DOC.
465
FEBRUARY
1918 479
experiment, provided
that
adequate
precision
can
be
attained. But
above
all,
as
far
as
I
can
see,
even
the
principle
of
the
relativity
of
the
gravitational potential
becomes
invalid,
because
a
particle is
capable
of
existing
but
at
one
place,
where p
and thus
also
the
gravitational
potential has
a
specifically
prescribed value.
In
places
where
the
mass
in
the
world does not have
the
exactly
prescribed
density,
it must be in
a
constant
state of
internal
change,
which has
the
purpose
of
correcting
the
mass
distribution,
quite irrespective
of
the
effects of
the
forces,
as
I would
see
it,
solely
as a
consequence
of
the mismatched
gravitational potential.
This
is quite
different from diffusion
as a
result
of
irregular
motions,
through
which
the
uniform
distribution
of
the
molecules of
a
gas
is brought
about
in
space.
I must
admit that
now
after
these
considerations
I
have
completely
lost all confidence in
the
new
theory’s possibility
and
strongly
doubt
whether
any
satisfactory theory
can
be found
in
which
the
parallel
axiom
is
not
valid.”
Draft
postscript:
“In
order
to
give
you
the
opportunity
to test
whether
my
last
mentioned
assumption
might
just
rest
on
fallacies,
I would
like
to describe to
you
briefly
how
I arrived
at it:
Let:
k

p
=
2

a

A,
where
a =
1
is naturally
positive,
real.
I
now
set
a
=
1-a/1+a,
then results
as an
integral
of
the
field
equations:
Guv
=
-K

(Tuv
- 1/2guv

T)
in the
vicinity
of
the
point
x1
=
x2
=
x3
=
x4
=
0
the
following:
fa
=
-
(4¡IV
+ Vix'Xi/
ZTZ-Î.
)
p,v
=
1,2,3.
R2-
(x\+x2+xl crx'j)
0/14
:
R2-
(x2+xl+x2
OC‘XuX4
-¿¿
ax|)
^
=
1,2,3.
7
7
044
-(1-
R2-(x'f+x%+x$-ax'l),
)
,
where R2
=
°^-
g44
thus
changes
at
point
x1
=
x2
=
x3
=
0
with the
time; specifically,
it
always gets
smaller,
whether
a 1 or
a 1
is true.”
[18]Deleted
passage
in draft: “In
any
case
your explanation,
that
p
is
the
mean
density
of the
distribution
of
the
celestial
bodies, appears
to
me
to be
very
disputable
and
in need of
a more
definite
proof.
What
does
the
integral
look
like
at
places
where
p
really
is supposed to
be zero?
It
seems
to
me
impossible
to
be
able
to claim there
the
existence of
a
field at
equilibrium
that
obeys
the
equations
Guv
-
Aguv=
=
0
and that
at
the
same
time exhibits the
properties
of
the
field at
a
point
located
very
far
away
from all
matter,
as
your
integral
does. You
yourself prove
that
a
gravitational potential
satisfying
the
conditions
that must be set for
very
remote distances
from all
matter
is
consistent
only
with the
condition
k
.
p
=
2A,
don’t
you? Besides,
I must
admit that
I
also find curved
space unappealing.”
Previous Page Next Page

Extracted Text (may have errors)


DOC.
465
FEBRUARY
1918 479
experiment, provided
that
adequate
precision
can
be
attained. But
above
all,
as
far
as
I
can
see,
even
the
principle
of
the
relativity
of
the
gravitational potential
becomes
invalid,
because
a
particle is
capable
of
existing
but
at
one
place,
where p
and thus
also
the
gravitational
potential has
a
specifically
prescribed value.
In
places
where
the
mass
in
the
world does not have
the
exactly
prescribed
density,
it must be in
a
constant
state of
internal
change,
which has
the
purpose
of
correcting
the
mass
distribution,
quite irrespective
of
the
effects of
the
forces,
as
I would
see
it,
solely
as a
consequence
of
the mismatched
gravitational potential.
This
is quite
different from diffusion
as a
result
of
irregular
motions,
through
which
the
uniform
distribution
of
the
molecules of
a
gas
is brought
about
in
space.
I must
admit that
now
after
these
considerations
I
have
completely
lost all confidence in
the
new
theory’s possibility
and
strongly
doubt
whether
any
satisfactory theory
can
be found
in
which
the
parallel
axiom
is
not
valid.”
Draft
postscript:
“In
order
to
give
you
the
opportunity
to test
whether
my
last
mentioned
assumption
might
just
rest
on
fallacies,
I would
like
to describe to
you
briefly
how
I arrived
at it:
Let:
k

p
=
2

a

A,
where
a =
1
is naturally
positive,
real.
I
now
set
a
=
1-a/1+a,
then results
as an
integral
of
the
field
equations:
Guv
=
-K

(Tuv
- 1/2guv

T)
in the
vicinity
of
the
point
x1
=
x2
=
x3
=
x4
=
0
the
following:
fa
=
-
(4¡IV
+ Vix'Xi/
ZTZ-Î.
)
p,v
=
1,2,3.
R2-
(x\+x2+xl crx'j)
0/14
:
R2-
(x2+xl+x2
OC‘XuX4
-¿¿
ax|)
^
=
1,2,3.
7
7
044
-(1-
R2-(x'f+x%+x$-ax'l),
)
,
where R2
=
°^-
g44
thus
changes
at
point
x1
=
x2
=
x3
=
0
with the
time; specifically,
it
always gets
smaller,
whether
a 1 or
a 1
is true.”
[18]Deleted
passage
in draft: “In
any
case
your explanation,
that
p
is
the
mean
density
of the
distribution
of
the
celestial
bodies, appears
to
me
to be
very
disputable
and
in need of
a more
definite
proof.
What
does
the
integral
look
like
at
places
where
p
really
is supposed to
be zero?
It
seems
to
me
impossible
to
be
able
to claim there
the
existence of
a
field at
equilibrium
that
obeys
the
equations
Guv
-
Aguv=
=
0
and that
at
the
same
time exhibits the
properties
of
the
field at
a
point
located
very
far
away
from all
matter,
as
your
integral
does. You
yourself prove
that
a
gravitational potential
satisfying
the
conditions
that must be set for
very
remote distances
from all
matter
is
consistent
only
with the
condition
k
.
p
=
2A,
don’t
you? Besides,
I must
admit that
I
also find curved
space unappealing.”

Help

loading