Did Einstein believe in Gravitational waves?

In summary, Galina Weinstein states that based on a first order approximation, gravitational waves should not exist due to the Newtonian form of the equations of motion taking place. However, after making a transformation into a cylindrical model, Einstein concluded that gravitational waves do in fact exist.
  • #1
poom
8
0
In 1916 Einstein has published the first paper of gravitational wave bu linearize approximation but It contain an error of his calculation then In 1918 he published a new paper of gravitational wave that has a correction of the his last error and conclude that there are the Gravitational wave .He didn't do anything much about gravitational wave but Around 1936, Einstein wrote to his close friend Max Born telling him that, together with Nathan Rosen, he had arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves did not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. He finally had found a mistake in his 1936 paper with Rosen and believed that gravitational waves do exist. However, in 1938, Einstein again obtained the result that there could be no gravitational waves!
I don't understand his last work in year 1938 that he conclude that it didn't has the gravitational wave in nature or not?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1602/1602.04674.pdf
http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/DE/GNT/events/pdf/steinicke05.pdf
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Perhaps this is the misleading statement:
In this approximation, if we consider very low accelerations then the exact equations of motion indeed take the Newtonian form and we obtain a material particle that cannot radiate. In this state of affairs, we have revived the good old assumption that there could be no gravitational waves
From how I read it, this applies only to low acceleration conditions.
 
  • #3
.Scott said:
From how I read it, this applies only to low acceleration conditions.
I was thinking the same thing, but re-read the first sentence of that paragraph: "Einstein with his assistants, Infeld and Hoffmann, calculated the first two stages of this approximation and found that in the first stage the equations of motion take the Newtonian form"
 
  • #4
jerromyjon said:
I was thinking the same thing, but re-read the first sentence of that paragraph: "Einstein with his assistants, Infeld and Hoffmann, calculated the first two stages of this approximation and found that in the first stage the equations of motion take the Newtonian form"
So a first order approximation yields a Newtonian result with no gravity wave. I would presume that this is in contrast to the second order approximation.
 
  • #5
This is the paper in 1938. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1968714?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 
  • #6
This seems more like a history question than a science question.
 
  • #7
Dale said:
This seems more like a history question than a science question.
It seem like history question but I want to know the 1938 idea of einstein gravitational wave.I don't understand it's meaning so I need someone to explain me what einstein real meaning
 
  • #8
poom said:
I need someone to explain me what einstein real meaning
As I understand it Einstein finally concluded that gravitational waves are certainly radiated from large masses with a quadrupole moment. (sometimes referred to as a "dumbbell" configuration) It took a transformation into a cylindrical model to convince him of their existence, and tie up the problem of coordinate singularities.
 
  • Like
Likes Hornbein
  • #9
poom said:
It seem like history question but I want to know the 1938 idea of einstein gravitational wave
OK, since this is history and not science I have moved it to the general discussion forum.
 
  • #10
.Scott said:
So a first order approximation yields a Newtonian result with no gravity wave. I would presume that this is in contrast to the second order approximation.
Why did it contrast with rhe second order approximation can you explain more for me.
 
  • #11
jerromyjon said:
As I understand it Einstein finally concluded that gravitational waves are certainly radiated from large masses with a quadrupole moment. (sometimes referred to as a "dumbbell" configuration) It took a transformation into a cylindrical model to convince him of their existence, and tie up the problem of coordinate singularities.
He try to mean that there are no gravitational wave in weak field but there are gravitattional wave in strong field.Does I understand it right??
 
  • #12
poom said:
Does I understand it right??
Yes that is correct. There has to be large masses far from equilibrium to emit (detectable) waves.
 
  • #13
poom said:
So a first order approximation yields a Newtonian result with no gravity wave. I would presume that this is in contrast to the second order approximation.
Why did it contrast with the second order approximation can you explain more for me.
I just reread the whole article. I think the real problem is the very last statement "In this state of affairs, we have revived the good old assumption that there could be no gravitational waves.".

This is an editorial statement that the author, Galina Weinstein, is making. Galina is not attributing this observation to anyone other than herself (or himself?).

I think the placement of that kind of statement at the end of the article is bad writing style. Apparently Galina could not find a good summary statement - and thought that adding that quip would wrap up the article nicely. If you take that statement out and try to replace it with the intention of avoiding an abrupt end, I think you can see what the problem was.
 
  • #14
.Scott said:
I just reread the whole article. I think the real problem is the very last statement "In this state of affairs, we have revived the good old assumption that there could be no gravitational waves.".

This is an editorial statement that the author, Galina Weinstein, is making. Galina is not attributing this observation to anyone other than herself (or himself?).

I think the placement of that kind of statement at the end of the article is bad writing style. Apparently Galina could not find a good summary statement - and thought that adding that quip would wrap up the article nicely. If you take that statement out and try to replace it with the intention of avoiding an abrupt end, I think you can see what the problem was.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1968714?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. This is einstein article what do you think about it
 
  • #15
poom said:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1968714?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. This is Einstein article what do you think about it
Without registering, I can read page 65. From that, it doesn't look like it directly addresses gravitational waves.
 

What are gravitational waves?

Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric of space-time caused by the acceleration of massive objects, such as black holes or neutron stars.

Did Einstein predict the existence of gravitational waves?

Yes, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts the existence of gravitational waves. He first proposed this idea in 1916, but it wasn't until 2015 that they were directly observed for the first time.

Did Einstein believe in the existence of gravitational waves?

Yes, Einstein believed in the existence of gravitational waves, as they were a natural consequence of his theory of general relativity. However, he was initially skeptical of their existence and even tried to disprove their existence in later years.

How did Einstein contribute to the study of gravitational waves?

Einstein's theory of general relativity provided the foundation for understanding the existence and properties of gravitational waves. His equations also helped to predict the behavior of these waves and how they interact with matter.

What impact do gravitational waves have on our understanding of the universe?

Gravitational waves allow us to study and observe the universe in a completely new way. They provide a unique window into some of the most powerful and mysterious phenomena, such as black holes and the Big Bang. Additionally, they confirm the validity of Einstein's theory of general relativity and open up new possibilities for future discoveries in astrophysics.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
930
Back
Top