This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from History of general relativity#Timeline was copied or moved into Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from Golden age of general relativity was copied or moved into History of general relativity#More about GR history with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 25, 2015. |
Can whoever added this please provide a reference? It seems doubtful. – Joke137 13:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I am going to stay with the pro-Einstein text that is currently present until and unless I am given good reason to do otherwise. I have amended it somewhat for clarity, and added a reference to that relativity priority disputes article, but I see not reason to admit the incorrect (as Einstein presented the equations in an article and not a lecture) and ambiguous edit that Alvestrand did.
I also have my doubts about relativity priority disputes: It impresses me and being somewhat POV against Einstein, and also needs some cleanup (for example through the use of the <ref> and <reference> tags for handling notes.) I actually think that the material itself is OK, but there needs to be some discussion as to status of these disputes. -- EMS | Talk 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
For those who have watched this page but not Relativity priority disputes: the necessary context of the writing of that page is the behavoiur of User:Licorne, who has pushed a particular POV with such force that he's currently the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne. That has led to an editing environment where people (except Licorne) have done a lot of checking and quoting of sources, but hesitate to indulge in bouts of creative writing for fear of having to spend useless cycles commenting on Licorne's comments on their edits (see RFA page for examples). Not healthy. A lot of interesting material, both primary and secondary, has come to light and been appropriately commented and referenced - but all the pages involved in the dispute have, as a result, become quite thin on drawing strong conclusions. Hope this helps the understanding on how things came to read that way - it MAY become better once the RFA concludes. -- Alvestrand 09:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I am studying the history of both the relativities, special and general and I find that the account listed in here is extremely inadequate. I will keep filling things in as I read them.
The development of general relativity began in 1907 with the publication of an article by Albert Einstein on acceleration under special relativity.
Do we know why Einstein was dissatisfied with classical mechanics? Was there an observation that he couldn't explain? Was classical mechanics unnecessarily complicated? The article doesn't make clear what motivated his investigation; it just says it began with a publication which is not very satisfactory. Pgr94 ( talk) 14:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
However, general relativity and quantum mechanics (a theory that has been experimentally verified more than GR) are known to be inconsistent.
What does it mean to be "verified more"? Can you provide a source for the statement that GR is inconsistent with QM? In my understanding, it is a different type of theory, hence the statement should possibly be altered to "quantum field theory corresponding to GR has not been found yet". -- J.A —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
How is it possible that this article DOES NOT CITE Einstein's original papers??? Risible. (I came here looking for them). I also see reference 5 is to this article, and that many of the references have no dates. Whats up with that? How is it possible that Wikipedia allows such slop? Additionally, devoting an entire paragraph to a false story of a conversation Eddington did not have is inappropriate, imho. .. OK. I went to princeton.edu and found the following: “Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie” Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte (1915): 778–786 [Vol. 6, Doc. 21, 214–224; trans. 98–107] Dated: 4 November 1915 and “Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie (Nachtrag)” ← [I think this translates as glossary (?) ] Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte (1915): 799–801 [Vol. 6, Doc. 22, 225–229; trans. 108–110] Dated: 11 November 1915 Sequentially published. If anyone can confirm that these are indeed the critical 1915 papers, please feel free to add them - or - if appropriate where I got them: http://press.princeton.edu/books/einstein11/e_biblio.pdf Thanks. (If I were sure that these are the correct citations, I would do it myself...) 173.189.75.158 ( talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
As a result of an earlier discussion, the contents of Golden age of general relativity were pasted into this article, but the source article was not removed. Part of the cut and paste was the timeline, which only covers a couple of decades and looks out of place here. I propose to finish the merger, but add the timeline to Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity and remove it from this article. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
General relativity is alive and well as a branch of modern physics; reference to a golden age connotes that its time has come and gone. As stated at Golden age#Present-day usage:
Though a reference has been given for this usage, perpetuation of an ill-founded phrase detracts from credibility of this Project. — Rgdboer ( talk) 01:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of general relativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia page on him Clifford came very, very close to anticipating general relativity yet he is not mentioned in either the special relativity or general relativity page on Wikipiedia. IMO his contributions merit more than this and should be included in either of those two articles but I am curious what other Wikipedia editors make of the man before I go ahead with anything. SQMeaner ( talk) 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The Einstein Gravitational Constant (8piG/c^4) does not seem to be mentioned at any point within this article as a coefficient of the Stress-Energy Tensor. This makes the Field equations incomplete. LuisPavel ( talk) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from History of general relativity#Timeline was copied or moved into Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from Golden age of general relativity was copied or moved into History of general relativity#More about GR history with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 25, 2015. |
Can whoever added this please provide a reference? It seems doubtful. – Joke137 13:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I am going to stay with the pro-Einstein text that is currently present until and unless I am given good reason to do otherwise. I have amended it somewhat for clarity, and added a reference to that relativity priority disputes article, but I see not reason to admit the incorrect (as Einstein presented the equations in an article and not a lecture) and ambiguous edit that Alvestrand did.
I also have my doubts about relativity priority disputes: It impresses me and being somewhat POV against Einstein, and also needs some cleanup (for example through the use of the <ref> and <reference> tags for handling notes.) I actually think that the material itself is OK, but there needs to be some discussion as to status of these disputes. -- EMS | Talk 21:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
For those who have watched this page but not Relativity priority disputes: the necessary context of the writing of that page is the behavoiur of User:Licorne, who has pushed a particular POV with such force that he's currently the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne. That has led to an editing environment where people (except Licorne) have done a lot of checking and quoting of sources, but hesitate to indulge in bouts of creative writing for fear of having to spend useless cycles commenting on Licorne's comments on their edits (see RFA page for examples). Not healthy. A lot of interesting material, both primary and secondary, has come to light and been appropriately commented and referenced - but all the pages involved in the dispute have, as a result, become quite thin on drawing strong conclusions. Hope this helps the understanding on how things came to read that way - it MAY become better once the RFA concludes. -- Alvestrand 09:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I am studying the history of both the relativities, special and general and I find that the account listed in here is extremely inadequate. I will keep filling things in as I read them.
The development of general relativity began in 1907 with the publication of an article by Albert Einstein on acceleration under special relativity.
Do we know why Einstein was dissatisfied with classical mechanics? Was there an observation that he couldn't explain? Was classical mechanics unnecessarily complicated? The article doesn't make clear what motivated his investigation; it just says it began with a publication which is not very satisfactory. Pgr94 ( talk) 14:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
However, general relativity and quantum mechanics (a theory that has been experimentally verified more than GR) are known to be inconsistent.
What does it mean to be "verified more"? Can you provide a source for the statement that GR is inconsistent with QM? In my understanding, it is a different type of theory, hence the statement should possibly be altered to "quantum field theory corresponding to GR has not been found yet". -- J.A —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
How is it possible that this article DOES NOT CITE Einstein's original papers??? Risible. (I came here looking for them). I also see reference 5 is to this article, and that many of the references have no dates. Whats up with that? How is it possible that Wikipedia allows such slop? Additionally, devoting an entire paragraph to a false story of a conversation Eddington did not have is inappropriate, imho. .. OK. I went to princeton.edu and found the following: “Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie” Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte (1915): 778–786 [Vol. 6, Doc. 21, 214–224; trans. 98–107] Dated: 4 November 1915 and “Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie (Nachtrag)” ← [I think this translates as glossary (?) ] Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte (1915): 799–801 [Vol. 6, Doc. 22, 225–229; trans. 108–110] Dated: 11 November 1915 Sequentially published. If anyone can confirm that these are indeed the critical 1915 papers, please feel free to add them - or - if appropriate where I got them: http://press.princeton.edu/books/einstein11/e_biblio.pdf Thanks. (If I were sure that these are the correct citations, I would do it myself...) 173.189.75.158 ( talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
As a result of an earlier discussion, the contents of Golden age of general relativity were pasted into this article, but the source article was not removed. Part of the cut and paste was the timeline, which only covers a couple of decades and looks out of place here. I propose to finish the merger, but add the timeline to Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity and remove it from this article. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
General relativity is alive and well as a branch of modern physics; reference to a golden age connotes that its time has come and gone. As stated at Golden age#Present-day usage:
Though a reference has been given for this usage, perpetuation of an ill-founded phrase detracts from credibility of this Project. — Rgdboer ( talk) 01:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of general relativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia page on him Clifford came very, very close to anticipating general relativity yet he is not mentioned in either the special relativity or general relativity page on Wikipiedia. IMO his contributions merit more than this and should be included in either of those two articles but I am curious what other Wikipedia editors make of the man before I go ahead with anything. SQMeaner ( talk) 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The Einstein Gravitational Constant (8piG/c^4) does not seem to be mentioned at any point within this article as a coefficient of the Stress-Energy Tensor. This makes the Field equations incomplete. LuisPavel ( talk) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)