Only Three People Understand General Relativity

  • Thread starter bhobba
  • Start date
  • #1
9,446
2,523

Main Question or Discussion Point

From Verifying the Theory of Relativity by Chandrasekhar

Sir J.J. Thomson, as President of the Royal Society at that time, concluded the meeting with the statement', I have to confess that no one has yet succeeded in stating in clear language what the theory of Einstein's really is'. And Eddington recalled that as the meeting was dispersing, Ludwig Silberstei (the author of one of the early books on relativity), came up to him and said,' Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity'. On Eddington demuring to this statement, Silberstein responded, 'Don't be modest Eddington'. And Eddington's reply was, 'On the contrary, I am trying to think who the third person is!'

I have seen that and similar accounts about only three people understood GR. Every time I hear/read it I laugh my head off. Who understood it during the early days - say in the 10 years after its final form by Hilbert and Einstein. BTW Hilbert got it wrong initially - but that is another story that for some reason is not usually discussed - as well as initially wanting to take credit for it - but eventually of course saw sense and gave Einstein priority with many well known sayings about the matter such as 'Every boy in the streets of Göttingen understands more about four dimensional geometry than Einstein .Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians '

Well here is who I can think of:

Bohr
Born
Eddington (of course)
Kretchmann
Pauli
Hilbert
Schrodinger

I could probably go on. Many of course were not famous yet - but many recall saying its the most beautiful theory in physics. His good friend Bohr never ceased to believe it was the greatest triumph of human thought in the history of man - despite of course the disagreement they had about QM.

Why do people think that myth still persists? BTW I think Eddington was simply being facetious.

Added alter - I updated it a bit getting rid of people like Dirac who while even writing a textbook on it are in doubt with knowing it shortly after. Despite his age Pauli was left in because he wrote a textbook on it at just 21 years of age that even Einstein was amazed at.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Michael Price, Demystifier, vanhees71 and 1 other person

Answers and Replies

  • #2
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,447
142
I have seen that and similar accounts about only three people understood GR.
Why do people think that myth still persists?
Can you cite a source? I have not heard of anyone who believes it, but maybe I hobnob in the wrong circles.
 
  • #3
9,446
2,523
Can you cite a source? I have not heard of anyone who believes it, but maybe I hobnob in the wrong circles.
I gave my source and full story - Verifying the Theory of Relativity by Chandrasekhar.

Its possible his memory was faulty - but its so widely known - although not the exact details which Chandrasekhar gave dont seem to be - I think we can safely say his account is correct.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #4
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,447
142
Ah, I thought you meant the myth of only 3 people understanding GR at the present time. Or do you mean the myth of only 3 people having believed it at the time that Eddington made his quip? (I am assuming that you are not labeling the story about Eddington a myth, since you stated that you thought that Eddington's reply was facetious, indicating that you believed that Eddington's reply existed -- hairless French king and all that.) The question is: are there people who now believe that Eddington was not being facetious? (Since you talked about the myth persisting, I do not write "believed".) You gave your source for the story, not for people presently believing the assertion made in the story.
 
  • #5
9,446
2,523
Ah, I thought you meant the myth of only 3 people understanding GR at the present time. Or do you mean the myth of only 3 people having believed it at the time that Eddington made his quip? (I am assuming that you are not labeling the story about Eddington a myth, since you stated that you thought that Eddington's reply was facetious, indicating that you believed that Eddington's reply existed -- hairless French king and all that.) The question is: are there people who now believe that Eddington was not being facetious? (Since you talked about the myth persisting, I do not write "believed".) You gave your source for the story, not for people presently believing the assertion made in the story.
I think non physicists actually believe it just from speaking to people - they seem to think its, somehow mystically difficult - but an hour or two of explanation usually cures them of that - physicists know the literal interpretation of what Eddington said is so silly he was obviously just being facetious.

So I suppose the question is why do non physicists believe literally what Eddington said - it's an interesting phenomena.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #6
epenguin
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,738
781
I suppose there are some people who don’t know

There's a wonderful family called Stein:
There's Gert and there's Ep and there's Ein.
Gert's poems are bunk,
Ep's statues are junk,
And no one can understand Ein.

?
 
  • Like
Likes Michael Price
  • #7
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
13,792
6,272
I think non physicists actually believe it just from speaking to people - they seem to think its, somehow mystically difficult - but an hour or two of explanation usually cures them of that - physicists know the literal interpretation of what Eddington said is so silly he was obviously just being facetious.
Being British, I recognise archetypal deadpan British humour in that comment. From my experiences on this forum, this sort of humour is confusing and perplexing to Americans and Antipodeans alike. Silberstein was supposed to laugh! But, perhaps he just didn't get it either. For what it's worth, I think it is very funny. I would have burst out laughing.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, Michael Price, ComplexVar89 and 3 others
  • #8
strangerep
Science Advisor
3,130
952
Dirac
Not Dirac -- I recall reading one of his essays wherein he credited Eddington's "The Mathematical Theory of Relativity" as helping him (Dirac) to understand GR better.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and bhobba
  • #9
TeethWhitener
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,806
1,155
BTW Hilbert got it wrong initially
So did Einstein. Several times. Most famously in his initial formulation of the field equations as ##R_{\mu\nu} = T_{\mu\nu}##.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and bhobba
  • #10
9,446
2,523
Not Dirac -- I recall reading one of his essays wherein he credited Eddington's "The Mathematical Theory of Relativity" as helping him (Dirac) to understand GR better.
That's true - he certainly knew it later of course - and even wrote a textbook. If he learned it shortly after the theory - I guess is the issue - from what you said - probably not. Actually the same probably applies to Landau. I will update the list getting rid of those in that may be in doubt.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #11
9,446
2,523
So did Einstein. Several times. Most famously in his initial formulation of the field equations as ##R_{\mu\nu} = T_{\mu\nu}##.
Hilbert actually made the same error for a different reason. All he basically had to do was vary the Einstein-Hilbert action (its not named after both of them without reason) - and for reasons explained here got it wrong:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393337685/?tag=pfamazon01-20&tag=pfamazon01-20

Basically Hilbert was after bigger game - a unified theory of gravity and EM and this confused his thinking.

I wish I knew that years ago when I posted a lot on sci.physics.relativity. Cranks were always saying Einstein never discovered GR - Hilbert did. Even if Hilbert initially got it right, which he didn't - they both found it independently - but of course Einstein did all the actual physics needed to arrive at that action, so, correctly, got the credit - eventually. Evidently, as I mentioned, and it's usually not discussed much - Hilbert initially wanted credit for it.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes TeethWhitener
  • #12
9,446
2,523
For what it's worth, I think it is very funny. I would have burst out laughing.
I don't know about others, or differences in humor - it was always obvious to me it was meant as humor and I wryly smiled at it when I first heard it all those years ago. I don't remember actually laughing though - I did laugh at people taking it seriously.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes Michael Price
  • #13
OCR
869
729
I have no trouble seeing the humor...

Here's another one... it's not " laugh out loud " funny, but I see humor there.
Arthur Eddington:
We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about 'and'.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ComplexVar89
  • #14
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
8,103
1,382
That's true - he certainly knew it later of course - and even wrote a textbook. If he learned it shortly after the theory - I guess is the issue - from what you said - probably not. Actually the same probably applies to Landau. I will update the list getting rid of those in that may be in doubt.

Thanks
Bill
Your original context was 10 years. Eddington’s book came out in 1923, and was an immediate hit (along with Pauli’s exposition of 2 years earlier). So I suspect Dirac fits within the 10 year time frame. You can also add Klein who reviewed and critiqued Pauli’s exposition.

FYI, Eddington was one of the first books on GR I read, before MTW existed, and I found it quite lucid, perhaps my only claim to similarity with Dirac.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #15
9,446
2,523
FYI, Eddington was one of the first books on GR I read, before MTW existed, and I found it quite lucid, perhaps my only claim to similarity with Dirac.
My first exposure was Ohanian:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393965015/?tag=pfamazon01-20&tag=pfamazon01-20

Its different, but a viewpoint that fits more naturally with QM.

Then MTW, then Wald and I have got a few others along the way as well such as Dirac.

My favorite by a long way is Wald. Lost MTW in moving to where I live, but with Wald never found any need to replace it.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #16
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
8,103
1,382
The more I think about it, the more absurd it becomes to put together a list of physicists with understanding of GR not too far behind Einstein's within some years of 1916. While obviously a small minority of all physicist, numerically many grappled very quickly with this new theory. For example, all three physicists (J.T. Jebsen, W. Alexandrow, G.D Birkhoff) who independently arrived at Birkhoff's theorem, a central result in GR, did so in the 1921 - 1923 time frame. Then, of course, there is Karl Schwarzschild.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #17
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
8,103
1,382
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, Michael Price and vanhees71
  • #18
1
0
Karl Schwarzschild - he was able to give the first exact solutions and develop the idea of the Schwarzschild Radius in 1915 while fighting in a fox hole in WWI at the Russian front.

note: he also gave the first Lagrangian formalism of the electromagnetic field which was later developed more fully by Feynman.
 
  • #19
344
90
Hilbert initially wanted credit for [GR.]
I don't think so. Einstein suspected Hilbert of trying to claim credit for GR but later apologised most profusely to Hilbert in a letter for harbouring such thoughts. Hilbert never tried to claim priority or take credit for GR.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #20
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,371
6,754
Karl Schwarzschild - he was able to give the first exact solutions and develop the idea of the Schwarzschild Radius in 1915 while fighting in a fox hole in WWI at the Russian front.

note: he also gave the first Lagrangian formalism of the electromagnetic field which was later developed more fully by Feynman.
That's very interesting! I could never figured out, who wrote down the first Lagrangian for a field theory nor who wrote down the Lagrangian for E&M first. Do you have a reference for that it was Schwarzschild?
 
  • #21
martinbn
Science Advisor
1,845
558
Karl Schwarzschild - he was able to give the first exact solutions and develop the idea of the Schwarzschild Radius in 1915 while fighting in a fox hole in WWI at the Russian front.

note: he also gave the first Lagrangian formalism of the electromagnetic field which was later developed more fully by Feynman.
At the time of the question he was dead.
 
  • #22
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,991
543
That's very interesting! I could never figured out, who wrote down the first Lagrangian for a field theory nor who wrote down the Lagrangian for E&M first. Do you have a reference for that it was Schwarzschild?
It was here

Zur Elektrodynamik. I. Zwei Formen des Princips der Action in
der Elektronentheorie
Schwarzschild, K.
in: Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse | Nachrichten
von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,
Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse - 1903, pages 126 - 131

On the bottom of page 128
Capture.JPG


SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact and vanhees71
  • #23
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,991
543
And this is the non-covariant form. The covariant form is first due to Max Born (yes, one of the fathers of QM) from 1909 (Annalen der Physik, Vol. 333)
Capture2.JPG
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact and vanhees71
  • #24
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,371
6,754
Amazing! Great! Thanks a lot for these historical papers by two of my favorite physicists!
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and dextercioby
  • #25
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,991
543
Amazing! Great! Thanks a lot for these historical papers by two of my favorite physicists!
You are most welcome. I felt very motivated to look them up, as I like the history of physics very much.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

Related Threads on Only Three People Understand General Relativity

Replies
7
Views
13K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
539
Replies
4
Views
504
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Top