DOCSLIB.ORG

Arch and Scaffold: How Einstein Found His Field Equations Michel Janssen, and Jürgen Renn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arch and Scaffold: How Einstein Found His Field Equations Michel Janssen, and Jürgen Renn Arch and scaffold: How Einstein found his field equations Michel Janssen, and Jürgen Renn Citation: Physics Today 68, 11, 30 (2015); doi: 10.1063/PT.3.2979 View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2979 View Table of Contents: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/toc/pto/68/11 Published by the American Institute of Physics Articles you may be interested in The laws of life Physics Today 70, 42 (2017); 10.1063/PT.3.3493 Hidden worlds of fundamental particles Physics Today 70, 46 (2017); 10.1063/PT.3.3594 The image of scientists in The Big Bang Theory Physics Today 70, 40 (2017); 10.1063/PT.3.3427 The secret of the Soviet hydrogen bomb Physics Today 70, 40 (2017); 10.1063/PT.3.3524 Physics in 100 years Physics Today 69, 32 (2016); 10.1063/PT.3.3137 The top quark, 20 years after its discovery Physics Today 68, 46 (2015); 10.1063/PT.3.2749 Arch and scaffold: How Einstein found his field equations Michel Janssen and Jürgen Renn In his later years, Einstein often claimed that he had obtained the field equations of general relativity by choosing the mathematically most natural candidate. His writings during the period in which he developed general relativity tell a different story. his month marks the centenary of the pothesis he adopted about the nature of matter al- Einstein field equations, the capstone on lowed him to change those equations to equations the general theory of relativity and the that are generally covariant—that is, retain their highlight of Albert Einstein’s scientific form under arbitrary coordinate transformations. In T 1 career. The equations, which relate space- the fourth, he achieved the same end by changing time curvature to the energy and momentum of the field equations of the first paper in a different matter, made their first appearance in a four-page and more convincing way, as shown in figure 3. In paper submitted on 25 November 1915 to the Prus - the third, based on the field equations of the second sian Academy of Sciences in Berlin and reprinted in paper but unaffected by the modification of the The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (CPAE),2 vol- fourth, he accounted for the 43 seconds of arc per ume 6, document 21. How did Einstein, shown in century missing in the Newtonian account of the figure 1, arrive at those equations? He later insisted perihelion motion of Mercury. that the gravitational equations “could only be found In the first November paper, Einstein made it by a purely formal principle (general covariance).”3 sound as if he had gone from the old to the new field Such statements mainly served to justify his strategy equations by leveling one cathedral and building a in the search for a unified field theory during the new one on its ruins in a completely different style. second half of his career. As a description of how he The former was built according to principles of found the field equations of general relativity, they physics; the latter, Einstein wanted his readers to be- are highly misleading. lieve, according to principles of mathematics. “It is The 25 November paper was the last in a series a real triumph of the method of the general differ- of short communications submitted to the Berlin ential calculus,” he rhapsodized—even before his Academy on four consecutive Thursdays that month theory was generally covariant (CPAE 6; 21). Careful (CPAE 6; 21, 22, 24, 25). In the first paper, Einstein examination of the November papers and his corre- replaced the field equations that he had published spondence at the time suggests a different architec- in 1913 with equations that retain their form under tural metaphor.4 Einstein used the elaborate frame- a much broader class of coordinate transformations work he had built around the field equations of 1913 (see figure 2). In the second, a highly speculative hy- as a scaffold on which he carefully placed the arch stones of the Einstein field equations. Michel Janssen is a professor in the Program in the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine at the University of Covariance lost Minnesota in Minneapolis. Jürgen Renn is a director at the As the box on page 31 shows, Einstein had already Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin. considered the equations of his first November 30 November 2015 Physics Today www.physicstoday.org General relativity under construction The so-called Zürich notebook contains Albert Einstein’s research notes of 1912–13 as, with the help of Marcel Grossmann, he began looking for field equations for his new theory of gravity.6 At the top of this particular page, 22R, Einstein wrote down the generally covariant Ricci tensor Til under the heading “Grossmann,” presumably because Grossmann had suggested it to him. “If [the determinant of the metric] G is a scalar” (Wenn G ein Skalar ist ), Einstein noted, the first half of Til transforms as a tensor. Coordinate transformations satisfying that determinant condition are now called unimodular trans- formations. If the first half transforms as a tensor under unimodular transformations, the second half must too, since their sum transforms as a tensor under arbitrary transformations. Underneath the second half of the second equation, Einstein wrote, “probable gravitation tensor” (Vermutlicher Gravitationstensor). Thus in 1912–13 Einstein had already considered the field equations he proposed in the first of the four papers he submitted to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin in November 1915 (see figure 2). Near the middle of the page, Einstein imposed the condition μν Σκ∂γκα /∂xκ =0, in modern notation ∂μ g =0. That is the same condition he imposed in the first November 1915 paper to show that those field equations reduce to their Newtonian counterpart in the case of weak static fields. (Courtesy of the Albert Einstein Archives, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.) paper three years earlier in the course of his collab- that is not very practical) you can turn the route be- oration with mathematician Marcel Grossmann,5 tween the two cities into a straight line. That ability shown in figure 4. The two of them had been class- is the analogue of general covariance. Nonetheless, mates at what is now ETH Zürich and were reunited no matter what it looks like on any given map, the at their alma mater in July 1912. Notes of their col- segment of the great circle remains the shortest route. laboration have been preserved in the so-called Similarly, general covariance cannot make all trajec- Zürich notebook.6 In the notebook, as Einstein re- tories in spacetime equivalent, and it is simply not the called in the introduction of his first November paper, case that all states of motion are on the same footing. they had given up the search for field equations In a sense, therefore, the formulation of gener- based on the Riemann tensor “with a heavy heart.” ally covariant field equations in November 1915 was What had defeated them were problems with the an empty victory. Despite its misleading name, physical interpretation of such equations. Eventu- however, general relativity was a powerful new the- ally they adopted field equations specifically engi- ory of gravity, based on the equivalence principle, neered to avoid those problems and published them which in the mature form Einstein gave it in 1918 in a joint paper in June 1913 (CPAE 4; 13). The theory states that both the spacetime geometry and gravity and the field equations they presented are known, should be represented by the metric tensor field (see based on the title of that paper, as the Entwurf (out- reference 7 and CPAE 7; 4). line or draft) theory and the Entwurf field equations. Except for its field equations, the Entwurf the- Coordinate restrictions ory has all the basic elements of the mathematical Why did Einstein reject the field equations of the formalism of general relativity. Einstein nonetheless first November paper when he and Grossmann first cautiously referred to it as a generalized theory of considered them in 1912–13? For a long time, the an- relativity—not a general theory—because of the swer given by historians was that the two did not limited covariance of the Entwurf field equations. know about coordinate conditions. To compare field Part of Einstein’s difficulty was that throughout equations of broad covariance with field equations the period from late 1912 to late 1916, he conflated of limited covariance, such as the Poisson equation general covariance and general relativity of motion. of Newtonian theory, the former need to be consid- A map analogy illustrates the difference. The short- ered in a similarly restricted class of coordinate sys- est route between two cities is a segment of the great tems. That is done with the help of a coordinate con- circle connecting them. Suppose you have a map on dition consisting of four equations for the metric which that route does not correspond to a straight tensor field (hereafter, metric for short). Imposing a line. By switching to a different map (probably one suitable coordinate condition, one eliminates various www.physicstoday.org November 2015 Physics Today 31 Arch and scaffold John Norton suggested that it may have been because the four-divergence of the metric of Minkowski spacetime in rotating coordinates does not vanish.9 For ease of reference, we rephrase Nor- ton’s suggestion using some shorthand introduced in The Genesis of General Relativity1 (hereafter Gene- sis): Einstein rejected the November tensor (the Rim introduced in figure 2) because the rotation metric (the metric of Minkowski spacetime in rotating coordinates) does not satisfy the Hertz condition (the vanishing of the four-divergence of the metric).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute
    (10). As described above, the severely opis- Dinosauria (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA, However, the overall similarity of the pelvis of Archae- 1990). opteryx to those of the enantiornithine birds, espe- thopubic condition of their pelvis is consis- 10. L. Hou, L. D. Martin, Z. Zhou, A. Feduccia, Science cially the presence of the hypopubic cup, as well as tent with the notion that these birds roost- 274, 1164 (1996). the morphology of the London and Berlin Archae- ed in trees. In contrast, based primarily on 11. Q. Ji and S. Ji, Chin. Geol. 10, 30 (1996); see also V. opteryx specimens, offer support for our interpreta- disputed measurements of claw curvature, Morell, Audubon 99, 36 (1997). tion of the pelvic structure of these early birds [L. D. 12. Rather than representing primitive archosaurian Martin, in Origin of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods, Archaeopteryx has been interpreted as structures, it is probable that the hepatic-piston dia- H. P. Schultze and L. Trueb, Eds. (Cornell Univ. adapted primarily for a terrestrial rather phragm systems in crocodilians and theropods are Press, Ithaca, NY, 1991), pp. 485–540. than an arboreal existence (18). However, convergently derived. Pelvic anatomy in early “pro- 18. D. S. Peters and E. Go¨ rgner, in Proceedings of the II todinosaurs” such as Lagosuchus, as well as in all International Symposium of Avian Paleontology, K. as in the enantiornithines, the morphology ornithischian dinosaurs, shows no evidence of the Campbell, Ed. (Los Angeles Museum of Natural His- of Archaeopteryx’s pelvis is best interpreted pubis having served as a site of origin for similar tory Press, Los Angeles, CA, 1992), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Schwarzschild's Solution And
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CERN Document Server RECONSIDERING SCHWARZSCHILD'S ORIGINAL SOLUTION SALVATORE ANTOCI AND DIERCK EKKEHARD LIEBSCHER Abstract. We analyse the Schwarzschild solution in the context of the historical development of its present use, and explain the invariant definition of the Schwarzschild’s radius as a singular surface, that can be applied to the Kerr-Newman solution too. 1. Introduction: Schwarzschild's solution and the \Schwarzschild" solution Nowadays simply talking about Schwarzschild’s solution requires a pre- liminary reassessment of the historical record as conditio sine qua non for avoiding any misunderstanding. In fact, the present-day reader must be firstly made aware of this seemingly peculiar circumstance: Schwarzschild’s spherically symmetric, static solution [1] to the field equations of the ver- sion of the theory proposed by Einstein [2] at the beginning of November 1915 is different from the “Schwarzschild” solution that is quoted in all the textbooks and in all the research papers. The latter, that will be here al- ways mentioned with quotation marks, was found by Droste, Hilbert and Weyl, who worked instead [3], [4], [5] by starting from the last version [6] of Einstein’s theory.1 As far as the vacuum is concerned, the two versions have identical field equations; they differ only because of the supplementary condition (1.1) det (g )= 1 ik − that, in the theory of November 11th, limited the covariance to the group of unimodular coordinate transformations. Due to this fortuitous circum- stance, Schwarzschild could not simplify his calculations by the choice of the radial coordinate made e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • General Relativity As Taught in 1979, 1983 By
    General Relativity As taught in 1979, 1983 by Joel A. Shapiro November 19, 2015 2. Last Latexed: November 19, 2015 at 11:03 Joel A. Shapiro c Joel A. Shapiro, 1979, 2012 Contents 0.1 Introduction............................ 4 0.2 SpecialRelativity ......................... 7 0.3 Electromagnetism. 13 0.4 Stress-EnergyTensor . 18 0.5 Equivalence Principle . 23 0.6 Manifolds ............................. 28 0.7 IntegrationofForms . 41 0.8 Vierbeins,Connections . 44 0.9 ParallelTransport. 50 0.10 ElectromagnetisminFlatSpace . 56 0.11 GeodesicDeviation . 61 0.12 EquationsDeterminingGeometry . 67 0.13 Deriving the Gravitational Field Equations . .. 68 0.14 HarmonicCoordinates . 71 0.14.1 ThelinearizedTheory . 71 0.15 TheBendingofLight. 77 0.16 PerfectFluids ........................... 84 0.17 Particle Orbits in Schwarzschild Metric . 88 0.18 AnIsotropicUniverse. 93 0.19 MoreontheSchwarzschild Geometry . 102 0.20 BlackHoleswithChargeandSpin. 110 0.21 Equivalence Principle, Fermions, and Fancy Formalism . .115 0.22 QuantizedFieldTheory . .121 3 4. Last Latexed: November 19, 2015 at 11:03 Joel A. Shapiro Note: This is being typed piecemeal in 2012 from handwritten notes in a red looseleaf marked 617 (1983) but may have originated in 1979 0.1 Introduction I am, myself, an elementary particle physicist, and my interest in general relativity has come from the growth of a field of quantum gravity. Because the gravitational inderactions of reasonably small objects are so weak, quantum gravity is a field almost entirely divorced from contact with reality in the form of direct confrontation with experiment. There are three areas of contact 1. In relativistic quantum mechanics, one usually formulates the physical quantities in terms of fields. A field is a physical degree of freedom, or variable, definded at each point of space and time.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein's Life and Legacy
    Reflections Einstein's Life and Legacy Introduction Albert Einstein is the most luminous scientist of the past century, and ranks with Isaac Newton as one among the greatest physicists of all time. There is an enormous amount of material to choose from in talking about Einstein. He is without doubt also the most written about scientist of the past century, may be of all time. The Einstein Archives contain about 43,000 documents, and so far as I know the "Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" have only come upto 1917 with Volume 8 in English translation; another 32 volumes remain to be produced. In the face of all this, this account must be severely selective, and coherent as well. Einstein's life was incredibly rich and intense in the intellectual sense. This will become clear as I go along. In any case let me begin by presenting in Box 1 a brieflisting of a few important dates in his life, howsoever inadequate it may be. He was scientifically active essentially from 1902 upto 1935 at the highest imaginable levels, thus for more than three decades. The Miraculous Year Now let us turn to technical matters. First, a brief mention of his creative outburst of 1905, whose centenary we are celebrating this year. There were four fundamental papers, and the doctoral thesis, all in the six months from March to September. The first paper on the light quantum concept and explanation of the photo electric effect was submitted to Annalen der Physik in March; the second on Brownian Motion in May; and the third setting out the Special Theory of Relativity in June.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein and Hilbert: the Creation of General Relativity
    EINSTEIN AND HILBERT: THE CREATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY ∗ Ivan T. Todorov Institut f¨ur Theoretische Physik, Universit¨at G¨ottingen, Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1 D-37077 G¨ottingen, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] and Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Tsarigradsko Chaussee 72, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria;∗∗e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT It took eight years after Einstein announced the basic physical ideas behind the relativistic gravity theory before the proper mathematical formulation of general relativity was mastered. The efforts of the greatest physicist and of the greatest mathematician of the time were involved and reached a breathtaking concentration during the last month of the work. Recent controversy, raised by a much publicized 1997 reading of Hilbert’s proof- sheets of his article of November 1915, is also discussed. arXiv:physics/0504179v1 [physics.hist-ph] 25 Apr 2005 ∗ Expanded version of a Colloquium lecture held at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, 9 December 1992 and (updated) at the International University Bremen, 15 March 2005. ∗∗ Permanent address. Introduction Since the supergravity fashion and especially since the birth of superstrings a new science emerged which may be called “high energy mathematical physics”. One fad changes the other each going further away from accessible experiments and into mathe- matical models, ending up, at best, with the solution of an interesting problem in pure mathematics. The realization of the grand original design seems to be, decades later, nowhere in sight. For quite some time, though, the temptation for mathematical physi- cists (including leading mathematicians) was hard to resist.
    [Show full text]
  • General Relativity
    GENERALRELATIVITY t h i m o p r e i s1 17th April 2020 1 [email protected] CONTENTS 1 differential geomtry 3 1.1 Differentiable manifolds 3 1.2 The tangent space 4 1.2.1 Tangent vectors 6 1.3 Dual vectors and tensor 6 1.3.1 Tensor densities 8 1.4 Metric 11 1.5 Connections and covariant derivatives 13 1.5.1 Note on exponential map/Riemannian normal coordinates - TO DO 18 1.6 Geodesics 20 1.6.1 Equivalent deriavtion of the Geodesic Equation - Weinberg 22 1.6.2 Character of geodesic motion is sustained and proper time is extremal on geodesics 24 1.6.3 Another remark on geodesic equation using the principle of general covariance 26 1.6.4 On the parametrization of the path 27 1.7 An equivalent consideration of parallel transport, geodesics 29 1.7.1 Formal solution to the parallel transport equa- tion 31 1.8 Curvature 33 1.8.1 Torsion and metric connection 34 1.8.2 How to get from the connection coefficients to the connection-the metric connection 34 1.8.3 Conceptional flow of how to add structure on our mathematical constructs 36 1.8.4 The curvature 37 1.8.5 Independent components of the Riemann tensor and intuition for curvature 39 1.8.6 The Ricci tensor 41 1.8.7 The Einstein tensor 43 1.9 The Lie derivative 43 1.9.1 Pull-back and Push-forward 43 1.9.2 Connection between coordinate transformations and diffeomorphism 47 1.9.3 The Lie derivative 48 1.10 Symmetric Spaces 50 1.10.1 Killing vectors 50 1.10.2 Maximally Symmetric Spaces and their Unique- ness 54 iii iv co n t e n t s 1.10.3 Maximally symmetric spaces and their construc- tion
    [Show full text]
  • Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution
    Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution expanded version of lecture presented at American Physical Society meeting, 2/14/10 (Abraham Pais History of Physics Prize for 2009) by Stephen G. Brush* Abstract Does new scientific knowledge come from theory (whose predictions are confirmed by experiment) or from experiment (whose results are explained by theory)? Either can happen, depending on whether theory is ahead of experiment or experiment is ahead of theory at a particular time. In the first case, new theoretical hypotheses are made and their predictions are tested by experiments. But even when the predictions are successful, we can’t be sure that some other hypothesis might not have produced the same prediction. In the second case, as in a detective story, there are already enough facts, but several theories have failed to explain them. When a new hypothesis plausibly explains all of the facts, it may be quickly accepted before any further experiments are done. In the quantum-relativity revolution there are examples of both situations. Because of the two-stage development of both relativity (“special,” then “general”) and quantum theory (“old,” then “quantum mechanics”) in the period 1905-1930, we can make a double comparison of acceptance by prediction and by explanation. A curious anti- symmetry is revealed and discussed. _____________ *Distinguished University Professor (Emeritus) of the History of Science, University of Maryland. Home address: 108 Meadowlark Terrace, Glen Mills, PA 19342. Comments welcome. 1 “Science walks forward on two feet, namely theory and experiment. ... Sometimes it is only one foot which is put forward first, sometimes the other, but continuous progress is only made by the use of both – by theorizing and then testing, or by finding new relations in the process of experimenting and then bringing the theoretical foot up and pushing it on beyond, and so on in unending alterations.” Robert A.
    [Show full text]
  • Symbols 1-Form, 10 4-Acceleration, 184 4-Force, 115 4-Momentum, 116
    Index Symbols B 1-form, 10 Betti number, 589 4-acceleration, 184 Bianchi type-I models, 448 4-force, 115 Bianchi’s differential identities, 60 4-momentum, 116 complex valued, 532–533 total, 122 consequences of in Newman-Penrose 4-velocity, 114 formalism, 549–551 first contracted, 63 second contracted, 63 A bicharacteristic curves, 620 acceleration big crunch, 441 4-acceleration, 184 big-bang cosmological model, 438, 449 Newtonian, 74 Birkhoff’s theorem, 271 action function or functional bivector space, 486 (see also Lagrangian), 594, 598 black hole, 364–433 ADM action, 606 Bondi-Metzner-Sachs group, 240 affine parameter, 77, 79 boost, 110 alternating operation, antisymmetriza- Born-Infeld (or tachyonic) scalar field, tion, 27 467–471 angle field, 44 Boyer-Lindquist coordinate chart, 334, anisotropic fluid, 218–220, 276 399 collapse, 424–431 Brinkman-Robinson-Trautman met- ric, 514 anti-de Sitter space-time, 195, 644, Buchdahl inequality, 262 663–664 bugle, 69 anti-self-dual, 671 antisymmetric oriented tensor, 49 C antisymmetric tensor, 28 canonical energy-momentum-stress ten- antisymmetrization, 27 sor, 119 arc length parameter, 81 canonical or normal forms, 510 arc separation function, 85 Cartesian chart, 44, 68 arc separation parameter, 77 Casimir effect, 638 Arnowitt-Deser-Misner action integral, Cauchy horizon, 403, 416 606 Cauchy problem, 207 atlas, 3 Cauchy-Kowalewski theorem, 207 complete, 3 causal cone, 108 maximal, 3 causal space-time, 663 698 Index 699 causality violation, 663 contravariant index, 51 characteristic hypersurface, 623 contravariant
    [Show full text]
  • String Theory, Einstein, and the Identity of Physics: Theory Assessment in Absence of the Empirical
    String theory, Einstein, and the identity of physics: Theory assessment in absence of the empirical Jeroen van Dongen Institute for Theoretical Physics Vossius Center for History of the Humanities and Sciences University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Abstract String theorists are certain that they are practicing physicists. Yet, some of their recent critics deny this. This paper argues that this conflict is really about who holds authority in making rational judgment in theoretical physics. At bottom, the conflict centers on the question: who is a proper physicist? To illustrate and understand the differing opinions about proper practice and identity, we discuss different appreciations of epistemic virtues and explanation among string theorists and their critics, and how these have been sourced in accounts of Einstein’s biography. Just as Einstein is claimed by both sides, historiography offers examples of both successful and unsuccessful non-empirical science. History of science also teaches that times of conflict are often times of innovation, in which novel scholarly identities may come into being. At the same time, since the contributions of Thomas Kuhn historians have developed a critical attitude towards formal attempts and methodological recipes for epistemic demarcation and justification of scientific practice. These are now, however, being considered in the debate on non-empirical physics. Introduction Theoretical high energy physics is in crisis. Many physicists may wish to deny this, but it is richly illustrated by the heated exchanges, charged manifestos and exclamations of despair in highly visible publications. For example, three prominent cosmologists, Anna Ijjas, Paul Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb, argued in the February 2017 issue of Scientific American that the long favoured model for the early universe, inflationary cosmology, has no data to support it and has gone through so many patch-ups that it is now beyond testability.
    [Show full text]
  • How Einstein Did Not Discover
    Phys. Perspect. 18 (2016) 249–282 Ó 2016 Springer International Publishing 1422-6944/16/030249-34 DOI 10.1007/s00016-016-0186-z Physics in Perspective How Einstein Did Not Discover John D. Norton* What powered Einstein’s discoveries? Was it asking naı¨ve questions, stubbornly? Was it a mischievous urge to break rules? Was it the destructive power of operational thinking? It was none of these. Rather, Einstein made his discoveries through lengthy, mundane investigations, pursued with tenacity and discipline. We have been led to think otherwise in part through Einstein’s brilliance at recounting in beguilingly simple terms a few brief moments of transcendent insight, and in part through our need to find a simple trick underlying his achievements. These ideas are illustrated with the examples of Einstein’s 1905 discoveries of special relativity and the light quantum. Key words: discovery; Albert Einstein; light quantum; relativity. Introduction How did Einstein make his discoveries? That question has occupied several gen- erations of historians of science. Their efforts have been decisively advanced by Princeton University Press’s authoritative, multivolume Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. In collating, annotating, and presenting Einstein’s published and unpublished writings in a growing series of volumes, the editors of the project have contributed considerably to primary Einstein scholarship. At the same time, this wealth of material has made it possible for scholars elsewhere to base their work securely in documentary evidence. A recent introductory distillation of some of this work can be found in the Cambridge Companion to Einstein.1 We have learned that the work that led up to Einstein’s great discoveries was long and complicated, typically spanning years.
    [Show full text]
  • Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Page 1 of 27
    Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 27 Albert Einstein From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Albert Einstein ( /ælbərt a nsta n/; Albert Einstein German: [albt a nʃta n] ( listen); 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the theory of general relativity, effecting a revolution in physics. For this achievement, Einstein is often regarded as the father of modern physics.[2] He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". [3] The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theory within physics. Near the beginning of his career, Einstein thought that Newtonian mechanics was no longer enough to reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field. This led to the development of his special theory of relativity. He Albert Einstein in 1921 realized, however, that the principle of relativity could also be extended to gravitational fields, and with his Born 14 March 1879 subsequent theory of gravitation in 1916, he published Ulm, Kingdom of Württemberg, a paper on the general theory of relativity. He German Empire continued to deal with problems of statistical Died mechanics and quantum theory, which led to his 18 April 1955 (aged 76) explanations of particle theory and the motion of Princeton, New Jersey, United States molecules. He also investigated the thermal properties Residence Germany, Italy, Switzerland, United of light which laid the foundation of the photon theory States of light. In 1917, Einstein applied the general theory of relativity to model the structure of the universe as a Ethnicity Jewish [4] whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Spirituality and Science
    195 SPIRITUALITY AND SCIENCE By JOHN HONNER ENIZENS OF THE modern world, learning Newton's D laws of motion at their father's knee, find only colloquial usefulness in the terms 'matter' and 'spirit'. These concepts belong to primitive religions and ancient phil- osophies and their presence in our discourse today is vestigial: matter is that which we chew upon; and spirit brings football teams to victory. 'Matter', the more concrete concept, is a more acceptable t~rm to today's hard-nosed realists. Few of us will deny the reality of matter when we run the risk of having our noses rubbed in concrete, or vice versa. 'Spirit', on the other hand, we can take or leave. Who knows, at any rate, what we take and what we leave? These attitudes towards matter and spirit are repeated in popular conceptions of science and religion. Science is assumed to be concerned with absolutely objective knowledge obtained by a pro- cess of detached experimentation in the concrete physical world. Religion, by way of contrast, is thought to be more subjective, more personal, and chiefly concerned with something supernatural and other-worldly. The role of terms like 'matter' and 'spirit' in christian conver- sations, therefore, needs urgent clarification. Until this is achieved, meanwhile, our speech about creation and incarnation, sacrament • and spirituality, will be severely impeded. Further, I am optimistic that contemporary theoretical physics provides new perspectives on the nature of so-called 'material' reality.We find that supposedly sharp distinctions between concrete matter and elusive spirit no longer cut so deep.
    [Show full text]