Why was Relativity Accepted?

Physics in Perspective

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 184-214

  Brush, Stephen G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Advance of perihelion of Mercury; Aesthetic factors; Albert Einstein; Arthur Stanley Eddington; Astronomy; Birth order; Gravitational light bending; Mathematics; Michelson Morley experiment; Predictions; Reception; Relativity theory; Social construction

Indexed keywords

EID: 0012008958     PISSN: 14226944     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s000160050015     Document Type: Review

References (184)

1. Robert Holub, Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction (London: Methuen, 1994).
2. Lawrence S. Lerner, Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1996), p. 1046. Paul E. Tippens, Physics, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), p. 516.
3. Lawrence S. Lerner, Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1996), p. 1046. Paul E. Tippens, Physics, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), p. 516.
4. Gerald Holton, "Einstein, Michelson, and the 'crucial' Experiment," Isis, 60 (1969), 133-197; Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Kepler to Einstein, revised edition (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988), 279-370, 477-480.
5. Gerald Holton, "Einstein, Michelson, and the 'crucial' Experiment," Isis, 60 (1969), 133-197; Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Kepler to Einstein, revised edition (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988), 279-370, 477-480.
6. Stephen G. Brush, "Dynamics of Theory Change: The Role of Predictions," in David Hull, Micky Forbes and Richard M. Burian, eds., PSA 1994: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2 (East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1995), pp. 133-145, and references cited therein.
7. K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1962), pp. 33-39; Unended Quest (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1976), pp. 31-38.
8. K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1962), pp. 33-39; Unended Quest (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1976), pp. 31-38.
9. See also Larry Laudan, "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem," in R. S. Cohen and L. Laudan, eds., Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis (Boston: Reidel, 1983), pp. 111-127.
10. G. F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere," Science, 13 (1889), 390. A. M. Bork, "The 'FitzGerald' Contraction," Isis, 57 (1966), 199-207. S. G. Brush, "A Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction," Isis, 58 (1967), 230-232.
11. G. F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere," Science, 13 (1889), 390. A. M. Bork, "The 'FitzGerald' Contraction," Isis, 57 (1966), 199-207. S. G. Brush, "A Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction," Isis, 58 (1967), 230-232.
12. G. F. FitzGerald, "The Ether and the Earth's Atmosphere," Science, 13 (1889), 390. A. M. Bork, "The 'FitzGerald' Contraction," Isis, 57 (1966), 199-207. S. G. Brush, "A Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction," Isis, 58 (1967), 230-232.
13. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
14. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
15. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
16. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
17. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
18. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
19. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
20. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
21. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
22. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
23. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
24. Elie Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in Colin Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275 (reprinted from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1973); "Einstein's Debt to Lorentz: A Reply to Feyerabend and Miller," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29 (1978), 49-60; Einstein's Revolution: A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989). Adolf Grünbaum, "The Bearing of Philosophy on the History of Science," Science, 143 (1964), 1406-1412; Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd ed. (Boston: Reidel, 1973); "Remarks on Miller's review of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time," Isis, 68 (1977), 447-448. Arthur I. Miller, "On Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45; review of Grünbaum's Philosophical Problems... in Isis, 66 (1975), 590-594; reply to Grünbaum's remarks, Isis, 68 (1977), 449-450. Detailed accounts of the experimental tests of special relativity are given by Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981); see also James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman: A Simplified Account (New York: Mentor, 1958). Tests of general relativity are reviewed in the works cited in footnote 54, below.
25. Stephen Cole, Making Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). Cole, "Voodoo Sociology: Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science," in P. R. Gross, N. Levitt and M. W. Lewis, eds., The Flight from Science and Reason (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1996), pp. 274-287. David Bloor, "Remember the Strong Program?" Science, Technology and Human Values, 22 (1997), 373-385. Andrew Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell and Einstein's Relativity 1905-1911," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23 (1992), 625-656; 24 (1993), 1-25.
26. Stephen Cole, Making Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). Cole, "Voodoo Sociology: Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science," in P. R. Gross, N. Levitt and M. W. Lewis, eds., The Flight from Science and Reason (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1996), pp. 274-287. David Bloor, "Remember the Strong Program?" Science, Technology and Human Values, 22 (1997), 373-385. Andrew Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell and Einstein's Relativity 1905-1911," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23 (1992), 625-656; 24 (1993), 1-25.
27. Stephen Cole, Making Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). Cole, "Voodoo Sociology: Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science," in P. R. Gross, N. Levitt and M. W. Lewis, eds., The Flight from Science and Reason (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1996), pp. 274-287. David Bloor, "Remember the Strong Program?" Science, Technology and Human Values, 22 (1997), 373-385. Andrew Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell and Einstein's Relativity 1905-1911," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23 (1992), 625-656; 24 (1993), 1-25.
28. Stephen Cole, Making Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). Cole, "Voodoo Sociology: Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science," in P. R. Gross, N. Levitt and M. W. Lewis, eds., The Flight from Science and Reason (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1996), pp. 274-287. David Bloor, "Remember the Strong Program?" Science, Technology and Human Values, 22 (1997), 373-385. Andrew Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell and Einstein's Relativity 1905-1911," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23 (1992), 625-656; 24 (1993), 1-25.
29. Stephen Cole, Making Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). Cole, "Voodoo Sociology: Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science," in P. R. Gross, N. Levitt and M. W. Lewis, eds., The Flight from Science and Reason (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1996), pp. 274-287. David Bloor, "Remember the Strong Program?" Science, Technology and Human Values, 22 (1997), 373-385. Andrew Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell and Einstein's Relativity 1905-1911," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23 (1992), 625-656; 24 (1993), 1-25.
30. Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1984). Andrew Warwick, "International Relativity: The Establishment of a Theoretical Discipline," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 20 (1989), 139-149, on p. 140.
31. Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1984). Andrew Warwick, "International Relativity: The Establishment of a Theoretical Discipline," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 20 (1989), 139-149, on p. 140.
32. Loren R. Graham, What Have We Learned About Science and Technology from the Russian Experience? (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), pp. 24, 7. See also his article "The Reception of Einstein's Ideas: Two Examples from Contrasting Cultures," in G. Holton and Y. Elkana, eds., Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), pp. 107-136.
33. Loren R. Graham, What Have We Learned About Science and Technology from the Russian Experience? (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), pp. 24, 7. See also his article "The Reception of Einstein's Ideas: Two Examples from Contrasting Cultures," in G. Holton and Y. Elkana, eds., Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), pp. 107-136.
34. Lewis Pyenson, "The Relativity Revolution in Germany," in Thomas F. Glick, ed., The Comparative Reception of Relativity (Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel, 1987), pp. 59-111, on p. 60.
35. Frank J. Sulloway, Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives (New York: Pantheon, 1916), pp. 40, 332.
36. Steven J. Harris, "Introduction: Thinking Locally, Acting Globally," Configurations: A Journal of Literature, Science, and Technology, 6 (1998), 131-139. 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 Concessions," Science, 259 (1993), 839-841. According to David Cassidy, "Understanding the History of Special Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 16 (1986), 177-195, on p. 180, Goldberg's view in Understanding Relativity (ref. 10) is that since experimental tests could not decide between Einstein's and Lorentz's theories, "alogical and extrascientific factors must at first have guided preference for either of these two theories." But Cassidy includes aesthetics in his category of "alogical factors."
37. Steven J. Harris, "Introduction: Thinking Locally, Acting Globally," Configurations: A Journal of Literature, Science, and Technology, 6 (1998), 131-139. 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 Concessions," Science, 259 (1993), 839-841. According to David Cassidy, "Understanding the History of Special Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 16 (1986), 177-195, on p. 180, Goldberg's view in Understanding Relativity (ref. 10) is that since experimental tests could not decide between Einstein's and Lorentz's theories, "alogical and extrascientific factors must at first have guided preference for either of these two theories." But Cassidy includes aesthetics in his category of "alogical factors."
38. Steven J. Harris, "Introduction: Thinking Locally, Acting Globally," Configurations: A Journal of Literature, Science, and Technology, 6 (1998), 131-139. 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 Concessions," Science, 259 (1993), 839-841. According to David Cassidy, "Understanding the History of Special Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 16 (1986), 177-195, on p. 180, Goldberg's view in Understanding Relativity (ref. 10) is that since experimental tests could not decide between Einstein's and Lorentz's theories, "alogical and extrascientific factors must at first have guided preference for either of these two theories." But Cassidy includes aesthetics in his category of "alogical factors."
39. Steven J. Harris, "Introduction: Thinking Locally, Acting Globally," Configurations: A Journal of Literature, Science, and Technology, 6 (1998), 131-139. 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 Concessions," Science, 259 (1993), 839-841. According to David Cassidy, "Understanding the History of Special Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 16 (1986), 177-195, on p. 180, Goldberg's view in Understanding Relativity (ref. 10) is that since experimental tests could not decide between Einstein's and Lorentz's theories, "alogical and extrascientific factors must at first have guided preference for either of these two theories." But Cassidy includes aesthetics in his category of "alogical factors."
40. Albert Einstein, "The Method of Theoretical Physics," quoted in Holton, Thematic Origins (ref. 3), p. 252. Holton cites several other examples in which Einstein and others express similar views. Einstein's views on the role of mathematics in science are discussed by Christa Jungnickel and Russell McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery of Nature: Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein, Vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986) pp. 334-347.
41. Albert Einstein, "The Method of Theoretical Physics," quoted in Holton, Thematic Origins (ref. 3), p. 252. Holton cites several other examples in which Einstein and others express similar views. Einstein's views on the role of mathematics in science are discussed by Christa Jungnickel and Russell McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery of Nature: Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein, Vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986) pp. 334-347.
42. Alexandre Koyré, Études Galiléenes (Paris: Hermann, 1966); Metaphysics and Measurement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968).
43. Alexandre Koyré, Études Galiléenes (Paris: Hermann, 1966); Metaphysics and Measurement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968).
44. Holton, Thematic Origins (ref. 3), p. 195.
45. "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, edited by John Stachel et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987-).
46. "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, edited by John Stachel et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987-).
47. Lewis Pyenson, "Relativity in late Wilhelmian Germany: The Appeal to a Preestablished Harmony between Mathematics and Physics," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 27 (1982), 137-155.
48. James W. McAllister, Beauty and Revolution in Science (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996). For an opposing view see Henk W. De Regt, "Explaining the Splendour of Science," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29 (1998), 155-165.
49. James W. McAllister, Beauty and Revolution in Science (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996). For an opposing view see Henk W. De Regt, "Explaining the Splendour of Science," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29 (1998), 155-165.
50. Thomas F. Glick, Einstein in Spain: Relativity and the Recovery of Science (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 66; see also José Sánchez-Ron, "The Reception of General Relativity among British physicists and Mathematicians (1915-1920)," in J. Eisenstaedt and A. J. Kox, eds., Studies in the History of General Relativity (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1992), pp. 57-88.
51. Thomas F. Glick, Einstein in Spain: Relativity and the Recovery of Science (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 66; see also José Sánchez-Ron, "The Reception of General Relativity among British physicists and Mathematicians (1915-1920)," in J. Eisenstaedt and A. J. Kox, eds., Studies in the History of General Relativity (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1992), pp. 57-88.
52. Judith R. Goodstein, "The Italian Mathematicians of Relativity," Centaurus, 26 (1983), 241-261.
53. Stanley Goldberg, Early Responses to Einstein's Theory of Relativity: A Case Study in National Differences, 1905-1911 (Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1968); Understanding Relativity (ref. 10). Lewis Robert Pyenson, The Goettingen Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (Ph. D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1974); The Young Einstein: The Advent of Relativity (Boston: Adam Hilger, 1985). Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8). See Cassidy's review of these books, "Understanding the History" (ref. 14), which includes an extensive bibliography of recent Einstein scholarship.
54. Stanley Goldberg, Early Responses to Einstein's Theory of Relativity: A Case Study in National Differences, 1905-1911 (Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1968); Understanding Relativity (ref. 10). Lewis Robert Pyenson, The Goettingen Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (Ph. D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1974); The Young Einstein: The Advent of Relativity (Boston: Adam Hilger, 1985). Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8). See Cassidy's review of these books, "Understanding the History" (ref. 14), which includes an extensive bibliography of recent Einstein scholarship.
55. Stanley Goldberg, Early Responses to Einstein's Theory of Relativity: A Case Study in National Differences, 1905-1911 (Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1968); Understanding Relativity (ref. 10). Lewis Robert Pyenson, The Goettingen Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (Ph. D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1974); The Young Einstein: The Advent of Relativity (Boston: Adam Hilger, 1985). Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8). See Cassidy's review of these books, "Understanding the History" (ref. 14), which includes an extensive bibliography of recent Einstein scholarship.
56. Stanley Goldberg, Early Responses to Einstein's Theory of Relativity: A Case Study in National Differences, 1905-1911 (Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1968); Understanding Relativity (ref. 10). Lewis Robert Pyenson, The Goettingen Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (Ph. D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1974); The Young Einstein: The Advent of Relativity (Boston: Adam Hilger, 1985). Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8). See Cassidy's review of these books, "Understanding the History" (ref. 14), which includes an extensive bibliography of recent Einstein scholarship.
57. Stanley Goldberg, Early Responses to Einstein's Theory of Relativity: A Case Study in National Differences, 1905-1911 (Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1968); Understanding Relativity (ref. 10). Lewis Robert Pyenson, The Goettingen Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (Ph. D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1974); The Young Einstein: The Advent of Relativity (Boston: Adam Hilger, 1985). Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8). See Cassidy's review of these books, "Understanding the History" (ref. 14), which includes an extensive bibliography of recent Einstein scholarship.
58. Stanley Goldberg, Early Responses to Einstein's Theory of Relativity: A Case Study in National Differences, 1905-1911 (Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1968); Understanding Relativity (ref. 10). Lewis Robert Pyenson, The Goettingen Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (Ph. D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1974); The Young Einstein: The Advent of Relativity (Boston: Adam Hilger, 1985). Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8). See Cassidy's review of these books, "Understanding the History" (ref. 14), which includes an extensive bibliography of recent Einstein scholarship.
59. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), p. 184.
60. T. S. Kuhn, Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).
61. Stanley Goldberg, "Max Planck's Philosophy of Nature and His Elaboration of the Special Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 7 (1976), 125-160; Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), pp. 225-235, 334-352. Gerald Holton, Science and Anti-Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 92-103.
62. Stanley Goldberg, "Max Planck's Philosophy of Nature and His Elaboration of the Special Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 7 (1976), 125-160; Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), pp. 225-235, 334-352. Gerald Holton, Science and Anti-Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 92-103.
63. Stanley Goldberg, "Max Planck's Philosophy of Nature and His Elaboration of the Special Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 7 (1976), 125-160; Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), pp. 225-235, 334-352. Gerald Holton, Science and Anti-Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 92-103.
64. Lewis Pyenson, "Physical Sense in Relativity: Max Planck Edits the Annalen der Physik, 1906-1918" in E. Schmutzer, ed., Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (Berlin, 1983), pp. 285-302. See also Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15), Vol. 2, pp. 321-323; A. Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...' The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 150.
65. Lewis Pyenson, "Physical Sense in Relativity: Max Planck Edits the Annalen der Physik, 1906-1918" in E. Schmutzer, ed., Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (Berlin, 1983), pp. 285-302. See also Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15), Vol. 2, pp. 321-323; A. Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...' The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 150.
66. Lewis Pyenson, "Physical Sense in Relativity: Max Planck Edits the Annalen der Physik, 1906-1918" in E. Schmutzer, ed., Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (Berlin, 1983), pp. 285-302. See also Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15), Vol. 2, pp. 321-323; A. Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...' The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 150.
67. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), pp. 189, 191; also Goldberg, "Planck's Philosophy" (ref. 26); 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), p. 223.
68. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), pp. 189, 191; also Goldberg, "Planck's Philosophy" (ref. 26); 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), p. 223.
69. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), pp. 189, 191; also Goldberg, "Planck's Philosophy" (ref. 26); 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), p. 223.
70. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), pp. 189, 191; also Goldberg, "Planck's Philosophy" (ref. 26); 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), p. 223.
71. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), pp. 193-201. Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), pp. 235-257. Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, Vol. 1, The Making of a Theoretical Physicist (Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co., 1970), pp. 150-154. "Until around 1909, almost all physicists considered Einstein's special theory of relativity to be a contribution to the electron theory"; see Pyenson, Goettingen Reception (ref. 23), p. 146. On Born and Herglotz see ibid., pp. 234-246, 293-298.
72. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), pp. 193-201. Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), pp. 235-257. Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, Vol. 1, The Making of a Theoretical Physicist (Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co., 1970), pp. 150-154. "Until around 1909, almost all physicists considered Einstein's special theory of relativity to be a contribution to the electron theory"; see Pyenson, Goettingen Reception (ref. 23), p. 146. On Born and Herglotz see ibid., pp. 234-246, 293-298.
73. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), pp. 193-201. Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), pp. 235-257. Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, Vol. 1, The Making of a Theoretical Physicist (Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co., 1970), pp. 150-154. "Until around 1909, almost all physicists considered Einstein's special theory of relativity to be a contribution to the electron theory"; see Pyenson, Goettingen Reception (ref. 23), p. 146. On Born and Herglotz see ibid., pp. 234-246, 293-298.
74. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), pp. 193-201. Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), pp. 235-257. Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, Vol. 1, The Making of a Theoretical Physicist (Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co., 1970), pp. 150-154. "Until around 1909, almost all physicists considered Einstein's special theory of relativity to be a contribution to the electron theory"; see Pyenson, Goettingen Reception (ref. 23), p. 146. On Born and Herglotz see ibid., pp. 234-246, 293-298.
75. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), pp. 193-201. Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), pp. 235-257. Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, Vol. 1, The Making of a Theoretical Physicist (Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co., 1970), pp. 150-154. "Until around 1909, almost all physicists considered Einstein's special theory of relativity to be a contribution to the electron theory"; see Pyenson, Goettingen Reception (ref. 23), p. 146. On Born and Herglotz see ibid., pp. 234-246, 293-298.
76. Max Laue, Das Relativitätsprinzip (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1911; second edition 1913); later editions published under the title Die Relativitätstheorie. Quotation from Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), p. 203.
77. Max Laue, Das Relativitätsprinzip (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1911; second edition 1913); later editions published under the title Die Relativitätstheorie. Quotation from Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), p. 203.
78. Miller, Einstein's Special Theory (ref. 8), p. 349.
79. Pyenson, "Wilhelmian Germany" (ref. 19).
80. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), p. 235. 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), pp. 181, 183.
81. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), p. 235. 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), pp. 181, 183.
82. Stanley Goldberg, "Putting New Wine in Old Bottles: The Assimilation of Relativity in America," in Thomas F. Glick, ed., Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 1-26.
83. Andrew Warwick, The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and the Principle of Relativity in British Physics, 1894-1919 (Ph. D. Dissertation, Cambridge University, 1989), p. 155. See also Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9); Stanley Goldberg, "In Defense of Ether: The British Response to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), 89-125.
84. Andrew Warwick, The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and the Principle of Relativity in British Physics, 1894-1919 (Ph. D. Dissertation, Cambridge University, 1989), p. 155. See also Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9); Stanley Goldberg, "In Defense of Ether: The British Response to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), 89-125.
85. Andrew Warwick, The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and the Principle of Relativity in British Physics, 1894-1919 (Ph. D. Dissertation, Cambridge University, 1989), p. 155. See also Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9); Stanley Goldberg, "In Defense of Ether: The British Response to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), 89-125.
86. José Sánchez-Ron, "The Reception of Special Relativity in Great Britain," in Glick, Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 27-58.
87. José Sánchez-Ron, "The Role Played by Symmetries in the Introduction of Relativity in Great Britain," in M. G. Doncel, A. Hermann, L. Michel and A. Pais, eds., Symmetries in Physics (1600-1980) (Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 1987), pp. 166-193, quotation on p. 170.
88. Michel Paty, "The Scientific Reception of Relativity in France," in Glick, Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 113-167, quotation on p. 130. For a detailed account of Langevin's contributions to relativity see Camillo Cuvaj, A History of Relativity - The Role of Henri Poincaré and Paul Langevin (Ph. D. Dissertation, Yeshiva University, 1970); "Paul Langevin and the Theory of Relativity," Japanese Studies in the History of Science, 10 (1971), 113-142.
89. Michel Paty, "The Scientific Reception of Relativity in France," in Glick, Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 113-167, quotation on p. 130. For a detailed account of Langevin's contributions to relativity see Camillo Cuvaj, A History of Relativity - The Role of Henri Poincaré and Paul Langevin (Ph. D. Dissertation, Yeshiva University, 1970); "Paul Langevin and the Theory of Relativity," Japanese Studies in the History of Science, 10 (1971), 113-142.
90. Michel Paty, "The Scientific Reception of Relativity in France," in Glick, Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 113-167, quotation on p. 130. For a detailed account of Langevin's contributions to relativity see Camillo Cuvaj, A History of Relativity - The Role of Henri Poincaré and Paul Langevin (Ph. D. Dissertation, Yeshiva University, 1970); "Paul Langevin and the Theory of Relativity," Japanese Studies in the History of Science, 10 (1971), 113-142.
91. Michel Biezunski, "Einstein's Reception in Paris in 1922," in Glick, Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 169-188, quotation from p. 175.
92. Michel Biezunski, La Diffusion de la Théorie de la Relativité en France (Thesis, University of Paris, 1981); "Popularization and Scientific Controversy: The Case of the Theory of Relativity in France," in T. Shinn and R. Whitley, eds., Expository Science (Boston: Reidel, 1985), pp. 183-194. Cuvaj, History of Relativity (ref. 38).
93. Michel Biezunski, La Diffusion de la Théorie de la Relativité en France (Thesis, University of Paris, 1981); "Popularization and Scientific Controversy: The Case of the Theory of Relativity in France," in T. Shinn and R. Whitley, eds., Expository Science (Boston: Reidel, 1985), pp. 183-194. Cuvaj, History of Relativity (ref. 38).
94. Michel Biezunski, La Diffusion de la Théorie de la Relativité en France (Thesis, University of Paris, 1981); "Popularization and Scientific Controversy: The Case of the Theory of Relativity in France," in T. Shinn and R. Whitley, eds., Expository Science (Boston: Reidel, 1985), pp. 183-194. Cuvaj, History of Relativity (ref. 38).
95. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), p. 217.
96. V. P. Vizgin and G. E. Gorelik, "The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR," in Glick, Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 265-326.
97. E. Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in C. Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275, quotations on pp. 218, 271; first published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (1973). See also Zahar, Einstein's Revolution:" A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989); A. I. Miller, "Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45. J. Earman and C. Glymour, "Einstein and Hilbert: Two Months in the History of General Relativity," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 19 (1978), 291-308; see also Michael R. Gardner, "Predicting Novel Facts," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33 (1982), 1-15.
98. E. Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in C. Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275, quotations on pp. 218, 271; first published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (1973). See also Zahar, Einstein's Revolution:" A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989); A. I. Miller, "Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45. J. Earman and C. Glymour, "Einstein and Hilbert: Two Months in the History of General Relativity," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 19 (1978), 291-308; see also Michael R. Gardner, "Predicting Novel Facts," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33 (1982), 1-15.
99. E. Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in C. Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275, quotations on pp. 218, 271; first published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (1973). See also Zahar, Einstein's Revolution:" A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989); A. I. Miller, "Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45. J. Earman and C. Glymour, "Einstein and Hilbert: Two Months in the History of General Relativity," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 19 (1978), 291-308; see also Michael R. Gardner, "Predicting Novel Facts," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33 (1982), 1-15.
100. E. Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in C. Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275, quotations on pp. 218, 271; first published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (1973). See also Zahar, Einstein's Revolution:" A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989); A. I. Miller, "Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45. J. Earman and C. Glymour, "Einstein and Hilbert: Two Months in the History of General Relativity," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 19 (1978), 291-308; see also Michael R. Gardner, "Predicting Novel Facts," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33 (1982), 1-15.
101. E. Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in C. Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275, quotations on pp. 218, 271; first published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (1973). See
102. E. Zahar, "Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?" in C. Howson, ed., Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 211-275, quotations on pp. 218, 271; first published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (1973). See also Zahar, Einstein's Revolution:" A Study in Heuristic (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1989); A. I. Miller, "Lorentz's Methodology," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25 (1974), 29-45. J. Earman and C. Glymour, "Einstein and Hilbert: Two Months in the History of General Relativity," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 19 (1978), 291-308; see also Michael R. Gardner, "Predicting Novel Facts," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33 (1982), 1-15.
103. For details and references see S. G. Brush, "Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending," Science, 246 (1989), 1124-1129. (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 Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expeditions of 1919 and their Predecessors," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11 (1980), 49-85; Jeffrey Crelinsten, The Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity among American Astronomers, 1910-1930 (Ph. D. Thesis, Université de Montréal, 1981); Crelinsten, "William Wallace Campbell and the 'Einstein Problem': An observational Astronomer Confronts the Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 14 (1983), 1-91.
104. For details and references see S. G. Brush, "Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending," Science, 246 (1989), 1124-1129. (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 Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expeditions of 1919 and their Predecessors," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11 (1980), 49-85; Jeffrey Crelinsten, The Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity among American Astronomers, 1910-1930 (Ph. D. Thesis, Université de Montréal, 1981); Crelinsten, "William Wallace Campbell and the 'Einstein Problem': An observational Astronomer Confronts the Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 14 (1983), 1-91.
105. For details and references see S. G. Brush, "Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending," Science, 246 (1989), 1124-1129. (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 Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expeditions of 1919 and their Predecessors," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11 (1980), 49-85; Jeffrey Crelinsten, The Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity among American Astronomers, 1910-1930 (Ph. D. Thesis, Université de Montréal, 1981); Crelinsten, "William Wallace Campbell and the 'Einstein Problem': An observational Astronomer Confronts the Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 14 (1983), 1-91.
106. For details and references see S. G. Brush, "Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending," Science, 246 (1989), 1124-1129. (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 Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expeditions of 1919 and their Predecessors," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11 (1980), 49-85; Jeffrey Crelinsten, The Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity among American Astronomers, 1910-1930 (Ph. D. Thesis, Université de Montréal, 1981); Crelinsten, "William Wallace Campbell and the 'Einstein Problem': An observational Astronomer Confronts the Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 14 (1983), 1-91.
107. Marshall Missner, "Why Einstein became famous in America," Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985), 267-291, on p. 288.
108. The scientists were J. J. Thomson, P. Langevin, M. Born, Max von Laue, and H. A. Lorentz; for details see Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44).
109. Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), quoted on p. xiv; Crelinsten, "Campbell" (ref. 44). The only other American astronomer whose support for relativity was based on theoretical understanding was H. N. Russell at Princeton.
110. Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), quoted on p. xiv; Crelinsten, "Campbell" (ref. 44). The only other American astronomer whose support for relativity was based on theoretical understanding was H. N. Russell at Princeton.
111. Crelinsten, Reception, Chapter 1 and Appendices. Stephen G. Brush, "Looking Up: The Rise of Astronomy in America," American Studies, 20, no. 2 (Fall 1979), 41-67.
112. Crelinsten, Reception, Chapter 1 and Appendices. Stephen G. Brush, "Looking Up: The Rise of Astronomy in America," American Studies, 20, no. 2 (Fall 1979), 41-67.
113. Crelinsten, Reception, p. xv. In the 1920s, Lick and Mt. Wilson astronomers "reaped the rewards [praise from press, funding] 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 tests." Crelinsten, Reception, pp. 285 and 397 (emphasis in original).
114. Crelinsten, Reception, p. xv. In the 1920s, Lick and Mt. Wilson astronomers "reaped the rewards [praise from press, funding] 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 tests." Crelinsten, Reception, pp. 285 and 397 (emphasis in original).
115. Crelinsten, Reception, pp. xvi, 384-385; Crelinsten, "Campbell" (ref. 44), p. 87.
116. Crelinsten, Reception, pp. xvi, 384-385; Crelinsten, "Campbell" (ref. 44), p. 87.
117. Crelinsten, Reception, pp. 264 and 269. Announcements of more complete analyses of these and other tests in 1928 "sealed the case once and for all"; ibid., p. 383.
118. Crelinsten, Reception, pp. 264 and 269. Announcements of more complete analyses of these and other tests in 1928 "sealed the case once and for all"; ibid., p. 383.
119. Crelinsten, Reception, pp. 442 and 443.
120. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (ref. 10), p. 276.
121. L. I. Schiff, "On Experimental Tests of the General Theory of Relativity," American Journal of Physics, 28 (1960), 340-343. Ronald Adler, Maurice Bazin and Menahim Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 194-206. C. W. F. Everitt, "Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future," in Riazuddin, ed., Physics and Contemporary Needs, Vol. 4 (New York: Plenum, 1980), pp. 529-555. C. W. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) and other works cited in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), pp. 96, 288. This and the following two paragraphs are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) by permission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
122. L. I. Schiff, "On Experimental Tests of the General Theory of Relativity," American Journal of Physics, 28 (1960), 340-343. Ronald Adler, Maurice Bazin and Menahim Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 194-206. C. W. F. Everitt, "Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future," in Riazuddin, ed., Physics and Contemporary Needs, Vol. 4 (New York: Plenum, 1980), pp. 529-555. C. W. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) and other works cited in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), pp. 96, 288. This and the following two paragraphs are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) by permission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
123. L. I. Schiff, "On Experimental Tests of the General Theory of Relativity," American Journal of Physics, 28 (1960), 340-343. Ronald Adler, Maurice Bazin and Menahim Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 194-206. C. W. F. Everitt, "Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future," in Riazuddin, ed., Physics and Contemporary Needs, Vol. 4 (New York: Plenum, 1980), pp. 529-555. C. W. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) and other works cited in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), pp. 96, 288. This and the following two paragraphs are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) by permission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
124. L. I. Schiff, "On Experimental Tests of the General Theory of Relativity," American Journal of Physics, 28 (1960), 340-343. Ronald Adler, Maurice Bazin and Menahim Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 194-206. C. W. F. Everitt, "Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future," in Riazuddin, ed., Physics and Contemporary Needs, Vol. 4 (New York: Plenum, 1980), pp. 529-555. C. W. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) and other works cited in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), pp. 96, 288. This and the following two paragraphs are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) by permission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
125. L. I. Schiff, "On Experimental Tests of the General Theory of Relativity," American Journal of Physics, 28 (1960), 340-343. Ronald Adler, Maurice Bazin and Menahim Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 194-206. C. W. F. Everitt, "Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future," in Riazuddin, ed., Physics and Contemporary Needs, Vol. 4 (New York: Plenum, 1980), pp. 529-555. C. W. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) and other works cited in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), pp. 96, 288. This and the following two paragraphs are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) by permission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
126. L. I. Schiff, "On Experimental Tests of the General Theory of Relativity," American Journal of Physics, 28 (1960), 340-343. Ronald Adler, Maurice Bazin and Menahim Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 194-206. C. W. F. Everitt, "Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future," in Riazuddin, ed., Physics and Contemporary Needs, Vol. 4 (New York: Plenum, 1980), pp. 529-555. C. W. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) and other works cited in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), pp. 96, 288. This and the following two paragraphs are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) by permission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
127. L. I. Schiff, "On Experimental Tests of the General Theory of Relativity," American Journal of Physics, 28 (1960), 340-343. Ronald Adler, Maurice Bazin and Menahim Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 194-206. C. W. F. Everitt, "Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Past, Present and Future," in Riazuddin, ed., Physics and Contemporary Needs, Vol. 4 (New York: Plenum, 1980), pp. 529-555. C. W. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) and other works cited in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), pp. 96, 288. This and the following two paragraphs are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) by permission of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
128. W. De Sitter, Kosmos: A Course of Lectures on the Development of our Insight into the Structure of the Universe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932), p. 111.
129. R. J. Trumpler, "The Relativity Deflection of Light," Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 23 (1929), 208-218, on p. 218.
130. E. L. Turner, "Gravitational Lenses," Scientific American, 259, no. 1 (July 1988), 54-60, on p. 54, and other references in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44); Morris R. Cohen, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," New Republic, 21 (1920), 228, 341. Fritz Rohrlich, From Paradox to Reality (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 18.
131. E. L. Turner, "Gravitational Lenses," Scientific American, 259, no. 1 (July 1988), 54-60, on p. 54, and other references in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44); Morris R. Cohen, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," New Republic, 21 (1920), 228, 341. Fritz Rohrlich, From Paradox to Reality (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 18.
132. E. L. Turner, "Gravitational Lenses," Scientific American, 259, no. 1 (July 1988), 54-60, on p. 54, and other references in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44); Morris R. Cohen, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," New Republic, 21 (1920), 228, 341. Fritz Rohrlich, From Paradox to Reality (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 18.
133. E. L. Turner, "Gravitational Lenses," Scientific American, 259, no. 1 (July 1988), 54-60, on p. 54, and other references in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44); Morris R. Cohen, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," New Republic, 21 (1920), 228, 341. Fritz Rohrlich, From Paradox to Reality (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 18.
134. Jean Eisenstaedt, "La Relativité Générale à l'Étiage: 1925-1955," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 35 (1986), 115-185. A more accurate description is given by Donald Franklin Moyer, "Revolution in Science: The 1919 Eclipse Test of General Relativity," in A. Perlmutter and L. F. Scott, eds., On the Path of Albert Einstein (New York: Plenum, 1979), pp. 55-101.
135. Jean Eisenstaedt, "La Relativité Générale à l'Étiage: 1925-1955," Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 35 (1986), 115-185. A more accurate description is given by Donald Franklin Moyer, "Revolution in Science: The 1919 Eclipse Test of General Relativity," in A. Perlmutter and L. F. Scott, eds., On the Path of Albert Einstein (New York: Plenum, 1979), pp. 55-101.
136. R. C. Tolman, Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934), p. 213.
137. D. H. Menzel, "Progress of Astronomy," Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 41 (1929), 224-231, on p. 229.
138. M. Sachs, Einstein versus Bohr: The Continuing Controversies in Physics (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1988), p. 193.
139. S. G. Brush, "Prediction and Theory Evaluation: Subatomic Particles," Rivista di Storia della Scienza, Ser. II. 1, n. 2 (1993), 47-152.
140. Cf. Deborah Mayo, Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 288.
141. Everitt, "Experimental tests" (ref. 54), pp. 533-534; see also Earman and Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses" (ref. 44); Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 170-173; Deborah Mayo, Error (ref. 63), Chapter 8; Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (ref. 54), p. 97. This and the following paragraph are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) which gives additional references on this point.
142. Everitt, "Experimental tests" (ref. 54), pp. 533-534; see also Earman and Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses" (ref. 44); Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 170-173; Deborah Mayo, Error (ref. 63), Chapter 8; Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (ref. 54), p. 97. This and the following paragraph are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) which gives additional references on this point.
143. Everitt, "Experimental tests" (ref. 54), pp. 533-534; see also Earman and Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses" (ref. 44); Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 170-173; Deborah Mayo, Error (ref. 63), Chapter 8; Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (ref. 54), p. 97. This and the following paragraph are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) which gives additional references on this point.
144. Everitt, "Experimental tests" (ref. 54), pp. 533-534; see also Earman and Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses" (ref. 44); Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 170-173; Deborah Mayo, Error (ref. 63), Chapter 8; Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (ref. 54), p. 97. This and the following paragraph are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) which gives additional references on this point.
145. Everitt, "Experimental tests" (ref. 54), pp. 533-534; see also Earman and Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses" (ref. 44); Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 170-173; Deborah Mayo, Error (ref. 63), Chapter 8; Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (ref. 54), p. 97. This and the following paragraph are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) which gives additional references on this point.
146. Everitt, "Experimental tests" (ref. 54), pp. 533-534; see also Earman and Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses" (ref. 44); Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 170-173; Deborah Mayo, Error (ref. 63), Chapter 8; Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory (ref. 54), p. 97. This and the following paragraph are taken from Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44) which gives additional references on this point.
147. Norriss Hetherington, Science and Objectivity: Episodes in the History of Astronomy (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1988). Crelinsten remarks that views on the gravitational red shift sometimes seemed to be governed by the adage "I'll see it when I believe it"; Reception (ref. 44), p. 208.
148. Norriss Hetherington, Science and Objectivity: Episodes in the History of Astronomy (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1988). Crelinsten remarks that views on the gravitational red shift sometimes seemed to be governed by the adage "I'll see it when I believe it"; Reception (ref. 44), p. 208.
149. Crelinsten, Reception, pp. 227-229.
150. H. Weyl, E. T. Whittaker, P. G. Bergmann, L. Infeld, R. B. Lindsay and H. Margenau, cited in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44); views of Eddington and Dirac, quoted below.
151. William D. MacMillan, "The Fourth Doctrine of Science and its Limitations," in R. D. Carmichael et al., A Debate on the Theory of Relativity (Chicago: Open Court, 1927), pp. 117-127.
152. Quoted by Holton, Thematic Origins (ref. 3), pp. 255; A. Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...' (ref. 27), p. 273.
153. Quoted by Holton, Thematic Origins (ref. 3), pp. 255; A. Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...' (ref. 27), p. 273.
154. S. Chandrasekhar, "The Richtmyer Memorial Lecture - Some Historical Notes," American Journal of Physics, 37 (1969), 577-584; see also the references in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Eddington's early work on relativity is discussed by Moyer, "Revolution in Science" (ref. 58); but see Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 100-101, 106-108 for a different interpretation.
155. S. Chandrasekhar, "The Richtmyer Memorial Lecture - Some Historical Notes," American Journal of Physics, 37 (1969), 577-584; see also the references in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Eddington's early work on relativity is discussed by Moyer, "Revolution in Science" (ref. 58); but see Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 100-101, 106-108 for a different interpretation.
156. S. Chandrasekhar, "The Richtmyer Memorial Lecture - Some Historical Notes," American Journal of Physics, 37 (1969), 577-584; see also the references in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Eddington's early work on relativity is discussed by Moyer, "Revolution in Science" (ref. 58); but see Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 100-101, 106-108 for a different interpretation.
157. S. Chandrasekhar, "The Richtmyer Memorial Lecture - Some Historical Notes," American Journal of Physics, 37 (1969), 577-584; see also the references in Brush, "Light Bending" (ref. 44). Eddington's early work on relativity is discussed by Moyer, "Revolution in Science" (ref. 58); but see Crelinsten, Reception (ref. 44), pp. 100-101, 106-108 for a different interpretation.
158. A. S. Eddington, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (London: Cambridge University Press, 1923), preface.
159. A. S. Eddington, New Pathways in Science (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934), p. 211.
160. P. A. M. Dirac, "The early Years of Relativity," in Holton and Elkana, eds., Albert Einstein (ref. 11), pp. 79-80; "The Excellence of Einstein's Theory of Gravitation," Impact of Science on Society, 29 (1979), 11-14, on p. 13.
161. P. A. M. Dirac, "The early Years of Relativity," in Holton and Elkana, eds., Albert Einstein (ref. 11), pp. 79-80; "The Excellence of Einstein's Theory of Gravitation," Impact of Science on Society, 29 (1979), 11-14, on p. 13.
162. Sulloway, Born to Rebel (ref. 13), pp. 40, 345.
163. Loren Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York: Knopf, 1972), Chapter IV; V. J. Frenkel, "Fok, Vladimir Aleksandrovich," in F. L. Holmes, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York: Scribner, 1970-), vol. 17, pp. 303-305; Alexei Kojevnikov, private communication.
164. Loren Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York: Knopf, 1972), Chapter IV; V. J. Frenkel, "Fok, Vladimir Aleksandrovich," in F. L. Holmes, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York: Scribner, 1970-), vol. 17, pp. 303-305; Alexei Kojevnikov, private communication.
165. Loren Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York: Knopf, 1972), Chapter IV; V. J. Frenkel, "Fok, Vladimir Aleksandrovich," in F. L. Holmes, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York: Scribner, 1970-), vol. 17, pp. 303-305; Alexei Kojevnikov, private communication.
166. V. A. Fock, The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation, translated by N. Kemmer (New York: Pergamon Press, 1959), p. xviii. The same statement appears in the second edition (1964), p. 8.
167. M. W. Mikulak, Relativity Theory and Soviet Communist Philosophy (1922-1960) (Ph. D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1965), quotations on pp. ii, 230.
168. Ibid., pp. 238, 240-241. See also Mikulak, "Soviet Cosmology and Communist Ideology," Scientific Monthly, 81 (1955), 167-172; "Soviet Philosophic-Cosmological Thought," Philosophy of Science, 25 (1958), 35-50. For a different view see V. P. Vizgin and G. E. Gorelik, "The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR," in Glick, ed., Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 265-326.
169. Ibid., pp. 238, 240-241. See also Mikulak, "Soviet Cosmology and Communist Ideology," Scientific Monthly, 81 (1955), 167-172; "Soviet Philosophic-Cosmological Thought," Philosophy of Science, 25 (1958), 35-50. For a different view see V. P. Vizgin and G. E. Gorelik, "The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR," in Glick, ed., Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 265-326.
170. Ibid., pp. 238, 240-241. See also Mikulak, "Soviet Cosmology and Communist Ideology," Scientific Monthly, 81 (1955), 167-172; "Soviet Philosophic-Cosmological Thought," Philosophy of Science, 25 (1958), 35-50. For a different view see V. P. Vizgin and G. E. Gorelik, "The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR," in Glick, ed., Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 265-326.
171. Ibid., pp. 238, 240-241. See also Mikulak, "Soviet Cosmology and Communist Ideology," Scientific Monthly, 81 (1955), 167-172; "Soviet Philosophic-Cosmological Thought," Philosophy of Science, 25 (1958), 35-50. For a different view see V. P. Vizgin and G. E. Gorelik, "The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR," in Glick, ed., Comparative Reception (ref. 12), pp. 265-326.
172. Sánchez-Ron, "Reception of General Relativity" (ref. 21), p. 73.
173. Jean Eisenstaedt, "The Low Water Mark of General Relativity 1925-1955," in D. Howard and J. Stachel, eds., Einstein and the History of General Relativity (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1989), pp. 277-292; see also "Relativité Générale" (ref. 58). Lewis Pyenson, "La Réception de la Relativité generaliseé: Disciplinarité et Institutionalisation en Physique," Revue d'Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications, 28 (1975), 61-73. Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15). Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9). Russell McCormmach, "editor's Foreword," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), ix-xx, on xviii. Crelinsten objects that this view is "physics-oriented" and ignores the continuing interest of astronomers in general relativity; see Reception (ref. 44), p. 446.
174. Jean Eisenstaedt, "The Low Water Mark of General Relativity 1925-1955," in D. Howard and J. Stachel, eds., Einstein and the History of General Relativity (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1989), pp. 277-292; see also "Relativité Générale" (ref. 58). Lewis Pyenson, "La Réception de la Relativité generaliseé: Disciplinarité et Institutionalisation en Physique," Revue d'Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications, 28 (1975), 61-73. Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15). Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9). Russell McCormmach, "editor's Foreword," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), ix-xx, on xviii. Crelinsten objects that this view is "physics-oriented" and ignores the continuing interest of astronomers in general relativity; see Reception (ref. 44), p. 446.
175. Jean Eisenstaedt, "The Low Water Mark of General Relativity 1925-1955," in D. Howard and J. Stachel, eds., Einstein and the History of General Relativity (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1989), pp. 277-292; see also "Relativité Générale" (ref. 58). Lewis Pyenson, "La Réception de la Relativité generaliseé: Disciplinarité et Institutionalisation en Physique," Revue d'Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications, 28 (1975), 61-73. Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15). Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9). Russell McCormmach, "editor's Foreword," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), ix-xx, on xviii. Crelinsten objects that this view is "physics-oriented" and ignores the continuing interest of astronomers in general relativity; see Reception (ref. 44), p. 446.
176. Jean Eisenstaedt, "The Low Water Mark of General Relativity 1925-1955," in D. Howard and J. Stachel, eds., Einstein and the History of General Relativity (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1989), pp. 277-292; see also "Relativité Générale" (ref. 58). Lewis Pyenson, "La Réception de la Relativité generaliseé: Disciplinarité et Institutionalisation en Physique," Revue d'Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications, 28 (1975), 61-73. Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15). Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9). Russell McCormmach, "editor's Foreword," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), ix-xx, on xviii. Crelinsten objects that this view is "physics-oriented" and ignores the continuing interest of astronomers in general relativity; see Reception (ref. 44), p. 446.
177. Jean Eisenstaedt, "The Low Water Mark of General Relativity 1925-1955," in D. Howard and J. Stachel, eds., Einstein and the History of General Relativity (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1989), pp. 277-292; see also "Relativité Générale" (ref. 58). Lewis Pyenson, "La Réception de la Relativité generaliseé: Disciplinarité et Institutionalisation en Physique," Revue d'Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications, 28 (1975), 61-73. Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15). Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9). Russell McCormmach, "editor's Foreword," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), ix-xx, on xviii. Crelinsten objects that this view is "physics-oriented" and ignores the continuing interest of astronomers in general relativity; see Reception (ref. 44), p. 446.
178. Jean Eisenstaedt, "The Low Water Mark of General Relativity 1925-1955," in D. Howard and J. Stachel, eds., Einstein and the History of General Relativity (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1989), pp. 277-292; see also "Relativité Générale" (ref. 58). Lewis Pyenson, "La Réception de la Relativité generaliseé: Disciplinarité et Institutionalisation en Physique," Revue d'Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications, 28 (1975), 61-73. Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15). Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9). Russell McCormmach, "editor's Foreword," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), ix-xx, on xviii. Crelinsten objects that this view is "physics-oriented" and ignores the continuing interest of astronomers in general relativity; see Reception (ref. 44), p. 446.
179. Jean Eisenstaedt, "The Low Water Mark of General Relativity 1925-1955," in D. Howard and J. Stachel, eds., Einstein and the History of General Relativity (Boston: Birkhäuser, 1989), pp. 277-292; see also "Relativité Générale" (ref. 58). Lewis Pyenson, "La Réception de la Relativité generaliseé: Disciplinarité et Institutionalisation en Physique," Revue d'Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications, 28 (1975), 61-73. Jungnickel and McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery (ref. 15). Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics" (ref. 9). Russell McCormmach, "editor's Foreword," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 2 (1970), ix-xx, on xviii. Crelinsten objects that this view is "physics-oriented" and ignores the continuing interest of astronomers in general relativity; see Reception (ref. 44), p. 446.
180. In 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, "Reception of General Relativity" (ref. 21), p. 69.
181. J. D. North, The Measure of the Universe: A History of Modern Cosmology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965; reprinted with a new preface, New York: Dover, 1990). M. P. Ryan, Jr. and L. C. Shipley, "Resource Letter RC-1: Cosmology," American Journal of Physics, 44 (1976), 223-230.
182. J. D. North, The Measure of the Universe: A History of Modern Cosmology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965; reprinted with a new preface, New York: Dover, 1990). M. P. Ryan, Jr. and L. C. Shipley, "Resource Letter RC-1: Cosmology," American Journal of Physics, 44 (1976), 223-230.
183. Glick, Comparative Reception (ref. 12).
184. Vizgin and Gorelik, "Reception of the theory of Relativity in Russia" (ref. 78), on p. 294.