sion of space as height, width and length If we interchange them in the expression of
some law of nature, we still arrive at this law
The new ideas are embodied by Minkowsky in an elegant mathematical theory, we
shall not enter the majestic temple erected by his genius, a voice proclaims from
there
'In the universe all is given for it there is no past or future, it is - the eternal
present, it has no limits either in space or in time Changes take place in
individualities and correspond to their displacements along the world ways in the
four-dimensional, eternal and boundless manifold In the domain of philosophic
thought these ideas should produce a greater revolution than the displacement of the
earth from the centre of the universe by Copernicus'*
From the tunes of Newton,
natural science has never been faced with more brilliant perspectives Is not the
power of natural science blazoned forth in the transition
from the indisputable
experimental fact -the impossibility of determining the absolute motion of the earth
to problems of the mind! A contemporary philosopher exclaimed in confusion
'Beyond truth and falsehood!'
When the cult of a new god is born, his word is not always clearly understood; the
true meaning becomes revealed in time I think that the same is true also as regards
the principle of relativity.
The elimination of anthropomorphism from scientific ideas has rendered an
enormous service to science.
The principle of relativity follows the same path, showing the dependence of our
observations on the general conditions of phenomena.
The electro-magnetic theory of the world and the principle of relativity explain
only those phenomena, the place of which is determined by the part
of the universe
occupied by matter; the remaining part, which appears to our senses as a vacuum,
still remains outside science. But the shores of the material world are constantly
bathed by the surf of energy coming from that agitated ocean which is empty for our
senses but not for our reason.
Is not the dualism of matter and vacuum an anthropomorphism and, moreover, the
last one in science? Let us put the fundamental question. What part of the universe is
filled by matter? Let us surround our
planetary system by a sphere, the radius of
which is equal to half the distance between the sun and the nearest stars: the length
of this radius is traversed by a ray of light in a year and a half Let us accept the
volume of this sphere as the volume of our world. Now, starting from the sun, as the
centre, let us trace another, a lesser, sphere, the radius
of which is equal to the
distance between our sun and the furthest planet. I presume that the matter of our
world, concentrated in one place, will not take more than one tenth of the volume of
the planetary sphere: I think that this figure is considerably exaggerated. Calculation
of volumes will show that in our world the volume filled with matter relates to the
volume of vacuum as one to a number represented by the figures 3 with 13 noughts.
This relationship corresponds to the relationship of one second to a million years.
According to Lord Kelvin's calculation, the density of matter corresponding to
such a relationship would be ten thousand million times less dense than water, i.e. it
would be at the furthest limit of rarefaction.
* My
italics - P D Ouspensky
Professor Oumoff gives an example of a number of spheres corresponding to the
number of seconds in a million years. On one of these spheres (corresponding to the
matter in the universe) is inscribed all we know, because all we do know refers to
matter. And matter is only one sphere among millions and millions of 'spheres of
vacuum':
The conclusion arrived at [he says] is this: Matter represents a highly improbable
event in the universe.
This event came into being because improbability does not mean impossibility.
But where and in what manner are realized more probable events? Is it in the domain
of radiant energy?
The theory of probability embraces an immense part of the universe -the vacuum
in the world of becoming. We know that radiant energy possesses gravitational mass.
Among the varied phenomena in the world of intercrossing rays, do not their
elements attracted to one another give birth
to tiny particles, the accumulation of
which constitutes our material world?
Could it be that vacuum is the laboratory of matter?
The material world is the limited horizon which opens up before a man who has
come out into a field. For his senses life is teeming only within the limits of this
horizon; outside it, for man's senses, is only vacuum.
I do not want to start a polemic against those thoughts in Professor Oumoff's paper
with which I do not agree. Still, I shall point out and enumerate the questions which
arise, in my opinion, from the incompatibility of some premises.
The antithesis between
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
