> :=bjbjupup-j3(C9T8d=T%((%*%*%*%*%*%*%}&/)Z*%*%?%$$$(%$(%$$$Кe5d
$%U%0%$+$+$+$ $*%*%$%+? :EINSTEINS REVOLUTION: RECONCILATION OF MECHANICS, ELECTRODYNAMICS AND THERMODYNAMICS.
Rinat M. Nugayev, Chekhov st. 4v-2, Kazan 420012, Russia.
Abstract. The aim of this paper is to make a step towards a complete description of Special Relativity genesis and acceptance, bringing some light on the intertheoretic relations between Special Relativity and other physical theories of the day. Ill try to demonstrate that Special Relativity and the Early Quantum Theory were created within the same programme of statistical mechanics, thermodynamics and Maxwellian electrodynamics reconciliation, i.e. elimination of the contradictions between the consequences of this theories. The approach proposed enables to explain why classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics were refuted almost simultaneously or, in terms more suitable for the present discussion, why did the quantum and the relativistic revolutions both took place at the beginning of the 20-th century. I ll argue that the quantum and the relativistic revolutions were simultaneous since they had common origin - the clash between the fundamental theories of the second half of the 19-th century that constituted the body of Classical Physics. The revolution s most dramatic turning point was Einsteins 1905 light quantum paper, that laid the foundations of the Old Quantum Theory and influenced the fate of special theory of relativity too. Hence, the following two main interrelated theses are defended.(1)Einsteins special relativity 1905 paper can be considered as a subprogramme of a general research programme that had its pivot in the quantum; (2) One of the reasons of Einsteins victory over Lorentz consists in the following: special relativity theory superseded Lorentzs theory when the general programme imposed itself, and, in so doing, made the ether concept untenable.
Key words: A.Einstein; H.Lorentz; I.Yu.Kobzarev; context of discovery; context of confirmation
Introduction.
As is well-known, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and Lorentz's theory co-existed at the beginning of the 20-th century as empirically-equivalent ones. Up to now, the various descriptions of the Lorentz-Einstein transition were given stressing the importance of the various factors on the acceptance of Special Relativity - including the famous Michelson & Morley experiment (that was considered as rejecting the ether concept) and different socio-cultural peculiarities. Almost all the factors described played important roles in the Special Relativity justification and it is impossible to decide unambiguously which factor was the crucial one.
The aim of this paper is to make a step towards a complete description of Special Relativity acceptance and to bring some light on the intertheoretic relations between Special Relativity and other physical theories of the day , stressing their role in acceptance of Special Relativity. The crux of the paper consists in the assertion that Einsteins and Lorentzs programmes were empirically-equivalent and, hence, inseparable in the domain of electrodynamics of moving bodies. But their consequences diverged in quantum domain. Hence the domain of explanation of quantum phenomena was the ground where the Einstein Programme little by little forced out the Lorentz Programme. I think that in order to understand the STR context of justification, one should try to understand its context of discovery first. Hence the first part of the paper deals with the creation of Special Relativity and the second one aims to describe its acceptance by the scientific community.
Part one. The Genesis of the Special Theory of Relativity. In order to explain why the majority of scientists accepted STR only in 1910-1912 (and why until 1910 Einstein's work had not been disentangled from Lorentz's), one should refrain from traditional comparison of Lorentz's electron theory solely with Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". One should consider a sequence of Einstein's papers - Einstein's Programme. But what sequences of Einstein's papers belong to it? The first to describe the competition between Lorentzs and Einsteins research programmes was Imre Lakatoss disciple Elie Zahar.His account of the transition is accurate but insufficient. It cannot provide a compelling explanation why the STR was accepted by the scientific community. Using Zahar's account, it is difficult to explain the fact that STR and Lorentz's theory
were considered empirically-equivalent for some time, as well as the fact of almost simultaneous publication of Einstein's 1905 masterpieces. The STR paper "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was received by "Annalen der Physik" editorial board at 30 June 1905, and the photon paper - at 18 March 1905.Moreover, in the 1906c paper "On the Method of Determining the Relation Between Longitudinal and Transversal Masses of the Electron" the STR creator compares the consequences of three theories: theory of Bucherer, theory of Abraham and the theory of Lorentz-Einstein. It is worth noting that in 1912 the STR became commonly-accepted. To produce a more advanced description, one has to assume that the three papers of 1905 and, at least, part of previous and subsequent Einstein's works are all the parts of a single research programme. It is obvious that for determining its hard core, heuristic, etc. one has to turn to Einstein's papers, letters, etc. However, one should be aware of the following difficulties.
Einstein's views on one and the same subject varied sometimes to such an extent that even became opposite to early ones.This is true first of all of his philosophical standpoint. For instance, Einstein changed his epistemological position drastically from initial Machian philosophy to a final strong realistic view.
The fact is not surprising at all since this happens with most thinking people. But quoting Einstein one can prove anything he wants (just as with the help of any theory based on inconsistent foundations). So, the solution of the problem is not to be found in Einstein's writings about his beliefs, but in his substantive papers themselves. And one should also take into account the fact that hindsight statements by Einstein do not really throw much light on his early-years reasoning, because Einstein's later views on the earlier work were bound to be colored by his more mature attitudes.
So, one must restrict the scope of the papers analyzed by the upper limit of 1912.Restriction imposed definitely leads to Einstein's report "On the development of our views on the essence and structure of radiation" as to his practically first serious effort to analyze his works as a whole. Even such an exigent critic as Wolfgang Pauli called his report a landmark in development of theoretical physics.
The report was made at the 81-st meeting of German Natural Scientists and Physicians. It is one of the first public reports of the STR author dedicated to explanation of its foundations. The report begins with a brief account of the ether theory, which ends with a phrase: "But today we must consider the hypothesis of ether as obsolete". Why? It is important that for the answer Einstein does not turn not to the Michelson-Morley experiment and not to criticism of Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction (LFC) hypothesis. He resorts instead to
"numerous facts in the domain of radiation which show that light possesses a number of fundamental properties that can be understood with the help of Newton's emission theory considerably better than with the help of the wave theory. That is why I consider that the further phase of the development of physics will give us a theory of light which would be in some sense the unification of the wave theory with the theory of Newton".
So, Einstein's goal was to reconcile wave and emission theories of light. But the following fact suggests that Einstein's victory over Lorentz and his STR activities can only be understood in the broader context of mechanics and electrodynamics reconciliation. At the German University in Prague Ferdinand Lippich, professor of mathematical physics, was to retire and a successor was sought to commence from the summer semester (April - June, 1911).At its session the professorial board of the faculty had instructed three of its members - the professor of experimental physics, the professor of mathematics and the professor of physical chemistry - to submit a list of possible candidates." Emphasizing that the basic question of contemporary physics was how to link mechanics with electromagnetism, the committee had taken pains to select individuals who had already achieved results in this field".In April the committee proposed three people. And it was Albert Einstein who was proposed in the first place! Many years later in his Nobel Lecture Einstein pointed out that the special relativity theory resulted in appreciable advances - first of all it reconciled mechanics to electrodynamics .In general, the Prague committee efforts, as well as Einstein's activities, were all the manifestations of the 19-th century rationality tenet - to unify the different laws of nature into an integral system.
But what was the core of Einstein's programme? - To answer the question one should turn to Einstein's first 1905 famous paper "On an heuristical point of view concerning the processes of emission and transformation of light" being led by the following quotation from August 1899 letter to Maric:
"The introduction of the name 'ether' into electric theories has led to the idea of a medium, about whose motion one can speak without , in my opinion, ascribing any physical sense to the expression. I believe, as Hertz also emphasized, that electric forces are definable directly only for empty space. Furthermore, electric currents should be understood not as 'temporal extinctions of electric polarization', but as the motion of true electric masses, whose physical existence seems proven ...Then, electrodynamics would be the theory of the motions in empty space of moving electricities and magnetisms. Which of these two pictures must be chosen, an investigation of radiation will surely make clear". The facts consist in the following.1905 paper on Special Relativity was published three months later than the light quantum paper and is only a part of the unification programme. Einstein's quantum interests obviously dominated over the other themes. M. Besso, who kept up friendly relations with Einstein beginning from 1897, remembered him later as "a young man with passionate interest in science, preoccupied by the problems of reality of atoms and ether" (Besso to Einstein, letter 151).Moreover, Einstein's 1905 STR paper was the first and at the same time the last fundamental paper on special relativity. His next publications on this topic are only small additions and reviews. But the quantum theory was quite the opposite! Igor Kobzarev correctly had pointed out that Einstein is known now as the creator of STR and GTR first of all. But for some of his contemporaries who worked in physics his role appeared to be rather different. For them he was mainly a specialist in atomic theory and in quanta. Initially, in the first half of his life, Einstein saw himself in the same way too. That is why he had chosen the theme "On atomic theory role in physics" for his first professorial speech in 1909.And it was his 1905a photon paper for which he got the Nobel Prize in 1921.
Of course, now we have reminiscences of the STR author about his imaginary travels on the light rays at the age of 16 which would lead to Relativity Principle. But the documents of history of science do not confirm them. On the contrary, Einstein's first scientific paper written when he was 16 as a letter to his uncle tells us something different. In this paper Einstein takes ether as an ordinary element of physical reality just the same as electric and magnetic fields. The paper was entitled "On the Investigation of the State of the Ether in the Magnetic Field" and was written in 1895, before Einstein entered the Aargau Cantonal School. The main problem of Einstein's first scientific survey consisted in how "three components of elasticity influence ether wave velocity". Even at the second course of Eidgenossiche Technische Hochschule he did believe in the existence of ether and intended to investigate the motion of the Earth through ether experimentally. He thought of constructing several measuring devices in connection with it. In the Kyoto Lecture he described one of the devices consisting of a system of thermocouples .Another proposal, based on the interference phenomena, was mentioned in Einstein's 1901 letter to Marcel Grossman.
Although one often reads the statement that in 1905 Einstein was concerned with an explanation of the photoelectric effect, the study of 1905a paper reveals that this was not the case. The measurements of the photoeffect at that time were not sufficiently accurate to point without any doubt to a violation of classical behavior.Einstein was not so much worried by the evidence dealing with photoeffect and appealed to fluorescence, photoelectricity and photoionization data only as to indirect evidence in favor of his thesis. Rather, Einstein was concerned mostly with contradiction between mechanics and electrodynamics. Look at the beginning of his 1905a paper: "There exist an essential formal difference between the theoretical pictures physicists have drawn of gases and other ponderable bodies and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic processes in so-called empty space".
What does this difference consist in? - "Whereas we assume that the state of a body is completely determined by the positions and velocities of an albeit very large, still finite number of atoms and electrons, we use for determination of the electromagnetic state in space continuous spatial functions, so that a finite number of variables cannot be considered to be sufficient to fix completely the electromagnetic state in space"But this difference can give rise to a situation where a theory of light involving the use of continuous functions in space will lead to contradictions with experience, if it applied to the phenomena of creation and conversion of light. Hence it seems to me that the observations of black-body radiation, photoluminescence, the production of cathode rays and other phenomena involving the emission and conversion of light can be better understood on the assumption that the energy of light is distributed discontinuously in space.
And in the first part of his 1905a Einstein discloses that the joint application of mechanical and electrodynamical theoretical pictures for description of black-body radiation does not only lead to contradiction with experiments (his paper did not cite the results of Lummer & Pringsheim and Rubens & Kurlbaum), but to paradox that cannot be eliminated by usual methods. To demonstrate it Einstein uses gedankenexperiments with both theories. He considers a cavity containing a free electromagnetic field, gas molecules and Hertz's resonators. As a result one can conclude that joint application of mechanics and electrodynamics leads unavoidably to the Rayleigh -Jeans law for energy density of black-body radiation. But this relation which we found as the condition for dynamic equilibrium does not only lack agreement with experiment, but it also shows that in our picture there can be no question of a definite distribution of energy between aether and matter, since "the greater we choose the range of frequencies of resonators, the greater becomes the radiation energy in space and in the limit we get (0( (( d( = (R/N) (3(/L3)0(( (2d( = (.
Thus, Einstein pioneered in demonstrating how the cross-contradiction of mechanics and electrodynamics led to ultra-violet catastrophe(Ehrenfests notion). How did Einstein intend to eliminate the contradiction in his 1905a? - To answer the question one should turn to his first papers published in the "Annalen". All the Einstein's papers from 1901 to 1905 have one trait in common: statistico-thermodynamics approach. Thomas Kuhn correctly pointed out that what brought Einstein to the idea of light quantum was a coherent development of a research programme started in 1902, a programme so nearly independent of Planck that it would almost certainly have led to the black-body law even if Planck had never lived. Einstein's first two papers, published in 1901 and 1902, studied intermolecular forces by applying phenomenological thermodynamics. From the start of his career Einstein was deeply impressed, as Martin Klein has emphasized, by the simplicity and scope of classical thermodynamics. But for him thermodynamics included the statistical approach he had learned from Boltzmann's works, and he began to develop statistical thermodynamics. The result was a series of three papers published in 1902,1903 and 1904.They provide the clue for understanding his 1905a on quanta,1905b work on Brownian motion and 1905c paper on STR. In describing the 1902-1904 papers I'll follow Kuhn's 1978 excellent study. The first important result consisted in the fact that for physical systems of extremely general sort Einstein has produced, by the summer of 1903, a generalized measure for both temperature and entropy, containing some universal constant (.By the time he finished his 1903 paper, Einstein had recognized that ( could be evaluated in terms of the values of the gas constant and of Avogadro's number. But the theory that had led him to the constant was, however, applicable to systems far more general than gases. It should therefore have a correspondingly general physical basis. The basis should reflect the statistico-mechanical nature of the approach that led him to the constant, explaining not only its role as a scale factor for temperature, but also its position as a multiplier in the probabilistic definition of entropy. Physical significance of ( (Boltzmanns constant) was the central problem attacked in Einstein's third statistical paper, submitted to "Annalen" in the spring of 1904.Solution of the problem consisted in the phenomena of energy fluctuations. Einstein demonstrated that((2 = 2( T dE / dT, where ((2 is a measure of thermal stability of the system. And it was recognition of the constant s physical role that directed his attention to the black-body problem.
"The equation just found would permit an exact determination of the universal constant ( if it were possible to determine the energy fluctuation of the system. In the present state of our knowledge, however, that is not the case. Indeed, for only one sort of physical system can we presume from experience that an energy fluctuation occurs. That system is empty space filled with thermal radiation". At least one more step in the development of the programme of statistical thermodynamics was needed, and Einstein took it in a famous paper published in the following year, in 1905.Its content strongly suggests that Einstein had begun to seek a black-body law of his own, that he had quickly encountered the paradox - contradiction between statistical mechanics and Maxwellian electrodynamics - and that he had dropped the search for the law in favor of an exploration of the paradox itself. This is clear from the very beginning of his paper which was already quoted. The first part of 1905a ended by discovering the ltraviolet catastrophe. How did Einstein resolve the paradox? In the second part of his 1905a Einstein applies thermodynamics (dS=1/T), statistical mechanics (S = k log W) and Maxwellian electrodynamics (E = V( (( d( ) to describe the domain of empirical reality covered by Wien's radiation law of 1896. In the 1905a paper Einstein takes ( = h/k = N h/R as undefined constant and hence he writes R(/N everywhere instead of h. Joint application of the three fundamental theories enables Einstein to arrive at an apparently deductive argument: if monochromatic radiation of frequency ( and energy E is enclosed in the volume V0, then the probability W that at any moment all the radiation energy will be found in the partial volume V of the volume V0 is given by W = (V/V0)E/h( (i) Yet in the same paper Einstein demonstrates that in the case of n independently moving particles enclosed in a volume V0 the probability of finding them all momentarily in the subvolume V is W = (V/V0)n (ii) Comparing (i) and (ii), Einstein comes to a conclusion that monochromatic radiation of small density behaves in thermodynamic respects as though it consists of distinct independent energy quanta of magnitude h(.He did not appreciate that the existence of light quanta was rendered more than a plausible hypothesis by the derivation of eq.(i).Only 66 years later Jon Dorling (1971) convincingly demonstrated that the argument by analogy which Einstein used to introduce light quanta is as a matter of fact redundant and that his conclusion already follows deductively from what he had already established. As had been pointed out by Igor Kobzarev,
applying Boltzmann's rule, Einstein ould think that the main principles of classical mechanics are valid for field of heat radiation, but Maxwell's equations - are not...In general, all the situation appeared to Einstein as development of classical atomistics. Maxwell and Boltzmann had introduced atoms instead of continuous media; now the same was to be done for electromagnetic field which is something like the gas consisting of interacting photons.
Many of Einstein's contemporaries described the genesis of early quantum theory in the same way .So, the conclusion that radiation in the cavity consists of independent energy quanta follows directly from application of general principles of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics to processes of radiation.
Thus, if the monochromatic radiation (of sufficiently small density) in the sense of entropy dependence upon volume behaves itself as a discontinuous medium, consisting of energy quanta R((/N , a question occurs: if they are not the laws of creation and conversion of light such as if it consists of similar energy quanta?. That is the question put up by Einstein at the end of one of the sections in his 1905a. But the ether conception prevents the positive answer. Indeed, "mechanical and purely electromagnetic interpretations of optical and electromagnetic phenomena have in common that in both cases electromagnetic field is considered as a special state of hypothetical medium filling all the space. Namely in that point two interpretations mentioned differ radically from Newton's emission theory, in which light consists of moving particles. According to Newton, space should be considered as possessing neither ponderable matter, nor light rays, i.e. absolutely empty".
To create a quantum theory of radiation, one needs electromagnetic fields as independent entities that can be emitted by the source just as in Newton's emitting theory (i.e. energy transmitted in process of emission should not be dissipated in space, but should be completely preserved until an elementary act of absorption).But within the Lorentz programme electromagnetic field is considered as a specific state of ether - a state of medium that is continuously distributed in space. An elementary process of radiation is connected in such a medium only with a spherical wave.
Moreover, "while in the molecular-kinetic theory there exists the reverse process for each one, in which only few elementary particles take part (for instance, for each collision of molecules), the picture is quite different for elementary processes within the wave theory. According to it, an oscillating ion radiates an outgoing spherical wave. The reverse process, as elementary one, does not exist. Nevertheless, the ingoing spherical wave is mathematically possible; yet its approximate realization needs a great number of elementary radiating centers. Hence, an elementary process of radiation is irreversible. It is in this case where, to my mind, our wave theory does not fit reality. It seems to me that in this point Newton's emitting theory is more valid than the wave theory of light".
Many Einstein's contemporaries also thought that the rejection of ether leads to corpuscular theories .In general the idea of light particles was in the air of the beginning of the 20-th century.
It should be pointed out that the rejection of ether and acceptance of emission theory is not equivalent to acceptance of the two basic postulates of STR. Rejection of ether and acceptance of emission theory are compatible with Walter Ritz's 1908 theory. According to his ballistic hypothesis, velocity of quantum should depend on the velocity of its source. In Ritz's theory velocity of light is not constant, but is equal to v + c, where v is a relative velocity of the observer and the source. Ritz's theory was in certain respects a return to old conceptions of action-at-a-distance. It was analogous to theories of Weber and Riemann. Ritz rejected basic notions of the Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. He throwed out the notions of electric and magnetic field and began operating with notion of direct interactions between the charges only. In his theory the force of interactions depended upon the distance between the charges and upon their states of motion. After successful explanation of the sequence of optical and electric phenomena (in particular, the experiments of Michelson & Morley, Trouton & Noble, Kaufmann, etc.), the theory gave an original interpretation of ultraviolet catastrophe (see Ritz's discussions with Einstein) and even obtained the equation of anomalous precession of Mercury perihelion that coincided with observation data (but, alas, contained a constant that should be determined from experiment).However, the theory met with significant difficulties explaining double stars observations.In fact, one should speak about Ritz's programme of reduction of mechanics to electrodynamics .M.Abraham, J.Kunz, I.Laub ,R.Stewart ,G.Trowbridge, R.Tolman et al. made important contributions to development of this programme. The papers of Richard Feynman and John Wheeler owed much, as the authors admitted, to Ritz's ideas. Ritz's theory met insurmountable difficulties in explaining experimental data (for instance, according to R. Tolman, two of three emission theories were refuted just after their proposal).Moreover, it was too phenomenological (containing more than 10 constants to be determined from experiments).But maybe in future the theory could advance. However, Ritz died in 1909, leaving his theory in unfinished form. "Abovementioned notes on the emission theory or the theory of ether drag clearly indicate that the interpretation of the Michelson negative result by the contraction hypothesis is not a single one in logical respect. But history made a different choice".
In any case, in the form developed by Ritz, his theory directly contradicts modern experiments with mesons, as well as the measurements of electron velocities dependence upon their masses made on accelerators .Thus, in Ritz's ballistic theory velocities of light and of its source should add in accordance with addition law of classical mechanics (the Galileo formula).But it contradicts the field conception, on which Maxwell's theory is based. Indeed, in Maxwell's theory the finite velocity of electromagnetic perturbations in vacuum is independent of their forms and of the velocities of their sources. But, opposite to Ritz, Einstein never thought of rejecting Maxwell's theory, just as Newton, author of emission theory, did not reject the wave theory 300 years earlier. In his 1905a photon paper Einstein had specially pointed out that "wave theory operating with point continuous functions is excellently justified when describing purely optical phenomena and perhaps would not be replaced by another theory"(p.237).In Lorentz's theory this difficulty did not exist at all. Indeed, in the reference frame that is at rest relative to ether, light propagates with constant velocity independent of the velocity of the source. An analogy with water waves is especially appropriate here, since in the first approximation their velocities do not depend on the velocity of the ship that creates them. Hence, if one wants to give up the idea of ether, but to retain Maxwell's theory at the same time, he should disown ballistic hypothesis and postulate a special "principle of constancy of velocity of light". In a conversation with Robert Shankland, Einstein told him that he had consider the ballistic hypothesis as a possible version but left it before 1905 since he could not find a differential equation, the solution of which represented waves with source-dependent velocities.
The second fundamental principle of STR - the principle of relativity - follows immediately from the fact that there is no ether and, consequently, no absolute system of reference. The two postulates - the relativity principle and the principle of light constancy - are quite sufficient, according to Einstein, to create the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Namely these statements were chosen as the foundation of the hard core of Relativity Subprogramme described thoroughly by Zahar. Yet, for the theory based on these two principles not to lead to contradictory consequences, it is necessary to reject the common rule of velocities' addition.
And in fact that was done in 1905c "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", published four months after the photon paper. Einstein had revealed that the Galileo addition law is based on the hidden assumption - that spatial and temporal properties of moving bodies are independent of the state of motion of the reference frame. He demonstrated that the acceptance of "principle of relativity" together with the "principle of constancy of light" is equivalent to modification of the simultaneity concept and to clock delay in moving reference frame. For comparison of 1905a and 1905c the following observation of Gerald Holton is important. When 1905c paper was published, Einstein was persistent refusing to call it a new theory. And only after it was christened so by Planck in 1907, he began to call it publicly as the so-called theory of relativity. For example, in the first (brief) review of 1907 he presented his work as "unification of Lorentz's theory with relativity principle ".
"Thus, the theory of relativity changes our views on the nature of light in the sense that light steps forward in it without any connection with a hypothetical medium, but as some thing that exists independently, similar to matter. Then this theory, in analogy to the corpuscular theory of light, differs in that it acknowledges mass transition from a radiator to absorber".
If all these is true, a question arises: why did Einstein in his STR paper not cite his paper on light quanta? - Writing to his friend Conrad Habicht in 1905 and sending him the fruits of his labor at that time, Einstein called his light quanta paper very revolutionary, while he noted that the relativity paper might be interesting in its kinematical part. The contemporaries saw it in the same way. The spirit of revolution is seen at its boldest in the theory of radiation.
Moreover. Reference in the paper, introducing significant changes mainly of metaphysical character, on the hypothesis that had already introduced revolutionary changes and had contradicted Maxwell's theory, could hardly make the arguments stronger. Even in 1916 R.Millikan declared that despite ...the apparently complete success of the Einstein equation (for the photoeffect) the physical theory of which it was designed to be symbolic expression is found to be so untenable that Einstein, himself, I believe, no longer holds it. Einstein himself at the first Solvay Congress had to admit the provisional character of this concept (light quanta) which does not seem reconcilable with the experimentally verified consequences of the wave theory .A further hint pointing in the same direction was spotted by Abraham Pais, when he asked why it took twelve years , to the farther of special relativity, to write p = h(/c side by side with E = h(.The situation was even complicated also since direct experimental evidence in favor of light quanta hypothesis was absent. It appeared only in 1923 (the Compton effect).Hence German scientists, for instance, did their best to elect Einstein to Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1914, but had to make the reservation that his defense of light quanta was an unavoidable price which should be paid for his creative genius. However, negative attitude of pre-Compton scientific community to light quanta hypothesis should not be exaggerated.
Although Abraham Pais insists that "from 1905 to 1923 he [Einstein] was a man apart in being the only one, or almost the only one, to take the light quanta seriously", this thesis is valid in respect to the German speaking community. Otherwise how can one explain then a large amount of American publications proposing various emission theories - the papers of Comstock (1910),Tolman (1910),Stewart(1911),Trowbridge(1911),Laub(1912) and others? Just to quote Jacob Kunz whereas the principle of relativity and the theory of radiation of Planck assume discontinuities in the emission and the absorption of light, there are many optical phenomena pointing towards a corpuscular constitution of light and Roentgen rays. And how G.N.Lewis's theory (see the next part) should be understood? Moreover, the following remark of an Einstein's centenary conference participant is especially convincing. "H.D.Smith (Princeton University).The point I wish to put before Professor Klein is based on my understanding of his comment that the community of physics did not really accept the idea of the particle nature of light until the Compton-effect experiment. I was taught atomic physics here at Princeton in 1918 and 1919, and there was not any question about this. We knew the Millikan experiment; we knew the various other experiments that had tried to get the maximum energy of photoelectrons; we knew of the experiments of Franck and Hertz. The whole experimental program of Compton really was based on the idea of the particle nature of light at least as a working hypothesis.
M. Klein. Well, I cannot quarrel with your memory..."
Smith's evidence is confirmed by other direct participants at the events.
So, in the light of the provisional nature of light quanta hypothesis, it is no wonder that the 1905a light quantum paper differs from 1905c STR work both in a more careful heading - On Heuristical Point of View... and by less categorical tone of the main conclusion: In the following, I shall communicate the train of thought and the facts which led me to this conclusion, in the hope that the point of view to be given may turn out to be useful for some research workers in their investigations (paper on light quanta). Compair with: Insufficient understanding of these peculiarities is the root of the difficulties that have to be overcome by electrodynamics of the moving bodies (paper on STR).
Thus, Einstein had good reasons not to cite his photon paper in the STR exposition. But of course his hidden sympathies with light quanta manifest themselves through neutral description of electrodynamics of moving bodies. In his STR paper Einstein uses the neutral term light complex. The paragraph number 8 of his 1905c uses the ratio of amplitudes obtained in the preceding paragraph to obtain the ratio of energies of the fields within some closed surface in the two coordinate systems. The ratio just coincides with that of frequencies; of course, there could be no contradiction between STR and the photon theory. Well, if Einstein had grave reasons not to reveal the link between 1905a and 1905c at the beginning of the 20-th century, why he did not do it much later, after the Nobel Prize, for instance, when his photoeffect formula were confirmed and Comptons experiment had been already performed?
Einsteins activity in General Relativity provide the clue for the answer. Writing to Lorentz in June,1916, he admits that general relativity is nearer to ether hypothesis than special theory of relativity.Why? - The answer can be found in his 1918 paper: The general theory of relativity does not know of a preferred state of motion in a point which could be interpreted as a so-to-say velocity of an ether. While, however, according to special relativity a region of space without matter and without electromagnetic field proves to be absolutely empty, i.e. characterized by no physical quantities, according to the general theory of relativity even the space, empty in this sense, has physical properties, mathematically characterized by the components of gravitational potential, which determine the metric behavior as well as the gravitational field of this region of space. We can comprehend this situation by speaking of an ether whose state always varies from point to point.
The idea that space has physical properties (i.e. that independent existence is to be attributed to the ether) was for Einstein connected with a possibility that a metric can exist without matter. He was undoubtedly influenced by Lorentz. Einstein wrote him in a letter of November 15,1919:
I shall expound my standpoint in the problem of the ether exhaustively as soon as opportunity presents itself. It would have been better could I have restricted myself in my earlier publications to insisting that it is the velocity of the aether which is not real instead of having defended at all the non-existence of the aether. Because , since, I have realized that with word aether nothing is said but that the space must be considered as the carrier of physical qualities.
Now it is clear why , after creating the STR on the quantum basis, Einstein did not like to remember the real facts later. This is because of his General Relativity and his passionate beliefs in the fundamental nature of metric. Until his last days he was an adherent to the programme that reduced everything to geometry. Photon was not an exception. He hoped through all his life that a suitable unified geometrical theory would explain quanta also. So, in 1905c paper on STR, Einstein refers neither to light-quanta paper, nor to the black-body paradox (ultraviolet catastrophe, in Ehrenfests terms). Instead he starts it describing the asymmetry between the motions of the conductor and the magnet. The asymmetry is obvious to anyone knowing that ether and absolute frame reference do not exist at all. However, without necessary connections with quantum 1905a paper the STR postulates may seem artificial. And, as Stanley Goldberg argued, in fact they were evaluated so by Henri Poincare and the French school.For Poincare both STR postulates were experimental results, or, in more strict terms, experimentally testable outcomes within a theory based on other postulates. Lorentz and Poincare were interested in creating a theory of electrons which could explain why matter behaved as it did. But in Einsteins works one finds no attempt to account for the kinematical results in terms of the behavior of matter or interaction of matter with ether. On all the three Poincare criteria of good physical theory - simplicity, suppleness, and naturalness - Einsteins Theory of Relativity would have fallen short in Poincares eyes, so much so in fact, that Poincare never saw fit to mention it. To Poincare, Einsteins theory must have been seen as a poor attempt to explain a small part of the phenomena embraced by the Lorentz theory. This supposition can explain the matter of record that Henri Poincare never responded publicly to Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity.As for the French school, even in 1924 E.M. Lemeray lamented that there was no evidence of the introduction of Theory of Relativity at any level of education.
Thus, Einstein did his best to convince the readers that similar examples, as well as unsuccessful attempts to find Earths motion relative to luminiferous medium, lead to supposition that not only in mechanics but in electrodynamics as well no property of events corresponds to the notion of absolute rest. Part two. Einsteins Revolution: Context of Confirmation. Predictions of the Lorentz theory were identical to that of the STR, so that it would not be possible in any case to distinguish between these theories on experimental grounds. Moreover, most of Einsteins contemporaries wrote about Lorentz-Einstein electron model, about the principle of relativity of Lorentz and Einstein, etc. At the time of publication of Lorentzs second order theory (1904) the only data available to test these theories were Kaufmanns measurements of the masses of slowly moving electrons. But they were initially interpreted as contradicting both STR and Lorentzs theory. It took a year for Einstein to answer on Kaufmanns paper. I can imagine how the STR was evaluated by the scientific community in 1905 - 1906! Furthermore, Einstein did not reveal the connections between 1905a and 1905c until 1909.However, without this connection his STR postulates can be evaluated as artificial hypotheses and in fact they were! - The reaction of Poincare and of the French school is the most obvious example.- Hence to explain the reasons for Einsteins victory over Lorentz , comparison of Ether Programme with Relativity Programme is insufficient. One should consider the successes of Einsteins statistical papers and the development of the quantum subprogramme.
The history of quanta starts from Plancks attempts to bridge the gap between thermodynamics, statistical mechanics and Maxwells theory well-known to the scientific community of the end of the 19-th century. And it was his quantum theory that appeared a product of the interaction of these three famous themes of 19-th century scientific research. Before 1900 Planck had made important contributions to all of them. Thermodynamics was his first love(T.Kuhn).His work in it was well-known before he turned, at the age of 36, to electrodynamics. It is important that statistical technique entered Plancks research later and against much resistance .He began to study Boltzmanns works with care only in 1897-1898.Unfortunately, he did not explicitly acknowledge his change of mind for almost 2 years, a delay that has reinforced the almost universal impression that his conversion to a statistical viewpoint was intimately associated with his introduction of the quantum hypothesis at the end of 1900.But in fact the opposite statement is true: Plancks introduction of the quantum hypothesis is a firm and unavoidable consequence of his conversion to a statistical viewpoint, of application of Boltzmanns technique and ideas in the study of radiation. It was the origin of early quantum theory from the clash between classical electrodynamics and statistical mechanics that was indicated by one of the leading Russian theorists of the beginning of the 20-th century:
But the most curious thing is that the quantum idea should be born half a century ago, when the kinetic theory of matter was created, since this idea is intimately connected with molecular structure of matter and is a specific reflection of this structure. Einsteins arguments for light quanta presented in his 1905a are completely different from those of Planck given 5 years earlier. Contrary to Planck, in 1905a Einstein proceeds from the Wien law, using only Boltzmanns law. He cites Planck twice. But one of this citations points to a paper written before 1900.In the second citation Einstein quotes Plancks distribution law but only as an expression, adequately describing experimental radiation spectra. What brought Einstein to the idea of light quantum was a coherent development of a research programme started in 1902, a programme so nearly independent of Planck that it would almost certainly have led to the black-body law even if Planck had never lived.
From the start of his career, Einstein was deeply impressed, as Martin Klein has frequently emphasized, by the simplicity and scope of classical thermodynamics. In that respect he was like Planck. But they differed radically in the attitude to statistical approach, and it is this difference that explains their conservative and revolutionary standpoints, respectively. For Einstein thermodynamics included the statistical approach he had learned from Boltzmanns famous Gas Theory. It seems fair to say that Einstein considered statistical mechanics richer than thermodynamics insofar as it predicted fluctuations. While Einstein took statistical approach seriously, Planck treated it in a merely instrumental way. Einsteins two first papers, published in 1901 and 1902, attempted to study intermolecular forces by applying phenomenological thermodynamics to such phenomena as capillarity, etc. Finding the results obtained inconclusive, Einstein abandoned the phenomenological approach and began instead to develop statistical thermodynamics applicable not only to gases, but to other states of aggregation as well.
In 1906 Ehrenfest and Einstein were the first to recognize that Plancks blackbody law could not be derived without restricting the resonator energy to integral multiples of h(.Ehrenfests conversion to quanta was not accidental. According to Martin Klein, in 1899-1900 Ehrenfest attended Boltzmanns lectures on the mechanical theory of heat. His first publication was a paper dealing with a small point in the theory of gases, which Boltzmann presented to the Royal Academy of Sciences on July,1903.Ehrenfests thesis The Motion of Rigid Bodies in Fluids Boltzmann characterized as very fundamental, diligently and cleverly worked out. When Ehrenfest cited Boltzmanns work in a particularly complete way, Boltzmann remarked : If only I knew my own work that well .Ehrenfests interests were in statistical mechanics; so, at least initially, quantum theory seemed to him to be a branch of statistics. Even in his 1911 paper Which Features of the Hypothesis of Light Quanta Play an Essential Role in the Theory of Thermal Radiation? Ehrenfest explained why energy quanta were proportional to frequency .The origin consisted in the requirements of the second law of thermodynamics in its statistical form. Until 1908, Einsteins and Ehrenfests demonstrations had little apparent impact (Einsteins light quantum paper was the first sympathetic response to Plancks blackbody investigation).But the paper, presented by Lorentz in 1908, caused a profound change in the attitude of the community towards the quantum: ... one cannot escape Jeanss conclusion, at least not without profoundly modifying the fundamental hypothesis of the theory.
The Rayleigh-Jeans law and the ultraviolet catastrophe did not initially pose problems to more than two or three physicists. But finally they became central in physics due to their repeated rederivation by a variety of different technique. Lorentzs paper appeared in the early spring of 1908.By the end of the following year, Lorentz, Wien and Planck himself had been persuaded that radiation theory demanded discontinuity. Arnold Sommerfeld and James Jeans were moving towards that position in 1910, the year Lorentz provided particular clear and widely appreciated arguments for it. After 1910 the leadership in quantum investigations passed to specific heats at low temperatures. Up to 1911, the Roentgen radiation, photoeffect (Starks and Barklas experiments), luminescence, atomic theories became important domains of application of the early quantum programme. They all had provided a constant empirically progressive problemshift. A serious success became Nernsts 1911 confirmation of Einsteins 1907 specific heats formulae. If Plancks theory strikes to the heart of the matter, then one should, according to Einstein, make a fundamental change in the foundations of statistical mechanics. Quantum discontinuity appeared to be connected not only with interaction of matter and radiation. But what about the oscillators that appear in the molecular theories? - They too must obey the quantum restrictions in direct contradiction to classical statistical mechanics. Einstein found confirmation in the departures of some specific heats from the Dulong-Petit rule, that went against the equipartition theorem. Thus, Einsteins specific heat theory was a statistical-mechanical one, independent of electrodynamics. He quantized the energies of neutral atoms also. In 1907 Wiens theory was confirmed. He considered the radiation of moving charged particles with the help of Plancks theory. In the same year, Wien used his theory to analyze the Roentgen spectra. His predictions were confirmed in 1912, when X-ray diffraction was found. The first Solvay Congress (1911) definitely enough revealed the inability of classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics to solve the problems concentrated in the radiation theory. The result of the discussion of these questions seems to be a general acknowledgment of the inadequacy of the classical electrodynamics in describing the behavior of systems of atomic size.
Thus, inspite of the fact that the light quanta hypothesis had to wait for general recognition for more than 10 years, the quantum theory successes had cut the ground from the feet of the wave theory and ether conception that had constituted the foundation of it. Elizabeth Garber had already pointed out that of all the men who worked upon the blackbody radiation problem both before and after 1900 all but one (Rayleigh) in some way concerned themselves also in questions of relativity. Even Jeanss first paper, in which he accepted the theory of quanta, had a relativistic ring to its title: Planck and non-classical mechanics.
Physicists of various countries and different cultural traditions had indicated that it was quantum theory that led to ether rejection. At first, Norman Campbell , Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, began his 1910 paper by stating that the position of the conception of aether in modern physics is anomalous and unsatisfactory...No doubt much of the dissatisfaction with the aether is based on the recent theories of the atomic nature of radiation and on the proof that the principle of relativity is an adequate foundation of electromagnetic theory... .The conclusion of the paper is no less interesting:
My object is not to marshall all the arguments that might be brought against the use of that concept, but only those which appear to me especially destructive at the present time. The recent work of Bucherer, and the atomic theories of J.J.Thomson and Planck (the latter recently developed by Stark so as to resemble the former very closely) will be found very difficult to the believers in the aether to assimilate or to explain away; if they attempt to do so it will doubtless be in the belief that the concept of the aether is worth retaining .
In the USA one of the emission theorists Jacob Kunz pointed out that while the electromagnetic wave theory of light accounted for the groups of phenomena of reflection, refraction, interference, polarization, etc., difficulties were found in the explanation of the aberration, and of the experiments of Airy, Fizeau and Michelson-Morley... The principle of relativity, giving up ether, points towards elements of electromagnetic energy, that have a certain analogy with material particles. Independently of the principle of relativity, the theory of radiation of the black body has been developed by Lorentz, Planck, Larmor, J.J.Thomson and others...Whereas the principle of relativity and the theory of radiation of Planck assume discontinuities in the emission and absorption of light, there are many optical phenomena pointing towards a corpuscular constitution of light and Roentgen rays. This is so much so, that a special corpuscular theory of Roentgen rays has been developed by Bragg, who considers them as made up of doublets of positive and negative particles.
In Russia, Paul Ehrenfest had finished his paper called The Crisis in Light Ether Hypothesis by pointing out the group of sophisticated questions that maybe takes the most important role in future of the ether hypothesis ; I have in mind the group of tangled questions connected at present with the notion atoms of light. But the most direct and astonishing evidence in favor of STR and the early Quantum Theory connection is the paper A Revision of the Fundamental Laws of Matter and Energy published in November 1908 issue of Philosophical Magazine. Its author was Gilbert N.Lewis, who later (1926) invented the term photon, at that time an Associate Professor of Physical Chemistry at M.I.T. The paper begins as follows: Recent publications of Einstein (Annalen der Physik,18,p.639,1905) and Comstock (Philosophical Magazine,vol.15,p.1,1908) have emboldened me to publish certain views which I have entertained on this subject and which a few years ago appeared purely speculative, but which have been so far corroborated by recent advances in experimental and theoretical physics that it seems desirable to subject this views to a strict logical development, although in so doing it will be necessary to modify those fundamental principles of the mechanics of ponderable matter which have remained unaltered since the time of Newton.But what are the views that appeared purely speculative and why they were not published in the USA first? - In his letter to Robert Millikan Lewis remembered:
In 1897 I wrote a paper on the thermodynamics of hohlraum which was read by several members of the chemistry and physics departments. They agreed unanimously that the work was not worth doing especially as I postulated a pressure of light, of which they all denied the existence. They advised me strongly not to spend time on such fruitless investigations, all being entirely unaware of the similar and more successful work that Wien was then doing .A few years later I had very much the same ideas of atomic and molecular structure as I now hold, and I had a much greater desire to expound them, but I could not find a soul sufficiently interested to hear the theory.
Lewiss 1908 paper was the first American paper dealing with relativity. Lewis was not a theoretical physicist just as Einstein was a clerk in the patent office. Lewis was a physical chemist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but a chemist with wide-ranging interests. Besides papers in physics, he published in mathematics and even economic theory.Later, in a letter to Arnold Sommerfeld (12 December,1910) ,Lewis confessed that he had written the 1908 paper without the knowledge of Einsteins work. Someone had pointed it out to him after the fact.In view of STR genesis conception proposed, this is quite reliable .Lewis arrived at relativity from light quanta realizing his own programme initiated before 1897.This hypothesis, of course, needs a thorough historical study.
Lewis begins his 1908 paper by postulating that the energy and the momentum of a beam of radiation are due to a mass moving with the velocity of light. From this postulate alone, he demonstrates that the mass of a body depends on its energy content and that, therefore, it is necessary to replace that axiom of Newtonian mechanics according to which the mass of a body is independent of its velocity. On the contrary, the mass of a body is a function of the velocity and becomes infinite at the velocity of light The equation obtained by Lewis agreed with the results of Kaufmanns experiments on the relation between the electron mass and its velocity. Lewis obtained the equation E=mc2 which has also been obtained by Einstein (loc.cit.) who derived it from the general equations of the electromagnetic theory, with the aid of the so-called principle of relativity. That a different method of investigation thus leads to the same simple equation we have here deduced, speaks decidedly for the truth of our fundamental postulate. As I have already pointed out, the idea of corpuscular theory renaissance was in the air beginning of the 20-th century.Hence to anyone unfamiliar with the prevailing theories of light, knowing only that light moves with a certain velocity and that in a beam of light momentum and energy are being carried with the same velocity, the natural assumption would be that in such a beam something possessing mass moves with the velocity of light and therefore has momentum and energy. What is this something? - The flow of light particles, of course. However, the view here proposed, which appears at first sight a reversion to the old corpuscular theory of light, must seem to many incompatible with the electromagnetic theory. If it really were so, I should not have ventured to advance it, for the ideas announced by Maxwell constitute what may no longer regarded as a theory but rather a body of experimental fact. The new theory is offered, not in any sense to replace, but to supplement the accepted theories of light.The author, to my mind, undoubtedly understood all the dangers of pursuing the corpuscular theory of light straightforwardly, and at the end of his paper .Lewis has to make a reservation: in the first place it should be noted that, while the theory is consistent with a modified corpuscular theory of light, it does not necessarily imply that light is corpuscular. However the reservation could not save him from the sharp criticism of Louis T.More, professor of physics at the University of Cincinnati. He had accused Lewis of attempting two distinct things: first, to establish quasi-corpuscular theory of light, and second, to explain inertia, wholly or in part, as a function of velocity .Lewiss opponent had described all the difficulties all corpuscular theories of light plunge into when such phenomena as interference, polarization, diffraction, etc. are discussed, as they are not touched upon. Nevertheless, the job was done and the connection between the theory of light quanta and electrodynamics of moving bodies was revealed and publicly discussed.Furthermore, in the next paper The Principle of Relativity and Non-Newtonian Mechanics (1909) Gilbert N.Lewis and Richard C.Tolman, at that time a student of physical chemistry at MIT, had specially pointed out that
the two laws taken together constitute the principle of relativity...Moreover the system of mechanics which he (i.e. Einstein) obtains is identical with the non-Newtonian mechanics developed from entirely different premises by one of the present authors.For instance, the consequences which one of us obtained from a simple assumption as to the mass of a beam of light, and the fundamental conservation laws of mass, energy and momentum, Einstein has derived from the principle of relativity and the electromagnetic theory.
In evaluating Lewiss programme, his 1910 and 1912 papers on the mathematical apparatus of STR are also important.
Interpenetration of STR and Newtons theory of gravity brought to creation of General Relativity. Its explanatory success (Mercury perihelion precession) and enthusiastic support by non-scientific circles also had helped to force out the Classical Physics.Of course, the successes of the General Relativity can appear too modest if we compare them with those of the Early Quantum Theory. This is so much so, if one takes into account that famous bending of light can be explained by any 4-vector gravitational theory in flat space-time
The limits of this paper do not allow me to give a more detailed account of the successes of the quantum programme. I shall describe only the most important steps of its development. Firstly, the results of Charles Barkla (1908), later confirmed by E.Wagner, should be mentioned. For X-ray fluorescence, the frequency of the secondary radiation was found to be smaller than the frequency of exciting it primary radiation in agreement with Stokess rule. Einsteins photoeffect formula was confirmed in 1916 by R.Millikan, who at the same time was skeptical in relation to light quanta.
So, in 1910 the STR postulates began to be considered as independent principles, and not as consequences from Lorentzs theory.It can be said that at that time the divergence of Lorentzs and Einsteins programmes had begun. The Quantum Subprogramme starts to produce the effects that are difficult to explain by Lorentzs programme, and begins to force out Classical Physics from the domain of research gradually. But from 1905 up to 1910 Einsteins passionate appeals to throw the ether out were simply ignored. In 1908 and 1909 A.Bucherer obtained experimental results favoring both Einsteins and Lorentzs theories and declared at the same time about his belief in immaterial ether.
Thus, already in September 1911 Arnold Sommerfeld even declared that the STR was the safe possession of the physicist and the frontier problem of physics became the understanding of Plancks energy quanta and Einsteins light quanta. Black-body theory and specific heats were the two quantum topics well established by the end of the period 1911-1912.However, Roentgen radiation, luminescence, Bohr spectra became new important areas of the development of the quantum Subprogramme. The Bohr theory was one of the last blows for ether-based wave theory. His paper On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules begins by stating the inadequacy of the classical electrodynamics in describing the behavior of systems of atomic size. It contains lots of expressions like the failure of classical mechanics, obvious contrast to the ordinary ideas of electrodynamics, etc. One of Bohrs main conclusions consisted in that the intention, however, has been to show that the sketched generalization of the theory of the stationary states possibly may afford a simple basis of representing a number of experimental facts which cannot be explained by help of ordinary electrodynamics, and that the assumptions used do not seem to be inconsistent with experiments on phenomena for which a satisfactory explanation has been given by the classical dynamics and the wave theory of light. Only the Bohr theory explained the facts that could not be explained by the Lorentz programme. Einstein was extremely surprised and told me: it follows that the frequency of radiated light does not depend on the frequency of electron rotation in an atom at all. This is a great achievement. Consequently, Bohrs theory should be correct(Hevesys letter to E.Rutherford,14 October 1913). In 1922 in the paper Dopplers Principle and Bohrs Frequency Condition Erwin Schrodinger obtained an important result. In the theory of light quanta the same Doppler effect followed for the frequency of spectral lines as in the wave theory for moving atoms. And finally, Comptons experiments convincingly demonstrated that the scattering of X-rays is a quantum phenomena. In 1924 S.Bose came to first derivation of Plancks blackbody radiation formula by endowing light quanta with new statistical properties. On the basis of new statistics Einstein in 1924 and 1925 quickly developed quantum theory of monatomic ideal gases. In 1924 Louis de Broglie in the doctoral thesis came to conclusion that matter should possess certain wave properties. Inspite of its successes, the quantum theory of radiation raised even more difficult problems, connected to its relations to classical radiation theory, classical statistical mechanics and classical thermodynamics. Mutual interpenetration of these theories led to the creation of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and quantum field theory. Thus, the dialectic of the old fundamental theories appeared to be important for theory change in physics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is a pleasure to thank anonymous referee for critical remarks
To: prof. Guido Cimino, editor of Physis,
Enciclopedia Italiana, Piazza Enciclopedia Italiana,
4 - 00186 Roma, Italy.
From: prof. Rinat M.Nugayev, 420012, Kazan, Chekhov st.4v-2,
Russia.
Kazan, 22 November 1999.
Dear professor Cimino,
enclosed is a new modified version of my paper Einsteins Revolution: Reconciliation of Mechanics, Electrodynamics and Thermodynamics. In the final version I did try to meet all the suggestions of two referees again. Please acknowledge the receipt of the manuscript. Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours
Prof. Rinat Nugayev
Research is supported by Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research.
see, for instance, N.R Campbell. The Common Sense of Relativity, Philosophical Magazine,vol.21, 1911,6,p.503.
see, for instance, S.Abiko. On the chemico-thermal origins of special relativity, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences,vol.22,1990, part 1,pp.1-24; L.S. Feuer .Einstein and the Generations of Science. N.Y.:Basic Books.Inc.,1974; S.Goldberg The Lorentz Theory of Electrons and Einsteins Theory of Relativity. American Journal of Physics,vol.37,1969,pp.982-994; Tetu Hirosige. The ether problem, the mechanistic worldview and the origins of the theory of relativity. Historical Studies in the Physical sciences,vol.7, 1976,pp.3-82; G.Holton .Einstein, Michelson and the Crucial Experiment. Isis,vol.60,1969,pp.133-197; M.J.Klein. Einsteins First Paper on Quanta. The Natural Philosopher,vol.2,1963;R.Mc Cormmach .H.A.Lorentz and the Electromagnetic View of Nature, Isis,vol.61,1970,pp.459-497. A.I. Miller .The SR theory: Einsteins Response to the Physics of 1905, in: Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives, ed. by G.Holton & Y.Elkana, Princeton, New Jersey,1982,pp.3-26.
Elie Zahar . Did Einsteins programme supersede Lorentzs? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,vol.24, 1973,pp.95-123,226-262.
A.Einstein. Uber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden hewristischen Gesichtpunkt. Annalen der Physik,vol.17,1905a,pp.132-148; A.Einstein Uber die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Warme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flussigkeiten suspendierten Teilschen. Annalen der Physik,vol.17, 1905b pp.549-560.A.Einstein Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper. Annalen der Physik, vol.17, 1905c ,pp.891-921.English translation in: The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York,1923.
A. Einstein . Uber eine methode zur Bestimmung des verhaltnisses der transversalen und longitudinalen Masse des Elektrons, Annalen der Physik,vol.20, 1906c ,pp.583-586.
Carl Seelig . Albert Einstein. Leben und Werk Eines Genies Unserer Zeit. Zurich, Europa Verlag, 1960.
Hence Tetu Hirosige correctly attributed Einstein's 1901-1905 sensibility to the inconsistencies between mechanics and electrodynamics to the influence of Mach, whose writings supposedly freed the STR creator from the mechanistic worldview. Einstein could therefore reconcile mechanics, thermodynamics and electrodynamics without reducing one to the others. Of course the STR did not arise from philosophical reflections, but from Einstein's own daily considerations about current physical problems and from his concrete physical investigations.
A. Einstein .Uber die Entwicklung unserer Anschaungen uber das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung, Physikalische Zeitschrift,vol.10, 1909, pp.817-825.
Quoted from M.J Klein. No firm foundations: Einstein and the Early Quantum Theory, in: Some Strangeness in the Proportion. N.Y., Basic Books, 1980,pp.161-185.
A. Einstein . Uber die Entwicklung unserer Anschaungen uber das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung, Physikalische Zeitschrift,vol.10, 1909,p.482.
Joseph Illy .Albert Einstein in Prague, Isis,vol.70,1979,p.76.
Gerald Holton . Einsteins Scientific Programme: the Formative Years, in: Some Strangeness in the Proportion. ed. by M.Wolff ,N.Y.,Addison-Wesley, 1980,p.59 .
for detailed description of this ambitious programme see Lewis Pyenson. The Young Einstein. The Advent of Relativity, Adam Hilger: Bristol & Boston,1985.
.
quoted from S. Abiko. On the chemico-thermal origins of special relativity, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences,vol.22,1990, part 1,p.8.
I. Yu. Kobzarev.A. Einstein, M.Planck and atomic theory, Priroda(Nature), number 3, 1979,p.8 (in Russian).
not to confuse with the second half of his life spend by playing with mathematics and geometry and striving for reducing quantum physics within the realm of a classical field theory
found and published in "Physikalische Blatter", August 9,1971 by Jagdish Mehra
L. S. Feuer .Einstein and the Generations of Science. N.Y.:Basic Books,1974.
Y.A. Ono. Einsteins Speech at Kyoto University,December 14,1922, NTM-Schriftenreihe fur geschichte der Naturwissenschaften,Technik und Medizin,vol.20, 1983, pp.25--28.
quoted in L.Kostro .An Outline of the History of Einsteins Relativistic Ether Concept, in: Studies in the History of General Relativity. Ed. By J.Eisenstaedt & A.J.Kox. Birkhauser, Boston, 1988, pp.260-280.
Dirk Ter Haar .The Old Quantum Theory. Oxford, Pergamon Press,1967.
Translated by Dirk Ter Haar .The Old Quantum Theory. Oxford, Pergamon Press,1967.
T.S. Kuhn. Black-Body Theory and Quantum Discontinuity,1894-1912. Oxford and New York, 1978,p.171.
A.Einstein. Folgerungen aus den Capillazitatserchneinungen, Annalen der Physik, vol.4, 1901,pp.513-523; A.Einstein . Uber die thermodynamische Theorie der Potentialdifferenz zwischen Metallen und vollstandig dissozierten Losungen ihrer Salze und uber eine elektrische Methode zur Erforschung der Molekularkrafte, Annalen der Physik, vol.8, 1902, pp.798-814.
A.Einstein . Eine Theorie der Grundlagen der Thermodynamik. Annalen der Physik,vol.11, 1903, pp.170-187.
A.Einstein .Zur allgemeinen molekularen Theorie der Warme. Annalen der Physik,vol.14,1904, p.360; translated by Kuhn.
Jon Dorling. Einsteins Introduction of Photons: Argument by Analogy or Deduction from the Phenomena, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol.22,1971,pp.1-8.
I. Yu. Kobzarev. A. Einstein, M. Planck and atomic theory, Priroda(Nature), number 3, 1979,p.18 (in Russian).
see, for instance, J. Larmor .On the Statistical and Thermodynamical Relations of Radiant Energy, Proceedings of the Royal Society,A560,1909,December, p.95; D.A. Goldgammer .The World Invisible to an Eye. Berlin, RSFSR State Publishing House,1923 (in Russian); Louis De Broglie. Mysterious constant h - Max Plancks great discovery, in: Following the Paths of Science. Moscow, Izdatelstvo Inostrannoy Literaturi (Foreign Literature Publishing House), 1962 p.139 (in Russian),.
A. Einstein .Zum gegenwartigen Stand des Strahlungsproblem,
Physikalische Zeitschrift,vol.10, 1909,pp.185-193.
A.Einstein, op. cit.
O.Lodge. Radioaktivitat und Kontinuitat.Leipzig,Barth,1914.; C.Snyder Das Weltbild der modernen naturwissenschaft.Leipzig,Barth,1907,p.111; the latter wrote that Newtonian corpuscles again appear at the sake of ether.
see, for instance, G.H Poynting. Radiation Pressure. Philosophical Magazine, vol.9, 1905, April,p.393.
P. Ehrenfest .Crisis in the Hypothesis of Light Ether,The Journal of Russian Physico-Chemical Society,vol.4,1913, pp.151-162 (in Russian).
M.Abraham.Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elektrons, Annalen der Physik,vol.10,1903,pp.105-179; Jacob Kunz. On the Electromagnetic Theory of Emission of Light, American Journal of Science, 1910,pp.313-322; O.M. Stewart. The Second Postulate of Relativity and the Electromagnetic Emission Theory of Light, The Physical Review,vol.32,1911, pp.418-428; J. Trowbridge. New Emission Theory of Light, American Journal of Science,1911,pp.51-62; Y. Laub. Note on the Optical Effects in Moving Media, The Physical Review, 1912,April ,pp.268-274.; R.C. Tolman .Some Emission Theories of Light. The Physical Review,1912,August,pp.136-143.
P. Ehrenfest. The Relativity Principle. The Journal of Russian Physico-Chemical Society,vol.3,1910,p.81 (in Russian).
J.G. Fox . Evidence Against Emission Theories. American Journal of Physics, vol.33, 1965, pp.1-16.
R. S. Shankland. Conversations with Albert Einstein, American Journal of Physics,vol.31, 1963, pp.47-57.
A. Einstein. Principe de relativite et ses consequences dans la physique moderne, Archives des Sciences Physique et Naturelles, vol.29, 1910, pp.125-144.
quoted from Gerald Holton . Einsteins Scientific Programme: the Formative Years, in: Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. by M.Wolff ,N.Y., Addison-Wesley, 1980,p.57 .
A. Einstein .Zum gegenwartigen Stand des Strahlungsproblem,
Physikalische Zeitschrift,vol.10, 1909,pp.185-193.
R. Mac Laren .The Theory of Radiation, Philosophical Magazine, vol.25,1913, January, p.43.
quoted from A. Pais. Einstein and the Quantum Theory, Review of Modern Physics, vol.51,1979, p.884.
A. Pais. Einstein on particles, fields and the quantum theory, in:Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. By M.Wolf, .N.Y., Addison-Wesley, 1980, pp.197-251.
Jacob Kunz. On the Electromagnetic Theory of Emission of Light, American Journal of Science, 1910,pp.314.
M.J. Klein .No firm foundations: Einstein and the Early Quantum Theory, in: Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. By M.Wolff, N.Y., Addison-Wesley,1980, p.193.
Walter Gerlach . Reminiscences of Albert Einstein from 1908 to 1930, in: Albert Einstein.His Influence on Physics, Philosophy ,Politics. ed. by P.C.Aichenburg & R.U.Sexl .Wiesbaden, 1979, pp.189-200; Leon Block . Modern Hypotheses of Light Structure, Phisicheskoye Obozreniye (Review of Physics),vol.12,number 4,1911,p.253 (in Russian); Boris Ilyin .On the Photoelectric Effect, Phisicheskoye Obozreniye (Review of Physics),vol.14,number 3, 1913, p.143 (in Russian).
quoted from Joseph Illy . Einstein teaches Lorentz, Lorentz teaches Einstein. Budapest, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,1981.
op. cit.p.41.
op. cit.,p.54.
see S. Goldberg .Henri Poincare and Einsteins Theory of Relativity, American Journal of Physics, vol.35,1967, pp.934-944;S.Goldberg, Poincares Silence and Einsteins Relativity: the role of theory and experiment in Poincares physics. The British Journal for the History of Science,vol.5,1970, pp.73-84, and references cited therein.
G.Holton. On the Thematic Analysis of Science: The Case of Poincare and Relativity, in Melanges Alexandre Koyre, Paris, Hermann,1964.p.267.
E.M. Lemeray, Lether actuel,Paris,Flammarion,1924,pp.124-127.See also: H.Arzelies. La cinematique relativiste.Paris, Gauthier-Villars,1955,p.7.
T.S. Kuhn. Black-Body Theory and Quantum Discontinuity,1894-1912. Oxford and New York, 1978,p.171.
D.A. Goldgammer. New Ideas in Modern Physics. Fizicheskoye Obozreniye (Review of Physics), vol.12,numbers 1-2,1911, pp.1-35,76-155 (in Russian).
Kuhn,op. cit., p.171.
M.J. Klein. Paul Ehrenfest. The Making of Theoretical Physicist. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam-London, vol.1,1970,p.48.
H.A. Lorentz . Le partage del energie entre la matiere ponderable et lether, in Atti del 4 Congresso Internazionale dei Matematici.Roma,6-11 Aprile 1908, 3 vols. Rome 1909, the first volume,pp.145-165.Reprinted in an improved form in Nuovo Cimento,1908,vol.16,pp.5-34.
N. Bohr .On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules, Philosophical Magazine, vol.26,1913 ,p.2.
E. Garber .Some Reactions to Plancks Law,1900-1914, Studies in History & Philosophy of Science,vol.7,1976, p.123.
N. R. Campbell .The Aether, Philosophical Magazine,1910, January.,p.181.
Campbell, op. cit.,p189.
Jacob Kunz. On the Electromagnetic Theory of Emission of Light, American Journal of Science, 1910,p.314.
P. Ehrenfest .Crisis in the Hypothesis of Light Ether, The Journal of Russian Physico-Chemical Society, vol.4, 1913, p. 161 (in Russian).
G.N. Lewis . A Revision of the Fundamental Laws of Matter and Energy, Philosophical Magazine, November,1908,p.705.
quoted from R.E. Kohler .The Origin of G.N.Lewiss Theory of the Shared pair Bond, Historical Studies in the Physical Science,vol.3, 1971,p.351.
Stanley Goldberg .Putting New Wine in Old Bottles: The Assimilation of Relativity in America. A paper read at the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science, 1983, march 25.
Lewis, op.cit.,p.708.
see at greater length V.P. Vizgin .Relativistic theory of gravity: genesis and development.1900-1915.Moscow, Nauka,1981 (in Russian). .
Lewis, op. cit. ,p.707.
Lewis, op. cit. ,p.707.
Lewis, op. cit.,p.716.
L.T. More . On the Recent Theories of Electricity, Philosophical Magazine,vol.21,1911,January,p.519.
More, op. cit.,p.519.
Einstein had revealed the link between 1905a and 1905c only in 1909, at Salzburg congress.
G.N. Lewis & R.C.Tolman .The Principle of Relativity and Non- - Newtonian Mechanics,Philosophical Magazine,1909,May,p.517.
Lewis & Tolman,op. cit., p.512.
Elie Zahar .Einsteins Revolution. A Study in Heuristic, Open Court, La Salle,Illinois,1989.
see Peter Rowlands. Oliver Lodge and the Liverpool Physical Society. Liverpool University Press,1990,p.260, for details.
see J. Mehra & H. Rechenberg . The Historical Development of Quantum Mechanics.Springer-Verlag,vol.1,1981 for details.
N. Bohr .On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules, Philosophical Magazine, vol.26,1913 ,p.13..
However, Bose was unaware of having invented a new statistics
PAGE 34
PAGE 1
UV
[|}wy@ALNO9:,"-"""&&Q*R*~++N,O,:0;0C3D3[4\45566\9]9990:1:;;g?h?EE jhwRNCJH*
hwRN5CJhwRN56CJhCW2hwRNCJ
hCW2CJ
hwRNCJH*
hwRN6CJ
hwRN>*CJjhwRN0JCJU
hwRNCJE]Z[vALT!"%&Q,y-F5;:=A
F@Q[]
`EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFHHcIdILLLLLLNNOOOOOOPPPPQQRRVV Vͽ錃錃 jehwRNCJ j`hwRNCJ jchwRNCJjhwRN0JCJU jhwRNCJ jhwRNCJH*
hwRNCJH* jphwRNCJ jnhwRNCJ jnhwRNCJH* jrhwRNCJ
hwRNCJ jhwRNCJ
hwRNCJH*3 V!V"V#V$V%VVVVVWWWW;X*CJ
hwRNCJjhwRN0JCJUN 56f
XY23:;<L !34JKL12ulmy,- hwRN56CJ
hwRNCJH*
hwRN5CJjhwRN0JCJU
hwRN6CJ
hwRNCJOR?:8N5+-=>?@ABCD
DEFr 8^_st{w x z { | L
M
\]>b
F
M
N
O
k
1Z?
@
s
\]^lZTws>?@M5
hwRNCJjhwRN0JCJU
hwRN6CJ
hwRNCJhwRNjhwRN0JUS !.GbcdtN{PQRSdz{|'MN^#)V<=>?JjhwRN0JCJU
hwRNCJjhwRN0JCJU
hwRN6CJhwRNjhwRN0JU
hwRNCJNQz<=+C %"c"""#$$$$2
&+,-:g%~
C D E c !]!!!!%"&"'"4"b"""""""""""&########$$$$:$$$$$$$%5%t%%&#&\&|&&&&&
hwRNCJjhwRN0JCJUjhwRN0JUhwRN
hwRNCJ
hwRN6CJS&''''+'C''''''''((((8(u(v(w(x((())))3)g)m)))))))*:*;*<*=*K*b*******++++!+U+Z+~+++++++++(,),*,+,7,s,w,,,,,,,--[---4.O.....
hwRN6CJjhwRN0JUhwRN
hwRNCJZ$''(u(v())))*;**+++),,,..2/A/Q/07110222.
///2/3/@/A/B/P/Q/R/S/d///A000117181G1U1111111
2/2021222222222"3i3j3k3x3333~444444444445X5Y5Z5j5t5555555556,6-6.6/6<6e66666jhwRN0JCJUjhwRN0JUhwRN
hwRNCJ
hwRN6CJU22i3~44X555-66277}88999S9l999P:::;k;;h<<<=67273747M77777%8|8}8~888888889 9!98999:9;9R9S9T9U9k9l9m9n9z999999999O:P:Q:l::::::;;;;;<;h;k;l;m;;;;;;;<:<g<h<i<j<k<l<u<<<<<<<<jhwRN0JCJUhwRNjhwRN0JU
hwRNCJ
hwRN6CJU<===========$=%='=(=)=+=,=2=3=4=5=6=9=:=hCW20JmHnHuhwRN0JmHnHu
hwRN0JjhwRN0JUjhwRNUhwRN
hwRNCJ==========)=*=+=6=7=8=9=:=h]h&`#$+0. A!"#$%^666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmHnHsHtH>`>1KG=K9CJ_HmH sH tHP@P03>;>2>: 2
$<56OJQJkHBA`BA=>2=>9 H@8DB 0170F0\i@\
01KG=0O B01;8F0 :V44
la.k .
0
5B A?8A:08@8"5:AB A=>A:8CJ2&@2=0: A=>A:8H*L@L5@E=89 :>;>=B8BC;
p#4)@!4><5@ AB@0=8FKPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VCWNIA!ޝ}7/݉%BR7Hw9!p<Ǥፉ.EB\
/T*Y>,cy'$gC."Vso+C1OǓt}8>V3mBb%DWs'O''Gw ~lh;UM!ǲŬ;CK^ysJJ1KRμ)~.ک/
Y\n9?[]67)qnpJOF$ w;fCLL&m%]V%z-{
v8Ҩm-.xo(-ms~ۜ|s>Ͼ%O04h=یщ!eƌ\f
:C*OiIA64HpUa7 UO3 d:(fA@٣>N"Hhp&hA38)SUUR'V5&HM.6xpyn,ބ!h^^Z4~0#w,,&
g"Ic힍Q)˕C6%^+Hk!$A*#.D)irdq8Y^}q~C>Np%uJx?+al|zf[Ux5b>c!:M
(MkIVEpYPҍN2$ÿ
-.h۴"P6T{T
6]u̒VhVnR+n;)ȔbL X6Y`+qB]( 0H1$6_[s)k8Tm Aa?R dڒɾ0{eRF&
Ī't\{BHuM6`pGϽO+!XoN'^[crh2*tW<{1U+l_QSncX<)Q(wJH
ٯ#zCm>nhf6t}M&ʺ6ײ'\gkNS:;\qN-S;kǺ"{DailL`̗/
^o#I&%0]SPV!]PK!
ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM
0wooӺ&݈Э5
6?$Q
,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧60_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!^}-theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-!
ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]
U| N9,Q"~#N$:(C+[,.\11023g7@cADJSU"VZ[``#a#ghkklruxzzj|_O\pD*nB15X;K1l:5
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSHdl
Tw
6@>\C(v
v9 !!.""F#%%%%%''>((;)T))*U++,4,,/--;.. /////J0b00U1w11]22D333:5j '''''*E V &.6<:=]RD$2=:=!#*!!8@0(
B
S ?fpr{}IMSMNZ%/55555555585;5 + TYV34$$_'e''<(<<>>GGHHJJMaMNNSSWWYaZ/`1```Ld`d:iOinkzkmuyuzzq|z|||GXȃ ,
ӈ܈DT%-ޕV\1?#,+5_ey̲Ҳk|ngq%({ s|BO8@/6OR7=@nt%0HRdk/6
&
v
}
GIksNaMV\my5:uz2%-9:h}8="$9;Y`BMW\+DvW ^ !!!! "'"""""""Y#^### $'$$$$$$$G%[%]%_%&&('-'3'@'B'D'S'V'r(}(*)5)U)r)))**'*-*C*_******#+]+g+p+y+,,------%.+...%/0/4/:/r0w00000,171F1Q1d1j1n1r1s1y11111]2j222Y3g3m3p3333333J4U44455555555585;5333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333CW2wRN@:5p@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3.*Cx ArialACambria Math"AK8l2p&"p&"Y20 fpKHX $PCW22!xxEarly Quantum Theory as a Decisive Argument Favouring Einstein over Lorentz. Rinat M.Nugayev,Tatarstan Academy of Science,Kazan 420049,Volgogradskaya 49,Russia. Introduction. As is well-known, Einstein's Special The
Felix KingRenat M. NugaevOh+'0
8DP
\hpxEarly Quantum Theory as a Decisive Argument Favouring Einstein over Lorentz. Rinat M.Nugayev,Tatarstan Academy of Science,Kazan 420049,Volgogradskaya 49,Russia. Introduction. As is well-known, Einstein's Special TheFelix KingNormal.dotmRenat M. Nugaev4Microsoft Office Word@
@&nW@pӶV@,P5"p&՜.+,0
px
Felix King Home StudioR Early Quantum Theory as a Decisive Argument Favouring Einstein over Lorentz. Rinat M.Nugayev,Tatarstan Academy of Science,Kazan 420049,Volgogradskaya 49,Russia. Introduction. As is well-known, Einstein's Special The Early Quantum Theory as a Decisive Argument Favouring Einstein over Lorentz. Rinat M.Nugayev,Tatarstan Academy of Science,Kazan 420049,Volgogradskaya 49,Russia. Introduction. As is well-known, Einstein's Special The
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F f51Table+WordDocument-jSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjr
F Microsoft Word 97-2003
MSWordDocWord.Document.89q