Prof. Muni Mahendra Kumar
The truthfulness of the theory of relativity will probably be certified only when the law of the macrocosmos would hold well in the microcosmos. The amount of knowledge about the microcosmos possessed by the present day physics is also quite small.
In such a condition nothing can be said finally about the truthfulness of the laws of physics. As far as the theory of relativity is concerned, its experimental basis is also not satisfactorily strong. The renowned atomic physicist, Werner Heisenberg, himself has accepted this fact thus: "In the present state of astronomical observations the questions about the space-time geometry on a large scale cannot yet be answered with any degree of certainty. But it is extremely interesting to see that these questions may possibly be answered eventually on a solid empirical basis. For the time being even the general theory of relativity rests on a very narrow experimental foundation and must be considered as much less certain than the so called special theory of relativity expressed by the Lorentz transformation."[1]
In the articles and the books written on this aspect of science often it is expressed that if the future experiments of science disprove the laws of the past, it would not be much surprising. In one of such articles, Robert C. Cowen has expressed a doubt about the theory of relativity. He remarks: "Thus even though the experimental basis of relativity has been substantially strengthened, physicists will continue to ask in this larger context-Was Einstein right?"[2] Cowen has tried to show in his article that in spite of the experimental verification of the theory of relativity, its certainty will always be doubted.
Even if we neglect the views of other scientists regarding Einstein's theory, we cannot neglect Einstein's own wordings where he frankly states: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment may at any time prove me wrong." This statement, on the other hand, shows the humbleness of this great scientist, whereas on the other hand, it also clearly manifests the imperfectness of science.
The whole discussion may be summarised as follows: Firstly, the veracity of the concepts of space and time based on the theory of relativity is not unequivocal; secondly, its philosophical interpretation is not uncontroversial. The philosophical interpretations of theory of relativity are not unequivocal and logical.
The Jain metaphysical theory presents more consistent and logical concepts of the space and time. In fact, the Jain theory is a philosophy of existence. The origin of its concepts and theories are not reason but intuition and transcendental knowledge in which the reality is directly experienced. Logic can only be a criterion for its theories. The 'why' of reality probably may never be known through reason, physical equipments or sensory knowledge? Prof. Margenau has rightly remarked somewhere in the end of his famous work on the nature of reality: "I know how unwise it is now-a-days to write systematic philosophy-the why of experience and hence the why of reality are problems it does not endeavour to solve. To be sure, reality can have no cause in the physical sense of the world. This invalidates our phrasing of the questions but not its meaning. At this point, the scientist bows out, and the philosopher of existence enters the scene."[3]
