爱因斯坦和先前已知证据的确认问题：对Michel Janssen和Jürgen Renn的“爱因斯坦和水星的近日点运动”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"
摘要：
在本文中，我评论了Michel Janssen和Jürgen Renn最近的一篇论文。在1915年11月18日发表的论文中，爱因斯坦提出了水星近日点运动问题的解决方案，并得到了每世纪43弧秒的正确结果。在1915年之前，爱因斯坦已经建立了非协变场方程（Entwurf场方程）。但在1915年，他改变了主意，放弃了这些方程，并导致了一般协方差。在1913年的一份手稿中，爱因斯坦和他最好的朋友米歇尔·贝索试图解决恩特沃夫场方程，以获得水星的近日点前进。爱因斯坦最终得出的结果是每世纪1821弧秒。长话短说，静态太阳的磁场使水星近日点每世纪前进18弧秒。爱因斯坦对这一结果保持沉默，继续研究恩特沃夫理论。詹森和雷恩问：如果我们遵循卡尔·波普尔的处方，为什么爱因斯坦不接受他的恩特武夫理论被证伪了？他们还问：鉴于贝索早期计算的不可否认的重要性，为什么爱因斯坦没有邀请贝索作为他1915年11月关于水星近日点运动的论文的合著者？贝索甚至没有在爱因斯坦的论文中得到承认。在简要回顾了爱因斯坦和贝索的早期尝试在计算水星近日点的进展，我讨论证伪和确认以前已知的证据，然后提出了上述两个问题的答案。
英文摘要：
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.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
