Skip to main content
Log in

Disturbing, but not surprising: Did Gödel surprise Einstein with a rotating universe and time travel?

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The question is raised as to the kind of methodology required to deal with foundational issues. A comparative study of the methodologies of Gödel and Einstein reveals some similar traits which reflect a concern with foundational problems. It is claimed that the interest in foundational problems stipulates a certain methodology, namely, the methodology of limiting cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. P. A. Schilpp, ed.,Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1970), p. 667.

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. Gödel,Collected Works (Vol. 2, Publications 1938–1974). S. Fefermanet al., eds. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990), pp. 127–128.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Max Jammer,Concepts of Force (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1957). Max Jammer,Concepts of Mass (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1961). Max Jammer,Concepts of Space (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2nd ed., 1969). Max Jammer,The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill, New York, London, 1966). Max Jammer,The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, London, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. J. Bulloff, T. C. Holyoke, and S. W. Hahn, eds.,Foundations of Mathematics: Symposium Papers Commemorating the Sixtieth Birthday of Kurt Gödel (Springer, New York, 1969), p. ix.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. Wang,Reflections on Kurt Gödel (Bradford Book, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 3rd printing, 1991), pp. 2–3, 30–40, 145: cf. E. G. Straus, “Reminiscences,” in G. Holton and Y. Elkana, eds.,Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Aspects (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1982), p. 422.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wang, Ref. 5, p. 151; cf. A. Pais,Subtle Is the Lord (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982), pp. 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  7. H. Wang,From Mathematics to Philosophy (Routledge, London, 1974), p. 170.

    Google Scholar 

  8. K. Gödel,On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems, B. Meltzer, translator, with Introduction by R. B. Braithwaite (Basic Books, New York, 1962). See also Wang. Ref. 5. pp. 156, 168, 178 and Ref. 7, pp. 172–77, 187–88, 321–24. P. Yourgrau,The Disappearance of Time: Kurt Gödel and the Idealistic Tradition in Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991), pp. 12–15 P. Bernays, “Scope and limits of axiomatics.” in M. Bunge, ed.,Delaware Seminar in the Foundations of Physics (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1967). pp. 188–191. For a criticism of the position of realism in mathematics, see S. F. Barker, “Realism as a philosophy of mathematics,” in Bulloffet al., Ref. 4, pp. 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ref. 4, p. x. For another schematic summary of Gödel's work see Wang, Ref. 5, pp. 26–27, 168, 196–197.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pais, Ref. 6, p. vii. See also C. Lanczos, “Einstein's path from special to general relativity,” in L. O'Raifeartaigh, ed.,General Relativity, papers in honor of J. L. Synge (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972), p. 8. W. H. McCrea, “On the objective of Einstein's work,”Br. J. Philos. Sci. 8, 18–29 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Einstein and N. Rosen, “The particle problem in the general theory of relativity,”Phys. Rev. 48, 73–77 (1935): cf. R. de Ritis and S. Guccione, “On Einstein's epistemology,”Epistemolgia 16, 97–122 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete,”Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935).

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Einstein, “Zur Theorie der Brownschen Bewegung,”Ann. Phys. 19, 371–381 (1906). A. Einstein, “Theorie der Lichterzeugung und Lichtabsorption.”Ann. Phys. 20, 199–206 (1906). See Pais, Ref. 6, pp. 55ff: Lanczos, Ref. 10, pp. 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Einstein, “Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt,”Ann. Phys. 17, 132–148 (1905); A. Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,”Ann. Phys. 17, 891–921 (1905). English translation in H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl,The Principle of Relativity, with notes by A. Sommerfeld (Dover, New York, 1952), pp. 37–65; A. Einstein,Out of My Later Years (Thames and Hudson, London, 1950), p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. Einstein, “Bemerkungen zu der Notiz von Hrn. Paul Ehrenfest: ‘Die Translation deformierbarer Elektronen und der Flaechesnsatz’,”Ann. Phys. 23, 206–208 (1907), pp. 206–207; cf. J. M. Klein, “Thermodynamics in Einstein's thought,”Science 157, 509–516 (1967), pp. 515–516.

    Google Scholar 

  16. E. Donini, “Einstein and a realistic conception of light-matter symmetry, 1905–1925,” in M. G. Doncel, A. Hermann, L. Michel, and A. Pais, eds.,Symmetries in Physics (1600–1980) (Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, 1987), p. 105; cf. pp. 109–111.

    Google Scholar 

  17. E. Mach,Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung Historisch-kritisch dargestellt (Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1889). E. Mach,The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development, T. J. McCormack, translator (Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1974). For further references see, e.g., J. Barbour and H. Pfister, eds.,Mach's Principle: From Newton's Bucket to Quantum Gravity (Birkhäuser, Boston/Basel/Berlin, 1995); P. G. Bergmann, “Ernst Mach and contemporary physics,” in R. S. Cohen and S. J. Seeger, eds.,Ernst Mach: Physicist and Philosopher (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science6, Dordrecht, 1970), pp. 69–78; P. W. Bridgman, “Significance of the Mach principle,”Am. J. Phys. 29, 32–36 (1961); M. Bunge, “Mach's critique of Newtonian mechanics,”Am. J. Phys. 34, 585–596 (1966); R. H. Dicke, “Cosmology, Mach's principle and relativity,”Am. J. Phys. 31, 500–509 (1963); R. H. Dicke, “The many faces of Mach,” and “The significance for the solar system of time-varying gravitation,” in H. Y. Chiu and W. F. Hoffmann, eds.,Gravitation and Relativity (Benjamin, New York, 1964), Chapters 7, 8; H. Goenner, “Mach's principle and Einstein's theory of gravitation,” in Cohen and Seeger,ibid., pp. 200–15: J. Hintikka, ed., “A Symposium on Ernst Mach,”Synthese 18, 132–301 (1968); G. Holton, “Mach, Einstein, and the search for reality,” in Cohen and Seeger,ibid., pp. 165–199; D. J. Raine, “Mach's principle and space-time structure,”Rep. Prog. Phys. 44, 1151–95 (1981); G. Wolters,Mach I, Mach II, Einstein und die Relativitätstheorie (De Gruyter, Berlin, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Koslow, “Mach's concept of Mass: program and definition,” in Hintikka, Ref. 17 220–221.

  19. See G. Hon, “On Kepler's awareness of the problem of experimental error,”Ann. Sci. 44, 545–591 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  20. A. Einstein,The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955), pp. 55–56.

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Sachs, “On the Mach principle and relative space-time,”Br. J. Philos. Sci. 23, 117–119 (1972), p. 117 (emphasis in the original); cf. M. Sachs, “Positivism, realism, and existentialism in Mach's influence on contemporary physics,”Philos. Phenom. Res. 30, 403–420 (1970), pp. 413, 415; M. Sachs,Ideas of the Theory of Relativity (Keter, Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 102–105, 137–147; M. Sachs, “On the Mach principle and general relativity,”Bri. J. Philos. Sci. 26, 49–51 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,”Ann. Phys. 49 4th ser., 769 (1916). For an English translation see Lorentzet al., Ref. 14, pp. 111–164.

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. Friedman,Foundations of Space-Time Theories (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1983), p. 206.

    Google Scholar 

  24. A. Einstein, “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,”Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akad. d. Wiss., Berlin, pp. 142–52 (1917); for an English translation see J. Bernstein and G. Feinberg, eds.,Cosmological Constants: Papers in Modern Cosmology (Columbia University Press, New York, 1986), p. 18. See also pp. 8–15 (Introduction).

  25. See, e.g., C. Hoefer, “Einstein's struggle for a Machian gravitation theory,”Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 25, 287–335 (1994), p. 332.

    Google Scholar 

  26. “…die Trägheit auf eine Wechselwirkung der Körper zurückgeführt werden müsse.” (A. Einstein, “Prinzipielles zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,”Ann. Phys. 55 4th ser., 241–244 (1918), p. 241, footnote 1.) Notice that Einstein interpreted Mach's idea in two different ways: (1) “a material particle does not move in unaccelerated motion relatively to space, but relatively to the center of all the other masses in the universe”; and (2) “inertia, as well as gravitation, depends upon a kind of mutual action between bodies.” (Einstein, Ref. 20, pp. 56, 99.); cf. Goenner, Ref. 17, p. 203; C. Ray,Time, Space and Philosophy (Routledge, London, 1991), pp. 133–34; Wolters, Ref. 17, pp. 52–57.

  27. “Das G-Feld ist restlos durch die Massen der Körper bestimmt.” (Einstein,ibid., 1918, emphasis in the original.); cf. Goenner, Ref. 17, p. 205; R. Adler, M. Bazin, and M. Schiffer,Introduction to General Relativity (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965), pp. 338–339.

  28. A. Grünbaum,Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, 2nd enlarged ed. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science12, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1974), pp. 419–420.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wolters, Ref. 17, p. 53. For an interesting comparison of the genesis of the general theory of Einstein with the quantum theory of Planck and the roles which the Mach principle and the quantum effect played in these theories respectively, see Strauss, footnote 6, p. 277.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hoefer, Ref. 25, p. 332. See also Holton, Ref. 17, pp. 177, 179; cf. P. Kerszberg,The Invented Universe: the Einstein-De Sitter Controversy (1916–17)and the Rise of Relativistic Cosmology (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989). pp. 83, 209, 213; G. Hon, “Gödel, Einstein, Mach: completeness of physical theory,” in B. Buldt, W. DePauliSchimanovich, E. Köhler, and P. Weibel, eds,Wahrheit und Beweisbarkeit, Kurt Gödels Leben und Werk (Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Wien, forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  31. K. Gödel, “An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein's field equations of gravitation,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 447–50 (1949). K. Gödel, “A remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy,” (1949) in Schilpp, Ref. 1, pp. 555–562. K. Gödel, “Rotating universes in general relativity theory.” (1950) in L. M. Graves, E. Hille, R. A. Smith, and O. Zariski, eds.,Proceedings of the 1950 International Congress of Mathematics (American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1952), 1, pp. 175–181; cf. Friedman, Ref. 23; D. Malament, “‘Time travel’ in the Gödeluniverse,”Proc. Philos. Sci. Assoc. 2, 91–100 (1984); D. Malament,J. Math. Phys. 28, 2427 (1987); H. Stein, “On the paradoxical time-structures of Gödel,”Philos. Sci. 37, 589–601 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  32. J. A. Wheeler, “Mach's principle as boundary condition for Einstein's equations,” inBoulder Lectures in Theoretical Physics (Interscience, 1962), p. 128; cf. Goenner, Ref. 17, pp. 208–212; Ray. Ref. 26, p. 144; Grünbaum, Ref. 28, pp. 422–424; Adleret al., Ref. 27, pp. 371, 377.

  33. See C. S. Chihara,Ontology and the Vicious-Circle Principle (Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1973), pp. 4, 6–7; cf. P. Grim,The Incomplete Universe: Totality, Knowledge and Truth (A Bradford Book, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, 1991), pp. 28–31. G. Priest,Beyond the Limits of Thought (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), p. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Wang, Ref. 5, p. 317. K. Gödel. “Russell's mathematical logic,” in P. A. Schilpp, ed.,The Philosophy of Bernard Russell (Northwestern University Press, Chicago, 1944), pp. 123–153; Ref. 2, p. 125.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

In honor of Professor Max Jammer on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

This paper was completed while I was a DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst) fellow at the Zentrum Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, Universität Konstanz, Germany. I gratefully acknowledge the generous assistance of the DAAD. Special thanks are due to Martin Carrier, Olivier Darrigol, and Gereon Wolters.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hon, G. Disturbing, but not surprising: Did Gödel surprise Einstein with a rotating universe and time travel?. Found Phys 26, 501–521 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02071218

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02071218

Keywords

Navigation