After 100 years, Einstein's theory stands test of time October 20, 2015 by Jean-Louis Santini Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, and his revolutionary hypothesis has withstood the test of time, despite numerous expert attempts to find flaws. "Einstein changed the way we think about the most basic things, which are space and time. And that opened our eyes to the universe, and how the most interesting things in it work, like black holes," said David Kaiser, professor of the history of science, technology and society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-years-einstein-theory.html#jCp
The article concludes with the simple statement....... "We are now ready for the next Einstein to open our eyes a little more."
This month's (October 2015) Smithsonian magazine gives a very detailed account of how Einstein and Hilbert collaborated over what finally was put forward as a General Theory of Relativity. This wasn't as easy a collaboration as you might assume simply by looking at the end product.
Not getting into any silly conspiracy nonsense re Hilbert and Einstein, but no 20th century scientist, including Einstein, formulated any theory without standing on the shoulders of giants that had gone before them.
No reason for irony, if they would have liked to give a Nobel for special relativity, which was initially named Lorentz-Einstein theory, they should have shared it between Lorentz, Einstein and Poincare. For GR, they should have shared it between Einstein and Hilbert. For the photoelectric effect, there was no necessity to share.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/download/lrr-2006-3Color.pdf Abstract : The status of experimental tests of general relativity and of theoretical frameworks for analyzing them is reviewed. Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the E¨otv¨os experiment, tests of special relativity, and the gravitational redshift experiment. Ongoing tests of EEP and of the inverse square law are searching for new interactions arising from unification or quantum gravity. Tests of general relativity at the post-Newtonian level have reached high precision, including the light deflection, the Shapiro time delay, the perihelion advance of Mercury, and the Nordtvedt effect in lunar motion. Gravitational wave damping has been detected in an amount that agrees with general relativity to better than half a percent using the Hulse–Taylor binary pulsar, and other binary pulsar systems have yielded other tests, especially of strong-field effects. When direct observation of gravitational radiation from astrophysical sources begins, new tests of general relativity will be possible. Conclusions: We find that general relativity has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny. The question then arises, why bother to continue to test it? One reason is that gravity is a fundamental interaction of nature, and as such requires the most solid empirical underpinning we can provide. Another is that all attempts to quantize gravity and to unify it with the other forces suggest that the standard general relativity of Einstein is not likely to be the last word. Furthermore, the predictions of general relativity are fixed; the theory contains no adjustable constants so nothing can be changed. Thus every test of the theory is either a potentially deadly test or a possible probe for new physics. Although it is remarkable that this theory, born 90 years ago out of almost pure thought, has managed to survive every test, the possibility of finding a discrepancy will continue to drive experiments for years to come. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" The red highlight is that which most cosmologists/physicists are striving for and one which almost certainly, will not appear from this or any other science forum.
I read the article. The impression I got was that Einstein had developed most of it already, but being weak in math, he found it difficult to finish. He showed it to Hilbert, who tried to beat Einstein to the finish. Einstein did finish finally, while Hilbert did also. Eventually Hilbert acknowledged that the credit was Einstein's.
Hilbert was good enough anyway not to argue about priorities - he had enough priorities without GR. What mathematically was his result was the Lagrangian, \(\int \sqrt{-g}R d^4 x\), which is the most simple and natural way to define such a theory.
Hilbert deserves a lot of credit for saying so. Here is a paper with the details of the triad relationship of Einstein, Minkowski, and Hilbert: http://www.tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/pdf/endeavour.pdf And an excerpt from the end of that paper "Minkowski reformulated Einstein’s special theory of relativity (STR) in terms of a four-dimensional space-time manifold. His formulation provided an extremely elegant and simplified derivation of the theory by focusing on the invariance under lin- ear, orthogonal transformations of the magnitude x^2 +y^2 +z^2 –(ct)^2, <invariant 4D "interval"> where c represents the speed of light. Minkowski’s presentation was in many senses programmatic rather than systematic. It stressed the possibility of deriving the central conclusions of the theory starting from mathematical principles alone, and without recourse to any experiments. Such an achievement in a theory whose essence was a deep an unexpected unification of mechanics and electrodynamics could not but rein- force, the sense of a “preestablished harmony between mathematics and physics.” " I take extreme issue with Minkowki's invariant "interval", which seems to be little more than the Pythagorean theorem and complex numbers mixed in with THE INVARIANT SPEED OF LIGHT, the single fundamental assumption upon which all of relativity is based. If you think that physics as it relates to inertialess space behaves as though a Euclidean solid, you would be as wrong as you could possibly be. This solid geometrical relationship ascribed to "spacetime" is an afront to everything relativity ever represented, in particular, the bindings to a relativistic reality that behaves nothing like any imaginatiings of Euclid or any geometers of Ancient Greece. Except for the "now" that is the origin of both time and entanglement, there is no such thing as absolute space, or even an absolute interval of time that is of the same duration anywhere in this universe, other than for events that are the same event viewed from different perspectives, or events that are entangled. A propagation of c is the natural state for energy that is unbound. A perfect relativistic rotation at rest relative to unbound energy is the natural state of the bound energy that is matter. E=mc^2 has bindings to reality. Minkowski's interval, x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2, nor any field equation from General Relativity containing a stationary geometric constant pi in it, does not have any bindings to anything other than solid matter at rest, comprised mostly of the inertialess empty space it simply assumes to be geometric. The centers of gravitating bodies, even those of black holes, are no more fixed in inertialess space than any of us are. Einstein was right. Minkowski and Hilbert only corrupted relativity, due to a preoccupation with the teachings of Ancient Greek philosopher-mathematicians, apparently. I don't consider trashing the core idea of relativity with mathematical junk to be "elegant". Relativity only needed the ONE assumption of the invariance of the speed of light. Time dilation does all the rest of what GR needed to do. There is only time and energy, in its bound and unbound states in this universe.
We seem to be talking about two different incidents. Your discussion is about special relativity. The article I read was about general relativity (1915).
General relativity was a collaboration that somehow got lost in the details of trying to make local physics "at rest, locally" behave as though it was one of those Euclidean solids unperturbed by any relative motion(s). Where Hilbert and Minkowski got lost was in the first three terms (x, y, z). These are ALSO able to be expressed in terms of light travel time with respect to a FIXED SPATIAL ORIGIN AT REST. Basically the effect of the expression for the interval is to render the "at rest" frame of reference as the "preferred" one. But the last term (ct) is moving, so the effect is to combine two incompatible VECTORS from different reference frames into a single expression. Three of them don't move, and the fourth one does. There are big problems here. In relativity, vector math DOESN'T WORK. A vector of magnitude c added to one in the opposite direction (-c) adds to zero, but otherwise, they simply are not able to be added in the manner that is reasonable for vectors intended to be added in three static dimensions. There are PHYSICAL reasons vectors behave this bizarre fashion in a universe that is composed only of energy and time. The term "speed" is not actually a vector in relativistic 'space', which is actually 'time', and unless the speed is c, it does not proceed at the same rate at all positions relative to gravitating bodies or relative states of motion. No description, mathematical or otherwise, of the relativistic universe that does not take into account the dichotomy of observers will ultimately fail. We can observe light bending around gravitating objects at a great distance, and yet if we installed interferometers locally at the source of the disturbance, the photons would all appear to be traveling in straight lines, and nothing out of the ordinary would be evidenced in terms of the passage of time or any other locally based experiment to come to grips with some imaginings of an absolute geometry. The "curvature of space" is nothing of the sort. It is the dilation of time intervals in the region that causes the trajectories of photons to deviate from straight lines AS VIEWED BY A DISTANT OBSERVER. In this manner, and only in this manner, the dichotomy of observers in relativity is preserved. Any math that reduces the geometric situation to a formula verifiable by a single observer is in fact delusional. The dimension that is time is inseparable from the three physical dimensions of this reality. It doesn't get to be that way by means of an edict of Pythagorus that relativistic space will add velocities and positions as vectors. It gets to be that way because energy propagates AND ALSO ROTATES as a function of a dimension of time that has an absolute origin in the instant of "now", but otherwise proceeds at rates that are different with every change in relative position near a gravitating body, and/or a relative state of motion between "at rest" and c with respect to anything else. No two observers will measure equal intervals of time unless they are observing the same event from different perspectives, or are observing events that are entangled. Three dimensions, all of which are time, got to be that way because the bound energy that is also matter has the additional degree of freedom that it may rotate perfectly. But unless you make adjustments to the relative value of the "at rest" geometrical constant pi, your math will also fail, because once the hands of an analog clock are in motion, an observer at rest measures a different time period of rotation than does one riding the ends of the second, minute, or hour hands. General Relativity field equations use this constant, which is another means of determining, something is very wrong. Energy is the only thing in this universe that adds vectorially, and even it will be different values depending on the state of motion of the observer. This is true whether the energy being observed is bound or unbound. There is no actual limit to the amount of kinetic energy that can be added to a bound energy projectile traveling slower than c. The additional energy simply Doppler shifts the bound perfectly rotating energy already there, effectively increasing its mass in the process. There is no "Minkowski rotation" of spatial dimensions into temporal ones at higher energies. This idea was utter nonsense from its inception. Dimensions in this universe are all temporal, and the arrow of time is simply the direction of the propagation of energy.
I meant to say: "ANY" description, mathematical or otherwise, that does not take into account the dichotomy of observers necessary to relativity ultimately will fail." Observers at rest or at c are one dynamic. Rotating and non rotating reference frames is another perspective which relativity had roundly ignored, and this rendered it incomplete, to say the least.
There is no reason at all to care about perspectives of other observers, be they inertial, accelerating, rotating or doing whatever indecent movements. What is sufficient is already a single system of coordinates. It may be completely arbitrary, and it is only lazyness which leads to a preference for an inertial system of coordinates, because in this system the laws of physics are especially simple. The rules of transformation between different systems of coordinates are useful rules, they allow us to use other systems of coordinates, which may be, for some configurations, say, of matter, much simpler than others. Givent these rules, we can use whatever coordinates we like, but there is no necessity, no obligation, to consider or to use them. Everybody is free to use whatever system of coordinates he likes, and free to ignore all others, without being in any way incomplete (except in the case where the chosen coordinates do not cover the whole solution).
