THE UNIVERSE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
CONTENTS 1 FRESNEL’S (DRAGGING) COEF?CIENT AS A CHALLENGE TO 19TH CENTURY OPTICS OF MOVING BODIES 2 POINCAR´E’S RELATIVISTIC THEORY OF GRAVITATION 3 STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF A DWARF: GENERAL RELATIVITY—A TRIUMPH OF EINSTEIN AND GROSSMANN’S ERRONEOUS ENTWURF THEORY 4 BEFORE THE RIEMANN TENSOR: THE EMERGENCE OF EINSTEIN’S DOUBLE STRATEGY 5 A CONJECTURE ON EINSTEIN, THE INDEPENDENT REALITY OF SPACETIME COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND THE DISASTER OF 7 EINSTEIN AND THE PROBLEM OF MOTION: A SMALL CLUE 8 A NOTE ON GENERAL RELATIVITY, ENERGY CONSERVATION, AND NOETHER’S THEOREMS 9 WEYL VS REICHENBACH ON LICHTGEOMETRIE 10 DINGLE AND DE SITTER AGAINST THE METAPHYSICIANS, OR TWO WAYS TO KEEP MODERN COSMOLOGY PHYSICAL 11 GEORGE GAMOW AND THE ‘FACTUAL APPROACH’ TO RELATIVISTIC COSMOLOGY 12 GEORGE MCVITTIE, THE UNCOMPROMISING EMPIRICIST 13 FALSE VACUUM: EARLY UNIVERSE COSMOLOGY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF IN?ATION 14 HILBERT’S “WORLD EQUATIONS” AND HIS VISION OF A UNI?ED SCIENCE 15 EINSTEIN, KALUZA, AND THE FIFTH DIMENSION 16 UNI?ED FIELD THEORY: EARLY HISTORY AND INTERPLAY BETWEEN MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS 17 IS QUANTUM GRAVITY NECESSARY? 18 EINSTEIN IN THE DAILY PRESS: A GLIMPSE INTO THE GEHRCKE PAPERS 2) THE CHALLENGE PRESENTED BY FRESNEL’S FORMULA WAS THE ?RST INDICATION OF THE BREAK- DOWN OF CLASSICAL (GALILEI–NEWTONIAN) KINEMATICS, AND COULD HAVE LED DIRECTLY TO THE SEARCH FOR A NEW KINEMATICS J STACHEL 3) THE WAY IN WHICH THE CHALLENGE OF THIS ?RST CRISIS WAS MET BY LORENTZ, ON THE BASIS OF MAXWELL’S ELECTRODYNAMICS, THE STATIONARY ETHER HYPOTHESIS, AND THE OLD KINEMATICS, EXERTED A TRANQUILIZING IN?UENCE THAT SERVED TO POSTPONE THE SEARCH FOR A NEW KINEMATICS UNTIL A NEW CRITICAL SITUATION IN THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES AROSE, LARGELY DUE TO THE RESULTS OF THE SECOND-ORDER M-M EXPERIMENTS, AND WAS RESOLVED IN 1905 BY EINSTEIN 1 2 ARAGO AND THE EMISSION THEORY ALTHOUGH THE STORY IS MAINLY CONCERNED WITH THE WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT, I SHALL START IT WITH DOMINIQUE-FRANC¸OIS ARAGO’S WORK ON THE EMISSION THEORY IN 1810, ARAGO, STILL AN ADHERENT OF THIS THEORY, DECIDED TO TEST A HYPOTHESIS THAT SEEMED TO HIM “BOTH NATURAL AND PROBABLE ON ITS BASIS,” NAMELY THAT “STARS OF DIFFERING MAGNITUDE CAN EMIT [LIGHT] RAYS WITH DIFFERENT SPEEDS ” ARAGO’S TEST OF THIS HYPOTHESIS WAS BASED ON THE REFRACTION OF THESE RAYS BY A PRISM, AND HE FOUND THAT, TO THE ACCURACY OF HIS EXPERIMENT, RAYS FROM ALL STARS WERE REFRACTED BY THE SAME ANGLE HE CONCLUDED THAT “LIGHT MOVES WITH THE SAME SPEED NO MATTER WHAT THE BODY FROM WHICH IT EMANATES ” HE REGARDED THIS CONCLUSION AS SO IMPORTANT THAT HE LATER CITED IT (ARAGO 1830) AS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY “THE EMISSION THEORY NOW HAS VERY FEW PARTISANS ” INDEED, “ARAGO BECAME A VOCAL CRITIC OF THE NEWTONIAN EMISSION THEORY AND, BY 1816, AN ARDENT SUPPORTER OF THE UNDULATORY THEORY” (HAHN 1970, 201) ARAGO NOTED THAT HIS CONCLUSION, VIZ THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF ITS SOURCE, DEPENDS ON WHAT HE CALLED “NEWTON’S PRINCIPLE:” LIGHT BEAMS ENTERING A PRISM WITH DIFFERENT SPEEDS ARE REFRACTED THROUGH DIFFERENT ANGLES; AND HE DECIDED TO TEST THIS PRINCIPLE AGAIN HE USED A PRISM, BUT WHILE HIS EARLIER EXPERIMENT HAD COMPARED LIGHT FROM DIFFERENT STARS AT THE SAME TIME, HE NOW USED THE PRISM TO COMPARE LIGHT FROM THE SAME STAR AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE YEAR SINCE THE EARTH MOVES AROUND THE SUN DURING THE COURSE OF A YEAR, HE EXPECTED THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE PRISM TO CHANGE AND HENCE, ON THE BASIS OF “NEWTON’S PRINCIPLE,” THE ANGLE OF REFRACTION TO CHANGE BUT HE FOUND, AS FRESNEL 1818 SUMMARIZED ARAGO’S RESULTS, “THAT THE MOTION OF THE TERRESTRIAL GLOBE HAS NO NOTICEABLE IN?UENCE ON THE REFRACTION OF RAYS THAT EMANATE FROM THE STARS ” THE SITUATION IS SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE: ARAGO’S EXPERIMENTS—IS THE NULL RESULT A PROBLEM FOR: STARLIGHT REFRACTED BY: EMISSION THEORY WAVE THEORY-STATIONARY ETHER 1 DIFFERENT STARS-SAME TIME YES NO 2 SAME STAR-DIFFERENT TIMES YES YES TABLE 1 1 EMISSION VS WAVE THEORY THE UNIVERSE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY 1 FRESNEL’S (DRAGGING) COEF?CIENT ON THE BASIS OF THE EMISSION THEORY, ARAGO COULD ONLY EXPLAIN THIS NEW RESULT BY INVOKING WHAT FRESNEL CALLED A “QUITE STRANGE HYPOTHESIS THAT IS QUITE DIF?CULT TO ACCEPT” (VIZ , WHILE LIGHT TRAVELS AT MANY DIFFERENT VELOCITIES, THE EYE IS SENSITIVE ONLY TO RAYS TRAVELING AT ONE SPEED) HAVING BECOME WELL ACQUAINTED WITH FRESNEL’S WORK ON THE WAVE THEORY BY THE MID 1810S, ARAGO ASKED THE LATTER IF THE WAVE THEORY COULD PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FRESNEL NOW ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN BOTH ABERRATION AND ARAGO’S SECOND PRISM EXPERIMENT (THE WAVE-THEORETICAL EXPLANATION OF THE ?RST IS OBVIOUS, AS WE SHALL SEE BELOW) 1 3 FRESNEL AND THE WAVE THEORY FRESNEL’S WORK ON THE WAVE THEORY WAS BASED ON THE HYPOTHESIS OF A STATIONARY OR IMMOBILE ETHER ON THIS BASIS, THE EXPLANATION OF ARAGO’S ?RST EXPERIMENT IS OBVIOUS: THE SPEED OF PROPAGATION OF A WAVE IN A MEDIUM IS INDEPENDENT OF THE VELOCITY OF THE SOURCE OF THE WAVE THE EXPLANATION OF ABERRATION IN A VACUUM IS ALSO FAIRLY SIMPLE (FOR DETAILS, SEE, E G , JANSSEN AND STACHEL 1999) BUT TWO RESULTS: 1) THAT THE ANGLE OF ABERRATION REMAINS THE SAME IN A TELESCOPE USING LENSES OR EVEN ?LLED WITH WATER; 2) THE NULL RESULT OF ARAGO’S SECOND EXPERIMENT; CANNOT BE EXPLAINED WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL HYPOTHESIS ATTRIBUTING SOME MOBILITY TO THE ETHER WITHIN A MOVING MEDIUM FRESNEL SHOWED THAT BOTH OF THESE RESULTS CAN BE EX- PLAINED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT A MEDIUM MOVING THROUGH THE STATIONARY ETHER ONLY DRAGS LIGHT PROPAGATING THROUGH IT WITH A FRACTION OF THE MEDIUM’S SPEED IF THE INDEX OF REFRACTION OF THE MEDIUM AT REST IS N, THEN FRESNEL DE?NED THE DRAGGING COEF?CIENT F = (1 ?1/N2) AND ASSUMED THAT LIGHT PROPAGATING IN THE MEDIUM IS DRAGGED ALONG WITH A VELOCITY VDRAG = F VMED WHAT THE DRAGGING COEF?CIENT ACCOMPLISHES IS SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE: WAVE THEORY: STATIONARY ETHER WITHOUT DRAGGING COEFF WITH DRAGGING COEFF ABERRATION WITH OPTICAL MEDIUM PROBLEM NO PROBLEM ARAGO’S EXPERIMENT PROBLEM NO PROBLEM TABLE 1 2 WHY FRESNEL NEEDS F THE UNIVERSE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY J STACHEL WHAT PHYSICAL EXPLANATION DOES FRESNEL OFFER FOR THE VALUE OF THE DRAGGING COEF?- CIENT? [I]T IS ONLY A PART OF THIS MEDIUM [THE ETHER] WHICH IS CARRIED ALONG BY OUR EARTH, NAMELY THAT PORTION WHICH CONSTITUTES THE EXCESS OF ITS DENSITY OVER THAT OF THE SURROUNDING ETHER BY ANALOGY IT WOULD SEEM THAT, WHEN ONLY A PART OF THE MEDIUM IS DISPLACED, THE VELOCITY OF PROPAGATION OF THE WAVES CAN ONLY BE INCREASED BY THE VELOCITY OF THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE SYSTEM (FRESNEL 1818A, 631; TRANSLATION FROM SCHAFFNER 1972, 129, TRANSLATION MODI?ED) SINCE THE SPEED OF A WAVE IN AN ELASTIC MEDIUM AND (INVERSELY) ON THE ELASTICITY OF THE MEDIUM, FRESNEL’S EXPLANATION AMOUNTS TO ASSUMING THAT THE ELASTICITY REMAINS THE SAME IN THE PRISM AND THE ETHER AND THAT ONLY THE DENSITY VARIES BETWEEN THEM IN A NOTE LATER ADDED TO THE LETTER, HE ADMITS THAT OTHER HYPOTHESES REGARDING THE ELASTICITY ARE EQUALLY POSSIBLE, BUT ADDS: BUT WHATEVER THE HYPOTHESIS ONE MAKES CONCERNING THE CAUSES OF THE SLOWING OF LIGHT WHEN IT PASSES THROUGH TRANSPARENT BODIES, ONE MAY ALWAYS MEN- TALLY SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REAL MEDIUM OF THE PRISM, AN ELASTIC ?UID WITH THE SAME TENSION AS THE SURROUNDING ETHER, AND HAVING A DENSITY SUCH THAT THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IS PRECISELY THE SAME IN THIS ?UID AND IN THE PRISM, WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSED AT REST; THIS EQUALITY MUST STILL CONTINUE TO HOLD IN THESE TWO ME- DIA WHEN CARRIED ALONG BY THE EARTH’S MOTION; THESE, THEN, ARE THE BASES UPON WHICH MY CALCULATION RESTS (FRESNEL 1818B, 836; TRANSLATION FROM SCHAFFNER 1972, 134–135, TRANSLATION MODI?ED) THIS IS THE ?RST, BUT HARDLY THE LAST TIME THAT WE SHALL COME UPON A DISTURBING PROBLEM: THE LACK OF UNIQUENESS IN EXPLANATIONS OF FRESNEL’S COEF?CIENT IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, NOTABLY BY VELTMANN (SEE BELOW), THAT FRESNEL ?RST FOUND THE VALUE OF THE COEF?CIENT THAT EXPLAINED THE ANOMALOUS EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, AND THEN COOKED UP A THEORETICAL EXPLANATION FOR THIS VALUE DURING THE COURSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, VARIOUS HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE MOTION OF THE ETHER WERE INTRODUCED TO DERIVE THE VALUE OF F EVEN IF ONE ASSUMES THAT ONLY THE DENSITY OF THE ETHER VARIES FROM MEDIUM TO MEDIUM, VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES ABOUT ITS STATE OF MOTION INSIDE A MOVING BODY WERE PROPOSED, ALL COOKED UP TO LEAD TO THE SAME VALUE OF F TO CITE ONLY THREE: 1) A PART OF THE ETHER MOVES WITH THE TOTAL VELOCITY OF THE MOVING BODY (FRESNEL 1818A) 2) ALL OF THE ETHER IS DRAGGED ALONG WITH A PART OF THE VELOCITY OF THE MOVING BODY (STOKES 1846) 3) VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE ETHER MOVE WITH ALL VELOCITIES BETWEEN ZERO AND THE TOTAL VELOCITY OF THE MOVING BODY (BEER 1855) THE VERY FACT THAT SUCH WIDELY DIFFERING HYPOTHESES COULD BE INVOKED TO EXPLAIN EQUALLY WELL THE VALUE OF F RAISES A GOOD DEAL OF DOUBT ABOUT ALL SUCH “MECHANICAL ETHER” EXPLANATIONS THE UNIVERSE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY