How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity (quantamagazine.org) 119
Kevin Hartnett, writing for Quanta magazine: Albert Einstein released his general theory of relativity at the end of 1915. He should have finished it two years earlier. When scholars look at his notebooks from the period, they see the completed equations, minus just a detail or two. "That really should have been the final theory," said John Norton, an Einstein expert and a historian of science at the University of Pittsburgh. But Einstein made a critical last-second error that set him on an odyssey of doubt and discovery -- one that nearly cost him his greatest scientific achievement. The consequences of his decision continue to reverberate in math and physics today.
Here's the error. General relativity was meant to supplant Newtonian gravity. This meant it had to explain all the same physical phenomena Newton's equations could, plus other phenomena that Newton's equations couldn't. Yet in mid-1913, Einstein convinced himself, incorrectly, that his new theory couldn't account for scenarios where the force of gravity was weak -- scenarios that Newtonian gravity handled well. "In retrospect, this is just a bizarre mistake," said Norton. To correct this perceived flaw, Einstein thought he had to abandon what had been one of the central features of his emerging theory. Einstein's field equations -- the equations of general relativity -- describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system -- like lines of latitude and longitude -- that tells you which points are where. Another interesting read on Quanta: Why Stephen Hawking's Black Hole Puzzle Keeps Puzzling.
Here's the error. General relativity was meant to supplant Newtonian gravity. This meant it had to explain all the same physical phenomena Newton's equations could, plus other phenomena that Newton's equations couldn't. Yet in mid-1913, Einstein convinced himself, incorrectly, that his new theory couldn't account for scenarios where the force of gravity was weak -- scenarios that Newtonian gravity handled well. "In retrospect, this is just a bizarre mistake," said Norton. To correct this perceived flaw, Einstein thought he had to abandon what had been one of the central features of his emerging theory. Einstein's field equations -- the equations of general relativity -- describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system -- like lines of latitude and longitude -- that tells you which points are where. Another interesting read on Quanta: Why Stephen Hawking's Black Hole Puzzle Keeps Puzzling.
Einstein wouldn't happen today (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Einstein wouldn't happen today (Score:1)
Abstract thinking does still occur, just that modern computing smacks em down real quick as being invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good point of discussion. Things aren't as black and white as you imply, of course, but distractions are way up these days.
I came up with my theory [just-think-it.com] because of an unusual job situation -- caring for first one and later a second Alzheimer's person, on very long shifts, the second one at night -- one in the country, the second where I wasn't able to have the lights on.
I listened to a physics series on audio player almost every waking minute for a year and a half.
So it can be done, but circumstances
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I looked at some of the pages on your site trying to find an example of an actual prediction of spring-and-loop theory, not just a bunch of hand waving. For a theory that you claim solves so very many problems while the existing theories are trash, it shouldn't be so hard to come up with one explanation.
So please, point me to an example of how to use SAL to make a numerical prediction. Since you claim to have a better replace for pretty much all of the existing mainstream physics theories there shou
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the first step of a theory but a last step to provide specific numerical results. What has been accomplished so far is not too shabby, considering it has been done with zero budget. Please compare $0.00 with the $5,000,000,000/year waste that is the LHC.
Also note that many of the predictions made by Spring-And-Loop Theory do not need to be numeric to be significant. That is the whole point of a new model. You are like a buggy whip maker demanding I show you a new and improved buggy whip.
For ex
Re: (Score:2)
Views like yours are the real problem -- bought and paid for "scientists" with zero incentive to support anything that actually works.
Bullshit. I am not bought and paid for. I never was. All you seem to do is insult those around you without providing any evidence at all that your theory has any value.
My view is I want to support you but you need to provide me with some evidence that your theory has value. If you want to replace the standard model and general relativity and so much more, that's fine but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I'm not asking for extraordinary evidence, I'm asking for a shred of evid
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
What the hell are you talking abou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The evidence suggests not (Score:5, Insightful)
In this era of computers and CPU's and constant distraction, he wouldn't have managed to get to even first realization.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Einstein didn't come up with it, someone else would have in the next 5 years. He wasn't working in a vacuum. The idea that matter and energy are interchangeable some way was already well on it's way by Poincaré and others before Einstein. Lorentz already described time dilation and the Lorentz transformations is pretty much the basis of special relativity.
Look at Hawking and the state of the art now in theoretical physics. You have many people that are/were probably on the same level as Einstein was
Re: (Score:3)
If Einstein didn't come up with it, someone else would have in the next 5 years. He wasn't working in a vacuum.
Actually there is considerable evidence that Hilbert was basically working on general relativity at the same time as Einstein and submitted an article for publication 5 *days* before Einstein's publication (although Hilbert needed to work out a few changes with the publisher in his result and his formulation wasn't published until 3 months later). There is an on-going dispute on who actually got the math right first for the correct field equations, although most agree that the foundational ideas/inspiratio
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is considerable evidence that Hilbert was basically working on general relativity at the same time as Einstein and submitted an article for publication 5 *days* before Einstein's publication (although Hilbert needed to work out a few changes with the publisher in his result and his formulation wasn't published until 3 months later). There is an on-going dispute on who actually got the math right first for the correct field equations, although most agree that the foundational ideas/inspiration about Relativity were from Einstein...
That dispute was not started by Hilbert. Despite his concurrent work, Hilbert credited Einstein with the discovery of General Relativity. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
In fact I believe that what drive theoretical physics is not the genius of a few scientists but precision and observation.
A few centuries ago, there is no way we could have observed the effects of relativity, measurements weren't precise enough, and we had too many unknowns. If Newtonian physics give the right answer within the margins of error of the time, then there is no reason for another, more complex theory to exist.
In order for science to advance, we first need data to disprove the theory of the time
Re: (Score:2)
Questions (Score:1)
What actually happens when matter turns to energy and back?
What's the difference between energy that is electromagnetic and energy that is motion?
Why the difference?
Can you turn motion energy into photon energy?
Why not?
Where does the value of C come from?
Why is there a limit at all?
Why is that limit exceeded by observation?
How come there are so many forces?
Why is gravity only an attraction force and others not?
What is time?
Why does inertia and momentum require time?
Why don't things happen instantaneuosly?
Wh
Re: Questions (Score:2, Informative)
Read Einstein's books, they aren't copyrighted anymore and have all those answers.
Re: (Score:2)
We know the answer to all those questions. You do too.
Re: Questions (Score:4, Funny)
Its hard to explain after Harrods was destroyed by the Vogons.
Re: Questions (Score:1)
The words are a distraction. Just stare at the equations.
Re: (Score:2)
i.e. its just a fixup of neutonian equations to correct for mass
I thought that the Neutonians are a hostile species from the Vorxon VII star system, who are not known for their math skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Simplify the TL;DR.
Re: Questions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, is this the Electric Universe guy? Is he trying to use the Socratic method or something to help us realize that Relativity Is Wrong?
Well, sure it is. Newton is wrong too. There is no gravity. The universe sucks. Electrically. Just got to plug it in somewhere.
Re:Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
What actually happens when matter turns to energy and back?
It has never been observed to completion, only buildup of mass on high-speed particles and significant energy release on disassembly of atoms.
What's the difference between energy that is electromagnetic and energy that is motion?
How it interacts with other energies.
Why the difference?
They are essentially different, but also somewhat similar. That's why you are having trouble disconnecting the similarity in names from the difference in meaning.
Can you turn motion energy into photon energy?
There are many means of conversion.
Why not?
False.
Where does the value of C come from?
Observation and calculation.
Why is there a limit at all?
We suspect there is a limit because Maxwell's Equations have an asymptote at that value. We accept that there is a limit because high energy testing shows the predicted behavior.
Why is that limit exceeded by observation?
It hasn't been.
How come there are so many forces?
There are 4.
Why is gravity only an attraction force and others not?
Gravity and the strong nuclear force are attraction, the weak nuclear force is repulsion. Magnetism is directionally attraction.
What is time?
A direction.
Why does inertia and momentum require time?
By definition.
Why don't things happen instantaneuosly?
Things do, and trends don't.
What if they do? How would we perceive that?
You wouldn't. At best, your perception is functional on the order of 10^42 hypothetical distinct moments per AC observation.
What would motion look like in a world where everything happens instantaneously?
Have you been to a rave with a strobe light? Start from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Bravo! And from an AC, no less.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. And the fun bit at the end when the AC got a little snarky...
"
Why don't things happen instantaneuosly? [sic]
Things do, and trends don't.
What if they do? How would we perceive that?
You wouldn't. At best, your perception is functional on the order of 10^42 hypothetical distinct moments per AC observation.
"
Re: (Score:2)
Mass and energy are basically the same thing when it comes to inertia/acceleration/gravity. You measure "mass-energy" and the quantity is conserved (mass doesn't disappear, it converts to energy, and vice-versa). What most folks think of as "build-up" of mass at high velocity is really just a build up in momentum/energy (mass and energy are the same and you can store energy in momentum, what people think of as E=mc^2 is more properly E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 + other energy terms, where p=momentum) and it
Re: (Score:2)
Well done, thanks.
Re: Questions (Score:2)
Can you turn motion energy into photon energy?
Can you plug a fucking lightbulb into a generator? No; can you?? Apparently, that's up for debate...
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that limit exceeded by observation?
What?
Why is gravity only an attraction force and others not?
Because it's not a force.
Re:Questions Coupl'a youtube videos might help (Score:1)
There's a whole slew of videos explaining this stuff on youtube now, like these two (also look at Don Kennedy and Nick Lucid). I particularly like the photon box as an explanation of inertial mass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKzgpt4HBU [youtube.com]
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRqibyNMpw [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Eww - videos. How about explaining it in writing?
With a car analogy.
He's not wrong. (Score:3)
Gravity exists in the real word, independent of any coordinate system and it behaves consistently. There's no reason why it shouldn't be able to be described as such; we just don't know what that description is.
Saying that "oh noez Einstein ur on a wild goose chase!" is pretty darn silly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity tends to create it's own reference frame which can then be used to construct a coordinate system that can then be used to model the data analytically. All natural phenomena is independent of human constructed coordinate systems. It is true that classical physics is dependent on the reference frame, at least to some extent, but that is one of the many assumptions made.
Newtonian physics is also relative, how much changes between different frames of reference is just a lot less than in general reletivity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lorentz only considered inertial frames.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He's not wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Classical physics does not depend on a reference frame as long as the limitspeed is infinite and until 1880 or so that was the assumption. I mean it was known that the lightspeed was finite but there was no reason to believe it was the limitspeed. You can turn newtonian mechanics into a covariant system for general coordinate systems but why would you do that? If you want to describe a merry go round , don't get all that overhead and use a shortcut.
Then with special relativity you could again decide to do the same: support general coordinate systems, make it work for accelerated observers. You could still classify it as special relativity.
It was Einstein who decided we couldn't avoid to formulate things in a covariant manner, and the example was that inside an elevator it was strictly impossible to distinguish between floating in space or plummetting towards the earth in free fall and and likewise there was no distinction between standing on the surface of the earth and being pulled in space.
Therefore the math had to be the same too.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded up? It's half gibberish.
And half is not gibberish? How can you tell?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded up? It's half gibberish.
And half is not gibberish? How can you tell?
Use electricity, natch.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice try Ken, nobody wants to watch your dumb video.
Re: (Score:2)
If this Wheeler guy has figured out magnetism and gravity then where's his anti-gravity tech? Or any other single invention that would conflict with Einstein/general relativity? A SINGLE example would put this to rest. Put up or shut up. Post links to patents not youtube videos if you want people to believe you.
Hear hear! I want my flying car, dammit!
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine Einstein attempting to get physicists the world over to accept his theory using this guys methods?
Was it a mistake? (Score:5, Insightful)
the monumental effort to reconcile general relativity with quantum theory flounders in part because of the difficulty of developing a theory of quantum gravity that has the same general covariance Einstein achieved with his field equations. “In some sense you could argue the reason we don’t have an adequate quantum theory of gravity is we don’t know how to express the solutions to Einstein’s equations in a way that completely removes any kind of coordinate dependence,” said Weatherall.
It sounds like he recognized that there was something he couldn't explain, so he backed off a bit and looked for the explanation rather than charge forward and risk looking foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Einstein apparently consulted some 'pure' mathematicians for help with some of this. From the wikipedia article on David Hilbert:
Re: (Score:1)
AC - are you kidding? There is plenty to show that Mr. Eistein was human. Study the man, you'll see he had trouble with very simple stuff and was ridiculed as a boy. Thank God he was, it is probably what made him the man he became.
"lost his bearings" and "greatest physicist" (Score:2)
"lost his bearings" and "greatest physicist of all time"
Don't do either of these, whoever writes about it.
Re: (Score:2)
"lost his bearings" and "greatest physicist of all time"
Don't do either of these, whoever writes about it.
Why not? Maxwell arguably was one of the "greatests physicist of all time" and was quite lost and off the rails when he argued that it would be impossible for heavier than air objects like humans to ever fly.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know Maxwell ever said that but I know he was pretty damn smart and he knew about the montgolfiere, about catapults and about primitive rockets, so I'm thinking his quotes about flying will have been a bit more subtle than 'it's impossible for heavy things to fly'. There were no lightweight engines at the time that's for sure so technically it was not yet possible.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't Kelvin's smartest moment. In general though with such quote there is too much eagerness to show them up as outright silly. Too much eagerness to fit a stereotype.
Take Thomson, his quote is as follows:
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is disrespectful.
So what you're saying is. (Score:2)
That even on their best day bright, intelligent people can have a bad day? Maybe he didn't get laid or maybe he did and thought of a different angle. You'll never know the exact answer unless you were there so stop speculating.
clickbait title (Score:1)
Einstein did not "lose" general relativity, he just delayed publishing because he had doubts and was investigating them. The summary even says so on first paragraph.
But got his bearings ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... back.
WTF is this?
Hawking passes and we get Slashdot Esquire magazine?
Re: (Score:1)
He didn't "pass", he died.
And saying he passed is another way to say that, Dumbass.
Re:Risked Missing Out On Fame (Score:4, Insightful)
Such a bad example. Darwin delayed much longer than Einstein and it's doubtful whether anyone forced his hand at all.
He was a brilliant thinker who deserves full credit. Wallace didn't come close in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
I know the story of Wallace and Darwin and I'm no expert but I simply think it's wrong and I can at least point out an alternative version of history, see here https://www.theguardian.com/sc... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"he problem is you don't realize it until you can accurately calculate about 15 decimal places"
Huh? You can calculate to any number of decimal places by hand. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only is Ken Wheeler testably false, but the falsify-ability of the electric/magnetic universe theories created the need for relativity.
If you think there's some physicist conspiracy to keep Einstein in that position, you're stupid wrong. When someone breaks Einstein with a repeatable, testable theory, they will unseat Einstein the same way Einstein unseated Newton.
Re:FRAUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Your pseudoscience cult is just fucking stupid.