Why was Relativity Accepted?

Robert Holub. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. 1994.

Lawrence S Lerner. Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers. 1995.

Gerald Holton, ' 'einstein, Michelson Experiment. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Kepler to Einstein. 1969.

G Stephen, Brush. Dynamics of Theory Change: The Role of PredictionsPSA 1994: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1995.

K R Popper. Conjectures and Refutations. 1962.

. Unended Quest. 1976.

Larry See, Laudan. The Demise of the Demarcation ProblemPhysics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis. 1983.

G F Fitzgerald. A Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction390. A. M. Bork. 1889.

Elie Zahar. Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?'' in Colin HowsonBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 1973.

. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory ofEmergence (1905) and Early Interpretation. 1905.

Stephen Cole. Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell and Einstein's Relativity 1905 -1911David Bloor, ''Remember the Strong Program?'' Science. 1992.

Stanley Goldberg. International Relativity: The Establishment of a Theoretical DisciplineUnderstanding Relati6ity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Re6olution. 1984.

Loren R Graham. See also his article ''The Reception of Einstein's Ideas: Two Examples from Contrasting CulturesWhat Ha6e We Learned About Science and Technology from the Russian Experience?. 1982.

Lewis Pyenson. The Relativity Revolution in GermanyThe Compara-ti6e Reception of Relati6ity (Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel, 1987).

J Frank, Sulloway. Born to Rebel: Birth OrderFamily Dynamics, and Creati6e Li6es. 1916.

J Steven, Harris. Steven Shapin, in his review of Cole's book (ref. 9), assumed the validity of this dichotomy when he argued that since scientific theories are underdetermined by empirical evidence, they must be, at least in part, socially constructed. Shapin, ''Mertonian ConcessionsJournal of Literature, Science, and Technology. 1986.

Albert Einstein. Thematic Origins (ref. 3), p. 252. Holton cites several other examples in which Einstein and others express similar viewsIntellectual Mastery of Nature: Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein. 1986.

Alexandre Koyré. É tudes Galiléenes. 1966.

. Metaphysics and Measurement. 1968.

Holton. That Maxwell's electrodynamics -the way in which it is usually understood -when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena is well known …''; see the translation of Einstein's 1905 paper in Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), p. 392. The original version of this and other publications by Einstein, along with correspondence, notes, English translations, extensive annotations and commentary, may be found in the magnificent edition of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. 1987.

Lewis Pyenson, ' 'relativity In Late Wilhelmian, Germany. The Appeal to a Preestablished Harmony between Mathematics and Physics,'' Archi6e for History of Exact Sciences. 1982.

James W Mcallister. Explaining the Splendour of Science,'' Studies in History and Philosophy of ScienceBeauty and Re6olution in Science. 1996.

F Thomas, N J Glick ; Princeton. p. 66; see also José Sánchez-Ron, ''The Reception of General Relativity among British physicists and Mathematicians. 1915.

Judith R Goodstein. The Italian Mathematicians of RelativityCentaurus. 1983.

Stanley Goldberg. Understanding Relati6ity (ref. 10). Lewis Robert Pyenson, The Goettingen Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relati6ity. 1968.

. Understanding the History'' (ref. 14), which includes an extensive bibliography of recent Einstein scholarshipThe Ad6ent of Relati6ity. 1985.

Goldberg. Understanding Relati6ity (ref. 10).

T S Kuhn. Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity. 1978.

Stanley Goldberg. Max Planck's Philosophy of Nature and His Elaboration of the Special Theory of RelativityHistorical Studies in the Physical Sciences. 1976.

Miller. Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8)Science and Anti-Science. 1993.

Lewis Pyenson. Physical Sense in Relativity: Max Planck Edits the Annalen der PhysikProceedings of the 9th International Conference on General Relati6ity and Gra6itation. 1906.

A Pais. Subtle is the Lord …' The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. 1982.

Goldberg. Understanding Relati6ity (ref. 10), pp. 189, 191; also Goldberg.

Miller. Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), pp. 254, 361. Similarly, Minkowski saw in Einstein's theory the basis for an ''absolute theory of the world''; see Pyenson, Goettingen Reception (ref. 23).

Goldberg. Until around 1909, almost all physicists considered Einstein's special theory of relativity to be a contribution to the electron theoryThe Making of a Theoretical Physicist. 1970.

Max Laue, Das Relati6itätsprinzip. Max Laue, Das Relati6itätsprinzip (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1911; second edition 1913); later editions published under the title Die Relati6itätstheorie. Quotation from Goldberg, Understanding Relati6ity (ref. 10), p. 203.. 1911.

Miller. Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8).

Pyenson. Pyenson, ''Wilhelmian Germany'' (ref. 19)..

Goldberg. Cassidy complains that Goldberg's account is biased by his ''commitment … to the overwhelming influence of culture'' and reliance on stereotypes of national characteristics; see ''Understanding the History'' (ref. 14).

Stanley Goldberg. Putting New Wine in Old Bottles: The Assimilation of Relativity in AmericaComparati6e Reception (ref. 12).

Andrew Warwick. See also WarwickThe Electrodynamics of Mo6ing Bodies and the Principle of Relati6ity in British Physics. 1989.

Stanley Goldberg, '. In Defense of Ether: The British Response to Einstein's Special Theory of RelativityHistorical Studies in the Physical Sciences. 1970.

José Sánchez-Ron. The Reception of Special Relativity in Great BritainGlick, Comparati6e Reception (ref. 12).

José Sánchez-Ron. The Role Played by Symmetries in the Introduction of Relativity in Great BritainSymmetries in Physics. 1987.

Michel Paty. For a detailed account of Langevin's contributions to relativity see Camillo Cuvaj, A History of Relati6ity -The Role of Henri Poincaré and Paul Lange6in (Ph. D. Dissertation, Yeshiva University, 1970); ''Paul Langevin and the Theory of RelativityGlick, Comparati6e Reception (ref. 12). 1971.

Michel Biezunski. Einstein's Reception in Paris in 1922Glick, Comparati6e Reception (ref. 12).

Michel Biezunski. Popularization and Scientific Controversy: The Case of the Theory of Relativity in FranceExpository Science. 1981.

Goldberg. Understanding Relati6ity (ref. 10).

V P Vizgin, G E Gorelik. The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR,'' in Glick.

E Zahar. Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences. 1973.

Zahar See Also. Einstein's Re6olution:'' A Study in Heuristic. 1989.

A I Miller, ' 'lorentz's Methodology, ; J Earman, C Glymour, Michael R Gardner. Einstein and Hilbert: Two Months in the History of General Relativity,'' Archi6e for History of Exact SciencesBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 1974.

For, S G Brush. The following five paragraphs are based on this article, abstracted or excerpted with permission of the copyright owner, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.) For detailed discussion of the early attempts to test this prediction see John Earman and Clark GlymourHistorical Studies in the Physical Sciences. 1980.

Crelinsten. William Wallace Campbell and the 'Einstein Problem': An observational Astronomer Confronts the Theory of RelativityHistorical Studies in the Physical Sciences. 1983.

Marshall Missner. Why Einstein became famous in AmericaSocial Studies of Science. 1985.

J J The Scientists Were, P Thomson, M Langevin, Born, H A Max Von Laue. Lorentz; for details see Brush.

Crelinsten. Campbell'' (ref. 44). The only other American astronomer whose support for relativity was based on theoretical understanding wasquoted on p. xiv; Crelinsten.

; Crelinsten, Appendices, G Stephen, Brush. Looking Up: The Rise of Astronomy in AmericaAmerican Studies. 1979.

Reception Crelinsten. of further verifications of empirical results, and adopted more and more the role of defenders of relativity''; ''In the empirically-oriented U. S. astronomical community'' relativity theory ''was accepted in large measure because it passed crucial teststhe 1920s, Lick and Mt. Wilson astronomers ''reaped the rewards.

Reception Crelinsten. Crelinsten, Reception, pp. xvi, 384-385;.

Crelinsten. Campbell'' (ref. 44).

Crelinsten. Announcements of more complete analyses of these and other tests in 1928 ''sealed the case once and for all.

Reception Crelinsten. Crelinsten, Reception, pp. 442 and 443..

Goldberg. Understanding Relati6ity (ref. 10).

L I Schiff ; Ronald Adler, Maurice Bazin, Menahim Schiffer, ; C W F Everitt. Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future,'' in RiazuddinC. W. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gra6itational Physics. 1960.

W De Sitter. Kosmos: A Course of Lectures on the De6elopment of our Insight into the Structure of the Uni6erse. 1932.

R J Trumpler. The Relativity Deflection of LightJournal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. 1929.

E L Turner. Gravitational LensesScientific American. 1988-07.

Morris R Cohen. Fritz Rohrlich, From Paradox to RealityNew Republic. 1920.

Jean Eisenstaedt, ' 'la Relativité Générale À L'é Tiage. Revolution in Science: The 1919 Eclipse Test of General RelativityOn the Path of Albert Einstein. 1925.

R C Tolman. Relati6ity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology. 1934.

D H Menzel. Progress of AstronomyPublications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 1929.

M Sachs. Einstein 6ersus Bohr: The Continuing Contro6ersies in Physics. 1988.

S G Brush. Prediction and Theory Evaluation: Subatomic ParticlesStoria della Scienza, Ser. II. 1993.

Deborah Cf, Mayo. Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. 1996.

Everitt. Experimental tests'' (ref. 54).

Crelinsten. Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 170 -173;.

Deborah Mayo. Error (ref. 63)Chapter.

Weinberg. This and the following paragraph are taken from Brush.

Norriss Hetherington. Crelinsten remarks that views on the gravitational red shift sometimes seemed to be governed by the adage ''I'll see it when I believe itScience and Objecti6ity: Episodes in the History of Astronomy. 1988.

Reception Crelinsten. Crelinsten, Reception, pp. 227-229..

H Weyl, E T Whittaker, P G Bergmann, L Infeld, R B Lindsay, H Margenau. Light Bending'' (ref. 44); views of Eddington and Dirac.

D William, D Macmillan ; R, Carmichael. The Fourth Doctrine of Science and its LimitationsA Debate on the Theory of Relati6ity. 1927.

Quoted By Holton. Thematic Origins (ref. 3).

A Pais. Subtle is the Lord …' (ref. 27).

S Chandrasekhar. The Richtmyer Memorial Lecture -Some Historical NotesAmerican Journal of Physics. 1969.

. Eddington's early work on relativity is discussed by Moyer, ''Revolution in Science'' (ref. 58); but see Crelinsten.

A S Eddington. The Mathematical Theory of Relati6ity. 1923.

A S Eddington. New Pathways in Science. 1934.

P A M Dirac. The Excellence of Einstein's Theory of GravitationAlbert Einstein (ref. 11). 1979.

Sulloway. Born to Rebel (ref. 13).

Loren Graham. Science and Philosophy in the So6iet Union. 1972.

V J Frenkel, Vladimir Fok, Aleksandrovich. Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 1970.

Alexei Kojevnikov. Alexei Kojevnikov, private communication..

V A Fock. The Theory of Space Time and Gra6itation. 1959.

M W Mikulak. Relati6ity Theory and So6iet Communist Philosophy. 1922.

Ibid. Soviet Cosmology and Communist IdeologyGorelik, ''The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR,'' in Glick. 1955.

Sánchez-Ron. Sánchez-Ron, ''Reception of General Relativity'' (ref. 21), p. 73..

Jean Eisenstaedt. The Low Water Mark of General Relativity 1925 -1955Einstein and the History of General Relati6ity. 1989.

. Lewis Pyenson, ''La Réception de la Relativité generaliseé: Disciplinarité et Institutionalisation en PhysiqueJungnickel and McCormmach. 1975.

Warwick. ix -xx, on xviii. Crelinsten objects that this view is ''physics-oriented'' and ignores the continuing interest of astronomers in general relativity. 1970.

. British journals during the 1920s the number of papers on general relativity ''was almost insignificant compared with the number of papers on quantum physics''; see Sánchez-Ron.

J D P North ; M, Jr Ryan, L C Shipley. Resource Letter RC-1: CosmologyThe Measure of the Uni6erse: A History of Modern Cosmology. 1965.

Glick. Glick, Comparati6e Reception (ref. 12)..

Gorelik Vizgin. Reception of the theory of Relativity in Russia'' (ref. 78), on p. 294. Department of History and Institute for Physical Science and Technology University of.

Why was Relativity Accepted?.