Einstein, his theories, and his aesthetic considerations

Abstract

This article deals with the question whether aesthetic considerations affected Einstein in formulating both his theories of relativity. The opinions of philosophers and historians alike are divided on this matter. Thus, Gerald Holton supports the view that Einstein employed aesthetic considerations in formulating his theory of special relativity whereas Jim Shelton opposes it, one of his reasons being that Einstein did not mention such considerations. The other theory, namely, that of general relativity, is discussed by John D. Norton. He asserts that the successful completion of this theory was due to Einstein's adherence to mathematical simplicity resulting from experience, as Einstein himself stated, and not from an aesthetic drive, to which he did not refer. The present work attempts to overcome this deficiency indirectly by investigating Einstein's aesthetic awareness and its consequences for his work. It is found that this awareness was imbedded in his perception of nature and is linked to the criteria (such as simplicity) that guided him in formulating his theories. The conclusion thus reached is that aesthetic considerations did play a role in Einstein's endeavour, contrary to the assertions of Shelton and Norton.

Notes

Gideon Engler is Professor of Physics at Soreq Research Center in Israel.

Correspondence: Gideon Engler, Soreq Research Center, P.O. Box 2139, 76121 Rehovot, Israel. Email: [email protected]

In this respect it is illuminating that even the prominent theoretical physicist Paul A. M. Dirac, perhaps the supreme aesthetician in science, failed to provide an adequate explanation of his aesthetic considerations in formulating his theories (Engler 2001, 56).

An observer constitutes a frame of reference, which is a physical idea with an associated coordinate system, its mathematical expression.

It is important to note that this view of Einstein was disputed almost immediately after the publication of his GR, a dispute that has not been resolved until this day (for an in‐depth review of this dispute see Norton 1993, 1995b). These challenges pertain to both parts of Einstein's view, namely, they question whether GR indeed extends the principle of relativity to accelerated motion and whether general covariance indeed insures such an extension. In other words, at the heart of this dispute lies the claim that what Einstein achieved in 1915 is a theory of gravity using general covariance and not a theory of GR. In response to such claims, Einstein changed somewhat his view of the meaning of general covariance, however, what is important for the present study is that this new inclination of his never shed for him any doubt as to the crucial importance of the connection of general covariance to what he considered as GR (in this context, see, e.g., the above quotation from Stachel and the conclusion in Norton 1993, 852). It may therefore be said, that Einstein held on to his 1915 view when completing GR, to which this work refers.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gideon Engler

Gideon Engler is Professor of Physics at Soreq Research Center in Israel. Correspondence: Gideon Engler, Soreq Research Center, P.O. Box 2139, 76121 Rehovot, Israel. Email: [email protected]