Vladimir Fock: Philosophy of Gravity and Gravity of PhilosophyIn: The Attraction of gravitation: new
studies in the history of general relativity |
|
1. First Steps in the
General
Theory of Relativity
2. One and a Half
Decades
under the Symbol h and the Year 1937 under the Banner of Marxism
3. Fock's Work on
Motion in
GTR
4. The Contribution
of
Nikolaus Copernicus to the General Theory of Relativity
5. Fock's "Theory of
Space, Time and Gravity" against the Background of His Gravity, His
Time,
and His Space
6. Principles of
Relativity
and Complementarity for the History of Physics
V. A. Fock
Chronology
(Gravitational, Philosophical, Social)
Vladimir
Aleksandrovich Fock (1898-1974) was one of the main participants in the
history
of the general theory of relativity (GTR) in Russia. His teachers, A.
A.
Friedmann and V. K. Frederiks, were the pioneers of GTR in Russia
(Vizgin and
Gorelik 1987). He studied the famous Friedmann paper on nonstatic
cosmology in
manuscript form and translated it, at the author's request, into
German. He
elaborated a description of the spinor field in GTR (Fock 1929). In
1935 he was
an "opponent" (judge) of Matvey Bronstein's thesis—the first deep
investigation of quantum gravity. He independently of Einstein, Infeld,
and
Hoffman (1938) solved the problem of motion in GTR. He is the author of
the
first Soviet monograph on GTR. And, finally, he was an energetic and
tireless
participant in the discussions during the 1950s and 1960s on
understanding GTR.
However, despite
Fock's authority in physics due to his scientific abilities, his
attitude
toward GTR was not shared by many even in the USSR. This concerned his
attitude
toward cosmology, the role of coordinate conditions and especially
privileged
systems of reference, the principles of relativity and equivalence and
the
philosophical status of GTR.
His stand on the
last issue seems to be the most enigmatic because he unequivocally
declared his
adherence to dialectical materialism and connected it with his
understanding of
GTR. Such an attitude did not attract sympathy among physicists,
although
Fock's human dignity and honesty were beyond doubt. Besides, in
Stalin's time,
Fock was the main defender of quantum and relativistic physics in the
USSR.
This situation has
already attracted the attention of historians (Graham 1982, 1987). Here
I shall
try to reveal the roots of Fock's position in his scientific activity
proper
and to analyze the nature of the communication gap between Fock and his
physicist colleagues.
To do this, it is
necessary to take into account the following factors: Fock's specific
methodological stand, which was intermediate between theoretical
physics and
mathematics; his predisposition to a philosophical world view; his
inclination
to schematism or mathematization in life outside natural science; and
finally
the relatively narrow empirical basis of GTR in the 1930s to 1950s. It
is not
easy to discuss these factors in academic terms since they manifested
themselves in horrible social circumstances. They were embodied
concretely in
Fock's personality—he was an honest, dignified, fearless and, strange
as it may
seem, law-abiding person. To reveal these elements of the explanation
and to
connect them in a united scientific-psychological complex, one should
consider
the evolution of Fock's views.
|
|
The date is February 5, 1953.
It was the seventh year of Peter Kapitsa's disgrace. Vladimir
Fock was visiting the Kapitsas, a few weeks before Stalin's death. |
1. First Steps in the General Theory of Relativity
Fock (1963)
recalled the following of his early acquaintance with GTR:
A. A. Friedmann and V. K.
Frederiks,
professors in Petrograd University, were the first who familiarized
Russian
physicists, who worked in Petrograd, with the theory of gravitation
recently
created by Einstein. This was at the very beginning of the 1920s when
the
blockade of Soviet Russia had just been broken and scientific
literature from
abroad began to arrive. In the Physical Institute of the University a
seminar
gathered where, among other things, lectures on Einstein's theory were
delivered. The participants of the seminar were teachers and students
in their
last year (and at that rime there were very few). The basic speakers on
the
theory of relativity were V. K. Frederiks and A. A. Friedmann, but
sometimes
also Yu. A. Krutkov, V. R. Bursian and others spoke. I remember the
talks of
Frederiks and Friedmann clearly. The style of these talks was
different:
Frederiks deeply understood the physical side of the theory, but did
not like
the mathematical computations; Friedmann stressed not physics, but
mathematics.
He strived for mathematical rigor and attributed great importance to
the full
and exact formulation of the initial preconditions. The discussions
that arose
between Frederiks and Friedmann were very interesting.
This
recollection, with its "duet of acting characters"—mathematics and
physics—as we shall see, can tell us much about Fock's position itself.
In
spite of the important role of Frederiks in the assimilation of GTR in
Russia,
one may doubt the depth of his physical comprehension of GTR. On the
other
hand, "the full and exact formulation of the initial preconditions"
was very characteristic of Fock himself.
The earliest
documented testimony of Fock's interests in GTR is his handwritten
summary of
his lecture in a philosophical circle dated 1922.What should be noted
especially is that this summary is half philosophical. Fock begins
with:
I am going to give an account of
the
physical foundations of the theory of relativity and to point out some
contacts
with philosophical problems. But I consider myself to be an ignoramus
in
philosophy, and therefore I do not claim to solve, or even to put
philosophical
questions in correct form. In this respect I wait for the assistance of
my
listeners.
After
a few words about the historical origins of GTR, Fock turns to
the leading thread: the search
for the
really existing in the nature. The really existing is defined as being
perceived by all identically. Examples:
(a) an object being seen
from different viewpoints;
(b) an object being seen by
moving observers; its mass and
dimensions.
If two observers see
differently, it is clear that they see
not the whole object but facets of it.
One had to admit as really
existing not space and time
separately but their combination; instead of r2 and t2
the interval r2 — c2t2 really
exists.
Fock
summarizes the content of general relativity in the following way:
Geometry has absorbed physics.
From the
formal point of view it is all the same, but it is more satisfactory
for our
intuitions. As well now the physicist believes in the existence of
atoms and
electrons neither more nor less than in the existence of common
"large" objects. If he was a "naive realist," he has
remained the same. But he replaced entities that he considered before
as really
existing. It is possible to go further.
Physics strives to break up
phenomena into the simplest
elements. But the simplest elements are not commonplace to us; besides
that,
they (as the simplest) are undefinable. The familiar (i. e., having
properties
of familiar objects) are only rather complex combinations of these
elements.
But so far as we have not given definitions for elements, there are no
definitions for these combinations either.
And we give a definition for the
latter. We take the
quantity Gmn . We do not say that it is equal to
zero when
matter is absent, but in another way: being equal to zero means that
matter is
absent, i. e., absence of matter is a symptom of Gmn
being
equal to zero.
From
this short text one can draw some important conclusions.
In 1922 in Soviet
Russia the philosophical approach to natural science was still a purely
private
affair. To lecture at a philosophical circle meant a certain
predisposition to
a philosophical outlook. It is difficult to attribute Fock's view in
1922 to
some -ism (e. g., to intersubjective idealism or mathematical
realism),
but one can definitely say that in Fock's position there is no
dialectical
materialism (which he would master and appropriate in the mid-1930s).
His
striving to comprehend the epistemological bridge between physical
reality and
theory is beyond doubt.
In the
philosophical viewpoint of the 24-year-old theorist, it is possible to
see some
ideas of the classics of relativity. However, Fock's approach to GTR
seems
highly independent (unlike the first Russian review on GTR by Frederiks
(1921)). Instead of the ideas of general relativity, covariance and
equivalence, which were usual for the majority of accounts of GTR, in
Fock's
account what prevails is the geometrical approach, based on the concept
of absolute
space-time. The other interesting feature is this: Fock mentions "the
possibility of finite but boundless space" and does not mention the
possibility of a nonstatic universe, while Friedmann's popular (1923)
book was
finished the day (!) before Fock's lecture, and it talked about this
new
possibility with enthusiasm. Friedmann's famous paper (1922) was dated
May 29.
2. One and a Half Decades under the Symbol h and the Year 1937 under the Banner of Marxism
In the following one
and a half decades Fock was busy with quantum theory on the whole. His
important work on including the Dirac equation into GTR (1929) did not
concern
questions of principle in GTR.
Some interesting
traits for the relativistic portrait of Fock may be revealed in his
participation in the defense of M. P. Bronstein's thesis in 1935
(Gorelik and
Frenkel 1985). Fock assessed highly this investigation, which was
concerned
mainly with the quantization of weak gravitational fields. He did not,
however,
attach importance to one of Bronstein's conclusions, which may have
been the
most interesting from the general physical and philosophical points of
view,
but the least definite mathematically. Based on a quantum-relativistic
analysis
of the measurability of the gravitational field (beyond its weakness
and
nongeometrical character), Bronstein deduced that, in a complete theory
of
quantum gravity, the concepts of space and time would have to be
generalized
radically. In Fock's words of 1935, one can see some distrust of GTR:
he admits
that the theory (of strong fields) may be changed and doubts the
special role
of the gravitational radius. (See Gorelik and Frenkel 1985.)
Fock took up the
Einstein theory of gravitation in full measure at the end of the 1930s,
preceded
by some important events in his philosophical and social biography.
At the beginning of
the 1930s, Fock discovered dialectical materialism for himself
(hereafter I
shall use the common Soviet abbreviation Diamat). We know from
A. D.
Aleksandrov's testimony (Aleksandrov 1988, 1989) that Fock read Lenin's
book Materialism
and Empirio-Criticism in 1932 and found in it something interesting
and
important for him (and he regretted that this book was inculcated in a
"police" way). Two decades later Fock, in the introduction to his
book on GTR, remarked:
The philosophical side of my
views on the
theory of space, time and gravitation was formed under the influence of
the
philosophy of dialectical materialism, in particular under the
influence of
Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. The teaching of
dialectical
materialism helped me to approach critically Einstein's point of view
concerning the theory created by him and to think it out anew. This
teaching
helped me also to understand correctly, and to interpret, the new
results
obtained by me. I would like to state this here, although this book
does not
explicitly touch philosophical questions. (Fock 1955, p. 16)
Before
considering the interaction between Fock, Diamat, and the
theory of
gravity, let us get acquainted with some facts from Fock's biography
which may
seem to be irrelevant at first glance.
In answering an
official questionnaire in 1938, Fock wrote that he was descended from
nobles,
although he could have given a much less dangerous reply, because his
father
was a scientist-forester. Fock also informs us: "Since
birth I have lived in Leningrad, did not take part in the revolutionary
movement, <...> was not repressed by Soviet power." [Personal
file of V. A. Fock. Archives Acad. Sci. USSR 411-14-127].
There are some
inexactitudes here. In the first place, having entered Petrograd
University in
1916, Fock in 1917 voluntarily joined the artillery school and then
went to the
war front (in 1918 he was immobilized because of advancing deafness).
In the second
place, Fock was arrested twice: in 1935 for one day and in 1937 also
for only a
few days (in the latter case he was released as a result of P.
Kapitsa's
courageous letter "upstairs").
For Fock, 1937 was
also filled with many other events that were not very scientific. He
was active
in preventing a special session of the Academy of Sciences concerned
with the
philosophical basis of modem physics (Gorelik 1990). The initiator of
this
session was the 65-year-old electrical engineer academician, V. F.
Mitkevich.
Having old-fashioned (meta-) physical views and having obtained
new-fashioned
political skills, he officially proposed organizing a special meeting
"for
the struggle for the materialistic foundations of physics and against
physical
idealism." He had named V. A. Fock (together with I. E. Tamm and Ya. I.
Frenkel) as a physical idealist and an opponent of Diamat.
Before 1937 Fock
did not express his philosophical views publicly but had expressed
unequivocally his opinion about the poor scientific level of books by
Mitkevich
and his fellow campaigner A. K. Timiryazev in a review (Fock 1934)
published in
the leading popular-scientific journal.
It was this review
that was attacked (three years later!) by an aggressive and prolific
journalist, V. E. Lvov. He seemed to take into account Fock's arrest
and
charged him not only with idealism but also with adherence to fascist
methods!
Fock had to defend
himself and his science. He sent three letters. In the first one,
addressed to
the Leningrad public prosecutor, Fock demanded prosecution of Lvov for
libel
and defamation. The second letter was addressed to the Central
Committee of
Communist Party, and there Fock wrote about the harm done by Lvov to
Soviet
science. In the third, a seven-page letter of February 13, 1938 to the
Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, Fock, without any delicacy,
expressed his
misgivings about Mitkevich's efforts and insisted on abolishing a
(quasi-)
philosophical academy session devoted to physics. Judging by all that
is known,
it was Fock who was the main force in preventing this harmful session
(Gorelik
1990).
In the same letter,
Fock wrote about the desirability of good philosophical discussion of
the new
physics based on Diamat. He was sincere in writing these
sentiments, for
we have Fock's manuscript "Does Quantum Mechanics Contradict
Materialism?" (23 pp.), dated November 1937. The discussion of 1937
became
the subject of the article (Fock 1938a) published in the journal Under
the
Banner of Marxism.
In 1937 Fock was
parted from many of his colleagues, who became the victims of the Great
Terror.
In August, M. P. Bronstein was arrested. When Fock heard about this he
went
personally to Bronstein's home to learn exactly what had happened
(Gorelik and
Frenkel 1990). In 1937, this was a very courageous and unusual act. He
also
signed letters in defense of repressed scientists.
Ten years later
Fock wrote the official review of works by D. Iwanenko and A. Sokolov
on
quantum gravity, which were being presented for the Stalin prize. In
this
review Fock mentioned the name of M. P. Bronstein, then "an enemy of
the
people," many times. In particular,
Whatever causes compelled the
authors to
avoid mentioning Bronstein's achievements, their work may not be
considered as
the construction of the quantum theory of gravitation, for this theory
was
created by Bronstein 11 years earlier. [Personal file of V. A. Fock. Archives Acad.
Sci.
USSR 1034-1-549].
The
facts pointed out here provide a social portrait of Fock and will help
us to
understand his attitude to GTR better.
3. Fock's Work on Motion in GTR
The year 1939 was a
landmark in Fock's biography. He became a full member of the Academy of
Sciences and his interests in fundamental physics had moved from
quantum theory
to gravitation. In 1939, Fock (1939a) published a long paper on motion
in GTR.
Without discussing the entirety of this important work (Havas 1989), I
shall
single out only a few essential points for our theme.
Fock begins with
the difference between his and Einstein's points of view on GTR as a
whole. For
Fock, GTR is the foremost theory of gravitation and therefore must be
applied
to phenomena in which gravitation dominates, "i. e., to phenomena of an
astronomical scale," but not to problems on an atomic scale. But at the
same time he assesses very skeptically (or worse) "the so-called
cosmological problem": "In the modem state of knowledge, any attempt
to consider the Universe as a whole has to be of a speculative
character."
Fock based his
approach on the following: "in the atomic world it is observed that
electrical forces greatly dominate the forces of gravity," "the great
successes of quantum mechanics during the last 10-15 years and the
complete
fruitlessness of Einstein's attempt to explain elementary particles by
means of
a unified field theory." Nevertheless, Fock concludes:
One should admire the creation
of
Einstein's genius, which is so rich in physical content in spite of its
seeming
abstractness. I hope this paper will help to reveal the physical
content of this
remarkable theory.
In
a popular article, dedicated to Einstein's jubilee, Fock (1939b)
expressed his
position in stronger words, both in criticism in relation to cosmology
and in
appreciation of Einstein: "one of the greatest modem scientists, whose
name
is known and dear to every educated man and is shining equally as the
name of
Newton." In 1939 such enthusiastic appreciation of a "bourgeois"
scientist known for his "idealistic" philosophical and
"bourgeois-liberal" political views, was already very exotic.
Now let us return
to Fock's paper itself, to one of its elements which was of a purely
mathematical nature but later acquired considerable physical and even
philosophical meaning. This element is the coordinate condition
Dxn = 0,
where D
is the covariant D'Alembertian (there are different forms of this
condition).
The corresponding coordinate systems are called harmonic.
One of the main
peculiarities distinguishing Fock's work from
Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann's
corresponding work is its view on the choice of coordinate systems. The
physical statement of the problem, with the aim of correlation with
Newton's
equations of motion and post-Newtonian terms, leads to such conditions
as the
weakness of the gravitational field, its insular character (planetary
system),
and Euclidean character at infinity. But to solve the field equations
of GTR it
is necessary to add coordinate conditions, having chosen sufficiently
definite
coordinate systems.
For Einstein, with
his understanding of GTR, the choice of coordinates was a question of
technique
or mathematics. And Einstein's choice leads to such a laborious pathway
to the
solution that the computations could not go into the publication and
were cited
from a complete manuscript in the Princeton Institute.
Fock, having chosen
harmonic coordinates, found, as he wrote, "a much simpler" pathway to
the solution. Already in the paper of 1939 he attempted to base his
choice on
more than mathematical grounds.
Having mentioned de
Donder and Lanczos, "who first (in 1921, 1923) had pointed out the
simplification reached by means of harmonic coordinates," Fock does not
limit himself to pure mathematics. In his words,
Harmonic coordinates are the
nearest in
their properties to ordinary rectangular coordinates and ordinary time
in the
Minkowski "world." That is why, in these coordinates, the GTR
formulas are the clearest.
Fock
supposes that the harmonic coordinate system "deserves the name of
inertial," because he considers it
most probable that from
Euclideanness at
infinity and from its harmonic character (in connection possibly with
some
additional conditions like the radiation condition), our coordinate
system is
defined uniquely, with the indeterminacy of an ordinary Lorentz
transformation.... As it seems to me, the possibility of introducing,
in the
general theory of relativity, uniquely defined inertial coordinate
system
deserves to be noted.
Judging
from the content of Fock's paper (1939a), it seems that the paper is
not merely
the solution of a certain problem, but the beginning of a large program
of
work. The war interrupted this work, however, and Fock came to be busy
with
more applied physical problems.
4. The Contribution of Nikolaus Copernicus to the General Theory of Relativity
The first postwar testimony of Fock's reflections on gravity is his
rather
short paper (1947) dedicated to Copernicus's jubilee. Why did he write
on
Copernicus? There are no other traces of Fock's interest in the history
of
science outside the twentieth century.
It is possible to
point out several very different causes. In the ideological life of the
postwar
USSR, the most "militant materialism" reigned. Idealism (crossed with
anti-patriotism and cosmopolitanism) was attacked in different fields
of
science. Debates over the state ideology of Marxism-Stalinism became
very
leaden, strictly black and white, or, more exactly, red and white. The
list of
saints and enemies of progress had been formed, and Copernicus had one
of the
most respectable places among the heroes of science. The state
attention to the
great Polish founder of the new astronomy was strengthened by state
political
interests in Eastern Europe.
In Soviet ideology,
the positive Copernicus was indissolubly connected with the negative
Ptolemy.
In a paper, the first in the jubilee volume, Idelson (1947), side by
side with
a profound analysis of Copernicus's works, had to mention also "the
wise
words of comrade I. V. Stalin," which consisted only of the phrase
"decayed system of Ptolemy."
And it is the pair
"Ptolemy-Copernicus" that cast a shadow on general relativity. Of
course, the shadow was due not to these classics themselves but to the
soldiers
of the cause of the one true philosophy. Being ignoramuses in physics,
they
looked for philosophical mistakes only in popular texts. In such texts
dealing
with GTR, in order to explain the basic ideas (or for effect), the
equal
correctness of Ptolemy's and Copernicus's points of view was asserted,
e. g.,
Friedmann 1923; Einstein and Infeld 1938.
In contrast with
other articles of the jubilee volume, Fock did not base his article on
an
appropriate historical interest in 400-year-old events. In spite of the
title
of his article, it was not his aim to illuminate the relationship
between
Copernicus and Ptolemy by means of GTR. To the contrary, he preferred
to use a
controversy, solved long ago, in order to illuminate his understanding
of GTR
as a geometric theory of gravity. A second and no less important aim
was to
defend Einstein's theory against ignorant and malicious critics.
In short, in Fock's
article of 1947 were present all the main elements of his treatment of
GTR
(which henceforth he named "Einstein's theory of gravity"):
(1) the radical devaluation of the principles
of
general relativity, covariance and equivalence;
(2) the
possibility of introducing
as space and time coordinates
those variables which are
quite analogous to the rectangular Cartesian coordinates and the time
coordinates of the special theory of relativity (harmonic
coordinates).... The
essential condition for this is the requirement of pseudo-euclidean
geometry of
space-time at infinity...; this requirement is satisfied for systems of
masses
like a solar system. (Pock 1947, p. 185)
Based
on this, Fock firmly rehabilitated "the immortal creation of
Copernicus—the
heliocentric theory of the solar system."
Fock's
argumentation, which has been recounted many times since, is well known
due to
his monograph of 1955 (2nd edition in 1961 and English editions in
1959, 1964).
That is why we may consider only the principal relevant circumstances
from 1947
to the mid 1950s.
5. Fock's "Theory of Space, Time and Gravity" against the Background of His Gravity, His Time, and His Space
The next
publication on the theory of gravitation that Fock prepared was in
1948. It was
based on his pre-war work. In addition to concrete results, he also
developed
his understanding of the fundamental ideas of Einstein's theory.
Admitting the
historical, heuristic role of the principle of equivalence, Fock denies
its
validity in the complete theory. He also denies any particular physical
role of
covariance and general relativity as a more general relativity than in
the
special theory of relativity. For Fock, Einstein's theory is solely a
geometrical theory of gravity. In his words: "I gave a detailed account
of
my point of view on Einstein's theory of gravity because Einstein's
point of
view, which I consider as wrong, is dominant up to today" (Fock 1950.
p.
70).
The end of the
1940s and the beginning of the 1950s in the USSR were not very suitable
years
for pure, subtle theory. Soviet physics found itself under the
strongest social
pressure. After a notorious session of VASHNIL in 1948 had devastated
Soviet
biology, a similar session was prepared for physics. The unhealthy
ambitions of
some physicists in unhealthy social conditions were embodied in the
struggle
against "physical idealism, anti-patriotism and cosmopolitanism." In
this struggle, V. Fock was of course on the side of genuine science,
defending
relativistic and quantum physics and scientific ethics (Gorelik 1991).
He based
this activity also on Diamat (Fock 1949).
It was at this same
difficult time that discussion of the foundations of relativity was
revived by
publication in 1950 of lectures delivered by L. I. Mandelshtam in the
1930s
(Mandelshtam died in 1944). In these lectures, in particular, an
operational
approach to physical concepts was used and attention was paid to
conventional
elements in the definitions of the special theory of relativity. Fock,
in his
review (1951), gave a high estimate of the scientific and pedagogic
significance of Mandelshtam's lectures but criticized the operational
and
conventional elements.
The question,
however, which had been the subject of a methodological analysis of a
physical
theory for Fock, became a crime for ignorant philosophical overseers.
They
attacked "bourgeois idealism" on the whole, "reactionary
Einsteinism" (Maksimov 1952) in particular and Mandelshtam with his
school
as "the seed-bed of idealism in USSR" especially; to "physical
idealism" it was easy to add also anti-"cosmopolitan" arguments
because there were a great many Jews among Soviet physicist-theorists.
One of
the highest ranking among these philosophical overseers was A. A.
Maksimov
(1891-1976).
The main defender
of genuine science was the academician Fock, whose arguments were both
scientific and Diamatic. He demolished Maksimov in the leading
philosophical journal (Fock 1953a)—and Maksimov was on the journal's
editorial
board.
It was in just such
a social atmosphere that Fock went on to elaborate his treatment of
Einstein's
theory of gravity.
In a sense, 1955
became the year of summation. In that year Fock's monograph The
Theory of
Space, Time and Gravity was published, but for our theme a much
less
scientific article written by Fock for the principal Soviet newspaper Pravda
is more interesting. This article was entitled "Half a Century of Great
Discovery. About the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein." We have
the
good fortune of looking at this article through the eyes of two
remarkable
contemporaries—academicians Igor Tamm and Vladimir Fock—because of
letters they
exchanged on November 13 and 17, 1955. [Personal file of V. A. Fock.
Archives
Acad. Sci. USSR 1034-3-691: 31-32; 1034-3-160: 8-10].
Judging from the
correspondence they kept (the earliest letter is dated 1929) and the
testimony
of their colleagues, these outstanding Soviet theorists were connected
by a
mutual respect in both scientific and moral spheres.
The manuscript of Fock's
article was sent to Tamm from Pravda for his information. It
was his
reaction to this article that led to Tamm's letter. Having recalled
Fock's
anti-Maksimov article of 1953 approvingly, Tamm expressed his doubts
about the
appropriateness of a polemic with Einstein and the discussion of his
philosophical errors in a jubilee newspaper article. In the same letter
Tamm
invited Fock (with great respect for his "fundamental works in quantum
electrodynamics and theory of space and time") to take part in
investigations
on quantizing space-time. This idea attracted Tamm's attention very
much then.
Fock's letter,
clear and detailed, answers all Tamm's remarks in the following way. He
had not
intended to write a praising, jubilee article, he explained, but a
critical
review of a published book (the Russian translation of Einstein's The
Meaning of Relativity). The article turned out to be rather
difficult, but
its subject was fairly difficult too. "Einstein is a great physicist,
but
he is not a very good mathematician," Fock wrote.
His mathematical errors have to
be
pointed out. For Einstein's reputation it is useful to cleanse his
theory of
erroneous statements. It would be a tactical mistake to keep silent
about
Einstein's erroneous philosophical statements. The only way for physics
to get
immunity from philosophical attacks is to admit philosophical errors by
physicists themselves and to separate these errors from the entity of
theory.
Fock
concluded:
Publication in a leading
newspaper of an
article about Einstein signed by me—independently of its
intelligibility—1
consider as very useful because:
(a) it amounts to official recognition in
our country
of the theory of relativity as a great discovery and great achievement
of human
genius,
(b)
this recognition is made without grovelling and with
reasonable criticism,
(c)
the philosophical sins of Einstein are mentioned but
have been forgiven.
In
these letters the discussion concerned only the social status of GTR.
But, in
just a few weeks, the possibility had arisen of giving an account of
their true
scientific views.
On November 30,
1955 there was an open session of the Academy of Sciences of USSR,
dedicated to
the 50-year jubilee of the theory of relativity. An introductory speech
was made
by Tamm. His closest colleague, V. L. Ginzburg, delivered the paper
"Experimental Testing of the General Theory of Relativity," and Fock
delivered a paper on the equations of motion. These papers, together
with some
others, comprised the memorial volume Einstein and Modern Physics.
Fock's viewpoint is represented in the volume very lucidly and in a way
that is
especially convenient for us. It is in two components: critical and
constructive.
The volume includes
Einstein's "Autobiographical Notes," which were translated and
commented on by Fock. He begins with Einstein's philosophical views;
however,
his reduction of the many-colored ("extremely inconsequent")
philosophical palette of the great physicist into the sharp dichotomy
of the
terms "materialism--idealism" seems to be a ritual duty. In
considering Einstein's pathway to the theory of gravity, Fock does
without
philosophy at all. He criticizes Einstein's reasonings, "which finally
led
him to his gravitation theory of genius," and criticizes his "logical
inconsistencies," "incorrect use of terms," etc. The questions
are, as before, in relativity, covariance, and equivalence (Fock
1956b).
Fock's paper on the
equations of motion contains the following constructive statements. For
isolated (insular) systems, it is possible to state "conditions
determining the coordinate system uniquely, with an indeterminacy up to
a
Lorentz transformation (harmonic coordinates)." For Einstein's theory,
the
harmonic coordinate system has a significance in principle, because
"the
existence of such a system reflects the objective properties of the
space-time
continuum." The introduction of harmonic coordinates allows the
recovery
of the equations of motion of masses taking into account their inner
structure,
all ten classical integrals of motion including relativistic
corrections, and
the gravitational potentials at large distances.
What reception did
Fock's position find with his colleagues?
In Tamm's article
there is only one phrase indicating that " 'the special and general
theories of relativities' may be not very good terms." In opposition to
Fock, one can see the great importance attached by Tamm to cosmology.
A more definite
opinion was expressed in Ginzburg's paper, although he also avoided
"fundamental questions on space and time, geometry and the theory of
field
in their connection with the general theory of relativity." According
to
Ginzburg (1956), GTR is "first of all a relativistic theory of
gravity" for which the principle of equivalence is "the basic
physical statement," and the principle of general relativity in itself
is
not physical. Nevertheless, referring to Einstein, who had to admit
this last
point in 1918, Ginzburg stated that he does not agree with "the opinion
of
Fock, who says that the 'theory of gravity was incorrectly understood
by its
author' " (Ginzburg 1956, p. 136).
A straightforward
opponent of Fock (and possibly more Einsteinian than Einstein himself)
was L.
Infeld, who, in the same memorial volume, wrote:
I am not in agreement with
Professor Fock
that one should add certain conditions to the theory of relativity, the
conditions picking out harmonic systems. During my visit in the Soviet
Union
(1955), I, to my great surprise, have been convinced that Professor
Fock stands
apart in this question, and that physicists of such caliber as Landau,
Tamm,
and Ginzburg are in disagreement with his attitude. (Infeld 1956, p.
238)
This
discrepancy, this communication gap between Fock and his physicist
colleagues,
was maintained for many years, up to his death, in spite of his
persistent
efforts to elucidate his viewpoint (Fock 1967; Ginzburg 1973). One may
find
clear testimony of the failure of his efforts in the volume published
in the
USSR on Einstein's centenary that collected major works in the theory
of
gravity (Albert Einstein i teoria gravitatsii, 1979). This
volume
contains two of Fock's papers (1929, 1939a), but on the volume's jacket
there
is the phrase: "... general theory of relativity, i. e., mechanics of
arbitrary accelerated system...."
6. Principles of Relativity and Complementarity for the History of Physics
Thinking over the
communication gap between Fock and Tamm (as expressed in their
letters), or,
more generally, between Fock and his physicist colleagues, both in
scientific-methodological and in social-philosophical spheres, one
should avoid
a quick and simple judgement over who was right and who was wrong. Both
positions were pure and honest, but the difference that could not be
removed
stemmed from the difference in their personalities.
To comprehend this
situation, a historian of physics might take a lesson from the
experience of
20th-century physics. In our case one might take a lesson from a short
article
written by Fock himself. While summing up the theory of relativity and
quantum
mechanics epistemologically, and their experience of dealing with
non-absolute
truths, Fock concluded:
As the history of the
development of
science shows, general principles established for one field of
knowledge may be
applicable also in other fields. I believe that such general character
is
possessed by the principle of relativity to the means of
observation. In
this is its philosophical meaning. (Fock 1971)
Of
course, in the history of science, to determine a "frame of
reference" or "means of observation" for an outstanding
scientist is much more difficult than in special relativity or in
quantum
mechanics. But only after having determined the "direction vectors"
of the scientist's world view and having tied these vectors to his
unique
personality can a historian hope to comprehend his life path.
Now it is time to
connect the fairly heterogeneous events from Fock's biography as
described
above. To connect them with one life line, first of all, it is
necessary to
describe his frame of life references. One should begin with the
vectors
characterizing his scientific standpoint, because, for a genuine
scientist, and
for Fock especially, these vectors are the most important.
According to the
prominent experimental physicists P. Kapitsa and D. Rozhdestvensky, who
knew
Fock very well, "This is a man detached from common life due to his
almost
absolute deafness. The whole of his life is persistent work with
scientific
problems"; "Fock thinks by mathematical images and it is very
difficult for him to go deeply into the mentality of an experimentalist
or
average man, in spite of his permanent readiness to help everybody who
asks
him" (Kapitsa 1989, p. 124; Frenkel 1990, p. 150; [Personal File of V.
A.
Fock] Archives Russian Acad. Sci. 411-14-127, p. 6 [note 1]). This is,
why one
should turn to Fock's philosophy and social conduct only after having
considered his scientific psychology.
If one had to
characterize the foundation of Fock's frame of mental references in two
words,
they seem to be "mathematicity and sobriety." One may consider as key
his phrases such as "The correct mathematical framing of a physical
problem always must ensure the uniqueness of a solution" (Fock 1956c,
p. 160).
Mathematicity itself does not exclude a romantic attitude to physics
(e. g., H.
Weyl), but Fock was an anti-romantic.
Without taking this
into account, it would be rather comical to see Fock criticizing
Einstein's
intermediate inferences that led to his theory of genius. Here Fock
recalled
Einstein's confession that his mathematical intuition was not
sufficiently
strong (Fock 1956b, p. 79). But a physicist would prefer to recall
other words
of Einstein: "Unless one sins against logic one generally gets nowhere;
or, one cannot build a house or construct a bridge without using a
scaffold
which is really not one of its basic parts" (Einstein 1953, p. 147).
Fock had "the
means of observation" to appreciate Einstein's achievements of genius
and
he did admit that Einstein had achieved his results by means of these
"incorrect" concepts and inferences, but to go mentally into this
incorrect practice was, for Fock, precluded by his mathematical powers.
It was
quite clear to Fock (as well as to his colleague-geometricians) that in
Riemann
geometry, the zero-curvature case has the most symmetry, that the
principle of
equivalence cannot be formulated inside GTR.
If there are
perfect, exactly defined mathematical structures, why should one not
set aside
logically dubious constructs without exact mathematical meaning,
regardless of
their historical merits? If the building is finished, why should one
not take
the scaffold away?
This applies to the
principle of equivalence and to the idea of general relativity, which
were
important for creating GTR but then dissolved in its mathematical
structure.
The same applies to the operational analysis of definitions, by means
of which
L. Mandelshtam introduced the special theory of relativity (STR) in his
lectures. For a mathematician, in the latter case, to describe
Minkowski space
is quite enough. But for a physicist, even aside from pedagogics, it is
not
enough.
Einstein modeled
physics with the following epistemological scheme:
E =>A => S
=> E,
where E is
the variety of immediate experiences of the senses, A is a
system of
axioms, and S are statements deduced (Einstein 1952, p. 137).
Mathematical physics (as represented by Fock) reigns over the section A® S, while theoretical
physics deals with the sections E => A and S =>
E.
Fock reproached Einstein
by saying "his general inferences proceed as if they did not take into
account that any physical theory is approximative in essence" (Fock
1956b,
p. 74). The physicist-theorist looking for a new system of axioms
certainly
does have to forget that it is approximate. At the same time, in order
to be
prepared for the coexistence and succession of different axiom systems,
he
should pay special attention to the section E => A.
Fock's attitude
toward cosmology was especially revealing, if one remembers that
nonstatic
cosmology was born in front of him. Of course, his concern was not with
the
mathematical side of cosmological solutions, but rather with their
physical
meaning. In 1939 he disassociated himself from cosmological
speculations and
even reproached them. Later, and up to the end of his life, Fock
mentioned
formally or described very briefly the mathematics of cosmological
applications
of GTR, but certainly, in his heart, there were no kind feelings for
relativistic cosmology. Cosmology as "a model of the world on the
whole" he considered philosophically unsatisfactory; he wrote about
"risky extrapolation" and questioned the applicability of GTR to
"cosmologically huge regions of space and time" (Fock 1955, p. 464;
1967, p. 33; 1973, p. 72).
What were the
causes of such an attitude to cosmology, besides the well-known
discrepancy of
the Hubble age with the data of geo- and astrophysics? (It had to be
especially
important for the sober-minded Fock.) One can see the main causes in
his
"mathematical sobriety" and in the pressure of his own scientific
experience.
It is difficult to
read without a smile Fock's explanation for his colleagues:
In any field theory, formulated
by means
of partial differential equations, boundary conditions (or conditions
which can
replace them) are as important as the equations themselves; without
such
conditions the field cannot be determined. (Fock 1956b, p. 79)
—isn't
this a student's question?!
To be important for
mathematical uniqueness is not equivalent to being important in the
history of
physics. But for Fock, who was sure that the mathematically correct
formulation
of a problem is unique, the absence of boundaries and the non-unique
extrapolation of cosmological conditions could not replace the clear
boundary
conditions in the island problem (isolated system).
The theoretical
necessity of the relativistic generalization of celestial mechanics was
based
on a centuries-old, solid foundation, but behind cosmology stood only
irresponsible speculations.
Such a position had
to be strengthened by Fock's scientific success in solving the island
problem.
And his attitude toward harmonic coordinates, by means of which he had
solved
the island problem, had to be strengthened also by his results
concerning the
conservation laws for the insular system.
Let us pay
attention to what Fock said about the ten conservation laws (commonly,
in other
treatments of GTR, only four laws of conservation of energy and
momentum are
discussed). In classical mechanics and STR the existence often
conservation
laws is connected with the 10-dimensionality of the Galileo and
Poincare
groups, or with the 10-dimensionality of the set of Cartesian inertial
frames
of reference, and, finally, with the four-dimensionality of space-time.
This
connection is produced in a most clear and profound way by Noether's
theorem
(which Fock, however, did not use).
Generalizing the
equations of motion and conservation laws for insular systems placed
Fock's
results on a solid, historically scientific base (in which Fock
included also
Copemicus's theory). This stimulated Fock to "ontologize" his
successful method of solving the problem—harmonic coordinate systems.
It is
impossible, however, to build Fock's analysis (of the insular system by
means
of harmonic coordinates) straightforwardly in a cosmological setting. A
Euclidean character at infinity is incompatible with any non-trivial
cosmology.
"So much the worse for cosmology," Fock thought, perhaps.
Some elements of
Fock's understanding of GTR were adopted, especially by geometrically
orientated physicists (the meaning of the principle of equivalence and
general
covariance, necessity of coordinate condition). Fock's belief that
harmonic
coordinates were privileged in principle and comparable with Einstein's
equations in significance remained unadopted.
(Fock's
interpretation of GTR allows, however, for adaptation to common modem
treatments necessarily including cosmology. Harmonic coordinates may be
transformed into the idea of a standard coordinate system generated by
the
inner metrical structure of the given space-time [such coordinates were
first
introduced by Riemann himself]. Based on metrical coordinates, it is
possible
in a general geometry to introduce a 10-dimensional quasi-group,
generalizing
the ordinary Poincare group for the variable curvature case. With the
help of
this construction, one can realize the correspondence between GTR, STR,
and
Newtonian gravity in terms of the island situation and the ten
conservation
laws of energy-momentum-moment [Gorelik 1988].)
Having described
the scientific part of Fock's frame of reference, we can pass to its
social-ideological part. The latter occupied, of course, not much time.
From
Fock's texts and from testimonies of those who knew him (Aleksandrov
1988,
1989; Feinberg 1990; Fock 1991, 1993) emerges the image of a scholar
absorbed
in his science and, beyond science, honest and self-respecting,
responsible and
fearless, sympathetic and rather schematic, or mathematical.
If a man belongs to
science with his whole mind and heart, it seems probable that, in his
life
outside science, he is guided by his professional methodology as far as
possible. But what if his professional methodology proves to be
insufficient in
his scientific field? What if, for example, he fails to find a common
language
with colleagues in spite of great efforts? There is no other way to
explain
this failure apart from some external factors, though Fock himself
hardly would
have attributed philosophy to external factors.
Fock learned Diamat
at the beginning of the 1930s. His textbook was Lenin's Materialism
and
Empirio-Criticism. It is difficult to reconstruct exactly Fock's
understanding of Diamat from his texts, which contain few
quotations.
Undoubtedly Fock found in Diamat something important and
interesting for
himself, in spite of police inculcation, a flood of quasi-philosophy,
abusive
polemics, and anachronisms.
Fock was not alone
in his relation with Diamat. There is no room in this chapter
for a
general discussion of Marxist philosophy, its natural-scientific roots,
and the
socialist prejudices of physicists. Here one must notice only that,
among
Soviet physicists, there existed various individual combinations of
attitudes
to different components of Marxist or Soviet ideology, to dialectical
and
historical materialism, and to the theory and practice of Soviet
socialism.
Adherence to one part might be accompanied by indifference to another
and
hostility to a third.
Fock belonged with
those who, being predisposed to a philosophical view, found a good base
in Diamat.
Behind Fock's Diamat, however, one could, with some
imagination,
recognize something close to Platonic (true mathematical) idealism:
Fock
believed in the existence of one true philosophy as the most general
scheme or
quintessence that uniquely realized the evolution of scientific
knowledge.
Such an attitude
radically differs from the one of (the physicist) Einstein, who
supposed that
the physicist has the right (or even obligation) to philosophical
opportunism,
taking, depending on circumstances, the positions of realist, idealist,
positivist... (Einstein 1949).
In speaking about
Fock's social psychology, one should take into account that, to Niels
Bohr, he
seemed to resemble Pier Bezukhov. Perhaps due to Fock's European roots,
to the
honest, fearless, and profound hero of L. Tolstoy, one should also add
a
somehow not-so-Russian respect for law, regularity, and stubbornness.
Fock seemed to be
satisfied with the theoretical postulates of Soviet power. To judge the
conformity
of beautiful schemes with social practice was more difficult for Fock
than for
his colleagues (most of whom kept social illusions for a long time).
Apart from
the previously mentioned "detachment from life" and deafness, his own
biography might prevent him from seeing social reality. Was he not
twice
arrested and did not justice "triumph" twice?!
Fock perceived the
Stalinist terror (the true scale of which was unknown) as a natural
disaster,
saying that "cowardice does not influence the probability of arrest"
(Aleksandrov 1988, p. 489), and he fearlessly defended those who found
themselves under this probability. When social reality (personified,
for
example, by A. Maksimov) invaded his science, Fock acted resolutely
and, as his
letter to Tamm shows, rather deliberately. But beyond his own science
his
judgements were fairly schematic. He wrote in this schematic way, for
example,
about the conservation of energy in Fock 1949. Some of his judgments in
the
social field were even more schematic and conforming to the "logic"
of Soviet newspapers.
Having limited
ourselves to this description of Fock's frame of reference, let us,
based on
this frame, look at the last three decades of Fock's life in the theory
of
gravity.
Fock persistently,
without sparing effort, explains his (true) understanding of Einstein's
theory
of gravity, including also certain mathematical clarifications (Fock
1953b,
1956a, 1956b, 1967). The answer to Fock was silence or evasive words or
repetition of old words, mathematically meaningless, although
sanctified by the
great physicist. When, in scientific discussion, scientific arguments
are
exhausted, additional reasons are sought beyond science. And the
direction of
the search is prompted by the socio-cultural atmosphere around the
scientist
through his own world view. As a result,
It is possible that the
difference
between the points of views of the two schools [Einstein's and Fock's]
on
given, concrete questions is not incidental but connected with the
difference
in their general philosophical directions. (Fock 1955, p. 472)
With
regard to another frame of reference (call it "Tamm's"), one must say
that, among its inhabitants, there were no specialists in GTR
comparable with
Fock. These inhabitants were physicist-theorists who could not ignore
the
laboratory-Newtonian experience behind the abstract Riemannian
constructions of
GTR and could not look at the physical world from inside Riemannian
space-time.
Apart from this, these physicists could not see through the mud just
recently
thrown at "reactionary Einsteinism."
A historian who has
attempted to account for a communication gap between outstanding
scientists and
has found an explanation in the difference of their frames of mental
references
runs the danger of being accused of superciliousness. After all, he
claims to
see what the scientists in question failed to see.
To ward off such
accusations one can recall once more Fock's article of 1971 and
designate as
complementary scientific creativity and the ability to shift easily
from one
scientific frame of reference to another. The former demands of a
scientist to
stand firmly within his own frame of reference. There is no doubt that
Fock's
frame of reference led him to outstanding scientific achievements, and
the
cooperation of different frames of mental reference is necessary for
the
successful development of science.
References
Anon., ed. (1979). Albert
Einstein i
teoriya gravitatsii. Moscow: Mir. Aleksandrov, Aleksandr D. (1988).
"Vladimir Aleksandrovich Fock" [Russian]. In
Aleksandrov, A. D., Problemy
nauki i
pozitsiya uchenogo. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 489-496.
——— (1989). Interview given to G.
Gorelik,
October 17, 1989.
Einstein, Albert (1949). "Remarks
Concerning the Essays Brought Together in This Co-operative Volume." In
Albert
Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Paul A. Schilpp, ed. Evanston: The
Library
of Living Philosophers, pp. 683-684.
——— (1952). Letter to Solovine, May
7, 1952. Letters
to Solovine. New York, 1987. pp. 135-139.
——— (1953). Letter to Solovine, May
28, 1953.
Letters to Solovine. New York, 1987. p. 147.
Einstein, Albert and Infeld, Leopold
(1938). The
Evolution of Physics. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Einstein, Albert, Infeld, Leopold,
and
Hoffmann, Banesh (1938). "Gravitational Equation and the Problem of
Motion." Annals of Mathematics 39: 65-100.
Feinberg, Evgeniy. (1990). Interview
given to
G. Gorelik, February 28, 1990.
Fock, Mikhail. (1991). Interview
given to G.
E. Gorelik, April 15, 1991.
———(1993). "Recollections about
Father" [Russian]. Voprosy Istorii Estestvoznania i Tekniki. 2:
80-87; 3: 90-98.
Fock,
Vladimir. (1922). [Summary of the
lecture for the philosophical circle, September 6, 1922]. Archives Academy of Sciences USSR
1034-1-191: 1-3.
———
(1929).
"Geometrisierung der Diracschen Theorie des Elektrons." Zeitschrift fur Physik 57: 261-277.
———
(1934). "For Truly Scientific Soviet
Book" [Russian]. Sorena 3: 132-136.
———
(1937). "Does Quantum Mechanics
Contradict Materialism?" (November 1937) [Russian]. Archives Academy of
Sciences USSR 1034-1-361.
———
(1938a). "On the Discussion on
Problems of Physics" [Russian]. Pod znamenem marksizma 1:
140-159.
———
(1938b). Letter to Presidium of Academy
of Sciences USSR, February 13, 1938. In Gorelik 1990, pp. 27-29.
———
(1939a). "On Movement of Finite
Masses in the General Theory of Relativity" [Russian]. Zhumal
experimental'noi i teoreticheskoi fiziki 9: 375-410; [in French] Journal
of Physics of USSR 1: 81-116.
———
(1939b). "Albert Einstein (On His
60-Year-Jubilee)" [Russian]. Priroda 1: 95-97.
———
(1940). Letter to the journal "Pod
znamenem marksizma" on the review by Ernest Kolman (No. 2, 1940) of
Landau
1939. Archives Academy of Sciences USSR 1515-2-98.
———
(1947). "The System of Copernicus
and the System of Ptolemy in the Light of the General Theory of
Relativity" [Russian]. In
Nikolay Kopemik. Naum I. Idelson, ed. Moscow:
Nauka, pp. 180-186.
———
(1949). "Basic Laws of Physics in
the Light of Dialectical Materialism" [Russian]. Vestnik
Leningradskogo
universiteta 4: 34-47.
———
(1950). "Some Applications of the
Ideas of Lobachevsky's Non-Euclidean Geometry to Physics" [Russian]. In
A.
P. Kotelnikov and V. A. Fock, Nekotorye primeneniya idey
Lobachevskogo v
mechanike i fizike. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 48-86.
———
(1951). "Review of the Book:
Mandelshtam, L. I., Polnoe sobranie trudov. Vol. 5. Moscow,
1950"
[Russian]. Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk 45: 160-163.
———
(1953a). "Against Ignorant Criticism
of Modem Physical Theories" [Russian]. Voprosy filosofii 1:
168-174.
———
(1953b). "Modem Theory of Space and
Time" [Russian]. Priroda 12: 13-26.
———
(1955). Theory of Space, Time and
Gravity. [Russian]. Moscow: Nauka.
{Fock, V. A. The theory of space,
time,
and gravitation. 2d rev. ed. Translated from the Russian by N. Kemmer.
New
York, Macmillan, 1964. xi, 448 p.}
———
(1956a). "Half-century of the Great
Discovery" [Russian]. Pravda April 15, 1956.
———
(1956b). "Remarks on Einstein's
Creative Autobiography" [Russian]. In Einstein i sovremenaya fizika.
Igor E. Tamm, ed. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 72-85.
(1956c).
"Equations of Motion of System
of Heavy Masses Taking into Account Their Inner Structure and Rotation"
[Russian]. Ibid. p. 160-162.
———(1963).
"A. A. Friedmann's Works in
the Theory of Gravitation by Einstein" [Russian]. Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk 80: 353-356.
———(1966a).
"The Grundprinzipien der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie." In Deutsche
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Einstein Simposium November 2-5, Berlin, pp. 27-37.
———(1966b).
"Comments" [on Graham
1966]. Slavic Review 25: 411-413.
———(1967).
Einstein's Theory and Physical
Relativity [Russian]. Moscow: Znanie.
———(1971).
"Principle of Relativity to
Means of Observation in Modem Physics" [Russian]. Vestnik Akademii
Nauk
SSSR 4: 8-12.
———(1973).
"Quantum Physics and
Philosophical Problems" [Russian]. In Fizicheskaya nauka i
filosoftya.
Mikhail E. Omel'anovsky, ed. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 55-77.
Frenkel, Viktor, ed. (1990). Fiziki
o
sebe. Leningrad: Nauka. Frederiks, Vsevolod K. (1921). "General
Principle of Relativity by Einstein" [Russian]. Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk 2: 162-188.
Friedmann,
Aleksandr. (1922). "Uber die Krummung des Raumes." Zeitschrift furPhysik 21: 326-332.
——— (1923). World as Space and
Time
[Russian]. Petrograd: Iskra.
Ginzburg, Vitaliy. (1956).
"Experimental
Testing of General Theory of Relativity" [Russian]. In Einstein i
sovremennaya fizika. Igor E. Tamm, ed. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 123, 136.
——— (1973). "General Relativity and
Copemicus's Heliocentric System" [Russian]. Voprosy filosofii
9,
10.
Gorelik, Gennady. (1988).
"Dimensionality of Space-Time and Poincare Quasi-group" [Russian]. In
Einsteinovsky sbornik 1984-1985. Igor Yu. Kobzarev, ed. Moscow:
Nauka,
pp. 271-300.
——— (1990). "Philosophical Problems
of
Soviet Physics in 1937" [Russian]. Voprosy Istorii Estestvoznania i
Tekniki 4: 17-31.
——— (1991). "University Physics and
Academy Physics" [Russian]. Voprosy Istorii Estestvoznania i
Tekniki 1:
31-46.
——— (1993). "V. A. Fock; Theory of
Gravitation and Philosophy" [Russian]. Priroda 10. (In press.)
Gorelik, Gennady, Frenkel, Viktor.
(1985).
"M. P. Bronstein and Quantum Gravity" [Russian]. In Einsteinovsky
sbornik 1980-198]. Igor Yu. Kobzarev, ed. Moscow: Nauka, pp.
291-327.
——— (1990). Matvey Petrovich
Bronstein
(1906-1938). Moscow: Nauka.
Graham, Loren R. (1966). "Quantum
Mechanics and Dialectical Materialism." Slavic Review 25:
381-410.
——— (1982). "The Reception of
Einstein's
Ideas: Two Examples from Contrasting Political Cultures." In Albert
Einstein. Historical and Cultural Perspectives. The Centennial
Symposium in
Jerusalem. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 107-138.
———(1987). Science, Philosophy
and Human
Behavior in the Soviet Union. New York.
Havas, Peter (1989). "The Early
History
of the 'Problem of Motion' in General Relativity." In Einstein
Studies.
Vol. 1, Don Howard and John Stachel, eds. Boston: Birkhauser, pp.
234-277.
Idelson, Naum. (1947). "Life and
Creative Work of Copernicus" [Russian]. In Nikolay Kopernik. Naum
I. Idelson, ed. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 5-42.
Infeld, Leopold (1956). "My
Recollections about Einstein" [Russian]. In Einstein i sovremennaya
fizika. I. Tamm, ed. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 197-260.
Kapitsa, Pyotr. (1989). Pis'ma o
nauke.
Moscow: Nauka.
Kozhevnikov, Aleksey. (1988). "V. A.
Fock
and the Method of Secondary Quantization" [Russian]. In Issledovaniya
po istorii fiziki i mekhaniki, 1988. Grigorian, Ashot T., ed.
Moscow:
Nauka, pp. 113-138.
Maksimov, Aleksandr. (1952). "Against
the Reactionary Einsteinism in Physics" [Russian]. Krasny Flot
June
12.
——— (1973). "About Some Negative
Phenomena at the Frontline of Philosophy " [Russian]. Archives Academy
of
Sciences USSR 1515-4a-327: 72.
Mandelshtam, Leonid. (1950). Polnoye
sobranie trudov. T. 5. Moscow: Nauka.
Markov, Moisey, ed. (1979). Einstein i filosofskie
problemy fiziki XX veka. Moscow: Nauka.
Medvedev, Boris.
(1977). Nachala teoreticheskoy fiziki. Moscow: Nauka.
Miroshnikov,
Mikhail I. ed. (1978).
V. A. Fock. K 80-letiyu
so dnya rozhdeniya. In Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Opticheskogo
Instituta.
Vol. 43. Leningrad.
Tamm, Igor, ed.
(1956). Einstein i sovremennaya fizika. Sbornik pamyati A.
Einsteina. Moscow: Nauka.
Vizgin, Vladimir and Gorelik,
Gennady (1987). "The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in
Russia." In The Comparative Reception of Relativity. Thomas F.
Glick, ed. Boston: Reidel, pp. 265-326.
V. A. Fock Chronology (Gravitational, Philosophical, Social)
1898 Born in St. Petersburg into
family of a
noble-scientist
1916 Enters Petrograd University
1917 Volunteers for frontline of
World War
Returns to the University
1922 Translates Friedmann's paper on
cosmology into German
1922 Gives lecture at philosophical
circle on
GTR
1927 Rockefeller grant-holder in
Gottingen
and Paris
1929 Riemannization of Dirac's
equation
1932 Corresponding member of Academy
of
Sciences USSR
Professor at Leningrad University
Publishes the first Russian textbook
on QM
Reads (with interest) Lenin's Materialism
and Empirio-Criticism
1934 Publishes a very critical review
of
physics books by the most prominent "materialists" and
anti-relativists
1935 First (one-day) arrest
1935 Examines M. Bronstein's thesis
on
quantum gravity
1937 Second (five-day) arrest
1938 Successful struggle to prevent
quasi-philosophical and anti-relativistic session in Academy of
Sciences USSR
1939 Full member of Academy of
Sciences USSR
1939 Paper on problem of motion in GTR
1939 Jubilee article about A. Einstein
1946 Stalin prize for the work on
propagation
of radio waves
1947 Formulates in the main his own
attitude
to GTR
1947 Defends Copernicus from
super-relativism
and relativity from super-materialism
1940s-50s Defends quantum and
relativistic
physics (on behalf of Diamat) and defends scientific ethics
1955 Takes part in the Bern jubilee
conference on GTR
1955 Monograph Theory of Space,
Time and
Gravitation
1955 Article "Half-century of the
Great
Discovery" for newspaper Pravda
1960s Persistently explains his
attitude to
GTR and expresses his adherence to Diamat
1974 Dies