DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Papers-Relativity Theory/Download/8389

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Papers-Relativity Theory/Download/8389 WHAT CAUSES THE GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF LIGHT AND THE ANOMALOUS PERIHELION SHIFT OF MERCURY ? by Mark J. Lofts Abstract E stablished tradition asserts that Einstein’s General Relativity explain s Mercury’s anomalous perihelion shift and the doubled Newtonian d eflection of light by gravity . The se claims are in turn used to justify the theoretical concept of spacetime , a mathematically - based ‘fusion’ of space and time and the key concept underpinni ng General Relativity Theory . However, both of these very real phenomena readily reveal alternative explanations, these either partly unknown or unappreciated before the 1920s. A third observation attributed to General Relativity, the gravitational redshift of light , does not alone provide justification for spacetime. The theoretical predictions of Joachim von Soldner and of Paul Gerber , while significantly incomplete or incorrect, help to reveal the alternative and correct explan ations for the gravitational d eflection of light and the anomalous perihelion shift respectively , without requiring General Relativity and therefore without spacetime - based explanat ions either . The doubled Newtonian d eflection of light is explained by qua ntum theory while the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury is explained primarily by the rotation of the Sun. ------------------- Keywords : Einstein, Gehrcke, Gerber, Goudsmit, Kragh, Lenard, Seeliger, Soldner, Sommerfeld, Uhlenbeck, Mercury, Vulcan, general relativity, fine - structure constant, quantum spin, prograde, spacetime, blueshift, wave - p article dualism, gravitational deflection, perihelion shift, equivalence principle -------- ----------- Contents 1. The Equivalence Principle and the Gravitational Redshift 2. ‘Forbidden’ Reasoning from the Gravitational Redshift 3. Sommerfeld’s Quantum Theory. 4. Quantum Spin and the ‘Factor of 2’ Confusion. 5. The Doubled Deflection of Light by Gravity 6. The Perihelion Shift of Mercury 7. Isaac Newton and the ‘Transmission’ of Gravitational Impulses 8. Professor Einstein and Senile Science 9. The Primary Cau se for Mercury’s Anomalous Perihelion Shift Conclusion For over a century the received dogma has been that Einstein’s General Relativity explains both Mercury’s anomalous perihelion shift and the doubled Newtonian deflection of light by gravity, in turn evoking the central teaching of General Relativity (GR): spacetime ! This in turn invok es the concept of curved space – a manifestation of curved spaceti me – a teaching that necessarily implies that the universe is spatially finite, if not temporally finite too. This is because a curved spacetime (or space) will ultimately curve back upon itself. While more criticism and disbelief has been levelled at GR than at Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR), mere criticism has not led to consistent alternative explanations for the two phenomena supposedly explained by GR. Closer investigation of the steps leading to GR however reveals the inconsistencies and gaps in knowledge which permitted GR to be accepted prematurely as part of a widely held but ideolog icall y - driven agenda, even when these gaps in knowledge were subsequently filled. Although it is easy enough to criticize Einstein’s claims for GR, the problem has been to make the criticism effective so as to show that what it lays claim to actually has very different explanations. We begin from Einstein’s side of the debate to establish GR, passing through quantum theory then onto a detailed description of the tw o contested phenomena, finishing with the explanation for Mercury’s perihelion shift. 1. The Equivalence Principle and the Gravitational Redshift Explained as a ‘generalization’ of Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) to wider natural phenomena, GR began from the analogy between inertial forces and gravitation, comparing the two using the principles of SR, Einstein predicting a phenomenon later proven by experiment. Th is phenomenon, the gravitational redshift , occur s when light is emitt ed from a body at a lower gravitational potential (i.e. in a stronger gravitational field) to a detector in a region of higher gravitational potential ( lower gravitatio nal force ) i.e. the light is projected upward from the gravitating body . Conversely, when light moves downward , i.e. into a region of higher gravitational force , a corresponding blueshift of the light occurs. The phenomenon is essentially a linear one, unrelated to the concept of spacetime – but this is not how Einstein presents the otherwise straightforward issue . His relevant article dates from 1911: “On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagat ion of Light”. In §2 of this text, Einstein imagine d two systems . One, K, is at rest in a homo - genous gravitational field ; the other, L , 1 is instead to be uniformly accelerated. He now consider s two homologous and mutually stationary points in each syste m : the first, S 1 where the attracting body K and/or accelerating observer L is found. The second, S 2 is separated from S 1 by distance H , and comprises the site where light beams are emitted towards both the gravitating body ( at point K a djacent to S 1 in the diag ram below ) and the accelerating body ( at point L , adjacent to S 1 but be neath K in the diagram below ). His diagram has the z - axis vertical, but the issue is treated horizontally below. The point K 0 is at position S 2 where the light is emitted towards K and L; point K 0 (at S 2 ) has a higher gravitational potential than S 1 since the latter is located at K’s gravitational source where instead the gravitational pull is greater. In other words, ‘upwards is to the right’! ))))) K (gravitatio nal attractor) ……… …. <<<<<< S 2 (K 0 ) ------ S 1 -------------------------------------------------------- S 2 --------- z - axis >>> L ( begins accelerating to the right) … <<<<<< S 2 Einstein writes that “we judge the process of the transference of energy by radiation from S 2 to S 1 from a system K 0 which is to be free from acceleration.” This means that S 2 is an inertial system and thus , ideally, is not subject to gravity (as is K) n or to acceleration (as is L). System K is at relative rest to S 2 (K 0 ). Equally importantly, system L too is initially at rest relative to S 2 and begins to move only when the light beam is emitted from S 2 . In this way, the measured change in energy (i.e. wavelength or frequency) of the light received by L is thus only from the effect of the acceleration of L, not from any initial motion of L relative to S 2 . Only in this way , as stipulated by Einstein too , can a separate Doppler Effect due to velocity – in this case a blueshift due to any initial motion of L toward S 2 – be exclud ed . (This is an important but seemingly trivial point, as we need to distinguish between any effects by SR and by GR, something not done by many investigators) . Thus the light received at both L and K will be blueshifted, i.e. there will be an increase in energy observed (and thus a decrease in wavelength), this blueshift being by an equal amount in both cases if the accelerational force at L is e qual to the force of gravity at K. Einstein however prefers the term frequency to that of its reciprocal term: wavelength! Einstein’s insight here is genuine since the blueshifting of light falling in a gravitational field is experimentally attested by e. g. the Mossbauer Effect. Conversely, a light beam escaping a gravitational field will be proportionately redshifted. However, in quantifying the energy changes by using the energy - mass relation (E = mc 2 ) Einstein is also trying to attach the situation to his SR theorizing, since it is wrongly believed that the energy - mass relation is either part of Einstein’s relativity or proves Einstein’s relativity to be correct . Rather, the energy - mass relation had not only been demonstrated already by Friedrich Hasenöhrl 2 a year before Einstein, but is also well - known to be implicit in and deriving from the concept and formula for kinetic energy, as shown even in popular literatu re by Einsteinians such as George Gamow. 3 The important insight of Einstein’s 1911 paper is the demonstration that g ravity and acceleration exert equivalent effects upon light beams traveling linearly away from and towards both gravitating and accelerating bodies. From this derives the Principle of Equivalence i.e. th e otherwise trivial observation that gravitational mass and inertial mass are always equal – Einstein noting correctly in passing that weight cannot be treated in the same way : i.e. gravitational weight is not equivalent to ‘inertial weight , ’ the latter concept hardly developed either by Einstein or anyone else! 4 However, these same insights are combined with tendentious reasoning about the accelerate d L system . Thus the Doppler blueshift c an be interpreted as merely from the mutual velocity of L and S 2 (the SR inference) rather than the acceleration of L from zero velocity, from relative rest (the inference leading to GR). Such a situation could eve n be interpreted to mean that the acceleration and the speed of L may independently contribute to the resultant blueshift. Einstein does not clarify the situation by arguing that further comments on the details are “impossible” and “forbidden”, writing: …we assume that systems K and L are physically exactly equivalent, i.e. if we assume that we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as uniformly accelerated. This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference, just as the usual theory of re lativity forbids us to talk of the absolute velocity of a system. 5 This ambiguity particularly emerges above where the word ‘absolute’ is being used in two entirely different senses – in reference to acceleration and to velocity – serving to obscure and se cure the underlying issues as ‘forbidden’! Nor can s ystems K and L ever be exactly equivalent since gravity and acceleration are not one and the same.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Some Comments on the Tests of General Relativity
    Some Comments on the Tests of General Relativity. M. Anyon and J. Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, England. Email: [email protected] Abstract A brief outline of the history of the discrepancies within Newtonian mechanics at the end of the 19th Century is given. The framework of General Relativity is briefly described and the famous ‘tests’ of General Relativity (GR) are considered and alternative solutions are discussed, with particular attention concentrating on the advance of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. The implications for the claims of relativity are discussed, all with reference to both pre and post 1915 publications. 1 Introduction The aim of this article is to address the notion that the well known classic ‘tests of general relativity’ - The Anomalous Precession of the Perihelion of the Planet Mercury, The Gravitational Red-shift and The Gravitational Deflection of Light-rays - may be explained and derived with no reference to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The intention is to provide evidence that these phenomena can be explained and interpreted without the framework of general relativity, by using both modern sources and publications, as well as work that was published prior to Einstein’s work. By providing evidence that these phenomena could, and were explained, via classical mechanics before 1915, it will be possible to make a case against those that say anyone who questions general relativity is ‘obviously’ mistaken. Theories of the Relativity of Motion. The General Theory of Relativity (GR), proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915, was heralded as one of the most ground-breaking and complicated theories in physics when it was first published, and is still considered one of the greatest physical and mathematical theories of the universe at large today.
    [Show full text]
  • Henry Cavendish and the Effect of Gravity on Propagation of Light
    Eur. Phys. J. H (2021) 46:24 THE EUROPEAN https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/s13129-021-00027-4 PHYSICAL JOURNAL H Regular Article Henry Cavendish and the effect of gravity on propagation of light: a postscript Karl-Heinz Lotze and Silvia Simionatoa Friedrich Schiller Universit¨at Jena, Physikalisch-Astronomische Fakult¨at, Jena, Germany Received 21 April 2021 / Accepted 13 August 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract This paper is devoted to two hitherto unpublished original documents by Henry Cavendish (1731–1810) which provide insight into his calculations of the deflection of light by isolated celestial bodies. Together with a transcription of these documents, we comment on their contents in the present-day language of physics. Moreover, we compare them with a paper by Johann Georg von Soldner (1776–1833) on the same subject. 1 Introduction The history of ideas about the deflection of light by the gravitational attraction of celestial bodies goes back to the times of Isaac Newton (1642–1726). In fact, in his book Opticks [18] he, in 1704, asks the question (3rd Book, Query No. 1): Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its Rays, and is not this action (caeteris paribus) strongest at the least distance? Another of his queries even gives us an idea of how Newton imagined light itself (Query No. 29): Are not the Rays of Light very small Bodies emitted from shining Substances? However, the first published calculation of this kind of light deflection goes back to the German astronomer and geodesist Johann Georg von Soldner (1776–1833) [25].
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein's Gravitational Field
    Einstein’s gravitational field Abstract: There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature the gravitational field in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here that this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with. 1 Author: Peter M. Brown e-mail: [email protected] 2 INTRODUCTION Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (EGR) has been credited as the greatest intellectual achievement of the 20th Century. This accomplishment is reflected in Time Magazine’s December 31, 1999 issue 1, which declares Einstein the Person of the Century. Indeed, Einstein is often taken as the model of genius for his work in relativity. It is widely assumed that, according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, gravitation is a curvature in space-time. There is a well- accepted definition of space-time curvature. As stated by Thorne 2 space-time curvature and tidal gravity are the same thing expressed in different languages, the former in the language of relativity, the later in the language of Newtonian gravity. However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is rather difficult idea to accept.
    [Show full text]
  • Light and Gravitation from Newton to Einstein
    Light and gravitation from Newton to Einstein Jean Eisenstaedt - Observatoire de Paris Abstract: How was treated the propagation of light after Newton, before Einstein? From the second half of the 18th century to the early 19th century, the Newtonian theory of propagation of light, a perfectly consistent applica- tion of the Principia to light was developed by John Michell (1724-1793) and then many philosophers. It was as well a classical relativistic optics of moving bodies. In the context of Newton’s Principia, light corpuscles were treated in the very same way as material particles. Thus they were subject to the Galileo- Newtonian kinematics: light velocity was not a constant. Light corpuscles were also subject to the Newtonian dynamics, in particular to two forces, the long-range gravitational force and the short-range refracting force acting on a glass, a crystal. Snell-Descartes’ sinus law implies that greater is the incident velocity of light, lower is the refraction angle on a prism. Thus the measure of the re- fraction angle is a measure of the incident velocity of light, a "method" due to Michell. In 1786 Robert Blair applied Michell’s method to light kinemat- ics and addresses in a very clear way what we call the Doppler effect. The effects of gravity on light in a Newtonian context are qualitatively simi- lar to those predicted by general relativity much later. In 1784 Michell pre- dicted the slowing-down of light by gravitation, and inferred the existence of dark bodies as Pierre Simon Laplace later called them; they are black holes’s cousins.
    [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]
  • Saint Einstein
    Christopher Jon Bjerknes THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SAINT EINSTEIN Copyright © 2006. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1 EINSTEIN DISCOVERS HIS RACIST CALLING .................. 1.1 Introduction ................................................. 1.2 The Manufacture and Sale of St. Einstein . 1.2.1 Promoting the “Cult” of Einstein . 1.2.2 The “Jewish Press” Sanctifies a Fellow Jew . 1.3 In a Racist Era ............................................... 2 THE DESTRUCTIVE IMPACT OF RACIST JEWISH TRIBALISM ...... 2.1 Introduction ................................................. 2.2 Do Not Blaspheme the “Jewish Saint” . 2.3 Harvard University Asks a Forbidden Question . 2.4 Americans React to the Invasion of Eastern European Jews . 2.4.1 Jewish Disloyalty ........................................ 2.4.2 In Answer to the “Jewish Question” . 3 ROTHSCHILD, REX IVDÆORVM ............................. 3.1 Introduction ................................................. 3.2 Jewish Messianic Supremacism.................................. 3.3 The “Eastern Question” and the World Wars . 3.3.1 Dönmeh Crypto-Jews, The Turkish Empire and Palestine . 3.3.2 The World Wars—A Jewish Antidote to Jewish Assimilation . 3.4 Rothschild Warmongering...................................... 3.4.1 Inter-Jewish Racism ...................................... 3.4.1.1 Rothschild Power and Influence Leads to Unbearable Jewish Arrogance................................................ 3.4.1.2 Jewish Intolerance and Mass Murder of Gentiles . 3.4.2 The Messiah Myth ....................................... 3.5 Jewish Dogmatism and Control of the Press Stifles Debate . 3.5.1 Advertising Einstein in the English Speaking World . 3.5.2 Reaction to the Unprecedented Einstein Promotion . 3.5.3 The Berlin Philharmonic—The Response in Germany . 3.5.4 Jewish Hypocrisy and Double Standards . 3.6 The Messiah Rothschilds’ War on the Gentiles—and the Jews . 4 EINSTEIN THE RACIST COWARD ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • From William Hyde Wollaston to Alexander Von Humboldt
    This article was downloaded by: [Deutsches Museum] On: 15 February 2013, At: 08:42 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Annals of Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasc20 From William Hyde Wollaston to Alexander von Humboldt - Star Spectra and Celestial Landscape Jürgen Teichmann a & Arthur Stinner b a Deutsches Museum and Ludwig-Maximilians-University, München, Germany b University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Version of record first published: 13 Feb 2013. To cite this article: Jürgen Teichmann & Arthur Stinner (2013): From William Hyde Wollaston to Alexander von Humboldt - Star Spectra and Celestial Landscape, Annals of Science, DOI:10.1080/00033790.2012.739709 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2012.739709 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Newtonian Limit of Einsteinian Gravity: from Dynamics of Solar System To
    In: ISBN: Editor: c Science Publishers, Inc. Chapter NEWTONIAN LIMIT OF EINSTEINIAN GRAVITY: FROM DYNAMICS OF SOLAR SYSTEM TO DYNAMICS OF STARS IN SPIRAL GALAXIES Arkady L. Kholodenko∗ 375 H.L.Hunter Laboratories, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0973, USA Abstract Attempts to merge Einsteinian gravity with Newonian run into logical inconsisten- cies coming from the fact that in Newton’s gravity time is absolute and the speed of propagation of gravity is assumed to be infinite. Such an assumption was in a focus of attention of many scientists in 19th century interested in finding out if, indeed, the speed of propagation of gravity is infinite. For this purpose, by analogy with elec- trodynamics, some retarded potentials replacing Newtonian were suggested. Using one of such potentials Gerber correctly calculated the perihelion shift for Mercury in 1902. However, subsequent attempts at calculation of bending of light using Gerber- style calculations were not successful. Recently Gin´e(Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 42, 1893 (2009)) was able to reobtain both the perihelion shift and the bending of light using retarded potential. His equations however are not those obtained by Einstein and his results coincide with those by Einstein only at the level of leading order terms of infinite series expansions. The obtained differential equations of motion are of delay- type. When applied to two-body dynamics such equations lead to orbital quantization. In this work, Einsteinian approach is being used to reproduce this quantization. Nu- arXiv:1006.4650v3 [physics.gen-ph] 18 Aug 2015 merous arguments justifying the superiority of Einsteinian approach, including uses of the Bertrand spacetimes for description of motion of stars around the galaxy center are provided.
    [Show full text]
  • "Gravitational" Lens Experiment
    Didaktik der Physik Frühjahrstagung – Bonn 2020 The Glass "Gravitational" Lens Experiment Silvia Simionato Teaching Methodology in Physics and Astronomy RG, Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena (Germany) [email protected] Abstract Light deflection, in particular the gravitational-lens effect in its strong form, is an interesting and fascinating subject of modern physics and cosmology. Although it is conceptually articulated and complex, it is fortunately possible to approach this topic through a simplified method and analysis, involving different concepts of physics and mathematics typical of the last years of secondary school and first years of the undergraduate studies. The basic idea is the visualisation of light on curved paths under the influence of gravity. In fact, by combining optics and general relativity, it is possible to design plexiglass lenses specifically formulated to reproduce the images of any source, whose light is deflected by different types of celestial objects. The work with these lenses is moreover supported by simulations performed with the software Geogebra and the help of astonishing images from the best telescopes. All this makes gravitational lensing an excellent educational tool for teaching physics and mathematics using examples from astronomy and cosmology. 1. Introduction Einstein was also the first to consider the fact that When light coming from one or more distant sources other stars besides the Sun could act as gravitational passes by a mass distribution positioned between the lenses and deflect light of distant sources from its source and the observer, the light path is bent by the original path. But he gave no hope to such observa- gravitational potential of the mass distribution, from tions for basically two reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Precise Analytic Treatment of Kerr and Kerr-(Anti) De Sitter Black Holes As Gravitational Lenses
    Precise analytic treatment of Kerr and Kerr-(anti) de Sitter black holes as gravitational lenses. G. V. Kraniotis∗ The University of Ioannina, Department of Physics, Section of Theoretical Physics, GR-451 10 Ioannina, Greece. May 29, 2018 Abstract The null geodesic equations that describe motion of photons in Kerr spacetime are solved exactly in the presence of the cosmological constant Λ. The exact solution for the deflection angle for generic light orbits (i.e. non-polar, non-equatorial) is calculated in terms of the generalized hyper- geometric functions of Appell and Lauricella. We then consider the more involved issue in which the black hole acts as a ‘gravitational lens’. The constructed Kerr black hole gravita- tional lens geometry consists of an observer and a source located far away and placed at arbitrary inclination with respect to black hole’s equatorial plane. The resulting lens equations are solved elegantly in terms of Appell- Lauricella hypergeometric functions and the Weierstraß elliptic function. We then, systematically, apply our closed form solutions for calculating the image and source positions of generic photon orbits that solve the lens equations and reach an observer located at various values of the po- lar angle for various values of the Kerr parameter and the first integrals of motion. In this framework, the magnification factors for generic or- arXiv:1009.5189v1 [gr-qc] 27 Sep 2010 bits are calculated in closed analytic form for the first time. The exercise is repeated with the appropriate modifications for the case of non-zero cosmological constant. 1 Introduction The issue of the bending of light (and the associated phenomenon of gravita- tional lensing) from the gravitational field of a celectial body (planet, star, black hole, galaxy) has been a very active and fruitful area of research for fundamental ∗Email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • General Relativity: Gravitation As Geometry and the Machian Programme
    Physics Before and After Einstein 93 M. Mamone Capria (Ed.) IOS Press, 2005 © 2005 The authors Chapter 5 General Relativity: Gravitation as Geometry and the Machian Programme Marco Mamone Capria To put it in another way, if only a relative meaning can be attached to the concept of velocity, ought we nevertheless to persevere in treating acceleration as an absolute concept? Albert Einstein, 1934 The path that led to the birth of general relativity is one of the most fascinating sequences of events in the whole history of theoretical physics. It was a tortuous path, to be sure, not without a fair amount of wandering and misunderstanding. The outcome was a theory with a curious destiny. On one hand it elicited the admiration of generations of theoretical physicists and provided the ground for several observational programs in astronomy and astrophysics up to the present day. On the other hand, the theory was judged inadequate by its very creator, who worked to the end of his life to devise a radical improvement of it, which eventually he did not achieve to his own satisfaction. The very name of the theory contains a degree of ambiguity: ‘general relativity’ can be read as a shortening of either ‘general theory of relativity – meaning a generalization of the previous theory of relativity – or ‘theory of general relativity – meaning something more specific, i.e. a generalization of the principle of relativity. The latter is what Einstein had in mind. In fact his primary aim was to generalize the principle of relativity which he had introduced in his 1905 theory, the validity of which was restricted to inertial reference frames.
    [Show full text]
  • Anomalies in the History of Relativity
    Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 271–290, 1999 0892-3310/99 ©1999 Society for Scientific Exploration Anomalies in the History of Relativity IAN MCCAUSLAND Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G4 Abstract — In November 1919 it was announced to the world that observa- tions of a solar eclipse that occurred in May 1919 supported Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. That announcement was one of the most influen- tial events of 20th-century science, since Einstein’s instant rise to enormous fame arose directly from it. In spite of the confidence with which the an- nouncement was made, however, it was later realized that the accuracy of the observations was insufficient to constitute a reliable confirmation of the phe- nomenon that was predicted. Furthermore, another of the formulas published in the general theory, for the variation in the perihelion of the planet Mercury, had already been derived by another scientist several years earlier using an- other method. In spite of the fact that the experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has re- mained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought. The resulting deification of Einstein has had some unfortunate effects: critics of his theory are often dismissed as cranks, and the search for better theories has been inhibited. It is suggested that the announcement of the eclipse observations in 1919 was not a triumph of sci- ence as it is often portrayed, but rather an obstacle to objective consideration of alternatives.
    [Show full text]