''For the country of Georgia, see this article: [[Republic of Georgia]].''
{{USState
|name=Georgia
|flag=Georgia_State_Flag.gif
|motto= 
#"[[Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation]]"
#"Agriculture and commerce"
|nick=Empire State of the South
|capital=Atlanta
|language=English
|governor=Nathan Deal
|gparty=Republican
|senator1=Saxby Chambliss
|s1party=Republican
|s1phone=(202) 224-3521
|s1email=http://chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactForm&CFID=51392169&CFTOKEN=14703251 Contact
|senator2=Johnny Isakson
|s2party=Republican
|s2phone=(202) 224-3643
|s2email=http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm Contact
|population=
|date=January 2, 1788
}}
'''Georgia''' is a state in the southern [[United States]]. It was one of the original [[Colonial America|thirteen British colonies]] in the [[United States]]. It joined the Confederate States of America, [[Confederacy]], before the beginning of the [[American Civil War]]. The capital and largest city is [[Atlanta]].
==Politics==
Georgia has been a [[red state]] in presidential elections since 1996, favoring the [[Republican]] candidates. It last favored a [[Democrat]] candidate in 1992 when it supported [[Bill Clinton]].

==Elected officials==
===Federal===
*Sen. [[Saxby Chambliss]] (R)
*Sen. [[Johnny Isakson]] (R)
*Rep. [[Jack Kingston]] [R, GA-1]
*Rep. [[Sanford Bishop]] [D, GA-2]
*Rep. [[Lynn Westmoreland]] [R, GA-3]
*Rep. [[Henry Johnson]] [D, GA-4]
*Rep. [[John Lewis]] [D, GA-5]
*Rep. [[Tom Price]] [R, GA-6]
*Rep. [[Rob Woodall]] [R, GA-7]
*Rep. [[Austin Scott]] [R, GA-8]
*Rep. [[Tom Graves]] [R, GA-9]
*Rep. [[Paul Broun]] [R, GA-10]
*Rep. [[John Gingrey]] [R, GA-11]
*Rep. [[John Barrow]] [D, GA-12]
*Rep. [[David Scott]] [D, GA-13]

===Statewide===
*Governor [[Nathan Deal]] (R)
*Lt. Governor [[Casey Cagle]] (R)
*Secretary of State [[Brian Kemp]] (R)
*Attorney General [[Sam Olens]] (R)
*Agriculture Commissioner [[Gary Black]] (R)
*School Superintendent [[John Barge]] (R)

==Memorials==
*Dem. Congressman, 7th District [[Larry McDonald]] (1935-1983), a conservative Member of Congress, was onboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by Soviet warplanes in 1983. His is the only reported Cold War death by the USSR of a sitting congressman. His memory is honored in renaming Interstate Highway 75, which runs from the Chattahoochee River northward to the Tennessee state line.
*[[Georgia Guidestones]]

==See Also==
*[[Zell Miller]]
*[[State Governors]]

==External Links==
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/lawrence-patton-mcdonald-b_15.html A Forgotten Man: Congressman Larry McDonald] passenger on board [[KAL 007]] shot down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-crossing-of-jesse-helms-larry.html#!/2012/11/the-crossing-of-jesse-helms-larry.html The Crossing of Jesse Helms, Larry McDonald, Noelle Anne, and Little Stacy Marie]

==References==
<references/>

{{USstates}}

[[Category : Georgia]]
[[Category : States of the United States]]
[[Category : Red States]]
[[Category : East Coast of the United States]]
[[Category : Eastern United States]]
[[Category : The South]]
[[Category : Southern United States]]
[[Category : Gulf Coast of the United States]]
[[Category : Southeastern United States]]
[[Category : Regions of the United States]]
[[Category : United States Geography]]
[[Category : United States of America]]
[[Category : Geography]]

2016-05-05T00:15:22Z

Timematter: Einstein said he was a pantheist. Look at the quote in the Conservapedia article on him.

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity predicts phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speed.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]]. Einstein was a [[Pantheism|pantheist]]. Pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God and is a form of [[atheism]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref>. Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

A famous critic of Theory of relativity is [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists...".<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref>

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincaré developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincaré's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There “is” action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of Earth's orbital motion through the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course of light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [[Gravitational lensing]] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations. <ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement .<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made, could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. Those observations have not been followed up with more recent, precise data, raising questions about whether the pulsar data is consistent with the theory today.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 <ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref>. A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the princple, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref>

{{Relativity}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]

Albert Einstein

2016-05-04T20:11:15Z

Timematter:

[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|right|250px]]
'''Albert Einstein''' (1879-1955) was the most famous [[physicist]] of the 20th century, who however self-described himself to be “more of a [[philosopher]] than a physicist”.<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=1. Albert Einstein: A Portrait |pages=12|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=To his collaborator Leopold Infeld he said: “I am really more of a philosopher than a physicist” [17, p. 258].}}</ref> He was born in Ulm, in Württemberg, [[Germany]] in a [[Judaism|Jewish]] family. During his stay at the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] [[Patent and Trademark Office|Patent Office]] Einstein produced much of his remarkable work. In 1905 he obtained his [[Doctor|doctor's degree]]. He won the [[Nobel Prize]] for his work on the [[photoelectric effect]] in 1921.<ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/ "The Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921"] (2014). Nobelprize.org. Retrieved on January 23, 2015.</ref> Einstein [[Immigration|immigrated]] to the [[United States of America|United States]] in the late 1930s to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at [[Princeton University|Princeton]]; upon the urging of a colleague in physics, recommended that [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Franklin Roosevelt|Franklin D. Roosevelt]] develop an [[atomic bomb]] project. <ref>Einstein, Albert (August 2, 1939). [http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html "Letter to F. D. Roosevelt, President of the United States"]. www.dannen.com. Retrieved from "Leo Szilard Online: Einstein's Letter to Roosevelt, August 2, 1939" on January 23, 2015.</ref> He later regretted this and became a passionate [[Pacifism|pacifist]]. In 1952, he was offered the Presidency of [[Israel]], but he turned it down. Einstein collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the [[Hebrew]] [[University]] of [[Jerusalem]]. Albert Einstein died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, [[New Jersey]] at the age of 76.

==Anecdotes==
*In 1898, young Albert Einstein applied for admission to the Munich Technical Institute and was turned down. The young man, the Institute declared, "showed no promise" as a student. By 1905, he published his explanation of the special [[theory of relativity]]. <ref name=anec>[http://web.archive.org/web/20031205122227/http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html "Albert Einstein anecdotes"] (2003). Windsor Castle. Retrieved from December 5, 2003 archive at Internet Archive on January 23, 2015.</ref>
*Einstein came to Princeton University in 1935 and was asked what he would require for his study. he replied: "A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold all of my mistakes." <ref name=anec/>
*The sculptor Jacob Epstein tells this story:
*:"When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book. 'Were I wrong,' he said, 'one professor would have been enough.' <ref name=anec/>

== Works ==
Einstein contributed to the theory of a [[Special Relativity]] and the theory of [[General Relativity]]. He also contributed to the study of [[photoelectric effect]], Brownian Motion and Bose-Einstein Statistics. He was critical of quantum mechanics and has proposed the EPR-Paradox in attempt to point out spooky aspects of the theory. The last fifteen years of his life were spent in unsuccessfully searching for a [[Unified Field Theory]].
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. Einstein did not cite any references and it was widely and falsely assumed that his work was original. The theory of relativity had already been published by [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and [[Henri Poincaré]]. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory. He used the term "stationary system" instead of the term aether.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity using the mathematics of Riemannian Geometry, contributing to [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, [[David Hilbert]], and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explain an [[anomaly]] in the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.
[[Arthur Eddington]] popularized General Relativity by publishing an explanation of it and by attempting to prove the theory experimentally in a dramatic test. Eddington embarked on a highly publicized trip into the Atlantic Ocean off Africa in order to observe the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]] during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919. Eddington returned with a declaration that he had proven Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]], making Einstein extremely famous<ref>Lightman, Alan (September 9, 1997). [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/ "Relativity and the cosmos"]. PBS.org/WGBH/Nova. Retrieved on January 24, 2015. "On November 8, 1919, for example, the ''London Times'' had an article headlined: 'The Revolution In Science/Einstein Versus Newton.' Two days later, ''The New York Times''' headlines read: 'Lights All Askew In The Heavens/Men Of Science More Or Less Agog Over Results Of Eclipse Observations/Einstein Theory Triumphs.'"</ref>, when in fact he had selectively used data to attain this result. No Nobel Prize was given for relativity.

In April 2004, NASA launched the satellite Gravity Probe B to test general relativity. The main purpose was to test relativistic frame dragging, but the results have been inconclusive.

Einstein compared the effects of large objects on space and time to the way that a large ball placed on a sheet of rubber stretches the material and causes it to sag, and drew the analogy with the way stars and planets warp space-time. A smaller ball rolling along the sagging fabric will be drawn towards the larger ball, in the same way that the Earth is drawn towards the sun, but will not fall into it as long as it continues to move at sufficient speed. This was a change in thinking from the Newtonian cosmos, in which gravity was viewed purely as an attractive force between bodies.

Einstein's statistical explanation of Brownian motion (the random movement of microscopic particles mixed in with pollen) is sometimes credited with helping to confirm the atomic theory at a time when some scientists argued against it.<ref>Cassidy, David (2004). [http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-brownian.htm "Einstein on Brownian motion"]. [http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/great1.htm American Institute of Physics/AIP Center for History of Physics/Albert Einstein-Image and Impact/The Great Works I]. Retrieved on January 24, 2014.]</ref> Most scientists had accepted atomic theory a century earlier.

Einstein also published a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect in which light has particle like properties as well as wave like properties. According to [[Maxwell's Equations]], light is a wave so one might expect that increasing the intensity of light should increase the number of electrons emitted from metal. The German physicist Lénard did an experiment proving that this was not true. Einstein argued that the experiment was consistent with [[Max Planck]]'s hypothesis that light is quantized and different particles of light or photons have different frequencies. Therefore, increasing the intensity of low frequency photons has no effect, while using a higher (blue or ultra violet) frequency of light does cause more electrons to be emitted. The formula Einstein used to explain this was Planck's formula ''e'' = ''hf'', where ''h'' is Planck's constant and ''f'' is the frequency.<ref>Davis, Warren, PhD. (2008 or before). [http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae24.cfm?CFID=8792067&CFTOKEN=36662276 "What is the photoelectric effect?"] PhysLink.com. Retrieved on January 24, 2015.</ref>

Although Einstein won a Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, Lénard was critical of his accomplishments.<ref>Evans, Richard J. (2005). ''The Third Reich in Power'' (London: Penguin Books), pp. 306-309.</ref> Planck and Lénard had already received Nobel Prizes for related work explaining the photoelectric effect.

Einstein also recognized the value in work done by the physicist Satyendra Nath Bose when others did not, and helped Bose publish what is now referred to as Bose-Einstein statistics. A simplified explanation is that the statistics for [[boson]]s (including light) are different from the statistics for fermions which make up solid matter in that there is no way to tag or differentiate one boson from another for statistical comparisons.

===E=mc2===
Einstein’s famous formula ''E=mc''2 says that mass and energy can turn into each other. It was first published by Henri Poincaré. Einstein published an alternate derivation that was corrected and improved by Max Planck. ''E'' stands for [[energy]], ''m'' is [[mass]], and ''c'' is the [[speed of light]]. So, if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass. It was later realized that if you split an atom apart, as in a nuclear explosion, it loses a tiny amount of mass that is released in the form of [[energy]].

The connection ''E=mc''2 to nuclear energy is not as direct as pop culture sometimes represents. Einstein did not discover the huge energy available from nuclear reactions. Early workers in radioactivity, such as [[Ernest Rutherford]], understood clearly that the natural radioactive decay of radium released quantities of energy that could not be explained by chemistry, and were much larger than those of chemical reactions. Neither did Einstein originate the key idea that made nuclear energy a possible weapon or a practical energy source. That was Leo Szilard, who acknowledged having been inspired by a 1914 [[H. G. Wells]] novel. Szilard discovered or invented the chain reaction (and patented it). However, other people recognized the relation between Einstein's interpretation of the ''E=mc''2 formula and chain reactions. Einstein explained that matter releasing energy is also losing mass.

Energy binds together the parts of an [[atom]], including the [[nucleus]]. The nucleus of an atom is tiny, but very little mass could release a huge amount of energy. When one nucleus splits apart, it splits other nuclei around it. This is called a [[chain reaction]].

===Cosmological Constant===
''Main article:''[[Cosmological constant]]

Einstein revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a 'fudge-factor' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], in whose name [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct observations alongside him, and Hubble's findings showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed expanding, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an accelerating expansion for the universe<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html "WMAP produces new results"] (2013). NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe website. Retrieved on January 25, 2015.</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the phenomenon the 'Cosmological Constant' as well. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

== Writings ==

*Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
*General Theory of Relativity (1916)
*''Relativity: The Special and the General Theory'' (translation), 1st ed. (1920)
*''Vier Vorlesungen über Relativitätstheorie'' (1922)
*''Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement'' (1926)
*''About Zionism'' (1930)
*''Why War?'' (1933)
*''The World As I See It (My Philosophy)'' (1934)
*''The Evolution of Physics'' (1938) with Leopold Infeld
*''Out of My Later Years'' (1950)
*''Einleitende Bemerkungen uber Grundbergriffe'' (1953)
*''The Meaning of Relativity'', 3rd ed. (1950), 4th ed. (1953), 5th ed. (1956)
''...the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.''

== Honors ==
Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many American and European universities.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the photoelectric effect.
*"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." <ref name="Mallove">Mallove, Eugene F., Sc. D. (July-August 2001). [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html "The Einstein myths—of space, time and aether"]. ''Infinite Energy Magazine'', iss. 38. Retrieved from Infinite Energy website on January 25, 2015.</ref>

Einstein told a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself." <ref name="Mallove"/>

He gained the Copley Medal of the [[Royal Society]] of London in 1925 and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 <ref>Küpper, Hans-Josef (2004 or bef.). [http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#president "President of the State of Israel"]. Albert Einstein in the world wide web. Retrieved on January 25, 2015.</ref> but respectfully declined, stating he believed his life-long study of objective matters made him an inappropriate candidate for a position in politics; he was also strongly opposed to nationalism.

In 1999, he was named "Person of the Century" by [[Time Magazine|''Time'' magazine]].

==Einstein and the A-bomb==
In 1939 research done by several leading scientists including [[Enrico Fermi]] regarding chain reactions of nuclear fission prompted [[Leo Szilard]] to persuade Einstein to write a letter to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|President Roosevelt]] <ref>Einstein, Albert (August 2, 1939). [http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml "Letter to F. D. Roosevelt, President of the United States"]. Hypertextbook/E-World. Retrieved on January 25, 2015. </ref>, to warn the President about the possibility of nuclear weapons and that Nazi [[Germany]] had already taken an interest in this technology.

Einstein himself had never been involved in the [[Manhattan project]]. He was considered a security risk, as he was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937 and 1954.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040810044240/http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/einstein.htm "Albert Einstein"] (2004). Federal Bureau of Investigation website. Retrieved from August 10, 2004 archive at Internet Archive on January 25, 2015.</ref> Later he condemned the use of nuclear weapons.

==Controversy surrounding his death==
Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, then a pathologist, performed the autopsy on Einstein in the [[Princeton Medical Center]] several hours after his death. Upon completion, Dr. Harvey removed the brain and eyes <ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913 "The long strange journey of Einstein's brain"] (April 18, 2005). Review and excerpt from Burrell, Brian (2005), ''Postcards from the Brain Museum''. National Public Radio website. Retrieved on January 25, 2015.</ref>. There is controversy about whether or not Harvey had consent from the Einstein family to remove the brain and keep it, though letters from Otto Nathan, executor of the Einstein estate, suggest that Harvey did indeed have permission to keep the brain, as long as research performed on it was only described in scientific journals.

The brain was photographed and sliced into 240 pieces in order to be preserved and further studied. Harvey hoped some uniqueness would be discovered that distinguished Einstein's brain as "genius".

Although he sent pieces away for further study, the bulk of the brain remained with Harvey for over 40 years. His once-ambitious plans for doing research on Einstein's brain were never actualized, though there were at least two controversial studies performed which suggested a physical reason for Einstein's intelligence. In 1996 Harvey entrusted Elliot Krauss, chief [[pathologist]] at the Princeton Medical Center, with the brain. The brain now sits in a secret location, possibly only a few feet away from where it was first removed from Einstein's head. Krauss loans out pieces of the brain for scientific research, but he is very discriminating in deciding who shall receive a piece. <ref>Abraham, Carolyn (2001). ''Possessing Genius'' (U.K.: Icon Books), 2005 edition.</ref>

==Religious views==
[[Image:Einstein inshul1930.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein wearing a kippah in a Berlin Synagogue, 1930.|300px]]
There is some controversy surrounding the religion of Albert Einstein.
Walter Isaacson reports him shortly after his fiftieth birthday explaining his religious views to an interviewer in this manner: <blockquote>“I'm not an [[atheist]]. I don't think I can call myself a [[pantheist]]. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." <ref>Isaacson, Walter (April 27, 2007). "Einstein and the mind of God". ''Washington Post''.</ref></blockquote>

(Pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God and is a form of atheism)

In the same interview, Einstein spoke of his feelings regarding Christianity:

<blockquote>
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
</blockquote>

And when asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, Einstein replied:

<blockquote>
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
</blockquote>

Einstein also said
<blockquote>
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."<ref name=Jammer>Jammer, Max (1999). ''Einstein and Religion'' (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).</ref>,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"[The fanatical atheists] are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people' [[[Karl Marx]]'s oft-cited description of religion]—cannot bear the music of the spheres."<ref name=Jammer/>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>"God does not play dice with the universe."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=zPkrAQAAIAAJ&q=%22God+does+not+play+dice+with+the+universe%22&dq=%22God+does+not+play+dice+with+the+universe%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ldPGVJrIOejIsAScz4DQDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA ''Et Cetera''] (1943), p. 61. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on January 26, 2015.</ref></blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" <ref>Isaacson, Walter (2007). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PA390&dq=%22Science+without+religion+is+lame.+Religion+without+science+is+blind%22+isaacson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZC_HVK2wMsaiNujbg7AO&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Science%20without%20religion%20is%20lame.%20Religion%20without%20science%20is%20blind%22%20isaacson&f=false ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on January 26, 2015.</ref>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."<ref>Einstein, Albert (January 3, 1954). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion Excerpt of "Letter to Eric Gutkind".] Excerpt retrieved from Randerson, James (May 13, 2008), "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear", Theguardian website [U.K.] on January 28, 2015.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."<ref>Einstein, Albert (March 24, 1954). Letter from ''Albert Einstein - The Human Side'' (1979), selected and edited by Dukas, Helen and Hoffman, Banesh (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).</ref></blockquote>

Taken as a whole, it appears Einstein rejected the literal stories of God's personal involvement with the Hebrews, but he did believe in the existence of a higher power as a metaphor for what we did not know about the universe.

=== Views on Judaism and Zionism ===
[[Image:Einst 22.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein with [[David Ben-Gurion]].|300px]]
In 1920, in a letter to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even if I do not consider them in any way God's elect."
</blockquote>
Einstein did not view fellow Jews as co-religionists, but as tribal companions.
Einstein was made an honorary citizen of [[Tel Aviv]] during his visit in 1923.
In 1952, Einstein was offered the position of president of Israel by the 1st prime minster of [[Israel]] David Ben-Gurion, but declined the offer. Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote to the Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld:
<blockquote>
"I thank you, even at this late hour, for having made me conscious of the Jewish soul."
</blockquote>
Einstein willed that all his scholarly work be archived in Israel's Hebrew University after his death.

Einstein always expressed his anti-war views and staunchly opposed nationalism:

"He who joyfully marches to rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so a base of action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

==Einstein on Germany and the rise of Hitler==
In 1944, in a message to a bulletin run by Polish Jews in New York, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [''Mein Kampf''] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.
</blockquote>

== Unsupported attributions ==
* Many ideas and quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. He did not invent very much of we now call [[special relativity]]. The Principle of Relativity, that the law of physics should be the same in all inertial frames, had already been published before Einstein.<ref>Logunov, A. A. (2005). [http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077 ''Henry Poincaré and Relativity Theory'']. Retrieved from Cornell University arXiv.org archive on January 28, 2015.</ref> He did not discover the [[Lorentz transformation]], or the Lorentz invariance of [[Maxwell's Equations]] for electromagnetism.<ref>Macrossan, Michael N. (1986) [http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00002307/ "A note on relativity before Einstein"]. ''British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'', vol. 37, no. 2:, pp. 232-234. Retrieved from University of Queensland [Australia]/UQ eSpace archive on January 28, 2015.</ref> He was not the first to propose that the [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, or that "[[the aether]]" is superfluous and not observable.<ref>Rothman, Tony (March-April 2006). [http://web.archive.org/web/20070710071317/http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611/page/1?&print=yes "Lost in Einstein's shadow"]. ''American Scientist'', vol. 94, no. 2, p. 112. Retrieved on January 28, 2015.</ref> He was not the first to recognize and explain how special relativity causes an ambiguity in defining simultaneity.<ref>Fric, Jacques (June 2003). [http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/Poincare.htm "Henri Poincaré: A decisive contribution to Special Relativity, the short story"]. www.everythingimportant.org. Retrieved on January 28, 2015.</ref> He did not combine space and time into a four-dimensional [[spacetime]] in his special relativity papers until others had been doing it for a couple of years.

* Einstein did not invent the term "relativity theory", and did not even like the term. He called it the "so-called relativity theory" until 1911. Einstein did not banish the ether from Physics. In a 1920 lecture, he said, "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny æther."<ref>Quoted in Tipler, Frank J., astrophysicist of Tulane University (October 26, 2008). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271310 "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of constitutional space' paper is crackpot physics"]. Social Science Research Network website. Retrieved on January 31, 2015.</ref>

* Einstein was not the first to observe the equation ''E=mc''2 as a consequence of special relativity,<ref>Henri Poincaré published it in 1900. Hermann, Robert A. (January 1, 2004). [http://web.archive.org/web/20081217082358/http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einpdf.pdf "E=mc2 is not Einstein's discovery"]. Retrieved from December 17, 2008 archive at Internet Archive on January 24, 2015.</ref> or to foresee its application to [[nuclear binding]] energies or [[antimatter]] annihilation.
* Einstein only published faulty and incomplete proofs.<ref>Multiple references:
*Ohanian, Hans C. (September 2008). [http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings-Genius/dp/0393062937 ''Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius'']. Retrieved on January 31, 2015.
*[http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes "Einstein's 23 biggest mistakes"] (September 1, 2008). Discover magazine website. Retrieved on January 31, 2015.</ref>
* He did not foresee a nuclear [[chain reaction]] and had to be persuaded about the possibility of an [[atomic bomb]].
* However, Einstein's interpretation of the ''E=mc''2 equation was fairly popular.
* According to Einstein, a body losing energy through heat or [[radiation]] was losing mass.<ref>Multiple references:
*Einstein, Albert (September 27, 1905). [http://web.archive.org/web/20081217082511/http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_18_639-641.pdf "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von dessen Energieinhalt abhängig?"], ''Annalen der Physik'', vol. 18, pp. 639–643. Retrieved from December 17, 2008 Internet Archive archive of University of Augsburg/Annalen der Physik website on January 31, 2015.
*English translation: Einstein, Albert (September 27, 1905). [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ Hypertext of "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy-content?"]. Translated in Perrett, Wilfrid and Jeffery, George B. (1923), ''The Principle of Relativity'' (London: Methuen), pp. 67-71. Hypertext retrieved from Fourmilab [Switzerland] website on January 31, 2015.</ref>

* Einstein did not originate the idea of using non-Euclidean geometry<ref>His friend Paul Ehrenfest pointed out the need for curved space. Kaku, Michio (2014). [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181349/Albert-Einstein "Albert Einstein"]. ''Encyclopedia Britannica''. Retrieved on February 1, 2015.</ref> [[metric tensor]]s to reconcile gravity with special relativity.<ref>Walter, Scott (2006). [http://web.archive.org/web/20061205041327/http://univ-nancy2.fr/DepPhilo/walter/papers/b4.pdf "Breaking in the 4-vectors: the four-dimensional movement in gravitation, 1905–1910"]. University of Nancy 2 [France]/Department of Philosophy/Scott Walter website. Retrieved from December 5, 2006 archive at Internet Archive on February 1, 2015.</ref> It was not his idea to describe gravity in [[covariant equations]], and he published papers supposedly showing that it was impossible.<ref>Norton, John D. (March 1993). [http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades_re-set.pdf "General covariance and the foundation of general relativity: eight decades of dispute"]. ''Reports on Progress in Physics'', no. 56, pp. 791-858. Retrieved from University of Pittsburgh/John D. Norton website on February 2, 2015.</ref> He did not discover the Lagrangian formulation of [[general relativity]], and was not the first to publish the field equations. He did not foresee the [[expansion of the universe]] (although this expansion is consistent with the field equations), the possibility of [[black hole]]s, or [[dark energy]].

* Einstein did not originate the idea that light is observable as particles. Max Planck published that a few years before Einstein, and received a Nobel prize for it.

* Einstein did not prove that matter was made of atoms. That had been known for a century when Einstein published his 1905 paper on Brownian motion.

* Einstein never developed a [[unified field theory]] of any significance. He published papers on [[quantum mechanics]], but always insisted on a deterministic interpretation.

* Many quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. Here are a few. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left." "We use only 10% of our brains." "Evil is simply the absence of God." "Originality is the art of concealing your sources." 

== Quotes ==
Here are some quotes that have been attributed to Einstein, but which have not been verified.

* The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.<ref>Applewhite, Ashton, et al. (2003). [http://books.google.com/books?id=H-GfO0jkBLsC&pg=PA146&dq=The+difference+between+stupidity+and+genius+is+that+genius+has+its+limits&ei=NtAaSsTZBZj2MJ2NyL8J ''And I Quote: The Definitive Collection of Quotes, Sayings, and Jokes for the Contemporary Speechmaker''] (New York: St. Martin's), rev. ed., p. 146. Retrieved from GoogleBooks on February 2, 2015.</ref>

* Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. <ref>Darbellay, Frédéric et al. (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=MbC45UX_4gMC&pg=PT19&dq=Learn+from+yesterday,+live+for+today,+hope+for+tomorrow.+The+important+thing+is+not+to+stop+questioning.&ei=Mdk-SormHozayQT1-uS-AQ ''A Vision of Transdisciplinarity: Laying Foundations for a World Knowledge Dialogue''] (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), p. xix. Retrived from GoogleBooks on February 2, 2015.</ref>

* "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." <ref>Feld, Bernard T. (1979). [http://books.google.com/books?id=CNuwE3NL1QgC&pg=PA388&dq=Whoever+is+careless+with+the+truth+in+small+matters+cannot+be+trusted+with+important+matters&ei=swRFSoSYM46yzASEy8Bc "Einstein and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons"]. ''Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives: The Centennial'' (1982), edited by Holton, Gerald James and Elkana, Yehuda (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 388. Retrieved from GoogleBooks on February 3, 2015.</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/E=mc2.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - e=mc2 derivation]
*[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/ "The Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921"] (2014). Nobelprize.org.
*Einstein, Albert (June 30, 1905). [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"]. Translated in Perrett, Wilfred and Jeffery, George B. (1923), ''The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity'' (London: Methuen), pp. 35-65. Translation of ''Das Relativatsprinzip'' (1922, Leipzig [Germany]: Teubner), 4th ed. Retrieved from Fourmilab [Switzerland] website.
*Einstein, Albert (September 27, 1905). [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy-content?"]. Translated in Perrett, Wilfrid and Jeffery, George B. (1923), ''The Principle of Relativity'' (London: Methuen), pp. 67-71. Translation of ''Das Relativatsprinzip'' (1922, Leipzig [Germany]: Teubner), 4th ed. Retrieved from Fourmilab [Switzerland] website.
*Paterniti, Michael (2000). ''Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain'' (New York, NY: Random House).
*"Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein" [http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Einstein, Albert}}

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists]]
[[Category:German People]]
[[Category:Zionism]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Agnostics]]
[[Category:Scientific pioneers]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]
[[Category:American Jews]]
[[Category:European Jews]]

Albert Einstein

2016-05-04T20:08:50Z

Timematter:

Albert Einstein

2016-05-04T20:07:20Z

Timematter:

[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|right|250px]]
'''Albert Einstein''' (1879-1955) was the most famous [[physicist]] of the 20th century, who however self-described himself to be “more of a [[philosopher]] than a physicist”.<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=1. Albert Einstein: A Portrait |pages=12|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=To his collaborator Leopold Infeld he said: “I am really more of a philosopher than a physicist” [17, p. 258].}}</ref> He was born in Ulm, in Württemberg, [[Germany]] in a [[Judaism|Jewish]] family. During his stay at the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] [[Patent and Trademark Office|Patent Office]] Einstein produced much of his remarkable work. In 1905 he obtained his [[Doctor|doctor's degree]]. He won the [[Nobel Prize]] for his work on the [[photoelectric effect]] in 1921.<ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/ "The Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921"] (2014). Nobelprize.org. Retrieved on January 23, 2015.</ref> Einstein [[Immigration|immigrated]] to the [[United States of America|United States]] in the late 1930s to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at [[Princeton University|Princeton]]; upon the urging of a colleague in physics, recommended that [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Franklin Roosevelt|Franklin D. Roosevelt]] develop an [[atomic bomb]] project. <ref>Einstein, Albert (August 2, 1939). [http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html "Letter to F. D. Roosevelt, President of the United States"]. www.dannen.com. Retrieved from "Leo Szilard Online: Einstein's Letter to Roosevelt, August 2, 1939" on January 23, 2015.</ref> He later regretted this and became a passionate [[Pacifism|pacifist]]. In 1952, he was offered the Presidency of [[Israel]], but he turned it down. Einstein collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the [[Hebrew]] [[University]] of [[Jerusalem]]. Albert Einstein died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, [[New Jersey]] at the age of 76.

==Anecdotes==
*In 1898, young Albert Einstein applied for admission to the Munich Technical Institute and was turned down. The young man, the Institute declared, "showed no promise" as a student. By 1905, he published his explanation of the special [[theory of relativity]]. <ref name=anec>[http://web.archive.org/web/20031205122227/http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html "Albert Einstein anecdotes"] (2003). Windsor Castle. Retrieved from December 5, 2003 archive at Internet Archive on January 23, 2015.</ref>
*Einstein came to Princeton University in 1935 and was asked what he would require for his study. he replied: "A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold all of my mistakes." <ref name=anec/>
*The sculptor Jacob Epstein tells this story:
*:"When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book. 'Were I wrong,' he said, 'one professor would have been enough.' <ref name=anec/>

== Works ==
Einstein contributed to the theory of a [[Special Relativity]] and the theory of [[General Relativity]]. He also contributed to the study of [[photoelectric effect]], Brownian Motion and Bose-Einstein Statistics. He was critical of quantum mechanics and has proposed the EPR-Paradox in attempt to point out spooky aspects of the theory. The last fifteen years of his life were spent in unsuccessfully searching for a [[Unified Field Theory]].
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. Einstein did not cite any references and it was widely and falsely assumed that his work was original. The theory of relativity had already been published by [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and [[Henri Poincaré]]. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory. He used the term "stationary system" instead of the term aether.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity using the mathematics of Riemannian Geometry, contributing to [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, [[David Hilbert]], and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explain an [[anomaly]] in the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.
[[Arthur Eddington]] popularized General Relativity by publishing an explanation of it and by attempting to prove the theory experimentally in a dramatic test. Eddington embarked on a highly publicized trip into the Atlantic Ocean off Africa in order to observe the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]] during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919. Eddington returned with a declaration that he had proven Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]], making Einstein extremely famous<ref>Lightman, Alan (September 9, 1997). [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/ "Relativity and the cosmos"]. PBS.org/WGBH/Nova. Retrieved on January 24, 2015. "On November 8, 1919, for example, the ''London Times'' had an article headlined: 'The Revolution In Science/Einstein Versus Newton.' Two days later, ''The New York Times''' headlines read: 'Lights All Askew In The Heavens/Men Of Science More Or Less Agog Over Results Of Eclipse Observations/Einstein Theory Triumphs.'"</ref>, when in fact he had selectively used data to attain this result. No Nobel Prize was given for relativity.

In April 2004, NASA launched the satellite Gravity Probe B to test general relativity. The main purpose was to test relativistic frame dragging, but the results have been inconclusive.

Einstein compared the effects of large objects on space and time to the way that a large ball placed on a sheet of rubber stretches the material and causes it to sag, and drew the analogy with the way stars and planets warp space-time. A smaller ball rolling along the sagging fabric will be drawn towards the larger ball, in the same way that the Earth is drawn towards the sun, but will not fall into it as long as it continues to move at sufficient speed. This was a change in thinking from the Newtonian cosmos, in which gravity was viewed purely as an attractive force between bodies.

Einstein's statistical explanation of Brownian motion (the random movement of microscopic particles mixed in with pollen) is sometimes credited with helping to confirm the atomic theory at a time when some scientists argued against it.<ref>Cassidy, David (2004). [http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-brownian.htm "Einstein on Brownian motion"]. [http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/great1.htm American Institute of Physics/AIP Center for History of Physics/Albert Einstein-Image and Impact/The Great Works I]. Retrieved on January 24, 2014.]</ref> Most scientists had accepted atomic theory a century earlier.

Einstein also published a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect in which light has particle like properties as well as wave like properties. According to [[Maxwell's Equations]], light is a wave so one might expect that increasing the intensity of light should increase the number of electrons emitted from metal. The German physicist Lénard did an experiment proving that this was not true. Einstein argued that the experiment was consistent with [[Max Planck]]'s hypothesis that light is quantized and different particles of light or photons have different frequencies. Therefore, increasing the intensity of low frequency photons has no effect, while using a higher (blue or ultra violet) frequency of light does cause more electrons to be emitted. The formula Einstein used to explain this was Planck's formula ''e'' = ''hf'', where ''h'' is Planck's constant and ''f'' is the frequency.<ref>Davis, Warren, PhD. (2008 or before). [http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae24.cfm?CFID=8792067&CFTOKEN=36662276 "What is the photoelectric effect?"] PhysLink.com. Retrieved on January 24, 2015.</ref>

Although Einstein won a Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, Lénard was critical of his accomplishments.<ref>Evans, Richard J. (2005). ''The Third Reich in Power'' (London: Penguin Books), pp. 306-309.</ref> Planck and Lénard had already received Nobel Prizes for related work explaining the photoelectric effect.

Einstein also recognized the value in work done by the physicist Satyendra Nath Bose when others did not, and helped Bose publish what is now referred to as Bose-Einstein statistics. A simplified explanation is that the statistics for [[boson]]s (including light) are different from the statistics for fermions which make up solid matter in that there is no way to tag or differentiate one boson from another for statistical comparisons.

===E=mc2===
Einstein’s famous formula ''E=mc''2 says that mass and energy can turn into each other. It was first published by Henri Poincaré. Einstein published an alternate derivation that was corrected and improved by Max Planck. ''E'' stands for [[energy]], ''m'' is [[mass]], and ''c'' is the [[speed of light]]. So, if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass. It was later realized that if you split an atom apart, as in a nuclear explosion, it loses a tiny amount of mass that is released in the form of [[energy]].

The connection ''E=mc''2 to nuclear energy is not as direct as pop culture sometimes represents. Einstein did not discover the huge energy available from nuclear reactions. Early workers in radioactivity, such as [[Ernest Rutherford]], understood clearly that the natural radioactive decay of radium released quantities of energy that could not be explained by chemistry, and were much larger than those of chemical reactions. Neither did Einstein originate the key idea that made nuclear energy a possible weapon or a practical energy source. That was Leo Szilard, who acknowledged having been inspired by a 1914 [[H. G. Wells]] novel. Szilard discovered or invented the chain reaction (and patented it). However, other people recognized the relation between Einstein's interpretation of the ''E=mc''2 formula and chain reactions. Einstein explained that matter releasing energy is also losing mass.

Energy binds together the parts of an [[atom]], including the [[nucleus]]. The nucleus of an atom is tiny, but very little mass could release a huge amount of energy. When one nucleus splits apart, it splits other nuclei around it. This is called a [[chain reaction]].

===Cosmological Constant===
''Main article:''[[Cosmological constant]]

Einstein revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a 'fudge-factor' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], in whose name [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct observations alongside him, and Hubble's findings showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed expanding, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an accelerating expansion for the universe<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html "WMAP produces new results"] (2013). NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe website. Retrieved on January 25, 2015.</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the phenomenon the 'Cosmological Constant' as well. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Religious beliefs ==

Einstein was a [[Pantheism|pantheist]]. Pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God and is a form of [[atheism]].

== Writings ==

*Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
*General Theory of Relativity (1916)
*''Relativity: The Special and the General Theory'' (translation), 1st ed. (1920)
*''Vier Vorlesungen über Relativitätstheorie'' (1922)
*''Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement'' (1926)
*''About Zionism'' (1930)
*''Why War?'' (1933)
*''The World As I See It (My Philosophy)'' (1934)
*''The Evolution of Physics'' (1938) with Leopold Infeld
*''Out of My Later Years'' (1950)
*''Einleitende Bemerkungen uber Grundbergriffe'' (1953)
*''The Meaning of Relativity'', 3rd ed. (1950), 4th ed. (1953), 5th ed. (1956)
''...the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.''

== Honors ==
Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many American and European universities.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the photoelectric effect.
*"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." <ref name="Mallove">Mallove, Eugene F., Sc. D. (July-August 2001). [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html "The Einstein myths—of space, time and aether"]. ''Infinite Energy Magazine'', iss. 38. Retrieved from Infinite Energy website on January 25, 2015.</ref>

Einstein told a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself." <ref name="Mallove"/>

He gained the Copley Medal of the [[Royal Society]] of London in 1925 and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 <ref>Küpper, Hans-Josef (2004 or bef.). [http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#president "President of the State of Israel"]. Albert Einstein in the world wide web. Retrieved on January 25, 2015.</ref> but respectfully declined, stating he believed his life-long study of objective matters made him an inappropriate candidate for a position in politics; he was also strongly opposed to nationalism.

In 1999, he was named "Person of the Century" by [[Time Magazine|''Time'' magazine]].

==Einstein and the A-bomb==
In 1939 research done by several leading scientists including [[Enrico Fermi]] regarding chain reactions of nuclear fission prompted [[Leo Szilard]] to persuade Einstein to write a letter to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|President Roosevelt]] <ref>Einstein, Albert (August 2, 1939). [http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml "Letter to F. D. Roosevelt, President of the United States"]. Hypertextbook/E-World. Retrieved on January 25, 2015. </ref>, to warn the President about the possibility of nuclear weapons and that Nazi [[Germany]] had already taken an interest in this technology.

Einstein himself had never been involved in the [[Manhattan project]]. He was considered a security risk, as he was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937 and 1954.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040810044240/http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/einstein.htm "Albert Einstein"] (2004). Federal Bureau of Investigation website. Retrieved from August 10, 2004 archive at Internet Archive on January 25, 2015.</ref> Later he condemned the use of nuclear weapons.

==Controversy surrounding his death==
Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, then a pathologist, performed the autopsy on Einstein in the [[Princeton Medical Center]] several hours after his death. Upon completion, Dr. Harvey removed the brain and eyes <ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913 "The long strange journey of Einstein's brain"] (April 18, 2005). Review and excerpt from Burrell, Brian (2005), ''Postcards from the Brain Museum''. National Public Radio website. Retrieved on January 25, 2015.</ref>. There is controversy about whether or not Harvey had consent from the Einstein family to remove the brain and keep it, though letters from Otto Nathan, executor of the Einstein estate, suggest that Harvey did indeed have permission to keep the brain, as long as research performed on it was only described in scientific journals.

The brain was photographed and sliced into 240 pieces in order to be preserved and further studied. Harvey hoped some uniqueness would be discovered that distinguished Einstein's brain as "genius".

Although he sent pieces away for further study, the bulk of the brain remained with Harvey for over 40 years. His once-ambitious plans for doing research on Einstein's brain were never actualized, though there were at least two controversial studies performed which suggested a physical reason for Einstein's intelligence. In 1996 Harvey entrusted Elliot Krauss, chief [[pathologist]] at the Princeton Medical Center, with the brain. The brain now sits in a secret location, possibly only a few feet away from where it was first removed from Einstein's head. Krauss loans out pieces of the brain for scientific research, but he is very discriminating in deciding who shall receive a piece. <ref>Abraham, Carolyn (2001). ''Possessing Genius'' (U.K.: Icon Books), 2005 edition.</ref>

==Religious views==
[[Image:Einstein inshul1930.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein wearing a kippah in a Berlin Synagogue, 1930.|300px]]
There is some controversy surrounding the religion of Albert Einstein.
Walter Isaacson reports him shortly after his fiftieth birthday explaining his religious views to an interviewer in this manner: <blockquote>“I'm not an [[atheist]]. I don't think I can call myself a [[pantheist]]. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." <ref>Isaacson, Walter (April 27, 2007). "Einstein and the mind of God". ''Washington Post''.</ref></blockquote>

In the same interview, Einstein spoke of his feelings regarding Christianity:

<blockquote>
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
</blockquote>

And when asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, Einstein replied:

<blockquote>
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
</blockquote>

Einstein also said
<blockquote>
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."<ref name=Jammer>Jammer, Max (1999). ''Einstein and Religion'' (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).</ref>,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"[The fanatical atheists] are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people' [[[Karl Marx]]'s oft-cited description of religion]—cannot bear the music of the spheres."<ref name=Jammer/>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>"God does not play dice with the universe."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=zPkrAQAAIAAJ&q=%22God+does+not+play+dice+with+the+universe%22&dq=%22God+does+not+play+dice+with+the+universe%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ldPGVJrIOejIsAScz4DQDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA ''Et Cetera''] (1943), p. 61. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on January 26, 2015.</ref></blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" <ref>Isaacson, Walter (2007). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PA390&dq=%22Science+without+religion+is+lame.+Religion+without+science+is+blind%22+isaacson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZC_HVK2wMsaiNujbg7AO&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Science%20without%20religion%20is%20lame.%20Religion%20without%20science%20is%20blind%22%20isaacson&f=false ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on January 26, 2015.</ref>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."<ref>Einstein, Albert (January 3, 1954). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion Excerpt of "Letter to Eric Gutkind".] Excerpt retrieved from Randerson, James (May 13, 2008), "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear", Theguardian website [U.K.] on January 28, 2015.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."<ref>Einstein, Albert (March 24, 1954). Letter from ''Albert Einstein - The Human Side'' (1979), selected and edited by Dukas, Helen and Hoffman, Banesh (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).</ref></blockquote>

Taken as a whole, it appears Einstein rejected the literal stories of God's personal involvement with the Hebrews, but he did believe in the existence of a higher power as a metaphor for what we did not know about the universe.

=== Views on Judaism and Zionism ===
[[Image:Einst 22.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein with [[David Ben-Gurion]].|300px]]
In 1920, in a letter to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even if I do not consider them in any way God's elect."
</blockquote>
Einstein did not view fellow Jews as co-religionists, but as tribal companions.
Einstein was made an honorary citizen of [[Tel Aviv]] during his visit in 1923.
In 1952, Einstein was offered the position of president of Israel by the 1st prime minster of [[Israel]] David Ben-Gurion, but declined the offer. Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote to the Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld:
<blockquote>
"I thank you, even at this late hour, for having made me conscious of the Jewish soul."
</blockquote>
Einstein willed that all his scholarly work be archived in Israel's Hebrew University after his death.

Einstein always expressed his anti-war views and staunchly opposed nationalism:

"He who joyfully marches to rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so a base of action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

==Einstein on Germany and the rise of Hitler==
In 1944, in a message to a bulletin run by Polish Jews in New York, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [''Mein Kampf''] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.
</blockquote>

== Unsupported attributions ==
* Many ideas and quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. He did not invent very much of we now call [[special relativity]]. The Principle of Relativity, that the law of physics should be the same in all inertial frames, had already been published before Einstein.<ref>Logunov, A. A. (2005). [http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077 ''Henry Poincaré and Relativity Theory'']. Retrieved from Cornell University arXiv.org archive on January 28, 2015.</ref> He did not discover the [[Lorentz transformation]], or the Lorentz invariance of [[Maxwell's Equations]] for electromagnetism.<ref>Macrossan, Michael N. (1986) [http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00002307/ "A note on relativity before Einstein"]. ''British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'', vol. 37, no. 2:, pp. 232-234. Retrieved from University of Queensland [Australia]/UQ eSpace archive on January 28, 2015.</ref> He was not the first to propose that the [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, or that "[[the aether]]" is superfluous and not observable.<ref>Rothman, Tony (March-April 2006). [http://web.archive.org/web/20070710071317/http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611/page/1?&print=yes "Lost in Einstein's shadow"]. ''American Scientist'', vol. 94, no. 2, p. 112. Retrieved on January 28, 2015.</ref> He was not the first to recognize and explain how special relativity causes an ambiguity in defining simultaneity.<ref>Fric, Jacques (June 2003). [http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/Poincare.htm "Henri Poincaré: A decisive contribution to Special Relativity, the short story"]. www.everythingimportant.org. Retrieved on January 28, 2015.</ref> He did not combine space and time into a four-dimensional [[spacetime]] in his special relativity papers until others had been doing it for a couple of years.

* Einstein did not invent the term "relativity theory", and did not even like the term. He called it the "so-called relativity theory" until 1911. Einstein did not banish the ether from Physics. In a 1920 lecture, he said, "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny æther."<ref>Quoted in Tipler, Frank J., astrophysicist of Tulane University (October 26, 2008). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271310 "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of constitutional space' paper is crackpot physics"]. Social Science Research Network website. Retrieved on January 31, 2015.</ref>

* Einstein was not the first to observe the equation ''E=mc''2 as a consequence of special relativity,<ref>Henri Poincaré published it in 1900. Hermann, Robert A. (January 1, 2004). [http://web.archive.org/web/20081217082358/http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einpdf.pdf "E=mc2 is not Einstein's discovery"]. Retrieved from December 17, 2008 archive at Internet Archive on January 24, 2015.</ref> or to foresee its application to [[nuclear binding]] energies or [[antimatter]] annihilation.
* Einstein only published faulty and incomplete proofs.<ref>Multiple references:
*Ohanian, Hans C. (September 2008). [http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings-Genius/dp/0393062937 ''Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius'']. Retrieved on January 31, 2015.
*[http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes "Einstein's 23 biggest mistakes"] (September 1, 2008). Discover magazine website. Retrieved on January 31, 2015.</ref>
* He did not foresee a nuclear [[chain reaction]] and had to be persuaded about the possibility of an [[atomic bomb]].
* However, Einstein's interpretation of the ''E=mc''2 equation was fairly popular.
* According to Einstein, a body losing energy through heat or [[radiation]] was losing mass.<ref>Multiple references:
*Einstein, Albert (September 27, 1905). [http://web.archive.org/web/20081217082511/http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_18_639-641.pdf "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von dessen Energieinhalt abhängig?"], ''Annalen der Physik'', vol. 18, pp. 639–643. Retrieved from December 17, 2008 Internet Archive archive of University of Augsburg/Annalen der Physik website on January 31, 2015.
*English translation: Einstein, Albert (September 27, 1905). [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ Hypertext of "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy-content?"]. Translated in Perrett, Wilfrid and Jeffery, George B. (1923), ''The Principle of Relativity'' (London: Methuen), pp. 67-71. Hypertext retrieved from Fourmilab [Switzerland] website on January 31, 2015.</ref>

* Einstein did not originate the idea of using non-Euclidean geometry<ref>His friend Paul Ehrenfest pointed out the need for curved space. Kaku, Michio (2014). [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181349/Albert-Einstein "Albert Einstein"]. ''Encyclopedia Britannica''. Retrieved on February 1, 2015.</ref> [[metric tensor]]s to reconcile gravity with special relativity.<ref>Walter, Scott (2006). [http://web.archive.org/web/20061205041327/http://univ-nancy2.fr/DepPhilo/walter/papers/b4.pdf "Breaking in the 4-vectors: the four-dimensional movement in gravitation, 1905–1910"]. University of Nancy 2 [France]/Department of Philosophy/Scott Walter website. Retrieved from December 5, 2006 archive at Internet Archive on February 1, 2015.</ref> It was not his idea to describe gravity in [[covariant equations]], and he published papers supposedly showing that it was impossible.<ref>Norton, John D. (March 1993). [http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades_re-set.pdf "General covariance and the foundation of general relativity: eight decades of dispute"]. ''Reports on Progress in Physics'', no. 56, pp. 791-858. Retrieved from University of Pittsburgh/John D. Norton website on February 2, 2015.</ref> He did not discover the Lagrangian formulation of [[general relativity]], and was not the first to publish the field equations. He did not foresee the [[expansion of the universe]] (although this expansion is consistent with the field equations), the possibility of [[black hole]]s, or [[dark energy]].

* Einstein did not originate the idea that light is observable as particles. Max Planck published that a few years before Einstein, and received a Nobel prize for it.

* Einstein did not prove that matter was made of atoms. That had been known for a century when Einstein published his 1905 paper on Brownian motion.

* Einstein never developed a [[unified field theory]] of any significance. He published papers on [[quantum mechanics]], but always insisted on a deterministic interpretation.

* Many quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. Here are a few. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left." "We use only 10% of our brains." "Evil is simply the absence of God." "Originality is the art of concealing your sources." 

== Quotes ==
Here are some quotes that have been attributed to Einstein, but which have not been verified.

* The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.<ref>Applewhite, Ashton, et al. (2003). [http://books.google.com/books?id=H-GfO0jkBLsC&pg=PA146&dq=The+difference+between+stupidity+and+genius+is+that+genius+has+its+limits&ei=NtAaSsTZBZj2MJ2NyL8J ''And I Quote: The Definitive Collection of Quotes, Sayings, and Jokes for the Contemporary Speechmaker''] (New York: St. Martin's), rev. ed., p. 146. Retrieved from GoogleBooks on February 2, 2015.</ref>

* Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. <ref>Darbellay, Frédéric et al. (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=MbC45UX_4gMC&pg=PT19&dq=Learn+from+yesterday,+live+for+today,+hope+for+tomorrow.+The+important+thing+is+not+to+stop+questioning.&ei=Mdk-SormHozayQT1-uS-AQ ''A Vision of Transdisciplinarity: Laying Foundations for a World Knowledge Dialogue''] (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), p. xix. Retrived from GoogleBooks on February 2, 2015.</ref>

* "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." <ref>Feld, Bernard T. (1979). [http://books.google.com/books?id=CNuwE3NL1QgC&pg=PA388&dq=Whoever+is+careless+with+the+truth+in+small+matters+cannot+be+trusted+with+important+matters&ei=swRFSoSYM46yzASEy8Bc "Einstein and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons"]. ''Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives: The Centennial'' (1982), edited by Holton, Gerald James and Elkana, Yehuda (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 388. Retrieved from GoogleBooks on February 3, 2015.</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/E=mc2.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - e=mc2 derivation]
*[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/ "The Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921"] (2014). Nobelprize.org.
*Einstein, Albert (June 30, 1905). [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"]. Translated in Perrett, Wilfred and Jeffery, George B. (1923), ''The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity'' (London: Methuen), pp. 35-65. Translation of ''Das Relativatsprinzip'' (1922, Leipzig [Germany]: Teubner), 4th ed. Retrieved from Fourmilab [Switzerland] website.
*Einstein, Albert (September 27, 1905). [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy-content?"]. Translated in Perrett, Wilfrid and Jeffery, George B. (1923), ''The Principle of Relativity'' (London: Methuen), pp. 67-71. Translation of ''Das Relativatsprinzip'' (1922, Leipzig [Germany]: Teubner), 4th ed. Retrieved from Fourmilab [Switzerland] website.
*Paterniti, Michael (2000). ''Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain'' (New York, NY: Random House).
*"Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein" [http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Einstein, Albert}}

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists]]
[[Category:German People]]
[[Category:Zionism]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Agnostics]]
[[Category:Scientific pioneers]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]
[[Category:American Jews]]
[[Category:European Jews]]

Albert Einstein

2016-05-04T20:06:18Z

Timematter:

[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|right|250px]]
'''Albert Einstein''' (1879-1955) was the most famous [[physicist]] of the 20th century, who however self-described himself to be “more of a [[philosopher]] than a physicist”.<ref name="Capria">{{cite book |author=Marco M. Capria, Aubert Daigneaut et al. |title=Physics Before and After Einstein |publisher=IOS Press |year=2005 |chapter=1. Albert Einstein: A Portrait |pages=12|isbn=1-58603-462-6 |url=www.dmi.unipg.it/~mamone/pubb/PBAE.pdf |quote=To his collaborator Leopold Infeld he said: “I am really more of a philosopher than a physicist” [17, p. 258].}}</ref> He was born in Ulm, in Württemberg, [[Germany]] in a [[Judaism|Jewish]] family. During his stay at the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] [[Patent and Trademark Office|Patent Office]] Einstein produced much of his remarkable work. In 1905 he obtained his [[Doctor|doctor's degree]]. He won the [[Nobel Prize]] for his work on the [[photoelectric effect]] in 1921.<ref>[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/ "The Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921"] (2014). Nobelprize.org. Retrieved on January 23, 2015.</ref> Einstein [[Immigration|immigrated]] to the [[United States of America|United States]] in the late 1930s to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at [[Princeton University|Princeton]]; upon the urging of a colleague in physics, recommended that [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Franklin Roosevelt|Franklin D. Roosevelt]] develop an [[atomic bomb]] project. <ref>Einstein, Albert (August 2, 1939). [http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html "Letter to F. D. Roosevelt, President of the United States"]. www.dannen.com. Retrieved from "Leo Szilard Online: Einstein's Letter to Roosevelt, August 2, 1939" on January 23, 2015.</ref> He later regretted this and became a passionate [[Pacifism|pacifist]]. In 1952, he was offered the Presidency of [[Israel]], but he turned it down. Einstein collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the [[Hebrew]] [[University]] of [[Jerusalem]]. Albert Einstein died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, [[New Jersey]] at the age of 76.

==Anecdotes==
*In 1898, young Albert Einstein applied for admission to the Munich Technical Institute and was turned down. The young man, the Institute declared, "showed no promise" as a student. By 1905, he published his explanation of the special [[theory of relativity]]. <ref name=anec>[http://web.archive.org/web/20031205122227/http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html "Albert Einstein anecdotes"] (2003). Windsor Castle. Retrieved from December 5, 2003 archive at Internet Archive on January 23, 2015.</ref>
*Einstein came to Princeton University in 1935 and was asked what he would require for his study. he replied: "A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold all of my mistakes." <ref name=anec/>
*The sculptor Jacob Epstein tells this story:
*:"When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book. 'Were I wrong,' he said, 'one professor would have been enough.' <ref name=anec/>

== Works ==
Einstein contributed to the theory of a [[Special Relativity]] and the theory of [[General Relativity]]. He also contributed to the study of [[photoelectric effect]], Brownian Motion and Bose-Einstein Statistics. He was critical of quantum mechanics and has proposed the EPR-Paradox in attempt to point out spooky aspects of the theory. The last fifteen years of his life were spent in unsuccessfully searching for a [[Unified Field Theory]].
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. Einstein did not cite any references and it was widely and falsely assumed that his work was original. The theory of relativity had already been published by [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and [[Henri Poincaré]]. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory. He used the term "stationary system" instead of the term aether.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity using the mathematics of Riemannian Geometry, contributing to [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, [[David Hilbert]], and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explain an [[anomaly]] in the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.
[[Arthur Eddington]] popularized General Relativity by publishing an explanation of it and by attempting to prove the theory experimentally in a dramatic test. Eddington embarked on a highly publicized trip into the Atlantic Ocean off Africa in order to observe the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]] during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919. Eddington returned with a declaration that he had proven Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]], making Einstein extremely famous<ref>Lightman, Alan (September 9, 1997). [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/ "Relativity and the cosmos"]. PBS.org/WGBH/Nova. Retrieved on January 24, 2015. "On November 8, 1919, for example, the ''London Times'' had an article headlined: 'The Revolution In Science/Einstein Versus Newton.' Two days later, ''The New York Times''' headlines read: 'Lights All Askew In The Heavens/Men Of Science More Or Less Agog Over Results Of Eclipse Observations/Einstein Theory Triumphs.'"</ref>, when in fact he had selectively used data to attain this result. No Nobel Prize was given for relativity.

In April 2004, NASA launched the satellite Gravity Probe B to test general relativity. The main purpose was to test relativistic frame dragging, but the results have been inconclusive.

Einstein compared the effects of large objects on space and time to the way that a large ball placed on a sheet of rubber stretches the material and causes it to sag, and drew the analogy with the way stars and planets warp space-time. A smaller ball rolling along the sagging fabric will be drawn towards the larger ball, in the same way that the Earth is drawn towards the sun, but will not fall into it as long as it continues to move at sufficient speed. This was a change in thinking from the Newtonian cosmos, in which gravity was viewed purely as an attractive force between bodies.

Einstein's statistical explanation of Brownian motion (the random movement of microscopic particles mixed in with pollen) is sometimes credited with helping to confirm the atomic theory at a time when some scientists argued against it.<ref>Cassidy, David (2004). [http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-brownian.htm "Einstein on Brownian motion"]. [http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/great1.htm American Institute of Physics/AIP Center for History of Physics/Albert Einstein-Image and Impact/The Great Works I]. Retrieved on January 24, 2014.]</ref> Most scientists had accepted atomic theory a century earlier.

Einstein also published a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect in which light has particle like properties as well as wave like properties. According to [[Maxwell's Equations]], light is a wave so one might expect that increasing the intensity of light should increase the number of electrons emitted from metal. The German physicist Lénard did an experiment proving that this was not true. Einstein argued that the experiment was consistent with [[Max Planck]]'s hypothesis that light is quantized and different particles of light or photons have different frequencies. Therefore, increasing the intensity of low frequency photons has no effect, while using a higher (blue or ultra violet) frequency of light does cause more electrons to be emitted. The formula Einstein used to explain this was Planck's formula ''e'' = ''hf'', where ''h'' is Planck's constant and ''f'' is the frequency.<ref>Davis, Warren, PhD. (2008 or before). [http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae24.cfm?CFID=8792067&CFTOKEN=36662276 "What is the photoelectric effect?"] PhysLink.com. Retrieved on January 24, 2015.</ref>

Although Einstein won a Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect, Lénard was critical of his accomplishments.<ref>Evans, Richard J. (2005). ''The Third Reich in Power'' (London: Penguin Books), pp. 306-309.</ref> Planck and Lénard had already received Nobel Prizes for related work explaining the photoelectric effect.

Einstein also recognized the value in work done by the physicist Satyendra Nath Bose when others did not, and helped Bose publish what is now referred to as Bose-Einstein statistics. A simplified explanation is that the statistics for [[boson]]s (including light) are different from the statistics for fermions which make up solid matter in that there is no way to tag or differentiate one boson from another for statistical comparisons.

===E=mc2===
Einstein’s famous formula ''E=mc''2 says that mass and energy can turn into each other. It was first published by Henri Poincaré. Einstein published an alternate derivation that was corrected and improved by Max Planck. ''E'' stands for [[energy]], ''m'' is [[mass]], and ''c'' is the [[speed of light]]. So, if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass. It was later realized that if you split an atom apart, as in a nuclear explosion, it loses a tiny amount of mass that is released in the form of [[energy]].

The connection ''E=mc''2 to nuclear energy is not as direct as pop culture sometimes represents. Einstein did not discover the huge energy available from nuclear reactions. Early workers in radioactivity, such as [[Ernest Rutherford]], understood clearly that the natural radioactive decay of radium released quantities of energy that could not be explained by chemistry, and were much larger than those of chemical reactions. Neither did Einstein originate the key idea that made nuclear energy a possible weapon or a practical energy source. That was Leo Szilard, who acknowledged having been inspired by a 1914 [[H. G. Wells]] novel. Szilard discovered or invented the chain reaction (and patented it). However, other people recognized the relation between Einstein's interpretation of the ''E=mc''2 formula and chain reactions. Einstein explained that matter releasing energy is also losing mass.

Energy binds together the parts of an [[atom]], including the [[nucleus]]. The nucleus of an atom is tiny, but very little mass could release a huge amount of energy. When one nucleus splits apart, it splits other nuclei around it. This is called a [[chain reaction]].

===Cosmological Constant===
''Main article:''[[Cosmological constant]]

Einstein revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a 'fudge-factor' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], in whose name [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct observations alongside him, and Hubble's findings showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed expanding, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an accelerating expansion for the universe<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html "WMAP produces new results"] (2013). NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe website. Retrieved on January 25, 2015.</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the phenomenon the 'Cosmological Constant' as well. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Religious beliefs ==

Einstein was a [[Pantheism|pantheist]]. Pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God and is a form of [[atheism]].

== Writings ==

*Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
*General Theory of Relativity (1916)
*''Relativity: The Special and the General Theory'' (translation), 1st ed. (1920)
*''Vier Vorlesungen über Relativitätstheorie'' (1922)
*''Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement'' (1926)
*''About Zionism'' (1930)
*''Why War?'' (1933)
*''The World As I See It (My Philosophy)'' (1934)
*''The Evolution of Physics'' (1938) with Leopold Infeld
*''Out of My Later Years'' (1950)
*''Einleitende Bemerkungen uber Grundbergriffe'' (1953)
*''The Meaning of Relativity'', 3rd ed. (1950), 4th ed. (1953), 5th ed. (1956)
''...the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.''

== Honors ==
Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many American and European universities.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the photoelectric effect.
*"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." <ref name="Mallove">Mallove, Eugene F., Sc. D. (July-August 2001). [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html "The Einstein myths—of space, time and aether"]. ''Infinite Energy Magazine'', iss. 38. Retrieved from Infinite Energy website on January 25, 2015.</ref>

Einstein told a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself." <ref name="Mallove"/>

He gained the Copley Medal of the [[Royal Society]] of London in 1925 and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 <ref>Küpper, Hans-Josef (2004 or bef.). [http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#president "President of the State of Israel"]. Albert Einstein in the world wide web. Retrieved on January 25, 2015.</ref> but respectfully declined, stating he believed his life-long study of objective matters made him an inappropriate candidate for a position in politics; he was also strongly opposed to nationalism.

In 1999, he was named "Person of the Century" by [[Time Magazine|''Time'' magazine]].

==Einstein and the A-bomb==
In 1939 research done by several leading scientists including [[Enrico Fermi]] regarding chain reactions of nuclear fission prompted [[Leo Szilard]] to persuade Einstein to write a letter to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|President Roosevelt]] <ref>Einstein, Albert (August 2, 1939). [http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml "Letter to F. D. Roosevelt, President of the United States"]. Hypertextbook/E-World. Retrieved on January 25, 2015. </ref>, to warn the President about the possibility of nuclear weapons and that Nazi [[Germany]] had already taken an interest in this technology.

Einstein himself had never been involved in the [[Manhattan project]]. He was considered a security risk, as he was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937 and 1954.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040810044240/http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/einstein.htm "Albert Einstein"] (2004). Federal Bureau of Investigation website. Retrieved from August 10, 2004 archive at Internet Archive on January 25, 2015.</ref> Later he condemned the use of nuclear weapons.

==Controversy surrounding his death==
Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, then a pathologist, performed the autopsy on Einstein in the [[Princeton Medical Center]] several hours after his death. Upon completion, Dr. Harvey removed the brain and eyes <ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913 "The long strange journey of Einstein's brain"] (April 18, 2005). Review and excerpt from Burrell, Brian (2005), ''Postcards from the Brain Museum''. National Public Radio website. Retrieved on January 25, 2015.</ref>. There is controversy about whether or not Harvey had consent from the Einstein family to remove the brain and keep it, though letters from Otto Nathan, executor of the Einstein estate, suggest that Harvey did indeed have permission to keep the brain, as long as research performed on it was only described in scientific journals.

The brain was photographed and sliced into 240 pieces in order to be preserved and further studied. Harvey hoped some uniqueness would be discovered that distinguished Einstein's brain as "genius".

Although he sent pieces away for further study, the bulk of the brain remained with Harvey for over 40 years. His once-ambitious plans for doing research on Einstein's brain were never actualized, though there were at least two controversial studies performed which suggested a physical reason for Einstein's intelligence. In 1996 Harvey entrusted Elliot Krauss, chief [[pathologist]] at the Princeton Medical Center, with the brain. The brain now sits in a secret location, possibly only a few feet away from where it was first removed from Einstein's head. Krauss loans out pieces of the brain for scientific research, but he is very discriminating in deciding who shall receive a piece. <ref>Abraham, Carolyn (2001). ''Possessing Genius'' (U.K.: Icon Books), 2005 edition.</ref>

==Religious views==
[[Image:Einstein inshul1930.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein wearing a kippah in a Berlin Synagogue, 1930.|300px]]
There is some controversy surrounding the religion of Albert Einstein.
Walter Isaacson reports him shortly after his fiftieth birthday explaining his religious views to an interviewer in this manner: <blockquote>“I'm not an [[atheist]]. I don't think I can call myself a [[pantheist]]. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." <ref>Isaacson, Walter (April 27, 2007). "Einstein and the mind of God". ''Washington Post''.</ref></blockquote>

In the same interview, Einstein spoke of his feelings regarding Christianity:

<blockquote>
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
</blockquote>

And when asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, Einstein replied:

<blockquote>
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
</blockquote>

Einstein also said
<blockquote>
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."<ref name=Jammer>Jammer, Max (1999). ''Einstein and Religion'' (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).</ref>,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"[The fanatical atheists] are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people' [[[Karl Marx]]'s oft-cited description of religion]—cannot bear the music of the spheres."<ref name=Jammer/>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>"God does not play dice with the universe."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=zPkrAQAAIAAJ&q=%22God+does+not+play+dice+with+the+universe%22&dq=%22God+does+not+play+dice+with+the+universe%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ldPGVJrIOejIsAScz4DQDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA ''Et Cetera''] (1943), p. 61. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on January 26, 2015.</ref></blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" <ref>Isaacson, Walter (2007). [http://books.google.com/books?id=cdxWNE7NY6QC&pg=PA390&dq=%22Science+without+religion+is+lame.+Religion+without+science+is+blind%22+isaacson&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZC_HVK2wMsaiNujbg7AO&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Science%20without%20religion%20is%20lame.%20Religion%20without%20science%20is%20blind%22%20isaacson&f=false ''Einstein: His Life and Universe''] (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster), p. 390. Retrieved from GoogleBooks archive on January 26, 2015.</ref>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."<ref>Einstein, Albert (January 3, 1954). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion Excerpt of "Letter to Eric Gutkind".] Excerpt retrieved from Randerson, James (May 13, 2008), "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear", Theguardian website [U.K.] on January 28, 2015.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."<ref>Einstein, Albert (March 24, 1954). Letter from ''Albert Einstein - The Human Side'' (1979), selected and edited by Dukas, Helen and Hoffman, Banesh (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).</ref></blockquote>

Taken as a whole, it appears Einstein rejected the literal stories of God's personal involvement with the Hebrews, but he did believe in the existence of a higher power as a metaphor for what we did not know about the universe.

==Views on Judaism and Zionism==
[[Image:Einst 22.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein with [[David Ben-Gurion]].|300px]]
In 1920, in a letter to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even if I do not consider them in any way God's elect."
</blockquote>
Einstein did not view fellow Jews as co-religionists, but as tribal companions.
Einstein was made an honorary citizen of [[Tel Aviv]] during his visit in 1923.
In 1952, Einstein was offered the position of president of Israel by the 1st prime minster of [[Israel]] David Ben-Gurion, but declined the offer. Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote to the Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld:
<blockquote>
"I thank you, even at this late hour, for having made me conscious of the Jewish soul."
</blockquote>
Einstein willed that all his scholarly work be archived in Israel's Hebrew University after his death.

Einstein always expressed his anti-war views and staunchly opposed nationalism:

"He who joyfully marches to rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so a base of action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

==Einstein on Germany and the rise of Hitler==
In 1944, in a message to a bulletin run by Polish Jews in New York, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [''Mein Kampf''] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.
</blockquote>

== Unsupported attributions ==
* Many ideas and quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. He did not invent very much of we now call [[special relativity]]. The Principle of Relativity, that the law of physics should be the same in all inertial frames, had already been published before Einstein.<ref>Logunov, A. A. (2005). [http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077 ''Henry Poincaré and Relativity Theory'']. Retrieved from Cornell University arXiv.org archive on January 28, 2015.</ref> He did not discover the [[Lorentz transformation]], or the Lorentz invariance of [[Maxwell's Equations]] for electromagnetism.<ref>Macrossan, Michael N. (1986) [http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00002307/ "A note on relativity before Einstein"]. ''British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'', vol. 37, no. 2:, pp. 232-234. Retrieved from University of Queensland [Australia]/UQ eSpace archive on January 28, 2015.</ref> He was not the first to propose that the [[speed of light]] is constant for all observers, or that "[[the aether]]" is superfluous and not observable.<ref>Rothman, Tony (March-April 2006). [http://web.archive.org/web/20070710071317/http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/49611/page/1?&print=yes "Lost in Einstein's shadow"]. ''American Scientist'', vol. 94, no. 2, p. 112. Retrieved on January 28, 2015.</ref> He was not the first to recognize and explain how special relativity causes an ambiguity in defining simultaneity.<ref>Fric, Jacques (June 2003). [http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/Poincare.htm "Henri Poincaré: A decisive contribution to Special Relativity, the short story"]. www.everythingimportant.org. Retrieved on January 28, 2015.</ref> He did not combine space and time into a four-dimensional [[spacetime]] in his special relativity papers until others had been doing it for a couple of years.

* Einstein did not invent the term "relativity theory", and did not even like the term. He called it the "so-called relativity theory" until 1911. Einstein did not banish the ether from Physics. In a 1920 lecture, he said, "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny æther."<ref>Quoted in Tipler, Frank J., astrophysicist of Tulane University (October 26, 2008). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271310 "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of constitutional space' paper is crackpot physics"]. Social Science Research Network website. Retrieved on January 31, 2015.</ref>

* Einstein was not the first to observe the equation ''E=mc''2 as a consequence of special relativity,<ref>Henri Poincaré published it in 1900. Hermann, Robert A. (January 1, 2004). [http://web.archive.org/web/20081217082358/http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einpdf.pdf "E=mc2 is not Einstein's discovery"]. Retrieved from December 17, 2008 archive at Internet Archive on January 24, 2015.</ref> or to foresee its application to [[nuclear binding]] energies or [[antimatter]] annihilation.
* Einstein only published faulty and incomplete proofs.<ref>Multiple references:
*Ohanian, Hans C. (September 2008). [http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings-Genius/dp/0393062937 ''Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius'']. Retrieved on January 31, 2015.
*[http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes "Einstein's 23 biggest mistakes"] (September 1, 2008). Discover magazine website. Retrieved on January 31, 2015.</ref>
* He did not foresee a nuclear [[chain reaction]] and had to be persuaded about the possibility of an [[atomic bomb]].
* However, Einstein's interpretation of the ''E=mc''2 equation was fairly popular.
* According to Einstein, a body losing energy through heat or [[radiation]] was losing mass.<ref>Multiple references:
*Einstein, Albert (September 27, 1905). [http://web.archive.org/web/20081217082511/http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/papers/1905_18_639-641.pdf "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von dessen Energieinhalt abhängig?"], ''Annalen der Physik'', vol. 18, pp. 639–643. Retrieved from December 17, 2008 Internet Archive archive of University of Augsburg/Annalen der Physik website on January 31, 2015.
*English translation: Einstein, Albert (September 27, 1905). [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ Hypertext of "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy-content?"]. Translated in Perrett, Wilfrid and Jeffery, George B. (1923), ''The Principle of Relativity'' (London: Methuen), pp. 67-71. Hypertext retrieved from Fourmilab [Switzerland] website on January 31, 2015.</ref>

* Einstein did not originate the idea of using non-Euclidean geometry<ref>His friend Paul Ehrenfest pointed out the need for curved space. Kaku, Michio (2014). [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181349/Albert-Einstein "Albert Einstein"]. ''Encyclopedia Britannica''. Retrieved on February 1, 2015.</ref> [[metric tensor]]s to reconcile gravity with special relativity.<ref>Walter, Scott (2006). [http://web.archive.org/web/20061205041327/http://univ-nancy2.fr/DepPhilo/walter/papers/b4.pdf "Breaking in the 4-vectors: the four-dimensional movement in gravitation, 1905–1910"]. University of Nancy 2 [France]/Department of Philosophy/Scott Walter website. Retrieved from December 5, 2006 archive at Internet Archive on February 1, 2015.</ref> It was not his idea to describe gravity in [[covariant equations]], and he published papers supposedly showing that it was impossible.<ref>Norton, John D. (March 1993). [http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades_re-set.pdf "General covariance and the foundation of general relativity: eight decades of dispute"]. ''Reports on Progress in Physics'', no. 56, pp. 791-858. Retrieved from University of Pittsburgh/John D. Norton website on February 2, 2015.</ref> He did not discover the Lagrangian formulation of [[general relativity]], and was not the first to publish the field equations. He did not foresee the [[expansion of the universe]] (although this expansion is consistent with the field equations), the possibility of [[black hole]]s, or [[dark energy]].

* Einstein did not originate the idea that light is observable as particles. Max Planck published that a few years before Einstein, and received a Nobel prize for it.

* Einstein did not prove that matter was made of atoms. That had been known for a century when Einstein published his 1905 paper on Brownian motion.

* Einstein never developed a [[unified field theory]] of any significance. He published papers on [[quantum mechanics]], but always insisted on a deterministic interpretation.

* Many quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. Here are a few. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left." "We use only 10% of our brains." "Evil is simply the absence of God." "Originality is the art of concealing your sources." 

== Quotes ==
Here are some quotes that have been attributed to Einstein, but which have not been verified.

* The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.<ref>Applewhite, Ashton, et al. (2003). [http://books.google.com/books?id=H-GfO0jkBLsC&pg=PA146&dq=The+difference+between+stupidity+and+genius+is+that+genius+has+its+limits&ei=NtAaSsTZBZj2MJ2NyL8J ''And I Quote: The Definitive Collection of Quotes, Sayings, and Jokes for the Contemporary Speechmaker''] (New York: St. Martin's), rev. ed., p. 146. Retrieved from GoogleBooks on February 2, 2015.</ref>

* Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. <ref>Darbellay, Frédéric et al. (2008). [http://books.google.com/books?id=MbC45UX_4gMC&pg=PT19&dq=Learn+from+yesterday,+live+for+today,+hope+for+tomorrow.+The+important+thing+is+not+to+stop+questioning.&ei=Mdk-SormHozayQT1-uS-AQ ''A Vision of Transdisciplinarity: Laying Foundations for a World Knowledge Dialogue''] (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), p. xix. Retrived from GoogleBooks on February 2, 2015.</ref>

* "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." <ref>Feld, Bernard T. (1979). [http://books.google.com/books?id=CNuwE3NL1QgC&pg=PA388&dq=Whoever+is+careless+with+the+truth+in+small+matters+cannot+be+trusted+with+important+matters&ei=swRFSoSYM46yzASEy8Bc "Einstein and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons"]. ''Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives: The Centennial'' (1982), edited by Holton, Gerald James and Elkana, Yehuda (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 388. Retrieved from GoogleBooks on February 3, 2015.</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/E=mc2.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - e=mc2 derivation]
*[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/ "The Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921"] (2014). Nobelprize.org.
*Einstein, Albert (June 30, 1905). [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"]. Translated in Perrett, Wilfred and Jeffery, George B. (1923), ''The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity'' (London: Methuen), pp. 35-65. Translation of ''Das Relativatsprinzip'' (1922, Leipzig [Germany]: Teubner), 4th ed. Retrieved from Fourmilab [Switzerland] website.
*Einstein, Albert (September 27, 1905). [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy-content?"]. Translated in Perrett, Wilfrid and Jeffery, George B. (1923), ''The Principle of Relativity'' (London: Methuen), pp. 67-71. Translation of ''Das Relativatsprinzip'' (1922, Leipzig [Germany]: Teubner), 4th ed. Retrieved from Fourmilab [Switzerland] website.
*Paterniti, Michael (2000). ''Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain'' (New York, NY: Random House).
*"Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein" [http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Einstein, Albert}}

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists]]
[[Category:German People]]
[[Category:Zionism]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Agnostics]]
[[Category:Scientific pioneers]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]
[[Category:American Jews]]
[[Category:European Jews]]

Theory of relativity

2016-05-04T19:38:35Z

Timematter:

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity predicts phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speed.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]]. Einstein was a [[Pantheism|pantheist]]. Pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God and is a form of [[atheism]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref>. Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

A famous critic of Theory of relativity is [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists...".<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref>

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincaré developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincaré's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There “is” action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of Earth's orbital motion through the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course of light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [[Gravitational lensing]] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations. <ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement .<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made, could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. Those observations have not been followed up with more recent, precise data, raising questions about whether the pulsar data is consistent with the theory today.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 <ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref>. A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the princple, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref>

{{Relativity}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]

Theory of relativity

2016-05-04T19:37:14Z

Timematter: Einstein info

''See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].''

In physics, the '''theory of relativity''' is a scientific theory describing the effects due to the invariance of the speed of light. In particular, the meaning of space and time are altered by the motion of the observer. Relativity predicts phenomena such as time dilation and length contraction for observers moving relative to one another at very high ("relativistic") speed.

'''Relativity''' refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in [[physics]]:

*'''[[Special theory of relativity|Special relativity]]''' (SR) is a theory which describes the laws of motion for non-accelerating bodies traveling at a significant fraction of the [[speed of light]]. As speeds approach zero, Special Relativity tends towards equivalence with [[Newton's Laws of Motion]]. Special Relativity was developed by [[Hendrik Lorentz]], [[Henri Poincaré]], and Hermann Minkowski,<ref>"German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052860/Hermann-Minkowski Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html Hermann Minkowski, Biography]</ref> and [[Albert Einstein]].
Einstein was a [[Pantheism|pantheist]]. Pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God and is a form of [[atheism]].

*'''[[General theory of relativity|General Relativity]]''' (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by [[David Hilbert]] and [[Albert Einstein]] as a generalization of the postulates of Special Relativity.<ref>"[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/relativity/history-1.html Nobel Prize historical account]</ref> A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as [[Galilean Relativity]].

The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, [[Robert Dicke]], illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as ''Relativity and Time Signals''<ref>http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297</ref> and ''Relativity - Joke or Swindle?''<ref>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm</ref>. Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.<ref>Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u47l341u2q555455/]</ref>

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.<ref>http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html</ref> The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's [[action at a distance]], which is basic to Newtonian gravity and [[quantum mechanics]]. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

The "continuous" nature of space and time postulated by relativity is in conflict with the "discrete" nature in [[quantum mechanics]],<ref>For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while [[quantum mechanics]] suggests otherwise. [http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.] Relativity also denies [[action-at-a-distance]], while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it.</ref> and although theories like [[string theory]] and [[quantum field theory]] have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike [[Classical mechanics|Newtonian physics]], in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the [[uncertainty principle]] suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/wilczek-lecture.pdf (p. 102)</ref> Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. [[Quantum field theory]], a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the [[graviton]].

A famous critic of Theory of relativity is [[Nikola Tesla]], who called it a "...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists...".<ref>[http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tesla.html New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8]</ref>

== Special Relativity ==
Lorentz and Poincaré developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincaré's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

# ''The [[speed of light]] is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.''
# ''The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.''

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:
# It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.<ref>This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical [[tachyons]] talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, '''in violation of Special Relativity'''."[http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information.</ref>
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
# The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

#there is no [[action at a distance]] (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
#space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There “is” action at a distance in [[quantum entanglement]] and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. [[Quantum field theory]], an attempt to partially reconcile [[quantum mechanics]] with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the [[arrow of time]], which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by [[Henri Poincaré]] and [[Hendrik Lorentz]], working on problems in electrodynamics and the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had not found any sign of Earth's orbital motion through the [[aether (science)|luminiferous aether]], which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincaré relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation ''[[E=mc²]]'', implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by [[classical mechanics]] (such as [[Isaac Newton]]'s laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course of light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted ([[classical mechanics]], in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2181455.stm light speed]. Other engineers and scientists have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect Earth's orbital motion. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. [http://www.relativitycollapse.com relativity]

== General Relativity ==

::::''See the [[General theory of relativity]] page for more in-depth coverage of this topic.''

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional [[manifold]], which looks locally like [[Minkowski space]], and which acquires [[curvature]] due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from [[Euclidean geometry]]: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along [[geodesic]]s in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

The anomalous precession of Mercury's [[perihelion]] seems to support the Theory of General Relativity, though that is disputed on the[[Counterexamples to Relativity]] page. Keep in mind that the precession in question is the ''"anomalous"''
precession after the effects of other planets' gravitation action has been compensated for. Those other effects are much larger, and are purely Newtonian in nature. There was another explanation based on Newtonian gravity, involving a slight alteration to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, but it was discarded when it gave very bad results for the Moon's orbit.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir [[Arthur Eddington]], an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] <ref>[http://www.spaceimages.com/gravlen.html Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo]</ref><ref> [[Gravitational lensing]] </ref><ref>[http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html]</ref>. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

::''It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.''<ref>Lorentz, H.A. [http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity]</ref>

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

==Lack of evidence for Relativity==
The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "[[arrow of time]]" admitting how time is ''not'' symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or [[entropy]]. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., [[wormholes]]) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the [[Global Positioning System]] ([[GPS]]) are false. A 1996 article explains:

:"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."<ref>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf</ref><ref>Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. ''See id. See also'' [http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR614/MR614.appb.pdf]</ref>

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."<ref>http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy.</ref> Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations. <ref>http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp</ref>

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences ''confirm'' the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.<ref>[http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System."] Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado</ref>

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to [[Earth]] several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the [[sun]] (see image at right)<ref>[http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-releases-03/20031002-pr-a.cfm Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory]</ref> or Saturn<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517102.600-science-encounter-with-saturn-confirms-relativity-theory.html Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory]</ref>. A satellite called [[Gravity Probe B]] was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/index.html NASA Gravity Probe B mission page]</ref><ref>[http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B project page]</ref>, but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.<ref>There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe.</ref>

A decade of observation of the [[pulsar]] pair [[PSR 1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html</ref> In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The [[perihelion]] of Mercury's [[orbit]] [[precession|precesses]] at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the [[solar system]], Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 [[arcsecond]]s per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.<ref>http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000</ref> <ref> http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf</ref> <ref> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/lectures/node117.html</ref> Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm</ref> This phenomenon is known as [[gravitational lensing]]. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.<ref> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/grav_lens.html</ref> <ref> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html</ref> <ref> http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/glgallery.html</ref> Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.<ref>http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html</ref>

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment Hafele-Keating Experiment]</ref> However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.<ref>Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238.</ref> Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.<ref>A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9</ref> The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite [[censorship]] of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of [[liberal]] universities.<ref>http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922</ref>

==Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity==

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is <math>3 \times 10^8</math> meters per second—such speeds are called ''relativistic''. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas ([[Maxwell's Equations]]) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

*At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?"], he speculates on the possibility that the equation <math>E = m c^2</math>, which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.<ref>This equation is not related to [[quantum mechanics]].</ref> In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.

*Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons<ref>Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down.</ref>. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments<ref>Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more.</ref>.

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

*The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used <ref>''Einstein's Luck'', John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9</ref>. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.

:It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.

:Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.

*The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.

:This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of <math>2+\delta</math>, the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is <math>\delta/2</math>. By setting <math>\delta</math> to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. Whatever value is chosen for <math>\delta\,</math>, it gives the same precession, per revolution, for all orbiting bodies, but gravitational effects from other planets diminish that effect the further the planet is from the sun.

:While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.

:Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of <math>3{}v^2/c^2</math> revolutions per planet's "year", where <math>v</math> is the planet's average orbital speed.<ref>That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is <math>\frac{3GM}{c^2 a(1-e^2)}</math>, where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity.</ref> The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.

:The following table shows some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement .<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Planet
!Period, seconds x 106
!Semimajor axis, meters x 109
!Speed, meters/second x 103
!Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram
!Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics
!Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157
!Anomalous precession, general relativity
!Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)<ref>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm</ref>
|-
|Mercury
|7.57
|58.9
|48
|.039
|0
|43
|43
|43.5(5)
|-
|Venus
|19.6
|108
|35
|.011
|0
|16.6
|9
|8(5)
|-
|Earth
|31.6
|150
|30
|.006
|0
|10.3
|4
|5(1)
|-
|Mars
|59.3
|227.9
|24
|.0025
|0
|5.5
|1.4
|
|-
|Jupiter
|374
|778.4
|13
|.0002
|0
|0.87
|0.07
|
|-
|Saturn
|929
|1426
|9.7
|.00006
|0
|0.35
|0.014
|
|-
|Uranus
|2651
|2870
|6.8
|.000016
|0
|0.12
|0.002
|
|-
|Neptune
|5200
|4498
|5.5
|.000007
|0
|0.063
|0.0008
|
|}

[[Image:Cassini-science-289.jpg|right|thumb|The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the [[Sun]] is delayed slightly.]]
As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

*One was the ''Shapiro effect'', involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.

*Another is ''gravitational time dilation''. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.

*Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of ''gravitational radiation'', or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made, could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. Those observations have not been followed up with more recent, precise data, raising questions about whether the pulsar data is consistent with the theory today.

*Two other effects, ''geodetic precession'' (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and ''frame dragging'' (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century<ref>http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0</ref><ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430</ref><ref>http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html</ref><ref>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_</ref><ref>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/</ref><ref>http://einstein.stanford.edu/</ref><ref>http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout</ref><ref>http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/</ref>. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

{{clear}}

==Predicted consequences of the Theories==
===Time dilation===

[[Image:Light cone.png|right|thumb|Light-cone diagram]]
One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event <math>t</math>, as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>t_0</math> is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying [[muon decay]]. [[Muons]] are [[subatomic]] [[particles]] with a very short [[halflife]] (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for [[exponential decay]], they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:

<math> t = \frac{s}{v} = \frac{1900}{0.994\times(3\times10^{8})} = 6.37\mu\textrm{s} </math>

The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by <math> \frac{N}{N_0} = 0.732 </math>)

Since (from the equation for exponential decay) <math> \frac{N}{N_{0}} = e^{-\lambda t_{0}} </math> then

<math> t_{0} = \frac {ln(0.732)}{ln (0.2)} \times 1.53\times 10^{-6} = 0.689\mu\textrm{s}</math>

This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:

<math> t = \frac{t_{0}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} = \frac{0.689 \times{10^{-6}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{0.994^{2}}{1^{2}}}} = 6.3\times 10^{-6}\textrm{s}</math>

This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

====Time Dilation and Creation Science====

{{main|Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model}}

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] and Dr. [[John Hartnett]] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

===Length contraction===
When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, <math>l</math>, of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

<math> l = l_{0} \sqrt{1- \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}</math>

Where
:<math>l_0</math> is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

===Mass increase===

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its [[mass]] also increases.<ref>For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.</ref>

Under this view, the mass, <math>m</math>, of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:

:<math> m = \frac{m_{0}} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}</math>

Where
:<math>m_0</math> is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
:<math>v</math> is the relative velocity of the object.
:<math>c</math> is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}. Instead, most physicists today teach that

:<math>F=\frac{d}{d\tau} p</math>

where <math>p</math> is the momentum defined by <math>\gamma m v</math>, <math>\gamma</math> is the standard Lorentz factor, and <math>\tau</math> is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that

:<math>m - m_0 = \frac{E}{c^2}</math>

also popularly known as

:<math>E = m c^2</math>

Now a concept of the 4-momentum <math>p</math> of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of <math>p</math> satisfies:

<math>||p||^2 = -p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2+E^2 = m_0^2c^4</math>

in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass <math>m_0</math> of the particle (in units where <math>c=1</math>).

== Paradoxes ==

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

=== The Twin Paradox ===

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two<ref>http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm</ref>.

=== The Ehrenfest Paradox ===

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2<big><math>\pi</math></big>r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist [[Øyvind Grøn]]<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955</ref>.

== Variable Speed of Light ==

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.<ref>James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1185076800&en=d6467b6e3e346796&ei=5070]</ref>

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html</ref>

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical [[computing]] to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."<ref>http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html</ref> Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml</ref>

==Pending research==

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the [[Big Bang]]. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are [[string theory]] and [[loop quantum gravity]], but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>See, for example, ''Not Even Wrong'', by Peter Woit</ref>

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm</ref>

== Political aspects of relativity ==

Some [[liberal]] politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, [[Democratic]] [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[Barack Obama]] helped publish an article by liberal law professor [[Laurence Tribe]] to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to [[abortion]].<ref>Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the [[Constitution]] should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded [[abortion]] and that, more generally, ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the [[Constitution]] based on its impact on personal choice. "The ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).</ref> As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this [[liberal]] application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.<ref>Search conducted by [[User:Aschlafly]] in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008.</ref> Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.<ref>"Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081]</ref> Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.<ref>Although the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|liberally biased Wikipedia]] contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like ''The Economist'' recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Relativity Theory of Relativity] omits one word of criticism.</ref>

Physicist [[Robert Dicke]] of Princeton University was a prominent critic<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html</ref> of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."<ref>"Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_bekenstein.html] </ref> Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a [[Nobel Prize]], and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 <ref>Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series</ref>. A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.

===Government Support for Relativistic research===
The Federal Government has funded the building of two gravity wave detectors: The first to test the princple, and the second (upgrade) to actually perform measurements. As a result of this work, on February 11, 2016, the LIGO team reported successful detection of gravitational waves caused by the merging of two black holes.<ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211</ref>

{{Relativity}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

==External Links ==
*[http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/theeinsteintheor11335gut/11335-h/11335-h.htm The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by H.A. Lorentz.]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com Relativity Science Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics ] The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/history_of_time_clocks.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Philosophic Question: are clocks and time separable?]
*[http://www.relativityscience.com/twin_clock_paradox.shtml Relativity Science Calculator - Twin Clock Paradox]

E=mc²

2016-05-04T19:30:14Z

Timematter: material on einstein

'''E=mc²''' asserts that the energy ('''E''') which makes up the [[matter]] in an unmoving object is equal to the square of the [[speed of light]] ('''c²''') times the [[mass]] ('''m''') of that body.<ref>"Energy and mass are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E = mc². (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared.)" [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-genius-among-geniuses.html Einstein: Genius Among Geniuses] - PBS's NOVA</ref> The complete form, when applied to moving objects, is '''E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²''', where '''p''' represents momentum,<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnMIhxWRGNw</ref> It is a statement that purports to relate all [[matter]] to [[energy]]. In fact, no [[theory]] has successfully unified the [[law]]s governing [[mass]] (''i.e.'', [[gravity]]) with the laws governing light (''i.e.'', [[electromagnetism]]), and numerous attempts to derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles have failed<ref name="wvarticles">Five lectures at Wikiversity. The 4th one derives the formula, using the assumptions in the "What the Equation Means" section.
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/space,_time,_and_the_Lorentz_transform Lecture 1]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/momentum Lecture 2]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/energy Lecture 3]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/E_%3D_mc%C2%B2 Lecture 4]
*[http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special_relativity/spacetime_diagrams_and_vectors Lecture 5]</ref>. [[Politics|Political]] pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in [[science]] to even question the validity of this nonsensical [[equation]]. '''''Simply put, E=mc² is [[liberal claptrap]]'''''.

[[Albert Einstein]], the creator of the equation E=mc² was a [[Pantheism|pantheist]]. Pantheism denies the existence of a transcendent, personal God and is a form of [[atheism]].

The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,<ref>http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html</ref> which violates [[conservation of mass]] and basic logic.

Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.<ref>Much of 20th century physics has centered around the interactions between photons (light) and fermionic matter, and much more than a billion dollars has been spent on this. But that doesn't imply that they have been "unified".</ref> [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]] predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the [[Book of Genesis]].

[[Mass]] is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic [[energy]] of an object (such as an [[atom]]) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to the accepted view (as predicted by [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]) that the forces of nature have not been unified. Liberal scientists assert the formula E=mc² is not limited to nuclear reactions; it applies to chemical reactions and even to the energy stored in a compressed spring.<ref>http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm</ref>

The claim that '''E=mc²''' has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "[[energy]]" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. Claims can be found not only on liberal, second-tier college websites but at those of [[Baylor]] and the [[MIT]] that the equation is used in [[nuclear power]] generation and [[nuclear weapon]]s ([[nuclear fusion]] and [[nuclear fission]]) and speculations about [[antimatter]].<ref>[http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/E=mcsquared/index.html John D. Norton ''Einstein for everyone - E=mc²''], Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh</ref><ref>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/releng.html Rod Nave ''HpyerPhysics - Relativistic Energy''], Georgia State University</ref><ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/legacy-of-e-equals-mc2.html Peter Tyson ''The Legacy of E=mc²''] October 11, 2005. PBS ''NOVA''. </ref>

The [[Theory of Relativity]] has never been able to mathematically derive '''E=mc²''' from first principles<ref name="wvarticles"/>, and a physicist observed in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2011 that "Leaving aside that it continues to be affirmed experimentally, a rigorous proof of the mass-energy equivalence is probably beyond the purview of the special theory."<ref>[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AmJPh..79..591H Eugene Hecht: ''How Einstein confirmed E0=mc²'', American Journal of Physics, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp. 591-600 (2011)]</ref> Nevertheless, Robert Dicke - one of the most accomplished American-born physicists and experimental physicists in history - found it unlikely that the equivalence was wrong.<ref>R. H. Dicke "The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity", Gordon and Breach, 1964</ref>

It has been known for a long time that radiation has a mass equivalence, which was correctly derived by [[Henri Poincaré]] in 1904,<ref>[http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-8-540 Herbert E. Ives ''Derivation of the Mass-Energy Relation'', JOSA, Vol. 42, Issue 8, pp. 540-543 (1952)]</ref> but the equation '''E=mc²''' makes a claim far beyond that limited circumstance:

{{cquote|The equality of the mass equivalent of radiation to the mass lost by a radiating body is derivable from Poincaré’s momentum of radiation (1900) and his principle of relativity (1904).|||[[Herbert Ives]], 1952}}


== Description for the layman ==

The equation is extremely famous, and just as extremely misunderstood, in popular culture. Among the more outlandish claims are statements to the effect that "E=mc² holds the secret of the atomic bomb."<ref>Not so. The energy of the atomic bomb comes not from E=mc², but from the tension between the electrostatic force and the strong nuclear force. E=mc² simply meant that the fission products from the [[Little Boy|Hiroshima]] bomb weighed 0.7 grams less than the original Uranium.</ref>

The equation has acquired something of a "cult" status. In the USA, the popular ''[[Twilight Zone]]'' series featured '''E=mc²''' prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. The song ''Einstein A Go-Go'' by the band Landscape had a similar effect in the UK in the 1980s. The equation was the title of a single by ''Big Audio Dynamite'' in 1985, and an album by Mariah Carey in 2008. Some movies have been themed on this equation.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322120/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116160/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1</ref> The equation, along with a picture of a mushroom cloud and a picture of [[Albert Einstein]], were featured on the front cover of an issue of ''Time'' magazine in 1946. All of this is disappointing when one considers how few people actually understand what the equation is saying.

A number of science writers—both serious scientists and science popularizers—have at various times written their own explanation of the equation. Some of these are helpful; many are not. One of the better ones, though not without its share of nonsense, is a NOVA series by the [[Public Broadcasting Service]]<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ancestors-einstein.html David Bodanis ''Ancestors of E=mc²''], Nov 10, 2005, NOVA</ref>

In 2005 The PBS NOVA series also asked 10 physicists to describe the equation in layman's terms<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html Lexi Krock, David Levin (editors) ''E=mc² explained'', June, 2005. PBS ''NOVA'']</ref>. Here is a sample of five of the statements:
{{cquote|''It's something that doesn't happen in your kitchen or in everyday life.''|||[[Neil deGrasse Tyson]], Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History}}{{cquote|''When an object emits light, say, a flashlight, it gets lighter.''|||Sheldon Glashow, Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Laureate, Boston University}}{{cquote|''Things that seem incredibly different can really be manifestations of the same underlying phenomena.''|||Nima Arkani-Hamed, Theoretical Physicist, Harvard University}}{{cquote|''You can get access to parts of nature you have never been able to get access to before.''|||Lene Hau, Experimental Physicist, Harvard University}}{{
cquote|''It certainly is not an equation that reveals all its subtlety in the few symbols that it takes to write down.''|||Brian Greene Theoretical Physicist Columbia University}}

Of these, only the Sheldon Glashow quote makes a specific and meaningful statement about what the equation means.

== What the Equation Means ==
The equation is about energy, both kinetic energy and potential energy.

Kinetic energy is actual visible energy, that is, energy of things that are in motion. It's the energy of a thrown baseball. Radiation (for example, light) also counts as kinetic energy—it's the motion of photons. Light carries energy, force, and momentum. The force carried by light is not as obvious as the force of a thrown baseball, but it is there. The force of sunlight has been proposed for long-term space travel. It is also the force that causes the [[Pioneer anomaly]] and the force that makes a comet's tail stream away from the Sun.

Potential energy is the other kind—"hidden" energy. It can become kinetic energy, or vice-versa. A wound up spring, a charged battery, a stretched rubber band, a mixture of gasoline and air, an explosive, and a radioactive atom, all have potential energy. It's what is needed to make the principle of conservation of energy work. That is, when kinetic energy comes into existence, it's because potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. The wound-up spring of a clock has potential energy, that runs down over time, being converted into the kinetic energy of the ticking sound. A battery has potential energy that runs down when it provides electricity to make things move. Various chemical substances have characteristic amounts of potential energy, that may be converted to or from kinetic energy when chemical reactions occur. For example, Sodium and Chlorine have more potential energy than Sodium Chloride. Explosives have more potential energy than their constituent atoms. Radioactive atoms have more potential energy than their "daughter" atoms.

The principle of ''conservation of energy'', universally accepted for well over 100 years, says

::Total energy (kinetic + potential) is always conserved.

Hundreds of years of research by chemists (and, before that, the alchemists) worked out the potential energies that are characteristic of various substances, and that the potential and kinetic energies are accurately converted from one to the other, leading to the principle of conservation of total energy.

An interesting fact is that, normally, one considers only ''changes'' in potential energy; one doesn't need an absolute scale. A rock at the top of a hill has more potential energy than after it rolls to the bottom of the hill, but the energy at the bottom isn't necessarily zero. We could dig a hole and let it roll down farther, with its energy going negative. Only changes matter. Now it turns out that, once one accepts the implications of E=mc², one ''could'' assign an absolute potential energy to something—its mass times c², and changes in potential emergy would work out correctly because of the mass changes. But that isn't necessary, and, in any case, it would require accepting E=mc² and would therefore be getting ahead of the story.

With those preliminaries out of the way, it is possible to give a concise explanation of what the equation means:

::'''Potential energy has mass.'''

That is, it weighs something. Whenever anything has potential energy of any kind in it, improbable as this may sound, it weighs more. The proportionality constant is 1/c2, or 1.11 x 10-17 kilograms per joule. A fresh battery weighs more than a spent one, a wound-up alarm clock weighs more than a run-down one, etc.

Now that's way too small to measure for anything other than nuclear reactions, which is why it escaped everyone's notice for so long. But it has been measured and experimentally verified for nuclear transformations all across the periodic table.

:There's an interesting parallel with heat. Before the rise of thermodynamics, it was believed that heat was a "substance". That substance was called "caloric". When heat travels from one body to another, what was really happening was presumed to be a transfer of caloric. Much effort was put into measuring the mass of this mysterious "substance". It was always found to be zero, and we now know that what is actually being transferred is thermal energy. So it is not unheard-of to assign mass to intangible properties.

The nonzero mass of potential energy, and the equation E=mc², were determined on theoretical grounds, before any experimental observations were made. The logic of this follows from these assumptions:

#Galilean and Newtonian mechanics.
#Galilean relativity, that is, the notion that there is no absolute frame of reference.
#Conservation of energy.
#Conservation of momentum. (So far this is just classical physics.)
#The universality of the speed of light. (That is, special relativity.)

Keep in mind that, under special relativity, it's not just space and time that need to be redefined. The definitions of momentum and energy need to change also. This is necessary so that the '''conservation of energy and of momentum will be absolutely precise in all circumstances.'''

Under classical Newtonian mechanics, the momentum and kinetic energy of a moving mass are
:<math>p = mv\,</math>
and
:<math>E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2\,</math>
respectively. But under special relativity they are
:<math>p = \frac{mv}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}\,</math>
and
:<math>E = mc^2\left(\frac{1}{1 - v^2/c^2} - 1\right)\,</math>
One can verify that, in the non-relativistic limit, the relativistic values converge to the classical ones.

It is this requirement, and some "gedanken experiments" involving conversion between potential and kinetic energy, that lead to E=mc²<ref name="wvarticles"/>. These experiments involve some kind of object that isn't moving (though there might be internal motion that doesn't figure in the experiment) and therefore has no kinetic energy and only potential energy, turning into some things that have kinetic energy. The requirements of strict conservation of total momentum and total energy prove the equation.

Einstein's famous derivation<ref name="einstein1905b">[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?" Albert Einstein, Sept 1905]</ref> involved light instead of tangible objects, but the result is the same.

==History of Experimental Verification==
Because the change in mass arising from a given release of energy is so small (<math>1/c^2</math>, which 1.11 x 10-17 kilograms per joule), it is essentially impossible to check this equation for normal processes. For example, a flashlight battery loses about 1 picogram of mass when it discharges, and the resultant atoms from the detonation of 1 kilogram of TNT weigh 47 nanograms less than the TNT. Even if all the particles of smoke and gas could be collected reliably, the difference couldn't be detected.

Measuring the effect requires process that release vastly more energy than ordinary chemical processes. The discovery of Radium and Polonium around 1898 gave a tantalizing hint that there were processes that released far more energy than chemical processes could account for. These elements continuously released measurable heat, and also glowed in the dark.

Einstein touched on this possibility in his original 1905 paper<ref name=einstein1905b/>.
{{cquote|''It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.''}}It would take more than a decade to develop an understanding of the nuclear process involved. The first thing that was required was accurate knowledge of atomic weights.

Atomic weights of the various elements were first measured, with accuracy of a few decimal places, by J. J. Berzelius in the late 1820's. This required extremely painstaking (for the time) measurements. The figures were refined to even more accuracy by J. A. R. Newlands in the 1860's. The values were accurate enough to clearly show the rather interesting property that the atomic weights were nearly integers, but not exactly so. The reason for this would turn out to be partly because of different isotopes (discovered by Frederick Soddy in 1913) and partly because of E=mc2.

In 1907 Rutherford determined that the "alpha" radiation from Radium was Helium. In 1911 he formulated the theory of the nucleus. In 1919 he demonstrated that nuclear transmutations could take place, such as

::<math>{}_7^{14}\mathrm{N}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}\,\rightarrow\, {}_8^{17}\mathrm{O}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}</math>

The discovery of Radon, and much further investigation, revealed that the behavior of Radium was

::<math>{}_{88}^{226}\mathrm{Ra}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>
and
::<math>{}_{86}^{222}\mathrm{Rn}\,\rightarrow\, {}_{84}^{218}\mathrm{Po}\, +\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

Accurate ways of measuring speed of a charged particle, by deflecting it in a magnetic field, had been developed by then, so that, by very painstaking observation and measurement, it was determined that the first alpha particle (Helium nucleus) had an energy of 4.78 MeV and the second an energy of 5.49 Mev. This confirmed E=mc2 up to the accuracy of the measurements. The equation, along with knowledge of isotope mixes, now explained why the atomic weights appearing in the periodic table were nearly integers, but not exactly so.

Around 1925, the development of the mass spectrograph, by Francis Aston, made it possible to measure atomic weights to extreme precision.

The 1932 Cockcroft-Walton experiment, described in more detail below, started to make the equation famous by confirming it, with reasonable accuracy, for an artificially induced nuclear reaction. (Confirming E=mc2 was not a goal of the experiment; it was an incidental consequence. The equation had already been known and understood for many years.)

In the decades since, nuclear transmutations have been performed, in particle accelerators, all over the periodic table, observing in detail the properties of various isotopes. These have confirmed E=mc2 with great precision. Perhaps the most precise test, by Rainville ''et. al.''<ref name="rainville">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>, confirmed the equation to an accuracy of a few parts per million.

==Alleged Experimental verification--the Cockcroft-Walton experiment==
In 1932 English physicist John Cockcroft and Irish physicist Ernest Walton performed the first artificial nuclear transmutation of nuclei, for which they were awarded the 1951 [[Nobel Prize]] in physics -- '''''but not for any verification of E=mc²'''''.<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/cockcroft-lecture.pdf John D. Cockroft ''Experiments on the interaction of high-speed nucleons with atomic nuclei''], Nobel Lecture, Dec 11, 1951</ref>. The award was for ''"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles."''<ref>[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1951/# Nobel Prize Organization]</ref>

Verifying E=mc² was not the goal of the experiment, and the Nobel prize was awarded for the transmutation itself, not any verification of the equation. But analysis of the experiment does in fact verify the equation for the transmutation involved.

They bombarded [[Lithium]] atoms with [[protons]] having a [[kinetic energy]] less than 1 [[Electron-Volts|MeV]]. The result were two (slightly less heavy) [[alpha particle]]s, for which the [[kinetic energy]] was measured as 17.3 MeV

:::::<math>{}_3^7\mathrm{Li}\, +\, {}_1^1\mathrm{H}\,\rightarrow\,2\, {}_2^4\mathrm{He}</math>

The mass of the particles on the left hand side is 8.0263 [[atomic mass units|amu]], the mass on the right hand side ''only'' 8.0077 amu.<ref>Gerard Piel ''The age of science: what scientists learned in the 20th century'', Basic Books, 2001, p. 144-145</ref> The difference between this masses is .00186 amu, which results in the following back-of-an-envelope calculation:

::::<math>0.00186\,\mathrm{amu} \cdot c^2 = 0.0186 \cdot 1.66 \cdot 10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg}\cdot\left(3\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{\frac{m}{s}}\right)^2</math>
::::<math>\approx\,2.79\cdot 10^{-12} \,\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}</math>
::::<math>\approx \,17.3\,\mathrm{MeV}</math>

Accurate measurements and detailed calculations allowed for verifying the theoretical values with an accuracy of ±0.5%. This was the first time a nucleus was artificially split, and thereby the first transmutation of elements using accelerated particles:

Perhaps best empirical verification of '''E=mc2''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (which is not a leading physics journal).<ref name="rainville"/> The article states that "Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E=(−1.4±4.4)×10−7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described."

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

For most types of physical interactions, the masses of the initial reactants and of the final products match so closely that it is essentially impossible to measure any difference. But for nuclear reactions, the difference is measurable. That difference is related to the energy absorbed or released, described by the equation E=mc². (The equation applies to '''all''' interactions; the fact that nuclear interactions are the only ones for which the mass difference is measurable has led people to believe, wrongly, that E=mc² applies only to nuclear interactions.)

The [[Theory of Relativity]] played no role in this work, but proponents later tried to retrofit the theory to the data in order to explain the explain the observed mass changes.<ref>Actually, the formula E=mc2 was published in 1905, and has not changed since then. Fission of Uranium was discovered in 1938. It is not possible that the equation was retrofitted to explain this discovery.</ref> Here is the most famous example of the mass change.

Nuclear fission, which is the basis for nuclear energy, was discovered in experiments by [[Otto Hahn]] and [[Fritz Strassman]], and analyzed by [[Lise Meitner]], in 1938.

There are a great number of decay paths of [[Uranium]] fission that figured in this experiment. The result element that most caught their attention was [[Barium]], because it was chemically related to the Radium that they were expecting. One of the fission paths may have been this:

:235U → 140Xe + 91Sr + 4n

(The [[Xenon]] decayed within about a minute to 140Ba. They were searching for the chemical signature of Barium.)

The masses of the particles are:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Substance
! 235U
! 140Xe
! 91Sr
! 4 neutrons
|-
| Number of protons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Number of neutrons
| 235
| 140
| 91
| 4
|-
| Number of electrons
| 92
| 54
| 38
| 0
|-
| Mass
| 235.04393
| 139.92164
| 90.910203
| 4.03466
|}

The mass of the Uranium atom is 235.04393, and the sum of the masses of the products is 234.866503. The difference is .177427 amu, or, using the E=mc² equation, 165 million electron volts. (The generally accepted value for the total energy released by Uranium fission, including secondary decays, is about 200 million electron volts.)

The insight that the conversion from Uranium to Barium was caused by complete fission of the atom was made by Lise Meitner in December, 1938. She had the approximate "mass defect" quantities memorized, and so she worked out in her head, using the E=mc² equation, that there would be this enormous release of energy. This release was observed shortly thereafter, and the result is nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

==A Topical Example: Speed of Extremely Energetic Neutrinos==
Here is another example of the use of this formula in physics calculations. In 2011 there were [http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos?newsfeed=true reports] that high-energy neutrinos had been observed traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light in an experiment at the Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy. Specifically, they seemed to have arrived at the detector 60 nanoseconds faster than light would have. Relativity doesn't allow that, and, since neutrinos have nonzero (but incredibly tiny) mass, they aren't even supposed to travel ''at'' the speed of light.

The mass of a neutrino is about 0.44x10-36kilograms. (Normally all of these things are measured in more convenient units such as Giga-electron-Volts, but that makes implicit use of E=mc2. If we don't accept that, we have to do the calculations under classical physics, using SI (meter/kilogram/second) units.) The neutrinos were accelerated to an energy of about 17GeV, or .27x10-8Joules. If one did not accept relativity and had to use classical physics and the classical formula <math>\mathrm{E} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2</math>, one would get v=110x1012 meters per second. This is about 370,000 times the speed of light, something that scientists would certainly have noticed. In fact, with special relativity, the speed is just under the speed of light, such that the neutrinos should be received at the detector about .26x10-24 seconds (.26 yoctoseconds) later than the speed of light itself. This is far too small to measure—15 orders of magnitude smaller than the resolution of the GPS signals in the experiment.

Later [http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/official-word-superluminal-neutrinos-leaves-warp-drive-fans-shred-hope%E2%80%94barely?ref=hp reports] started to resolve the mystery, and it is now accepted that the neutrinos behaved properly. But a BBC reporter made the incorrect statement that [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682 the neutrinos travelled at precisely light speed]. This was a simple misstatement, by .26 yoctoseconds.

The issue was discussed at length at Conservapedia.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Faster_than_light_neutrinos</ref> <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#The_final_nail_in_the_coffin_of_relativity.3F</ref> <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/102#Another_Blow_to_Relativity</ref> <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/109#Neutrinos_now_obey_speed_limit</ref> <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/111#Neutrinos</ref>

==Deducing the Equation From Empirical Observation==

While the equation was historically developed on theoretical grounds as an inevitable consequence of special relativity, it is possible to deduce it purely from empirical observation.

So, for the purposes of this section, imagine that one is in the era of "classical physics"; prior to 1900 or so. Relativity has not been invented, but, inexplicably, nuclear physics has. Imagine that the phenomena of radioactivity and nuclear fission have been observed, without any knowledge of relativity.

A well-accepted physical law of classical physics was the law of conservation of mass. This was not easy to deduce. It required careful analysis of such phenomena as combustion, in the 1700's, to eliminate the various confounding sub-phenomena that made the law difficult to see. But, by 1900, the law was well established:

:::*'''In all interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''

For example, the mass of a TNT molecule is 227.1311 Daltons, or 227.1311 g/mol, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as the mass of its constituent Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms. It is essentially impossible to measure the difference. The principle of conservation of mass is upheld.

But when nuclear phenomena are discovered, we notice something different. The masses of the result particles after an event (e.g. alpha decay, nuclear fission, or artificial transmutation) is measurably less than the masses of the original particle(s). With the invention of the mass spectrometer around 1920, it became possible to measure atomic weights of various isotopes with great precision.

Radium-226 decays into Radon-222 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 4.78 MeV.

1 kg of Radium-226 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{226.0254}</math> atoms. (The numerator is [[Avogadro's number]], and the denominator is the atomic weight of Radium-226.) This is 2.6643647 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Radon-222 atoms has mass .98226836 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01770863 kg.
The mass lost is .00002301 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 4.78 MeV, or 4.78 * .1602 * 10-18 Joules. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of radium is 2.04 * 1012 Joules.

Also, Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218 by emission of an alpha particle with an energy of 5.49 MeV.

1 kg of Radon-222 = <math>\frac{6.022 \times 10^{23}}{222.0176}</math> atoms. This is 2.7124611 * 1024 atoms.

That number of Polonium-218 atoms has mass .98194467 kg. That number of alpha particles has mass .01802830 kg.

The mass lost is .00002703 kg.

Each emitted alpha particle has energy of 5.49 MeV. The total alpha energy from the decay of 1 kg of polonium is 2.39 * 1012 Joules.

It looks as thought we have to rewrite the law of conservation of mass:

:::*'''In all "ordinary" interactions, mass is precisely conserved.'''
:::*'''In nuclear interactions, there is a small but measurable loss of mass.'''

:By the way, we can clearly see that atomic weights of pure isotopes are not integers, and that it has something to do with the energy released by nuclear disintegration. In retrospect, the formula E=mc² explains the non-integer character of atomic weights.

Making special cases like this is unsatisfactory, of course.

We do this for a few other interactions, including the explosion of TNT. This would include the Lithium-plus-Hydrogen and Uranium fission phenomena described above. We won't bother with the details. As observational scientists, we look for patterns in the behavior of nature. We make a table:

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! interaction
! energy released per kg, Joules
! mass lost per kg of original substance, kg
|-
| explosion of TNT
| 4.184 * 106
| seems to be zero
|-
| alpha decay of Ra-226
| 2.04 * 1012
| .00002301 kg
|-
| alpha decay of Rn-222
| 2.39 * 1012
| .00002703 kg
|}

We plot these, and a few others, not shown, on graph paper, and find to our amazement that the relationship is linear.

For Ra, m/E = .112794118 E-16
For Po, m/E = .113096234 E-16

If this is linear, the mass defect for TNT would have been .47 * 10-10. We couldn't possibly have measured this.

So we can rewrite the rule for conservation of mass in a more satisfactory way:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to about .113 * 10-16 kg per Joule of energy released.'''

What we thought was exact conservation is just very nearly exact, and we hadn't been able to measure it before.

But maybe there's more. This constant has dimensions of kilograms per Joule. From high-school physics, we know that that is seconds squared divided by meters squared. That is, it is the reciprocal of the square of a velocity. We calculate that velocity. It is about 2.97 * 108 meters per second. Very close to the speed of light! Very interesting! (The calculations above were not extremely precise. The formula has been verified with great precision, but not here.)

We don't understand why (that will have to wait for the invention of relativity), but we can formulate a hypothesis:

:::*'''In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to <math>\frac{1}{c^2}</math> times the amount of energy released.'''

We don't have to give the units any more, since everything is now dimensionally correct.

::There is a very interesting analogy with the discovery of [[Maxwell's Equations]]. Maxwell found an interesting relationship involving the fundamental constants <math>\epsilon\,</math> and <math>\mu\,</math> appearing in his equations. Specifically, <math>\epsilon\mu\,</math> has the dimensions of seconds squared divided by meters squared, and that:

:::::<math>\frac{1}{\epsilon\mu} = c^2</math>

::where "c" was the known velocity of light. He also showed that his equations predict electromagnetic waves, propagating at that speed.

==See also==
*[[Attempts to prove E=mc²]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Logical Flaws in E=mc²]]
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Logical Flaws in E%3Dmc²]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:relativity]]
[[Category:physics]]
[[Category:science]]
[[Category:Bible]]