Special and General Relativity

Stratosphere
Messages
373
Reaction score
0
It has always confused me why Einstein never won a Nobel Prize for special or general relativity. I had always thought that instead of winning for the photoelectric effect he should have won for relativity. Why would they decided to do this?

I forgot to check my title, to bad I can't edit it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At the time the prize was given, Einstein's photoelectric effect explanation was completely accepted by the physics community. However, General Relativity was still somewhat controversial then.
 
But why then did they not give him another Nobel Prize? Do they not give any more than one to a single person?
 
They do give more than one on very rare occasions. Bardeen is the only one to win two physics nobel prizes, marie curie won one for chem and one for phys and pauling won one for chem and one for peace. In general the nobel prizes are filled with controversy and on average nobel prizes are awarded somewhere around 50 years after the initial discovery (and nobel prizes are not rewarded posthumously). So it could be that einstein just died to soon. However, personally, I believe that the importance of Einstein's relativity is over stated by the public at large. Bardeen, for example, who was the only guy to win 2 physics nobel prizes won the first one for inventing the transistor (transistors, btw, are the core of all electronics and computers and the reason for the possibility of the digital age) and for the development of BCS theory (he's the B) which is a theoretical model of superconductors and superconductors, if we can ever create room temperature ones, will likely change the face of all technology again. For this Bardeen got two nobel prizes. Einstein's relativity (which was by no means his only contribution and personally I think his work in stat mech is of more importance) will likely never have a profound effect on the average person. Therefore, although he was certainly an obscenely brilliant man and his work has changed the way we look at light and time forever if he would have gotten 2 I think I might have called foul. But that's just my humble opinion.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top