Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Early GR Experts

  1. Aug 6, 2013 #1
    Here is an anecdote about Arthur Eddington:
    So Eddington thought only he and Einstein understood GR, at some point in history. My question is: did Eddington not realize that David Hilbert was able to derive the Einstein Field Equations before Einstein was? Why did Eddington not feel that Hilbert understood GR? And what did he think about the other early experts: Schwarzchild, Lemaitre, de Sitter, Friedmann, Robertson, Walker, etc.? Were they not smart enough for Sir Adding-One? Or was there some intricate chronology of who understood what when?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 6, 2013 #2
    Too bad we can't ask him :wink:

    Or was there some intricate chronology of who understood what when?

    Is that not published works?
     
  4. Aug 6, 2013 #3

    robphy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  5. Aug 6, 2013 #4

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is far from clear.

    Eddington was using hyperbole.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2013
  6. Aug 6, 2013 #5

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    To be fair, even if the Eddington quote is mythology, there's a huge difference between being able to derive the EFEs from a variational principle (which is a stride in mathematics) and being able to understand the physics of GR.
     
  7. Aug 6, 2013 #6

    robphy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  8. Aug 6, 2013 #7
    It does seem that the Einstein-Hilbert priority dispute is still contested. But from the fourth link in robphy's post:
    So unless that author is misquoting Einstein, it seems Einstein believed Hilbert to be the only other person to understand GR during the period he was working on deriving the EFEs.

    Maybe the answer to my OP is that the quote is just another example of Eddington's over-inflated ego. That seems to be the trend in most of what I've read about Eddington.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2013
  9. Aug 6, 2013 #8

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The tidbit about Hilbert wouldn't surprise me though. The man was unimaginably brilliant. Was Eddington really that egotistical?
     
  10. Aug 6, 2013 #9

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    At that time, although GR had been invented, the :tongue2: remained in the future.

    Well, at least he can be given the benefit of the doubt for that one. I think with Chandrasekhar the story was different. Even then, in the article that robphy linked above, Chandrasekhar ends with a quote from Eddington that he seems to have agreed with.

    "It is not suggested that any patriotic duty to our country demands the severance of scientific relations. The suggestion seems to come mainly from an impulse to strike a high moral attitude. It may be well to remember that a moral attitude is not always the more convincing for being ostentatiously asserted.

    I conclude by urging the appeal of Sir Arthur Evans, President-Elect of the British Association; his last sentence refers to antiquarian studies, but it is a call to astronomers also: 'We have not ceased to share common task with those who today are our enemies. We cannot shirk the fact that tomorrow we shall be once more labourers together in the same field. It is incumbent on us to do nothing which should shut the door to mutual intercourse in subjects like our own, which lie apart from the domain of human passions in the silent avenues of the past.'"
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2013
  11. Aug 6, 2013 #10

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's also just barely possible that he had a sense of humor. Some physicists do.
     
  12. Aug 6, 2013 #11

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What is this sense of humor you speak of? Is there a section in MTW where I can look it up :tongue2:
     
  13. Aug 6, 2013 #12

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Here is a math book about jokes:

    [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  14. Aug 6, 2013 #13
    Based on some other posts in that earlier thread, I would seriously doubt whether Eddington was joking. According to that thread, Buckminster Fuller claimed that his book with a section on Einstein was called into question because his name didn't appear on the "list" of people who "understood Einstein". From http://www.bfi.org/?q=node/129 (Thanks to inflector who posted this in the aforementioned thread!)
    So if you believe that, then either Eddington was being serious or he made an egotistical joke that, because nobody realized it was a joke, started a very pervasive myth (that he never made any attempt to redact) that only a select few people actually understood GR.
     
  15. Aug 8, 2013 #14
    I was just watching a seminar by Juan Maldacena and he quoted Einstein as saying in a discussion with Lemaitre:
    So apparently Lemaitre didn't make it onto the "list." I wonder if Einstein held the same feelings for some of the other early experts--maybe even Hilbert?
     
  16. Aug 8, 2013 #15

    robphy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I tried to google the "quote" you quoted...
    the closest I found was from Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
    which might show the more-correct quote in context
     
  17. Aug 8, 2013 #16
    The idea of a "list" of people who "understand general relativity" is obviously silly. The New York Times may have encouraged that notion in the general public in 1919 when they reported in their eclipse article that "only 12 men in the world understand Einstein's theory". They apparently pulled the number 12 out of the air. There are other apochrophal stories citing various other numbers (like 3 in Chandra's anecdote, poking fun at both Silberstein and Eddington, his opponent in the stellar evolution affair), usually meant as jokes. Hilbert is a good example of why it's silly to talk about a "list" of who "understands", because although Einstein certainly believed (and said) that Hilbert understood general relativity, he (Einstein) also said that Hilbert's ansatz, based on Mie's theory, was "childlike" and that Hilbert was "just like an infant, unaware of the pitfalls of the real world". Of course, it's also been said that Einstein himself mis-understood general relativity in various aspects. (See, for example, Synge's complaints about the "equivalence principle", or Einstein's static universe that was unstable, or his early association with Mach's principle which he later renounced, his argument with deSitter, or the difficulties Einstein had with gravitational waves, believing for a while that they couldn't exist, etc., etc). It is a complex and deep subject, and the understanding of it is not a binary "does/doesn't" proposition. There's always more to learn. But certainly in the early days it was considered difficult to even understand it on any level, even for professional physicists, partly because of unfamiliarity with tensor calculus. Ehrenfest commented once that, when he saw Lorentz and Einstein huddled together discussing some fine details of general relativity he (Ehrenfest) felt like an outsider, as if they were Freemasons who knew the secret handshake and he was left out.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2013
  18. Aug 8, 2013 #17

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hilbert came to study physics late in his career, beginning serious study on the eve of the outbreak of World War I. After the war, when the study of GR and QM intensified in the 1920s, Hilbert was quoted as saying, dismissively of physicists, that "Physics was too hard for physicists", and he further implied that the way that some physicists handled the math of their field was in a rather sloppy fashion. Perhaps Eddington had heard of Hilbert's remarks, perhaps Eddington was not familiar with Hilbert as physicist. What is true is that from the 1920s on, physics and higher mathematics became inextricably linked, such that one had to be a rather good mathematician in order to be good at physics.
     
  19. Aug 8, 2013 #18

    robphy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  20. Aug 8, 2013 #19
    All very interesting comments! Thanks guys!

    I think there might be some hints as to what started this myth in Einstein's personality and his feelings over the years. Russel E, am I safe in assuming that Einstein's comment on Hilbert being "unaware of the pitfalls of the real world" came later than his comments on how Hilbert "truly understood" GR? If so, it's clear that Einstein was definitely willing to change his mind about who understood what. I would say that Einstein's initial criticism of Lemaitre is another good example (to add to Russel E's list) of where Einstein clearly misunderstood the physics--he was too busy promulgating his nonsense cosmological model to see that Lemaitre was actually the one to formulate a realistic cosmological model. Later, Einstein said that the cosmological constant that he introduced to create his steady-state model was "the biggest mistake" he ever made. [And now we believe there actually is a nonzero cosmological constant!] So perhaps his admission of his "biggest mistake" was meant as an admission that he was wrong about Lemaitre. So maybe the myth got started because Einstein himself (and the others who were actually on the list, like Eddington) didn't understand GR and his misunderstanding led him to dismiss the non-"listed" experts who actually held a better understanding [at least with respect to certain aspects of GR].
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2013
  21. Aug 8, 2013 #20
    Yes, I meant Synge. I'll try to edit my message to fix that.

    I don't think we're talking about a "myth in Einstein's personality". Obviously in early Nov 1915 it was fair to say that the number of people who understood general relativity was 0, and by the end of November several people had various levels of understanding.

    He had both of those opinions simultaneously. They aren't mutually contradictory. He wrote the "truly understood" comment prior to the theory even being complete (when he didn't even understand it himself), but even then he disapproved of Hilbert's approach, which was based on Mie's theory and the electrodynamic model of matter (which of course turned out to be untenable).

    Yes, that's what I was referring to when I mentioned Einstein's unstable static model of the universe (although I wouldn't call it "nonsense"; it was just unstable and therefore not physically realistic).

    I really think you're barking up the wrong tree with this "list" idea. That was just a kooky explanation from Buckmeister Fuller, who was afronted that people didn't think he was qualified to write about general relativity. It was a figure of speech. There was never any "list". He just meant he was not a credentialed expert on the subject, so people were skeptical of his expertise. There was good reason for people to be wary in those days, since the subject was such a fad, and lots of people wrote about it who didn't understand it at all.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Early GR Experts
  1. GR Journal (Replies: 5)

  2. Tensors in GR (Replies: 2)

Loading...