1: \documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{ihepconf}
4:
5: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
6: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
7: \def\mbf#1{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
8: \def\v{\varphi}
9:
10: \input{amssym.def}
11: \input{amssym}
12:
13: \input{amssym.def}
14: \input{amssym}
15:
16: \setcounter{page}{185}
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \title{\LARGE \bf Einstein, Hilbert and Equations of Gravitation}
20: \vskip 5mm
21: \author{{\large\bf V.A. Petrov}\\ [1mm]
22: {\it Institute for High Energy Physics, 142200, Protvino,
23: Russia}}
24:
25:
26:
27: \maketitle
28:
29: $\bullet$ The history of the equations of gravitational field is of
30: particular interest because they are related to two famous names:
31: Albert
32: Einstein and David Hilbert, and because the circumstances of their
33: invention bear sometimes almost detective character.
34:
35: One of the early references is the book ``Einstein, Hilbert and the
36: Theory of Gravitation'' by a renowned historian of science
37: J.~Mehra~[1], where the great role of Hilbert was showed very
38: clear. Such view was strengthened in 1978 when the correspondence
39: between Einstein and Hilbert was published, from which followed that
40: Hilbert informed Einstein on the gravitational field equations in a
41: letter before his formal publication~[2].
42:
43: The opinion, shared by many physicists, was that it was Hilbert who
44: possessed an undoubtful priority~[3].
45:
46: $\bullet$ However, in 1997 a new sensation shaked just established
47: opinion: the authors of a short article in ``Science''~[4] argued on
48: the basis of the first proofs of the Hilbert paper on the
49: gravitational equations, digged up from the Hilbert archive,
50: that {\bf Hilbert had no correct, generally covariant equation before
51: Einstein.} Moreover, the authors of~[4] transparently alluded that
52: Hilbert ``borrowed'' some decisive formulae from Einstein! And even
53: that Hilbert tried to hide such an appropriation with help of
54: deliberately wrong dating of his article.
55:
56: Such an accusation would seriously undermine the image of David
57: Hilbert from the ethical side, and was in a sharp contrast to all
58: what was known about his personality.
59:
60: $\bullet$ On the other hand the very personality of Einstein is by no
61: means irreproachable. Take, for instance, the case of the relativity
62: theory. So, counter-reaction to paper~[4] followed.
63:
64: One of the first
65: was the book by C.J.~Bjerknes~[5], well documented and with a rich
66: bibliography, in which the conclusions of paper~[4] were contested.
67: This
68: was based on the correspondence between Einstein and Hilbert and an
69: important fact that the proofs of Hilbert's paper --- the main
70: evidence of the authors of~[4] against Hilbert --- were mutilated
71: with some part of proofs cutted off.
72:
73: This fact was mentioned for the first time, but without a due
74: evaluation, in Ref.~[6]. In book~[5] it was mentioned that
75: F.~Winterberg assumed that the explicit form of the gravitational
76: field could be fairly contained in the cutted off parts of the
77: proofs. This seriously undermined the main argument of the
78: authors~[4] against Hilbert\footnote{Afterwards this consideration
79: was published~[7], and, finally, the book~[8] appeared in which
80: D.~Wuensch gave a thorough analysis of the mutilated proofs and
81: other relevant documents with a conclusion: Hilbert knew the explicit
82: form of the gravitational equations, they contended in the proofs
83: and the latter were deliberately mutilated in order to falsify the
84: historical truth. --- {\it Note added to proof.}}.
85:
86: $\bullet$ In ref.~[9] the question was considered in detail with
87: analysis of the Hilbert and Einstein papers.
88:
89: Here I will reproduce only one simple reason we used to reject one of
90: the main accusation of the authors~[4] against Hilbert, namely:
91: {\it ``...knowledge of Einstein's result may have been crucial to
92: Hilbert's introduction of the trace term into his field equations''.
93: }
94:
95: Thus, according to the authors of~[4], Hilbert's equations
96: $$
97: \frac{\delta \sqrt{g}H}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}=0,\eqno{(*)}
98: $$
99: where $H$ is the sum of the gravitational and material lagrangians,
100: $g^{\mu\nu}$ is the metric tensor with the determinant $-g$, are
101: incomplete and need some ad hoc ``introduction'' of
102: additional terms (``trace term''). This ``discovery'' of the authors
103: of
104: paper~[4] clearly demonstrates their professional inconsistency:
105: they
106: must be never tried to calculate the variational derivative (*)
107: themselves! Otherwise they would quickly saw that the ``crucial''
108: trace
109: term is safely contained in Eq.(*).
110:
111: Other mistakes of the authors of paper~[4] where analysed in our paper~[9].
112:
113: One thing has to be clear. {\bf At the very moment when Hilbert
114: equated
115: the gravitational part of the lagrangean to the scalar Riemannian
116: curvature the whole game was over. }
117:
118: All the rest was the matter of almost routine calculations, though
119: one has to mention that Hilbert managed to get, in his paper~[10]
120: some very important
121: results (``Bianchi identity''). All detailes are given in~[9].
122:
123: So, we conclude that an unfair attack of the authors of ref.~[4]
124: against Hilbert's originality in deriving the gravitaional field
125: equations is completely and shamefully failed.
126:
127: $\bullet$ Now, what about Einstein? In ref.~[9], there was
128: admitted that Einstein could derive the gravitational field
129: equations~[11] independently of Hilbert.
130:
131: The main evidence, if to be as loyal as possible to Einstein, is his
132: assertion, made by him in the letter to Hilbert of 18~November 1915:
133: {\it ``The system you furnish agrees --- as far as I~can --- exactly
134: with what I~found in the last few weeks and presented to the
135: Academy''}~[2].
136:
137: That is, Einstein, in this letter, acknowledged receiving the
138: Hilbert equations of the gravitational field and informed him that
139: his, Einstein's, equations are essentially the same.
140:
141: But we know all papers by Einstein presented to the Academy ``in the
142: last few weeks'',
143: including the paper of the 18~November --- they all are still wrong
144: and do not contain the trace term. One has to concede that Einstein
145: had by 18~November 1915 the correct equations but preferred to
146: publish the wrong ones up to 25~November! In principle this is
147: possible, but...
148:
149: We also have to mention the paper by Einstein of
150: 18~November 1915~[12] where he claimed the successful test of his
151: (wrong!)
152: theory in obtaining the correct result for the Mercury perihelion.
153: F.~Winterberg (as cited in ref.~[5]) draw the attention to the fact
154: that if
155: Einstein would really follow his equations as they were described in
156: his paper of 18~November, he would obtain the result twice larger
157: than the correct one. Nonetheless, his final result was correct!
158: Further interesting details of this story can be found in~[5].
159:
160: $\bullet$ What is our conclusion? We still keep the opinion expressed
161: in~[9]: the gravitational equation has to be named as
162: the ``Einstein--Hilbert equation''. The reason is that it was
163: Einstein
164: who posed the problem to find out the equation in which the
165: energy-momentum tensor is a source for gravitational potentials~[13].
166: Hilbert had found such an equation. Einstein derived it, quite
167: probably, later in
168: his
169: own way.
170:
171:
172: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
173: \bibitem{1}
174: J. Mehra. Einstein, Hilbert and the Theory of Gravitation.\\
175: D. Reidel. Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, Boston (1974).
176: \bibitem{2}
177: A. Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 8. The
178: Berlin Years. Correspondence, 1914-1918 (Eds. Schulmann et al.)
179: (Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1998.)
180: \bibitem{3}
181: J. Earman, and C. Glymour. Arch. Hist. Exact. Sci. 19 (1978) 291.
182: \bibitem{4}
183: L. Corry, J. Renn, J. Stachel. Science 278 (1997) 1270.
184: \bibitem{5}
185: C.J. Bjerknes. Anticipations of Einstein in General Theory of
186: Relativity. (Downers Grove, Ill.: XIX Inc., 2003.)
187: \bibitem{6}
188: T. Sauer. Arch. Hist. Exact. Sci. 53 (1999) 529.
189: \bibitem{7}
190: F. Winterberg. Zeitschrift f\"ur Naturforschung 59A (2004) 715.
191: \bibitem{8}
192: D. Wuensch. Zwei wirkliche Kerle. Termessos. Goettingen, 2005.
193: \bibitem{9}
194: A.A. Logunov, M.A. Mestvirishvili and V.A. Petrov. Physics ---
195: Uspekhi 47 (6) (2004) 607.
196: \bibitem{10}
197: D. Hilbert. Nachr. von der K\"onig. Ges. der Wiss. zu G\"ottingen.
198: Math.-phys. Klasse, 395 (1916). Early versions of this paper were
199: reported in Goettingen 16 and 20 November 1915. The text of the
200: proofs, as of 6 December 1915, is available, e.g., in the book [5].
201: \bibitem{11}
202: A. Einstein. Sitz. der K\"onig. Preus. Akademie der Wiss. zu Berlin.
203: (Vorg. am 25 November 1915), 844.
204: \bibitem{12}
205: A. Einstein. Sitz. der K\"onig. Preus. Akademie der Wiss. zu Berlin.
206: (Vorg. am 18 November 1915), 831.
207: \bibitem{13}
208: A. Einstein and M. Grossmann. Z. Math. und Phys. 62 (1913), 225.
209: \end{thebibliography}
210:
211:
212: \end{document}
213:
214:
215:
216:
217: