|
|
Einstein's Lamentation That Special Relativity Was Not A Fundamental Theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
|
Thank you modest. I was able to find similar papers online by that author, Harvey R. Brown, and at least one of those papers referred to Einstein's Autobiographical Notes (1949), which is where I must of read Einstein's lamentations originally.
Here was the key description from Harvey R. Brown that sounded very familiar to what I had read before:
Quote:
Einstein became increasingly uneasy about the role played by rods and clocks in this approach. This unease is seen in a paper entitled “Geometry and Experience” he published in 1921, and in particular in his 1949 Autobiographical Notes:
“One is struck [by the fact] that the theory [of special relativity] . . . introduces two kinds of physical things, i.e., (1) measuring rods and clocks, (2) all other things, e.g., the electromagnetic field, the material point, etc. This, in a certain sense, is inconsistent; strictly speaking measuring rods and clocks would have to be represented as solutions of the basic equations (objects consisting of moving atomic configurations), not, as it were, as theoretically self-sufficient entities.”
|
Thanks for the very good hint. The lamentation that I read many years ago is in Einstein's Autobiographical Notes (1949). |
|
|
