The Formative Years of Relativity and a Prejudice on Poincaré’s Conventionalism

The purpose of this piece is to review Hanoch Gutfreund’s and Jürgen Renn’s new book The Formative Years of Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s Princeton Lectures, Princeton University Press and Oxford University Press. I find two problems in the book the first of which is Poincaré’s influence on Einstein. This is the first part of the review which deals with Poincaré’s influence on Einstein. Since the book has mistakes and also errors in English and Jürgen Renn is considered a notable scholar, I assume that Gutfreund is probably responsible for the mistakes and for the errors in English.

Let us begin with page 26 of the book The Formative Years of Relativity. Gutfreund is apparently much attracted by “the painstaking analysis by the philosopher of science Yemima Ben-Menachem” in her book Conventionalism: From Poincaré to Quine. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006):

Yemima 1921

Gutfreund writes that “Until 1921, Einstein did not mention Poincaré explicitly”.

Einstein obviously mentioned Poincaré before 1921. For instance, after the first Solvay congress in 1911, Einstein wrote to Heinrich Zangger (see the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, CPAE):

Zangger1

……

Zangger2

Einstein says that Poincaré was in general simply antagonistic and for all his acuity showed little understanding of the situation.

There was then great excitement among philosophers and historians of science when they discovered, as Gutfreund writes on page 26 above that “We know that he [Einstein] read Science and Hypothesis with his friends in the Akademie Olympia in 1902″.

Poincaré’s publisher Flammarion published La science et l’hypothèse (Science and Hypothesis) in Paris in 1902. How do we know that Einstein read this book in 1902 and not in 1903 or 1904? Take a look at Gutfreund’s words: “We know that he [Einstein] read Science and Hypothesis with his friends in the Akademie Olympia in 1902″. It means that Einstein rushed to the local bookstore in Bern the day the book was out, dodged people in the crowd waiting outside the bookstore and found the first French edition of Poincaré’s book. But maybe Einstein read the 1904 German translation of Poincaré’s 1902 book? This could be quite different from the original 1902 French edition.

Subsequently,  on page 26 Gutfreund writes: “Einstein’s biographer Abraham Pais quotes one of the members, Maurice Solovine, as saying: ‘This book profoundly impressed us and kept us breathless for weeks on end'”:

Pais

Gutfreund simply takes the Pais paragraph from Yemima Ben-Menahem’s book, Conventionalism, see footnote 80 below (page 134):

134

This is a mistake: We cannot cite Einstein’s biographer Abraham Pais quoting one of the members of the Akademie Olympia (Olympia Academy). The biography of Pais is not a primary source. We have to check a primary source and see whether Maurice Solovine himself said: “This book profoundly impressed us and kept us breathless for weeks on end”.

Here is the original primary source:

soloving

Lettres à Maurice Solovine. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1956.

Here luck plays an important role because in the above book Solovine writes in French that Poincaré’s book “profoundly impressed us and kept us breathless for many weeks”. One should, however, check the original quote in French.

On page 30 Gutfreund tells the story of Einstein who explored “a famous example that goes back Poincaré”. There are several typos in the book.

Poincare typo

It is interesting, however, to look at the following sentence, several sentences below the above one on page 30:

He typo

“Without the distinction between axiomatic Euclidean geometry and practical rigid-body geometry, we arrive at the view advanced by Poincaré”. And then Gutfreund adds an end-note 15: “For an extensive analysis of Poincaré’s conventionalism, see Yemima Ben-Menachem, […]” Her book Conventionalism.

Yemima 1921-2

You might, of course, be tempted to suppose that Ben-Menahem has said the above words in her book. But this is by no means the case. Einstein says this in his 1921 talk, “Geometry and Experience” (see CPAE):

geometry and experience

After the words: “Without the distinction between axiomatic […]” Gutfreund writes: “He suggested that […]”

He typo

Who is “He”? Einstein or Poincaré?

Let us then examine Yemima Ben-Menahem’s book, Conventionalism.

I am quoting from Yemima Ben-Menahem’s book Conventionalism, page 84:

“… as both GR [general relativity] and the special theory of relativity originated in insights about equivalence, an element of conventionality might seem to be built right into the theory.  It is important to recognize, however, that Einstein’s use of equivalence arguments differs fundamentally from that of the conventionalist”.

And on page 134 Ben-Menahem writes: “The preceding discussion should alert us to the traces of Poincaré’s equivalence argument in Einstein’s work on GR as well. […] The centrality of equivalence arguments and their geometric implications is too obvious in Science and Hypothesis to be missed by a reader such as Einstein, who, we know, was familiar with the book. Beginning with the hypothesis of equivalence in 1907, Einstein makes use not only of the general idea of equivalent descriptions, but also of the types of examples Poincaré used”.

page_134

and on page 135, Yemima Ben Menahem argues that “Einstein was deeply influenced by the idea of equivalence, and to that extent could concede that Poincaré was right”:

page 135

I have found no historical evidence (primary documents, i.e. correspondence of Einstein with others, manuscripts, and also interviews with Einstein) supporting the claim that Einstein makes use of Poincaré’s equivalent descriptions.

In the 1920 unpublished draft of a paper for Nature magazine, “Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of Relativity, Presented in Their Development”, Einstein explained how he arrived at the principle of equivalence (see CPAE):

happiest happiest2

(Original in German). “When I (in Y. 1907) [in Bern] was busy with a comprehensive summary of my work on the special theory relativity for the ‘Jahrbuch für Radioaktivität und Elektronik’, I also had to try to modify Newton’s theory of gravitation in such a way that its laws fitted into the theory. Attempts in this direction showed the feasibility of this enterprise, but did not satisfy me, because they had to be based upon unfounded physical hypotheses. Then there came to me the happiest thought of my life in the following form:

The gravitational field is considered in the same way and has only a relative existence like the electric field generated by magneto-electric induction. Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house there is during the fall – at least in his immediate vicinity – no gravitational field. Namely, if the observer lets go of any bodies, they remain relative to him, in a state of rest or uniform motion, regardless of their particular chemical and physical nature. The observer is therefore justified in interpreting his state as being ‘at rest’.

The extremely strange experimental law that all bodies fall in the same gravitational field with the same acceleration, immediately receives through this idea a deep physical meaning. If there were just one single thing that fell differently in a gravitational field from the others, the observer could recognize with its help that he was in a gravitational field and that he was falling in the latter. But if such a thing does not exist – as experience has shown with great precision – then there is no objective reason for the observer to regard himself as falling in a gravitational field. Rather, he has the right to consider his state at rest with respect to gravitation, and his environment as field-free.

The experimental fact of independence of the material of acceleration, therefore, is a powerful argument for the extension of the relativity postulate to coordinate systems moving nonuniformly relative to each other”.

Isaac Newton had already recognized that Galileo’s law of free fall was connected with the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass. In approximately 1685, Newton realized that there was an (empirical) equality between inertial and gravitational mass (Newton 1726, Book I, 9). For Newton, however, this connection was accidental. Einstein, on the other hand, said that Galileo’s law of free fall could be viewed as Newton’s equality between inertial and gravitational mass, but for him the connection was not accidental.

Hence, Einstein made use of Newton’s equality (accidental equivalence) between inertial and gravitational mass and Galileo’s law of free fall and in his 1907 paper, “On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It”, he invoked a new principle, the equivalence principle or hypothesis. He assumed the complete physical equivalence of a homogeneous gravitational field and a corresponding (uniform) acceleration of the reference system. Acceleration in a space free of homogeneous gravitational fields is equivalent to being at rest in a homogeneous gravitational field.

Ernst Mach criticized Newton’s bucket experiment. He said that we cannot know which of the two, the water or the sky, are rotating; both cases produce the same centrifugal force. Mach thus expressed a kind of equivalence principle: Both explanations lead to the same observable effect. Einstein could have been influenced by Mach’s idea that we cannot know which of the two, the water or the sky, are rotating. Indeed Charles Nordmann interviewed Einstein and wrote: “Perhaps even more than Poincaré, Einstein admits to have been influenced by the famous Viennese physicist Mach”.

On page 31, Gutfreund writes in his book:

disk

“Had he [Einstein] instead accepted the conventionalist position […]” and then Gutfreund writes: “This in fact is exactly the situation in which Einstein introduced the mental model of a rotating disk, which he used as early as 1912 to show that the new theory of ravitation requires a new framework for space and time”.

Another typo: it should be the new theory of gravitation.

The rotating disk story starts with a problem in special relativity, with Max Born’s notion of rigidity and not with Poincaré! Einstein never mentioned any influence Poincaré had had on him when inventing the disk thought experiment.

At the annual eighty-first meeting of the German Society of Scientists and Physicians in Salzburg on 21-25 September 1909, Born first analyzed the rigid body problem and showed the existence of a class of rigid motions in special relativity.

John Stachel describes this state of affairs in his seminal paper of 1980: “The Rigidly Rotating Disk as a ‘Missing Link’ in the History of General Relativity”. It seems that Gutfreund is unacquainted with Stachel’s paper.

On September 29, 1909 the Physikalische Zeitschrift received a short note from Paul Ehrenfest. In his note Ehrenfest demonstrated that according to Born’s notion of rigidity, one cannot bring a rigid body from a state of rest into uniform rotation about a fixed axis. Ehrenfest had pointed out that a uniformly rotating rigid disk would be a paradoxical object in special relativity; since, on setting it into motion its circumference would undergo a contraction whereas its radius would remain uncontracted.

Born noted: “Mr. Ehrenfest shows that the rigid body at rest can never be brought into uniform rotation; I have discussed the same fact with Mr. Einstein in the meeting of natural scientists in Salzburg”. Born discussed the subject with Einstein and they were puzzled about how the rigid body at rest could never be brought into uniform motion. Born and Einstein discovered in that discussion that setting a rigid disk into rotation would give rise to a paradox: the rim becomes Lorenz-contracted, whereas the radius remains invariant. This problem was discussed almost simultaneously by Ehrenfest in the above short note.

Later in 1919, Einstein explained to Joseph Petzoldt why it was impossible for a rigid disk in a state of rest to gradually set into rotation around its axis:

PetoltzPetoltz2

On page 32 Gutfreund mentions the 10th German edition of Einstein’s popular book Relativity the Special and General Theory. He says that in a copy of this book there is a sheet of paper in the handwriting of Einstein’s stepdaughter containing a remark:

disk2

As you can see this remark is quite similar to Einstein’s letter to Petzoldt. Thus, it is preferable to quote Einstein’s own words, his letter to Petzhold. It seems that Gutfreund is unacquainted with the history of the rotating disk, because according to his book he is unaware of Stachel’s paper and the letter to Petzhold.

At the end of October 1909 Born submitted an extended version of his Salzburg talk to Physikalische Zeitschrift. In December 1909 Gustav Herglotz published a paper in which he noted that according to Born’s notion of rigidity, a “rigid” body with a fixed point can only rotate uniformly about an axis that goes through it, like an ordinary rigid body. Several months later, Einstein mentioned Born’s and Herglotz’s papers in a letter from March 1910 to Jakob Laub, in which he said that he was very much interested in their then recent investigations on the rigid body and the theory of relativity.  A month later, in conversations with Vladimir Varičak Einstein explained that the great difficulty lies in bringing the “rigid” body from a state of rest into rotation. In this case, each material element of the rotating body must Lorentz contract. See my new book Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity 2Ed for full details.

In his paper from February 1912, Einstein considered a system K with coordinates x, y, z in a state of uniform rotation (disk) in the direction of its x-coordinate and referred to it from a non-accelerated system. Einstein wrote that K‘s uniform rotation is uniform “in Born’s sense”, namely, he considered a rotating disk already in a state of uniform rotation observed from an inertial system and reproduced his conversations with Varičak. Einstein then extended the 1907–1911 equivalence principle to uniformly rotating systems as promised in conversations with Sommerfeld in 1909.

All we know according to primary sources is that the origin of the rotating disk story is in a problem in special relativity, Max Born’s notion of rigidity and Ehrenfest’s paradox, which Einstein mentioned many times before 1912. Einstein never mentioned any influence Poincaré had had on him when inventing the disk thought experiment. Writing that Einstein was influenced by Poincaré’s conventionalism and equivalent arguments is speculating about the influence of the later on the former.

Gutfreund’s mistake about Poincaré’s influence on Einstein and Einstein’s so-called failure to acknowledge Poincaré’s work in connection with the equivalence principle and the rotating disk thought experiment in general relativity comes from Yemima Ben-Menahem’s book, Conventionalism. However, this misconception or prejudice on the part of Ben-Menahem comes from my PhD thesis which was submitted to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem back in 1998. I was a PhD student in the program for the history and philosophy of science and Yemima Ben-Menahem was a professor there. Here for example are several paragraphs from my PhD thesis:

thesis2

thesis

thesis3.jpg

And Poincaré’s disk thought experiment:

thesis4

…..

thesis5

……

thesis6

…..

thesis7

I have thus written in my thesis about Poincaré’s disk thought experiment and the equivalence of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries. I then mentioned Einstein’s rotating disk thought experiment and said that we eliminate absolute motion of the disk by assuming the equivalence of gravity and inertia. I then spoke about conventionalism and Einstein’s equivalence principle.

After the PhD I corrected and edited my PhD but then I was horrified to discover what looked like a magnification of the prejudice of Poincaré’s conventionalism and equivalence argument and his disk thought experiment influencing Einstein when creating general relativity: In 2006 Yemima Ben-Menahem said exactly the same thing in her book, Conventionalism. You might say that it is even a more unfortunate instance to write about Poincaré’s influence on Einstein in connection with the equivalence principle and the disk thought experiment in general relativity over and over again in a single book… (see now for instance her book, pages 64-65):

diskyemima

…….

diskyemima2

……

diskyemima3

Going on to Hanoch Gutfreund, in his new book of 2017, The Formative Years of Relativity, he has simply brought this incidence to the surface when he told the whole story of this prejudice all over again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

אודיסאת איינשטיין ליחסות הכללית Einstein’s Odyssey to General Relativity

מאמר שלי על דרכו של איינשטיין לתורת היחסות הכללית: אודיסאת איינשטיין ליחסות הכללית

סיינטיפיק אמריקן ישראל

“Einstein’s Odyssey to General Relativity”, Scientific American Israel

את המונח “אודיסאה” ליחסות הכללית טבע פרופ’ ג’ון סטצ’ל מאוניברסיטת בוסטון והוא מייצג את המסע המפרך של איינשטיין בדרכו ליחסות הכללית. ראו המאמר של סטצ’ל למטה

Odyssey to general relativity is John Stachel’s memorable phraseology. See:

Stachel, John (1979). “Einstein’s Odyssey: His Journey from Special to General Relativity”. In Einstein from B to Z, 2002.

I am sorry but this piece is in Hebrew. You can read my book General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, my papers on Einstein and general relativity and a short summary below.

Picture1

מפייסבוק: מארחים את ד”ר גלי וינשטיין לדבר על איינשטיין

SF1

My drawing of Einstein:      האיור שלי של איינשטיין

איינשטיין צעיר

And the original (I tried as hard as I could to draw a young Einstein…):       המקור

תמונה1

The article discusses the following topics:

1907. The Happiest thought of my life.

3

1907-1911. The equivalence principle and elevator experiments.

4

1911. Deflection of light and explaining deflection of light using an elevator thought experiment.

5

1911-1912 (1916). The disk thought experiment, gravitational time dilation and gravitational redshift.

6

1912. The disk thought experiment and non-Euclidean geometry.

7

1912. Einstein to Marcel Grossmann: “Grossmann, you must help me or else I’ll go crazy!”. Grossmann searched the literature, and brought the works of Bernhard Riemann, Gregorio Curbastro-Ricci, Tullio Levi-Civita and Elwin Bruno Christoffel to Einstein’s attention. With Grossmann’s help Einstein searched for gravitational field equations for the metric tensor in the Zurich Notebook.

8

1913-1914. The Entwurf theory. In 1913, Einstein and Michele Besso both tried to solve the new Entwurf field equations to find the perihelion advance of Mercury.

2October 1915. Einstein realizes there are problems with his 1914 Entwurf theory. November 1915. Einstein’s competition with David Hilbert.

1

November 1915. Four ground-breaking papers: Einstein presents the field equations of general relativity, finds the advance of the perihelion of Mercury and predicts that a ray of light passing near the Sun would undergo a deflection of amount 1.7 arc seconds.

The Road to Relativity and Dishonesty in Scientific Research

Prof. Hanoch Gutfreund, the former president of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has been plagiarizing my papers and book. To call prof. Gutfreund prolific in plagiarizing my work would be an understatement. The serious damages I sustain from this in Israel are enormous, actually it is far more damaging than I previously thought. I wrote to the president of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem but the latter has not even answered my email. Hence it seems he fails to take responsibility for damage caused by plagiarism. I am not surprised.

In the book, The Road to Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s “The Foundation of General Relativity” (an annotated facsimile of Einstein’s original handwritten manuscript on general relativity and explanation of Einstein’s manuscript and equations), co-authored by prof. Jürgen Renn, prof. Gutfreund writes:

cosmo

Prof. Gutfreund has picked this passage with only slight changes from my 2013 paper: “George Gamow and Albert Einstein: Did Einstein say the cosmological constant was the “biggest blunder” he ever made in his life?”, ArXiv: 1310.1033v [physics.histph], 03 Oct, 2013.

My name is not mentioned in note 4:

notes

Compare the above paragraph from prof. Gutfreund’s book, The Road to Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s “The Foundation of General Relativity, to the abstract of my paper, “George Gamow and Albert Einstein: Did Einstein say the cosmological constant was the ‘biggest blunder’ he ever made in his life”:

gamow2

gamow

And compare the penultimate paragraph from prof. Gutfreund’s book, The Road to Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s “The Foundation of General Relativity to two paragraphs from my paper, “George Gamow and Albert Einstein: Did Einstein say the cosmological constant was the ‘biggest blunder’ he ever made in his life?”:

blunder1

blunder2

In 2016 I received this message from ResearchGate:

gate

My paper gained traffic but no citations, but prof. Gutfreund, who plagiarized my paper, received the citations.

Allen I. Janis writes in his review: “The Road to Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s ‘The Foundation of General Relativity’.” American Journal of Physics 84, 2016: “An interesting sideline in this chapter has to do with the frequently heard story that Einstein called his introduction of the cosmological constant the biggest mistake of his life. It seems there is no evidence that Einstein ever said or wrote this, and that it is in fact an invention of George Gamow”.

Gamow

It is quite obvious the Prof. Gutfreund has effectively paraphrased the passage from my paper. On November 30, 2015,  Prof. Gutfreund said in his plenary lecture, “100 years of General Relativity – What are we Celebrating?” At the Berlin Conference: A Century of General Relativity:

“But you know there is this Myth that Einstein when he abandoned the cosmological constant he said this is the worst error that I made. There is no evidence for that. Probably he never said that”.

My second bookGeneral Relativity Conflict and Rivalries. Einstein’s Polemics with Physicists (published on December 1, 2015) has a whole chapter dedicated to Einstein’s “biggest blunder”. This chapter is based on my 2013 ArXiv paper: “George Gamow and Albert Einstein: Did Einstein say the cosmological constant was the ‘biggest blunder’ he ever made in his life?”:

gut3

Hence, plagiarism of my 2013 paper on Albert Einstein and George Gamow causes damage to my second book and to my academic status.

In addition, Prof. Gutfreund writes in The Road to Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s “The Foundation of General Relativity”:

gut

A circle around the origin of coordinates is a rotating disk (in his 1916 paper “The Foundation of General Relativity”, Einstein calls the disk “a circle around the origin”).

In the preceding passage prof. Gutfreund have paraphrased a passage from my 2012 paper, “From the Berlin ‘Entwurf’ Field equations to the Einstein Tensor III: March 1916”, ArXiv: 1201.5358v1 [physics.hist-ph], 25 January, 2012:

disk1

 

disk2

and from my 2014 paper, “Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story”, ArXiv, 1411.7370v [physics.hist-ph], 26 Nov, 2014 [Equation (70) is my equation (6) and equation (71) is my equation (11)]:

gut2

Towards the end of his 1916 paper, “The Foundation of General Relativity”, Einstein demonstrates that the gravitational field changes spatial dimensions and the clock period. However, nowhere does Einstein directly relate the rotating disk story to the  above derivation. I have invoked this interpretation of Einstein’s paper. Einstein writes:

Ein5 Ein4

Digital Einstein

On November 30, 2015, Prof. Gutfreund lifted another passage from my paper, “Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story” and changed a word here and there, in his plenary lecture, “100 years of General Relativity – What are we Celebrating? at the Berlin Conference: A Century of General Relativity:

“Another thing which he could have done. So he already knew the Schwarzschild solution, because the Schwarzschild correspondence is in December. He wrote this paper [review paper, 1916] later. He submitted it only in March. So he could have used this Schwarzschild solution who showed a simpler derivation of the motion of the perihelion and of the bending of light and he did not do it”.

In the abstract of my paper, “Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story”, ArXiv, 1411.7370v [physics.hist-ph], 26 Nov, 2014, I wrote:

“On November 18, 1915 Einstein reported to the Prussian Academy that the perihelion motion of Mercury is explained by his new General Theory of Relativity: Einstein found approximate solutions to his November 11, 1915 field equations. Einstein’s field equations cannot be solved in the general case, but can be solved in particular situations. The first to offer such an exact solution was Karl Schwarzschild. Schwarzschild found one line element, which satisfied the conditions imposed by Einstein on the gravitational field of the sun, as well as Einstein’s field equations from the November 18, 1915 paper. On December 22, 1915 Schwarzschild told Einstein that he reworked the calculation in his November 18 1915 paper of the Mercury perihelion. Subsequently Schwarzschild sent Einstein a manuscript, in which he derived his exact solution of Einstein’s field equations. On January 13, 1916, Einstein delivered Schwarzschild’s paper before the Prussian Academy, and a month later the paper was published. In March 1916 Einstein submitted to the Annalen der Physik a review article on the general theory of relativity. The paper was published two months later, in May 1916. The 1916 review article was written after Schwarzschild had found the complete exact solution to Einstein’s November 18, 1915 field equations. Einstein preferred in his 1916 paper to write his November 18, 1915 approximate solution upon Schwarzschild exact solution (and coordinate singularity therein).”

He could have though picked the idea from my 2012 paper, Weinstein, Galina, “From the Berlin ‘Entwurf’ Field equations to the Einstein Tensor III: March 1916”, ArXiv: 1201.5358v1 [physics.hist-ph], 25 January, 2012:

Scwarzschild.jpg

Einstein’s equations in his 1916 paper, “The Foundation of General Relativity”:

Schwartz1

Schwartz2

Schwartz3

In my book, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries. Einstein’s Polemics with Physicists  I have also developed my previous ideas from my paper, “Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story”.

 

 

 

 

 

The Genesis and ‘Renaissance’ of General Relativity: Jürgen Renn’s talk

All the Berlin Century of General Relativity and MPIWG conference talks and discussions are on the web site of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin.

I shall begin by presenting the opening remarks of prof. Jürgen Renn’s talk, “The ‘Renaissance’ of General Relativity: Social and Epistemic Factors”, and thereafter I shall list my various comments on this talk. I shall present my views at the end regarding the term “Renaissance” describing the period from 1955 to the end of 1964.

רן2

Prof. Jürgen Renn:

“This talk is about explaining historical change; how we preliminary see the various stages of the history of general relativity: there was the genesis of general relativity [the period from 1907 to 1916] where Einstein worked not quite but almost alone with a few helpers. There were the formative years [the period from 1916 to 1925], in which the theory was discussed among a group of experts; there was then what Jean Eisenstaedt has epically termed the low-water mark period [the period from 1925 to 1955]; and then comes the renaissance [the period from 1955 to 1964]. Clifford Will gave the name to this period; and for us historians then came the golden ages [the period from 1964 to the mid 1970s] and today and the future, but I will not talk about that.

So the main challenge is to explain how development went from the low-water mark period to the renaissance; how what we today see as the basic theory of cosmology and astrophysics came back into the mainstream of physics after the low-water mark period. There were many factors of course and we have concentrated on several scenarios, examining them in preliminary ways to try to come up with what we think as a convincing explanation.

Let me start to outline the thesis. We think that the renaissance was mainly due to two factors:

One was the discovery of the untapped potential of general relativity as it has been created as a tool for theoretical physics. Hidden secrets that were discovered in this period, hidden potential of application, these would not have been explored and actively developed had it not been within a community that was just forming in this period.

[The second factor] We think that the renaissance is also very much history of a community, in which for the first time a real community of relativists and cosmologists emerged. We have kind of loosely been talking of relativists and cosmologists, even when referring to the twenties and the thirties [1920s and 1930s]. This is a somewhat anachronistic use of terms, because the real community only emerged as we see it during the period of the renaissance.

ri

So you see already that the general approach is one that combines epistemological aspects with sociological aspects, and that is very much the spirit of our thinking. Robert Schulmann [a speaker in the conference] used the terminology of internalist and externalist. So we see this very much as a development that can only be understood if you combine the cognitive, the epistemological side, with the sociological developments parallel to it”.

רן

My comments on this talk:

Prof. Jürgen Renn says: “There was the genesis of general relativity where Einstein worked not quite but almost alone with a few helpers. There were the formative years, in which the theory was discussed among a group of experts; there was then what Jean Eisenstaedt has epically termed the low-water mark period”.

I think that even during the genesis of general relativity, between 1912 and 1916, Einstein’s interaction with and response to eminent and non-eminent scientists and his ongoing discussions with other scientists contributed to the formation of general relativity. The efforts invested by physicists like Max Abraham, Gunnar Nordström, Gustav Mie, David Hilbert and others, which presented differing outlooks and discussions revolving around the theory of gravitation, were relegated to the background. Those works that did not embrace Einstein’s overall conceptual concerns – these primarily included the heuristic equivalence principle and Mach’s ideas (later called Mach’s principle) – were rejected, and authors focused on Einstein’s prodigious scientific achievements. However, one cannot discard Einstein’s response to the works of Abraham, Nordström, Mie, Tullio Levi-Civita, Hilbert and others. On the contrary, between 1912 and 1915 (the so-called genesis of general relativity) Einstein’s response to these works, and corrections made by these scientists to his work, constitutes a dynamic interaction that assisted him in his development (so-called genesis) of the general theory of relativity. In my book, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries I show that general relativity was not developed as a single, coherent construction by an isolated individual, brooding alone. Instead, general relativity was developed through Einstein’s conflicts and interactions with other scientists, and was consolidated by his creative process during these exchanges.

Indeed, performing a historical research and also applying comparative research in a sociological context, we can emphasize the limits and associated problems tracing Einstein’s “odyssey”, i.e. intellectual road to the general theory of relativity. An intellectual approach emphasizes the simplistic hero worship narrative. In addition, some philosophers embrace externalist theories of justification and others embrace internalist theories of justification. There are many different versions of internalism and externalism, and philosophers offered different conceptions of internalism and externalism.

I would like to comment on the “formative years” and the “low-water mark” period. I show in my book General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries that between 1916 and 1955, Einstein was usually trusted as the authority on scientific matters. His authority in physics is revealed even on first-rate mathematicians and physicists. For example, in 1918 Felix Klein demonstrated to Einstein that the singularity in the de Sitter solution to the general relativity field equations was an artefact of the way in which the time coordinate was introduced. Einstein failed to appreciate that Klein’s analysis of the de Sitter solution showed that the singularity could be transformed away. In his response to Klein, Einstein simply reiterated the argument of his critical note on the de Sitter solution. In 1917-1918 the physicist-mathematician Hermann Weyl’s position corresponded exactly to Einstein’s when he criticized de Sitter’s solution; Weyl’s criticism revealed the influence of Einstein’s authority in physics even on first-rate mathematicians like Weyl.

Two other examples from the introduction of my book:

In March 1918, before publishing the book Space-Time-Matter, Weyl instructed his publisher to send Einstein the proofs of his book. In the same month, Weyl also instructed his publisher to send David Hilbert the proofs of his book. Hilbert looked carefully at the proofs of Weyl’s book but noticed that the latter did not even mention his first Göttingen paper from November 20, 1915, “Foundations of Physics”. Though Weyl mentioned profusely Einstein’s works on general relativity, no mention was made of Hilbert’s paper. Einstein received the proofs page-by-page from the publisher and read them with much delight and was very impressed. However, Einstein, an initial admirer of the beauty of Weyl’s theory, now raised serious objections against Weyl’s field theory. Einstein’s objection to Weyl’s field theory was Weyl’s attempt to unify gravitation and electromagnetism by giving up the invariance of the line element of general relativity. Weyl persistently held to his view for several years and only later finally dropped it.

Einstein also seemed to influence Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington when he objected to what later became known as “black holes”. In his controversy during the Royal Astronomical Society meeting of 1935 with Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Eddington argued that various accidents may intervene to save a star from contracting into a diameter of a few kilometres. This possibility, according to Eddington, was a reductio ad absurdum of the relativistic degeneracy formula. Chandrasekhar later said that gravitational collapse leading to black holes is discernible even to the most casual observer. He, therefore, found it hard to understand why Eddington, who was one of the earliest and staunchest supporters of the general theory of relativity, should have found the conclusion that black holes may form during the natural course of the evolution of stars, so unacceptable. However, it is very reasonable that Eddington, who was one of the earliest and staunchest supporters of Einstein’s classical general relativity, found the conclusion that “black holes” were so unacceptable, because he was probably influenced by Einstein’s objection to the Schwarzschild singularity.

Prof. Jürgen Renn explained in his talk: “We think that the renaissance is also very much a history of a community, in which for the first time a real community of relativists and cosmologists emerged. We have kind of loosely been talked of relativists and cosmologists, even when referring to the twenties and the thirties. This is a somewhat anachronistic use of terms, because the real community only emerged as we see it during the period of the renaissance”.

I would like to comment on the proposal to call the period from 1955 to 1964 the “renaissance” of general relativity. Clearly, in the atmosphere of cinquecento Florence or Milan, a scientist and artist needed a community. Actually for the first time in history, in renaissance Italy there were concentrations of scientists, writers, artists and patrons in close communities and courts. There were communication and interaction between those communities. Historians have reconstructed what went in these communities and how these communities functioned. Hence renaissance is a suitable historical term to describe the period from 1955 to 1964.

Updated July 2016, another talk by Jürgen Renn: the sixth biennial Francis Bacon Conference, “General Relativity at 100”, Bacon Award Public Lecture: (I did not attend this conference but the talk was uploaded to YouTube):

Picture50

In 1907 in the patent office, Einstein was sitting down to write a review article in which he reviewed all the phenomena of physics in order to adapt them to the new framework of space and time established by special relativity. It was a routine task and dealing with gravitation in that context was also a routine task, so it seemed at the beginning.

[My comment: Einstein said in 1933, in the Glasgow lecture: “I came a step closer to the solution of the problem for the first time, when I attempted to treat the law of gravity within the framework of the special theory of relativity.” Apparently, sometime between September 1905 and September 1907 Einstein had already started to deal with the law of gravity within the framework of the special theory of relativity. When did he exactly start his work on the problem? Einstein did not mention any specific date, but in the Glasgow lecture he did describe the stages of his work presumably prior to 1907].

But then Einstein had to deal with the principle that was already established by Galileo hundreds of years ago, namely, the universality of free fall, the fact that all bodies fall with the same acceleration. How can these two be reconciled? When two people, one on the moving train and one on the platform each drop a stone, will the two stones hit the ground simultaneously? According to classical, Newtonian physics yes, but according to special relativity no. That is surprising. Was there any way to impose the universality of free fall and maintain Galileo’s principle?

Picture2a

The following is what inspired Einstein. Later he recalled in 1920: “Then came to me the happiest thought of my life in the following form. In an example worth considering the gravitational field only has a relative existence in a manner similar to the electric field generated by electromagnetic induction. Because for an observer in free-fall from the roof of a house, there is during the fall – at least in his immediate vicinity – no gravitational field”. Now the great thing is that this allowed Einstein to simulate gravity by acceleration and he could now treat accelerated frames of reference with the help of relativity, so he had a handler in the framework of special relativity, but in a new way that preserved universality of free fall. He could now predict that light bends in a gravitational field. The principle of equivalence (elevator experiments – linear acceleration, a heuristic guide).

Where did the idea of a generalization of the special relativity principle to accelerated motion actually come from? Einstein was particularly fascinated by Ernst Mach’s historical critical analysis of mechanics. What could Einstein learn from Mach? Mach had reconsidered Newton’s bucket experiment. Why does the water rise when it stars rotating? Newton’s answer was the following: because it moves with respect to absolute space. Mach’s answer was different: he claimed that it moves because it moves with respect to the fixed stars. That would make it a relative motion, an inertia, an interaction of bodies in relative motion with respect to each other: the water and the stars.

Picture6

Rotation – heuristic guide

Besides Mach’s critique of mechanics, there is another element which can be identified in what Einstein called the happiest thought of his life. Einstein said (1920): “Then came to me the happiest thought of my life in the following form. In an example worth considering the gravitational field only has a relative existence in a manner similar to the electric field generated by electromagnetic induction. Because for an observer in free-fall from the roof of a house, there is during the fall – at least in his immediate vicinity – no gravitational field” (not italicized in the original). Use electromagnetic field theory as a mental model. We can see that it was the analogy of the gravitational field theory with the well-known theory of the electromagnetic field, on which Einstein of course was a specialist, that inspired him to the happiest thought as well, alongside the influence of Mach.

Now with the help of Mach, Einstein was in the position to complete the analogy between electromagnetic theory on the one hand and gravitational theory on the other hand by conceiving gravitation and inertia together as corresponding to the electromagnetic field. This analogy will guide him all these years from 1907 till 1915 to the completion of general relativity.

Let us look at the milestones of the genesis of general relativity. Usually this is portrayed as a drama in three acts:

Picture8

[My comment: John Stachel wrote in his paper “The First Two Acts”, Einstein from B to Z, p. 261, that in 1920 Einstein himself wrote a short list of “my most important scientific ideas” in a letter to Robert Lawson (April 22, 1920):

1907 Basic idea for the general theory of relativity

1912 Recognition of the non-Euclidean nature and its physical determination by gravitation

1915 Field equations of gravitation. Explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury.

Einstein’s words provide the warrant for comparing the development of general relativity to a three-act drama]:

Picture2

According to Jürgen Renn: The problem here is that this portrait, this drama here leaves out the villain in this story, what is usually considered a villain, namely a theory on which Einstein worked between 1913 and 1915, in Zurich mostly but later also in Berlin, where he discarded it. It is called the preliminary or the draft and in German, the Entwurf theory. Now the point is what for other accounts is the villain of the story, a theory that was discarded, in my account, my book [? not yet published?] is the actual hero.

Picture9

[My comment: I see what Jürgen Renn means, but I don’t think that for other historical accounts the Entwurf theory is a so-called villain of the story, a theory that is discarded in accounts of historians. Jürgen Renn even mentions these historians in his talk – Michel Janssen and John Stachel. What he jokingly calls the “villain”, the Entwurf theory, is a major part of my book, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, December 2015 and it is spread over many pages of it].

But let us proceed in order. At the begging of 1911 Einstein became the chair of physics at the German university of Prague, his first full professorship. Parague: What did Einstein achieve in 1912? He knew that the field had to be a combination of gravitation and inertia, but he did not know how to represent it mathematically. Fortunately the problem had two parts: equation of motion – the field tells matter how to move, and field equation – matter tells the field how to behave. He thus first tried to solve the problem of the equation of motion. And in particular the simple case how does a body move when no other forces, other than gravitation and inertia, act on it. Again the analogy with electromagnetism came to his rescue. It made sense that other special cases of dynamic gravitational fields such as the forces acting in a rotating frame of reference… [?] It should be possible to consider such a system at rest and the centrifugal forces acting there as dynamical gravitational forces. That’s what Einstein took from Mach. But the clue is a combination of gravity and inertia. So what could he learn?

Let us look at a rotating disk and try to measure its circumference with little roods. The disk is set into motion. Because of the length contraction predicted by special relativity, the rods would be shrunk, so that we need more of them to cover the circumference. In other words, the ratio between the circumference and the diameter would be larger than pi. This simple thought experiment gave Einstein the idea that, to describe general dynamical gravitational fields one needs to go beyond Euclidean geometry.

Picture11a

Non-Euclidean geometries were known. Einstein himself was not too familiar with non-Euclidean geometries. He had some courses at the ETH, he had skipped some courses at the ETH, but he did know that a straight line in such a geometry corresponds to a straightest line, or a geodesic. That solved for him the problem of the equation of motion, because when no other forces act in such a geometry, a particle would just follow the straightest possible line. Now the program of the new theory was clear. (John A, Wheeler: “matter tells space-time how to curve; curved space-time tells matter how to move”).

In the summer of 1912, Einstein returned to Zurich. He knew that he could describe a curved space-time by the metric tensor. He knew that he could define the deviation of space-time from Euclidean flat geometry in terms of the metric tensor.  A metric tensor is a complicated object:

Picture1

The metric tensor replaces the one Newtonian gravitational potential with ten gravitational potentials. He could even write down the equation of motion in terms of the metric tensor, he achieved that relatively quickly. But he had no clue as how to find a field equation for this complicated object, the metric tensor, these ten gravitational potentials.

One of the most important sources for our story is a notebook in which Einstein entered his calculations, in the winter of 1912-1913, the so-called Zurich Notebook.

The following fraternity of scholars provided historical-critical-mathematical-physical interpretation of the Zurich Notebook (it took them 10 years to interpret Einstein’s calculations):

Einstein scholars

Einstein’s first attempts to deal with the mathematics of the metric tensor look rather pedestrian. He tried to bring together the metric tensor with what he knew about the gravitational field equation, which was also relatively little.

Picture3

When Einstein was desperate he called his old friend Marcel Grossmann: “Grossman you have got to help me or I will go crazy!” Grossman had helped Einstein to survive his exams and he got him his job at the patent office. Now he helped him master the problem of gravitation. Indeed, one immediately recognizes Grossman’s intervention in the notebook. His name appears next to the Riemann tensor, the crucial object for building a relativistic field equation. Einstein immediately used it to form what he considered a candidate to the left hand-side of the field equation.

Picture17

Einstein and Grossmann found that these field equations do not match their physical expectations. It turned out to be difficult to reconcile Einstein’s physical expectations with the new formalism. Groping in the dark, Einstein and Grossmann essentially hit upon the correct field equations, in the winter of 1912-1913, three years before the final paper, in the weak field limit:

Picture19

But Einstein and Grossmann found that these field equations do not match their physical expectations. Eventually they had to learn how to adapt these physical expectations to the implications of the new formalism: we are talking about a learning experience that took place between a mathematical formalism and new physical concepts that were being shaped during the process.

Jürgen Renn then gives the following metaphor [a machine] to explain the mechanism behind a field equation (the Einstein-Grossmann Entwurf gravitational field equation): Einstein started out with a hand made mathematical formalism, at least before Grossmann came into the game, but it did the job. Extracting from the source of the field (mass and energy) a gravitational field. That’s what a field equation is all about. Of course it was most crucial that the familiar special case of Newtonian gravity would also come out in the appropriate circumstances. And Einstein had to make sure that this machine was firmly grounded in basic physical principles and in particular in the conservation of energy and momentum. But he also wanted to generalize the principle of relativity to accelerated motions and he looked for a machine that worked in more general coordinate systems, but at that point he didn’t know quite at which. The later point was unclear to Einstein.

Picture21

The problem was that it was not clear whether that machine would actually deliver the requested physical results. With Grossmann came the dream for a much more sophisticated machine, a machine that worked for all coordinate systems because it was generally covariant:

Picture22

Here the starting point was a sophisticated mathematical formalism based on the Riemann tensor, and then of course the machine had to work in the same way: the source makes a field, but does the Newtonian limit come out right? And is the machine firmly grounded in the principles of energy and momentum conservation? It certainly doesn’t look that quite way. In any way it was generally covariant, working in all coordinate systems. The problem was that it was not entirely clear whether that machine would actually deliver the requested physical results and what kind of tweaking it would take to get them. In short, the mechanism was great but the output was uncertain. Given this situation, Einstein could now peruse two different strategies:

Picture23

*physical requirements: the Newtonian limit and the energy momentum conservation.

In the winter of 1912-1913, Einstein and with him Grossmann constantly oscillated between these two strategies. At the end of the winter he decided for one of them: the physical strategy. Well not quite, but rather a physical strategy tweaked and adapted to match the requirements of energy-momentum conservation and a generalized principle of relativity. So it was a home made extension of the original machine.

[My comment: The “physical strategy” and the “mathematical strategy” and the “oscillation” between them are memorable phraseology of Jürgen Renn. These had already been invented by Jürgen Renn several years ago. You can find it in many papers by Jürgen Renn. For instance Renn, Jürgen and Sauer, Tilman, “Pathways out of Classical Physics”, The Genesis of General Relativity 1, 2007, 113-312].

The result of the collaboration between Einstein and Grossmann in the winter of 1912-1913 was a hybrid theory, the so-called Entwurf or draft theory, the villain or hero mentioned before. Why was the theory, “Draft of a Generalized Theory of Relativity and a Theory of Gravitation” a hybrid theory? It was a hybrid theory because the equation of motion (the field tells matter how to move) is generally covariant (retaining its form in all coordinate systems), but the field equation (matter tells the field how to behave) is not generally covariant. It was not even clear in which coordinate system the field equation would be covariant. Nevertheless, Einstein was quite proud. To his future wife Elsa he wrote: “I finally solved the problem a few weeks ago. It is a bold extension of the theory of relativity together with the theory of gravitation. Now I must give myself some rest, otherwise I will go kaput”. But was it worth the effort? Wasn’t the Entwurf theory just a blind alley and a waste of time (for more than two and a half years)? Most accounts say yes and speak of a comedy of errors.

[My comment: As I mentioned previously, I am afraid I don’t really agree with this conclusion. Other historians don’t say yes. In my account, for instance, in my book General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, I demonstrate that the Entwurf theory plays a crucial role in Einstein’s development of the November 1915 theory. I refrain, however, from using the terms “bridges”, “scaffolding” and other metaphors Einstein did not use (see below) because I think that, these terms and metaphors embed constraints that impact the understanding of the historical narrative. I rather prefer Einstein’s own terms, for instance, “heuristic guide”. Hence, Einstein was guided by the 1913 calculation of the perihelion of Mercury. So was he guided by the 1914 variational principle, formalism].

But if the Entwurf theory was important, what was its role? What function did it have for the creation of the general theory of relativity, if it turned out to be a wrong theory at the end? To answer that question we shall use another metaphor: the Entwurf theory as a scaffolding for building an arch or a bridge between physics and mathematics (Michel Janssen’s metaphor). The building of a bridge between physics and mathematics. On its basis, Einstein first calculated the Mercury perihelion motion, and working out its mathematical structure, and by “its”, meaning the preliminary Entwurf draft theory. Einstein worked out its mathematical structure and set up a variational formalism for it.

Picture30

The Mercury calculation eventually helped him to solve the problem of the Newtonian limit and the variational formalism helped him to solve the other problem he had encountered with the mathematical strategy, that is, the conservation of energy and momentum. All this prepared the situation of November 1915, when it eventually came to a situation when the scaffolding was torn down.

Picture31

Let us look at the first issue, the issue of the Mercury perihelion motion (a problem studied in detail by Michel Janssen). In 1913 Einstein together with Michele Besso calculated the Mercury perihelion motion on the basis of the Entwurf theory and the value which they miscalculated came out too small.  The theory predicated only 18″per century. This did not shatter, however, Einstein’s confidence in that theory. Einstein never mentioned this unsatisfactory result until 1915 but he reused this method developed under the auspices of the Entwurf theory in November 1915. The method of calculation,  the scaffolding, could be used in the final November theory. The creation of general relativity was a team effort. Besso had a role in the perihelion calculation in building a scaffolding for the transition to the final theory. The Mercury calculation helped Einstein understand the problem of Newtonian limit and accept the field equation he had earlier discarded. The Mercury (perihelion) calculation of 1913 really did act as a scaffolding for what Einstein achieved in November 1915, when he redid this calculation now on the basis of the correct theory.

Einstein’s colleagues were amazed how quickly he could calculate. David Hilbert wrote in a postcard just a day after Einstein had submitted the paper: “Congratulations on conquering the perihelion motion. If I could calculate as fast as you can, the electron would be forced to surrender to my equations and the hydrogen atom would have to bring a note from home to be excused for not radiating”. However, all Einstein had to do is to redo the calculations for the perihelion motion in the Entwurf theory that he had done with Besso in 1913 but never published. Einstein did not bother to tell Hilbert about this earlier work. Apparently he wanted to give Hilbert a dose of his own medicine, seeing Hilbert as somebody who gave the impression of being superhuman by obfuscating his methods (Einstein to Ehrenfest, May 24, 1916).

In November 1915 the building of a scaffolding (Besso’s assistance) helped Einstein to overcome his earlier problems with extracting the Newtonian limit from the field equation found along the mathematical strategy.

But what about the second problem? The conservation laws of energy and momentum? Again the Entwurf theory served as a scaffolding. In 1914 Einstein and Grossmann set up a variational formalism for the Entwurf theory from which it was easy to derive the conservation laws. That formalism was general enough to allow the derivation of the conservation laws also for other theories, including the ones Einstein had discarded in the winter of 1912-1913.  You can use the variational formalism to make a candidate field equation for the physical strategy or you can change the settings, and then you get a different machine, a candidate field equation for the mathematical strategy.

Picture37

Having constructed such a formalism, the variational formalism, is what allowed Einstein to switch from the Entwurf theory to the theory he presented on November 4, 1915.

Einstein had resolved his two major problems that had prevented him in Zurich to accept candidate field equations along the mathematical strategy; namely the requirement to get out the Newtonian limit in the special case and the conservation laws. That confronts us with a puzzle: Why did Einstein not come back to the mathematical strategy right away once he had resolved these problems at the end of 1914?  He firmly believed in the Entwurf theory and had concocted all kinds of arguments in its favor, for instance the hole argument.

[My comment: I am afraid I don’t agree with this conclusion: I don’t think that at the end of 1914 Einstein had already resolved his two major problems (Newtonian limit and conservation laws). He was only able to resolve them in November 1915].

Picture38

But by October 1915, his perspective was gradually changing because problems with the Entwurf theory were gradually accumulated:

1) It did not explain the perihelion problem well, we have seen that. Einstein could live with it. He just put it under the rug and did not mention it in his publications.

2) It did not allow him to conceive rotation at rest. It was a major blow, considering his Machian vision.

3) And, it did not follow uniquely, as he had hoped, from the variational formalism that he had set up. But this failure was actually a blessing in disguise. It meant that the formalism was actually more general and not just tailor-made for the Entwurf theory. So he could use it.

So these problems were the prelude to the drama of November 1915 when Einstein published week after week his four conclusive publications on general relativity. On the 4th of November that is the transition from the Entwurf theory to the new mathematical objects; with an addendum on the 11th of November; the Mercury paper on the 18th of November, and the final field equations on the 25th. The first paper contains an interesting hint at what Einstein considered the “fatal prejudice” that had hindered him so far and also what was the key to the solution. The subsequent papers successively straighten out a logical structure of the theory, show that now the Mercury problem works and the final paper completes the logical structure of the theory.

In order to understand what the fatal prejudice was and what the key to the solution was, we have to once more time look at the mechanism at work here:

Picture40

There is indeed not just the source and the field. There is also the gravitational potential represented by the metric tensor and its connection with the gravitational field. That connection is expressed by a differential operator. One way to express this differential operator turned out to be a fatal prejudice, the other a key to the solution. As it turned out, it was essentially sufficient to change one element in the variational formalism developed for the Entwurf field equations, in order to get the theory from November the 4th, 1915. Namely, redefine the gravitational field.

Here are two ways in which Einstein expressed the connection between the field and the potential: One in the 1913 Entwurf theory and the other in the theory of November 4th. In the paper itself he speaks of the first way as a fatal prejudice and in a letter to Sommerfield he characterizes the second option as the key to the solution:

Picture41

In the end the transition from the Entwurf theory, based on the physical strategy, to the November 1915 theory, based on the sophisticated math of the Riemann tensor, seems to have been a rather simple step. But what made this step possible was the scaffolding represented by the variational formalism Einstein had built for the Entwurf theory.

[My comment: In my book, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, I demonstrate an additional element. Einstein wrote to Sommerfeld the following:

Picture4

“scalar derived from the energy tensor of matter, for which I write T in the following”.

Picture1Picture2

In my book I show how one can derive the second term on the right-hand side of the above November 25, 1915 equation on the basis of the variational formalism and on the basis of Einstein’s 1914 Entwurf theory and November 4th, 1915 paper. I connect between this latter derivation and the derivation of the November 4, 1915 field equation from the 1914 variation principle].

A variational formalism is a machine for making machines: It made it simpler to pass from a machine based on the fatal prejudice:

Picture42

to a machine that represented the key to the solution:

Picture43

Einstein had to revise the architecture of his theory step by step and that is what happened in the final publication of November 1915. To Arnold Sommerfeld he wrote: “unfortunately I have immortalized my final errors in the academy papers” (November 28, 1915). And to his friend Paul Ehrenfest he wrote: “It is convenient with that fellow Einstein: every year he retracts what he wrote the year before” (December 26, 1915).

In Einstein’s defense one had to remember that what contributed to the drama was that the mathematical David Hilbert was or at least seemed to have been hot on Einstein’s trail. Hilbert presented his field equations in Göttingen on November 20, 1915, five days before Einstein. He used the Riemann curvature scalar in his variational formalism. He did not explicitly write down the field equation but he could have easily calculated it of course. In the late 1990s, page proofs of Hilbert paper, which itself was not published until March 1916, turned up. These page proofs carry a date of December 6, 1915, after Einstein’s publication.

Picture46

Picture47

Did Hilbert beat Einstein to the punch? His page proofs show that the original version of Hilbert’s theory was conceptually closer to the Entwurf theory than to Einstein’s final version. Hilbert’s theory of December 6, 1915 was just as the Entwurf theory, a hybrid theory with extra conditions on the coordinate systems. This restriction on the coordinate systems was later dropped in the published version appearing in March 1916. Hence, the moral is: Einstein could have taken his time in November 1915 and need not have worried about Hilbert stealing his thunder. Hilbert did not build a bridge between mathematics and physics as Einstein had done. In fact he didn’t worry about these problems of Newtonian limit and energy momentum conservation in the way that Einstein had done. So on November 25, 1915, the edifice of general relativity seemed complete.

This is the first part of Jürgen Renn’s lecture, it deals with the genesis of general relativity (until approximately 49 minutes after the YouTube video start time). The second part of the lecture, not given here, is quite disappointing compared to the first part. In the first part of the lecture, Jürgen Renn is inspired by great scholars, notably John Stachel. Unfortunately, the second part of the lecture lacks the inspiration and sensation of the greatness of the fraternity of Einstein scholars (see photo further above).

 

 

 

 

 

My new book on Einstein and the history of the general theory of relativity

Here is the dust jacket of my new scholarly book on the history of general relativity, to be released on… my Birthday:

General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries: Einstein’s polemics with Physicists.

Cover

The book is illustrated by me and discusses the history of general relativity, gravitational waves, relativistic cosmology and unified field theory between 1905 and 1955:

The development of general relativity (1905-1916), “low water mark” period and several results during the “renaissance of general relativity” (1960-1980).

Ein

Conversations I have had more than a decade ago with my PhD supervisor, the late Prof. Mara Beller (from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem), comprise major parts of the preface and the general setting of the book. However, the book presents the current state of research and many new findings in history of general relativity.

Ein2

My first book:

Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity (April, 2015)

includes a wide variety of topics including also the early history of general relativity.

Einstein2

100 GTR: Uniformly Rotating Disk and the Hole Argument

The “Ehrenfest paradox“: Ehrenfest imagined a rigid cylinder set in motion from rest and rotating around its axis of symmetry. Consider an observer at rest measuring the circumference and radius of the rotating cylinder. The observer arrives at two contradictory requirements relating to the cylinder’s radius:

  1. Every point in the circumference of the cylinder moves with radial velocity ωR, and thus, the circumference of the cylinder  should appear Lorentz contracted to a smaller value than at rest, by the usual “relativistic” factor γ: 2πR‘ < 2πR.
  2. The radius R’ is always perpendicular to its motion and suffers no contraction at all; it should therefore be equal to its value R: R’ = R.

Einstein wrote to Vladimir Varićak either in 1909 or in 1910 (Febuary 28): “The rotation of the rigid body is the most interesting problem currently provided by the theory of relativity, because the only thing that causes the contradiction is the Lorentz contraction”.  CPAE 5, Doc. 197b.

Ehrenfest imagined a rigid cylinder gradually set into rotation (from rest) around its axis until it reaches a state of constant rotation.

In 1919 Einstein explained why this was impossible: (CPAE 9, Doc. 93)

“One must take into account that a rigid circular disk at rest would have to snap when set into rotation, because of the Lorentz shortening of the tangential fibers and the non-shortening of the radial ones. Similarly, a rigid disk in rotation (made by casting) would have to shatter as a result of the inverse changes in length if one attempts to bring it to the state of rest. If you take these facts fully into consideration, your paradox disappears”.

Assuming that the cylinder does not expand or contract, its radius stays the same. But measuring rods laid out along the circumference 2πR should be Lorentz-contracted to a smaller value than at rest, by the usual factor γ. This leads to the paradox that the rigid measuring rods would have to separate from one another due to Lorentz contraction; the discrepancy noted by Ehrenfest seems to suggest that a rotated Born rigid disk should shatter. According to special relativity an object cannot be spun up from a non-rotating state while maintaining Born rigidity, but once it has achieved a constant nonzero angular velocity it does maintain Born rigidity without violating special relativity, and then (as Einstein showed in 1912) a disk riding observer will measure a circumference.

Hence, in 1912, Einstein discussed what came to be known as the uniformly rotating disk thought experiment in general relativity. Thinking about Ehrenfest’s paradox and taking into consideration the principle of equivalence, Einstein considered a disk (already) in a state of uniform rotation observed from an inertial system.

We take a great number of small measuring rods (all equal to each other) and place them end-to-end across the diameter 2R and circumference 2πR of the uniformly rotating disk. From the point of view of a system at rest all the measuring rods on the circumference are subject to the Lorentz contraction. Since measuring rods aligned along the periphery and moving with it should appear contracted, more would fit around the circumference, which would thus measure greater than 2πR. An observer in the system at rest concludes that in the uniformly rotating disk the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is different from π:

circumference/diameter = 2π(Lorentz contracted by a factor…)/2R = π (Lorentz contracted by a factor….).

According to the equivalence principle the disk system is equivalent to a system at rest in which there exists a certain kind of static gravitational field. Einstein thus arrived at the conclusion that a system in a static gravitational field has non-Euclidean geometry.

Soon afterwards, from 1912 onwards, Einstein adopted the metric tensor as the mathematical respresentation of gravitation.

Indeed Einstein’s first mention of the rotating disk in print was in his paper dealing with the static gravitational fields of 1912; and after the 1912 paper, the rotating-disk thought experiment occurred in Einstein’s writings only in a 1916 review article on general relativity: “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”.

He now understood that in the general theory of relativity the method of laying coordinates in the space-time continuum (in a definite manner) breaks down, and one cannot adapt coordinate systems to the four-dimensional space.

einstein8

My new paper deals with Einstein’s 1912 and 1916 rotating disk problem, Einstein’s hole argument, the 1916 point coincidence argument and Mach’s principle; a combined-into-one deal (academic paper) for the readers of this blog.

einsteindesitter

Sitting: Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. Standing: Albert Einstein, Paul Ehrenfest and Willem de Sitter. September 26, 1923.

Further reading: Ehrenfest paradox

My new paper on Einstein and Schwarzschild

My new paper on General Relativity: Einstein and Schwarzschild.

Sometime in October 1915 Einstein dropped the Einstein-Grossman theory. Starting on November 4, 1915, Einstein gradually expanded the range of the covariance of his field equations. On November 11, 1915 Einstein was able to write the field equations of gravitation in a general covariant form, but there was a coordinate condition (there are no equations here so I cannot write it down here).

On November 18, 1915, Einstein presented to the Prussian Academy his paper, “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from the General Theory of Relativity”. Einstein reported in this talk that the perihelion motion of Mercury is explained by his theory. In this paper, Einstein tried to find approximate solutions to his November 11, 1915 field equations. He intended to obtain a solution, without considering the question whether or not the solution was the only possible unique solution.

Einstein’s field equations are non-linear partial differential equations of the second rank. This complicated system of equations cannot be solved in the general case, but can be solved in particular simple situations. The first to offer an exact solution to Einstein’s November 18, 1915 field equations was Karl Schwarzschild, the director of the Astrophysical Observatory in Potsdam. On December 22, 1915 Schwarzschild wrote Einstein from the Russian front. Schwarzschild set out to rework Einstein’s calculation in his November 18 1915 paper of the Mercury perihelion problem. He first responded to Einstein’s solution for the first order approximation from his November 18, 1915 paper, and found another first-order approximate solution. Schwarzschild told Einstein that the problem would be then physically undetermined if there were a few approximate solutions. Subsequently, Schwarzschild presented a complete solution. He said he realized that there was only one line element, which satisfied the conditions imposed by Einstein on the gravitational field of the sun, as well as Einstein’s field equations from the November 18 1915 paper.

“Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht” (Einstein might have already said….), because the problem with Schwarzschild’s line element was that a mathematical singularity was seen to occur at the origin! Oh my, Einstein abhorred singularities.

Actually, Schwarzschild “committed another crime”: he did not satisfy the coordinate condition from Einstein’s November 11 or November 18, 1915 paper. Schwarzschild admitted that his coordinates were not “allowed” coordinates, with which the field equations could be formed, because these spherical coordinates did not have determinant 1. Schwarzschild chose then the non-“allowed” coordinates, and in addition, a mathematical singularity was seen to occur in his solution. But Schwarzschild told Einstein: Don’t worry, “The equation of [Mercury’s] orbit remains exactly as you obtained in the first approximation”! See my paper from 2012.

Einstein replied to Schwarzschild on December 29, 1915 and told him that his calculation proving uniqueness proof for the problem is very interesting. “I hope you publish the idea soon! I would not have thought that the strict treatment of the point- problem was so simple”. Subsequently Schwarzschild sent Einstein a manuscript, in which he derived his solution of Einstein’s November 18, 1915 field equations for the field of a single mass. Einstein received the manuscript by the beginning of January 1916, and he examined it “with great interest”. He told Schwarzschild that he “did not expect that one could formulate so easily the rigorous solution to the problem”. On January 13, 1916, Einstein delivered Schwarzschild’s paper before the Prussian Academy with a few words of explanation. Schwarzschild’s paper, “On the Gravitational Field of a Point-Mass according to Einstein’s Theory” was published a month later.

untitled

Karl Schwarzschild

In March 1916 Einstein submitted to the Annalen der Physik a review article on the general theory of relativity, “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”. The paper was published two months later, in May 1916. The 1916 review article was written after Schwarzschild had found the complete exact solution to Einstein’s November 18, 1915 field equations. Even so, in his 1916 paper, Einstein preferred NOT to base himself on Schwarzschild’s exact solution, and he returned to his first order approximate solution from his November 18, 1915 paper.

A comment regarding Einstein’s calculations in his November 18, 1915 paper of the Mercury perihelion problem and Einstein’s 1916 paper. In his early works on GTR, in order to obtain the Newtonian results, Einstein used the special relativistic limit and the weak field approximation, and assumed that space was flat (see my paper). Already in 1914 Einstein had reasoned that in the general case, the gravitational field was characterized by ten space-time functions of the metric tensor. g were functions of the coordinates. In the case of special relativity this reduces to g44 = c2, where c denotes a constant. Einstein took for granted that the same degeneration occurs in the static gravitational field, except that in the latter case, this reduces to a single potential, where g44 = c2 is a function of spatial coordinates, x1, x2, x3. 

Later that year David Hilbert (with a vengeance from 1915?…) arrived at a line-element similar to Schwarzschild’s one, and he concluded that the singularity disappears only if we accept a world without electricity. Such an empty space was inacceptable by Einstein who was apparently much attracted by Mach’s ideas! (later termed by Einstein “Mach’s Principle”). Okay, Einstein, said Hilbert: If there is matter then another singularity exists, or as Hilbert puts it: “there are places where the metric proves to be irregular”…. (See my paper from 2012).

einstein405

 

Picture2

Picture1

1800254_10152774487603630_1455450272073337672_n[1]

 

10701981_10152774492093630_9206274613365583944_n[1]

Strange Days at Blake Holsey High: a student is sucked into the black hole…

 

Einstein’s pathway to his General Theory of Relativity

Einstein thought that when dealing with gravity high velocities are not so important. So in 1912 he thought about gravity in terms of the principle of relativity and not in terms of the constant-speed-of-light postulate (special relativity). But then he engaged in a dispute with other scholars who claimed that he gave up the central postulate of his special theory of relativity. x

File:Max abraham.png

Max Abraham

File:Gunnar Nordström.jpg

Gunnar Nordström

Einstein’s Pathway to his Equivalence Principle 1905-1907

paper

1912 – 1913 Static Gravitational Field Theory

paper

1913 – 1914 “Entwurf” theory

paper

Berlin “Entwurf” theory 1914

paper

The Einstein-Nordström Theory

paper

Dawn of “Entwarf theory”

paper

1915 Relativity Theory

paper

1916 General Theory of Relativity

paper

Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity

Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity

Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity

Einstein’s discovery of Special Relativity

Einstein Believes in the Ether

Einstein Chases a Light Beam

Einstein recounts the Aarau thought experiment in his Autobiographical Notes, 1949

Magnet and Conductor Thought Experiment, Faraday’s magneto-electric induction

Föppl’s book on Maxwell’s theory

Ether drift and Michelson and Morley’s experiment

The Role of the Michelson-Morley Experiment on the Discovery of Relativity

The Dayton Miller Experiments

Emission theory and ether drift experiments

Paul Ehrenfest and Walter Ritz. Ritz’s Emission Theory

“The Step”

Einstein defined distant simultaneity physically; relativity of simultaneity

The Kyoto lecture notes – Einstein could have visited and consulted his close friend Michele Besso, whom he thanked at the end of his relativity paper. The Patent Office brought them together – their conversations on the way home. Besso was always eager to discuss the subjects of which he knew a great deal – sociology, medicine, mathematics, physics and philosophy – Einstein initiated him into his discovery

Joseph Sauter – Before any other theoretical consideration, Einstein pointed out the necessity of a new definition of synchronization of two identical clocks distant from one another; to fix these ideas, he told him, “suppose one of the clocks is on a tower at Bern and the other on a tower at Muri (the ancient aristocratic annex of Bern)” – synchronization of clocks by light signals.

Did Poincaré have an Effect on Einstein’s Pathway toward the Special Theory of Relativity? Einstein’s reply to Carl Seelig

Poincaré

Einstein’s pathway to the General Theory of Relativity

Entwurf theory – Einstein-Grossmann theory, Hole argument, field equations and the Einstein-Besso manuscript

Grossmann

Gunnar Nordström develops a competing theory of gravitation to Einstein’s 1912-1913 gravitation theory. Einstein begins to study Nordström’s theory and develops his own Einstein-Nordström theory. In a joint 1914 paper with Lorentz’s student Adrian Fokker – a generally covariant formalism is presented from which Nordström’s theory follows if the velocity of light is constant Here

Nordström

The three problems that led to the fall of the entwurf theory –

The gravitational field on a uniformly rotating system does not satisfy the field equations.

Covariance with respect to adapted coordinate system was a flop.

In the Entwurf theory the motion of Mercury’s perihelion came to 180 rather than 450 per century

The General Theory of Relativity – 1915

David Hilbert Enters the Game, the priority dispute – Einstein and Hilbert

In November 18 1915 Einstein calculated rapidly the precession of Mercury’s

Perihelion

Geodesic Equation. Metric tensor. Einstein’s November 4, 11, and 25 field equations.The Riemann-Christoffel Tensor; the Ricci tensor; the Einstein tensor

von Deinem zufriedenen aber ziemlich kaputen

General Theory of Relativity – 1916

Mid December to Mid January 1915: Exchange of letters between Einstein and Ehrenfest

The disk thought experiment; coordinates have no direct physical meaning Euclidean Geometry breaks down; two Globes Thought Experiment; Mach’s Principle; the principle of general relativity; the Equivalence Principle; the principle of general covariance

The Summation Convention

Motion of the Perihelion of the Planetary Orbit; Redshift; Deflection of light in a gravitational field of the sun

Einstein in the Patent Office:

Michele Besso, Joseph Sauter, and Lucian Chavan – Patent Office, Maurice Solovine and Conrad Habicht – the Olympian Academy

Annus mirabilis papers

On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Generation and Transformation of Light – It argues a heuristic manner for the existence of light quanta and derives the photoelectric law

On a New Determination of Molecular Dimensions – doctoral thesis submitted to the mathematical and natural science branch of Zürich University

On the Movement of Particles Suspended in Fluids at Rest, as Postulated by the Molecular Theory of Heat. The Brownian motion paper

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. The Relativity Paper

Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content? The first derivation of the mass energy equivalence

German Scientists Responded to Einstein’s Relativity Paper – Max Planck wrote Einstein. Max von Laue met Einstein

Einstein teaches his 3 friends from the Patent Office at the University of Bern

Finally Einstein leaves the Patent Office to his first post in the University of Zürich

Further reading: Stachel, John, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, 2002, Washington D.C.: Birkhauser