Sir Arthur Eddington and the Foundations of Modern Physics - arXiv

289 Pages·2005·12.48 MB·English

Sir Arthur Eddington and the
Foundations of Modern Physics
Ian T. Durham
Submitted for the degree of PhD
1 December 2004
University of St. Andrews
School of Mathematics & Statistics
St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland
1
Dedicated to
Alyson Nate & Sadie
for living through it all and loving me for being you
Mom & Dad
my heroes
Larry & Alice Sharon
for constant love and support for everything said and unsaid
Maggie
for making 13 a lucky number
Gram D. Gram S.
for always being interested for strength and good food
Steve & Alice
for making Texas worth visiting
2
Contents
Preface … 4
Eddington’s Life and Worldview … 10
A Philosophical Analysis of Eddington’s Work … 23
The Roaring Twenties: Dawn of the New Quantum Theory … 52
Probability Leads to Uncertainty … 85
Filling in the Gaps … 116
Uniqueness … 151
Exclusion … 185
Numerical Considerations and Applications … 211
Clarity of Perception … 232
Appendix A: The Zoo Puzzle … 268
Appendix B: The Burying Ground at St. Giles … 274
Appendix C: A Dialogue Concerning the Nature of Exclusion and
its Relation to Force … 278
References … 283
3
I
Preface
Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity is perhaps the most significant development
in the history of modern cosmology. It turned the entire field of cosmology into a
quantitative science. In it, Einstein described gravity as being a consequence of the
geometry of the universe. Though this precise point is still unsettled, it is undeniable that
dimensionality plays a role in modern physics and in gravity itself. Following quickly on
the heels of Einstein’s discovery, physicists attempted to link gravity to the only other
fundamental force of nature known at that time: electromagnetism. Both Hermann Weyl
(1885-1955) in 1918 and Arthur Stanley Eddington (1888-1944) in 1921 developed field
theories that in essence were early attempts at unification employing the new concept of
the geometrisation of physics. Also in 1921 the German theoretical physicist Theodor
Kaluza (1885–1954) attempted this by extending Einstein’s field equations to five
dimensions (Kaluza 1921). Essentially he postulated a five dimensional Riemannian
space by adding to the four known dimensions a fifth one where particles always
followed closed paths. Both electromagnetism and relativity were contained within this
grand scheme but it did not contain any of the relatively young quantum theory leaving
most physicists to realize it bore no resemblance to reality. The Swedish theoretical
physicist Oskar Klein (1894–1977) added the quantum aspect to Kaluza’s theory in 1926
(Klein 1926) and similar subsequent theories have been loosely grouped into the category
of Kaluza-Klein Theories. In Klein’s theory the fifth dimension was unobservable
whereas Kaluza’s was macroscopic in size. This unobservable dimension’s physical
reality was akin to a quantity that was conjugate to the electrical charge. In this way
Klein also sought to explain Planck’s quantum of action. The lack of sufficient
mechanisms for testing such an idea and finding a practical application for the theory
kept Kaluza-Klein theories largely out of the mainstream until their revival in the 1970s.
This did not stop many scientists from studying unification, however. Einstein
essentially devoted the final thirty years of his life to it while Eddington devoted the last
fifteen.
4
Unification today is widely regarded as the Holy Grail of physics. Physicists have
successfully unified the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces with special relativity
under the guise of quantum field theory, but any definitive link to gravity or general
relativity remains elusive. String theory is currently the mainstream theory of choice for
this but remains unproven. Unifying gravity and quantum theory then must be at the
heart of this quest, and theories of quantum gravity have been at the forefront of research
in physics for nearly forty years. But attempts at such a unification actually date to at
least 1928, when Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac (1902-1984) derived his relativistic equation
for the electron (Dirac 1928a and 1928b). Eddington, disappointed that Dirac’s equation
did not appear in tensor form,1 sought to reformulate Dirac’s work in 1929-1930 to put
quantum theory into the language of relativity, i.e. tensor calculus (Eddington 1929).
This led to the development of several theories of cosmology in the 1930s developed
primarily by Eddington, Dirac, and Edward Arthur Milne (1896-1950). Several
unification theories that did not directly address cosmological questions were also
developed at this time.
Eddington’s work rested on the premise that quantum mechanics and relativity
could be united under a common framework both in the formalism and the philosophy.
He began by analyzing uncertainty and became convinced that its introduction into
physics heralded such a monumental change that every physicist needed to consider its
philosophical implications in their work. He clearly opposed the Einstein-Podolsky-
Rosen (EPR) interpretation saying that any scientist who accepted the idea of hidden
variables as an explanation of indeterminacy “wants shaking up and waking” (Eddington
1935b, p. 84). He saw this fundamental indeterminacy as the foundation on which to
build a unified theory of physics.
Though his work on uncertainty is clearly debatable in its validity it actually
foreshadowed some later developments in physics, including the need for a quantum-
mechanical standard of length. This led him to the next major component of his work: an
analysis of The Pauli Exclusion Principle. He develops exclusion into a richer
framework that serves, in combination with uncertainty, as the basis of later versions of

1 Charles Galton Darwin (1887-1962) was the first to note that Dirac’s equation was not in tensor form; see
C.G. Darwin, “The Wave Equation of the Electron,” Proceedings of the Royal Society [A] 118 (1928), 654-
680.
5
his complete theory, which held that physical events depend solely on dimensionless
ratios. Later, this idea was taken up by Dirac in proposing his Large Numbers
Hypothesis (Dirac 1937).
Eddington’s work hinted at some of the underlying principles of modern theories
including some aspects of grand unified theories (GUTs) and string theory. In fact, as
this monograph discusses, Fundamental Theory, as it was posthumously titled, is a very
early attempt at quantum field theory that quite remarkably predicts future advances in
that field. It’s greatest relevance to modern science is in its unique interpretation of the
foundational aspects of modern physics and its philosophical implications for the
underlying structure of the physical world. In fact Eddington’s work has seen somewhat
of a renaissance in recent years and has been studied in greater detail by a growing list of
scholars.
I first discovered this aspect of Eddington’s work when reading a brief account of
his cosmology in Helge Kragh’s Quantum Generations. I had known of Eddington from
my work in astronomy for his many mainstream accomplishments, but this brief
encounter with his unorthodox worldview turned my research from work on general
problems in cosmology to addressing truly foundational problems in modern physics.
The results of my initial foray into his work on uncertainty, that reveal a deep
distrust of standard measurement techniques and a worldview incorporating uncertainty
into the very fabric of space-time, led naturally to his extension of the Exclusion
Principle. One of the many amazing insights that continued to fuel my work was the fact
that Eddington modifies the interpretation of this fundamental principle and extracts
results from the new interpretation that point to a deeper philosophical meaning behind
exclusion. This presented me with several fundamental questions about the nature of
exclusion: could it be more than a relatively straightforward quantum phenomenon; could
it reside in that fundamental area inhabited by the conservation laws, the forces of nature,
and the uncertainty principle, and, if it does, what does this mean for modern physics?
My conclusions in this endeavour have led to several extended pieces of research in
fundamental physics that, in itself, emphasizes the surprising relevance of his work
despite its chequered past.
6
Examining these questions is not only important for a complete understanding of
exclusion and Eddington’s unorthodox worldview, but they are also at the heart of the
relationship between science and philosophy. When analyzed in full compliment with his
work on uncertainty, the whole of his thinking begins to unravel itself. To say that
Eddington went from being one of the subjects of my dissertation to being the only
subject of my dissertation does not do proper justice to his influence on me. Delving into
the deep questions of uncertainty and exclusion, particularly in the context of unification
and the nature of the universe itself, his work has led me into many new uncharted areas
and has helped to focus my general research interests onto more fundamental and
foundational questions. But aside from my personal interest in the subject, Eddington’s
philosophical and even some of his mathematical work is often overlooked by modern
scholars. Bohm, Fred Hoyle (1915 - 2001), and Hermann Bondi (b. 1919) are well-
known despite their controversial theories making up a large portion of their body of
work, while Eddington, whose diverse work included the first observational verification
of general relativity and the nearly single-handed creation of the field of stellar structure,
tends to be overlooked and even marginalized.2 It was this historical treatment that
contributed to my focus solely on Eddington.
My research concentrated primarily on what comprises the first six chapters of
Fundamental Theory and is often referred to as his statistical theory. These six chapters
focus their efforts on reinterpreting and applying Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and
Pauli’s Exclusion Principle. They form the philosophical and interpretive basis of his
entire program of research. I analyzed each in detail both philosophically and
mathematically in search of any morsel of truth or potential application to modern
physics. The formalism of the latter chapters cannot be understood without the
contextual basis the early material provides. A direct result of his statistical theory was
the derivation of many of the known constants in the universe (hence the derisive label of
numerology) and I analyzed these in detail as well. Putting all of this together I
examined the impact on unification, particularly from a modern quantum field theoretic

2 One slightly elderly physicist who devotes much of his time to the history of physics these days, remarked
to me at a conference once that when he thought of Eddington he always thought of numerology. Helge
Kragh, a noted historian of modern physics devotes nearly all of his discussion on Eddington in Quantum
Generations: A History of Physics in the 20th Century (Kragh 1999) to Eddington’s cosmology and very
little to his more mainstream, and arguably more influential, works on relativity and stellar structure.
7
sense, attempting to determine if Eddington could have been on the right track with
anything. The portions that do have relevance to the foundations of modern physics I
then examined in depth. I have three published papers (Durham 2004, 2003a,and 2003b)
on the subject but, other than the most recent, they bear little resemblance to what follows
since my work has matured and evolved over the years as my understanding of physics
itself has done the same. A robust and lengthy treatment of Eddington’s statistical theory
from Fundamental Theory comprises the nine chapters of this text.
One final note I wish to make is that, despite its title, Clive Kilmister’s 1994 book
Eddington’s Search for a Fundamental Theory: A Key to the Universe is devoted more
fully to an analysis of Eddington’s 1936 book Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons
that laid the groundwork for Fundamental Theory published a decade later. Much was
changed in the theory in the final eight years of Eddington’s life and the two years
between then and publication. Kilmister and B.O.J. Tupper did analyze the statistical
components of Fundamental Theory in the early 1960s (Kilmister and Tupper 1963) but
more from the perspective of their own research that built upon Eddington’s. It was also
prior to many of the major advances in quantum field theory. As such, my work is the
only comprehensive study of the statistical portions of Eddington’s Fundamental Theory
that puts it into historical perspective and the only study that compares it to quantum field
theory rather than quantum mechanics and relativistic cosmology.
I wish to thank numerous people in helping me to complete this work. In addition
to everyone to whom this text is dedicated, I wish to thank my doctoral advisors at St.
Andrews, Prof. Edmund Robertson, FRSE, and Dr. John O’Connor. During a recent
session on advising for new faculty members at Saint Anselm College where I now teach,
participants were asked about their best and worst advising experiences as students. I
was the only one whose best experience was with their doctorate. Edmund and John have
gone well beyond what I expected of them and made this experience a truly pleasurable
one. I also wish to thank Simmons College in Boston for employing me as a full-time
instructor for the vast majority of my time as a doctoral student. In addition to providing
my family and I with much-needed financial resources Simmons provided excellent
facilities for building my research and developing my pedagogical style. As such, thanks
must also go to Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, where I now reside as a tenure-
8
track faculty member. Saint A’s has offered me a wonderful place to ply my
interdisciplinary trade as a philosopher and historian of physics while also providing me
with a fantastic group of students with whom I can discuss physics at length.
Thanks are also in order for Roger Stuewer for careful editing of one of the papers
that formed part of this treatise, a process in which I learned a great deal; Kate Price for
organizing the most stimulating conference of my professional career, one that actually
had a greater impact on my work than anything else; John Amson, one of the founders of
the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association (ANPA) with Clive Kilmister and a
former Saint Andrews (the other Saint A’s!) professor, for encouraging my interest in
Eddington and welcoming me into his wonderful home on the coast of Scotland to pick
his brain for an afternoon; Meg Weston Smith, the daughter of E.A. Milne, who has
generously provided me with her friendship and hospitality not to mention a treasure-
trove of information relating to her father and his relationship with Eddington (Milne’s
kinematic relativity will be a future project for me); and Alan Boufford for teaching me
the organizational skills I needed to finish this.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the numerous libraries and archives I accessed
along the way including the libraries (including archives and other resources) of the
University of St. Andrews, Simmons College, Saint Anselm College, MIT, the Royal
Society of London, the Royal Astronomical Society, and the American Philosophical
Society. I also wish to thank the Kennebunk Free Library in Kennebunk, Maine, for a
quiet place to work. I have four generations of librarians in my family and librarians are
often unsung heroes.
Ian T. Durham
October 2004
Kennebunk, Maine
9
II
Eddington’s Life and Worldview
No study of Eddington’s work is complete without a brief description of his life and his
worldview since these were vital in shaping his research. In particular I will examine
aspects of his life that are directly relevant to the development of Fundamental Theory
and the ideas behind it. A full account of his life can be found in several texts including
the standard biography of him done by his former student A.V. Douglas in 1956.
Eddington’s Life in a Nutshell
Eddington was born 28 December, 1882, in Kendal, Westmoreland, England. He was the
second child and only son of Arthur Henry Eddington, who was the headmaster of the
Stramongate School, the Quaker (Society of Friends) school where the chemist John
Dalton (1766–1844) once taught (Douglas 1956, p. 103). Eddington was a very
intelligent child with a curious intellect and an aptitude for numbers: he attempted to
count the words in the Bible and mastered the 24 x 24 multiplication table before he
could read (Douglas 1956, p. 2 and Plummer 1948). He obtained a three-inch telescope a
bit later thus launching his lifelong study of the heavens (Smart 1945 and Plummer
1948). His schooling began at the Brynmelyn School in Weston-super-Mare (1893-
1898), where his family had moved shortly after the untimely death of his father in 1884
from typhoid. He then attended Owens College, Manchester (1898-1902), managing to
circumvent the rules that prohibited those under the age of 16 from attending. His
professors at Owens included mathematician Horace Lamb (1849-1934) (see Figure 1.)
and physicist Arthur Schuster (1851-1934). In 1902 he received his B.S. from Owens
and then moved to Trinity College, Cambridge, on a scholarship, where he studied under
E.T. Whittaker (1873-1956), the person who later compiled Fundamental Theory, A.N.
Whitehead (1861-1947), and E.W. Barnes (1874-1953), all mathematicians. In 1905 in
addition to receiving his M.A., he spent a term working in the Cavendish Laboratory,
then under the direction of J.J. Thomson (1856-1940), where he very nearly made
10