Did Einstein "Nostrify" Hilbert's Final Form of the Field Equations for General Relativity?

Galina Weinstein

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1412.1816

Did Einstein "Nostrify" Hilbert's Final Form of the Field Equations for General Relativity?

Galina Weinstein

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Einstein's biographer Albrecht Fölsing explained: Einstein presented his field equations on November 25, 1915, but six days earlier, on November 20, Hilbert had derived the identical field equations for which Einstein had been searching such a long time. On November 18 Hilbert had sent Einstein a letter with a certain draft, and Fölsing asked about this possible draft: "Could Einstein, casting his eye over this paper, have discovered the term which was still lacking in his own equations, and thus 'nostrified' Hilbert?" Historical evidence support a scenario according to which Einstein discovered his final field equations by "casting his eye over" his own previous works. In November 4, 1915 Einstein wrote the components of the gravitational field and showed that a material point in a gravitational field moves on a geodesic line in space-time, the equation of which is written in terms of the Christoffel symbols. Einstein found it advantageous to use for the components of the gravitational field the Christoffel symbols. Einstein had already basically possessed the field equations in 1912, but had not recognized the formal importance of the Christoffel symbols as the components of the gravitational field. Einstein probably found the final form of the generally covariant field equations by manipulating his own (November 4, 1915) equations. Other historians' findings seem to support the scenario according to which Einstein did not "nostrify" Hilbert.

Explore related subjects

physics.hist-ph

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Galina Weinstein. 2014-12-11. Did Einstein "Nostrify" Hilbert's Final Form of the Field Equations for General Relativity?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1816

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Is Black Hole Evaporation Prediction Friendly?

Manchak and Weatherall (2018) formulate the black hole information paradox as a failure of predictability in black hole evaporation spacetimes, diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I offer a strategy for resolving this paradox. I argue that failures of predictability in black hole evaporation are not well diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I then consider two weakenings of global hyperbolicity: prediction and retrodiction friendliness, the failure of which could ground a new paradox. However, deidealized black hole evaporation models can be prediction and retrodiction friendly. Therefore, the information paradox cannot be based upon failures of global hyperbolicity, nor either retrodiction or prediction unfriendliness.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

The Crab Nebula progenitor: recovering the 1054 AD supernova event as galactic Gamma-ray burst

In 1054 AD a daytime star appeared in the constellation of Taurus, for three weeks, and it was reported in various sources from Europe to China/Japan: it was one of the few documented galactic supernovae of the last two millenia. This paradigm has been established about sixty years ago, as the comprehension of the physics of supernovae progressed with enough observational data. The Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the same period, but only in the past few years have their observations become daily and their distances have been fully understood as cosmological. After the explosion, the exponential decay of the luminosity in gamma-rays and X-rays has been followed with telescopes onboard dedicated satellites. Also the exponential decay of the afterglow's optical and radio frequencies have been observed with the largest optical and radio telescopes. Within the binary-driven hypernova framework, successful in explaining all the observed phases of the Gamma-ray bursts, the universal exponential decay can be extended to 1000 years after the burst, to account for the present values of Gamma and X-rays as well as optical and radio frequencies of the Crab Nebula. Both the daytime visibility of the burst, and the simultaneous radiation plagues appeared in Constantinople and Cairo is a strong evidence of the presence of Gamma-rays in the lower atmosphere, coming from the same source originating the Crab nebula. The association to the daytime visibility of that star and the following plague meets exactly the etymology of the word dis-aster, bad star.

physics.hist-ph↗