Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Fock-Infeld Dispute: An Illustration of the Renaissance of General Relativity in the Soviet Union

  • Chapter
The Renaissance of General Relativity in Context

Part of the book series: Einstein Studies ((EINSTEIN,volume 16))

Abstract

In 1938, Einstein, Infeld, and Hoffmann contributed to the problem of motion in general relativity by establishing approximate equations for several particles of comparable masses. A year later, the exact same problem was also solved independently by the Soviet physicist Vladimir Fock. However, his approach proved to be different and laid the foundations for an original interpretation of general relativity which notably defended the existence of privileged frames of reference. This chapter presents the trajectory of the dispute between Fock and Leopold Infeld that arose from their contributions to the problem of motion. It aims at highlighting some specificities of the scientific and sociocultural contexts of the Soviet Union at the dawn of the “renaissance” of general relativity in the mid-1950s. In particular, this chapter shows that the Fock-Infeld dispute received special exposure in philosophical journals. The latter gave the two physicists opportunities to expose and mature their arguments, favoring an entrance with resonance into the international context at the 1955 Bern Conference on relativity. From there, Fock secured a position on the international scene, contributed to the Soviet inclusion into the “renaissance” process, and marked durably the debate on the interpretation of the general relativity.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also Chap. 1 in this volume for a historiographical discussion of the “low water mark” of general relativity.

  2. 2.

    See Havas (1989, 237–254), who detailed some contributions made to the problem of motion before Einstein and Grommer’s article.

  3. 3.

    Havas also discussed how various results of the 1938 article had been previously established by other contributors (Havas 1989, 254–265).

  4. 4.

    The Russian version was received by Zhurnal Eksperimental’noy i Teoreticheskoy Fiziki on February 13, while the French one was received by Journal of Physics—USSR on February 26. Journal of Physics—USSR was a Soviet journal edited in Moscow that published articles in languages others than Russian. For convenience, we will refer here to the French version. Note also that in this chapter, all translations from non-English sources are ours unless otherwise stated.

  5. 5.

    About Fock’s career, one can consult his unique biography published in Russian by Larissa Vladimirova (2012). See also the PhD dissertation of the present author (Martinez 2017).

  6. 6.

    Infeld wrote two autobiographies. The first edition of Quest: An Autobiography appeared in 1941 (Infeld 1980), while Why I Left Canada was published postmortem in 1978 (Infeld 1978). Together, they give a complete overview of Infeld’s life.

  7. 7.

    On the relations between Einstein and Infeld, one can consult Quest: An Autobiography (Infeld 1980). See also Stachel’s comments on their correspondence (Stachel 1999).

  8. 8.

    See Infeld (1978, 39–54). The return of Infeld to Poland was partially motivated by the anticommunist atmosphere in North America at the beginning of the Cold War. Unfairly perceived as a potential traitor to Canada and suspected of being capable of delivering nuclear secrets to the communists, Infeld made the choice to return to his native country in order to contribute to the development of science.

  9. 9.

    In the spirit of the present volume, we refer to Blum et al. (2015) when we mention the process of the “renaissance” of general relativity.

  10. 10.

    This process is clearly perceptible in several works of reference on the Soviet history of science, such as Joravsky (1961), Graham (1987), or Josephson (1991).

  11. 11.

    The progressive isolation of Soviet physicists in the 1930s has been discussed by Josephson (1988). The reopening of the USSR then followed Stalin’s death, in the context of the Cold War. Notably, in view of the growing nuclear threat, Nikita Khrushchev plied the foreign policy of “peaceful coexistence” between two opposing economic and political systems during the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in 1956. See Ivanov (2002), Richmond (2004), Mastny (2010), or Hollings (2016).

  12. 12.

    See Graham (1982, 1987), Havas (1989), and Gorelik (1993). A full exposition of Fock’s ideas on general relativity requires a more detailed account than that given in this chapter. The reader can refer in particular to Graham (1987), Gorelik (1993), and the PhD dissertation of the present author (Martinez 2017).

  13. 13.

    Fock referred to de Donder (1921) and Lanczos (1922). Nowadays, physicists mainly use the denomination “harmonic gauge,” even if they occasionally use “de Donder gauge” or “Fock gauge.”

  14. 14.

    This condition was decisive in the case studied. As we will discuss it, for Fock, each privileged system of coordinates was dependent on the type of space studied.

  15. 15.

    See Gorelik (1993, 315) that shares this idea.

  16. 16.

    The expression, used by Jean Eisenstaedt, was borrowed from Marie-Antoinette Tonnelat (Eisenstaedt 1986, 165).

  17. 17.

    See Eisenstaedt (1986, 165–178), Goenner (2004, 2014), Sauer (2007), van Dongen (2010), or Bergmann (1982) for more general accounts of the role played by general relativity in the quest for a unified theory.

  18. 18.

    One could object that Fock contributed directly to the research toward a unified theory at the end of the 1920s. In 1926, he proposed a generalization of the Klein-Gordon equation in a curved space-time (Fock 1926). In 1929, he also contributed to the generalization of the Dirac equation and the development of spinors (Fock and Ivanenko 1929a, b; Fock 1929a, b). However, at that time, Fock was primarily motivated by a pragmatic approach to solving mathematical problems in physics. A decade later, the physicist was much more involved in problems of interpretation and he approached theories as an epistemological antireductionist. As a consequence, general relativity could no longer be considered in a unifying perspective because it was unable to explain phenomena at the atomic scale. See Martinez (2017).

  19. 19.

    A uniform—Galilean or homogeneous—space was defined by Fock as follows: “(a) All points in space and instants in time are equivalent. (b) All directions are equivalent, and (c) All inertial systems, moving uniformly and in a straight line relative to one another, are equivalent (Galilean principle of relativity)” (Fock 1964, 1).

  20. 20.

    This argument is part of Fock’s introduction to his monograph on the theory of relativity (Fock 1964, 4–5).

  21. 21.

    (Fock 1964, 2–3).

  22. 22.

    The idea of “chrono-geometry” was borrowed by Fock from the Dutch physicist A. D. Fokker (1955).

  23. 23.

    In his words: “As for the principle of equivalence, it probably indicated to Einstein the way leading to the solution of the problem of gravitation” (Fock 1966, 213). For the role of the equivalence principle in the development of general relativity, see Norton (1989).

  24. 24.

    The first edition was published in Russian in 1955 (Fock 1955). However, for convenience, we refer in our developments to the second English edition, widely distributed around the world (Fock 1964).

  25. 25.

    Well known for his pioneering theory that the universe was expanding, Friedmann was in Leningrad a teacher of Fock at the beginning of the 1920s. See his biography by Tropp et al. (1993).

  26. 26.

    “It is probable that in Friedmann-Lobachevsky [sic.] space there also exist some preferred systems of coordinates” (Fock 1964, 4). However, it has to be noted that it remained an open question as, during his career, Fock was not able to confirm this hypothesis formally.

  27. 27.

    See Why I Left Canada, second of Infeld’s autobiographies (Infeld 1978, 77).

  28. 28.

    A report detailing their activities during their stay in Poland is available in the St. Petersburg section of the archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ARAN SPb)—ARAN SPb, 1034-2-170.

  29. 29.

    Infeld referred to his article “Kilka uwag o teorii względności” (Some remarks on the theory of relativity) published in 1954 (Infeld 1954a).

  30. 30.

    Fock defined the second approximation as the one which “allows to replace the generalized d’Alembert operator by the ordinary operator” (Fock 1939b, 115).

  31. 31.

    The subtitle of Why I Left Canada is after all Reflections on Science and Politics. Also, concerning Fock: “Some role in changing my position with officialdom was played by a discussion I had with Professor [Vladimir Alexandrovich] Fock” (Infeld 1978, 75).

  32. 32.

    On the Soviet context related to the question of science, political aspects are notably discussed by Krementsov (1997). For more detail on physics, more particularly, see Vizgin (1999), Kojevnikov (2004), and Sonin (2017).

  33. 33.

    The expression comes from the title of an article by Fock discussed below: “Protiv nevezhestvennoy kritiki sovremennykh fizicheskikh teoriy” (Against the ignorant criticism of modern physical theories) (Fock 1953a).

  34. 34.

    For more detail on the Zhdanovshchina, see Ra’anan (1983) or Fitzpatrick (1992).

  35. 35.

    Interesting developments concerning Soviet science and philosophy in the inter-war period can be found in Joravsky (1961) and Josephson (1991). See also footnote 32.

  36. 36.

    For more on the reception of Einstein’s ideas in the Soviet Union, see Vucinich (2001) and Graham (1987, 354–363). See also Kojevnikov’s review of Vucinich’s book (Kojevnikov 2002).

  37. 37.

    In 1936, while translating the articles of the EPR debate in Russian, Fock clearly took a stand for Bohr (Fock 1936). He also criticized his colleague K. Nikol’skiy for developing a statistical interpretation of the theory (Nikol’skiy 1936; Fock 1937). This set led to a sharp and generalized criticism of Fock by the most reactionary fringe of physicists and philosophers. For more on this peculiar atmosphere, see Gorelik (1990), Vizgin (1999, 1264–1265), or Martinez (2017, 304–317).

  38. 38.

    This newspaper, belonging to the Soviet Navy, was an unusual place for this type of publication. It actually testifies that Maksimov had difficulties to publish his article, which, however, did have a noticeable echo in the community. See Sonin (1991) and Blokh (1997).

  39. 39.

    For more on this episode, see Blokh (1997) or Vizgin (1999). See also Ilizarov and Pushkareva (1994) who published the most important letters exchanged with the authorities during the events.

  40. 40.

    For more on the dialectical materialist character of Fock’s interpretation of the theory of general relativity, see Gorelik (1993), Graham (1982, 1987, 367–378), or Martinez (2017, 224–245).

  41. 41.

    For more on the Soviet nuclear project, see Holloway (1994).

  42. 42.

    See Graham (1982, 129). This dynamic can also be described in terms of cultural diplomacy (Martinez 2019).

  43. 43.

    See footnote 11.

  44. 44.

    For more on the scientists’ adaptation to rhetorical requirements of the Communist context, see the developments of the present author in the case of Fock (Martinez 2018).

  45. 45.

    Letter from Fock to Infeld, November 13, 1954 (Fock and Infeld 1955, 156–157).

  46. 46.

    For more on the Bern Conference, the history of its organization, and especially the particular role played by its instigator André Mercier, see Lalli (2017). The proceedings of the conference were published by Mercier and Kervaire (1956).

  47. 47.

    Mercier expressed this ambition to Einstein in a letter dated November 1953 (Lalli 2017, 42).

  48. 48.

    See the letter from L. M. Brekhovskikh and E. A. Koridalin to Fock, dated October 25, 1954—ARAN SPb 1034-2-111. This situation led to the following amusing situation: In a letter to Møller on March 1, 1955, Pauli explained that he did not understand immediately that “the famous Fock,” which he already knew, was part of the Soviet delegation. It testifies that the organizers did not influence at all the choices of the Soviet Academy. Cited by Lalli (2017, 43).

  49. 49.

    See also Martinez (2019).

  50. 50.

    Letter from L. M. Brekhovskikh and E. A. Koridalin to Fock, dated October 25, 1954—ARAN SPb 1034-2-111.

  51. 51.

    Letter from Fock to L. M. Brekhovskikh, dated November 5, 1954—ARAN SPb 1034-2-111.

  52. 52.

    For more on Aleksandrov and the theory of relativity, see Graham (1987, 363–367).

  53. 53.

    There was one exception, with the publication of an article titled “Le système de Ptolémée et le système de Copernic à la lumière de la théorie générale de la relativité” (Fock 1952) in 1952 in France, translation of a Russian article of 1947 (Fock 1947). However, it must be underlined that it was published among other Soviet articles in a new journal, Questions scientifiques, whose editors were claiming a “militant Marxism.”

  54. 54.

    They were published in 1956 in a special issue of the journal Helvetica Physica Acta (Fock 1956a, b).

  55. 55.

    Fock’s hearing loss was probably caused by otosclerosis during his childhood.

  56. 56.

    Emphasis added.

  57. 57.

    Letter from Rosbaud to Rosenfeld, dated February 22, 1956—Niels Bohr Archives, Copenhagen: Léon Rosenfeld Papers, box 7: Manchester, folder 6.

  58. 58.

    See Fock’s letter to Rosbaud on January 30, 1956. He responded to Rosbaud’s letter from October 6, 1955, mentioning already questions relative to the translation of the monography and also his remuneration—ARAN SPb, 1034-2-218.

  59. 59.

    See Fock’s correspondence with the publishing house Akademie Verlag—ARAN SPb, 1034-2-218.

  60. 60.

    A Romanian translation was also published in 1962 (Fock 1962a). As mentioned in footnote 24, we refer in our developments to the second English edition (Fock 1964).

  61. 61.

    See the letter from Fock to Møller on May 8, 1956—Niels Bohr Archives, Copenhagen: Christian Møller papers, box 2, folder 34.

  62. 62.

    These lectures were published that same year in the Reviews of Modern Physics (Fock 1957).

  63. 63.

    Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and Columbia University in the City of New York.

  64. 64.

    The proceedings of the event were later published by Lichnerowicz and Tonnelat (1962).

  65. 65.

    Fock’s report on his stay in France can be found in his archives in St. Petersburg—ARAN SPb, 1034-2-179. The talks were: “Quelques remarques sur les équations du mouvement et les conditions pour les coordonnées” (Some remarks on the equations of motion and the coordinate conditions) (Fock 1962b) and “Sur les ondes de gravitation émises par un système de masses en movement” (On gravitational waves emitted by a system of moving masses) (Fock 1962c).

  66. 66.

    As Fock mentioned in his report to the Soviet authorities after the Bern Conference, “a group of participants invited [him] to join the Committee for the organization of similar conferences in the future”—ARAN SPb, 1034-2-179.

  67. 67.

    For Fock, Ivanenko was admitted to the Committee only “on his own insistence.” Letter from Fock to Artsimovich, September 6, 1962 —ARAN SPb 1034-2-111. In reality, the two men had a tumultuous relationship. For unclear reasons, Fock tried several times to limit Ivanenko to secondary roles. See Snygg (2012, 174–179) and Martinez (2017, 444–450, 2019).

  68. 68.

    In contrast to Ivanenko, Petrov became in the 1960s a “protégé” of Fock. Isaak M. Khalatnikov used this qualifier in his autobiography (Khalatnikov 2012, 135). See also Martinez (2017, 446–447, 2019), for Fock’s contrasting attitude toward Ivanenko and Petrov.

  69. 69.

    For more on Ivanenko’s activities in developing the theory of gravitation in the Soviet Union, see his biography by Sardanashvili (2014, 142–152).

  70. 70.

    According to Fock, the Committee on General Relativity and Gravitation unofficially decided on July 31, 1962, to stop its correspondence with Ivanenko. Letter from Fock to Artsimovich, September 6, 1962 —ARAN SPb 1034-2-111. However, given the conflicting nature of the relationship between the two men (footnote 67), this information should be treated with caution. The best argument in favor of an alleged privileged position of Fock remains in itself the fact that he was asked to organize a conference in the Soviet Union.

  71. 71.

    Letter from Leshkovtsev to Fock, October 1, 1965; letter from Kotel’nikov to Fock, November 3, 1965—ARAN SPb. 1034-2-198.

  72. 72.

    For more on the Tbilisi conference, see Lalli (2017, 75–97), and Martinez (2017, 430–444, 2019).

  73. 73.

    For more on this point, one can consult Govrin (1998).

  74. 74.

    See footnote 72. Both sources discuss in detail the succession of events.

  75. 75.

    Lalli detailed the nature of the events of Copenhagen (Lalli 2017, 101–125). See also Martinez (2017, 450–454, 2019).

  76. 76.

    See Khalatnikov’s testimony on the events in Copenhagen and their consequences (Khalatnikov 2012, 134–135).

References

  • Bergmann, Peter G. 1982. The quest for unity: General relativity and unitary field. In Albert Einstein, historical and cultural perspectives. The centennial symposium in Jerusalem, 14–23 March 1979, ed. G. Holton and Y. Elkana, 27–38. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blokh, Aleksander. 1997. Ideologicheskiye bredni Eynshteyna: kak “Krasnyy Flot” chut’ ne potopil sovetskiy atomnyy proyekt. Nezavisimaya gazeta, June 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, Alexander, Roberto Lalli, and Jurgen Renn. 2015. The reinvention of general relativity: A historiographical framework for assessing one hundred years of curved space-time. Isis 106 (3): 598–620.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • de Donder, Théophile. 1921. La gravifique einsteinienne. Paris: Gauthier-Villars & Cie.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, Albert. 1913. Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation. I. Physikalischer Part. Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1916. Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Annalen der Physik 49: 769–822.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, Albert, and Jakob Grommer. 1927. Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie und Bewegungsgesetz. In Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 235–245. Berlin: Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, Albert, and Leopold Infeld. 1949. On the motion of particles in general relativity theory. Canadian Journal of Mathematics 1: 209–241.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, Albert, Leopold Infeld, and Banesh Hoffmann. 1938. Gravitational equations and the problem of motion. Annals of Mathematics 39: 65–100.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstaedt, Jean. 1986. La relativité générale à l’étiage: 1925–1955. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 35 (2): 115–185.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. The low water mark of general relativity, 1925–1955. In Einstein and the history of general relativity, ed. Don Howard and John Stachel, 277–292. Boston: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, Sheila. 1992. The cultural front. Power and culture in revolutionary Russia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fock, Vladimir A. 1926. Über die invariante Form der Wellen und der Bewegungsgleichungen für einen geladenen Massenpunkt. Zeitschrift für Physik 39 (2–3): 226–232.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1929a. Geometrisierung der Diracschen Theorie des Elektrons. Zeitschrift für Physik 57 (3–4): 261–277.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1929b. L’équation d’onde de Dirac et la géométrie de Riemann. Journal de Physique et le Radium 10 (11): 392–405.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1930. Näherungsmethode zur Lösung des quantenmechanischen Mehrkörperproblems. Zeitschrift für Physik 61 (1–2): 126–148.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1932. Konfigurationsraum und zweite Quantelung. Zeitschrift für Physik 75 (9–10): 622–647.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1936. Mozhno li schitat', chto kvantovo-mekhanicheskoye opisaniye fizicheskoy real'nosti yavlyayetsya polnym? (Vstupitel'naya stat'ya k odnoimennym stat'yam Eynshteyna i Bora). Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk 16 (4): 436–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1937. K stat’ye K. V. Nikol’skogo: “Printsipy kvantovoy mekhaniki”. Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk 17 (4): 552–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1938. K diskussii po voprosam fiziki. Pod znamenem marksizma 1: 140–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1939a. O dvizhenii konechnykh mass v obshchey teorii otnositel’nosti. Zhurnal Eksperimental’noy i Teoreticheskoy Fiziki 9 (4): 375–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1939b. Sur le mouvement des masses finies d’après la théorie de gravitation einsteinienne. Journal of Physics – USSR 1 (2): 81–116.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1947. Sistema Kopernika i sistema Ptolomeya v svete obshchey teorii otnositel’nosti. In Nikolay Kopernik, 180–186. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Аkademii Nauk SSSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1950. Problema dvizheniya mass v teorii tyagoteniya Eynshteyna. In Sbornik, posvyashchennyy semidesyatiletiyu akademika А.F.Ioffe, 31–43. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Аkademii Nauk SSSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1951. Kritika vzglyadov Bora na kvantovuyu mekhaniku. Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk 45 (1): 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1952. Le système de Ptolémée et le système de Copernic à la lumière de la théorie générale de la relativité. Questions Scientifiques 1: 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1953a. Protiv nevezhestvennoy kritiki sovremennykh fizicheskikh teoriy. Voprosy Filosofii 1: 168–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1953b. Sovremennaya teoriya prostranstva i vremeni. Priroda 12: 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1953c. Współczesna teoria przestrzeni i czasu. Myśl Filozoficzna 4: 162–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1955. Teoriya prostranstva, vremeni i tyagoteniya. Moscow: Gostekhizdat.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1956a. Sur le mouvement des corps en rotation d’après la théorie de la gravitation d’Einstein. Helvetica Physica Acta 29: 204–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1956b. Sur les systèmes de coordonnées privilégiés dans la théorie de la gravitation d’Einstein. Helvetica Physica Acta 29: 239–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1957. Three lectures on relativity theory. Reviews of Modern Physics 29 (3): 335–353.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1959. The theory of space, time and gravitation. London: Pergamon Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1960. Theorie von Raum, Zeit und Gravitation. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1962a. Teoria spaliutul, timputul si gravitatul. Bucharest: Academia RPP.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1962b. Quelques remarques sur les équations du mouvement et les conditions pour les coordonnés. In Les théories relativistes de la gravitation: Royaumont, 21–27 Juin 1959, ed. A. Lichnerowicz and M.-A. Tonnelat, 67–74. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1962c. Sur les ondes de gravitation émises par un système de masses en mouvement. In Les théories relativistes de la gravitation: Royaumont, 21–27 Juin 1959, ed. A. Lichnerowicz and M.-A. Tonnelat, 137–140. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1964. The theory of space, time and gravitation. 2nd revised edition. Trans. N. Kemmer. London: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1966. Principes de base de la théorie de la gravitation d’Einstein. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré, Section A: Physique Théorique 5 (3): 205–215.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fock, Vladimir A., and Leopold Infeld. 1955. 0 garmonicheskikh sistemakh v teorii otnositel’nosti. (Perepiska V. А. Foka i L. Infel’da). Voprosy Filosofii 3: 155–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fock, Vladimir A., and Dmitri D. Ivanenko. 1929a. Über eine mögliche geometrische Deutung der relativistischen Quantentheorie. Zeitschrift für Physik 54 (11–12): 798–802.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1929b. Zur Quantengeometrie. Physikalische Zeitschrift 30 (19): 648–651.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fokker, Adriaan D. 1955. Albert Einstein, inventor of chronogeometry. Synthese 9: 442–445.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Goenner, Hubert F.M. 2004. On the history of unified field theories. Living Reviews in Relativity 7 (1): 2.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. On the history of unified field theories. Part II. (ca. 1930–ca 1965). Living Reviews in Relativity 17 (1): 5.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gorelik, Gennady E. 1990. Naturfilosofskiye problemy fiziki v 1937 godu. Priroda 2: 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Vladimir Fock: Philosophy of gravity and gravity of philosophy. In The attraction of gravitation: New studies in the history of general relativity, ed. J. Earman, M. Janssen, and J.D. Norton, 308–331. Boston: Birkhaüser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govrin, Yoseph. 1998. Israeli-Soviet relations, 1953–67: From confrontation to disruption. London/Portland: Franck Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, Loren R. 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, 14–23 March 1979, ed. G. Holton and Y. Elkana, 107–136. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Science, philosophy, and human behavior in the Soviet Union. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havas, Peter. 1989. The early history of the “problem of motion” in general relativity. In Einstein and the history of general relativity, ed. Don Howard and John Stachel, 234–276. Boston: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollings, Christopher D. 2016. Scientific communication across the Iron Curtain. Cham: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, D. 1994. Stalin and the bomb: The Soviet Union and atomic energy, 1939–1956. New Heaven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilizarov, S.S., and L.I. Pushkareva. 1994. Beriya i teoriya otnositel’nosti. Istoricheskiy arkhiv 3: 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Infeld, Leopold. 1954a. Kilka uwag o teorii względności. Myśl Filozoficzna 1: 70–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1954b. Neskol’ko zamechaniy o teorii otnositel’nosti. Voprosy Filosofii 5: 173–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1954c. On the motion of bodies in general relativity theory. Acta Physica Polonica 13: 187–204.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1956. On equations of motion in general relativity. Helvetica Physica Acta 29: 206–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1978. Why I left Canada: Reflections on science and politics. Trans. H. Infeld. Montreal/London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1980. Quest: An autobiography. New-York: Chelsea Publishing Company. First published in 1941. New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanov, Konstantin. 2002. Science after Stalin: Forging a new image of Soviet science. Science in Context 15 (2): 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joravsky, David. 1961. Soviet Marxism and natural science, 1917–1932. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, Paul R. 1988. Physics and Soviet-Western relations in the 1920s and 1930s. Physics Today 414 (9): 54–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. Physics and politics in revolutionary Russia. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalatnikov, Isaak M. 2012. From the atomic bomb to the Landau Institute. Autobiography. Top non-secret. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kojevnikov, Alexei B. 2002. Einstein and Soviet dogma; an elusive relationship. Physics Today 55 (9): 59–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Stalin’s great science: The times and adventures of Soviet physicists. London: Imperial College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krementsov, Nikolai. 1997. Stalinist science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalli, Roberto. 2017. Building the general relativity and gravitation community during the Cold War. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanczos, Cornelius. 1922. Ein vereinfachendes Koordinatensystem für die Einsteinschen Gravitationsgleichungen. Physikalische Zeitschrift 23: 537–539.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lenin, Vladimir I. 1909. Materializm i empiriocriticism. Moscow: Zveno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichnerowicz, André, and Marie-Antoinette Tonnelat, eds. 1962. Les théories relativistes de la gravitation: Royaumont, 21–27 Juin 1959. Paris: Éd. du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maksimov Aleksander A. 1952. Protiv reaktsionnogo eynshteynianstva v fizike. Krasnyy Flot, June 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maksimov, Aleksander A., et al., eds. 1952. Filosofskiye voprosy sovremennoy fiziki. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, Jean-Philippe. 2017. Vladimir Fock (1898–1974): itinéraire internaliste d’une pensée externaliste. Ph.D. dissertation defended on December 4, 2017. Paris: University Paris Diderot.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. The ‘Mach argument’ and its use by Vladimir Fock to criticize Einstein in the Soviet Union. In Ernst Mach – life, work, influence, ed. F. Stadler, 259–270. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2019. Soviet science as cultural diplomacy during the 1968 Tbilisi Conference on general relativity. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 64: 120–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastny, Vojtech. 2010. Soviet foreign policy, 1953–1962. In The Cambridge history of the Cold War, vol. 1: Origins, ed. M.P. Leffler and O.A. Wastad, 312–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, André, and Michel Kervaire, eds. 1956. Fünfzig Jahre Relativitätstheorie/Cinquantenaire de la théorie de la relativité/Jubilee of relativity theory. Helvetica Physica Acta, Supplementum IV. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffat, John W. 2010. Einstein wrote back. My life in physics. Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikol’skiy, Konstantin V. 1936. Printsipy kvantovoy mekhaniki. I. Uspekhi Fizisheskikh Nauk 16 (5): 539–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, John. 1989. What was Einstein’s principle of equivalence. In Einstein and the history of general relativity, ed. D. Howard and J. Stachel, 5–47. Boston: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papapetrou, Achilles. 1951. Equations of motion in general relativity. Proceedings Physical Society A64: 57–75.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Petrova, N.M. 1949. Ob uravnenii dvizheniya i tenzore materii dlya sistemy konechnyx mass v obshchey teorii otnositel’nosti. Zhurnal Eksperimental’noy i Teoreticheskoy Fiziki 19 (11): 989–999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ra’anan, Gavriel. 1983. International policy formation in the U. S. S. R.: Factional “debates” during the Zhdanovschina. Hamden: Archon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, Yale. 2004. Cultural exchange and the Cold War. Raising the Iron Curtain. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sardanashvili, Guenadi. A. 2014. Dmitriy Ivanenko — superzvezda sovetskoy fiziki. Moscow: URSS/Librokom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, Tilman. 2007. Einstein’s unified field theory program. In The Cambridge companion to Einstein, ed. M. Janssen and C. Lehner, 281–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snygg, John. 2012. A new approach to differential geometry using Clifford’s geometric algebra. New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sonin, Anatoliy S. 1991. Gazeta “Krasnyy Flot” protiv idealizma v fizike. Vestnik RAN 61 (1): 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Fizicheskiy idealizm: Dramaticheskiy put’ vnedreniya revolyutsionnykh idey fiziki nachala XX veka (na primere istorii protivostoyaniya v sovetskoy fizike). 2nd ed. Moscow: Lenand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stachel, John. 1999. Einstein and Infeld, seen through their correspondence. Acta Physica Polonica B 30 (10): 2879–2908.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tropp, Eduard A., Viktor Ya. Frenkel and Artur D. Chernin. 1993. Alexander A. Friedmann: The man who made the universe expand. Transl. A. Dron and M. Burov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dongen, Jeroen. 2010. Einstein’s unification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vizgin, Vladimir P. 1999. The nuclear shield in the ‘thirty-year war’ of physicists against ignorant criticism of modern physical theories. Physics-Uspekhi 42 (12): 1259–1283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vladimirova, Larissa F. 2012. Аkademik V. А. Fok: Teoreticheskaya fizika v chistom vide. Moscow: URSS/KRАSАND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vucinich, Alexander S. 2001. Einstein and Soviet ideology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology, RWTH Aachen University, Sommerfeldstr, Aachen, Germany

    Jean-Philippe Martinez

Authors
  1. Jean-Philippe Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Philippe Martinez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, Germany

    Alexander S. Blum , Roberto Lalli  & Jürgen Renn ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Martinez, JP. (2020). The Fock-Infeld Dispute: An Illustration of the Renaissance of General Relativity in the Soviet Union. In: Blum, A.S., Lalli, R., Renn, J. (eds) The Renaissance of General Relativity in Context. Einstein Studies, vol 16. Birkhäuser, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50754-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation