Einstein's Lamentation That Special Relativity Was Not A Fundamental Theory

[Shubee]

I recall reading something by A. Einstein years ago where Einstein was lamenting the fact that his theory of special relativity was not a fundamental theory because he had defined distance with measuring rods and this presupposes more than should be assumed.

 

Does anyone here recall the reference?

 

Shubee

The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1

[modest]

There are some remarks from Einstein and notes by Ehrenfest in this book (The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein) on the topic:

Google Book

 

I can't be sure this is what you read, but it may well be. The link will take you to the appropriate page.

 

There is also a recent paper discussing the topic by an oxford university physicist, but I can't find a free copy online:

 

"Einstein's misgivings about his 1905 formulation of special relativity"

 

The abstract:

 

When Einstein formulated his 1905 treatment of relativistic kinematics, the template in his mind was thermodynamics. This was because a more desirable 'constructive' account of the behaviour of moving rods and clocks, based on the detailed physics governing their microscopic constitution, was unavailable. The price to be paid was appreciated by Einstein and a handful of others since 1905.

 

-modest

[Shubee]

There is also a recent paper discussing the topic by an oxford university physicist, but I can't find a free copy online:

 

"Einstein's misgivings about his 1905 formulation of special relativity"

Thank you modest. I was able to find similar papers online by that author, Harvey R. Brown, and at least one of those papers referred to Einstein's Autobiographical Notes (1949), which is where I must of read Einstein's lamentations originally.

 

Here was the key description from Harvey R. Brown that sounded very familiar to what I had read before:

 

Einstein became increasingly uneasy about the role played by rods and clocks in this approach. This unease is seen in a paper entitled “Geometry and Experience” he published in 1921, and in particular in his 1949 Autobiographical Notes:

 

“One is struck [by the fact] that the theory [of special relativity] . . . introduces two kinds of physical things, i.e., (1) measuring rods and clocks, (2) all other things, e.g., the electromagnetic field, the material point, etc. This, in a certain sense, is inconsistent; strictly speaking measuring rods and clocks would have to be represented as solutions of the basic equations (objects consisting of moving atomic configurations), not, as it were, as theoretically self-sufficient entities.”

Thanks for the very good hint. The lamentation that I read many years ago is in Einstein's Autobiographical Notes (1949).