University of Arkansas

Contact:

Daniel Kennefick, assistant professor
Physics department
(479) 575-5916

Melissa Blouin, managing editor of science and research communications
University Relations
(479) 575-5555

Megan Webb, intern University Relations
(479) 555-5555

FOR RELEASE: Thursday, November 10, 2005

Article Examines a Disputed Einstein Paper

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. -- Apparently, even Einstein wasn't always an
"Einstein." A University of Arkansas professor's article relates
physicist Albert Einstein's reaction to a negative critique on a paper
he had written on gravitational waves.

Daniel Kennefick, a visiting professor in the UA physics department,
wrote the article, which was published in the September 2005 issue of
Physics Today. The article, "Einstein Versus the Physical Review,"
examines the exchange between Einstein and a major physics publication
in his time.

"My article shows Einstein in a somewhat more human light than what we
normally think of him," Kennefick said. "It does show him in a moment of
annoyance and frustration, and that's what people like to see, the more
human side."

Einstein's frustration was in response to a paper titled "Do
Gravitational Waves Exist?" that he had submitted to the Physical Review
in 1936. The paper stated that gravitational waves do not exist.

The editor at the Physical Review had reservations about Einstein's
theory and sent the paper to a referee. The paper was returned to
Einstein with a critical review. Einstein wrote back to the editor
expressing indignation, and the paper was subsequently published elsewhere.

Einstein's assistant at this time, Leopold Infield, became friends with
the relativist Howard Percy Robertson. Robertson expressed his own
skepticism about Einstein's gravitational proof and showed Infield an
error in the proof.

Infield relayed the mistake to Einstein, and Einstein told Infield that
he had similarly found a mistake in the proof. Einstein wrote to the
Journal of the Franklin Institute, where his paper had been accepted,
and explained that changes to the paper needed to be made.

Kennefick has always been interested in the identity of the specialist
at the Physical Review who originally questioned Einstein's erroneous
findings.

"That is the one thing that you can't find from Einstein's papers,"
Kennefick said.

Kennefick contacted the Physical Review about 10 years ago in attempt to
verify his suspicions that the referee was Robertson. Although the
Physical Review did not help Kennefick at this time, he found a letter
of Robertson's that supported his suspicions.

"This year the people at the Physical Review got interested in their own
history," Kennefick said. The editor at the Physical Review contacted
Kennefick and told him that they had found the original logbook that
showed all the papers they had received in the 1930s and 1940s.

"I was very interested that he was able to confirm that my guess had
been right about the referee," Kennefick said.

The logbook not only confirms these suspicions, it also suggests that
Einstein's gravitational-wave theory may be one of Einstein's only
encounters with anonymous peer review.

"Einstein, who reacted angrily to the referee report, would have been
well advised to pay more attention to its criticisms, which proved to be
valid," Kennefick wrote.

Physics Today is the flagship publication of The American Institute of
Physics. The publication informs readers about science and its place in
the world with full news coverage and analysis, and current perspectives
on technological and research advances.

"To have an article published in this magazine is a great credit to
Professor Kennefick," said Surendra Singh, chair of the UA physics
department.

Kennefick is an editor with the Einstein Papers Project at the
California Institute of Technology.

His article can be viewed at
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html