3 ms·
There is an update to the article. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2218523 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2218523
by wrycoder 5y ago
There is an update to the article.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2218523 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2218523
- derbOac 5y agoYes, this was a fascinating read all around, but raises as many questions about credit for gravitational waves as is a commentary on peer review or a historical footnote. Even now, there's no mention of Beck, Baldwin, or Jeffrey in the Wikipedia article on gravitational waves; the discussion about this incident is focused on Einstein and Rosen's paper and Robertson's relationship to it.
- mannykannot 5y agoIt is not quite clear to me what the author of this update (Martin Blume) is claiming. He says that Abraham Pais, in his biography of Einstein, reports him correcting the error before submitting it to the Physical Review. Blume notes that this contradicts Kennefick, and also Einstein's own note at the end of the 1936 paper. It would also, it seems to me, make nonsense of Robertson's review, and his subsequent correspondence with Tate on the matter. As far as I can tell, this casts doubt on Pais's version, but it is not clear to me that Blume sees it this way.