scispace - formally typeset
Journal ArticleDOI

The Life of Arthur Stanley Eddington

A. Vibert Douglas, +1 more
- 01 Jun 1957 - 
- Vol. 10, Iss: 6, pp 36-36
About
This article is published in Physics Today.The article was published on 1957-06-01. It has received 45 citations till now.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Einstein's cosmic model of 1931 revisited: an analysis and translation of a forgotten model of the universe

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present an analysis and translation of the cosmological problem of the general theory of relativity in the light of the first evidence for an expanding universe and consider his views of issues such as the curvature of space, the cosMological constant, the singularity and the timespan of the expansion.
Journal ArticleDOI

Einstein’s conversion from his static to an expanding universe

TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigate the evolution of the universe from a static to a dynamic model, and show that the primary reason for the switch was not observational evidence, but the realisation that his static model was unstable.
Book ChapterDOI

Eddington and Einstein

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss Eddington's work in the field of relativity and Einstein's reaction to it, and stress that his work in this area, important as it was, is the lesser part of his life's work.
Journal ArticleDOI

Einstein’s cosmology review of 1933: a new perspective on the Einstein-de Sitter model of the cosmos

TL;DR: This article present an English translation and analysis of a little-known review of relativistic cosmology written by Albert Einstein in late 1932, which was published in a book of Einstein papers translated into French and contains a substantial review of static and dynamic models of the cosmos, culminating in a discussion of the Einstein-de Sitter model.

Anomalies in the History of Relativity

TL;DR: In spite of the confidence with which the anouncement was made, however, it was later realized that the accuracy of the observations was insufficient to constitute a reliable confirmation of the phe- nomenon that was predicted as discussed by the authors.