Talk:Relativity priority dispute

von Soldner

The German von Soldner might be mentioned. I don't know if Einstein ever mentioned Soldner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:4e9f:d101:1005:fd7:447c:871e (talk • contribs) 11:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Time Line section

Is this proposed addition to the "Timeline" about new secondary literature relevant, useful, welcome:

Bruce Popp (2020) argues that Poincaré ([Poi05] and [Poi06]) developed a correct relativistic theory of electrodynamics that achieved both substantial and incomplete progress to a theory of special relativity by a different route from Einstein. This route had its origins in work on radioactivity and electrons. His 1905 and 1906 papers are immediately based on his close reading of [Lor04] and the three divergences from Lorentz that Poincaré identified. For example, he understood Lorentz’s presentation of the transformations based on corresponding states was flawed. Poincaré provided the correct form for the transformations and the understanding that they were coordinate transformations. It is this corrected form that Poincaré named “Lorentz transformations” and that match the form and understanding given to them by Einstein [Ein05c]. Poincaré shows that thus corrected the transformations are a group corresponding to a rotation in four-dimensional space with three spatial and one time dimension and that the space-time interval is an invariant of this group. Popp emphasizes that while, as this summary suggests, Poincaré would have been justified in making a series of strong statements about his findings, very surprisingly he did not. In fact, Poincaré does not seem to have understood and synthesized what he showed in 1905. Worse, he contradicts himself in later writing adding to confusion about his work and positions, notably concerning the ether. Popp indicates that this is one reason why Poincaré’s alternate path to special relativity is not fully realized. Another is that Poincaré shows no appreciation of the implications for simultaneity and time; in brief there is nothing comparable to Einstein’s discussion of moving watch hands and trains arriving.

References

WhiteBeard120 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Note, as I said in my undo ([1]) and on my talk page User talk:DVdm#secondary reference for relativity priority dispute, this would be an wp:UNDUE addition from a wp:primary source and it would definitely need independent wp:secondary sources, which seems not to exist as far as Google Scholar is concerned. Also, there's a wp:conflict of interest, given the fact that user WhiteBeard120 seems to be the author of the book, (white beard and all). Clearly Wikipedia is not a place where we come to promote our own work.

I have also reverted ([2]) the edits on History of special relativity, and left a COI message on user talk page.

Comments from others welcome. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

COI issues raised by DVdm should be resolved before considering any such addition. That aside, the passage above adds nothing to what is already in this already long article and is less clear about what it is saying, so even without COI concerns, adding it would detract from the article. —Quondum 11:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have a COI. WhiteBeard120 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks – that simplifies things. We'll have to wait for further editors to comment about the suggested edit. —Quondum 14:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a well-written paragraph. Seems like everyone else who wrote a book on the topic gets some paragraphs in this article, so I see no reason to exclude the latest. Or we can wait 10-15 years, and add it then. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about the COI, but I am concerned that the proposal has a lot of verbiage without much factual support. Eg: "Poincaré would have been justified in making a series of strong statements about his findings, very surprisingly he did not." -- Why is this surprising? Did Poincare do a lot of bragging about other findings? Did he conspicuously avoid discussing his relativity work somehow?

"Poincaré does not seem to have understood and synthesized what he showed in 1905." -- This is a bizarre claim. What did he not understand? How did he write papers that he did not understand? Who has ever done that?

"he contradicts himself in later ... notably concerning the ether." -- You mean he said that the aether is undetectable but referred to it anyway? Is that the contradiction? Do you also consider Einstein's comments contradictory? Even if Poincare did change his mind about the aether, how is this relevant?

"why Poincaré’s alternate path to special relativity is not fully realized." -- What does this even mean? That no one ever followed up on Poincare's ideas?

"Poincaré shows no appreciation of the implications for simultaneity and time" == This contradicts the Einstein synchronisation article. What implications did Poincare fail to appreciate?

I say this proposed paragraph is too imprecise to be useful. Since it seems to be written by a Poincare scholar, I suggest rewriting it so that it is more directly tied to what Poincare actually did. Roger (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

All good questions, but let's make sure we don't start discussing Poincaré here, obviously per wp:TPG. Apart from the COI, we really should discuss the quality of the source here, which is very primary, and then perhaps the relevance of the content. I.m.o. the primary issue is the lack of secondary sources.^{(pun not intended)} - DVdm (talk)

I find the observation about secondary sources baffling. The subtitle of the book is "Translation of Selected Articles and Discussion" clearly indicating both primary sources and secondary sources. The organization of chapters which can be seen in Springer's catalog separates primary and secondary chapters. A chapter title like Contributions of Abraham, Lorentz and Poincaré to Classical Theory of Electrons clearly indicates secondary material. The link to the chapter also provides the references to primary and secondary literature referenced in that chapter. WhiteBeard120 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Referring to Roger's note of 11 June:

"bizarre claim" Exactly, it is very astonishing. My book (COI because of self-cite) has a chapter concerning the specifics of this statement. Stein makes a similar point although more abstractly and with a significant tone of astonishment, like you.

"Even if Poincare did change his mind about the aether, how is this relevant" It is relevant since acceptance or rejection of the ether is seen in the literature as a criterion of closeness to relativity. I am not familiar with Einstein contradicting himself on this matter. Poincare in his 1905/1906 articles and in his book Science and Hypothesis states that nature does not have a preferred absolute frame of reference. But in a popular article in 1908, he refers repeatedly to the ether. He may mean that physicists have a preferred frame of reference (while nature does not), but this distinction seems to be missed by his readers.

"Did he conspicuously avoid discussing his relativity work somehow?", "no one ever followed up on Poincare's ideas" Exactly. No one referred to Poincare's 1905/6 papers in subsequent years and Einstein was unaware of them until the 1950s. Minkowski did not reference Poincare's work. Poincare wrote a semi-popular article in 1908, and that was all. Without the controversy started by E. T. Whitaker and discussed in this WP article, Poincare's 1905/6/8 papers might have languished in obscurity.

"contradicts the Einstein synchronisation article" Poincare did understand how to synchronize clocks with crossed signals; that is well established. I don't immediately see any issues with the Einstein synchronisation article. Poincare did not write anything to suggest that he realized two observers watching two events might disagree on whether they were simultaneous. Poincare has the mechanisms (clock synchronization, Lorentz group, spacetime interval) to support a discussion of simultaneity, but he doesn't start the discussion.

References

WhiteBeard120 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It sounds as though there may be the thesis that Poincaré believed that there was a privileged reference frame that could in principle be determined unambiguously, despite having all the mathematics that added up to the contrary. Or maybe the alternative thesis that he failed to understand that there was no privileged reference frame, despite Einstein's work. These are not the same, and I'm not sure which is meant. The former might be interesting, if true (it would have disputed special relativity), but is not clearly stated. The latter is only an observation about Poincaré, and is probably not relevant in this context as it does not involve any dispute. Or perhaps the point is that some people claim priority for Poincaré, but that is not due to him? It should be made clear what perspective/view is being modified. As it stands, the suggested paragraph sounds a bit like a context-free bad-mouthing of Poincaré. —Quondum 18:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect we are drifting in the direction of discussing Poincare that DVdm warned about.

I'm not sure which paragraph you mean by "the suggested paragraph sounds?" Are you referring to my statement, "notably concerning the ether?" I hope my reply to Roger about aether a few paragraphs above clarifies what I think are some specific facts.

Now, I sure I'm crossing the line, sorry. It is commonly said that Poincare accepted the existence of the ether or only rejected it as a philosophical matter. (E.g. Similar statements appear in History of special relativity.) I wonder if this reflects ill-will in the pro-Einstein camp's response in the 1960-70s to Whitaker. I think Poincare rejects an absolute frame of reference philosophically in Science and Hypothesis and rejects it physically in his 1905/1906 papers, full stop. I think there is a solid factual case to be made for the statement in the previous sentence. Then the 1908 paper uses the word ether several dozen times. What are we to make of that paper? I think the bad-mouthing goes something like Poincare never actually rejected the ether. I state my opinion above, "He may mean that physicists have a preferred frame of reference (while nature does not)." WhiteBeard120 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that I'm getting somewhat confused. My general reaction is that I can't get a clear sense of what point is being made in the paragraph. There seems to be a lot being inferred from the use of the word 'aether'. I have a vague recollection of it being used by someone (possibly even Einstein) to mean nothing more than 'the physical process by which electromagnetism propagates', essentially a synonym for what today is called 'vacuum' or 'spacetime' in relativity. One always needs to dig to understand how language was used by someone: words mean different thing to different people; maybe Poincaré's use was along these lines? Given my failure to properly grasp what is being expressed in the suggested paragraph, I'm not sure that I can constructively comment. —Quondum 02:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

WhiteBeard120, You say "Minkowski did not reference Poincare's work.", and several related statements that are completely false. Minkowski's main paper on relativity is translated here: [3]. As you can see, Poincare's big paper is cited in references 4 and 12. It is impossible that Einstein or anyone else working in relativity at the time could have been ignorant of this Minkowski paper or Poincare's paper. They all adopted some of Poincare's terminology and methods, such as "Lorentz transformation", "Lorentz group", and 4-vectors.

As for the aether, I think that you are missing a simple mathematical point. A preferred frame can be attached to spacetime without changing any of the physics of relativity. This is commonly done in papers up to the present day. Einstein did not really reject the aether. See: Luminiferous aether#Einstein's views on the aether.

That Stein article (you cited above) also has some bizarre claims about Poincare, as you say. As Stein admits, claiming that Poincare did not understand what he was saying is to hypothesize something that has never happened in the entire history of physics. It is not clear to me whether you agree with this or not. It seems obvious to me that Stein misunderstands Poincare. Of course Poincare understood what he wrote. Roger (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I would enjoy making some non-constructive comments. First, as to not understanding what one is saying: this is, alas, a common human condition. Authors frequently overlook the implications of what they say, or arrive at the right conclusions via incorrect deductions, perform correct deductions to obtain incorrect inferences, etc. I've read plenty where the author states the correct things, but does not realize the importance of the result. Well, of course, Poincare is among the smartest, so, sure, he plausibly does know what he's talking about, but why, then, the reticence to make bolder pronouncements?

As to aether and reference frames: our modern conception is anchored in the idea of a manifold, the points of which exist independently of the coordinate charts used to label those points (alternately, the points are defined to be the equivalence class of all possible coordinate frames). With this in mind, much of modern geometry (and spacetime physics) becomes "straightforward". But it seems this was not common knowledge back when: witness the confusion over the original Swarzschild horizon: it is now "obvious" that it is only a "coordinate singularity"; back when, it was not.

What about Poincare and Einstein? Clearly Poincare must have had a rather firm intuitive idea of the modern conception of a manifold (in 1895, he wrote "Analysis Situs", which, quoting WP: "served as a precursor to the modern concept of a manifold". Einstein, likewise, must intuitively understand (for how could he not?). Is it possible that early (19th century) concepts of "aether" are synonymous to what we now call "preferred coordinate frames", whereas, by the time that Einstein is writing his 1908 paper, he is using aether as a synonym for "manifold"? Indeed, by then, he must surely have a very strong conception that points of spacetime are really the same thing as equivalence classes of coordinate transformations (i.e. that spacetime is the quotient of the Poincare group divided by the Minkowski group) and if that is what your concept of spacetime is, then why not call it "aether"? It is, after all, the "carrier" of electromangetism, and there is no particular contradiction of thinking of it this way. It's the new aether.

To what degree are both aware of the modern concept of a homogeneous space, as a quotient of Lie groups? Poincare surely is, right? Einstein might be, thanks due to Hilbert. But when? The Hilbert campout doesn't happen till 1915, right? Presumably, most modern mathematicians and sophisticated physicists today think of spacetime as "just some homogenous space with the Minkowski group as its isometry group", and I see nothing wrong with calling that "the aether" for short. But if you fail to firmly and consistently hold this concept in your mind, and allow yourself to get tangled up in coordinate reference frames, whoo baby. This is perhaps why geometry books, 1960's-1980's insisted on coordinate-free notion: so as to dispel confusions in the minds of students. This was a revolution that took almost a century to cement it's place!

The "vacuum" is something else again; it's modern form takes shape only after Dirac and the Dirac sea, and second quantization, where we are allowed to think of the vacuum as a bubbling foam of relativisticly covariant stuffs. So that's not what Einstein and Poincare are thinking of. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow. That Minkowski paper is kick-butt. He's even got what seems to be the Hodge star in there. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"why, then, the reticence to make bolder pronouncements?" -- Poincare is bold in a couple of places. In 1904, he wrote about "an entirely new mechanics" based on the speed of light. In July 1905, he says his relativity is an improvement over Lorentz's, in analogy to Copernicus heliocentrism being an improvement of Ptolemy.

You are right that manifolds were not well understood back then, but Poincare must have had an intuitive idea of the modern concept. That is why it is bizarre to see Poincare blamed for using coordinate charts. After proving that different frames are related by a symmetry group, then choosing one frame is not making a physical assumption. There is nothing wrong with referring to an aether, as long as you are not claiming that motion against the aether has some physical significance.

"That Minkowski paper is kick-butt." -- Yes, with clear discussions of 4-dimensional geometry and covariance. It was after Minkowski that lots of papers accepting relativity got published. Roger (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is a very interesting discussion, and there are many points here on which I have thoughts, and on which I could comment. However, I shall not do so, because the very substantial majority of what has been said is totally off-topic for the issue at stake here, namely whether Bruce Popp's opinions should be added to the article. As far as I can see Popp's work has not received the kind of attention required to make it notable enough for inclusion. We do not include opinions in articles just because someone has expressed those opinions, nor because somebody has expressed them and we think they are valid opinions; we include them because someone has expressed them and received sufficient notice for doing so for inclusion. It may be that that applies to Bruce Popp's work, but if so somebody needs to provide evidence that it is so; otherwise it doesn't belong in the article, and there is nothing to discuss, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the arguments about what Poincare did or did not say or understand, what Einstein did or did not say about the ether, who was or wasn't aware of Poincare's work, etc etc etc, and, perhaps even more fundamentally, irrespective of our opinions on the merits or demerits of Popp's work. JBW (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This makes good sense. Thank you. WhiteBeard120 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we tend to side-track onto discussions that are not what talk pages are for. JBW is spot-on here. —Quondum 20:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Context?

It seems to me that this article omits or badly neglects a couple of important contextual factors: the human relationships (or lack thereof) between the individuals involved, and their opinions on the topic. Perhaps they were all good friends, and none of them cared about the topic of this article. Perhaps they were bitter rivals making jealous accusations, and they would be jumping in to correct the record. Perhaps no personal relationships existed between them. Whatever the case may be, I think this stuff ought to be a main point, if not THE main point, of the article, taking up a large chunk of the lead section; otherwise it's difficult to determine why anyone would be interested in it. (The science remains the same regardless of who gets credit, so figuring out "who was the first to say what" seems pointlessly trivial without the human element.) In short: Please very prominently explain who has an interest in getting this issue cleared up, because currently the answer appears to be "nobody, it's not worth reading". TooManyFingers (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Relativity is considered one of the great advances of science, and the story is often told to make various points. There is a lot of interest in getting the story right. Roger (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I recognize the importance of the advance. I'm arguing that until the context I described is provided, the story you refer to will remain very far from being right. When an out-of-order sequence of meaningless events is finally put into the correct order, the result is still meaningless. The discoveries and statements about relativity are meaningful in themselves of course, but telling the story of how they came about has very little to do with merely putting them into chronological order, and much more to do with the personal/professional/social/political interactions that led to them or influenced them. Those interactions (or independent actions, as the case may be) ARE the story; getting the sequence right is a relatively minor editing chore, not a final goal. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

In other words: The story is the explanation of WHY the events happened the way they did. If you focus only on WHEN they happened, the result is a bus timetable, not a story. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)