Talk:Relativity priority dispute

‹See TfM›

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

---

• Complete archive

Individual archive files:

• Dec 2005 – Feb 2006
• 11 Feb 2006 – 27 Feb 2006
• 27 Feb 2006 – 3 Mar 2006
• 3 Mar 2006 – 10 Mar 2006
• 11 Mar 2006 – 21 Sep 2006

Please add new comments below at the bottom of the appropriate section. Please sign your comment with ~~~~ and if possible please indent your comment using colons for readability. TIA ---CH 09:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew MacFarlane?

I removed the following from the intro:

Consideration may be given Alexander MacFarlane for introducing hyperbolic quaternions in 1891, thus introducing split-complex number arithmetic to physics and anticipating Lorentz transformations and Minkowski space.

The main reason is that I can't figure out any reason for relating this to either the special or general theories of relativity. The Alexander MacFarlane article doesn't mention relativity at all. --Alvestrand 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

George Francis FitzGerald

Priority disputes are idiotic but FitzGerald could be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.188.139 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

He's described in George Francis FitzGerald as a contributor. This is different from a discussion on whether he invented relativity; all the stuff that's currently listed is people where claims have been made that they should have the credit for the relativity theories themselves. --Alvestrand 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bjerknes

The long Bjerknes section is mostly not about the Relativity dispute but is some kind of "argument from authority". And what has the Wannasee conference got to do with this page? E4mmacro 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a single-purpose user pushing a particular viewpoint again, I think. This user has also been "sprucing up" the Christopher Jon Bjerknes page, trying to make him look like more of an authority. --Alvestrand 07:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

He is now egaged in an undo edit war. The Bjerknes section is now all about Stachel/Bjerknes dispute, which could go on Bjerknes page, but is out of place here. E4mmacro 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And why has he have no user page? Could it be some banned user back again? E4mmacro 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User "Relativity Priority Disputation"

I hope you don't mind if I call you RPD for short. The place to argue that the Stachel/Bjerknes dispute should occupy some much space, is here in the talk section. You keep repeating the long-winded BORING dispute between Stachel and Bjerknes, with a plain bias in favor of Bjerknes.

On another point, even if Einstein was a racist or child murderer of Satanist or WHATEVER, that has no relevance to the question of who originated Relativity. So why keep restoring these allegations? E4mmacro 00:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Bjerknes is largely responsible for making the 21st century relativity priority dispute a mainstream discussion" looks POV to me. Does it matter anyway, who, of the many crtics mentioned, is largely responsible? I have flagged it as POV for the moment, but it should be deleted. E4mmacro 06:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no bias. You keep deleting the factual and relevant material I add to present an accurate and balanced NPOV. Where have I deleted what you have written which balances what you call the "dispute between Stachel and Bjerknes"? You evidently hate Bjerknes and view his perspective with disdain, but that does permit you to express your apparent negative bias against Bjerknes in favor of Stachel on this Wikipedia article.

You are the one who introduced what you call irrelevancies into the description of Bjerknes's 2006 e-book. I provided a needed NPOV on your assessment. Note that exceptional, and I would add "unexpected", claims require exceptional proof. It is therefore necessary to present facts which support Bjerknes's unexpected claims so that they are not misunderstood.

It is relevant to this article to point out who it was who brought out all of these issues and who it was who made them a mainstream discussion. Your mischaracterizing this as if POV indicates that you hate Bjerknes and view anything positive said about him, factual or not, as material for the trash heap. This article would not exist if it were not for Bjerknes's books and articles. It is relevant to point that out. Thank you for the discussion! Relativity Priority Disputation 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the source that states that Bjerknes' diatribes "brought out all of these issues and made them a mainstream discussion"? The page lists similar diatribes appearing regularly since 1954, many published by mainstream media, something that has so far eluded Bjerknes; making such a claim for Bjerknes requires sources. --Alvestrand 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Stachel's review, Log04, Win04, Wue05, Som05, etc. cite Bjerknes 2002 and 2003. Bjerknes is the source of the dispute over the CRS article, which has aroused so much attention in the 21st century. Have you ever read Bjerknes's books? How could you mistake the fact that he has cited more prior work on the subject than anyone before him, or since? Who is it that you propose is largely responsible for introducing the relativity priority dispute in the 21st century and making it a mainstream discussion? The point is that Bjerknes has published comprehensive reviews of the most significant issues and framed the debate on those issues making many novel discoveries, for example his 2003 book and its chapters on Hilbert, Soldner and Gerber represent the foundational work on the issue on the side of those who criticize CRS, and their papers are highly derivative of what appears in this book. He is the source of the 21st century debate, and this page would not exist were it not for him. Relativity Priority Disputation 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The published attack on the CRS article was by Winterberg. Again, who claims that Bjerknes has "framed the debate", rather than being a figure on the sidelines, yelling loudly and largely being ignored? That view, too, is consistent with the facts cited so far. --Alvestrand 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The published critique which rebutted CRS article in the Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung was by Winterberg, and he credits Bjerknes with numerous improvements, and novel arguments. However, it was Bjerknes's 2002 book Albert Einstein - The Incorrigible Plagiarist, which states that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert, and which inspired Winterberg to investigate CRS's claims and discover the mutilation and formulate an argument as to what the missing section contained. Winterberg's arguments were first published in Bjerknes's book Anticipations of Einstein in the Genereal Theory of Relativity of 2003, which is far more detailed than Winterberg's article, and which raises many points made by Bjerknes independent of Winterberg, and which presents the full argument against CRS repeated with only a few embellishments in the later papers. Logunov provides important insights into Hilbert's work, but on the CRS issue of the mutilation, there is little new. The same is true of Wuensch and Sommer, though the revelation of the Max Born letter is very important, but was discovered by Sommer and first cited by Corry. If you disagree, kindly provide examples of the insights found in the later works not found in Bjerknes's 2003 book, or are you criticizing something you haven't even read? Relativity Priority Disputation 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... the only credit to Bjerknes in Winterberg's article is this: "The author expresses his thanks to C. J. Bjernkes for his critical reading of the manuscript and improving the text in several places". He also mentions that Bjerknes quoted him in Bjerknes' book, and that Bjerknes gave him a copy of Logunov's work. He never quotes Bjerknes. [2].

And since this is all about priority - Winterberg claims that the original version of his paper was sent to Nature on Nov 21, 2002. "Anticipations of Einstein" was published in 2003. So who was the "framer of the debate"? --Alvestrand 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You have confirmed what I said, not refuted it, though you have misrepresented the extent of Winterberg's references to Bjerknes, which are as follows:

From pages 718-179:

As C. J. Bjerknes [9] has pointed out to me, the fact that the cut passes through a sentence on page 7 and not on page 8, suggests that it was intended for page 8, giving further support for the hypothesis of a forgery with the purpose to suggest that Hilbert had copied from Einstein.

Acknowledgement

The author expresses his thanks to C. J. Bjerknes for his critical reading of the manuscript and improving the text at several places.

[Winterberg's article was sent to Science, not Nature]

However, I had been given a preprint of my paper to C. J. Bjerknes, a historian of science, who had quoted my findings in his book "Anticipations of Einstein the General Theory of Relativity","[10] His book is quoted in a preprint by Logunov, Mestrishvili, and Petrov [11], coming to the same conclusions. I express my thanks to Mr. Bjerknes, who had provided me with a preprint of their work.

[9] C. J. Bjerknes, Private Communication.

[10] C. J. Bjerknes, Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity, XTX Inc. Downers Grove, Illinois USA, 2003."

I properly characterized this, though you did not. Bjerknes was cited in a preprint of Logunov, and in the published Logunov paper on pages 607 and 612-613, they refer Bjerknes's book Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity as a source for the proofs.

see Ref. [7]

which cites

7. Bjerknes C J Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity (Downers Grove, Ill.:XTX Inc., 2003)

On page 621, it states

We also thank C J Bjerknes for helpful remarks.

Winterberg has said that Logunov 2004 came to the same conclusions in a paper which cited Bjerknes from 2003. Now, have you, or have you not, read Bjerknes's book Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity? What is new in Logunov's paper in reference to the CRS issue, which was not first stated in Bjerknes 2003? What was new in Winterberg 2004, which was not first quoted in Bjerknes 2003? The collaboration of Winterberg began before the submission of Winterberg's paper. Bjerknes properly credits Winterberg, and Winterberg raises no objections to Bjerknes's references to Winterberg's work, nor does he raise any objection that Bjerknes has failed to properly cite Winterberg's contributions. Now if you have read Bjerknes's book, as an ethical critic must have, you know that Bjerknes's book goes far beyond Winterberg's paper and frames the full debate. Bjerknes is responsible for the first publication of Winterberg's arguments, not Science, not Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung. Bjerknes recognized their importance, stuck out his neck and published them, and Bjerknes presented his own novel arguments and research thereby framing the debate as we know it today. Relativity Priority Disputation 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi RPD, glad to see you are contributing to the talk page at last. I wonder if you realise that the page is about who originated the theory of relativity, not about the Bjerknes/Stachel spate. It is also not about Einstein's views on Zionism and Judaism. E4mmacro 19:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello E4mmacro!

You make an artificial distinction between the relativity priority dispute, and Stachel's claims that Bjerknes's claims that Einstein was a plagiarist are false. Stachel's claims and Bjerknes's response are a part of the dispute and the POV pushing you are doing to eliminate Bjerknes's response defeat the NPOV requirement that Bjerknes's response be represented. Einstein's views on Zionism and Judaism are relevant for many reasons. They demonstrate, as Bjerknes states, that Einstein was man of very low character who was capable of plagiarism. They also indicate that Einstein may have been motivated by his Jewish and Zionist racism against Gentiles to steal credit for their work and to refuse to "praise the Goy", especially the work of his first wife, as Bjerknes has argued: http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2006/12/racist-jewish-attitude-towards-those.html Do you think I should introduce this into the article? Relativity Priority Disputation 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, no part of the page, apart from the newly added material in the Bjerknes section, deals with issues of character of the participants. Rather, they deal with the statements published in reliable sources about what can be shown to have happened, and what cannot be shown to have happened. In this context, I don't believe statements that ONLY are relevant to theories about Einstein's possible motivations for what he is accused of having done are relevant. --Alvestrand 20:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between possible motivations and general character. Einstein's general character is certainly an issue since he stands accused of plagiarism, as Bjerknes has pointed out. In addition, the general image of Einstein is false and biases the public against Einstein's critics. It is necessary and helpful to portray an accuracte image of Einstein's dark side. Relativity Priority Disputation 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

General character should be discussed on Albert Einstein, if at all. Earlier debates have shown no consensus to change the description there - rather the opposite. --Alvestrand 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The facts are so at odds with the false popular image of Einstein, preserved by biased censors like those found here, that it is much to be desired to expose them. They are highly relevant to this article, in that, as I have already explained, they evince that, contrary to the popular image, Einstein was a man of very low character and was capable of plagiarism. I have a source for this, and you do not have the right to exclude this relevant material. Relativity Priority Disputation 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You should check WP:V - "verifiability, not truth". That you're unable to get your opinions on Einstein's character entered on the Albert Einstein page gives you no right to add the same opinion to another page. WP:NPOV is also interesting reading. --Alvestrand 05:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't helpful for you to misrepresent what I have clearly stated. I am not discussing the Albert Einstein page. I am discussing the popular image of Einstein versus the reality of Einstein and I am stating the fact that Einstein's character is a relevant issue in the Relativity Priority Dispute and is an issue raised by a source which provides verifiability. You are not asking me to add other views, nor are you attempting to add other views yourself, but you are instead demanding that I not raise this relevant issue, which has already been raised by literature cited in this article. You do not have the right to make such a demand. You are violating the very rules to which you point me. Relativity Priority Disputation 13:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are *claiming* that Einstein's character is relevant to this page (while you are not even trying to get your claims about it onto Einstein's page). I am *claiming* the opposite. I believe that the consensus opinion on Wikipedia supports my viewpoint. --Alvestrand 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting what I said. Einstein's character, and the character of Hilbert and Poincare, are raised as an issue in the Relativity Priority Dispute by Bjerknes and by many other verifiable sources. That is a fact and it is a NPOV to include that issue which is discussed in verifiable sources. If you have a source that says Einstein's character is not an issue, then you can add a mention of it on the section I am considering adding on the character of Hilbert, Poincare and Einstein. That is how NPOV works, not by deleting relevant issues raised by the sources cited in this article. Simply put, it is not *my* claim that character is a part of this dispute, but rather it is a fact proven by my citations to Bjerknes, and I intend to add others. The fact that a given issue is not currently a part of this article does not mean that it is not a part of the Relativity Priority Dispute, otherwise this article would never have grown and Wikipedia would not exist as it does. I will add Pais and others, and attempt to provide a fair survey of what has been said. You are of course free to add what you think appropriate, subject to the normal procedures of Wikipedia. But you are not free to prevent the entry of this issue, which is a recorded and verifiable part of the dispute. Relativity Priority Disputation 13:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving old stuff

Since it appears that we're entering another cycle of activity here, I've taken the liberty of archiving everything older than 9 months. --Alvestrand 20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What is ad hominen?

Ad hominen may be the wrong characterisation, but the facts are that Bjerknes in his books, and RPD here, are using Einstein's "dark side" as a means of proving that Einstein did not originate the theory of Relativity. It doesn't matter how dark Einstein's dark side is, that has nothing to do with who originated the theory of relativity. As Alvestran says, the place for views on Einstein's chatacter is the Einstein page. If RPD wants to prove Bjerknes right in his dispute with Stachel, he is free to start a page on that topic e.g. "Bjerknes dispute with Stachel". And is also free to start a page "Who first thought of accusing Einstein of not inventing Relativity", or better still "The history of opposition to the theory of relativity". The last page, would be interesting, and it could differeniate between idelogical attacks, attacks by the Nazi party, and the sincere attempts to come to a better theory, by people such as Ives and Oliver Lodge. Go to it, RPD. E4mmacro 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful suggestions. I have also considered branching this out into other pages. I maintain that if Stachel's review is mentioned at all, then Bjerknes's response must also be represented for a NPOV, because Stachel is stating that Bjerknes is wrong and therefore Einstein did not plagiarize. I also believe that questions of character are relevant to this page, but will ponder the matter further and perhaps constitute a page on Einstein's dark side, as well as a page on the history of the evolution of the priority dispute itself, which could also be a section of this article. Relativity Priority Disputation 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is not much need to mention Stachel's review of Bjerknes book. In fact I thought I had deleted that mention and all the counter-arguments once before, and someone restored it. I would suggest links to new pages, not putting the new material here. E4mmacro 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I may have restored it as we crossed paths editing the article, not realizing that you had deleted it. I would not oppose deleting mention of Stachel's review of Bjerknes's book, but if it remains it must be balanced with his response. Relativity Priority Disputation 13:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bjerknes/Winterberg collaboartion

What is the point of this statement?

Bjerknes and Winterberg's collaborative efforts in 2002 and 2003 formed the basis for their later criticisms of the Corry, Renn and Stachel's 1997 article in Science.

Who cares if they collaborated? Do they want us to know they have at least one person who agrees with them? Who cares what the basis of the later criticism of Corry, Renn and Stachel was? Did they publish jointly? Does one of them think the other is stealing the "credit"?

And the "proof" that they collaborated is said to be that they cited each other.

It is known from Bjerknes's books and Winterberg's article that the two collaborated, because each cited the other. (?)

Many people cite each other without collaborating. I suggest this be deleted as irrelevant. E4mmacro 04:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The original statement and reference have been changed, which has changed their meaning. The section refers to Bjerknes's contributions. It can be proven that he and Winterberg collaborated and that their collaborative work formed the basis for the work of Logunov, Wuensch, Sommer and others, which was the original meaning of what was said. I would not oppose removing the statement and reference. Relativity Priority Disputation 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many quotes

This article has too many block quotes. It's supposed to summarize arguments, not quote them verbatim. I could see some potential in putting the quotes in footnotes to establish context though.-Wafulz 19:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There's some method in the madness.... this page has been extremely contentious at times, with people "summarizing" arguments in ways that were very far from agreeable to the other editors; this usually led to the direct quotes being used, and sometimes lengthened to include enough context. It's possible that the time is quiet enough to do some summarizing and attempted cleanup - feel free to try! --Alvestrand 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bjerknes

After carefully reading the section on Bjerkness, I've removed it. The entire import of the thing seems to be that he's self-published and nobody takes his crackpot ideas seriously. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bjerknes references

I've reverted a removal of the Bjerkens sources from the reference list.

My reasoning is that these sources are in fact cited in the text; we can't remove the possibility for people to follow the references links without also removing the arguments they are referenced for. Note that the article uses a Harvard-like reference style, so in order to find the Bjerknes references, one has to search for [Bje in the text and footnotes, not merely look for ref tags. --Alvestrand 12:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please help

I've heard Zionists made Einstein so popular ,is that right? ,any answer is appreciated.And also was It because of Nazis or ....?--85.185.171.3 (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The patent office and einstein

Did Albert Einstein steal special relativity theory from a person who tried to patent it(or copyright it) while he worked at the Swiss patent office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.197.38 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources cited for such a claim, so by Wikipedia custom we must regard it as false. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lorentz ether theory

I moved the priority section from Lorentz ether theory into this article. There seems to be a better place. --D.H (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use? Lenghty Quotations

Speaking of plagiarism, some of the quotations in this article are so lengthy as to verge on the boundaries of "fair use". Usually a few sentences are okay, but when it gets up to a full page of quoted verbatim text, it begins to raise some concerns. I suspect part of the problem is that some editors are unacquainted with the literature, so other editors use the article itself to provide some reading material, to overcome uninformed objections. I can sympathize with that, but I still think we should make an effort to observe the "fair use" limitations. After all, the authors of those books may still hope to make money from them.Denveron (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotations from Hilbert are fair game, since they're older than US copyright law. As for the newer attackers - as I remember it, the lengthy quotes were inserted in reaction to "cherry-picking" by some of the contributors here; I would not be happy to see them much shortened. Especially when discussing a subject that is so very prone to "he said / she said" debates, it's very easy to cross the boundary from reporting on what someone said into doing WP:OR by picking out pieces that fit this page's context rather than representing the original source. (I know - I've done it myself, inadverently!) --Alvestrand (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

About text marked with "fact" tags

I see that an anonymous editor has been deleting several paragraphs in the article; the common thread seems to be that they contain {{fact}} tags. I've rolled back 3 out of 4 deletions, because the paragraphs in question were partially referenced, or they were connected to the surrounding text in such a way that the text became difficult to comprehend without them.

I'm all in favour of deleting truly unsourced material, but I think it should be done by cleaning up the text so that what it says can be supported from the sources given, not by simply deleting the whole paragraph if there's a {{fact}} tag in it.

Feel free to discuss... --Alvestrand (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Einstein v Poincare on the ether

I object to this statement:

But Einstein (contrary to Lorentz and Poincaré) banished the luminiferous ether out of physics, which lead to a fundamental new approach to physics.

Poincare published in 1889: It matters little whether the ether really exists: that is the affair of the metaphysicians. ..., whereas, no doubt, some day the ether will be thrown aside as useless. [3]

Poincare in 1900: Our ether, does it really exist? I do not believe that more precise observations could ever reveal anything more than relative displacements.

Einstein in his famous 1905 paper: The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, ... [4]

It appears that Einstein's view of the ether was directly plagiarized from Poincare. They both said that the ether, if it even exists at all, is superfluous and unobservable.

Also, Einstein did not banish the ether as he returned to believing in the ether in 1920. [5] Roger (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

By your own quotations, Einstein's 1905 paper did away with the need for an ether. Your Poincare quotes do not seem to match the common opinion. Reverting. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you doubting the accuracy of the quotes? Roger (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly doubting your interpretation of them. In particular, your leap from "Poincare speculated that we might never be able to show the existence (or not) of the ether" to "Einstein plagiarized Poincare". Also, your claim that Poincare established "the principle of relativity" (meaning the one Einstein used) doesn't seem to be verified - in another article, I found Poincare's 1900 principle called the "principle of relative motion". --Alvestrand (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing that the article say that Einstein plagiarized Poincare. But they said nearly the same things about the ether. They both said, in one way or another, that the ether was unobservable. The sentence that I removed was both false and unsourced. Roger (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a new source for Poi02. The text there is: "RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE MOTION. The Principle of Relative Motion. Sometimes endeavours have been made to connect the law of acceleration with a more general principle. The movement of any system whatever ought to obey the same laws, whether it is referred to fixed axes or to the movable axes which are implied in uniform motion in a straight line. This is the principle of relative motion ; it is imposed upon us for two reasons: the commonest experiment confirms it; the consideration of the contrary hypothesis is singularly repugnant to the mind."

So claiming that Poincare called his principle the "Principle of Relativity" is undocumented. I'm changing the text to be in accordance with [Poi02]. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This english translation calls it the "principle of relativity" in Chap. 13, para 244. [6] Roger (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the very last paragraph in the book... That text says "No!" replied the partisans of Lorentz. " What we could measure in that way is not their absolute velocity, but their relative velocity with respect to the ether, so that the principle of relativity is safe. So if Poincare considers that a new term, he is attributing the term "principle of relativity" to the "partisans of Lorentz". Interesting, but not compelling. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Poincaré's thoughts on ether and the principle of relativity are fully described in

Lorentz ether theory#Principle of relativity

Lorentz ether theory#Ether

It's true that Poincaré said in 1889 (reprinted in Science and Hypothesis Ch. 12), that "the ether will be thrown aside as useless." However, it was Einstein, and not Poincaré who fulfilled that prediction. See for example Ch. 10 in Science and Hypothesis, where Poincaré clearly demonstrated, why he believes in the ether. See also his paper in 1908 (Reprinted in Science and Method, Book 3) where he mentioned not only the ether, but also distingueshed between "true" and "apparent" time. Se also his paper in 1912 on Quantum mechanics (reprinted in Last Essays, Ch. 6), where Poincaré still describes light as "vibrations within the ether".
So Poincaré was the first to introduce the principle of relativity in modern form, but it was Einstein who was the first to ban the ether out of special relativity, which makes all inertial frames really equivalent, while according to Poincaré, one preferred but undetectable ether frame exists. So special relativity (in its modern form) was introduced by Einstein, not Poincaré. --D.H (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Poincare has papers referring to the ether. As I pointed out above, Einstein also has papers about the ether. But there is no practical difference between what Poincare and Einstein say around 1905. Poincare said that the ether is unobservable, that existence of the ether is a metaphysical question, and that some day the ether will be thrown aside as useless. Einstein, in his famous 1905 paper, only says that the ether is superfluous. These views are essentially the same. Roger (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To understand Poincaré one must know that within his philosophy nearly everything is "conventional" - including matter and geometry. So look exactly what he wrote:

"Whether the ether exists or not matters little - let us leave that to the metaphysicians; what is essential for us is, that everything happens as if it existed, and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable for the explanation of phenomena. That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis; only, it will never cease to be so, while some day, no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless."

Now, it's a matter of fact, that Poincaré until the end of his life believed, that the ether is a convenient hypothesis and everything happens as if it existed - while Einstein rejected that convention. The main reason of Einstein for rejecting the ether seems to be his corpuscular interpretation of light, while Poincare even in 1912 spoke of "vibrations of the ether". Additionally Poincaré even in 1908 distinguished between "true" and "apparent" time - but in Einstein's theory that distinction makes no sense. So it's clear that the "Relativity theory of Poincarè and Lorentz" (Whittaker) and Einstein's "special relativity" are not the same, although the theories make the same predictions.

PS: It's true that Einstein spoke of an ether in relation of general relativity. But this ether only refers to the gravitational field and Einstein didn't used that phrase very often... --D.H (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Poincare said that the ether was a convenient hypothesis. If you can find a quote of Einstein saying that it was not a convenient hypothesis, then that would be a metaphysical difference in their views. Roger (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the change to the "historians" section - this time, because I don't think you can use Darr to support this exact claim. Darr does quote the "thrown aside as useless" statement by Poincare, but also says "This way or reasoning explains why Einstein, unlike Poincare, conflated the adoption of the relativity principle with the rejection of the ether." (p.16 of the PDF linked from the reference). It's clear that Darr regards the two physicists' approach to the ether as different, so it's not proper use of sources to use a reference to his work in an attempt to show that they are near-identical. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you have replaced a correct statement with an incorrect statement. Either say what Einstein and Poincare actually said, or say what some historian said, and cite the historian. Darrigol does not exactly say the sentence you put in. If Darrigol finds some difference betweein Poincare's and Einstein's views, then perhaps his description of the difference could be included. Roger (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Look into the section: Relativity priority dispute#Olivier Darrigol on Special Relativity (2004). Darrigol makes it very clear. Se also online: The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection. --D.H (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to reflect the actual terminology used by Darrigol. Roger (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thorne quoted out of context

Kip Thorne's book is used here to give a false impression that Thorne has taken a strong historical stand that Hilbert has some priority on the field equations. Thorne is not exactly saying that, he is only repeating the folk history that physicists have passed down the generations regarding the whole Hilbert/Einstein thing. He isn't making strong claims about priority, he is just trying to make the general public aware of what kind of personal issues are involved in the discovery of something as wonderful as general relativity.

Thorne's claim that Hilbert derived the field equations first is based on a common understanding in physics--- that Hilbert had the field equations at about the same time as Einstein. The historians know better, and it seems that the essential idea that Hilbert had was to use R as the action, and derive the field equations from that. But he had a hard time getting the coefficients of the field equations right, because he might have made an algebraic error, and he didn't have enough physical insight about the theory to check the algebra. Einstein followed a slightly more torturous route, deriving the field equations from the physical requirement that the geometric tensor which equals the stress energy tensor must be divergence free. The two conditions give the same equation, but the physical point of view allowed einstein to be sure about the coefficients.

Einstein, after the fact, also gave the generally covariant action principle formulation of his equation, with the same action as Hilbert. As Hilbert admitted, Einstein calculated faster, so much so that Hilbert not only didn't quite drive the right equations (he might have gotten Ruv - 1/4 g_uv R for example, that would be an easy algebraic mistake, or just R_uv), but Einstein was able to verify that the equation was right by finding the correct Newtonian weak field limit and also by getting the perihelion advance of mercury, while Hilbert was still stuck playing around with the formal equations.

So it seems that the resolution which was adopted linguistically, to call them the Einstein equations, but to call the action the Eintein-Hilbert action, is also the correct one in terms of priority. Other than the action, and the spur of competition, Hilbert really didn't get to do very much before Einstein solved everything. Thorne in all likelihood, doesn't take any sides in the dispute, and I think it is best to leave the quotes out, because they are giving the wrong impression.Likebox (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with most of your arguments, it's not relevant for this article, if the arguments of the mentioned scientists are correct or not - the only question is, whether the material is based on reputably sources - and Thorne's book is a reputable source. Although Thorne is not a historian of science, he is even mentioned by Renn/Stachel as one of those, who say that Hilbert "publicly presented the derivation of the field equations of general relativity five days before Einstein". He wrote:

Remarkably, Einstein was not the first to discover the correct form of the law of warpage [of space-time, i.e. the gravitational field equations], the form that obeys his relativity principle. Recognition for the first discovery must go to Hilbert. In autumn 1915, even as Einstein was struggling toward the right law, making mathematical mistake after mistake, Hilbert was mulling over the things he had learned from Einstein’s summer visit to Göttingen. While he was on an autumn vacation on the island of Rugen in the Baltic the key idea came to him, and within a few weeks he had the right law–derived not by the arduous trial-and-error path of Einstein, but by an elegant, succinct mathematical route. Hilbert presented his derivation and the resulting law at a meeting of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Göttingen on 20 November 1915, just five days before Einstein’s presentation of the same law at the Prussian Academy meeting in Berlin.

So I think we should re-insert that section. --D.H (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You should think about the intention, because Thorne is writing folklore history. You can mention this paragraph, but don't give it the weight of Thorne's authority. It doesn't deserve it, because he is not writing real history, and would certainly not support the arguments made on this page about any sort of plagiarism.Likebox (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Moody

I deleted the Moody section, because "Nexus Magazine" is hardly a reputable source. --D.H (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Another editor placed an {{undue}} tag on this article. I'm not sure which way the undueness was supposed to go; this article has, unfortunately, been the battleground of POV-warriors.

To me, the encyclopedic interest of the article is in documenting the fact that there has been disputes about Einstein's priority to the theories. I think a significant number of these disputes have backgrounds going beyond the scholarly and into the ideological; thus, I think the article currently tilts too far in presenting only the most reasonable (or least unreasonable) challenges to Einstein's priority; I'd like to give more prominence to the attacks on Einstein by people related to antisemitic movements of various sorts.

But.... Wikipedia is a consensus project. So let's discuss. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss what? It sounds as if you want to give undue weight to crackpots. I favor removing the tag, unless the editor who put it there explains himself. Roger (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I placed the undue tag because non-mainstream opinions like those of Keswani, Leveugle, Logunov, etc. are over-represented, while the opinions of accepted mainstream historians like Gerald Holton, Abraham Pais, Roberto Torretti etc., are not represented in sufficient detail. In fact, no serious historian claim that Einstein was a plagiarist - this article has to reflect this fact.

BTW: I agree with Alvestrand that the antisemitic motivation of some critics (Lenard, Gehrcke) has to be mentioned in the article. See the articles on Friedrich Hasenöhrl, Paul Gerber, or Johann Georg von Soldner - those people where used in the 20ies by Gehrcke, Lenard etc. to undermine Einstein's priority. --D.H (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of my point - the dispute, and why people keep it alive, is the story worth telling; the arguments brought against Einstein have (relatively) little merit. The intro needs to be rewritten for that to be obvious, something that isn't possible when the anti-Einstein POV-warriors are out in force - but there doesn't seem to be that many of them around now. Perhaps time to try? --Alvestrand (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced. It is mainly about priority, not plagiarism. I am not sure that there is proof of the motivations of the Einstein detractors, but if the article gets into that, then perhaps it should also discuss the motivations of the Einstein promoters. Roger (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alvestrand, you removed an Einstein quote about the ether, saying "Relevant to history of the Ether, but not relevant to priority disputes." The relevance of quote is to whether or not Einstein eliminated the ether. The article says that Einstein completely eliminated the ether, and that this was a basic difference in Einstein's version of the theory. But Einstein himself said that he did not eliminate the ether. Not completely, anyway. He said, "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether." I think that this quote is important for any discussion of the differences between the Poincare and Einstein theories. Roger (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

a) The section is about special relativity, and within the framework of that theory Einstein completely rejected the aether. b) The only thing Einstein did in 1920 was to call the gravitational field of general relativity "aether". c) This lecture by Einstein was held in Leiden - the university of Lorentz, who was extremely respected by Einstein. This seems to be the main psychological motivation for Einstein to introduce the term aether again. But that is irrelevant: The expression was used by Einstein in two subsequent paper - but after 1932 Einstein (as far is I know) never used it again... --D.H (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Einstein did not completely reject the aether. But don't take my word for it; just quote what Einstein actually said. Roger (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

DH, your edits have made it worse. You say that Einstein "demonstrated the relativity of space and time", but of course it is the priority of that demonstration which is under dispute. You say "conspiracy of unexplained effects" in connection with Poincare, but he said nothing of the kind. Let's stick to what these people actually said. Roger (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the section is called "Historians of science", and I reproduced only that what they say. And they (like Holton, Miller, Janssen, etc,) say that the Lorentz-Poincaré theory is a accumulation of hypothesis (around 11, more or less) to hide the ether. --D.H (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What historian said, "conspiracy of unexplained effects"? I removed it unless you can show that some historian said that. I moved the Einstein quote to the Einstein section. Roger (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I summarized the tenor of the descriptions of many historians. If you want to participate in this discussion, please read their books (for example by Holton, Goldber, Schaffner, Stachel, Miller, Zahar, Rynasievich, Torretti, Janssen, etc.). I also removed your original research where you want to "disprove" the claims of some historians that Einstein rejected the ether by quoting Einstein. But we are not interested in you opinion of what Einstein meant by this - Wikipedia has to rely on secondary sources. So you have to provide a reputable secondary source, where Einstein's ether speech and his subsequent opinions about the ether are discussed and interpreted... --D.H (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not doing original research to simply quote Einstein on the subject. His meaning is clear. Read the whole essay if you wish. You (D.H) are the one doing original research when you make a claim about his "main psychological motivation" for saying what he did. I see also that you changed "conspiracy" to "combination", but you are still falsely describing the difference between Poincare's and Einstein's works. The historians do not say that. If you want to cite historians, then cite what they actually said. Roger (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course the historians say that (at least the great majority) - you only have to read them - I've provided enough sources. According to them (incl. Holton, Miller, Pais, Torretti and many others), it's well known that Lorentz's theory is based on a "accumulation" of hypothesis, and Poincaré's work was fully based on Lorentz's as he himself stated. Now, in the aether/relativity theory of Lorentz and Poincaré, the effects of time dilation and length contraction are the product of the motion through the aether and "conspire" to prevent the detection aether-motion - this sounds not very plausible and therefore Einstein's theory is preferred over the Lorentz-Poincaré theory. I've included some information, but if I have more time I will include additional infos to present what they actually say. --D.H (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of postulates of special relativity?

In this edit, the text "He was the first who pointed out that those principles are sufficient to derive the theory and he showed that all times in all frames are equivalent." was changed to "He was the first to argue that those principles are sufficient to derive the theory, although others showed that additional hypotheses are needed. See Postulates of special relativity.".

I have now read Postulates of special relativity, and can't find the third (or fourth, or fifth) postulate that is needed to derive the theory of special relativity. I can only see two on that page. Also, I don't understand what the theories advanced by others have to do in this paragraph, which is trying to describe in a nutshell what Einstein claimed in [Ein05c]. What am I missing? --Alvestrand (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You missed the following -- it probably should be more prominently displayed in the Postulates article: "As Einstein himself later acknowledged, the derivation tacitly makes use of some additional assumptions, including spatial homogeneity, isotropy, and memorylessness." Flegelpuss (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, they were not marked as "postulates", and I'm not sure they are; they aren't a part of the mathematical formulation, they're more like absences - isotropy just means that you assume that there are no anisotropies. One also has to accept all the postulates of algebra in order to use it to calculate the formulae, of course. BTW, I can't seem to figure out what "Morgan document, 1921" refers to, so I can't check the reference. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My reason for the edit is that it is incorrect to say that "those principles are sufficient to derive the theory". Everyone agrees, including Einstein later on, that isotropy and other principles are needed. The matter is explained in the other WP article and does not need to be explained in this one, but this one should not say something that is false either. And it is false to say that those principles are sufficient to derive the theory. Roger (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I still want a source that can be checked for this. "Morgan document" isn't a reference. As you know, calling on Wikipedia for verification is a clear no-no - especially when one editor is actively editing both articles. You have also not answered the question of in which way the assumption of isotropy has a different standing than the assumption of the principles of algebra - that is, something one can readily assume without listing them. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Isotropy is an assumption about physical space. Yes, you need the rules of algebra, but they are all provable from basic math. But basic math alone cannot prove anything about the physical world. I agree that a better reference is needed. A relativity textbook might do it. Maybe someone else can suggest a reference. Roger (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Teleparallel ether vs lumineferous(sp?) ether

I removed this quote from the article, because it is misleading in context:

However, Einstein in a 1920 paper stated, "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether."

Einstein's 1920 conception of Ether was for a now-discredited teleparallel gravity theory he was working on at the time, and it has no relation to the lumineferous(sp?) ether of the 19th century. The new "ether" Einstein was proposing was a background field which filled all of space, but which was relativistically invariant, so it did not pick out a special rest frame. In this regard, the ether Einstein was advocating was like a modern Higgs field, or a quark condensate. These things are not like the ether of the 19th century, because there is no sense in which you can say that you are moving relative to the ether.

This quote, by being placed in a special relativity section, makes it look like Einstein was backpeddling on the lumineferous ether (he wasn't), instead of proposing a new theory.Likebox (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Einstein did backpedal on the aether in 1916, and never again denied its existence after that. I never heard of the "teleparallel ether". I think that Einstein's later view of the aether should be included somewhere. Roger (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Clifford as candidate

Please consider adding a note on William Kingdon Clifford since there is due weight for considering him a contributor to the theory of relativity in the nineteenth century. His active life with the British algebrists that used tools like biquaternions to develop physical intuition enabled the adoption of the cosmological ideas. Due diligence in making this article will not discard English literature.Rgdboer (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Given 33 Watchers currently, I expected some discussion. If none is forthcomming soon, Clifford's name will be added to candidates, with appropriate alterations to other sections.Rgdboer (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are a lot of other more important contributors who should be inserted before Clifford. Was his work as important as that of Riemann, Maxwell, Ricci, Levi-Civita, Cartan, Planck, Sommerfeld, Laue, etc? Roger (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed that Clifford should have priority rights to any of the relativity theories? This isn't a page for discussing who contributed to the development of the theories (that should go on History of special relativity and History of general relativity), it's a page for discussing the theories that other people should have the credit for creating the theories instead of Einstein (many of which go rather far into the "crackpot" department). --Alvestrand (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Clifford's claim to General Relativity was advanced by Ruth Farwell and Christopher Knee in 1990: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21: 91–121. As for the priority in Special Relativity, Clifford referred to the "modern theory of relative rest and relative motion" as a part of linear algebra in Common Sense of the Exact Sciences (1885).Rgdboer (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I just found his essay: On the Space-Theory of Matter (1870) [7]. It has some brief speculations about the motion of matter being interpreted as a variation in the curvature of 3-dimensional space. It is only distantly related to relativity. Is there more? Roger (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Clifford is today mentioned as anticipator of general relativity. Commentators on Clifford's contribution are found at William Kingdon Clifford#Premonition of relativity. If you do not think Clifford deserves mention, please explain.Rgdboer (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can see mentioning him along with Riemann and Levi-Civita. But I removed the statement that "Einstein's introduction of tensor calculus makes him the founder". Einstein did not introduce the tensor calculus. Levi-Civita and Grossmann did. Roger (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

By chronology, Clifford deserves mention up front with his anticipation. On Marcel Grossmann, the narrative of Abraham Pais in his biography (1982) of Einstein makes Grossmann a co-originator of the application of tensor calculus to general relativity.Rgdboer (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Einstein's references

The article stated that Einstein's papers, in which he presented the special and general theories, did not refer to the work of others. This is not accurate, as can be verified directly from the papers themselves. For example, even in the 1905 paper he refers twice to Lorentz's theory, including the statement that "we have thus shown that, on the basis of our kinematic principles, the electrodynamic foundations of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies agrees with the principle of relativity". Of course, he also refers, early in the paper, to the unsuccessful attempts to detect motion of the earth relative to the light medium, which is a clear reference to the well-known work of experimentalists in the field. Also, in continuing to develop and elaborate on special relativity in the next couple of years his subsequent papers (e.g., 1906 and 1907) referred to work of Poincare and Planck, etc. And of course his papers developing general relativity referred to Mach and others. So, overall, it isn't exactly accurate to say his papers didn't refer to the work or ideas of others. It is true that he didn't tend to provide formal references (although the referece to Poincare in 1906 was formal), and this could well be discussed in the article, but it's best not to begin the article with a flatly false assertion. It will distract any knowledgeable reader.Urgent01 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1905 paper refers to work on electrodynamics by Maxwell, Hertz, and Lorentz, but not to the relativity work which is the subject of the paper. He does not refer to Lorentz for what were later called Lorentz transformations. You might argue that the "motion of the earth" sentence is an obvious reference to the well-known Michelson-Morley, but the Einstein biographers adamantly deny that. I suggest going back to the original sentence: Albert Einstein presented the theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity in groundbreaking publications that did not include references to the work of others. Roger (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We agree that the 1905 paper did indeed refer to the work of others, so even if the sentence you are advocating referred only to the 1905 paper, it would be false. Moreover, the sentence actually refers to the paperS (plural) in which Einstein presented the theories of special and general relativity, and this consists of about a dozen or more papers, during the years from 1905 to 1916, and of course a review of all those papers turns up numerous references to "the work of others". So, it's clear that the sentence you are advocating is flatly wrong and inconsistent with the verifiable sources.

If I may take the liberty, I think the point you are trying to make is that, in Einstein's papers presenting his theories of special and general relativity, he did not indicate that the reasoning which he was presenting had already been published by others. That would be a true statement, but the significance of it is unclear, because it is not evident whether, in fact, the reasoning he was presenting had already been published by others. Indeed, several of the "others" (notably Max Born, who had already been working in the field, having studied the works of Poincare, Lorentz, etc when he was Minkowski's assistant in Gottingen) stated that Einstein's reasoning was a "revelation" to him, the most stunning epiphany he ever experienced in his scientific life. Many other scientists working in the field, and well acquainted with the current literature, had the same reaction. In view of this, it seems rather odd to contend that Einstein's reasoning was not novel, and that he ought to have credited his reasoning to others. Of course, this is the very question that the article is trying to discuss, i.e., was Einstein's reasoning new and original, and obviously we don't need to settle it in the first paragraph of the article, but neither should we lead off with false statements that contradict the verifiable sources. Maybe another sentence could be crafted which would accurately state the facts, but the original sentence (that I removed) clearly won't do.

By the way, regarding the attempts to measure the earth's motion through the ether, there were numerous such experiments, so it need not have been an explicit reference to Michelson-Morley. Most biographers say that Einstein probably was aware of Michelson (it would have been hard NOT to be aware of it), but it's unclear how much he was influenced by that versus the other considerations, as described in his writings.)Urgent01 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not the point I am trying to make. I am just stating a simple fact. Einstein's groundbreaking papers on SR and GR did not have any references to relativity work by others. It is true that he wrote some review papers that had some references, but the groundbreaking papers did not. By 1905, there had been about 10 important relativity papers published, and Einstein did not reference any of them.

Maybe some quote by Born shows that Einstein did not need to reference those papers. That can be discussed elsewhere. Nevertheless it is an important fact that Einstein's 1905 paper did not cite the prior work. Roger (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying. We've already agreed that, in fact, Einstein's papers did refer to "the work of others", so stating that they did not would obviously be false. Even if we qualify the statement, narrowing it to just two specific papers, namely the EMB paper of 1905 and (I suppose) the summary presentation of 1916, it still would be false, because we've already agreed that even in these two papers he referred to "the work of others". Now, you seem to want to qualify the statement still further, and say that he did not refer to some specific "work of others" that you have in mind, but even that would be false, because the quotation given above from the 1905 paper specifically refers to Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies (which is Lorentz's "theory of relativity"), and notes that it satisfies the principle of relativity. In case you missed it, here it is again: "We have thus shown that, on the basis of our kinematic principles, the electrodynamic foundations of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies agrees with the principle of relativity". I don't see how you can maintain that this is not a reference to the relevant work of others. And, again, as mentioned previously, he also referred to the experimentalist work on relativity. So EVEN if the statement was doubly qualified and restricted, it would STILL be false, contradicted by easily verifiable data.Urgent01 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Einstein refers to previous work only in the trivial sense that all papers do. His paper does not have any reference to related work on relativity. I think that it is obvious that "Lorentz's theory" refers to the Lorentz force law, and not Lorentz's relativity theory. It would not make any sense to say that Lorentz's relativity theory agrees with the principle of relativity. But I could be wrong, and maybe it is one of Lorentz's relativity papers of 1892, 1895, 1899, or 1904. No matter what, Einstein doesn't say. Einstein's quote is not a reference to one of those papers. Roger (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I still can't make any sense of what you're saying. The quote I gave you from Einstein's paper is an explicit reference to Lorentz's electrodynamics of moving bodies, which of course is Lorentz's relativity theory, as developed in the papers of 1892, 1895, 1904, etc. (Einstein said he had not read Lorentz's 1904 paper when he was composing his EMB paper, but never mind.) The quoted reference is clearly to Lorentz's work on relativity - although of course Lorentz didn't call it that. Your complaint is a non-sequitur.

By the way, it might be helpful for you to review Lorentz's papers of 1895 and 1904, in which you will find that the only references are a few footnotes, all but three of which refer to experiments designed to detect the earth's motion through the ether (to which Einstein also referred), and to Kaufmann's ion experiments. The only other references in those two papers of Lorentz were one saying that Poincare had chided him for accumulating hypotheses, one attributing the term "quasi-stationary" to Max Abraham, and one in which he (Lorentz) acknowledged that in his earlier groundbreaking paper on contraction he had failed to cite Fitzgerald (because he hadn't known that Fiztgerald had suggested the same idea previously). No mention of Larmour, Voigt or any other predecessors (with whom Lorentz was quite familiar, by the way). Neither Lorentz nor Einstein (nor their readers) saw their task as performing a survey of the literature.Urgent01 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the sentence you advocate is not only false, it is utterly beside the point. Remember, the purpose of the article is to discuss - on the basis of verifiable data - the question of whether and to what extent the theories of special and general relativity as put forward by Einstein were actually put forward earlier by others. If Larmour had actually developed special relativity prior to Einstein or Lorentz, then this would be true regardless of whether Einstein or Lorentz mentioned Larmour in their writings. Oddly, you say "Einstein refers to previous work only in the trivial sense that all papers do". Well, yes. Therefore it is obviously false to say that Einstein did not refer to previous work. I suggest that we avoid placing obviously false statements into the article.Urgent01 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I say that you have removed good info from the article. Since you quote Einstein's friend Max Born, note that Born also said: "I have now to say some words about the work of these predecessors of Einstein, mainly of Lorentz and Poincare. ... Many of you have looked upon [Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper' in Annalen der Physik ... and you will have noticed some peculiarities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true." Roger (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A false statement can't be "good info". It is verifiably false to say that Einstein's papers did not refer to the work of others. You've been given the quotes from his paper that refers to the work of Lorentz, as well as the reference to the well-known experimental work.

We're all quite familiar with all of Born's writings on the subject, and with Born's connection to Whittaker, and so on. That's why I specifically quoted Born's comment about how stunningly novel was Einstein's reasoning. And of course, in the essay that you've quoted, Born concludes that we are justified in speaking of "Einstein's theory of relativity", while still recognizing the contributions of Lorentz and Poincare (and later Minkowski). He also notes that he wrote that lecture fifty years after the fact, from memory, with no access to the papers. He was giving his impressions, and of course he did not remember that Einstein's paper actually did refer to Lorentz's work. So, if you wanted the introductory sentence of this article to say "Born mistakenly stated that Einstein's 1905 paper did not refer to the work of others...", but that would be ridiculous. Why begin the article by repeating a mistake? And, as I said above, it's not only false, it's irrelevant. The subject of this article is not the citation habits of European physicists around 1900, it is the question of priority.

Look, we can stipulate that Einstein was implicitly claiming originality for the reasoning presented in his papers. He didn't credit his reasoning to others (except in specific cases where he was explicitly borrowing, and said so) because he did not believe anyone had presented that reasoning before. This is standard practice. The article can consider whether he was correct in this belief, and whether the novel aspects of his thinking (if there were any) actually constitute a valuable advance in the subject, but it's just silly to begin the article with a false and irrelevant statement. I repeat, false statements can't be good info. If you could formulate a true statement, no one would object to including it, but so far you've indicated that you will only be satisfied with the original false statement - a position which seems rather odd. I suspect it's because you realize that, if you modify the statement so as to make it true, it no longer conveys the impression you are seeking to convey.Urgent01 (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just simply say that Einstein explicitly but informally referred to Lorentz' previous work on relativity? That is a fact, right? DVdm (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not a fact. There is no such reference. The 1905 Einstein paper discusses moving systems and moving bodies. These mean very different things. The Earth is a moving system, while an electron is a moving body. Einstein mentions "the Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies", but not Lorentz's work on moving systems. Your comment shows the confusion that Urgent01 has generated.

Urgent01 argues that Einstein's reasoning was so original that no reference is necessary. Others have expressed that opinion, so perhaps it belongs in the article somewhere. Either way, it is a notable and relevant fact that the paper had no references. Urgent01 also expresses other opinions that would be disputed by some of the reliable sources in the article. Roger (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a notable and relevant fact that the paper had no formal references, but it clearly mentioned "The Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies."

"The Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies" is of course Lorentz's work on moving systems, but if that really somehow sounds frightening, why don't we just simply say that Einstein explicitly but informally referred to "the Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies". That is a fact, right? DVdm (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We disagree about the meaning of that quote, so no, I don't accept what you say as a fact. The point of saying that there are no references is that (1) it is unusual, (2) it gives an impression of originality (whether justified or not), (3) there is no agreement (but much speculation) about Einstein's sources. If you want to find a neutral way of saying all that, then go ahead. The info is missing from the current article. Roger (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that part of the relativity priority dispute is 1) whether the level of citation was usual, 2) whether the impression of originality is justified and 3) disagreement about sources. A statement that takes a stand on these issues at the beginning of the article, rather than stating they are in dispute, seems inappropriate. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@Roger: If you think that (1), (2), (3) should be mentioned, then I have problem with that. These are 3 well known facts about which I don't particularly care, nor do I object against mentioning them, so by all means, mention them. On the other hand, he explictly mentioned Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies. So, referring to your most recent formulation, I propose to write:

Albert Einstein presented the theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity in groundbreaking publications that did not include formal references to the work of others, although he referred to Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies in his 1905 paper.

If you'd like to explicitly have the words unusual, original, agreement, and/or speculation somewhere in there, feel free to propose. I don't think I (or Urgent01, or anyone) would object. DVdm (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jwy's comment. It has not been established that the level and manner of citation was notably unusual, and in fact I directed Roger's attention to the 1895 and 1904 papers of Lorentz that have essentially the same sparse level of citation. It would be unusual for a paper published today, but it was less unusual for the time. It's inappropriate to pre-judge this, without discussion, in the opening sentence of the article. Of course, the suitable amount of citation varies from one paper to another, and it has not been established that there were any MISSING citations in any of Einstein's several papers. I'm sure there were some (there always are), but again, this is a complicated issue, and shouldn't be pre-judged in the first sentence of the article. Item (3) is getting a bit off track, because this article is supposed to be about priority, which is not the same as an article about plagiarism. If the article is about plagiarism, it would be most concerned with Einstein's actual sources, and comparing those to what he cited. But the article is about PRIORITY, i.e., where the ideas and reasoning presented by Einstein as original actually given in prior publications by others? The answer to this question is independent of who cited what when. If Roger wants to write about "Einstein, Incorragible Plagiarist", then I think that should be in a separate article, not here. This article is for the priority question.Urgent01 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Roger chose to ignore my proposal and insert a clearly erroneous statement, so I made a correction. Feel free to amend further. DVdm (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, your proposal is okay with me. (I posted my edit before seeing your proposal.) Urgent01, I looked at the 1895 and 1904 papers of Lorentz, as you suggested, and it is not true that they have essentially the same sparse level of citation. The 1904 paper has 10 formal references to different publications by others, and the 1895 paper has dozens. Einstein has zero in his 1905 paper. As for your point about priority issues being distinct from plagiarism issues, I am not proposing to draw any conclusions about what Einstein knew. But there are several arguments given in the article that depend on what Einstein knew, so it seems to be relevant to both sides of the dispute. Roger (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have modified the first sentence of the lead accordingly. DVdm (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, I think there's still a problem, because the sentence refers to both the special and general theories, and yet the comment about Lorentz really applies only to the 1905 paper on special relativity. Einstein published further "groundbreaking" papers on special relativity, in some of which appear formal citations to other literature, e.g., Poincare, and of course there were a series of papers leading up to general relativity and the gravitation theory, containing a multitude of references to the works of other in all those papers. The current opening sentence is therefore not accurate.

Schlafly, your comment about the references in Lorentz and Einstein is mistaken. You've already been provided with explicit quotations from even the most sparse of Einstein's papers (the 1905 EMB), in which he explicitly refers to the relevant work of his predecessors, most notably Lorentz. Also, you have no justification for limiting consideration to just the 1905 EMB paper, since that was just one of several in which Einstein described special and then general relativity. You've also been provided with a complete summary of Lorentz's "references", showing that they do not amount to any more thorough sourcing than Einstein's. Once again, all but three of Lorentz's footnotes simply identify the well-known experiments designed to detect the earth's motion through the ether, to which Einstein also referred, and to Kaufmann's ion experiments. The only other references in those two papers of Lorentz were one saying that Poincare had chided him for accumulating hypotheses, one attributing the term "quasi-stationary" to Max Abraham, and one in which he (Lorentz) acknowledged that in his earlier groundbreaking paper on contraction he had FAILED to cite Fitzgerald (because he hadn't known that FitzGerald had suggested the same idea previously). Of course, he again FAILED to cite Larmor for the same idea. None of these constitutes a general reference to the relevant prior work, of people like Larmor, Voigt or any other predecessors, with whom Lorentz was quite familiar, by the way. So, your appraisals of Lorentz's and Einstein's references to prior work are completely wrong - and this highlights the problematical nature of putting a sentence to blithely pre-judge this subject at the beginning of the article.

You mention that "there are several arguments given in the article that depend on what Einstein knew". Could you identify those? Why would the question of priority hinge on what Einstein knew? Surely that only bears on the question of plagiarism, not priority. I think this article should focus on the priority question.Urgent01 (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following:

Albert Einstein presented the theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity in groundbreaking articles published in 1905 and 1915. Subsequently claims have been put forward about both theories, asserting that they were formulated, either wholly or in part, by others before Einstein. Einstein himself referred to a small number of his predecessors for fundamental results on which he based his theories, most notably to the work of Hendrik Lorentz for special relativity, and to the work of Gauss, Riemann, and Mach for general relativity. At issue is whether Einstein and others gave his predecessors enough credit and whether he can rightly be considered the true and sole creator of these theories, based on priority considerations, or whether other individuals should be credited with some or all of these theories.(John User:Jwy talk) 20:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, although I'd replace "published in 1905 and 1915" to "published between 1905 and 1916", because the groundbreaking papers were really a series of papers, both for special relativity and even more so for general relativity, covering the important 1907, 1911, 1913 (with Grossmann), and the series of 1915 papers, culminating with the summary capstone in early 1916. In many of these papers Einstein referred to the work of various predecessors. Of course, there's no reason not to consider his earlier and later writings as well, if our objective is to glean what we can about who he considered to be his sources.Urgent01 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Urgent01, I am surprised that you like that suggestion. It says that the "issue" is whether Einstein gave his predecessors enough credit. You have argued that such considerations are relevant to plagiarism, but not priority. So why would you want such a sentence in the opening paragraph? The reason for pointing out the lack of references is not to blame Einstein, but to show that you cannot assess the priority by reading Einstein's papers. Roger (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The words about "giving enough credit" were not my choice, but they are mitigated by saying "Einstein and others", which makes it fairly generic. My suggestion was simply to say "At issue is whether Einstein can rightly be considered the true and sole creator of these theories, based on priority considerations, or whether other individuals should be credited with some or all of these theories." This dispenses with the blame assignment, and simply focuses on the actual question of priority. The mention of Einstein's references is still somewhat out of place, so my first choice is still the wording that I originally suggested, which doesn't even bring it up. But there seems to be a desire on the part of the other editors here to keep the reference to Einstein's references in the opening sentence, so all I'm really trying to do is make it not flatly false, which the other versions were. At least with the current words (even with Jwy's variation), it avoids making an outright false assertion, which may be the best that can be achieved with an article of this nature.Urgent01 (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the current formulation is that it leans toward castigating Einstein for not citing enough at the very beginning of the article - when (apparently) that is part of the dispute to be discussed in more detail below. My formulation was an attempt to be neutral about it in the lead. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I concur with your intent. The difficulty is in somehow connecting the statement about Einstein's references with the rest of the paragraph, since it isn't exactly relevant. How about this:

Albert Einstein presented the theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity in a series of groundbreaking articles published between 1905 and 1916. Subsequently claims have been put forward about both theories, asserting that they were formulated, either wholly or in part, by others before Einstein. Einstein himself referred to a small number of his predecessors for fundamental results on which he based his theories, most notably to the work of Hendrik Lorentz for special relativity (although he also mentioned Abraham, Bucherer, Poincare, Cohn, Planck, and Fitzgerald), and to the work of Gauss, Riemann, Minkowski, Levi-Civita, and Mach for general relativity. At issue is whether Einstein can rightly be considered the true and sole creator of these theories, or whether other individuals should be credited with some or all of these theories.

Unfortunately, the more accurately Einstein's references are presented, the less sense it makes to even talk about those references in this opening sentence. This is what I've been trying to say all along. The remainder of the article can search for clues to other individuals work in Einstein's references, but it's entirely possible that some predecessors weren't mentioned by (or known to) Einstein at all. So it's extremely awkward to fit that sentence into the opening sentence. So, in my opinion, a better opening paragraph would be

Albert Einstein presented the theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity in a series of groundbreaking articles published between 1905 and 1916, and he came to be popularly regarded as the main if not the sole founder of these theories. Subsequently claims have been put forward about both theories, asserting that they were formulated, either wholly or in part, by others before Einstein. At issue is whether Einstein can rightly be considered the true and sole creator of these theories, or whether other individuals should be credited with some or all of these theories.Urgent01 (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that all these suggestions use more words and convey less information than what was there in the first place. Roger (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The original words conveyed false "information", so those words were obviously not suitable. The suggested words above, listing at least some of the individuals whose work on relativity was cited by Einstein in his papers from 1905 to 1916 is correct and verifiable information, although the relevance is admittedly questionable, which is why I suggested the 2nd alternative, which dispenses with the discussion of references (in the opening sentence of the article), and instead simply says that Einstein came to be regarded as the founder of the theories, which is the only relevant point leading up to the statement that his status as the founder and originator has been questioned. To refine the wording a bit more, for still more accuracy, I'd suggest

Albert Einstein published a series of articles between 1905 and 1916 describing what came to be called the theories of special relativity and general relativity, and he came to be widely regarded as the main if not the sole originator of these theories. However, claims have sometimes been put forward about both theories, asserting that they were formulated, either wholly or in part, by others before Einstein. At issue is whether Einstein is rightly considered the true and sole originator of these theories, or whether other individuals should be credited with some or all of these theories.Urgent01 (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to say "false" information. I'm not prepared to say true or false about it. But unsuitable, yes. It seems to make Einstein an active agent in the priority issues at publication time when this is not established clearly and is part of what is disputed. I like your new formulation, however. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My reason for saying the original statement was false is that it say Einstein's papers on relativity "did not refer to the work of others", whereas a review of those papers shows that in fact they did contain numerous references, including many formal citations, to the work of others. And of course we know that early readers of his papers, like Kaufmann, called it the Lorentz-Einstein theory, so one can hardly claim that the connection was obscure. Only gradually did Einstein's work come to be seen as separate and distinct from Lorentz's (which of course was closely linked with Poincare), largely because Lorentz said they were different. So, regardless of why one believes Einstein came to be regarded as the originator of a new and important set of ideas, the answer is not to be found in any alleged lack of references in his papers to the work of others. It's even possible that he actually was the originator of new and important ideas. But in any case, the whole "references" angle is a red herring.Urgent01 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

References in the EMB 1905 paper on relativity

I find no explicit mention of Lorentz in the famous 1905 paper (have I missed something?). There is a single refernce to what has been done already to first order, which probably means Lorentz, but could mean Larmor. When the the issue is priority, the refernces in the first paper are what matter. I think it is clear than Einstein effectively had none, whereas Lorentz had many. There is something odd about the referreeing system (or lack of one?) in 1905, but I don't think you can claim people then didn't expect citations to previous work. E4mmacro (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

See EMB, p. 29: "then these equations form the electromagnetic basis of Lorentz's electrodynamics and optics for moving bodies." p. 30: "the electromagnetic basis of Lorentz's theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies correspond to the relativity principle." --D.H (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In the original version: "... die elektromagnetische Grundlagen der Lorentzschen Elektrodynamik und Optik bewegter Koerper." etc. DVdm (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten that Lorentz was mentioned by name, but Einstein is certainly not giving Lorentz credit for the "lorentz transformations". I remember now my queries, when first reading EMB 1905, was "Which papers of Lorentz's are you referring to?" (and why are these equations now known as the Lorentz transformation?) I suspect Einstein was thinking of Lorentz's book of circa 1895, but there are Lorentz papers of 1899 and 1902 (and 1904 of course) which are relevant and one would expect by modern standards that that these would be brought to the author's attention by a modern referee. I guess things were different then. E4mmacro (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Einstein later claimed that he read Lorentz 1895 but not Lorentz 1904. Others say Einstein had read more than he admits. The name "Lorentz transformation" comes from Poincare and not Einstein, as Einstein cited Lorentz for his electrodynamics. Roger (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Additions

The viewpoints of the following authors/historians are now included: Gerald Holton, Arthur I. Miller, Abraham Pais, Elie Zahar, John Stachel, Peter Galison, Roger Cerf, Shaul Katzir, Scott Walter. --D.H (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

D.H, I see that you have made a number of useful contributions to Wikisource. I would like to correct one minor error, but I don't see how to do it anymore. I click on Edit for [8], but I do not see the actual (translated) text. Where is it? Thanks. Roger (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

a) Click on the corresponding page number on the left side of the text; or b) go to the index page, then click on the relevant page. --D.H (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just made the fix. The words "sensitive" and "sensible" have slightly different meanings in English. Roger (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the statement that "Lorentz never abandoned the concept of the stationary aether". Lorentz only talked about a stationary aether in the context of rejecting the aether drift theory. This remark is given to show that Lorentz had some sort of disagreement with Einstein, but as far as I know, Lorentz talked about Einstein's 1905 theory many times without expressing any disagreement with it. The quote is in the Pais section, so if Pais said it then it is fair to say that Pais said it, but I would drop the parenthetical comment "as Lorentz himself stated in several post-1905 papers". Lorentz's post-1905 papers said that he agreed with Einstein. Roger (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A stationary aether implies aether drift. Lorentz only said, that if the relativity principle is correct, one can not measure such a drift - yet it still exists. See for example his 1910 paper:

Provided that there is an aether, then under all systems x,y,z,t, one is preferred by the fact, that the coordinate axes as well as the clocks are resting in the aether. If one connects with this the idea (which I would abandon only reluctantly) that space and time are completely different things, and that there is a "true time" (simultaneity thus would be independent of the location, in agreement with the circumstance that we can have the idea of infinitely great velocities), then it can be easily seen that this true time should be indicated by clocks at rest in the aether. However, if the relativity principle had general validity in nature, one wouldn't be in the position to determine, whether the reference system just used is the preferred one. Then one comes to the same results, as if one (following Einstein and Minkowski) deny the existence of the aether and of true time, and to see all reference systems as equally valid. Which of these two ways of thinking one is following, can surely be left to the individual.

Lorentz here described the conceptual difference ("two ways of thinking") between Lorentz ether theory and special relativity. The same he wrote in the Theory of electrons (1909) and his Teyler lectures (1913), where he again alluded to his preference for the aether. This is all well known to historians like Holton, Pais, Janssen ect... --D.H (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lorentz does not say that an aether exists in that quote. He merely said that you can get the same results with or without an aether. Einstein and many others have said the same thing.

A stationary aether does not imply aether drift. Lorentz did clearly deny the aether drift theory.

At any rate, the Pais section should just describe Pais's views, not your views. It is not even clear why a 1910 quote is relevant to relativity priority, because the evidence for Lorentz's priority is in his 1892-1904 papers. I suggest removing the parenthetical comment as it is contrary to the facts and not part of what is being attributed to Pais. Roger (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Pais explicitly referred to Lorentz's post-1905 papers (Columbia lectures, Teyler lectures), so the parenthetical comment is at the right place. Read Pais' book. (And that Lorentz also used the stationary aether before 1905 is really undisputed...) --D.H (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

First: I've reverted the edits of IP:71.98.136.27, because Whittaker doesn't mention the exact dates (he only wrote, p. 170: "Almost simultaneously with Einstein's discovery of General Relativity, David Hilbert (1862-1943) gave a derivation of the whole theory from a unified principle."). Additionally, the exact date of Hilbert's submission is disputed, as explained at length in the article.
Second: The sections contain the views of the known historians - the inclusion of primary sources like Einstein's aether speech is original research (BTW, Einstein's aether has no state of motion as clearly expressed by him, so it's not the mechanistic-stationary aether of Lorentz and Poincaré etc..). --D.H (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The IP71-edits were clearly wp:OR. DVdm (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: The sections contain the views of the known historians - why is this so hard to understand?? This means: The Whittaker section contains only the Whittaker views, the Holton section only the Holton views, the Pais section only the Pais views etc. I we start to comment on the assertions within the individual sections, then the whole article goes down, because every assertion of every author must then be commented as well... --D.H (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a non-responsive anon with an agenda:

• 71.98.141.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.132.88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.98.136.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Perhaps some admin might want to look into it? DVdm (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Einstein believed in Aether

In 1920 Einstein insisted Aether was real and necessary. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory This is a pertinent link not to be ignored. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.141.58 (talk • contribs)

Please do read wp:CIRCULAR. DVdm (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK I respected this. I removed the wikipedia reference but keep the other footnote reference to a scientific article. We can still include this footnote reference : http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0410/0410001v2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.141.58 (talk • contribs)

No, I'm afraid we cannot: That source does not say that "Einstein returned to the concept of aether in 1920" - 4th removal for wp:original research. DVdm (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Then rephrase it. He embraced aether in 1920. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.141.58 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: ANI-notice: "Pushing original research beyond 3RR". DVdm (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Is not original research; a scientific reference is quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.141.58 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See wp:original research - this was explained before. DVdm (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

you can't stand the truth, can you ? hide the truth.71.98.141.58 (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No one denies that Einstein wrote that paper in 1920, but you have to provide a paper (a reputable secondary source), in which a known author draws the conclusion, that this is contradicting the 1905-view that there is no stationary aether, and who gives priority to Lorentz or Poincaré. Then we could write a new section, describing the view of this author. But for now, is is only you who draws that conclusion, and that is original research. --D.H (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Poincaré regarded ether as superfluous. Einstein insisted ether was real. End of story. 71.98.128.47 (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

To avoid an on-going edit war, admin SarekOfVulcan fully protected the article, pending discussion. Since no reasonable discussion is possible with people who make remarks like "you can't stand the truth, can you ? hide the truth", and since these edits were discussed before, admin SarekOfVulcan suggested we request to undo anon71's last edits containing badly sourced content, effectively restoring the article to this last known good version. See also ANI-notice Pushing original research beyond 3RR. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think that the article presents an inaccurate description of the views of Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein about the aether. If we avoid OR, then we are stuck with the historians, even if they are inaccurate. But it seems to me that D.H has also inserted OR. The Galison section says Poincare "still adhered to the concepts of Lorentz's stationary aether", and I don't see where Galison says exactly that. The Pais section says that "Lorentz himself stated in several post-1905 papers" that he never abandoned the concept of the stationary aether. Again, I don't think that is true and I don't see where Pais sais exactly that. If you don't want OR, then I suggest sticking to actual quotes for Galison, Pais, and others. Roger (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Poincaré stated clearly that Aether is 'superfluous' and is 'best left to metaphysicians'. Poincaré was correct. 71.98.135.234 (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Poincaré's perfectly correct views on aether are quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ARelativity_priority_dispute#Einstein_v_Poincare_on_the_ether 71.98.135.234 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I think you know very well, that most historians agree, that the main difference between Lorentz and Poincaré on one hand, and Einstein on the other, is the abandonment of the mechanistic-stationary aether; i.e, Lorentz and Poincaré adhered (at least philosophically) to the stationary aether concept before and after 1905, which is also indicated by their use of "apparent" and "true" time. Galison referred (I read the German translation) several times to Poincaré's relation to the aether in connection with "true" and "apparent" time (like Pais, Galison even alluded to Poincaré's use of length contraction as a third hypothesis). And Pais wrote a section 8.3, called "Lorentz and the aether" ("dynamical effects, aether possesses at least some substantiality, space and time can sharply be separated, simultaneity without further specification, etc."). So if you really read this sources, then your questions make no sense. --D.H (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

One can still today talk about true time and apparent time. In the Twin Paradox we on Earth can be considered true time, while the twin's clock is apparent, because the twin had undergone accelerations. Also, Dirac wrote in the 1930's that one can always maintain a concept of ether, it is philosophical, and Poincaré also made this clear. Poincaré is correct. 71.98.135.234 (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinions about what is correct or not, are irrelevant. Only reputable secondary sources are of interest. Your latest link to arXiv:gr-qc/0410001v2 is only about a test theory for Lorentz symmetry violation, that is, a theory not equivalent to special relativity. The paper also does not comment on relativity priority dispute, thus the inclusion of it (in this connection) is WP:original research. If (and only if) you actually find a source someday, then write a new section. --D.H (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor point of text cleanup: search the article for the text ... the Lorentz' ... and you'll see that it should be either ... the Lorentz ... without the apostrophe ... or ... Lorentz' (or perhaps Lorentz's, following trends) ... without the word "the". (I used ellipses here instead of quotation marks because of the confusion they might cause with the single apostrophe involved.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.170.163 (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(The unsigned comments are not from me.) I agree that some historians draw great attention to the aether when they credit Einstein for special relativity. But the differences are very slight, at best. Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein do not even mention any properties of the aether when they describe the heart of their theories. So I think that you should stick to what these historians actually say, because you are exaggerating the aether differences.

Galison seems to be trying to avoid the priority dispute, and he does not say much about the aether either. Your summary implies that Poincare's relativity was inferior because he "still adhered to the concepts of Lorentz's stationary aether". I think that this is incorrect, and that Galison does not say it.

Pais says some very silly things, such as claiming that Poincare never understood relativity. If you are going to summarize his views, then should stick to what he actually says, and insert your own personal arguments about the aether. Roger (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exaggerating the aether question, because most Historians use this argument to support Einstein's priority, and the article must reflect this (BTW: My personal opinion is very different from that of those historians...yet I won't insert my opinion in any article, because I'm obeying the WP-rules). And again: The Galison-summary clearly states, that he gave credit to both Poincaré and Einstein for relative simultaneity, and Galison also alluded several times to the difference between their assumptions about aether, true/apparent time. And Pais (in the mentioned chapter) clearly says that Lorentz adheres to the stationary aether, and explained the relativistic effects "dynamically" - that's all, even if you don't like Pais' "silly" conclusions. --D.H (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Galison, Pais, etc, are trying to make excuses for Einstein. There is no question that Poincaré discovered the theory of relativity including E=mc2 and that Einstein was just a shameless plagiarist. 71.98.128.47 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I don't have Pais and Galison with me. Maybe I will propose something later. I also have quibbles about the Miller section, but I don't have those papers. Do you know what the quotes mean in the Miller section? Are "ideal" and "imaginary" supposed to be quotes of Poincare or Miller?

Galison does have some comments about Poincare's terminology. He says that Poincare uses "apparent time" to mean the time measured by clocks in the frame, while "true time" is what Einstein called "the time of the stationary system". However, I don't see what this has to do with relativity priority, and I don't recall Galison saying that it did. So unless Galison used the point to make a priority argument, I think that it should be removed. Roger (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, imaginary and real are Poincaré quotes (in his july paper) made by Miller. By that he argued, that Poincaré's frames are mathematically, but not physically equivalent. True time is the time in the aether, apparent (or local) time that of the moving frames - both Lorentz and Poincaré used these expression. While for Lorentz, local time was a mathematical device, Poincaré argued that it can be indicated by clocks. On the other hand, Einstein didn't use the words "true or apparent time", on the contrary, he (and Minkowski) argued that the "proper" times of all frames are equally valid - and it is this, to which most historians who gave priority to Einstein, allude (BTW: Galison credits both Poincaré and Einstein, but even he alluded many times to this conceptual difference between Einstein and Poincaré, and this of course must be mentioned). PS: It seems, that you are writing a Blog (darkbuzz.com) in which you claim that Einstein was a plagiarist who "ruined physics", and where you criticize those historians of science like Kragh, Galison, Pais etc, who give priority to Einstein. I don't think your view is balanced enough to give an account of their writings (see WP:COI). --D.H (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have opinions that differ with some historians. So do you, you say. I have expressed mine here and elsewhere. So now you say that you can give an account of the historians' writings, but not me? Having an opinion on a Talk page and a blog is not a COI.

I do not see where Poincare's July paper says anything about an "imaginary" rest frame, or about frames being physically inequivalent. This WP article should have verifiable references. If Miller says this, then quote him and spell it out. I have a later article by Miller where he makes somewhat different points, and maybe I will summarize that paper.

Einstein and Minkowski did use the term "proper" time instead of true or apparent time. Einstein used "time of the stationary system" and "time of the moving system". Minkowski used "proper time", but not for either. He used it for invariant time.

My concern here is that the views of Miller, Pais, and Galison are not accurately represented because they are mixed with what you say are the views of other historians. I favor sticking to what they actually say about priority, and if they say that Poincare or Einstein said something, give a reference to what was said. Roger (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Galison fails to mention that Einstein insisted ether was real in 1920. Galison is not aware of very much. 71.98.128.47 (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not just 1920. Einstein advocated the aether from about 1917, and for the rest of his life. Roger (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger, although Wikipedia is not Wikiqoute, here are some quotes of Miller, Pais, and Galison:

A) In Poincaré's july paper, search for "ideal electron", "ideal system", or "ideal field" versus "real electron" etc., which were denoted by Miller as imaginary...

B) Miller on Poincaré (1981, p. 172): "Although Poincaré's principle of relativity is stated in a manner similar to Einstein's, the difference in content is sharp. The critical difference is that Poincaré's principle admits the existence of the ether, and so considers the velocity of light to be exactly c only when it is measured in coordinate systems at rest in the ether. In inertial reference systems, the velocity of light is c and is independent of the emitter's motion as a result of certain compensatory effects such as the mathematical local time and the hypothesis of an unobservable contraction. Consequently, Poincaré's extension of the relativity principle of relative motion into the dynamics of the electron resided in electromagnetic theory, and not in mechanics...Poincaré came closest to rendering electrodynamics consistent, but not to a relativity theory." p. 217: "Poincaré related the imaginary system E' to the ether fixed system S'".

C) Pais on Lorentz: p. 118: "Throughout the paper of 1895, the Fresnel aether is postulated explicitly"; p. 125: "Like Voigt before him, Lorentz regarded the transformation ... only as a convenient mathematical tool for proving a physical theorem ... he proposed to call t the general time and t' the local time. Although he didn't say it explicitly, it is evident that to him there was, so to speak, only one true time t."; p. 166: "8.3. Lorentz and the Aether... For example, Lorentz still opines that the contraction of the rods has a dynamic origin. There is no doubt that he had read and understood Einstein's papers by then. However, neither then nor later was he prepared to accept their conclusions as the definitive answer to the problems of the aether." On the same page, Pais cites Lorentz's Teyler lecture (1913): "As far as this lecturer is concerned he finds a certain satisfaction in the older interpretation according to which the ether possesses at least some substantiality, space and time can be sharply separated, and simultaneity without further specification can be spoken of. Finally it should be noted that the daring assertion that one can never observe velocities larger than the velocity of light contains a hypothetical restriction of what is accessible to us, a restriction which cannot be accepted without some reservation."

D) Galison on Poincaré: Since I have the German edition of his book, I quote what Galison wrote in this interview (Online). After crediting Poincaré's important contributions he wrote: "But Poincaré kept the fundamental distinctions between "true time" (in the frame of the ether) and "apparent time" as measured in any other frame of reference. And of course he kept the ether - which he thought he needed for a productive, intuitive physics. So, for Poincaré, the reinterpretation of time was a necessary patch to keep Lorentz's theory working, one more idea in the kit of ideas that would fix the broken engine of physics. ... Well, Einstein had a different picture of what modern physics should be. Einstein had as his ideal neither a machine on which we would do repairs, nor a set of assumptions that would maximize our human convenience in assembling a theory. Instead, Einstein aimed for a reformulation of physics in which the order of theory itself would mirror the order of the world. If the world of phenomena showed no observable distinction between frames of reference then (so Einstein believed) neither should the theory: a symmetry in the phenomena should show up as a symmetry in the theory. "Apparent time" and "true time" were terms he would never utter."

Now, this is exactly what I summarized in the article. --D.H (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would rather use the direct quotes, because they tell a different story. The summaries are confusing,

such as this about Miller:

He also argued that Poincaré distinguished between "ideal" electrons (in their "imaginary" rest frame) and "real" electrons in their motion through the aether.

So now you admit that "ideal" and "real" are quotes from Poincare, while "imaginary" is a quote from Miller. How would the reader ever figure that out?

Galison has a lot about differences between Poincare and Einstein, but what does any of it have to do with priority issues? Galison also said that Einstein liked to talk about God's choices, and Poincare did not. Is that relevant? The closest Galison gets to priority issues are statements like, "it would be gross distortion to treat Poincaré as a reactionary or a failed Einstein." : I don't know why Pais would say that Lorentz explicitly postulated Fresnel's aether in 1895. In your translation, Lorentz-1895 Lorentz spends several pages saying what is wrong with Fresnel's theory, and why it must be modified to reconcile it with experiment. Fresnel's aether is certainly not postulated. But if Pais said that, it is important to Pais's priority argument somehow, then go ahead an include the quote. There is no need to quote Pais quoting Lorentz. If that Lorentz quote is important, then it can be put elsewhere in the article.

Miller's arguments make even less sense. It is absurd to say that Poincare's principle somehow requires the speed of light to be different from c in a non-aether coordinate system. But I concede that Miller is a reputable historian and his opinions deserve to be in the article. But I suggest quoting him so that it gives his actual arguments. Roger (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Your criticisms on the summaries were unjustified and based on misunderstandings - as everyone can see from the given citations. Some informations: Fresnel's aether is the (almost) stationary aether (sometimes also called Fresnel/Lorentz aether) as opposed to Stokes's completely dragged aether. When Lorentz wrote about modifying Fresnel's theory, then this is not about the aether concept, but about the necessity to combine Fresnel's stationary aether with the contraction hypothesis (because of the MM-experiment). The only real modification is, that Lorentz replaced Fresnel's "partial aether drag" with his local time, that's all. b) The Miller summary expresses what Miller said - my only error was to put "imaginary" in parenthesis, which is corrected now. c) The Galison summary clearly said, that he gave priority to both of them, but of course it also says that there are differences between Poincaré and Einstein, and that he thought that this doesn't mean Poincaré was conservative. --D.H (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As everyone can see that I am wrong? Okay, I'll bite. Does anyone else here agree with you and Pais that Lorentz explicitly postulated Fresnel's aether in 1895? Lorentz says, "The difficulties for Fresnel's theory stem from the known interference experiment of Michelson" and "It is not my intention to enter into such speculations more closely, or to express assumptions about the nature of the aether." It seems to me that Lorentz's theory does not depend on either Fresnel's or Stoke's aether. Roger (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This question is related to the state of motion of the aether, not its "nature" or substance. As Lorentz wrote in 1895: "By that I was long ago led to believe that with Fresnel's view, i.e. with the assumption of a stationary aether, we are on the right way....but secondly, it may be assumed - and this hypothesis I will use in the following - that ponderable matter is absolutely permeable ... That we cannot speak about an absolute rest of the aether, is self-evident; this expression would not even make sense. When I say for the sake of brevity, that the aether would be at rest, then this only means that one part of this medium does not move against the other one and that all perceptible motions are relative motions of the celestial bodies in relation to the aether." Thus, avoiding speculations about the nature of the aether, Lorentz followed Fresnel's idea of the stationary aether (i.e. an aether at rest, against which matter has "absolute permeability"). Unfortunately, he had to improve Fresnel's explanation of Fizeau's experiment, and also the MM-experiment seems to contradict Fresnel's theory, so Lorentz combined Fresnel's stationary aether with the length contraction hypothesis. (Search in google for "fresnel-lorentz theory") For example, Brown: arXiv:gr-qc/0104032: "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether, a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable drag....Fresnel-Lorentz assumption that the interferometer does not drag the ether with it while in motion". --D.H (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are all arguing over ether. Poincaré correctly said ether is superfluous and best left to metaphysicians, while Einstein foolishly insisted ether was real. Fact is, ether does not matter, and Poincaré is the true discoverer of relativity, whle Einstein is a shameless plagiarist. Make no excuses over ether. Sir Edmund Whittaker was correct. Poincaré discovered relativity, including E=mc2, not Einstein. 71.98.130.237 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No idea what you are all talking about, but the article is no longer protected so I have disabled the {{editprotected}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)