SCIENCE, CAPITALISM AND CULTURE - IV
Why do apples (coconuts) fall to the earth? Newton was not the first person to ask this question but he was one of the first Englishmen to give an answer. It is now known that Robert Hook, whom Issac Newton did not like, had come up with the so called inverse square law before the latter. We do not know the exact contribution of Newton in formulating the theory of gravitation now named after him, but many people would not say that the theory was an invention or a creation of Newton. According to most people theories are discovered and not invented the way the electric bulb was invented by Edison. The common belief is that theories are there to be discovered and it is left to a few people in the west such as Newton to discover them. These people, including the very few who are descendants of Asians, who discover the western scientific theories are groomed in the western culture and for all purposes could be considered as westerners.
If the theories are there to be discovered and not invented or created (constructed) then it is implied that these theories only reveal some objective truth independent of those who discovered them as well as other creatures who have been able to come across the theories through their formal or informal education. The educational theories themselves, according to this view, are discovered and we the unfortunate creatures in the so called third world have no alternative but to be acquainted with all the theories and concepts that are discovered by the westerners. Of course, some of us get degrees, sometimes post graduate degrees as well, for our efforts to become aware of what is going on in the west, and our theses are recognised as contributions made to knowledge, though none in Sri Lanka has ever been elected a FRS, not FRCS, for such contributions.
However, we have been encouraged to form our own academies, institutes, colleges etc., in the disciplines in western sciences and technologies that include medicine and engineering, and we hold the annual sessions of these bodies dressed in all the paraphernalia associated with the qualifications we have received and listen to our presidents, chief guests and guests of honour telling us not about their contributions to knowledge but about contributions by others, and to other "sales rep" talks on the importance of our vocation to the "development" of the country. In Sri Lanka what matters is the "sales rep" talk, and the talk of the town for about a week after the annual sessions of any one of these learned bodies is centered on the brilliance of the "sales rep" talks by the president, chief guest and the guest of honour. ( I am reminded of a short story by Gunadasa Amarasekera in which one such character delivers this all important "sales rep" talk after lighting the so called traditional oil lamp.) The only thing we discover year after year is the importance of our fields of specialisation, and how important we ourselves are, having being specialised in an important field.
Coming back to the discovery by Newton, we are being trained to think that with or without Newton (and Hook) the gravitational theory has been there either since the big bang or the creation of the world by the God. We are told that Newton discovered a truth that had existed for time immemorial and that would exist for ever if we believe in the current western cosmological theories that predict that the universe would go on expanding without a limit. However, the current predictions in western cosmology are based not on Newtonian theory but on Einsteinian theory. This implies that Newtonian theory has been overlooked or replaced by Einsteinian theory and the former is not applicable at least in the case of the expansion of the universe. What happened to this universal theory of gravitation due to Newton? How universal is it if it cannot be applied to study the universe as a whole? The so called Newton's theory of gravitation is not only not applicable in a study of the universe, it does not give results compatible with observations even in the case of motion of the planets round the sun. The planets do not move in ellipses fixed relative to the sun, as Newton's laws of motion and theory of gravitation would tell us, but drag the perihelion, the closest approach to the sun, along with them. Newton's theory of gravitation would give approximate results in some cases but that does not imply that the theory is correct. However the million pound question (Newton was the master of mint in London) is not on the correctness of the theory. If the theories are discovered and it they are there to be discovered why did not Newton discover the correct theory? Why did he discover a wrong theory?
It was Einstein who replaced Newton's theory of gravitation with a better theory. However, this does not mean that Einstein finally "discovered" the correct theory. His theory is being modified and sooner than later this theory too would be replaced by some other theory. That other theory would also be discarded and the western scientists, if western science continues to dominate sciences until such time, would adopt a new theory as the so called theory of gravitation. Most of the philosophers of western science and their imitators here would claim that each succeeding theory is an improvement on the previous theory. Unfortunately for them this not the case. Einstein's theory cannot be considered as an improvement on Newton's theory as the two theories are different in approach. In Newtonian theory space and time are given "a priori", if we were to use Kant's terminology that came later, and the objects move in this space and time. In Einstein's theory space and time, rather space-time, is determined by the objects and radiation, and there is no gravitational field as such. The objects move along geodesics ("natural paths") due to the curvature of space-time, and according to Einstein what matters is this curvature. According to him since we are unaware of the curvature of the space-time Newton (and Hook) had formulated a gravitational interaction in order to explain the attraction of one object to another.
This gives rise to two questions. If there is no gravitational field as such then who created the gravitational attraction? Obviously the culprits are Newton and Hook and may be others who had had a hand in this creation game. If there is no gravitational field how can anyone know whether the curvature of space time is the cause of apples falling down to earth and the earth moving round the Sun. A future Einstein would claim that the apples fall down to earth not because the apples move along geodesics or "natural paths", but due to some other reason. He, most probably a he and not a she, would claim that since Einstein did not know that particular cause our scientist would discover, Einstein created the curvature of space time. If Newton's theory is a creation then there is no reason as to why Einstein's theory is not a creation. All theories, not only Newton's and Einstein's but the future western scientist's as well, are creations and not discoveries. The theories in general are answers given to certain questions very often based on observations. However, in the process of giving an answer, in other words in creating a theory, the observation is also reinterpreted to suit the answer. The above is a theory on theory formation and is itself an answer to the following questions on how theories come into existence. Are they discovered? If not discovered but created why are they created? A second part of the question is on how the theories are created. There is an answer to that part of the question based on culture and chinthanaya, which itself is another theory.
If theories are created as answers to problems then we immediately have a question on causality. Do apples (coconuts) fall due to gravitation or gravitation "exists" because objects fall? We have been conditioned (brainwashed) to think that objects fall because of gravity. However, according to Einstein there is no gravity as such and gravitational attraction is only a theory due to Newton. The tradition in western science would teach us that gravitation is the cause and falling of objects is the effect. However, it should be clear by now that it is not the case. It is the falling of bodies that made Newton to come out with gravitation. Falling of the bodies is the cause and gravitation is the effect. One might even say that it is only one of the effects as Einstein's theory is also an effect of falling of the bodies.
Before Newton, in the western culture two ideas on "falling bodies" prevailed. One was due to Aristotle, who had said that bodies when freed from "forces" or fetters (Aristotle and even Galileo did not have the idea of a force as formulated by Newton.) move to their "natural positions" as people come back home after a days work. The natural position as far as bodies like coconuts was the earth and hence an apple or a coconut when released would "come" to the surface of the earth. For Aristotle the natural position for objects like the moon was the sky and therefore the "celestial bodies" remained in the sky. The other idea in Europe before Newton, on "falling bodies" was due to Galileo who had demonstrated that all bodies come down with the same acceleration. Before Galileo, the westerners following Aristotle had believed that heavier objects come down faster. Galileo is supposed to have shown that it was not the case by dropping objects from the leaning tower of Pisa. (It is said that it was not Galileo but a friend of him who did this "experiment".) Newton changed Aristotle's theory that bodies find their natural positions, and said that bodies fall to the ground due to the gravitational force of the earth that act on the bodies. Combining his theory of gravitation and his laws of motion he was able to show "theoretically" that bodies fall with the same acceleration, agreeing with the observation of Galileo (or his friend).
As Feyerabend has shown, after Newton the westerners did not observe particles merely falling to the earth as Aristotle had described or even as Galileo had observed. They observed bodies falling under the action of earth's gravitational force. Newton through his theory had changed the interpretation given to observation as well. As there are no observations without some interpretation this means that Newton had changed the "observation" as well. If people continued to observe heavier objects falling faster, then Newton's theory of gravitation would not have been valid. After Newton people do not observe heavier objects falling faster than the lighter bodies. The lighter bodies like feathers now experience a "bigger" resistance due to the atmosphere, than the heavier bodies. Though the ordinary westerner still observe bodies falling under the action of the earth's gravitational force many western physicists observe bodies falling under the earth's gravitational field which is not the same as the gravitational force. The concept of a field was not known even to Newton as it was introduced after Faraday and Maxwell. The more sophisticated among the western physicists do not observe even falling of bodies under a gravitational field. They observe no forces or gravitation at all! They see objects moving along geodesics in a space-time determined by the objects themselves. As geodesics are "natural paths" the sophisticated western physicists appear to be closer to Aristotle who said that the bodies when released from fetters (or under no external influences) would come back to their "natural positions" than to Newton!
(To be continued).
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>