Sidelights on Relativity | Page 9

universe is spatially finite.
On many physicists and astronomers this argument makes no
impression. Experience alone can finally decide which of the two
possibilities is realised in nature. How can experience furnish an
answer? At first it might seem possible to determine the mean density
of matter by observation of that part of the universe which is accessible
to our perception. This hope is illusory. The distribution of the visible
stars is extremely irregular, so that we on no account may venture to set
down the mean density of star-matter in the universe as equal, let us say,
to the mean density in the Milky Way. In any case, however great the
space examined may be, we could not feel convinced that there were no
more stars beyond that space. So it seems impossible to estimate the
mean density. But there is another road, which seems to me more
practicable, although it also presents great difficulties. For if we inquire
into the deviations shown by the consequences of the general theory of
relativity which are accessible to experience, when these are compared
with the consequences of the Newtonian theory, we first of all find a
deviation which shows itself in close proximity to gravitating mass, and
has been confirmed in the case of the planet Mercury. But if the
universe is spatially finite there is a second deviation from the
Newtonian theory, which, in the language of the Newtonian theory,
may be expressed thus:--The gravitational field is in its nature such as

if it were produced, not only by the ponderable masses, but also by a
mass-density of negative sign, distributed uniformly throughout space.
Since this factitious mass-density would have to be enormously small,
it could make its presence felt only in gravitating systems of very great
extent.
Assuming that we know, let us say, the statistical distribution of the
stars in the Milky Way, as well as their masses, then by Newton's law
we can calculate the gravitational field and the mean velocities which
the stars must have, so that the Milky Way should not collapse under
the mutual attraction of its stars, but should maintain its actual extent.
Now if the actual velocities of the stars, which can, of course, be
measured, were smaller than the calculated velocities, we should have a
proof that the actual attractions at great distances are smaller than by
Newton's law. From such a deviation it could be proved indirectly that
the universe is finite. It would even be possible to estimate its spatial
magnitude.
Can we picture to ourselves a three-dimensional universe which is
finite, yet unbounded?
The usual answer to this question is "No," but that is not the right
answer. The purpose of the following remarks is to show that the
answer should be "Yes." I want to show that without any extraordinary
difficulty we can illustrate the theory of a finite universe by means of a
mental image to which, with some practice, we shall soon grow
accustomed.
First of all, an obervation of epistemological nature. A
geometrical-physical theory as such is incapable of being directly
pictured, being merely a system of concepts. But these concepts serve
the purpose of bringing a multiplicity of real or imaginary sensory
experiences into connection in the mind. To "visualise" a theory, or
bring it home to one's mind, therefore means to give a representation to
that abundance of experiences for which the theory supplies the
schematic arrangement. In the present case we have to ask ourselves
how we can represent that relation of solid bodies with respect to their
reciprocal disposition (contact) which corresponds to the theory of a

finite universe. There is really nothing new in what I have to say about
this; but innumerable questions addressed to me prove that the
requirements of those who thirst for knowledge of these matters have
not yet been completely satisfied.
So, will the initiated please pardon me, if part of what I shall bring
forward has long been known?
What do we wish to express when we say that our space is infinite?
Nothing more than that we might lay any number whatever of bodies of
equal sizes side by side without ever filling space. Suppose that we are
provided with a great many wooden cubes all of the same size. In
accordance with Euclidean geometry we can place them above, beside,
and behind one another so as to fill a part of space of any dimensions;
but this construction would never be finished; we could go on adding
more and more cubes without ever finding that there was no more room.
That is what we wish to express when we say that space is infinite. It
would be better to say that space is infinite in relation to
practically-rigid bodies, assuming that the laws