Introduction:
Who does not know Einstein's formula E = m c2 or the paradox of the twins who found his twin brother was much older when he travels at speeds approaching the speed of light? But not everyone knows that "miracle" is only part of Einstein's relativity theory, and how to actually get the theory of relativity is Einstein.
On December 14, 1922 Albert Einstein delivered a public lecture in front of Kyoto Imperial University students about the ideas that Linked-backs on the birth of special relativity and general theory. This lecture is part of Einstein's visit to Japan for 43 days at the end of 1922 with his wife Elsa. This tour is quite unique, because this is the only trip to Asia Eistein. During his visit, Einstein had a very tight schedule, he must give a lecture for professionals (physicists) and the general public.
The next year, this lecture notes issued by a Japanese monthly magazine called Kaizo. Prof. Masahiro Morikawa from Ochanomizu University in translating the article into English in the bulletin Asia Pacific Association of Physicists Association, published in April. Like Prof. beliefs. Morikawa, I also agree that this article ought to know the community. One important thing we can learn from this course is the fact that as human beings Einstein once almost despairing due to difficult problems of relativity. But a combination of perseverance, hard work, genius, good relations with fellow scientists, and luck he had, a factor which ultimately determines the success of Einstein's relativity theory is a second birth. This of course should be a muse for scientists in this republic.
Here is the translation of Einstein's speech.
Who does not know Einstein's formula E = m c2 or the paradox of the twins who found his twin brother was much older when he travels at speeds approaching the speed of light? But not everyone knows that "miracle" is only part of Einstein's relativity theory, and how to actually get the theory of relativity is Einstein.
On December 14, 1922 Albert Einstein delivered a public lecture in front of Kyoto Imperial University students about the ideas that Linked-backs on the birth of special relativity and general theory. This lecture is part of Einstein's visit to Japan for 43 days at the end of 1922 with his wife Elsa. This tour is quite unique, because this is the only trip to Asia Eistein. During his visit, Einstein had a very tight schedule, he must give a lecture for professionals (physicists) and the general public.
The next year, this lecture notes issued by a Japanese monthly magazine called Kaizo. Prof. Masahiro Morikawa from Ochanomizu University in translating the article into English in the bulletin Asia Pacific Association of Physicists Association, published in April. Like Prof. beliefs. Morikawa, I also agree that this article ought to know the community. One important thing we can learn from this course is the fact that as human beings Einstein once almost despairing due to difficult problems of relativity. But a combination of perseverance, hard work, genius, good relations with fellow scientists, and luck he had, a factor which ultimately determines the success of Einstein's relativity theory is a second birth. This of course should be a muse for scientists in this republic.
Here is the translation of Einstein's speech.
Is not an easy thing to tell a complete how do I get the theory of relativity. This is caused by the existence of diverse complexity that indirectly motivates human thought. I also do not want to convey in detail the development of my thinking based on my scientific papers, but I will simply tell you the essence of the development of these ideas.
I first got the idea to build a theory of relativity is about 17 years ago (1905). I can not say exactly where these ideas emerged, but I'm sure this idea comes from the optical problem of moving objects. Light propagating in a sea of ether and earth moving in the same ether. Therefore ether movement can be observed from Earth. But I never found a single proof of the ether flow observations in the literature of physics. I am very motivated to prove the flow of the ether relative to the earth, in other words the earth movement in the ether. At that time I had no doubt the existence of ether and the ether move. Actually I expect the possibility of observation on the difference between the speed of light that moves in line with the movement of the earth and the light which moves opposite (with the aid of a mirror reflection). My idea may be realized by using a pair of thermocouples to measure the difference in their heat or energy. This idea is similar to Albert Michelson interference experiment, but by then I was not very familiar with the Michelson experiment. I am acquainted with the results-nil (null-result) Michelson experiment when I was a student and since then I was obsessed with my ideas. I intuitively felt that if we accept the results-nil then it will take us to the conclusion that our view of the earth is moving in the ether, is wrong. This is the first step that attracted me to the theory of special relativity. Since then I began to believe that if the earth moves around the sun so his movements can never be detected by experiments that use light.
In 1895 I was reading the paper, Hendrik Lorentz who claimed that he could solve the whole problem of electrodynamics through the first approach, ie an approach where the power of two or more of the ratio between object velocity and the speed of light is negligible. After that I tried to develop an argument on the Lorentz Armand Fizeau experimental results by assuming that the equations of motion of electrons, as already evidenced Lorentz, applicable in both coordinate systems based on moving objects as well as on vakuum. I am confident with the validity of electrodynamics which was developed by Maxwell and Lorentz, and I am very confident that they accurately describe the actual natural phenomena. More on the fact that the same equation applies in the moving coordinate system and the system vakuum, clearly invariance (no change) light. However, this conclusion is contrary to the law of velocity composition adopted for the moment. Why are the two basic laws contradict one another? Big problem is making me think hard. I have to spend a full year in vain in exploring the opportunity to modify the Lorentz theory. This issue looks too heavy for me!
One day, a conversation with my friends in Bern help me solve this major problem. I visited on a sunny day and asked him: "Right now I'm faced with big problems that I thought could never be completed. Now I want to share this with you." I spent the various discussions with him. Suddenly I got an idea that is very important. The next day I told him: "Thank you very much. I have solved all my problems."
My main idea for solving this problem with respect to the concept of time. Time should not be defined a priori as an absolute reality. Time to be dependent on the speed signal. This major problem can be solved by the new concept of time.
Only in five weeks I was able to complete the special relativity principle after the discovery. I also have no doubt about the validity of this principle in terms of filosopis. Moreover, this principle is in accordance with the Mach principle, at least partially when compared with the success of the theory of general relativity. This is how I build a theory of special relativity.
The first step towards the theory of general relativity appeared two years later (1907) in a different way.
I'm not too satisfied with the theory of special relativity because relativity principle is limited to relative motion with constant velocity but can not be applied to motion in general. In 1907 I was asked by Johannes Stark to write reviews about the various experimental results from the theory of special relativity in its annual report Jahrbuch und der Radioaktivitaet Electronics. When asked to write this article I realized that the theory of special relativity can be applied to all phenomena of nature except gravity. I really want to find a way to apply this theory in the case of gravity. However I can not complete this easily. One thing that frustrated me was the fact that although the theory of special relativity provides a perfect relationship between inertia and energy, while the relationship between inertia and the weight (inertia and gravity systems) are not touched at all. I suspect that this problem is far beyond the scope of the theory of special relativity.
One day I was sitting in a chair at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. This is when a brilliant idea flashed through my mind. "Someone who is in free fall will not know his weight." This simple idea gave me a deep thought. Wild emotions that hit me was pushing me toward a theory of gravity. I re-think, "Someone who has an acceleration in free fall." Observations made by this person actually done on an accelerated system. I decided to extend the principle of relativity to include acceleration. I also hope that, by generalizing this theory I will at once solve the problem of gravity. This is caused by the fact that people who do not feel the free fall due to the weight of other gravitational field which removes the gravitational field of the earth. In other words, every object that is accelerated requiring new gravitational field.
Yet I can not solve this problem completely. I spent eight years to reduce the real relationship. Before that, I only get the basic pieces of the theory.
Ernst Mach also claimed the principle of equivalence between accelerated systems. But clearly this does not fit the usual geometry. This is because if the system-system of this kind is allowed, then the Euclidean geometry are not valid in any system. Explains the laws of physics without geometry tantamount to explain an idea without words. We must prepare those words before we can explain our thinking. So, what should I put as the foundation of my theory?
This issue remained unresolved until the year 1912. In that year I realized that the theory of Karl Friedrich Gauss surface can be a good basis for solving the mysteries of the above. For me, the coordinates of Gauss surface is a very important equipment. But I do not know that George Riemann previously have developed basic geometry is very deep. I only remember that my theory of Gauss can be in college from a mathematics professor named Carl Friedrich geysers when I was a student. So I am increasingly convinced that the basic properties of the geometry must have a physical meaning.
Upon returning to Zurich from Prague I met my close friend of mine, a mathematician, Marcel Grossmann. He helped me find the mathematical references rather foreign to me when I was at the Swiss patent office in Bern. This is my first time to learn from the work of Curbastro Ricci and Riemann papers. I asked him whether my problem can be solved by Riemann's theory, namely whether the invariance of the line elements is sufficient to determine all the coefficients that I want. Subsequently, I collaborated with him in writing a paper in 1913, although the actual gravitational equation can not be reduced at that time. Further investigation using the theory of Riemann, unfortunately, make a lot of conclusions contrary to my expectations.
The next two years passed when I was still racked his brain to solve this problem. In the end I found one mistake in my previous calculations. I'm back trying to lose the true gravity equation based on invariant theory. After two weeks of work, the final answer came in front of me.
After the year 1915 I began working on problems of cosmology. I am doing research concerning the geometry of the universe and time. This research is based on the discussion of boundary conditions theory of general relativity and inertia arguments Mach. Although I do not know how far the impact on the substance of the idea of Mach general relativity of inertia, I believe that thinking big is my basic philosophy.
At first I tried to make the gravitational equations and boundary conditions be invariant. Lately I can even eliminate these restrictions with the assumption that the universe is closed. Thus I managed to solve the problem of cosmology. As the result shows that inertia appears as a relative properties of materials and must disappear if no other objects that interact with it. I believe that if the nature of this important to make the theory of general relativity satisfy us even though in the view of epistemology.
I first got the idea to build a theory of relativity is about 17 years ago (1905). I can not say exactly where these ideas emerged, but I'm sure this idea comes from the optical problem of moving objects. Light propagating in a sea of ether and earth moving in the same ether. Therefore ether movement can be observed from Earth. But I never found a single proof of the ether flow observations in the literature of physics. I am very motivated to prove the flow of the ether relative to the earth, in other words the earth movement in the ether. At that time I had no doubt the existence of ether and the ether move. Actually I expect the possibility of observation on the difference between the speed of light that moves in line with the movement of the earth and the light which moves opposite (with the aid of a mirror reflection). My idea may be realized by using a pair of thermocouples to measure the difference in their heat or energy. This idea is similar to Albert Michelson interference experiment, but by then I was not very familiar with the Michelson experiment. I am acquainted with the results-nil (null-result) Michelson experiment when I was a student and since then I was obsessed with my ideas. I intuitively felt that if we accept the results-nil then it will take us to the conclusion that our view of the earth is moving in the ether, is wrong. This is the first step that attracted me to the theory of special relativity. Since then I began to believe that if the earth moves around the sun so his movements can never be detected by experiments that use light.
In 1895 I was reading the paper, Hendrik Lorentz who claimed that he could solve the whole problem of electrodynamics through the first approach, ie an approach where the power of two or more of the ratio between object velocity and the speed of light is negligible. After that I tried to develop an argument on the Lorentz Armand Fizeau experimental results by assuming that the equations of motion of electrons, as already evidenced Lorentz, applicable in both coordinate systems based on moving objects as well as on vakuum. I am confident with the validity of electrodynamics which was developed by Maxwell and Lorentz, and I am very confident that they accurately describe the actual natural phenomena. More on the fact that the same equation applies in the moving coordinate system and the system vakuum, clearly invariance (no change) light. However, this conclusion is contrary to the law of velocity composition adopted for the moment. Why are the two basic laws contradict one another? Big problem is making me think hard. I have to spend a full year in vain in exploring the opportunity to modify the Lorentz theory. This issue looks too heavy for me!
One day, a conversation with my friends in Bern help me solve this major problem. I visited on a sunny day and asked him: "Right now I'm faced with big problems that I thought could never be completed. Now I want to share this with you." I spent the various discussions with him. Suddenly I got an idea that is very important. The next day I told him: "Thank you very much. I have solved all my problems."
My main idea for solving this problem with respect to the concept of time. Time should not be defined a priori as an absolute reality. Time to be dependent on the speed signal. This major problem can be solved by the new concept of time.
Only in five weeks I was able to complete the special relativity principle after the discovery. I also have no doubt about the validity of this principle in terms of filosopis. Moreover, this principle is in accordance with the Mach principle, at least partially when compared with the success of the theory of general relativity. This is how I build a theory of special relativity.
The first step towards the theory of general relativity appeared two years later (1907) in a different way.
I'm not too satisfied with the theory of special relativity because relativity principle is limited to relative motion with constant velocity but can not be applied to motion in general. In 1907 I was asked by Johannes Stark to write reviews about the various experimental results from the theory of special relativity in its annual report Jahrbuch und der Radioaktivitaet Electronics. When asked to write this article I realized that the theory of special relativity can be applied to all phenomena of nature except gravity. I really want to find a way to apply this theory in the case of gravity. However I can not complete this easily. One thing that frustrated me was the fact that although the theory of special relativity provides a perfect relationship between inertia and energy, while the relationship between inertia and the weight (inertia and gravity systems) are not touched at all. I suspect that this problem is far beyond the scope of the theory of special relativity.
One day I was sitting in a chair at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. This is when a brilliant idea flashed through my mind. "Someone who is in free fall will not know his weight." This simple idea gave me a deep thought. Wild emotions that hit me was pushing me toward a theory of gravity. I re-think, "Someone who has an acceleration in free fall." Observations made by this person actually done on an accelerated system. I decided to extend the principle of relativity to include acceleration. I also hope that, by generalizing this theory I will at once solve the problem of gravity. This is caused by the fact that people who do not feel the free fall due to the weight of other gravitational field which removes the gravitational field of the earth. In other words, every object that is accelerated requiring new gravitational field.
Yet I can not solve this problem completely. I spent eight years to reduce the real relationship. Before that, I only get the basic pieces of the theory.
Ernst Mach also claimed the principle of equivalence between accelerated systems. But clearly this does not fit the usual geometry. This is because if the system-system of this kind is allowed, then the Euclidean geometry are not valid in any system. Explains the laws of physics without geometry tantamount to explain an idea without words. We must prepare those words before we can explain our thinking. So, what should I put as the foundation of my theory?
This issue remained unresolved until the year 1912. In that year I realized that the theory of Karl Friedrich Gauss surface can be a good basis for solving the mysteries of the above. For me, the coordinates of Gauss surface is a very important equipment. But I do not know that George Riemann previously have developed basic geometry is very deep. I only remember that my theory of Gauss can be in college from a mathematics professor named Carl Friedrich geysers when I was a student. So I am increasingly convinced that the basic properties of the geometry must have a physical meaning.
Upon returning to Zurich from Prague I met my close friend of mine, a mathematician, Marcel Grossmann. He helped me find the mathematical references rather foreign to me when I was at the Swiss patent office in Bern. This is my first time to learn from the work of Curbastro Ricci and Riemann papers. I asked him whether my problem can be solved by Riemann's theory, namely whether the invariance of the line elements is sufficient to determine all the coefficients that I want. Subsequently, I collaborated with him in writing a paper in 1913, although the actual gravitational equation can not be reduced at that time. Further investigation using the theory of Riemann, unfortunately, make a lot of conclusions contrary to my expectations.
The next two years passed when I was still racked his brain to solve this problem. In the end I found one mistake in my previous calculations. I'm back trying to lose the true gravity equation based on invariant theory. After two weeks of work, the final answer came in front of me.
After the year 1915 I began working on problems of cosmology. I am doing research concerning the geometry of the universe and time. This research is based on the discussion of boundary conditions theory of general relativity and inertia arguments Mach. Although I do not know how far the impact on the substance of the idea of Mach general relativity of inertia, I believe that thinking big is my basic philosophy.
At first I tried to make the gravitational equations and boundary conditions be invariant. Lately I can even eliminate these restrictions with the assumption that the universe is closed. Thus I managed to solve the problem of cosmology. As the result shows that inertia appears as a relative properties of materials and must disappear if no other objects that interact with it. I believe that if the nature of this important to make the theory of general relativity satisfy us even though in the view of epistemology.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar