.

THE DINGLE AFFAIR An Unresolved Scientific Controversy

Ian McCausland

Copyright @ 1977 by Ian McCausland Professor of Electrical Engineering University o f Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 1977 June 8

Preface "This is not a s c h o l a r l y work but a complaintff. This sentence, with which John Maddox began t h e preface of h i s book The Doomsday Syndrome, i s a l s o a f i t t i n g d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s essay, which is a p r o t e s t against t h e present u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s t a t e o f t h e debate on E i n s t e i n ' s s p e c i a l theory of r e l a t i v i t y , and t h e response of t h e s c i e n t i f i c world t o Professor Herbert Dingle's c r i t i c i s m s of t h a t theory. There have been a number of attempts, by various members of t h e s c i e n t i f i c community, t o defend t h e s p e c i a l theory o f r e l a t i v i t y against Professor Dingle's c r i t i c i s m .

Some o f those t h a t have been published a r e

discussed i n t h i s essay, and I q w t e from them i n order t o draw a t t e n t i o n t o some of t h e inconsistencies they contain.

I believe t h a t t h i s action

is j u s t i f i e d i f one accepts a s v a l i d t h e following sentence from a Nature

e d i t o r i a l which is reproduced a s an appendix i n Professor Dingle's book Science a t t h e Crossroads: "The man who f i r s t s p o t s an inconsistency has a duty t o bring it t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f o t h e r s , i f necessary with vigour.ll While I do not claim t o be t h e first t o spot t h e inconsistencies mentioned i n t h i s essay, most o f those who have noticed them seem t o have almost completely disregarded them; i n t h e s e circumstances, t h e r e s t i l l seems t o be a need t o bring them t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of others. The present essay does not claim t o be a d e f i n i t i v e account of t h e way t h e s c i e n t i f i c world has responded t o Professor Dingle; it is merely an interim r e p o r t , and is based e n t i r e l y on information t h a t has already been published elsewhere, information which t h e i n t e r e s t e d reader can e a s i l y verify.

I believe t h a t t h i s information has been ignored o r

neglected, and t h a t it n e e d s t o be made known t o s c i e n t i s t s and o t h e r s who may be concerned with t h e way t h e s c i e n t i f i c community responds t o c r i ticism and t o unorthodox views; t h a t i s why I have written t h i s essay.

And science, we should insist, better than any other discipline, can hold up to its students and followers an ideal of patient devotion to the search for objective truth, with vision unclouded by personal or political motive, not tolerating any lapse from precision or neglect of any anomaly, fearing only prejudice and preconception, accepting nature's answers humbly and with courage, and giving them to the world with an unflinching fidelity. The world cannot afford to lose such a contribution to the moral framework of its civilisation. Henry Hallett Dale (As quoted by Herbert Dingle in Science at the Crossroads)

THE DINGLE AFFAIR

Professor Herbert Dingle is a distinguished s c i e n t i s t who believes t h a t Einstein's special theory of r e l a t i v i t y , though mathematically cons i s t e n t , is physically impossible and should be abandoned.

Since about

1960 he has been trying t o persuade t h e s c i e n t i f i c world t o repudiate t h e theory, and i n 1972 he published a book, Science a t the Crossroads [ l ] , giving a detailed s t o r y of some of t h e problems he has encountered i n presenting h i s arguments t o t h e s c i e n t i f i c community and i n t r y i n g t o obt a i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y answer t o h i s criticisms.

In t h e Introduction t o h i s

book he s t a t e s t h a t h i s claimed disproof of special r e l a t i v i t y has been ffignored, evaded, suppressed and, indeed, t r e a t e d i n every possible way except t h a t of answering it" by t h e whole world of physical science. Although most s c i e n t i s t s s t i l l seem t o be confident t h a t the special theory is valid, t h e i r confidence seems t o be based on so many i l l o g i c a l and mutually-contradictory arguments that t h e s i t u a t i o n seems t o be, a t t h e time of writing, highly unsatisfactory.

The purpose of

t h i s essay is t o point out some of t h e inconsistencies i n t h e arguments, and some of the r a t h e r strange treatment t h a t Professor Dingle and h i s criticisms have received, concentrating mainly on events t h a t have occurred since t h e publication of h i s book.

The reader is invited t o

judge whether the present s i t u a t i o n i s s a t i s f a c t o r y , i n t h e l i g h t of the very high standards t h a t science claims f o r i t s e l f i n what Dingle c a l l s "its unqualified devotion t o t h e discovery of t r u t h a t whatever cost t o i t s expectations and t e n t a t i v e assumptions".

Among t h e v a r i o u s s u b j e c t s covered by Professor Dingle i n h i s book a r e d e s c r i p t i o n s of how v a r i o u s s c i e n t i f i c journals have t r e a t e d h i s c r i t i c i s m s of s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y .

For example, a paper submitted t o t h e

Royal Society f o r p u b l i c a t i o n was r e j e c t e d , and a n anonymous r e f e r e e s t a t e d , a s a reason f o r recommending r e j e c t i o n , t h a t t h e paper contained an e l e mentary f a l l a c y ; y e t Dingle was unable t o o b t a i n from t h e S o c i e t y a s t a t e ment o f what t h e f a l l a c y was.

A l e t t e r t h a t was submitted by Dingle t o

Science i n 1969 was r e j e c t e d on t h e ground

t h a t it added l i t t l e t o a d i s -

cussion i n Science i n 1957-58; y e t , as Dingle p o i n t s o u t , t h e e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n had d e a l t with t h e clock paradox without questioning t h e v a l i d i t y of s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y , whereas h i s 1969 l e t t e r r e l a t e d only t o t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e theory.

However, my f a v o u r i t e example of t h i s kind comes from another

book [2], i n which Professor Dingle d e s c r i b e s how The Philosophical Magazine s e n t back a c r i t i c a l paper by r e t u r n mail with a statement t h a t s u b j e c t s of a polemical n a t u r e were not s u i t e d t o t h a t journal! t h i s r e j e c t i o n , Dingle went on t o say:

After describing

"One of t h e leading s c i e n t i f i c

journals w i l l not publish anything 'of a polemical n a t u r e ' , which can only mean t h a t , i n science i t s e l f , it w i l l not p u b l i s h any c r i t i c i s m o f orthodox views.

Accept them, and your paper w i l l be considered for p u b l i c a t i o n ;

question them, and it w i l l not." [3]:

One is reminded of George Orwell's comment

"At any given moment t h e r e i s a n orthodoxy. a body of i d e a s which it

is assumed that a l l r i g h t - t h i n k i n g people w i l l accept without question

....

Anyone who challenges t h e p r e v a i l i n g orthodoxy f i n d s himself s i l e n c e d with s u r p r i s i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s . I' One of t h e more r a t i o n a l r e p l i e s by an e d i t o r , i n response t o an attempt by Professor Dingle t o publish a l e t t e r appealing f o r a s a t i s f a c t o r y answer t o h i s c r i t i c i s m of s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y , i s a l e t t e r from D r . David Davies, e d i t o r o f Nature, t o Professor Dingle i n February 1974 [ 4 ] .

Among

t h e e d i t o r ' s reasons f o r r e f u s a l t o p h l i s h i s t h e statement:

"Many s c i e n -

t i s t s , Born, McCrea, Ziman, and Roxburgh amongst them, have done you t h c c o u r t e s y of d i s c u s s i n g your question, and y e t I see no demonstration by you of why t h e i r answers a r e n o t acceptable."

In o r d e r t o a s s e s s t h e

v a l i d i t y o f t h i s statement, l e t u s s e e what t h e s e s c i e n t i s t s have s a i d . In Born's r e p l y t o Dingle [ 5 ] , we f i n d t h e following sentences: " D i n g l e l s o b j e c t i o n s a r e j u s t a m a t t e r o f s u p e r f i c i a l formulation and confusion.

The simple f a c t t h a t a l l r e l a t i o n s between space co-ordinates

and time expressed by t h e Lorentz transformation can be represented geomet r i c a l l y by Minkowski diagrams should s u f f i c e t o show t h a t t h e r e can be no l o g i c a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n t h e theory." The i n t e r e s t i n g t h i n g about t h e second sentence above i s t h a t it c o n t a i n s an elementary l o g i c a l f a l l a c y , i n t h a t it claims a property of

p a r t of t h e s p e c i a l t h e o r y ( t h e Lorentz transformation) t o be a s u f f i c i e n t condition f o r t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e whole theory.

Y e t , according t o Dingle [ I ] ,

Born was so convinced o f t h e soundness of h i s own reasoning t h a t he refused even t o read Dingle's r e p l y , claiming h i s own argument t o he i r r e f u t a b l e . In view o f t h e f a c t t h a t Dingle had issued a challenge t o t h e i n t e g r i t y of s c i e n t i s t s , one might have hoped f o r a more open-minded a t t i t u d e from a

man who wrote i n h i s autobiography [ 6 ] t h a t "the b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e is only one t r u t h

and t h a t oneself i s i n possession o f i t , seems t o me t h e deepest

r o o t o f a l l t h a t is e v i l i n t h e world." The high opinion i n which D r . Davies seems t o hold Born's r e p l y i s n o t u n i v e r s a l l y shared; here i s what Marder [ 7 ] had t o say about it:

"In a sense, it was a p i t y t h a t Born then took up t h e challenge, because a s a t i s f a c t o r y r e p l y t o Dingle needed more time than Born wished t o devote t o t h e matter.

Ilis b r i e f r e p l y , i n Nature, c o n s i s t e d l a r g e l y of

a ' c o r r e c t i o n 1 t o Dingle's question (hardly l i k e l y t o produce t h e d e s i r e d

e f f e c t ) and a p a r t i a l l y explained space-time diagram." In view of hiarder's lack of enthusiasm about Born's r e p l y , it is i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t even he makes no r e f e r e n c e t o Born's i l l o g i c a l

statement, quoted above.

I t a l s o seems astounding t o me t h a t it should be

thought a p i t y t h a t an eminent s c i e n t i s t should attempt

t o defend a

fundamental s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y from a c r i t i c i s m which, i f v a l i d , is f a t a l t o t h e theory.

The p i t y i s r a t h e r t h a t Born's r e p l y has been subjected

t o s o l i t t l e criticism. In answer t o Dingle's question, about which of two clocks i n uniform r e l a t i v e motion t h e t h e o r y r e q u i r e s t o work f a s t e r than t h e o t h e r , Ziman [8] r e p l i e d as follows:

is simple:

"In f a c t , t h e answer t o Dingle's 'question'

t h e f a s t e s t working clock between any two events i s one t h a t

t r a v e l s between them by f r e e f a l l . ' '

This i s l i k e answering t h e question

"Which f l i e s f a s t e r , a b e i n g 707 o r a 747?IT by saying "The f a s t e s t a i r l i n e r is t h e Concorde."

Since Dingle's question asked f o r a d i s t i n c t i o n t o be

made between two clocks, r a t h e r than a choice among a l l p o s s i b l e clocks, Ziman's answer i s obviously u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . McCrea and Roxburgh both attempted t o r e p l y t o Dingle's claim t h a t , i f t h e r e a r e two clocks A and B i n uniform r e l a t i v e motion, t h e theory r e q u i r e s t h a t A runs faster than B and t h a t B r u n s f a s t e r than A.

McCrea

r e p l i e d as follows [ 9 ] : "The false s t e p [ i n Dingle's argument] i s t h a t Dingle regards t h e s i t u a t i o n t r e a t e d by r e l a t i v i t y as t h e symmetric comparison of one s i n g l e clock with another i d e n t i c a l s i n g l e clock ( i n r e l a t i v e motion). This i s not t h e s i t u a t i o n . l l This statement may be compared with t h e following quotation from E i n s t e i n ' s o r i g i n a l paper on s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y contradicts:

[lo],

which it c l e a r l y

"Thence we conclude t h a t a balance-clock a t t h e equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely s i m i l a r clock s i t u a t e d a t one of t h e poles under otherwise i d e n t i c a l condition^.^^ Roxburgh [ l l ] r e p l i e d t o Dingle's argument by saying t h a t Dingle does not even discuss what he means by q q f a s t e r w and , then went on t o say: "Secondly, why is it impossible f o r A t o go f a s t e r than B and B t o go f a s t e r than A?

This depends on t h e d e f i n i t i o n of f a s t e r .

To

i l l u s t r a t e t h i s , consider t h e following two statements: The Moon is bigger than t h e Sun. The Sun is bigger than t h e Moon. Are t h e s e statements mutually contradictory? This depends on t h e meaning For t e r r e s t r i a l beings t h e f i r s t statement is t r u e , f o r Martians

of bigger.

t h e second is true. observer.

The r e l a t i v e s i z e depends upon t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e

So it is with time and clocks

."

I f it is important t o d e f i n e t ~ f a s t e r l ~it, is a l s o important t o use o t h e r words precisely, yet it is c l e a r from t h e quotation t h a t Roxburgh does not l i t e r a l l y mean "istf i n t h e two contrasted statements, i n which case any s i m i l a r i t y between h i s argument and Dingle's disappears.

O r , i f he

does intend h i s words t o be taken l i t e r a l l y , then he, a s a t e r r e s t r i a l being, is defending special r e l a t i v i t y by a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e moon is bigger than t h e sun.

Although we a r e t e r r e s t r i a l beings, we know t h a t t h e sun is

bigger than the moon, and, what is more, we know it from observations t h a t have been made from t h e earth. I t is disturbing t o f i n d t h a t , even though t h e arguments of these s c i e n t i s t s contain obvious f a u l t s , t h e e d i t o r of a leading s c i e n t i f i c journal uses them i n support of h i s decision t o suspend f u r t h e r discussion of t h e subject.

Furthermore, t h e e d i t o r weakens h i s case by mentioning t h a t

many s c i e n t i s t s have discussed Dingle's question, and by giving t h e names

of f o u r of them, because t h i s makes it c l e a r t h a t t h e r c does not e x i s t a s i n g l e d e f i n i t i v e answer t o Dingle t h a t i s agreed upon by t h e whole s c i e n t i f i c community; if t h e r e e x i s t e d such an answer, it would have been e a s i e r and more convincing t o have c i t e d it alone.

I n f a c t , a s Dingle and o t h e r s

have pointed o u t , t h e r e a r e many d i f f e r e n t answers t o h i s question, and some of t h e s e a r e incornpatiblc with one another; some of t h e s e incompatib i l i t i e s a r e obvious i n t h e s e l e c t i o n s quoted above, and t h e only t h i n g t h a t Dingle's c r i t i c s seem t o be f i r m l y agreed upon i s t h a t Dingle i s wrong. Another d i s t u r b i n g f e a t u r e o f t h e controversy i s t h e f a c t t h a t sone w r i t e r s on t h e s u b j e c t misrepresent Dingle's argument.

A recent example

i s a book by Gardner [12], which c o n t a i n s t h e following sentence:

"No

p h y s i c i s t except Professor Dingle doubts t h a t t h e a s t r o n a u t ' s clock, when hc r e t u r n s , w i l l be s l i g h t l y out o f phase with a nuclear clock t h a t stayed a t home." The above sentence occurs a t t h e end o f a chapter on The Twin Paradox [sometimes c a l l e d t h e clock paradox), and r e f e r s t o t h e well-known p r e d i c t i o n t h a t , i f an a s t r o n a u t moves away from t h e e a r t h a t high speed and l a t e r r e t u r n s , h i s clock w i l l show a reading d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of a clock t h a t stayed on t h e e a r t h (and, indeed, t h e a s t r o n a u t w i l l have aged by an amount d i f f e r e n t from h i s twin who stayed a t home). Although Gardner appends t o t h e above-mentioned sentence a f o o t n o t e which r e f e r s t o Science a t t h e Crossroads (and which a l s o admits t h a t Dingle is not q u i t e alone i n h i s b e l i e f s ) t h e views a t t r i b u t e d t o Dingle i n t h e sentence quoted a r e q u i t e c o n t r a r y t o t h o s e expressed by him i n h i s book [I].

One has only t o read t h e Preface of Science a t t h e Crossroads

t o f i n d t h e following statement, which was w r i t t e n i n an e a r l i e r attempt t o c l e a r up Professor R.A.

L y t t l e t o n v s misconception on t h i s same point:

"Regarding t h e immeasurably l e s s important clock paradox, L y t t l e t o n

is again wrong i n saying t h a t I have denied asymmetrical ageing f o r many years.

Fifteen years ago, when I believed s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y t r u e , 1

indeed thought it impossible, but I soon discovered my e r r o r , and f o r more than 13 years have held t h e question open." A somewhat s i m i l a r misconception appears i n an unsigned e d i t o r i a l

i n Nature [13], which appeared s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e appearance of Science a t t h e Crossroads, and whose author should a l s o have been aware of t h e above sentences quoted from Dingle's Preface.

Consider, f o r example, t h e follow-

ing two quotations which a r e t h e first sentence and t h e l a s t two sentences of t h e a r t i c l e : !'Everybody i s fond of Professor Herbert Dingle, a s well as of t h e clock paradox i n s p e c i a l r e l a t i v i t y which he has single-handedly nurtured since t h e e a r l y 1930s." "And i s t h e r e any hope t h a t he w i l l now be satisfied with t h e demonstration t h a t moving clocks run a t d i f f e r e n t speeds from clocks a t r e s t which has been provided i n t h e past few months by t h e experiments i n which Hafele and Keating have flown caesium clocks i n d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n s around t h e world (Science,

177, - 166;

1972, s e e a l s o Nature '

238, -

244; 197211

I t w i l l be sad t o s e e t h e clock paradox disappear, but t h i s work i s the l a s t n a i l i n t h e coffin." The l a s t two sentences would give t h e uninformed reader t h c i m pression t h a t the r e s u l t s of t h a t experiment refuted Dingle's case; however, the above quotation from Dingle's Preface, r e f e r r i n g t o Professor R.A. Lyttleton, makes it c l e a r t h a t t h e experimental r e s u l t s do not contradict Dingle's arguments, and a l s o t h a t h i s t h e s i s i s not primarily concerned with what i s usually meant by t h e expression "clock paradox".

I t should

a l s o be c l e a r , t o anyone who has t h e s l i g h t e s t knowledge of t h e l i t e r a t u r e of t h e period mentioned, t h a t t h e expression "single-handedly"

in thc f i r s t

sentence of t h e a r t i c l e is completely inappropriate. There is another kind of misrepresentation t h a t should a l s o be mentioned.

An example i s contained i n t h e Nature e d i t o r i a l mentioned

above [13], i n t h e following sentence: "Professor Dingle goes on t o complain t h a t a promised leading a r t i c l e rounding o f f t h e correspondence has never appeared, apparently oblivious of t h e way i n which h i s own scorn f o r prospective contestants and h i s promises t o 'bring d i s c r e d i t on t h e journal1 may have discouraged t h e judicious summing-up f o r which he asked." The promised leading a r t i c l e mentioned i n t h i s quotation is d i s cussed on pages 89-90 of Science a t t h e Crossroads, where it is described how t h e then e d i t o r of Nature wrote t o Professor Dingle on 24 November 1969, saying t h a t he proposed t o write a leading a r t i c l e summarizing t h e position, and t h a t it would appear Ifbefore t h e end of t h e yearff. I t did not appear before t h e end of t h a t year, and t h e e d i t o r t o l d Professor Dingle i n l a t e January 1970 t h a t t h e a r t i c l e was then f'almost readyff. Another correspondent who inquired from t h e e d i t o r i n March was t o l d t h a t it would be "a week o r two" before t h e a r t i c l e was ready f o r publication; t h a t same correspondent inquired again on 6 J u l y but received no reply.

In f a c t ,

no such a r t i c l e appeared p r i o r t o t h e appearance of the Nature e d i t o r i a l

1131 now

being considered, which was dated September 29, 1972. The sentence quoted above, r e f e r r i n g t o t h e promised a r t i c l e ,

gives t h e impression t h a t Dingle had asked f o r t h e leading a r t i c l e t o be written, and a l s o implies t h a t , because of h i s alleged promise t o "bring d i s c r e d i t on t h e journalff, he is himself responsible f o r i t s non-appearance. Both of these suggestions a r e i n f a c t f a l s e , a s has been shown i n t h e correspondence columns of Nature [14, 151, where it is made c l e a r t h a t t h e a r t i c l e had been spontaneously promised by t h e then e d i t o r , and a l s o

t h a t t h e l e t t e r i n which Dingle a l l e g e d l y promised t o "bring d i s c r e d i t on t h e journal" was w r i t t e n s i x months before t h e e d i t o r ' s promise t o w r i t e t h e leading a r t i c l e .

However, t h e l e t t e r [15] i n which t h e former

e d i t o r admits t h e t r u e chronology dismisses it a s a small p o i n t whose r e It i s a l s o relevant t o note t h a t t h e former e d i t o r ' s

levance i s debatable!

reply [IS] again mentions Dingle's promise t o "bring d i s c r e d i t " on Nature, p u t t i n g those two words i n quotation marks, even though what Dingle wrote was a plea t o t h e e d i t o r not t o make it necessary f o r him t o r e f l e c t (not bring) d i s c r e d i t [14]

.

Another item showing t h e way i n which Professor Dingle has been t r e a t e d i s a suggestion by Ziman [8] t h a t h i s book [ l ] i s dishonest.

The

apology t h a t was l a t e r published [16] may serve a s a confinnation t h a t t h e astonishing s t o r y of t h e treatment of t h e matter by Nature, a s recorded i n Science a t t h e Crossroads, i s t r u e . A careful reading of t h e l i t e r a t u r e w i l l a l s o reveal what seems

t o be a contradiction i n one of Dingle's own statements, i n a correspondence

item i n Nature [17].

Referring t o time i n t e r v a l s measured by two clocks

A and B, Dingle writes a s follows:

'My question is: how does t h e theory i n d i c a t e which clock gives the larger interval?

I f A has v e l o c i t y 0 and B v e l o c i t y v, t h e Lorentz

transformation makes t h a t clock A; i f B has v e l o c i t y 0 and A v e l o c i t y v, i t makes t h a t clock B." I believe t h a t t h i s statement i s t o o general, because it r e f e r s

t o t h e i n t e r v a l s between two events "occurring a t any ascertainable posit i o n s a t any times", whereas Dingle has claimed elsewhere t h a t t h e r e s u l t depends on t h e p a i r of events chosen.

To be more s p e c i f i c , i f one considers

t h e s i t u a t i o n described by Dingle i n an e a r l i e r paper [ l a ] , with clocks A and B corresponding t o clocks A and B respectively of t h e 1973 l e t t e r [17],

then t h e time i n t e r v a l s measured by t h e two clocks, between t h e events E

0

-

and E, defined i n t h e e a r l i e r paper f18], do not seem t o correspond with t h e statement quoted above [IT].

I b e l i e v e t h a t , i n [17], Dingle was making

a paraphrase of t h e claim by v a r i o u s advocates of t h e theory t h a t "a moving clock runs slowff, and i n a d v e r t e n t l y made a somewhat more sweeping statement than was j u s t i f i e d . Unsatisfactory statements, on one s i d e o r t h e o t h e r of t h e argument, do not i n themselves prove t h a t one s i d e o r t h e o t h e r i s wrong.

Some

s c i e n t i s t s , while continuing t o support t h e s p e c i a l theory, have conceded t h a t E i n s t e i n made some u n s a t i s f a c t o r y statements i n h i s o r i g i n a l paper on t h e theory.

For example, r e f e r r i n g t o E i n s t e i n ' s comparison o f t h e r a t e s

of an e q u a t o r i a l clock and a p o l a r clock, which has been mentioned above, Stadlen wrote a s f o l l o \ ~ s[19]: "But t h e r e l a t i v e motion 'involved i n t h i s case, being c i r c u l a r , is non-uniform.

I submit, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t E i n s t e i n was wrong i n saying

t h a t h i s p r e d i c t i o n followed from t h e s p e c i a l theory, which d e a l s only with t h e e f f e c t s of uniform motion.

This is not t o say t h a t t h e p r e d i c t i o n

was i n v a l i d . I' I think t h a t our a t t i t u d e t o t h e s e problems should be governed by T.H. tiuxleyfs suggestion [10] t h a t "the s c i e n ~ i f i cs p i r i t i s of more

value than i t s products, and i r r a t i o n a l l y held t r u t h s may be more harmful than reasoned errors".

For example, i f E i n s t e i n ' s p r e d i c t i o n d i d not f o l -

low from t h e s p e c i a l theory, then i t s i n c l u s i o n i n h i s paper was i r r a t i o n a l and, t h e r e f o r e , i n v a l i d . The purpose of drawing a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s t a t e ments i s t o suggest t h a t t h e s c i e n t i f i c communityfs apparent s a t i s f a c t i o n \;ith t h e present s t a t e o f a f f a i r s i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e s p i r i t and i d e a l s of

science.

I f scienti'sts a r e content t o turn a blind eye t o i l l o g i c a l argu-

ments, and a r e concerned only t h a t t h e "rightw conclusion i s reached but do not care how it is reached, then they a r e subscribing t o dogma instead of searching f o r truth. Quite apart from the d e s i r a b i l i t y of seeking the t r u t h f o r i t s

own sake, t h e resolution of t h i s controversy may have an enormous practical significance; t h i s can be i l l u s t r a t e d by reference t o a l e t t e r written by Dr. L. Essen [21].

After s t a t i n g t h a t the s c i e n t i f i c establishment has

accepted r e l a t i v i t y a s a f a i t h and refuses t o consider any c r i t i c i s m of it, and t h a t i n consequence r a t i o n a l developments of electromagnetic theory

have been hindered, D r . Essen went on t o say: "There i s some evidence t h a t a new theoretical approach could break t h e stalemate i n t h e development of nuclear fusion, which appears t o o f f e r t h e only source of energy t h a t could prolong our c i v i l i s a t i o n f a r i n t o t h e future." A s ue approach t h e centenary of Einstein's b i r t h (March 14, 1979)

there i s a neu motivation t o assess t h e value o f h i s l i f e ' s work, a value t h a t would s t i l l be enormous even i f t h e special theory had t o be abandoned. I f t h e s c i e n t i f i c world commemorates t h i s centenary without expressing any concern about the unsatisfactory way i n which criticisms of special r e l a t i v i t y have been treated, then I think it w i l l be f a i r t o suggest t h a t t h e s c i e n t i f i c world i s more interested i n hero-worship than i n t h e objective pursuit of truth. Ziman [8] described Ding1el s quest ion a s "a perfectly reasonable question t o which science should indeed give an answer".

Since an authori-

t a t i v e and conclusive answer i s s t i l l wanting, l e t us hope t h a t science w i l l f u l f i l i t s obligation t o provide an answer, and t h a t it w i l l do it soon.

References [l]

H. Dingle: Science a t t h e Crossroads, Martin Brian 6 OtKeeffe, London, 1972.

[2]

Viscount Samuel and Professor Herbert Dingle: A Threefold Cord, Allen & Unwin, 1961.

[3]

George Omell: "The Freedom of t h e Press", The Tines Literary Supplement, 15 September 1972.

[4]

Published i n The New-Church Magazine, Vol. 93, No. 670, OctoberDecember 1974, pp. 123-4.

[5]

M. Born: "Special Theory of R e l a t i v i t y f t , Nature, Vol. 197, 1963,

[6]

M. Born: My L i f e and M y Views, Charles S c r i b n e r l s Sons, 1968.

[7]

L. Marder: Time and t h e Space-Traveller, Allen 6 Unwin, 1971.

[8]

J. Zimn: llScience i n an Eccentric Mirror", Nature, Vol. 241, 1973,

pp. 1287-8.

p ~ 143-4. .

191 W.H. 3kCrea: "Definitions and R e a l i t i e s g t , The Listener, Vol. 82, 1969, p. 315. 1101 A. Einstein: "On t h e Electrodynamics of Xoving Bodies", o r i g i n a l l y published i n Annalen d e r Physik i n 1905; English t r a n s l a t i o n in: H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl: The P r i n c i p l e of R e l a t i v i t y , Methuen, 1923; Dover, 1952.

1111

I. Roxburgh: "Is Special R e l a t i v i t y Right o r Wrong?It, New S c i e n t i s t , Vol. 55, 1972, p. 602.

[12] Martin Gardner: The R e l a t i v i t y Explosion, Vintage Books, 1976. [13] "Dingle's Answer", Yature, Vol. 239, 1972, p. 242. 1141 H. Dingle: " I n t e g r i t y in Science", Sature, Vol. 255, 1975, p. 519520; Vol. 256, 1975, p. 162. [15] J. bladdox: " I n t e g r i t y i n Sciencett, Nature, Vol. 255, 1975, p. 520. [16] "Professor Herbert Dingle: An Apologyff, Nature, Vol. 243, 1973, p. 315. [17] H. Dingle: "Dingle's Question", Nature, Vol. 242, 1973, p. 423. ( I am grateful t o Stanley R. Drake f o r drawing my a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s

item. 1 [18] I!. Dingle: "The Case Against Special Relativity", Nature, Vol. 216, 1967, p. 119-122. (Reprinted i n Ref. [ I ] , pp. 228-239. ) [19] G. Stadlen: "Dinglets Challenge", The Listencr, Vol. 88, No. 2270, 28 September 1972, pp. 411-412.

[20] T.H. Huxley: T h e Coming of Age of !The Origin of Speciess", in Collected Essays, Vol. 2, Mamillan, 1894. [21] L. Essen: "Einstein*', The Economist, March 19, 1977, p. 4.