Abstract
MR. JESSUP'S letter raises what, I think, is a fundamental point concerning the significance of relativity theory. In adopting that theory, we do not assume that "no subsequent developments will ever point to the probability of some spatio-temporal particularization of the framework of the universe". We simply regard scientific theory as a description of the world apprehended by experience (more exactly, the correlation of experiences themselves), and require that it shall not include features for which experience offers no evidence. For that reason we regard a theory which includes the existence of absolute velocity as invalid. If future experience should enable us to detect absolute velocity, or even "leave us only the possibility of inferring its existence from some otherwise inexplicable phenomenon", the situation would be altered, and the same principle would then require us to include it in our description. In brief, scientific theory should be, so far as possible, conterminous with experience.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
DINGLE, H. The Laws of Nature. Nature 154, 432–433 (1944). https://doi.org/10.1038/154432b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/154432b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.