On the Appeal to a Pre-Established Harmony Between Pure Mathematics and Relativity Physics

Soon after its appearance in 1905, the Einsteinian relativity with its relativistically admissible 3-velocities was recognized by Vladimir Variak in 1908 as the realization in physics of the hyperbolic geometry of Bolyai and Lobachevski. At the same time, however, during the years 1907–1909 Minkowski reformulated the Einsteinian relativity in terms of a space of 4-velocities that now bears his name. As a result, the special theory of relativity that we find in the mainstream literature is not the one originally formulated by Einstein but, rather, the one reformulated by Minkowski. Thus, in particular, one of the most powerful ideas of Einstein in 1905, the Einstein addition of relativistically admissible 3-velocities that need not be parallel, is unheard of in most texts on relativity physics. Following our recently published book, Beyond the Einstein Addition, Law and its Gyroscopic Thomas Precession: The Theory of Gyrogroups and Gyrovector Spaces [1], the aim of this article is to employ the principle of pre-established harmony between mathematics and physics to demonstrate that the original Einsteinian relativity, as opposed to the Minkowskian relativity, is the legitimate formulation of special relativity whose time has returned.     

Interrogating the Legend of Einstein's “Biggest Blunder”

It is well known that, following the emergence of the first evidence for an expanding universe, Albert Einstein banished the cosmological constant term from his cosmology. Indeed, he is reputed to have labelled the term, originally introduced to the field equations of general relativity in 1917 in order to predict a static universe, his “biggest blunder.” However, serious doubts about this reported statement have been raised in recent years. We interrogate the legend of Einstein’s “biggest blunder” statement in the context of our recent studies of Einstein’s cosmology in his later years. We find that the remark is highly compatible with Einstein’s cosmic models of the 1930s, with his later writings on cosmology, and with independent reports by at least three physicists. We conclude that there is little doubt that Einstein came to view the introduction of the cosmological constant term as a serious error and that he very likely labelled the term his “biggest blunder” on at least one occasion. This finding may be of some relevance for those theoreticians today who seek to describe the recently discovered acceleration in cosmic expansion without the use of a cosmological constant term.     

Mistaken Identity and Mirror Images: Albert and Carl Einstein, Leiden and Berlin, Relativity and Revolution

Albert Einstein accepted a ??special?? visiting professorship at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands in February 1920. Although his appointment should have been a mere formality, it took until October of that year before Einstein could occupy his special chair. Why the delay? The explanation involves a case of mistaken identity with Carl Einstein, Dadaist art, and a particular Dutch fear of revolutions. But what revolutions was one afraid of? The story of Einstein??s Leiden chair throws new light on the reception of relativity and its creator in the Netherlands and in Germany.     

How Einstein Did Not Discover

What powered Einstein’s discoveries? Was it asking naïve 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.     

Klein,Einstein, and Five-Dimensional Unification

I examine the changing attitudes of Oskar Klein (1894–1977) and Albert Einstein (1879–1955) toward the notion of extending general relativity by an extra dimension with the aim of encompassing electromagnetism and gravitation in a unified field theory. I show how Klein developed his model of five-dimensional unification with the goal of explaining the discreteness of atomic energy levels, and how Einstein later embraced that goal. By examining the correspondence between Klein and Einstein, some of which was relayed through Paul Ehrenfest (1880–1933), I speculate that Klein’s work helped motivate Einstein to explore deterministic five-dimensional theories as a potential alternative to probabilistic quantum mechanics. Finally, I consider the contributions of Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958) to the subject and elucidate his role in convincing Klein and Einstein that their models were not viable. Paul Halpern is Professor of Physics at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. He currently is a member of the Executive Committee of the Forum on the History of Physics of the American Physical Society.     

Paul Ehrenfest, Niels Bohr, and Albert Einstein: Colleagues and Friends

In May 1918 Paul Ehrenfest received a monograph from Niels Bohr in which Bohr had used Ehrenfest’s adiabatic principle as an essential assumption for understanding atomic structure. Ehrenfest responded by inviting Bohr, whom he had never met, to give a talk at a meeting in Leiden in late April 1919, which Bohr accepted; he lived with Ehrenfest, his mathematician wife Tatyana, and their young family for two weeks. Albert Einstein was unable to attend this meeting, but in October 1919 he visited his old friend Ehrenfest and his family in Leiden, where Ehrenfest told him how much he had enjoyed and profited from Bohr’s visit. Einstein first met Bohr when Bohr gave a lecture in Berlin at the end of April 1920, and the two immediately proclaimed unbounded admiration for each other as physicists and as human beings. Ehrenfest hoped that he and they would meet at the Third Solvay Conference in Brussels in early April 1921, but his hope was unfulfilled. Einstein, the only physicist from Germany who was invited to it in this bitter postwar atmosphere, decided instead to accompany Chaim Weizmann on a trip to the United States to help raise money for the new Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Bohr became so overworked with the planning and construction of his new Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen that he could only draft the first part of his Solvay report and ask Ehrenfest to present it, which Ehrenfest agreed to do following the presentation of his own report. After recovering his strength, Bohr invited Ehrenfest to give a lecture in Copenhagen that fall, and Ehrenfest, battling his deep-seated self-doubts, spent three weeks in Copenhagen in December 1921 accompanied by his daughter Tanya and her future husband, the two Ehrenfests staying with the Bohrs in their apartment in Bohr’s new Institute for Theoretical Physics. Immediately after leaving Copenhagen, Ehrenfest wrote to Einstein, telling him once again that Bohr was a prodigious physicist, and again expressing the hope that he soon would see both of them in Leiden.     

爱因斯坦坚持场纲领的原因

探讨了爱因斯坦坚持场纲领的物理学认识基础和思想发展过程，分析了其坚持场纲领的目的及未获成功的原因。     

Celebrity Physicist: How the Press Sensationalized Einstein’s Search for a Unified Field Theory

In Einstein’s later years, from the late 1920s onward, his reputation in the physics community as an innovator had faded as he pursued increasingly unrealistic unified field theories. Yet from the perspective of the press, his image and ideas were still marketable. We will see how his various attempts to craft a unified field theory generated numerous headlines, despite their lack of experimental evidence or even realistic solutions. We will examine how Einstein’s “latest theory,” became a much sought-after commodity used to generate interest in books, magazines, and newspapers.     

Einstein,Incompleteness, and the Epistemic View of Quantum States

Does the quantum state represent reality or our knowledge of reality? In making this distinction precise, we are led to a novel classification of hidden variable models of quantum theory. We show that representatives of each class can be found among existing constructions for two-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Our approach also provides a fruitful new perspective on arguments for the nonlocality and incompleteness of quantum theory. Specifically, we show that for models wherein the quantum state has the status of something real, the failure of locality can be established through an argument considerably more straightforward than Bell’s theorem. The historical significance of this result becomes evident when one recognizes that the same reasoning is present in Einstein’s preferred argument for incompleteness, which dates back to 1935. This fact suggests that Einstein was seeking not just any completion of quantum theory, but one wherein quantum states are solely representative of our knowledge. Our hypothesis is supported by an analysis of Einstein’s attempts to clarify his views on quantum theory and the circumstance of his otherwise puzzling abandonment of an even simpler argument for incompleteness from 1927.     

Generally Covariant Dirac Hamiltonian

The generally covariant Dirac equation reduces to a mathematically simple form with a clear physical meaning that is best demonstrated by the Hamiltonian formalism. The resulting Hamiltonian is compared to the corresponding classical Hamiltonian, and assumes a particularly simple form for the Robertson-Walker metric of the Standard Cosmological Model when that metric is expressed in a coordinate system referred to as Einstein coordinates because it is based on a coordinate constraint recommended by Einstein in his original paper on general relativity. A kinematic definition of distance, based on the form of the classical Hamiltonian, is used in discussing the physical meaning of the results.     

Interference and interaction in Schrödinger's wave mechanics

Reminiscing on the fact that E. Schrödinger was rooted in the same physical tradition as M. Planck and A. Einstein, some aspects of his attitude to quantum mechanics are discussed. In particular, it is demonstrated that the quantum-mechanical paradoxes assumed by Einstein and Schrödinger should not exist, but that otherwise the epistemological problem of physical reality raised in this context by Einstein and Schrödinger is fundamental for our understanding of quantum theory. The nonexistence of such paradoxes just shows that quantum-mechanical effects are due to interference and not to interaction. This line of argument leads consequently to quantum field theories with second quantization, and accordingly quantum theory based both on Planck's constant h and on Democritus's atomism.     

Transnational Quantum: Quantum Physics in India through the Lens of Satyendranath Bose

This paper traces the social and cultural dimensions of quantum physics in colonial India where Satyendranath Bose worked. By focusing on Bose’s approach towards the quantum and his collaboration with Albert Einstein, I argue that his physics displayed both the localities of doing science in early twentieth century India as well as a cosmopolitan dimension. He transformed the fundamental new concept of the light quantum developed by Einstein in 1905 within the social and political context of colonial India. This cross-pollination of the local with the global is termed here as the locally rooted cosmopolitan nature of Bose’s science. The production of new knowledge through quantum statistics by Bose show the co-constructed nature of physics and the transnational nature of the quantum.     

Einstein's First Steps Toward General Relativity: Gedanken Experiments and Axiomatics

Jahrbuch paper is an extraordinary document because it contains his first steps toward generalizing the 1905 relativity theory to include gravitation. Ignoring the apparent experimental disconfirmation of the 1905 relativity theory and his unsuccessful attempts to generalize the mass-energy equivalence, Einstein boldly raises the mass-energy equivalence to an axiom, invokes equality between gravitational and inertial masses, and then postulates the equivalence between a uniform gravitational field and an oppositely directed constant acceleration, the equivalence principle. How did this come about? What is at issue is scientific creativity. This necessitates broadening historical analysis to include aspects of cognitive science such as the role of visual imagery in Einstein's thinking, and the relation between conscious and unconscious modes of thought in problem solving. This method reveals the catalysts that sparked a Gedanken experiment that occurred to Einstein while working on the Jahrbuch paper. A mental model is presented to further explore Einstein's profound scientific discovery.     

On Einstein's later view of the twin paradox

It is shown that Einstein abandoned his earlier view that there are material consequences, such as asymmetric aging, implied by the space-time transformations of transformations of relativity theory.     

Simulation model for anomalous precession of the perihelion of mercury's orbit

The ‘anomalous perihelion precession’ of Mercury, announced by Le Verrier in 1859, was a highly controversial topic for more than half a century and invoked many alternative theories until 1916, when Einstein presented his theory of general relativity as an alternative theory of gravitation and showed perihelion precession to be one of its potential manifestations. As perihelion precession was a directly derived result of the full General Theory and not just the Equivalence Principle, Einstein viewed it as the most critical test of his theory. This paper presents the computed value of the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit using a new relativistic simulation model that employs a simple transformation factor for mass and time, proposed in an earlier paper. This computed value compares well with the prediction of general relativity and is, also, in complete agreement with the observed value within its range of uncertainty. No general relativistic equations have been used for computing the results presented in this paper.     

关于爱因斯坦的若干资料

列出了有关爱因斯坦生平的一些有趣问题,包括他的学习、科学研究,以及他对教育的批评等.     

Luis Santaló and classical field theory

Considered one of the founding fathers of integral geometry, Luis Santaló has contributed to various areas of mathematics. His work has applications in number theory, in the theory of differential equations, in stochastic geometry, in functional analysis, and also in theoretical physics. Between the 1950’s and the 1970’s, he wrote a series of papers on general relativity and on the attempts at generalizing Einstein’s theory to formulate a unified field theory. His main contribution in this subject was to provide a classification theorem for the plethora of tensors that were populating Einstein’s generalized theory. This paper revisits his work on theoretical physics.

     

Relativity and indeterminism

It is well known that Albert Einstein adhered to a deterministic world view throughout his career. Nevertheless, his developments of the special and general theories of relativity prove to be incompatible with that world view. Two different forms of determinism—classical Laplacian determinism and the determinism of isolated systems—are considered. Through careful considerations of what concretely is involved in predicting future states of the entire universe, or of isolated systems, it is shown that the demands of the theories of relativity make these deterministic positions untenable.     

让世界跳跃的人--马克思*普朗克

回顾了普朗克在物理学上的贡献和对爱因斯坦的帮助，挖掘了他的物理思想，得到对他公正的认识．