even Gauss made an attempt to test the
Euclidean hypothesis during his geodetic work. However, this interpretation is controversial and it
was only after Bolyai’s and Lobachevsky’s works that the question arose whether the geometry of
space could be non-Euclidean (see [16]).
7
For a comprehensive account of nineteenth-century philosophy of geometry, see Torretti [18].
8 F. Biagioli

geometrical hypotheses based on Gauss’s geometry of surfaces. Riemann fore-

shadowed Einstein’s general theory of relativity by considering even the hypothesis
of variably curved spaces and by articulating the conjecture of a metric, whose
coefficients would depend on the local distribution of matter and forces.
The greater generality of Riemann’s inquiry notwithstanding (Helmholtz
restricted his consideration to manifolds of constant curvature), Helmholtz was one
of the first to draw attention to the possibility of a physical interpretation of
non-Euclidean geometry. He identified the fundamental precondition for the pos-
sibility of measurement as the requirement that the points of a system in motion
remain fixedly linked or the free mobility of rigid bodies. He considered this to be a
fact ascertained by observation and experiment, beginning with our ability to
localize objects in space by performing congruent displacements. He then showed
that the metrical geometry that is implicit in spatial perception and in measurement
includes both Euclidean and non-Euclidean cases as possible mathematical speci-
fications. He agreed with the conclusion of Riemann’s inquiry, insofar as he
believed his argument to prove the empirical—rather than a priori—origin of
geometrical axioms.
The standard formulation of geometrical empiricism, in this sense, is found in
Helmholtz’s 1870 public lecture “Über den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der
geometrischen Axiome,” which initiated a philosophical and mathematical debate
on the status of geometrical axioms.8 A further development of Helmholtz’s view of
axioms as empirical generalizations is found in Pasch [20], which contains one of
the first axiomatic treatments of geometry. The notion of axiom was progressively
weakened with the emergence of the axiomatic method. Both mathematicians and
philosophers called axioms “postulates” to emphasize the conceptual nature of the
axioms and the possibility of formulating different hypotheses when it comes to
physical space (Klein, some of the positions advocated by the Peano School, and
Cassirer). In the twentieth century, it became common usage to refer to axioms as
definitions in disguise (Poincaré) or implicit definitions (Hilbert, Schlick) of geo-
metrical concepts as objects, whose existence depends solely on the coherence of
the system of relations established by the axioms.
To sum up, with the advancement of the axiomatic method, geometrical
empiricism lost its significance for a clarification of the questions concerning the
origin and meaning of geometrical axioms. It became ever more clear that an
appropriate understanding of how axioms work in modern mathematics presup-
poses a sharp separation between geometries as axiomatic systems and interpreted
geometry or the theory of space and space-time. However, the tradition discussed
above remained an important reference in the debate concerning physical and
philosophical interpretations of the mathematical structures under consideration.
In order to highlight this point, the following section discusses the related
problem of establishing geometrical and physical invariants.

8
On the discussion of Helmholtz’s view in neo-Kantianism, see Biagioli [19].
1 Space as a Source and as an Object of Knowledge … 9

1.3 Invariants and Symmetries

The first characterization of geometrical objects in terms of invariants of transfor-

mation groups goes back to Felix Klein’s “Vergleichende Betrachtungen über
neuere geometrische Forschungen” [21], which is best known as “Erlanger Pro-
gramm,” after Klein’s appointment as Professor at the University of Erlanger in the
same year. An essential contribution to the implementation of such a research
program is found in Sophus Lie’s Theorie der Transformationsgruppen, which
appeared in three volumes between 1888 and 1893.9 The third volume contains a
critique of Helmholtz’s mathematical reasoning, along with the theorem that
became the standard derivation of a metric of constant curvature from a set of
necessary and sufficient assumptions about infinitesimal free mobility.
The fundamental ideas of the group-theoretical approach emerged from the
observation that some geometrical properties are invariant under specific types of
geometrical transformations. Such congruent displacements as translations, for
example, leave invariant parallelism, lengths and measure of angles. In modern
terminology, these are called the invariants of the Euclidean group. However, the
same invariants might not be preserved by other transformations. Collineations in
projective (and non-Euclidean) geometry, for example, leave invariant such prop-
erties as, of three or more points: to lie on the same line; of curves: to be a conic.
But such transformations are known to alter such invariants of the Euclidean group
as parallelism and absolute measurements.
Klein arrived at the idea of a group-theoretical classification of geometry by
applying the basic notions of the algebraic theory of groups introduced by Evariste
Galois and Camille Jordan to projective geometry—which flourished in the nine-
teenth century after the works of Jean-Victor Poncelet, Jakob Steiner, Christian von
Staudt, and Arthur Cayley, among others.10 Transformations form a group if: (i) the
product of any two elements of the group also belongs to the group; (ii) there is in
the group a neutral element (i.e., an element that leaves the other elements
unchanged when combined with them); (iii) for every transformation in the group,
there is in the group the inverse transformation.
Such mathematicians as Klein, Lie, and Poincaré showed that the same notions
offered a general point of view for the comparison of geometrical researches. The
significance of their classificatory ideas lies not least in the fact that the same ideas
offered a point of comparison between different physical theories. Klein [25], for
example, used the same approach to account for the shift from classical mechanics
to special relativity. Whereas Galilean transformations preserve the invariant
quantities of Newtonian mechanics (i.e., acceleration, force, mass, and therefore
time, length, and simultaneity), the Lorentz transformations preserve the velocity of
light, but not length and time (simultaneity).

9
On Klein’s relationship to Lie and the reception of the Erlanger Programm, see Hawkins [22] and
Rowe [23].
10
On the development of group theory from Galois to Klein, see Wussing [24].
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
light resembling a diffused star forms the brightest part of the comet, this
condensation being situated towards the extremity the nearest to the Sun. It is
this starlike object which is called the nucleus. The nucleus seems to be entirely
enclosed in a luminous vapory envelope of the same general texture, called the
coma. This envelope, which is quite variable in brightness and form, is brightest
next to the nucleus, and gradually fades away as it recedes from it. The nucleus
and the coma, considered as a whole, constitute the head of a comet. From the
head of a comet proceeds a long trail of pale nebulous light, which usually grows
wider, but fainter, as it recedes from the nucleus, and insensibly vanishes in the
sky. This delicate appendage, or tail, as it is commonly called, varies very much
in size and shape, not only in different comets, but in the very same comet, at
different times. Its direction is generally opposite to that of the Sun from the head
of the comet.
The nuclei vary very much in brightness, in size and in shape; and while in
some telescopic comets they are either absent or barely distinguishable as a
small condensation of light, in bright comets they may become plainly visible to
the naked eye, and they sometimes even surpass in brightness the most brilliant
stars of the heavens. But whatever may be the size of cometary nuclei, they are
subject to sudden and rapid changes, and vary from day to day. Sometimes they
appear exceedingly brilliant and sharply outlined, while at other times they are so
dim and diffused that they are hardly distinguishable from the coma of which they
seem then to form a part.
 PLATE XI.—THE GREAT COMET OF 1881.
Observed on the night of June 25-26 at 1h. 30m. A.M.

From my observations upon the comets which have appeared since the year
1873, it is apparent that the changes in the nucleus, coma and tail, are due to a
solar action, which contracts or expands these objects in such a manner that the
nuclei become either bright and star-like, or dim and diffused, in a very short time.
I had excellent opportunity, especially in the two large comets of 1881, to observe
some of these curious changes, a description of which will give an idea of their
extent and rapidity. On July 2d, 1881, at 9 o'clock, the nucleus of comet 1881, III.,
which is represented on Plate XI., appeared sharply defined, bright and
considerably flattened crosswise; but half an hour later it had considerably
enlarged and had become so diffused that it could hardly be distinguished from
the coma, with which it gradually blended. It is perhaps worth mention that, at the
time this last observation was made, an aurora borealis was visible. This comet
1881, III., underwent other very important changes of its nucleus, coma and tail.
On June 25th, the nucleus, which was bright and clearly defined, was
ornamented with four bright diverging conical wings of light, as shown on Plate
XI. On the 26th these luminous wings had gone, and the nucleus appeared one-
third smaller. On the 28th it had enlarged, but on the 29th its shape was
considerably altered, the nucleus extending in one direction to three or four times
its diameter on previous nights, and being curved, so as to resemble a comma.
On the 6th of July the nucleus of this comet showed the greatest disturbances.
The nucleus, which had appeared perfectly round on the evening of the 5th, was
found much elongated at 10 o'clock on the 6th, forming then a straight, acute,
and well-defined wedge of light, inclined upwards to the left. The length of the
nucleus, at this time, was three or four times its ordinary diameter. At the same
time rapid changes occurred; the strangely shaped nucleus soon became
unsteady, extending and contracting alternately, and varying greatly in brightness.
At 10h. 45m., the elongated nucleus, then gently curved, took the shape of a
succession of luminous knots, which at times became so brilliant and distinct that
they seemed to be about to divide and form separate nuclei; but such a
separation did not actually occur, at least while I was observing. While these
important changes were going on in the comet, a bright auroral arch appeared in
the north, which lasted only a short time. On July 7th, the sky being cloudy, no
observations were made, but on the 8th I observed the comet again. The nucleus
had then resumed its circular form, but it was yet very unsteady, being sometimes
small, bright and sharp, while a few seconds later it appeared twice as large, but
dim in outlines; and sometimes an ill-defined secondary nucleus appeared at its
centre. On several occasions the nucleus appeared as if it were double, one
nucleus being apparently projected partly upon the other.
The nuclei of comets are sometimes very small, and in other cases very large.
Among those which have been measured, the nucleus of the comet of 1798, I.,
was only 28 miles in diameter, but that of Donati's comet, in 1858, was 5,600
miles, and that of the comet of 1845 was 8,000 miles in diameter.
The coma of comets is found to be even more variable than the nucleus. The
changes observed in the coma are generally in close connection with those of the
nucleus and tail, the same perturbations affecting simultaneously the whole
comet. While the coma of the comet of 1847 was only 18,000 miles in diameter,
that of Halley's comet, in 1835, was 357,000 miles, and that of the comet of 1811
was 1,125,000 miles in diameter. In general, as already stated, the coma of a
comet decreases in size in approaching the Sun. That of Encke's comet, which,
on October 9th, 1838, had a diameter of 281,000 miles, gradually decreased at a
daily mean rate of 4,088 miles in going towards the Sun; so that, on December
17th, when the distance of the comet from the Sun was more than four times less
than it was on the first date, its diameter was reduced to 3,000 miles.
The form of the coma, in that part which is free from the tail, is in general a
portion of a circle, but is sometimes irregular, with its border deformed. Thus, the
border of the coma of Halley's comet was depressed at one point towards the
Sun. I observed a similar phenomenon in Coggia's comet, with the great refractor
of the Harvard College Observatory, on July 13th, 1874, when its border
appeared deeply depressed on the side nearest to the Sun, as if repelled by this
body. The coma of comet 1881, III., showed also very singular outlines on the
nights of the 25th and 26th of June, when its border was so deeply depressed
that the coma appeared as if it were double. Luminous rays and jets often radiate
from the nucleus across the coma, and describe graceful lateral curves, falling
backwards and gradually fading away into the tail, of which they then form a part.
The rays and jets emitted by the nucleus seem at first to obey the solar attraction
and travel towards the Sun; but they are soon repelled, and move backward
towards the tail. It is a mystery, as yet unexplained, how these cometary jets,
which at first seem to obey to the laws of attraction, are compelled to retreat
apparently by superior opposing forces. Among the forces of nature, we know of
no other than those of an electrical sort, which would act in a similar manner; but
this explanation would require us to assume some direct electrical communication
between the comet and the Sun. Considering the distance between the two
bodies, and the probable absence or great tenuity of the gaseous material in
interstellar space, such an assumption is a difficult one.
Under the action of the solar forces, the coma also very frequently forms itself
into concentric luminous arcs, separated by comparatively dark intervals. These
luminous semi-circles vary in number, but sometimes there are as many as four
or five at a time. All great comets show these concentric curves more or less, but
sometimes only a portion is visible, the rest of the coma having a different
structure. When great comets approach near the Sun, their coma is generally
composed of two distinct parts, an inner and an outer coma, the inner one being
due to the luminous jets issuing from the nucleus, which, never extending very
far, form a distinct, bright zone within the fainter exterior coma.
The tails of comets, which are in fact a prolongation of the coma, are likewise
extremely variable in form. They are sometimes straight like a rod; again, are
curved like a sabre, or even crooked like an S, as was that of the comet of 1769.
They are also fan-shaped, pointed, or of the same width throughout. Many of
these appendages appear longitudinally divided through their middle by a narrow,
darkish rift, extending from the nucleus to the extremity. This peculiarity appears
in the comet shown on Plate XI. Sometimes the dark rift does not commence
near the nucleus, but at some distance from it, as I observed in the case of comet
1881, III., on June 26th. This dark rift is not a permanent feature of a comet's tail,
but may be visible one day and not at all the next. Comet 1881, III., which had
shown a dark rift towards the end of June, did not exhibit any such rift during July
and August, when, on the contrary, its tail appeared brighter in the middle.
Coggia's comet, which showed so prominent a dark rift in July, 1874, had none
on June 10th. On the contrary, the tail was on that date very bright along its
middle, as also along each of its edges.
The tail of a comet does not invariably point directly away from the Sun, as
above mentioned, and sometimes the deviation is considerable; for instance, the
tail of the comet of 1577 deviated 21° from the point opposite to the Sun.
In general, the tail inclines its extremity towards the regions of space which it
has just left, always presenting its convex border to the regions towards which it
is moving. It is also a remarkable fact that this convex border, moving first in
space, always appears brighter and sharper than the opposite one, which is often
diffused. From these peculiarities it would seem that in moving about the Sun the
comets encounter some resistance to their motion, from the medium through
which they pass, and that this resistance is sufficient to curve their tails away
from the course in which they move, and to crowd their particles together on the
forward side. It is especially when they approach their perihelion, and move more
rapidly on a curve of a shorter radius, that the comets' tails show the greatest
curvature, unless their position in regard to the observer prevents their being
advantageously seen. The tail of Donati's comet presented a fair illustration of
this peculiarity, its curvature having augmented with the velocity of the comet's
motion about the Sun. But possibly this phenomenon has another cause, and
may be found rather in the solar repulsion which acts on comets and is not
instantaneously propagated throughout their mass.
Although, in general, comets have but one tail, it is not very rare to see them
with multiple tails. The comets of 1807 and 1843 had each a double tail; Donati's
comet, in 1858, showed several narrow, long rectilinear rays, issuing from its
abruptly curved tail. The comet of 1825 had five branches, while that of 1744
exhibited no less than six distinct tails diverging from the coma at various angles.
In general character the multiple and single tails are similar. When a comet has
two tails, it is not rare for the second to extend in the general direction of the Sun,
as was the case with the great comet of 1881, III., represented on Plate XI. From
July 14th to the 21st it exhibited quite an extended conical tail, starting obliquely
downwards from the right side of the coma, and directed towards the Sun. From
the 24th of July to the 2d of August this secondary tail was exactly opposite in its
direction from that of the primary tail, and gave to the head a very elongated
appearance. Comet 1881, IV., also exhibited a secondary appendage, not
directed towards the Sun, but making an angle of about 45° with the main tail.
These cometary appendages sometimes attain prodigious dimensions. The
comets of 1680 and 1769 had tails so extended that, after their heads had set
under the horizon, the extremities of these immense appendages were still seen
as far up as the zenith. In a single day the tail of the comet of 1843 extended
100°, and it was thrust from the comet "as a dart of light" to the enormous
distance of 48,500,000 miles, and yet of this immense appendage nothing was
left on the following day. The tail of Donati's comet, in 1858, attained a real length
of 42,000,000 miles, while that of the great comet of 1843 had the enormous
length of 200,000,000 miles. If this last comet had occupied the position of the
Sun, which it approached very nearly for a moment, the extremity of its tail would
have extended 60,000,000 miles beyond the orbit of Mars.
In some cases the tails of comets have been seen undulating and vibrating in
a manner similar to the undulations and coruscations of light characteristic of
some auroras. Many observers report having seen such phenomena. The comet
of 1769 was traversed by luminous waves and pulsations, comparable to those
seen in the aurora borealis. I myself observed these curious undulations in
Coggia's comet in 1874, while the head of this object was below the horizon. For
an hour the undulations rapidly succeeded each other, and ran along the whole
length of the tail.
Some of the brightest comets have shone with such splendor that they could
be observed easily in full sunshine. Many comets, such as those of 1577 and
1744, have equaled Sirius and Venus in brilliancy. The great comet of 1843,
which suddenly appeared in our sky, was so brilliant that it was seen by many
observers at noon time, within a few degrees from the Sun. I remember that I
myself saw this remarkable object in the day time, with a number of persons, who
were gazing at the wonderful apparition. So brilliant was this comet, that besides
its nucleus and head, a portion of its tail was also visible in the day time, provided
the observer screened his eyes from the full sunlight by standing in the shadow of
some building.
Of all the bodies revolving around the Sun, none have been known to
approach so near its surface as did the comet of 1843. When it arrived at
perihelion, the distance from the centre of its nucleus to the surface of the Sun's
photosphere was only 96,000 miles, while the distance from surface to surface
was less than 60,000 miles. This comet, then, went through the solar
atmosphere, and in traversing it with its tremendous velocity of 366 miles per
second, may very possibly have swept through some solar protuberances, many
of which attain much higher elevations than that at which the comet passed. The
comet of 1680 also approached quite near the surface of the Sun, and near
enough to encounter some of the high solar protuberances, its distance at
perihelion being about two-thirds of the Moon's distance from the Earth. The
rapidity of motion of the comet of 1843 was such, when it approached the Sun,
that it swept through all that part of its orbit which is situated north of the plane of
the ecliptic in a little more than two hours, moving in this short time from one node
to the other, or 1800.
But if some comets have a very short perihelion distance, that of others is
considerable. Such a comet was that of 1729, whose perihelion distance was
383,000,000 miles, the perihelion point being situated between the orbits of Mars
and Jupiter.
While some comets come near enough to the Sun at perihelion to be
volatilized by its intense heat, others recede so far from it at aphelion that they
may be said to be frozen. The shortest cometary aphelion distance known is that
of Encke's comet, whose greatest distance from the sun is 388,000,000 miles.
But that of the comet of 1844 is 406,000,000,000 miles from the Sun. The comets
of 1863 and 1864 are so remote in space when they reach their aphelion points
that light, with its velocity of 185,500 miles a second, would require 171 days in
the first case, and 230 in the last, to pass from them to the Earth.
The period of revolution of different comets also varies immensely. While that
of Encke's comet is only 3½ years, that of comet 1864, II., is 280,000 years.
Among the periodic comets of short period, some have exhibited highly
interesting phenomena. Encke's comet, discovered in 1818, is remarkable for the
fact that its period of revolution diminishes at each of its successive returns, and
consequently this comet, with each revolution, approaches nearer and nearer to
the Sun. The decrease of the period is about 2½ hours at each return. Although
the decrease is small, if it go on in future as it does at present, the inevitable
consequence will be that this comet will finally fall into the Sun. This curious
phenomenon of retardation has been attributed by astronomers to the existence
of a resisting medium filling space, but so rare and ethereal that it does not
produce any sensible effect on the movements of the planets. But some other
causes may retard this comet, as similar retardations have not been observed in
the case of other periodic comets of short period. These, however, are not so
near to the Sun, and perhaps our luminary may be surrounded by matter of
extreme tenuity, which does not exist at a greater distance from it.
Another of the periodic comets which has exhibited a very remarkable
phenomenon of transformation is Biela's comet, which divided into two distinct
parts, moving together in the same direction. When this comet was first detected
at its return in 1845, it presented nothing unusual, but in the early part of 1846 it
was noticed by several astronomers to be divided into two parts of unequal
brightness, forming thus a twin comet. At its next return in 1852, the two sister
comets were still traveling in company, but their distance apart, which in 1846
was 157,000 miles, had increased to 1,500,000 miles. At the two next returns in
1859 and 1865, their position not being very favorably situated for observation,
the comets were not seen. In 1872 the position should have been favorable for
observation, and they were consequently searched for, but in vain; neither comet
was found. An astronomer in the southern hemisphere, however, found a comet
on the track of Biela's, but calculation has shown that the two objects are
probably not identical, since this comet was two months behind the computed
position for Biela's. It will be shown in the following chapter that our globe
probably crossed the orbit of Biela's comet on November 27th, 1872, and the
phenomena resulting from this passage will be there described.
It is seen from these observations that comets may be lost or dissipated in
space by causes entirely unknown to us. Biela's comet is not the only one which
has been thus disintegrated. Ancient historians speak of the separation of large
comets into two or more parts. In 1661 Hevelius observed the apparent division
of the comet of that year and its reduction to fragments. The return of this comet,
calculated for 1790, was vainly waited for; the comet was not seen.
Other comets, whose periods of revolution were well known, have
disappeared, probably never to return. Such is Lexell's comet, whose period was
5⁶⁄₁₀ years; also De Vico's comet, both of which are now lost. It is supposed that
Lexell's comet, which passed twice very near the giant planet Jupiter, had its orbit
changed from an ellipse to a parabola, by the powerful disturbing influence of this
planet, and was thus lost from our system. Several other comets, in traveling over
their different orbits, have approached near enough to Saturn, Jupiter and the
Earth to have their orbits decidedly altered by the powerful attraction of these
bodies.
But since comets are liable to pass near the planets, and several have orbits
which approach that of the Earth, it becomes important for us to know whether an
encounter of such a body with our globe is possible, and what would then be the
result for us. Although that knowledge would not enable us to modify the
possibilities of an encounter, yet it is better to know the dangers of our navigation
through space than to ignore them. This question of a collision of the Earth with a
comet has been answered in different ways, according to the ideas entertained in
regard to the mass of these bodies. While some have predicted calamities of all
kinds, such as deluges, conflagrations, or the reduction of the Earth to
incandescent gases, others have asserted that it would produce no more effect
than does a fly on encountering a railroad train. In our days astronomers entertain
very little fears from such an encounter, because the probabilities of danger from
an occurrence of this sort are very slight, the mass of an ordinary comet being so
small compared with that of our globe. We know with certainty that the Earth has
never had an encounter with a comet by which it has been transformed into
gases, at least within the several millions of years during which animal and
vegetable life have left their marks upon the stony pages of its history, otherwise
these marks would not now be seen. If, then, such an accident has not happened
during this long period, the chances for its occurring must be very small, so small
indeed that they might almost be left out of the question. It is true that our globe
shows signs of great perturbations of its surface, but we have not the slightest
proofs that they resulted from an encounter with a celestial body. It seems very
probable that our globe passed through the tail of the comet of 1861, before it
was first seen on June 29th; but nothing unusual was observed, except perhaps
some phosphorescent light in the atmosphere, which was afterwards attributed to
this cause.
The density and mass of comets must be comparatively very small. Their tails
consist of matter of such extreme tenuity that it affects but very little the light of
the small stars over which they pass. The coma and nucleus, however, are not
quite so transparent, and may have greater masses. On several occasions I have
seen the light of stars reduced by the interposition of cometary matter, comet
1881, III., presenting remarkable cases of this sort. On July 8th, at 10h. 50m.,
several small stars were involved in this comet, one of which passed quite near
the nucleus through the bright inner coma. At that time the comet was greatly
disturbed, its nucleus was contracting and enlarging rapidly, and becoming bright
and again faint in an instant. Every time that the nucleus grew larger, the star
became invisible, but reappeared the moment the nucleus was reduced in size.
This phenomenon could not be attributed to an atmospheric effect, since, while
the nucleus was enlarging, a very small inner nucleus was visible within the large
diffused one, the matter of which had apparently spread over the part of the coma
in which the star was involved, making it invisible.
That the mass of comets is small, is proved by the fact that they have
sometimes passed near the planets without disturbing them in any sensible
manner. Lexell's comet, which in 1770 remained four months very near Jupiter,
did not affect in the least the orbits, or the motions of its satellites. The same
comet also came within less than 1,500,000 miles from the Earth, and on this
occasion it was calculated that its mass could not have been the ¹⁄₅₀₀₀ part of that
of our globe, since otherwise the perturbations which it would have caused in the
elements of the Earth's orbit would have been sensible. There was, however, no
change. If this comet's mass had been equal to that of our globe, the length of
our year would have been increased by 2h. 47m. The comet of 1837 remained
four days within 3,500,000 miles of the Earth, with no sensible effect.
It seems quite difficult to admit that the denser part of a comet forming the
nucleus is solid, as supposed by some physicists, since it is so rapidly contracted
and dilated by the solar forces, while the comet is yet at a too great distance from
the Sun to allow these effects to be attributed to solar heat alone. This part of a
comet, as indeed the other parts, seems rather to be in the gaseous than in the
solid state; the changes observed in the intensity of its light and in its structure
may be conceived as due to some solar action partaking of the nature of
electricity.
It has been a question whether comets are self-luminous, or whether they
simply reflect the solar light. When their light is analyzed by the spectroscope, it is
found that the nucleus of a comet generally gives a continuous spectrum, while
the coma and tail give a spectrum consisting of several bright diffused bands. The
spectrum given by the nucleus is rarely bright enough to allow the dark lines of
the solar spectrum to be discerned upon it; but such lines were reported in the
spectrum of comet 1881, III., a fact proving that this nucleus at least reflected
some solar light. The nucleus of a comet may be partly self-luminous, and either
solid, liquid, or composed of incandescent gases submitted to a great pressure.
As to the coma and tail, they are evidently gaseous, and partly, if not entirely, self-
luminous, as is proved by the band spectrum which they give. The position of
these bands, moreover, indicates that the luminous gases of which they are
composed contain carbon. The phenomena of polarization, however, seem to
prove that these parts of comets also reflect some solar light.
No theory so far proposed, to explain comets and the strange phenomena
they exhibit, seems to have been successful in its attempts, and the mystery in
which these bodies have been involved from the beginning of their apparition,
seems to be now nearly as great as ever. It has been supposed that their tails
have no real existence, but are due to an optical illusion. Prof. Tyndall has
endeavored to explain cometary phenomena by supposing these bodies to be
composed of vapors subject to decomposition by the solar radiations, and thus
made visible, the head and tail being an actinic cloud due to such
decompositions. According to this view, the tails of comets would not consist of
matter projected into spacer but simply of matter precipitated by the solar rays in
traversing the cometary nebulosity. The endeavor has also been made to explain
the various phenomena presented by comets by an electrical action of the Sun on
the gases composing these objects. Theories taking this as a base seem to us to
be more likely to lead to valuable results. M. Faye, who has devoted much time
and learning to this subject, assumes a real repulsive force of the Sun, acting
inversely to the square of the distance and proportionally to the surface, and not
to the mass as attraction does. He supposes, however, that this repulsive force is
generated by the solar heat, and not by electricity. Prof. Wm. Harkness says that
many circumstances seem to indicate that the comets' tails are due, in a great
measure, to electrical phenomena.
The fact that the tails of comets are better defined and brighter on the forward
side, associated with the other fact that they curve the most when their motion is
most rapid, sufficiently indicates that these appendages are material, and that
they either encounter some resistance from the medium in which they move, or
from a solar repulsion. The phenomena of condensation and extension, which I
have observed in the comets of 1874 and 1881, added to the curious behavior
exhibited by the jets issuing from the nucleus, seem to indicate the action of
electrical forces rather than of heat. The main difficulty encountered in the
framing of a theory of comets consists in explaining how so delicate and
extended objects as their tails seem to be, can be transported and whirled around
the Sun at their perihelion with such an enormous velocity, always keeping
opposite to the Sun, and, as expressed by Sir John Herschel, "in defiance of the
law of gravitation, nay, even of the received laws of motion."
To consider the direction of the comets' tails as an indirect effect of attraction,
seems out of the question; the phenomenon of repulsion so plainly exhibited by
these objects seems to point to a positive solar repulsion, as alone competent to
produce these great changes. The repulsive action of the Sun on comets' tails
might be conceived, for instance, as acting in a manner similar to that of a
powerful current of wind starting from the Sun, and constantly changing in
direction, but always keeping on a line with the comet. Such a current, acting on a
comet's tail as if it were a pennant, would drive it behind the nucleus just as
observed. If it could once be ascertained that the great disturbances on comets
correspond with the magnetic disturbances on our globe and with the display of
the auroral light, the electric nature of the forces acting so strangely on the
comets would be substantially demonstrated. I have shown that some of the great
disturbances observed in the comets of 1874 and 1881 have coincided with
auroral displays, and it will be shown hereafter that similar displays have also
coincided with the passage of meteoric showers through our atmosphere.
Whether these simultaneous phenomena were simple coincidences having no
connection, or whether they are the result of a common cause, can only be
ascertained by long continued future observations.

SHOOTING-STARS AND METEORS

PLATE XII

While contemplating the heavens on a clear moonless night, we occasionally

witness the sudden blazing forth of a star-like meteor, which glides swiftly and
silently across some of the constellations, and as suddenly disappears, leaving
sometimes along its track a phosphorescent trail, which remains visible for a
while and gradually vanishes. These strange apparitions of the night are called
Falling or Shooting-stars.
There is certainly no clear night throughout the year during which some of
these meteors do not make their appearance, but their number is quite variable.
In ordinary nights only four or five will be observed by a single person in the
course of an hour; but on others they are so numerous that it becomes
impossible to count them. When the falling stars are only a few in number, and
appear scattered in the sky, they are called Sporadic Meteors, and when they
appear in great numbers they constitute Meteoric Showers or Swarms.
 Probably there is no celestial phenomenon more impressive than are these
wonderful pyrotechnic displays, during which the heavens seem to break open
and give passage to fiery showers, whose luminous drops describe fantastic
hieroglyphics in the sky. While observing them, one can fully realize the terror
with which they have sometimes filled beholders, to whom it seemed that the
stability of the universe had come to an end, and that all the stars of the
firmament were pouring down upon the Earth in deluges of fire.
The ancients have left record of many great meteoric displays, and the
manner in which they describe them sufficiently indicates the fear caused by
these mysterious objects. Among the many meteoric showers recorded by
ancient historians may be mentioned one observed in Constantinople, in the
month of November, 472, when all the sky appeared as if on fire with meteors. In
the year 599, meteors were seen on a certain night flying in all directions like fiery
grasshoppers, and giving much alarm to the people. In March, 763, "the stars fell
suddenly, and in such crowded number that people were much frightened, and
believed the end of the world had come." On April 10th, 1095, the stars fell in
such enormous quantity from midnight till morning that they were as crowded as
are the hail stones during a severe storm.
In modern times the fall of the shooting-stars in great number has been
frequently recorded. One of the most remarkable meteoric showers of the
eighteenth century occurred on the night of November 13th, 1799, and was
observed throughout North and South America and Europe. On this memorable
night thousands of falling stars were seen traversing the sky between midnight
and morning. Humboldt and Boupland, then traveling in South America, observed
the phenomena at Cumana, between two and five o'clock in the morning. They
saw an innumerable number of shooting-stars going from north to south,
appearing like brilliant fire-works. Several of these meteors left long
phosphorescent trails in the sky, and had nuclei whose apparent diameter, in
some cases, surpassed that of the Moon.
The shower of November 13th, 1833, was still more remarkable for the great
number of meteors which traversed the heavens, and was visible over the whole
of North and South America. On that occasion the falling stars were far too
numerous to be counted, and they fell so thickly that Prof. Olmsted, of New
Haven, who observed them carefully, compared their number at the moment of
their maximum fall to half that of the flakes of snow falling during a heavy storm.
This observer estimated at 240,000 the number of meteors which must have
traversed the heavens above the horizon during the seven hours while the
display was visible.
 PLATE XII.—THE NOVEMBER METEORS.
As observed between midnight and 5 o'clock A.M. on the
night of November 13-14 1868.
 In the years 1866, 1867 and 1868, there were also extraordinary meteoric
displays on the night of November 13th. It was on the last mentioned date that I
had the opportunity to observe the remarkable shower of shooting-stars of which I
have attempted to represent all the characteristic points in Plate XII. My
observations were begun a little after midnight, and continued without interruption
till sunrise. Over three thousand meteors were observed during this interval of
time in the part of the sky visible from a northern window of my house. The
maximum fall occurred between four and five o'clock, when they appeared at a
mean rate of 15 in a minute.
In general, the falling stars were quite large, many being superior to Jupiter in
brightness and apparent size, while a few even surpassed Venus, and were so
brilliant that opaque objects cast a strong shadow during their flight. A great many
left behind them a luminous train, which remained visible for more or less time
after the nucleus had vanished. In general, these meteors appeared to move
either in straight or slightly curved orbits; but quite a number among them
exhibited very extraordinary motions, and followed very complicated paths, some
of which were quite incomprehensible.
While some moved either in wavy or zig-zag lines, strongly accentuated,
others, after moving for a time in a straight line, gradually changed their course,
curving upward or downward, thus moving in a new direction. Several among
them, which were apparently moving in a straight line with great rapidity, suddenly
altered their course, starting at an abrupt angle in another direction, with no
apparent slackening in their motion. One of them, which was a very conspicuous
object, was moving slowly in a straight course, when of a sudden it made a sharp
turn and continued to travel in a straight line, at an acute angle with the first,
retreating, and almost going back towards the regions from which it originally
came. As nearly all the meteors which exhibited these extraordinary motions left
the trace of their passage in the sky by a luminous trail, it was easily ascertained
that these appearances were not deceptive. On one occasion I noticed that the
change of direction in the orbit corresponded with the brightening up of the
meteor thus disturbed in its progress.
Among these meteors, some traveled very slowly, and a few seemed to
advance as if by jerks, but in general they moved very rapidly. One of the meteors
thus appearing to move by jerks left a luminous trail, upon which the various jerks
seemed to be left impressed by a succession of bright and faint spaces along the
train. Some of the largest meteors appeared to rotate upon an axis as they
advanced, and most of these revolving meteors, as also a great number of the
others, seemed to explode just before they disappeared, sending bright fiery
sparks of different colors in all directions, although no sound was at any time
heard. The largest and most brilliant meteor observed on that night appeared at
5h. 30m., a little before sunrise. It was very bright, and appeared considerably
larger than Venus, having quite a distinct disk. This meteor moved very slowly,
leaving behind a large phosphorescent trail, which seemed to issue from the
inside of the nucleus as it advanced. For a moment the train increased in size
and brightness close to the nucleus, which then appeared as an empty
transparent sphere, sprinkled all over with minute fiery sparks; the nucleus then
suddenly burst out into luminous particles, which immediately vanished, only the
luminous trail of considerable dimensions being left.
Many of the trails thus left by the meteors retained their luminosity for several
minutes, and sometimes for over a quarter of an hour. These trails slowly
changed their form and position; but it is perhaps remarkable that almost all those
which I observed on that night assumed the same general form—that of an open,
irregular ring, or horse-shoe, somewhat resembling the letter C. This ring form
was subsequently transformed into an irregular, roundish cumulus-like cloud. The
trail left by a very large meteor, which I observed on the evening of September
5th, 1880, also exhibited the same general character of transformation.
While I was observing a long brilliant trail left by a meteor on the night of
November 13th, 1868, it was suddenly crossed by another bright shooting-star.
The latter apparently went through the luminous substance forming the trail,
which was suddenly altered in form, and considerably diminished in brightness
simultaneously with this passage, although electrical action at some distance
might perhaps as well explain the sudden change observed.
In the majority of cases the meteors appeared white; but many, especially the
largest, exhibited a variety of brilliant colors, among which the red, blue, green,
yellow and purple were the most common. In general the trails exhibited about
the same color as the nucleus, but much fainter, and they were usually pervaded
by a greenish tint. In some instances the trails were of quite a different color from
the nucleus.
The luminous cloud observed at 5h. 30m. on the morning of November 14th,
1868, after having passed through the series of transformations above described,
remained visible for a long while after sunrise, appearing then as a small cirrus
cloud, exactly similar in appearance to the hundreds of small cirrus clouds then
visible in the sky, which had probably the same meteoric origin. For over three
hours after sunrise, these cirrus clouds remained visible in the sky, moving all
together with the wind in the high regions of the atmosphere.
Although Plate XII. is intended to represent all the characteristics exhibited by
the meteors observed on that night, every form represented having been
obtained by direct observation, yet the number is much greater than it was at any
single moment during the particular shower of 1868. As regards number, the
intention was to give an idea of a great meteoric shower, such as that of 1833, for
instance. Although many of the falling stars seem to be close to the Earth's
surface, yet this is only an effect of perspective due to their great distance, very
few of these meteors ever coming into the lower regions of our atmosphere at all.
 The phenomena exhibited during other great meteoric showers have been
similar to those presented by the shower just described, the only differences
consisting in variations of size and brightness in the meteors, and also in the
trails, which sometimes are not so numerous as they were in 1868.
While some shooting-stars move so rapidly that they can hardly be followed in
their orbits, others move so slowly that the sight can easily follow them, and even
remark the peculiarities of their movements, some remaining visible for half a
minute. Some of the falling stars move at the rapid rate of 100 miles a second,
but others only 10 miles a second, and even less. In general, they move about
half as fast again as the Earth in its orbit. The arcs described by the meteors in
the sky are variable. While some extend 8o° and even 100°, others are hardly
half a degree in length. While some shooting-stars are so faint that they can
hardly be seen through the largest telescopes, others are so large and brilliant
that they can be seen in the day-time. In general, a shooting-star of average
brightness resembles a star of the third or fourth magnitude.
Whatever may be the origin of the shooting-stars, they are, when we see
them, not in the celestial spaces, like the planets, the comets, or the stars, but in
our atmosphere, through which they travel as long as they remain visible. The
height at which they appear and disappear is variable, but in general they are
about 80 miles above the surface of our globe when they are first seen, and at
about 55 miles when they disappear. In many cases, however, they have been
observed at greater elevations, as also at smaller. A meteor simultaneously
observed at two different stations first appeared at the height of 285 miles, and
was last seen at 192 miles above the Earth's surface; but in rare cases the falling
stars have been seen below a layer of clouds completely covering the sky. I
myself saw one such shooting-star a few years since. The fact that the meteors
are visible at so great elevations, proves that our atmosphere extends much
farther than was formerly supposed, although at these great heights it must be
extremely rarefied, and very different from what it is in its lower regions.
There is a remarkable difference between the sporadic meteors seen in the
sky on every night, and the meteoric showers observed only at comparatively
rare intervals. While the first appear from different points in the sky and travel in
all directions, being perfectly independent, the meteors of a shower all come from
the same point of the heavens, from which they apparently diverge in all
directions. This point of divergence of the meteors is called the radiant point of
the shower. Although the meteors seem to diverge in all directions from the
radiant point, yet they all move in approximately parallel lines, the divergence
being an effect of perspective.
Whatever may be the position of the radiant point in the constellations, it
remains as fixed in the sky as the stars themselves, and participates with them in
the apparent motion which they undergo by the effect of the diurnal motion, and
thus rises and sets with the constellation to which it belongs. This fact is sufficient
to prove that the orbits of these meteors are independent of the Earth's motion,
and that consequently they do not originate in our atmosphere. It has been shown
by Encke that the radiant point of the meteoric shower of November 13th is
precisely the point towards which our globe moves in space on November 13th; a
tangent to the Earth's orbit would pass through this radiant point.
The meteoric showers are particularly remarkable, not merely because of the
large number of meteors which are visible and the fact that they all follow a
common orbit, but chiefly because they have a periodic return, either after an
interval of a year, or after a lapse of several years. At the beginning of the present
century only two meteoric showers were known, those of August 10th and of
November 13th, and their periodicity had not yet been recognized, although it had
begun to be suspected. It was only in 1836 that Quetelet and Olbers ventured to
predict the reappearance of the November meteors in the year 1867. Having
made further investigations, Prof. Newton, of Yale College, announced their
return in the year 1866. In both of these years, as also in 1868, the meteors were
very numerous, and were observed in Europe and in America on the night of
November 13th. The predictions having thus been fulfilled, the periodicity of the
meteors was established. Since then, other periodic showers have been
recognized, although they are much less important in regard to number than
those of August and November, except that of November 27th, which exhibited so
brilliant a display in Europe in 1872. These successive appearances have
established the main fact that meteoric showers are more or less visible every
year when the Earth occupies certain positions in its orbit.
The meteoric shower of the 10th of August has its radiant point situated in the
vicinity of the variable star Algol, in the constellation Perseus, from which its
meteors have received the name of Perseids. Although varying in splendor, this
meteoric swarm never fails to make its appearance every year. The Perseids
move through our atmosphere at the rate of 37 miles per second. The shower
usually lasts about six hours.
The meteoric shower of November 13th has its radiant point situated in the
vicinity of the star Gamma, in the constellation Leo, from which its meteors have
been called Leonids. But while the August meteors recur regularly every year,
with slight variations, the shower of November does not occur with the same
regularity. During several years it is hardly noticeable, and is even totally absent,
while in other years it is very remarkable. Every 33 years an extraordinary
meteoric shower occurs on the 13th of November, and the phenomenon is
repeated on the two succeeding years at the same date, but with a diminution in
its splendor at each successive return. The Leonids move in an opposite direction
to that of the Earth, and travel in our atmosphere with an apparent velocity of 45
miles per second, this being about the maximum velocity observed in falling stars.
But when the motion of our globe is taken into account, and a deduction is made
of the 18 miles which it travels per second, it is found that these meteors move at
an actual mean rate of 27 miles a second.
In a meteoric shower the stars do not fall uniformly throughout the night, there
being a time when they appear in greater numbers. Usually it is towards morning,
between 4 and 6 o'clock, that the maximum occurs. The probable cause of this
phenomenon will be explained in its place hereafter.
The orbits of the meteoric showers are not all approximately in the same
plane, like those of the planets, but rather resemble those of comets, and have all
possible inclinations to the ecliptic. Like the comets, too, the different meteoric
showers have either direct or retrograde motion.
The shooting-stars were formerly considered as atmospheric meteors, caused
by the combustion of inflammable gases generated at the surface of the Earth,
and transported to the high regions of our atmosphere by their low specific
gravity. But the considerable height at which they usually appear, the great
velocity of their motion, the common orbit followed by the meteors of the same
shower, and the periodicity of their recurrence, do not permit us now to entertain
these ideas, or to doubt their cosmical origin. But what is their nature?
It is now generally admitted that innumerable minute bodies, moving in various
directions around the Sun, are scattered in the interplanetary spaces through
which our globe travels. It has been supposed that congregations of such minute
bodies form elliptical rings, within which they are all moving in close parallel orbits
around the Sun. On the supposition that such rings intersect the orbit of the Earth
at the proper places, it was practicable to account for the shooting-stars by the
passage through our atmosphere of the numerous minute cosmical bodies
composing the rings, and the Leonid and Perseid showers were so explained. But
when the elements of the orbits of these two last swarms came to be better
known, and were compared with those of other celestial bodies, it was found
necessary to alter this theory.
It had for a long while been suspected that some kind of relation existed
between the shooting-stars and the comets. This idea, vaguely formulated by
Kepler more than two centuries ago, more clearly expressed by Chladni, and still
more by Mr. Grey, before the British Association, at Liverpool, in 1855, has
recently received a brilliant confirmation by the researches of Professor
Schiaparelli, Director of the Observatory of Milan. A thorough investigation of the
orbits of the August and November meteors led Schiaparelli to the discovery of a
remarkable relation between meteoric and cometary orbits. By comparing the
elements of these meteoric orbits with those of comets, he found a very close
resemblance between the orbit of the August meteors and that of the comet
1862, III., and again between the orbit of the November meteors and that of
Tempel's comet, 1866, I. These resemblances were too striking to be the result of
mere chance, and demonstrated the identity of these cometary orbits with those
of the Perseid and Leonid showers. In accordance with these new facts, it is now
admitted that the meteoric showers result from the passage of our globe through
swarms of meteoric particles following the orbits of comets, which intersect the
orbit of the Earth.
Professor Schiaparelli has attempted to show how these meteoric swarms
were originally scattered along the orbits of comets, by supposing these bodies to
originate from nebulous masses, which, in entering the sphere of attraction of the
Sun, are gradually scattered along their orbits, and finally form comets followed
by long trails of meteoric particles.
It has been shown that in approaching the Sun the comets become
considerably elongated, their particles being disseminated over immense
distances by the solar repulsion. It seems probable that, owing to its feeble
attractive power, the nucleus is incompetent to recall the scattered cometary
particles and retain them in its grasp when they are relieved from the solar
repulsion, so that they remain free from the nucleus, although they continue to
move along its orbit. It is supposable that these cometary particles will scatter
more and more in course of time. Forming at first an elongated meteoric cloud,
they will finally spread along the whole orbit, and thus form a ring of meteoric
particles. Since our globe constantly moves in its orbit and daily occupies a
different position, it follows that at any point where such a cometary orbit happens
to cross that of the Earth, our globe will necessarily encounter the cometary
particles as a shower of meteors. This encounter will take place at a certain time
of the year, either yearly, if they form a continuous ring, or after a succession of
years, if they simply form an elongated cloud. Such meteoric clouds or rings
would not be visible in ordinary circumstances, even through the largest
telescopes, except on penetrating the upper regions of our atmosphere, when
they would appear as showers of falling stars. It is supposed that in penetrating
our atmosphere, even in its most rarefied regions, these meteors are heated by
the resistance offered by the air to their motion, first becoming luminous and then
being finally vaporized and burnt before they can reach the surface of the Earth.
The orbit of the comet of 1862, III., which so closely corresponds with that of
the Perseid meteors, is much more extended than that of Tempel's comet
corresponding with that of the Leonids. While the first extends far beyond the
orbit of Neptune, the latter only goes a little beyond that of Uranus. The former
orbit makes a considerable angle with the plane of the Earth's orbit, but the latter
is much nearer to parallelism with it. The period of revolution of the first is 108
years, and that of the last about 33¼ years.
From the fact that the Perseid shower occurs yearly on the 10th of August,
when the Earth crosses the orbit of the comet of 1862, III., it is supposed that the
cometary particles producing this shower are disseminated along the whole orbit,
and form a ring encircling the Sun and Earth. To explain the yearly variations in
the number of the shooting-stars observed, these particles are supposed to be
unequally distributed over the orbit, being more crowded at one place than they
are at another. In order to explain the meteoric shower of Leonids, which appears
in all its splendor every 33 years, and then with diminished intensity for two
successive years, after which it is without importance, it is supposed that the
cometary particles of the comet of 1866, I., have not as yet spread all along the
orbit, a sufficient time not having been allowed, but form an elongated meteoric
cloud, more dense in its front than in its rear part. From these considerations it
has been supposed also that the comet of 1866, I., is of a more recent date than
that of 1862, III. While Tempel's comet makes its revolution around the Sun in
about 33 years, this meteoric cloud, which has the same period and returns to the
same point of its orbit every 33 years, encounters our globe for three successive
years. The first year we are passing through its densest parts, and the two
following years in less and less crowded parts, from which result the observed
phenomena. An idea of the extent of this meteoric cloud may be formed from the
fact that, with its cometary velocity of motion, it takes this cloud three years at
least to cross the Earth's orbit. From recent researches it would appear that the
Leonid cloud is not single, but that at least two others of smaller importance exist,
and have periods of 33¼ years.
Biela's comet, which was divided into two parts in 1846, is another of the few
comets whose orbit approaches that of the Earth. Possessing this knowledge,
and knowing then the close connection existing between meteors and comets,
astronomers supposed that there were sufficient reasons to expect a meteoric
shower when this comet was passing near the Earth. They consequently
expected a meteoric display in 1872, when our globe was to cross its orbit. Their
anticipation was plainly fulfilled, and on the night of November 27th, 1872, a
splendid meteoric display, having its radiant point in the constellation Andromeda,
was observed in Europe, and also in America, but the meteors seen here were
not so numerous as in Europe. Other meteoric showers of less importance, such
as that of April 20th, for instance, have also been identified with cometary orbits,
so that now no doubt seems to remain as to the identity of cometary particles and
shooting-stars.
The fact that the maximum number of meteors is always observed in the
morning hours, supports the hypothesis of the cosmic origin of the shooting-stars,
since the regions of the Earth where it is morning are precisely those fronting the
regions towards which our globe is moving in space, and accordingly encounter
more directly the meteors moving in their orbit. The greater abundance of falling
stars at that time may thus be accounted for.
The number of meteors penetrating our atmosphere must be very great; there
is not an hour and probably not a minute during which none fall. From various
considerations, some astronomers have estimated at from 65,000,000,000 to
146,000,000,000 the total number of shooting-stars yearly penetrating in our
atmosphere. The actual number is undoubtedly great, yet the fact that the
meteors are rarely seen through the telescope while employed in observing