Re: Article: A Century of Einstein

From: Ole D. Rughede (ole.rughede_at_privat.dk)
Date: 09/07/04 

Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 13:59:47 +0200

"Eric Baird" <eric_baird@compuserve.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:544qj01ittalv22vaqqiohap18pqb2k1ci@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:11:30 +0200, "Ole D. Rughede"
> <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote:
>
> >"Eric Baird" <eric_baird@compuserve.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >>
> >> When Einstein wrote Sci Am an article on the history of relativity
for
> >> an earlier anniversary issue, he took that opportunity to present
his
> >> own revised opinion, that while SR had looked like a good idea at
the
> >> time, the development route SR->GR was pretty much a historical
> >> accident, and that he no longer considered it to be proper to base
> >> gravitational theory on an SR foundation.
> >
> >
> >I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am
> >unable to comment specifically on its ideas and statements.
> >
> >It would be interesting if you could look it up and let us have
> >a link to further enlightenment.
>
> It was the "April 1950" issue.
>
> I've just done a quick google search and found an online
> transcription, at
> http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm
>
> The paragraph that I find telling is:
>
> <START QUOTE>
> " The first observation is that the principle of general relativity
> imposes exceedingly strong restrictions on the theoretical
> possibilities. Without this restrictive principle it would be
> practically impossible for anybody to hit on the gravitational
> equations, not even by using the principle of special relativity, even
> though one knows that the field has to be described by a symmetrical
> tensor. No amount of collection of facts could lead to these equations
> unless the principle of general relativity were used. This is the
> reason why all attempts to obtain a deeper knowledge of the
> foundations of physics seem doomed to me unless the basic concepts are
> in accordance with general relativity from the beginning. This
> situation makes it difficult to use our empirical knowledge, however
> comprehensive, in looking for the fundamental concepts and relations
> of physics, and it forces us to apply free speculation to a much
> greater extent than is presently assumed by most physicists. I do not
> see any reason to assume that the heuristic significance of the
> principle of general relativity is restricted to gravitation and that
> the rest of physics can be dealt with separately on the basis of
> special relativity, with the hope that later on the whole may be
> fitted consistently into a general relativistic scheme. I do not think
> that such an attitude, although historically understandable, can be
> objectively justified. The comparative smallness of what we know today
> as gravitational effects is not a conclusive reason for ignoring the
> principle of general relativity in theoretical investigations of a
> fundamental character. In other words, I do not believe that it is
> justifiable to ask: What would physics look like without gravitation?
> "
> <END QUOTE>
>
>
> The areas of possible conflict between the theoretical side of SR and
> the GPoR ought to be obvious ... if a "final general theory" declares
> that inertial mass and gravitational mass are inseparable, and that
> concentrations of energy (kinetic or otherwise) are associated with
> spacetime curvature, then perhaps it is not legal (on principle) for
> the theory to reduce cleanly to a different, restricted theory that
> retains inertial mass but discards gravitational mass, and supposedly
> deals with systems that can contain arbitrarily-high concentrations of
> KE, while the spacetime f the region is assumed to stay perfectly
> flat.
>
> Now, if you are attempting to construct a general theory and have just
> developed the special theory, perhaps it's reasonable to attempt this
> excercise anyway, and use your new SR tool as a way of attacking the
> generla problem, in the hope that those niggling legalistic mismatches
> are going to end up disappearing or somehow cancelling out somehow, or
> that perhaps the exercise will take you to a new set of arguments that
> will then let you go back and remove the SR component.
>
> But by the time Einstein wrote his piece in 1950, after years of
> trying and failing to finish a next-generation theory, it seems that
> the faultlines between SR and gravitaitonal theory hadn't been
> resolved, and he seems to have moved to the opinion that perhaps
> starting out by assuming the validity of SR was a mistake.
>
> If you are hoping to remodel all physics, including particle
> interactions and energies going all the way down to the low-energy
> range, as functions of spacetime curvature, then starting out by
> deciding that the "correct" way of modelling inertial physics is by
> imposing flat spacetime, getting a set of equations that seem to be
> /specific/ to flat spacetime, and then using those as a starting point
> ... perhaps that's not such a brilliant idea.
>
> Hence (IMO):
> : " I do not think that such an attitude, although historically
> : understandable, can be objectively justified. "
>
> IOW, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but ...
>
>
> =Erk= (Eric Baird)

Just for now, thank you Eric (also for the fine Giles-elliptic)!

I may revert to the matter though in fact it does not exite my
temper very much how bad it may be with the good old SR.
For Einstein it was once his fix idea of inspiration. His greatness
showing in his selfcritical view - without remorse, I hope.

So it is, and has always been, with scientific theories. We get a
little step further, and afterwords we cannot imagine how tough
and late the walking was. - And it does not matter, because we
long ago have left the way when we have reached the goal of
destination without much focus on the future roads to be walked.

Einstein had more serious reasons of remorse, as he was told
after having written his "Open Letter to the General Assembly
of the United Nations" for "United Nations World", Nov. 1947.

In December came the "Open Letter on Dr. Einstein's Mistaken
Notions...", signed by four leading Russian scientists including the
President of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, Vavilov, and
Joffé, Einstein's old friend of Berlin days. - "There was fulsome
praise for Einstein followed by a recapitulation of Russia's struggle
against allied intervention after the First World War, and of her
fights against Germany in the Second. "And now", the letter con-
tinued "the proponents of a 'world super state' are asking us volun-
tarily to surrender this independence for the sake of 'world govern-
ment' which is nothing but a flamboyant signboard for the world
supremacy of the capitalist monopolies"." [Ronald W. Clark in his
Einstein, The Life and Times]. - It probably made Einstein think
twice - and refrain - when he was offered the first precidency of
the new Israely State in Palestine, where also the ongoing terror
was a sad contradiction to Einstein's naively peace-loving nature.

Ole D. Rughede

> : " Form a circle? But there's only two of us, that's really more of
a line. "
> : --- Rupert Giles, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >>I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... Without this restrictive principle it would be ... > unless the principle of general relativity were used. ... What would physics look like without gravitation? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nikola Tesla about Relativity
    ... >>There is no doubt that Einstein is a plagirist. ... ** Very powerful but simple Principle of Least Action ... are you claiming that einstein plagiarised general relativity from ... perhaps you really believe the reality of your ``As the Physics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
    ... It says that gravitation is a manifestation of spacetime curvature. ... Do you agree that General Relativity is the theory as put forth by Einstein ... aware of the Lagrangian formulation of his mechanics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativists Conclusively Prove They Are a Bunch of Morons
    ... I don't know what Einstein personally believed, but General Relativity ... Albert Einstein -That the relation of gravity to inertia was the ... Can gravitation and inertia be identical? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: RAH and Light speed
    ... Einstein and Wheeler's idea of how to proceed (assume the spacetime ... given by general relativity is fundamental, ... Gravitation_ refers to the work of Robert Kraichnan in the 40's and ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)