DOCSLIB.ORG

The Reinvention of General Relativity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Reinvention of General Relativity The Reinvention of General Relativity: A Historiographical Framework for Assessing One Hundred Years of Curved Space-time Author(s): Alexander Blum, Roberto Lalli, and Jürgen Renn Source: Isis, Vol. 106, No. 3 (September 2015), pp. 598-620 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/683425 . Accessed: 11/12/2015 12:01 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Isis. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:01:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Reinvention of General Relativity: A Historiographical Framework for Assessing One Hundred Years of Curved Space-time Alexander Blum, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Roberto Lalli, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Ju¨ rgen Renn, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Abstract: The history of the theory of general relativity presents unique features. After its discovery, the theory was immediately confirmed and rapidly changed established notions of space and time. The further implications of general rela- tivity, however, remained largely unexplored until the mid 1950s, when it came into focus as a physical theory and gradually returned to the mainstream of physics. This essay presents a historiographical framework for assessing the history of general relativity by taking into account in an integrated narrative intellectual developments, epistemological problems, and technological advances; the char- acteristics of post–World War II and Cold War science; and newly emerging institutional settings. It argues that such a framework can help us understand this renaissance of general relativity as a result of two main factors: the recognition of the untapped potential of general relativity and an explicit effort at community building, which allowed this formerly disparate and dispersed field to benefit from the postwar changes in the scientific landscape. ne hundred years after its creation, the theory of general relativity is still the standard O theory of gravitational phenomena, the basis for cosmological research, and, perhaps most important, the theory that makes the most definite statements about what physicists mean when they speak of space and time. In the last thirty years, it has also become an active field of historical investigation. While much work has been done on its prehistory and genesis, and Alexander Blum, Roberto Lalli, Ju¨ rgen Renn (corresponding author): Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Boltzmannstraße 22, 14195 Berlin, Germany; [email protected]; [email protected]; renn@mpiwg- berlin.mpg.de. An earlier version of this essay was presented at the Joint Day of the Thirty-second Winter School in Theoretical Physics and the conference “Space-Time Theories: Historical and Philosophical Contexts,” Jerusalem. We heartily thank the organizers, Yemima Ben-Menahem and David Gross, and we are grateful to all participants for their useful comments. We have also received helpful comments from Jean Eisenstaedt, Hubert Goenner, John Stachel, Kurt Sundermeyer, Donald Salisbury, Matthias Schemmel, two anonymous referees, and the Editor of this journal. We are especially grateful to Luisa Bonolis for her support during the research process. Isis, volume 106, number 3. © 2015 by The History of Science Society. All rights reserved. 0021-1753/2015/10603-0004$10.00 598 This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:01:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ISIS—Volume 106, Number 3, September 2015 599 some work on its immediate reception, its most striking features—its persistence and resil- ience—have remained largely unexplored.1 The persistence of general relativity might not seem that surprising at first glance, given the well-known stories of its immediate spectacular confirmation and Einstein’s subsequent rise to scientific superstardom. However, historians of science have found that, not long after its establishment, the theory underwent what Jean Eisenstaedt has called a “low-water-mark” period in which it was mainly considered as providing small corrections to the Newtonian picture and in which the few physicists working on it achieved only modest progress.2 The majority of theoretical physicists directed their intellectual efforts toward the development of other branches of physics, such as quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, and quantum electrodynamics, touching on the issues of general relativity theory only in an unsystematic manner. Moreover, as we shall discuss later in this essay, in this period general relativity was considered by most—in particular its creator—as merely a stepping-stone toward a larger theoretical framework. This makes it even more remarkable that in the early 1960s general relativity experienced a sudden revival in connec- tion with astrophysical discoveries far removed from its original domain, which had essentially been confined to the solar system. The physicist Clifford Will coined the phrase “Renaissance of General Relativity” to describe the process through which general relativity became an internationally visible, highly active field of research in which theoretical explorations went hand in hand with new astrophysical discoveries such as quasars and the cosmic microwave background radiation.3 The systematic exploration of exact solutions, and the understanding of space-time singularities and of the physical reality of gravitational waves, all came only after the low-water-mark period, in the wake of the renaissance of general relativity. While there may be some obvious reasons for these developments, such as the role of World War 1 For the genesis of general relativity we refer to Ju¨ rgen Renn, ed., The Genesis of General Relativity, 4 vols. (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007); and Michel Janssen, “‘No Success Like Failure . .’: Einstein’s Quest for General Relativity, 1907–1920,” in The Cambridge Companion to Einstein, ed. Janssen and Christoph Lehner (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014), pp. 167–227. Several case studies concerning the development and reception of general relativity are in Don Howard and John Stachel, eds., Einstein and the History of General Relativity (Einstein Studies, 1) (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1987); Jean Eisenstaedt and Anne J. Kox, eds., Studies in the History of General Relativity (Einstein Studies, 3) (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1992); John Earman, Janssen, and John D. Norton, eds., The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity (Einstein Studies, 5) (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1993); Hubert Goenner, Renn, Jim Ritter, and Tilman Sauer, eds., The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity (Einstein Studies, 7) (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1999); Eisenstaedt and Kox, eds., The Universe of General Relativity (Einstein Studies, 11) (Boston: Birkhäuser, 2005); Lehner, Renn, and Matthias Schemmel, eds., Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics (Einstein Studies, 12) (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012); and Mara Beller, Renn, and Robert S. Cohen, eds., Einstein in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993). For the reception of general relativity see also Thomas F. Glick, ed., The Comparative Reception of Relativity (Dordrecht: Springer, 1987); Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1984); and Stephen G. Brush, “Why Was Relativity Accepted?” Physics in Perspective, 1999, 1:184–214. 2 Jean Eisenstaedt, “La relativite´ge´ne´rale a` l’e´tiage: 1925–1955,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 1986, 35:115–185; and Eisenstaedt, “Trajectoires et impasses de la solution de Schwarzschild,” ibid., 1987, 37:275–357. 3 Clifford Will, Was Einstein Right? Putting General Relativity to the Test (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986), esp. pp. 3–18; see also George Ellis, Antonio Lanza, and John Miller, eds., The Renaissance of General Relativity and Cosmology (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993). On a similar note, the period from 1964 to the mid 1970s is called the “Golden Age of General Relativity” in Kip S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy (New York: Norton, 1994), esp. pp. 258–299. The starting point of the “golden age” is usually considered the First Texas Symposium of Relativistic Astrophysics, held in Dallas on 16–18 Dec. 1963, in which astrophysicists and relativists joined together to explore the nature of the newly discovered quasars. See Ivor Robinson, Alfred Schild, and Engelbert L. Schu¨ cking, eds., Quasi-stellar Sources and Gravitational Collapse (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1965); and B. Kent Harrison, Thorne, Masami Wakano, and John A. Wheeler, Gravitation Theory and Gravitational Collapse (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1965). This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:01:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 600 Alexander Blum, Roberto Lalli,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Commentary on the Kervaire–Milnor Correspondence 1958–1961
    BULLETIN (New Series) OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 52, Number 4, October 2015, Pages 603–609 http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/bull/1508 Article electronically published on July 1, 2015 COMMENTARY ON THE KERVAIRE–MILNOR CORRESPONDENCE 1958–1961 ANDREW RANICKI AND CLAUDE WEBER Abstract. The extant letters exchanged between Kervaire and Milnor during their collaboration from 1958–1961 concerned their work on the classification of exotic spheres, culminating in their 1963 Annals of Mathematics paper. Michel Kervaire died in 2007; for an account of his life, see the obituary by Shalom Eliahou, Pierre de la Harpe, Jean-Claude Hausmann, and Claude We- ber in the September 2008 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society. The letters were made public at the 2009 Kervaire Memorial Confer- ence in Geneva. Their publication in this issue of the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society is preceded by our commentary on these letters, provid- ing some historical background. Letter 1. From Milnor, 22 August 1958 Kervaire and Milnor both attended the International Congress of Mathemati- cians held in Edinburgh, 14–21 August 1958. Milnor gave an invited half-hour talk on Bernoulli numbers, homotopy groups, and a theorem of Rohlin,andKer- vaire gave a talk in the short communications section on Non-parallelizability of the n-sphere for n>7 (see [2]). In this letter written immediately after the Congress, Milnor invites Kervaire to join him in writing up the lecture he gave at the Con- gress. The joint paper appeared in the Proceedings of the ICM as [10]. Milnor’s name is listed first (contrary to the tradition in mathematics) since it was he who was invited to deliver a talk.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1006.1489V2 [Math.GT] 8 Aug 2010 Ril.Ias Rfie Rmraigtesre Rils[14 Articles Survey the Reading from Profited Also I Article
    Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly Volume 8, Number 1 (Special Issue: In honor of F. Thomas Farrell and Lowell E. Jones, Part 1 of 2 ) 1—14, 2012 The Work of Tom Farrell and Lowell Jones in Topology and Geometry James F. Davis∗ Tom Farrell and Lowell Jones caused a paradigm shift in high-dimensional topology, away from the view that high-dimensional topology was, at its core, an algebraic subject, to the current view that geometry, dynamics, and analysis, as well as algebra, are key for classifying manifolds whose fundamental group is infinite. Their collaboration produced about fifty papers over a twenty-five year period. In this tribute for the special issue of Pure and Applied Mathematics Quarterly in their honor, I will survey some of the impact of their joint work and mention briefly their individual contributions – they have written about one hundred non-joint papers. 1 Setting the stage arXiv:1006.1489v2 [math.GT] 8 Aug 2010 In order to indicate the Farrell–Jones shift, it is necessary to describe the situation before the onset of their collaboration. This is intimidating – during the period of twenty-five years starting in the early fifties, manifold theory was perhaps the most active and dynamic area of mathematics. Any narrative will have omissions and be non-linear. Manifold theory deals with the classification of ∗I thank Shmuel Weinberger and Tom Farrell for their helpful comments on a draft of this article. I also profited from reading the survey articles [14] and [4]. 2 James F. Davis manifolds. There is an existence question – when is there a closed manifold within a particular homotopy type, and a uniqueness question, what is the classification of manifolds within a homotopy type? The fifties were the foundational decade of manifold theory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific Content of the Letters Is Remarkably Rich, Touching on The
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Reviews / Historia Mathematica 33 (2006) 491–508 497 The scientific content of the letters is remarkably rich, touching on the difference between Borel and Lebesgue measures, Baire’s classes of functions, the Borel–Lebesgue lemma, the Weierstrass approximation theorem, set theory and the axiom of choice, extensions of the Cauchy–Goursat theorem for complex functions, de Geöcze’s work on surface area, the Stieltjes integral, invariance of dimension, the Dirichlet problem, and Borel’s integration theory. The correspondence also discusses at length the genesis of Lebesgue’s volumes Leçons sur l’intégration et la recherche des fonctions primitives (1904) and Leçons sur les séries trigonométriques (1906), published in Borel’s Collection de monographies sur la théorie des fonctions. Choquet’s preface is a gem describing Lebesgue’s personality, research style, mistakes, creativity, and priority quarrel with Borel. This invaluable addition to Bru and Dugac’s original publication mitigates the regrets of not finding, in the present book, all 232 letters included in the original edition, and all the annotations (some of which have been shortened). The book contains few illustrations, some of which are surprising: the front and second page of a catalog of the editor Gauthier–Villars (pp. 53–54), and the front and second page of Marie Curie’s Ph.D. thesis (pp. 113–114)! Other images, including photographic portraits of Lebesgue and Borel, facsimiles of Lebesgue’s letters, and various important academic buildings in Paris, are more appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Son of Lamoraal Ulbo De Sitter, a Judge, and Catharine Theodore Wilhelmine Bertling
    558 BIOGRAPHIES v.i WiLLEM DE SITTER viT 1872-1934 De Sitter was bom on 6 May 1872 in Sneek (province of Friesland), the son of Lamoraal Ulbo de Sitter, a judge, and Catharine Theodore Wilhelmine Bertling. His father became presiding judge of the court in Arnhem, and that is where De Sitter attended gymna­ sium. At the University of Groniiigen he first studied mathematics and physics and then switched to astronomy under Jacobus Kapteyn. De Sitter spent two years observing and studying under David Gill at the Cape Obsen'atory, the obseivatory with which Kapteyn was co­ operating on the Cape Photographic Durchmusterung. De Sitter participated in the program to make precise measurements of the positions of the Galilean moons of Jupiter, using a heliometer. In 1901 he received his doctorate under Kapteyn on a dissertation on Jupiter's satellites: Discussion of Heliometer Observations of Jupiter's Satel­ lites. De Sitter remained at Groningen as an assistant to Kapteyn in the astronomical laboratory, until 1909, when he was appointed to the chair of astronomy at the University of Leiden. In 1919 he be­ came director of the Leiden Observatory. He remained in these posts until his death in 1934. De Sitter's work was highly mathematical. With his work on Jupi­ ter's satellites, De Sitter pursued the new methods of celestial me­ chanics of Poincare and Tisserand. His earlier heliometer meas­ urements were later supplemented by photographic measurements made at the Cape, Johannesburg, Pulkowa, Greenwich, and Leiden. De Sitter's final results on this subject were published as 'New Math­ ematical Theory of Jupiter's Satellites' in 1925.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Study on “The Black Hole”
    IJIRST –International Journal for Innovative Research in Science & Technology| Volume 2 | Issue 10 | March 2016 ISSN (online): 2349-6010 Review Study on “The Black Hole” Syed G. Ibrahim Department of Engineering Physics (Nanostructured Thin Film Materials Laboratory) Prof. Ram Meghe College of Engineering and Management, Badnera 444701, Maharashtra, India Abstract As a star grows old, swells, then collapses on itself, often you will hear the word “black hole” thrown around. The black hole is a gravitationally collapsed mass, from which no light, matter, or signal of any kind can escape. These exotic objects have captured our imagination ever since they were predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity in 1915. So what exactly is a black hole? A black hole is what remains when a massive star dies. Not every star will become a black hole, only a select few with extremely large masses. In order to have the ability to become a black hole, a star will have to have about 20 times the mass of our Sun. No known process currently active in the universe can form black holes of less than stellar mass. This is because all present black hole formation is through gravitational collapse, and the smallest mass which can collapse to form a black hole produces a hole approximately 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the sun .Smaller masses collapse to form white dwarf stars or neutron stars. Keywords: Escape Velocity, Horizon, Schwarzschild Radius, Black Hole _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION Soon after Albert Einstein formulated theory of relativity, it was realized that his equations have solutions in closed form.
    [Show full text]
  • Cracking the Einstein Code: Relativity and the Birth of Black Hole Physics, with an Afterword by Roy Kerr / Fulvio Melia
    CRA C K I N G T H E E INSTEIN CODE @SZObWdWbgO\RbVS0W`bV]T0ZOQY6]ZS>VgaWQa eWbVO\/TbS`e]`RPg@]gS`` fulvio melia The University of Chicago Press chicago and london fulvio melia is a professor in the departments of physics and astronomy at the University of Arizona. He is the author of The Galactic Supermassive Black Hole; The Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy; The Edge of Infinity; and Electrodynamics, and he is series editor of the book series Theoretical Astrophysics published by the University of Chicago Press. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2009 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved. Published 2009 Printed in the United States of America 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5 isbn-13: 978-0-226-51951-7 (cloth) isbn-10: 0-226-51951-1 (cloth) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Melia, Fulvio. Cracking the Einstein code: relativity and the birth of black hole physics, with an afterword by Roy Kerr / Fulvio Melia. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn-13: 978-0-226-51951-7 (cloth: alk. paper) isbn-10: 0-226-51951-1 (cloth: alk. paper) 1. Einstein field equations. 2. Kerr, R. P. (Roy P.). 3. Kerr black holes—Mathematical models. 4. Black holes (Astronomy)—Mathematical models. I. Title. qc173.6.m434 2009 530.11—dc22 2008044006 To natalina panaia and cesare melia, in loving memory CONTENTS preface ix 1 Einstein’s Code 1 2 Space and Time 5 3 Gravity 15 4 Four Pillars and a Prayer 24 5 An Unbreakable Code 39 6 Roy Kerr 54 7 The Kerr Solution 69 8 Black Hole 82 9 The Tower 100 10 New Zealand 105 11 Kerr in the Cosmos 111 12 Future Breakthrough 121 afterword 125 references 129 index 133 PREFACE Something quite remarkable arrived in my mail during the summer of 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of Gravitational Wave Science: 100 Years of Development of Mathematical Theory, Detectors, Numerical Algorithms, and Data Analysis Tools
    BULLETIN (New Series) OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 53, Number 4, October 2016, Pages 513–554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/bull/1544 Article electronically published on August 2, 2016 THE EMERGENCE OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SCIENCE: 100 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT OF MATHEMATICAL THEORY, DETECTORS, NUMERICAL ALGORITHMS, AND DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS MICHAEL HOLST, OLIVIER SARBACH, MANUEL TIGLIO, AND MICHELE VALLISNERI In memory of Sergio Dain Abstract. On September 14, 2015, the newly upgraded Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) recorded a loud gravitational-wave (GW) signal, emitted a billion light-years away by a coalescing binary of two stellar-mass black holes. The detection was announced in February 2016, in time for the hundredth anniversary of Einstein’s prediction of GWs within the theory of general relativity (GR). The signal represents the first direct detec- tion of GWs, the first observation of a black-hole binary, and the first test of GR in its strong-field, high-velocity, nonlinear regime. In the remainder of its first observing run, LIGO observed two more signals from black-hole bina- ries, one moderately loud, another at the boundary of statistical significance. The detections mark the end of a decades-long quest and the beginning of GW astronomy: finally, we are able to probe the unseen, electromagnetically dark Universe by listening to it. In this article, we present a short historical overview of GW science: this young discipline combines GR, arguably the crowning achievement of classical physics, with record-setting, ultra-low-noise laser interferometry, and with some of the most powerful developments in the theory of differential geometry, partial differential equations, high-performance computation, numerical analysis, signal processing, statistical inference, and data science.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein, Nordström and the Early Demise of Scalar, Lorentz Covariant Theories of Gravitation
    JOHN D. NORTON EINSTEIN, NORDSTRÖM AND THE EARLY DEMISE OF SCALAR, LORENTZ COVARIANT THEORIES OF GRAVITATION 1. INTRODUCTION The advent of the special theory of relativity in 1905 brought many problems for the physics community. One, it seemed, would not be a great source of trouble. It was the problem of reconciling Newtonian gravitation theory with the new theory of space and time. Indeed it seemed that Newtonian theory could be rendered compatible with special relativity by any number of small modifications, each of which would be unlikely to lead to any significant deviations from the empirically testable conse- quences of Newtonian theory.1 Einstein’s response to this problem is now legend. He decided almost immediately to abandon the search for a Lorentz covariant gravitation theory, for he had failed to construct such a theory that was compatible with the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Positing what he later called the principle of equivalence, he decided that gravitation theory held the key to repairing what he perceived as the defect of the special theory of relativity—its relativity principle failed to apply to accelerated motion. He advanced a novel gravitation theory in which the gravitational potential was the now variable speed of light and in which special relativity held only as a limiting case. It is almost impossible for modern readers to view this story with their vision unclouded by the knowledge that Einstein’s fantastic 1907 speculations would lead to his greatest scientific success, the general theory of relativity. Yet, as we shall see, in 1 In the historical period under consideration, there was no single label for a gravitation theory compat- ible with special relativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Vector and Tensor Analysis, 1950, Harry Lass, 0177610514, 9780177610516, Mcgraw- Hill, 1950
    Vector and tensor analysis, 1950, Harry Lass, 0177610514, 9780177610516, McGraw- Hill, 1950 DOWNLOAD http://bit.ly/1CHWNWq http://www.powells.com/s?kw=Vector+and+tensor+analysis DOWNLOAD http://goo.gl/RBcy2 https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/Vector-and-tensor-analysis/id439454683 http://bit.ly/1lGfW8S Vector & Tensor Analysis , U.Chatterjee & N.Chatterjee, , , . Tensor Calculus A Concise Course, Barry Spain, 2003, Mathematics, 125 pages. A compact exposition of the theory of tensors, this text also illustrates the power of the tensor technique by its applications to differential geometry, elasticity, and. The Art of Modeling Dynamic Systems Forecasting for Chaos, Randomness and Determinism, Foster Morrison, Mar 7, 2012, Mathematics, 416 pages. This text illustrates the roles of statistical methods, coordinate transformations, and mathematical analysis in mapping complex, unpredictable dynamical systems. It describes. Partial differential equations in physics , Arnold Sommerfeld, Jan 1, 1949, Mathematics, 334 pages. Partial differential equations in physics. Tensor Calculus , John Lighton Synge, Alfred Schild, 1978, Mathematics, 324 pages. "This book is an excellent classroom text, since it is clearly written, contains numerous problems and exercises, and at the end of each chapter has a summary of the. Vector and tensor analysis , Harry Lass, 1950, Mathematics, 347 pages. Abstract Algebra and Solution by Radicals , John Edward Maxfield, Margaret W. Maxfield, 1971, Mathematics, 209 pages. Easily accessible undergraduate-level text covers groups, polynomials, Galois theory, radicals, much more. Features many examples, illustrations and commentaries as well as 13. Underwater Missile Propulsion A Selection of Authoritative Technical and Descriptive Papers, Leonard Greiner, 1968, Fleet ballistic missile weapons systems, 502 pages.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Work of Michel Kervaire in Surgery and Knot Theory
    1 ON MICHEL KERVAIRE'S WORK IN SURGERY AND KNOT THEORY Andrew Ranicki (Edinburgh) http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/eaar/slides/kervaire.pdf Geneva, 11th and 12th February, 2009 2 1927 { 2007 3 Highlights I Major contributions to the topology of manifolds of dimension > 5. I Main theme: connection between stable trivializations of vector bundles and quadratic refinements of symmetric forms. `Division by 2'. I 1956 Curvatura integra of an m-dimensional framed manifold = Kervaire semicharacteristic + Hopf invariant. I 1960 The Kervaire invariant of a (4k + 2)-dimensional framed manifold. I 1960 The 10-dimensional Kervaire manifold without differentiable structure. I 1963 The Kervaire-Milnor classification of exotic spheres in dimensions > 4 : the birth of surgery theory. n n+2 I 1965 The foundation of high dimensional knot theory, for S S ⊂ with n > 2. 4 MATHEMATICAL REVIEWS + 1 Kervaire was the author of 66 papers listed (1954 { 2007) +1 unlisted : Non-parallelizability of the n-sphere for n > 7, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 44, 280{283 (1958) 619 matches for "Kervaire" anywhere, of which 84 in title. 18,600 Google hits for "Kervaire". MR0102809 (21() #1595) Kervaire,, Michel A. An interpretation of G. Whitehead's generalizationg of H. Hopf's invariant. Ann. of Math. (2)()69 1959 345--365. (Reviewer: E. H. Brown) 55.00 MR0102806 (21() #1592) Kervaire,, Michel A. On the Pontryagin classes of certain ${\rm SO}(n)$-bundles over manifolds. Amer. J. Math. 80 1958 632--638. (Reviewer: W. S. Massey) 55.00 MR0094828 (20 #1337) Kervaire, Michel A. Sur les formules d'intégration de l'analyse vectorielle.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Physics/0608067V1 [Physics.Hist-Ph] 7 Aug 2006 N I Olbrtr Ntepro Rm14 O1951
    Peter Bergmann and the invention of constrained Hamiltonian dynamics D. C. Salisbury Department of Physics, Austin College, Sherman, Texas 75090-4440, USA E-mail: [email protected] (Dated: July 23, 2006) Abstract Peter Bergmann was a co-inventor of the algorithm for converting singular Lagrangian models into a constrained Hamiltonian dynamical formalism. This talk focuses on the work of Bergmann and his collaborators in the period from 1949 to 1951. arXiv:physics/0608067v1 [physics.hist-ph] 7 Aug 2006 1 INTRODUCTION It has always been the practice of those of us associated with the Syracuse “school” to identify the algorithm for constructing a canonical phase space description of singular La- grangian systems as the Dirac-Bergmann procedure. I learned the procedure as a student of Peter Bergmann - and I should point out that he never employed that terminology. Yet it was clear from the published record at the time in the 1970’s that his contribution was essential. Constrained Hamiltonian dynamics constitutes the route to canonical quantiza- tion of all local gauge theories, including not only conventional general relativity, but also grand unified theories of elementary particle interaction, superstrings and branes. Given its importance and my suspicion that Bergmann has never received adequate recognition from the wider community for his role in the development of the technique, I have long intended to explore this history in depth. The following is merely a tentative first step in which I will focus principally on the work of Peter Bergmann and his collaborators in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, indicating where appropriate the relation of this work to later developments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big-Bang Theory AST-101, Ast-117, AST-602
    AST-101, Ast-117, AST-602 The Big-Bang theory Luis Anchordoqui Thursday, November 21, 19 1 17.1 The Expanding Universe! Last class.... Thursday, November 21, 19 2 Hubbles Law v = Ho × d Velocity of Hubbles Recession Distance Constant (Mpc) (Doppler Shift) (km/sec/Mpc) (km/sec) velocity Implies the Expansion of the Universe! distance Thursday, November 21, 19 3 The redshift of a Galaxy is: A. The rate at which a Galaxy is expanding in size B. How much reader the galaxy appears when observed at large distances C. the speed at which a galaxy is orbiting around the Milky Way D. the relative speed of the redder stars in the galaxy with respect to the blues stars E. The recessional velocity of a galaxy, expressed as a fraction of the speed of light Thursday, November 21, 19 4 The redshift of a Galaxy is: A. The rate at which a Galaxy is expanding in size B. How much reader the galaxy appears when observed at large distances C. the speed at which a galaxy is orbiting around the Milky Way D. the relative speed of the redder stars in the galaxy with respect to the blues stars E. The recessional velocity of a galaxy, expressed as a fraction of the speed of light Thursday, November 21, 19 5 To a first approximation, a rough maximum age of the Universe can be estimated using which of the following? A. the age of the oldest open clusters B. 1/H0 the Hubble time C. the age of the Sun D.
    [Show full text]