英语论文网

ations but is restricted to physical space-time coordinate systems for physical interpretations (section 4). Then, Einstein’s version of infinitesimal equivalence principle for a curved Riemannian space-time is addressed (sections 5 & 6). To illustrate current misconceptions on Einstein’s principle, related calculations by R. C. Tolman [14] and V. A. Fock [11] are analyzed (section 7). In section eight, related issues are discussed. 2. Pauli’s Inadvertent Subtle Misinterpretation and the Frames of Reference It is well known that Pauli, at the age of 21, wrote an article on general relativity for the Mathematical Encyclopedia at the recommendation of A. Summerfeld. But, few other than historians knew that Einstein disagrees with Pauli’s interpretation of the equivalence principle [9]. Apparently, Summerfeld, or subsequently many other excellent theoreticians did not detect Pauli’s subtle mistake over years. In Pauli’s otherwise excellent article, he has indeed demonstrated his understanding of some subtle arguments of this subject. For instance, he pointed out the possibility of an antigravity coupling. So, Summerfeld’s judgment on Pauli’s understanding on this matter is partially right. Unfortunately, Pauli’s inadvertent misinterpretation on Einstein’s principle is very misleading. Let us trace back to the disagreement [9] between Einstein and Pauli. Pauli’s [3] version of the equivalence principle is as follows: “For every infinitely small world region (i.e. a world region which is so small that the space- and time-variation of gravity can be neglected in it) there always exists a coordinate system K0 (X1, X2, X3, X4) in which gravitation has no influence either in the motion of particles or any physical process.” Einstein strongly objected this version [9] and he argued that, for some cases, no matter how small the world region, special relativity would not exactly hold2). Apparently, Einstein regards the equivalence of the effects of an accelerated frame of reference and gravity being exact only for a special case as he implied in his 1916 paper and his book [1]. However, his critics disregarding this, for instance, the criticism of Ohanian and Ruffini [13, p. 54] to Einstein’s equivalence principle was based on misinterpreting the initial version of 1911 as a general equivalence between the acceleration and any gravity. Their inadequate understanding of Einstein’s principle is also evident from their another statement, “In order to avoid confusion, we will base our further development of gravitational theory on the very precise and unambiguous equality mI = mG. This equality is necessary and to a large e xtent, sufficient for the construction of the relativistic theory.” Apparently, they regarded their own confusion (see also section 6) as originated from Einstein. Another important point is that Einstein’s equivalence principle is related to acceleration toward a frame of reference [1,15]. On the other hand, Pauli’s version does not clarified, as Einstein [1,15] did, that the space-time continuum of reality is modeled with a physical space (-time) that includes a frame of reference on which the physical space-time coordinate system together with a space-time metric is based (see also sections 3 & 4). Consequently, Pauli’s version of the equivalence principle suggested incorrectly that a physical frame of reference does not play any role. Then, the existence of a local Minkowski space is presented as if only a possi