General Relativity Postulates and History of Publication

εllipse
Messages
197
Reaction score
0
What I've read on special relativity has built it up from its two postulates, the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) and the constancy of the propagation of light in vacuo. But I haven't seen general relativity's postulates in such a concise listing. I assume the equivalence principle is a postulate required to derive general relativity, as well as the general principle of relativity.. Are these the only two postulates needed for GR? Is the constancy of the propagation of light in vacuo a GR postulate as well, or is it only a postulate of SR?

Also, was there a single paper that defined what the general theory of relativity is? Some things I've read have said GR was published in 1915, while most say it was in 1916, and I've read that earlier works relating to GR were also published. Everyone seems to agree that On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, published in the Annalen der Physik, was the paper that defined special relativity, but was there such a paper for general relativity, or was it developed through a series of publications?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, GR came out a bit in dribs and drabs as Einstein, and also Hilbert, struggled to get the math right. Einstein's "call it done" paper (my term) was in 1915, with the field equations, but there were still questions and both Einstein and Hilbert published important updates in 1916. Even after that the math was still incomplete; the important Bianchi identities weren't recognized (by Emmy Noether) until later, although of course Bianchi himself had stated them years earlier.
 
Ray d'Inverno in his 'Introducing Einstein's relativity' has an axiomatical presentation of GR quite good.

Daniel.
 
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/TOCs/c5836.html
has the Table of Contents for "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 6:
The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914-1917"

Some interesting reading on the History of SR and GR here
http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/sommer05/Einstein 1905/Texte/event?id=119 (In case you need help from Google Langauge Tools)

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/06-HGR7-031105.pdf
"Déjà Vu All Over Again : How Einstein Found His Field Equations" by Michel Janssen and Jürgen Renn, which is based on http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/knot.pdf
More at http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
εllipse said:
What I've read on special relativity has built it up from its two postulates, the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) and the constancy of the propagation of light in vacuo. But I haven't seen general relativity's postulates in such a concise listing. I assume the equivalence principle is a postulate required to derive general relativity, as well as the general principle of relativity.. Are these the only two postulates needed for GR? Is the constancy of the propagation of light in vacuo a GR postulate as well, or is it only a postulate of SR?
As far as I know the two main postulates are the principle of equivalence and the general covariance. I assume that one has to add the local validity of the postulates of special relativity to get the whole picture. However, these postulates do not uniquely determine the resulting theory. For example, based on these postulates Einstein thought till the end of 1915 that the left hand side of the field equations should contain the Ricci tensor only, Ruv = k Tuv instead of Guv = k Tuv. The correspondence with Hilbert convinced him about the incorrectness.
 
Yes, the devil is in the detail, the particular form of the field equations was choosen for aesthetic reasons, so it's hard to think of a sensible postulate from which to derive them from.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top