论文标题
爱因斯坦（Einstein）和先前已知证据的确认问题：对米歇尔·詹森（Michel Janssen）和尤尔根·雷恩（JürgenRenn）的“爱因斯坦和汞的围场运动”的评论
Einstein and the problem of confirmation by previously known evidence: A comment on Michel Janssen and Jürgen Renn's "Einstein and the Perihelion Motion of Mercury"
论文作者
论文摘要
在本文中，我评论了米歇尔·詹森（Michel Janssen）和尤尔根·雷恩（JürgenRenn）最近的一篇论文。爱因斯坦在1915年11月18日发表的论文中提出了解决汞运动围栏运动问题的解决方案，并获得了每一世纪43秒的正确结果。在1915年之前，爱因斯坦建立了非交流场方程（Entwurf场方程）。但是在1915年，他改变了主意，放弃了这些方程式，并导致了一般协方差。在1913年撰写的手稿中，爱因斯坦和他最好的朋友米歇尔·贝索（Michele Besso）试图解决Entwurf野外方程式以实现Mercury的近视前进。爱因斯坦的最终结果是每世纪的1821秒。为了简短的故事，静态阳光的领域产生了每一世纪18秒的汞果岭的前进。爱因斯坦对这一结果保持沉默，并继续努力研究Entwurf理论。詹森（Janssen）和雷恩（Renn）问：如果我们遵循卡尔·波普（Karl Popper）的处方，爱因斯坦（Einstein）为什么不接受他的结论理论是伪造的？他们进一步提出：鉴于贝索（Besso）早期计算的不可否认的重要性，为什么爱因斯坦（Einstein）不邀请贝索（Besso）作为他1915年11月关于水星围栏运动的论文的合着者？贝索甚至没有在爱因斯坦的论文中得到认可。经过对爱因斯坦和贝索（Einstein's and Besso）的早期尝试计算汞围轮的早期尝试后，我通过先前已知的证据讨论了伪造和确认，然后对上述两个问题提出了答案。
In this paper, I comment on a recent paper by Michel Janssen and Jürgen Renn. In his published paper of November 18, 1915, Einstein presented a solution to the problem of the perihelion motion of Mercury and obtained the correct result of 43 seconds of arc per century. Before 1915, Einstein had established non-covariant field equations (the Entwurf field equations). But in 1915, he changed his mind and dropped these equations and was led to general covariance. In a manuscript written in 1913, Einstein and his best friend Michele Besso tried to solve the Entwurf field equations to attain the perihelion advance of Mercury. The end result arrived at by Einstein was 1821 seconds of arc per century. To make a long story short, the field of a static Sun produced an advance of the perihelion of Mercury of 18 seconds of arc per century. Einstein kept quiet about this result and continued to work on the Entwurf theory. Janssen and Renn ask: If we follow the prescriptions of Karl Popper, why did Einstein not accept that his Entwurf theory had been falsified? They further ask: Given the undeniable importance of Besso's earlier calculations, why did Einstein not invite Besso as a co-author of his November 1915 paper on the perihelion motion of Mercury? Besso did not even get an acknowledgment in Einstein's paper. After a brief review of Einstein's and Besso's early attempts at calculating the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, I discuss falsification and confirmation by previously known evidence and then propose an answer to the above two questions.
