Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive Index

Dec 2005 – Feb 2006

1

In Feb 2006, the talk page of Albert Einstein filled up with a discussion of an alleged relativity priority dispute. Mainstream historians say this has been put to rest; others hotly disagree, as became very evident. To free up Talk:Albert Einstein, I moved the very long discussion to this archive. We encourage all concerned to confine further argumentation about the controversy to Talk:relativity priority dispute, an article created to describe this controversy according to Wikipedia NPOV rules. Thanks in advance for your cooperation! ---CH 09:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein, Hilbert, Lorentz, and Poincaré dispute

Relativity anticipated by Leibniz claim

A recent addition suggests that Gottfried Leibniz anticipated Einstein's relativity. I'm pretty sure that's not a serious claim. If it is, though, please discuss it in Talk:Gottfried Leibniz. In the meantime, I'll remove the probable joke. The Rod 05:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It was no joke, see Talk:Gottfried Leibniz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.128.137.38 (talk • contribs) 19:01, December 23, 2005 (UTC)

I took that out of the intro paragraph. It doesn't belong there, breaking up the flow of the paragraph that introduces the subject of this article. Assuming it's true (I've no reason to believe otherwise), it really belongs in the article about relativity, or maybe the section about relativity here. But not up in Einstein's face, as it were, in the paragraph introducing Einstein in his own article. — Kbh3^rdtalk 19:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it was a bad place for it. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Dr. Gabriel Gojon 22:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is a big difference between the theory of relativity and the principle of relativity, just as an aside. When playing with priority disputes (I think they miss the point) we should be sure to clarify which is which and exactly what sort of relativity one is speaking about. --Fastfission 20:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Claim that Poincaré first published the Theory of Relativity

Why is there no mention of the controversy surrounding the origin of Relativity ? Folsing in his authoritive biography of Einstein points out that E=mc2 and the Theory of Relativity were actually first published in detail by the Frenchman Henri Poincare, before Einstein. For numerous sources see http://www.xtxinc.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 03:11, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

Provide sources. Rumors do not belong to encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the Frenchman, but there was an Italian scientist who published E=mc^2 in a journal in 1903, then it was reprinted in an Italian scientific magazine in 1904 (Einstein was 1905). The Italian's name was Olinto De Pretto and there is a Wiki entry for him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.30.194 (talk • contribs) 05:08, January 24, 2006 (UTC)

To see numerous sources see http://www.xtxinc.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 03:24, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

There are seemingly more credible sources supporting the claim. See Who Invented Relativity, for instance. Since they are stronger than rumors, we probably shouldn't be so quick to revert such claims as "vandalism". The Rod 15:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The user making the claim I reverted didn't document it enough for me to determine that it was a valid edit, and since it look questionable I reverted without any further ado. My apologies if this was incorrect. I'll watch more carefully when RC patrolling this article in the future. Thanks for the pointer to this discussion on my Talk page. Triona 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that anonymous user 69.22.98.162 is being accused of vandalism, and his edits subject to reverts, for attempting to integrate a mention of Poincare into this article. For example, a recent edit by Prodego has eliminated the Poincare mention, despite the MathPages citation added above. I am not an expert in this area, and so do not feel knowledgable enough in writing an addition re: Poincare here, but I strongly encourage the editors of this article to take the claim seriously. Lucidish 01:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prise edit (claim that Poincaré first published the Theory of Relativity, part 2)

IP 69.22.98.162, has repeatedly edited this sentence from the intro:

He was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 (his "miracle year") and "for his services to Theoretical Physics.

so as to omit the phrase:

in 1905 (his "miracle year"),

and add the phrase:

although no specific mention was made of Relativity because of the "controversy surrounding its origin" as is stated in the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Einstein.,

susequently to be reverted by several editors (including me). First there is no reason to delete the year and thereference and link to" miracle year". Second this is not the proper place to introduce speculation about the originality of "Relativity". Can anyone verify the claim that his special relativity paper went unmentioned because of "controversy surrounding its origin"? The current Britannica entry merely says he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics “for your photoelectric law and your work in the field of theoretical physics.” Relativity, still the centre of controversy, was not mentioned. It does not say what the controvesy was.

Paul August ☎ 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The controversy was Henri Poincare's already publishing Relativity in detail before Einstein, including e=mc2. The Nobel Committee was aware of this and so refused to give Einstein a Nobel Prize for Relativity. Why does Wikipedia cover this up ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 23:07, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

Because this is nonsense, and we don't publish nonsense. If you understood Poincaré's work a little better, and maybe Einstein too, you'd see that they had different programs even though some aspects of their work were interrelated. A good, readable history of both of them is Peter Galison's Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's maps, recently published. --Fastfission 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pais, Einstein Lived Here has a chapter on exactly why the Nobel committee awarded the prize, FYI. I don't have it at hand so I can't refer to it now. I believe Whittaker's A History of Theories of the Aether and Electricity in notable for giving Poincare credit over Einstein. Any commnets? (I haven't read it; this is a question not a statement.) GangofOne 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason Einstein was not given the prize for relativity was for a number of reasons; one major one being that it was still regarded as controversial among physicists at the time and the photoeletric theory was a much "safer" achievement. Again, the Poincaré/Einstein priority issue has been tossed around by various anti-Einsteinians for some time but no mainstream historians give it much attention. --Fastfission 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sir Edmund Whittaker wrote that Poincare published E=mc2 in 1900, five years before Einstein, and Sir Whittaker credited Henri Poincare with the discovery of Relativity, not Einstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 03:51, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

What page? GangofOne 04:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In Sir Whittaker's famous book, named above, he has an entire chapter entitled The Theory of Relativity of Poincare and he there repeatedly refers to Poincare's E=mc2. Folsing's popular biography of Einstein quotes Whittaker, as does http://www.xtxinc.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 14:26, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

The chapter in Whittaker's book is "The relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz" and in fact the chapter mentions Lorentz as least as much, if not more than it mentions Poincare. I find only two mentions of Poincare in relation to E = mc^2. I don't think Whittaker is very reliable (see elsewhere on this page), but let's get it right. Whittaker credited Poincare and Lorentz. E4mmacro 11:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• The link to Bjerknes's crank site actually does not seem contain any Whittaker quotes. So I'm not sure that helps your argument much. The question is not whether or not people over the years have said various things to disparage Einstein (there was an entire movement devoted to just this purpose in Germany if you will recall) but what the mainstream historical and scientific opinion is, which has repeatedly concluded that most such objections misunderstand quite a number of things. --Fastfission 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I think to put the matter to rest would require a) rationales and responses to the quotes on that site from Harry Bateman, Charles Nordmann, Max Born, G. H. Keswani, and James Mackaye, and b) an explanation of the actual similarities and differences between Poincare/Lorenz and Einstein. Lucidish 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Trying to "put the matter to rest" will become the sort of point/counterpoint B.S. which characterizes usenet debates. Let the historians sort it out. We just quote htem. I suspect most of those quotes are taken quite out of context. If the historians of science could show Einstein to be a fraud or his contributions are misunderstood on some grounds, they'd be happy to -- they do it with other luminous figures all of the time (Freud, Darwin, etc.). --Fastfission 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I'm dissapointed. Oh, well. In the following subsection I will quote a passage which I hope will clear up this discussion. Lucidish

• • • There are NO differences whatsoever with what Poincare published and what Einstein later published. Keswani is definitive on this matter. So is Whittaker. In addition, Kip Thorne in his popular book on General Relativity, available in all bookstores, Thorne states that General Relativity was published one week before Einstein by David Hilbert, which is generally recognized in the scientific community, and I intend to put that also on Wikipedia's Einstein Page as well.
      Keswani is definitive, that what Einstein inaccurately called General Relativity is really only a theory of gravitation, nothing more.
      Bjerknes' second book, which he published under the close guidance of Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, points out that the central equation of General Relativity was published one week before Einstein by David Hilbert. This fact is recognized by Kip Thorne and Stephan Hawking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .
      • Please sign your posts with four tildes. You haven't told us the reference where Hilbert published it, where Thorne said it (which book , which chapter), where Hawking said it. --GangofOne 04:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, our anonymous friend, you are not only wrong in an ultimate sense in my opinion, but the historical and scientific community agree that you are wrong. The latter is what matters more here: Wikipedia is not the place to hash out what is true and what is not, see WP:NOR. We publish what is considered reputable. Winterberg is not a reputable source on this topic anyway and he does not reflect any scientific or historical opinion of merit. He's a cranky guy with some very strange Lyndon LaRouche ties if I remember correctly. --Fastfission 17:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And I should say: If you want to take the time to get a mainstream historical book, to discuss it with citations, to not mislead and to demonstrate that you understand our WP:NPOV policy -- your contributions will of course be welcome. But your avid citation of some of the crank-iest material on the subject does not lead me to think that this is the path you will be likely to follow. --Fastfission 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To Fastfission: Keswani and Sir Edmund Whittaker are as mainstream as you can get, and they both agree with Winterberg, and let me remind you that Dr. Winterberg is a professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Nevada who has published hundreds of scientific articles and who received his PhD from Werner Heisenberg at world renowned Goettingen University.

Regarding what Einstein called General Relativity, Kip Thorne on page 117 of his popular book Black Holes and Time Warps, writes the following and I quote Kip Thorne: Recognition for the first discovery of the equation must go to David Hilbert. - It was therefore Hilbert who published the equation of General Relativity before Einstein, and this quotation should be inserted into Wikipedia's Einstein Page in the section discussing General Relativity. (Stephan Hawking said the same thing as Kip Thorne in Time Magazine, page 57, December 31, 1999). I will now insert Kip Thorne's quote into Wikipedia's Einstein Page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

Clearing up the similarities and differences

Darrigol, Olivier. (2004) "The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection". Isis. Philadelphia: Vol.95, Iss. 4; pg. 614, 14 pgs

By 1905 Poincaré's and Einstein's reflections on the electrodynamics of moving bodies led them to postulate the universal validity of the relativity principle, according to which the outcome of any conceivable experiment is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which it is performed.2 In particular, they both assumed that the velocity of light measured in different inertial frames was the same. They further argued that the space and time measured by observers belonging to different inertial systems were related to each other through the Lorentz transformations. They both recognized that the Maxwell-Lorentz equations of electrodynamics were left invariant by these transformations. They both required that every law of physics should be invariant under these transformations. They both gave the relativistic laws of motion. They both recognized that the relativity principle and the energy principle led to paradoxes when conjointly applied to radiation processes.3

On several points - namely, the relativity principle, the physical interpretation of Lorentz's transformations (to first order), and the radiation paradoxes - Poincaré's relevant publications antedated Einstein's relativity paper of 1905 by at least five years, and his suggestions were radically new when they first appeared. On the remaining points, publication was nearly simultaneous.

I turn now to basic conceptual differences. Einstein completely eliminated the ether, required that the expression of the laws of physics should be the same in any inertial frame, and introduced a "new kinematics" in which the space and time measured in different inertial systems were all on exactly the same footing. In contrast, Poincaré maintained the ether as a privileged frame of reference in which "true" space and time were defined, while he regarded the space and time measured in other frames as only "apparent." He treated the Lorentz contraction as a hypothesis regarding the effect of the edgewise motion of a rod through the ether, whereas for Einstein it was a kinematic consequence of the difference between the space and time defined by observers in relative motion. Einstein gave the operational meaning of time dilation, whereas Poincaré never discussed it. Einstein derived the expression of the Lorentz transformation from his two postulates (the relativity principle and the constancy of the velocity of light in a given inertial system), whereas Poincaré obtained these transformations as those that leave the Maxwell-Lorentz equations invariant. Whereas Einstein, having eliminated the ether, needed a second postulate, in Poincaré's view the constancy of the velocity of light (in the ether frame) derived from the assumption of a stationary ether. Einstein obtained the dynamics of any rapidly moving particle by the direct use of Lorentz covariance, whereas Poincaré reasoned according to a specific model of the electron built up in conformity with Lorentz covariance. Einstein saw that Poincaré's radiation paradoxes could be solved only by assuming the inertia of energy, whereas Poincaré never returned to this question. Lastly, Poincaré immediately proposed a relativistic modification of Newton's law of gravitation and saw the advantages of a four-vector formalism in this context, whereas Einstein waited a couple of years to address this problem complex.4 Lucidish

Olivier is only pointing out cosmetic differences, no real differences. He is just talking semantics. In addition, regarding any ether, Poincare was actually ambivalent towards any ether, he regarded ether as superfluous, and correctly so. It changes absolutely nothing in the equations. Finally, note that Olivier says Poincare was first, before Einstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

1. Yes, indeed, that is what Olivier says. This is an argument in your favor, though now with the benefit of reputable reference and citation which cannot be ignored (unlike your previous comments, which were lacking in that department).

2. Absolutely none of the above is "cosmetic" or "semantics". Either there is an ether, or there isn't: you claim one, or you claim the other. As it turns out, there isn't any such thing as an "ether"; Einstein helped bring an end to that notion. That's a core, very substantive difference. If you believe this to be "semantics", then it is only semantics in the sense that all substantial issues, including physics, are semantic. Lucidish 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, 69/Licorne, you may have missed something that you might say was in your favor in Darrigol's quote. "Einstein saw that Poincare's radiation paradoxes could be solved only by assuming the inertia of energy", which might suggest Einstein had read Poincare (1900) - the momentum of radiation paper, and was guided by that to guess that Poincare's "fictitious mass" of radiation had come from the mass of the emiting object, the step that de Kludde claims is really easy. I haven't heard of any proof that Einstein had read Poincare (1900), and don't know if Darrigol means to imply that. E4mmacro 11:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In the 1930's Dirac wrote that one can always keep a concept of an ether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

You can also always keep a concept of invisible, untouchable bunnies who propel atoms by shooting fire from their noses. Science doesn't have anything to say about that. Lucidish 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish, you are correct there, that ether is a philosophical question. If you regard ether as the fabric of space then you can even today maintain a concept of ether, it really is a superfluous subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

We mostly agree. My point is, it's still an issue of substance, not just semantics. And it is not scientifically credible. That's a weakness of Poincare's, and one way in which Einstein was a clear improvement from a scientific POV. Lucidish 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish, Au Contraire, Poincare was correct to remain ambivalent towards a hypothetical ether. In contrast, Einstein was wrong to categorically support one side of an open question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

I do not get the impression that "ambivalence" was quite the manner in which the above paragraphs characterize Poincare's take on the ether.

As to whether or not Einstein repudiated the ether as a concept, or simply removed the need for it, I don't know; only the former might be considered, perhaps, infelicitous of him. The latter, however, does not violate any nice conventions on scientific prudence. Lucidish 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Darrigol is probably one of the most reliable historians of physics out there (he's one of the few who both has a tremendous historical and philosophical mind while also having a truly remarkable understanding of physics), and I will be happy with any edits based on his work, as long as they don't misconstrue in any way. I don't have time at the moment to go over all of the above but I'll probably read the whole article when I get a chance next week, as it would be good to have down pat. --Fastfission 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Darrigol wants to keep his job and not step on any toes, he is restricted by political correctness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

I suspect that my eyes could not roll any further back into my head without breaking retinae. Lucidish 03:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And comments like this are why there is very little good faith assumed in this case. --Fastfission 17:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert vs. Einstein

To Referees: Kip Thorne writes on page 117 of his book Black Holes and Time Warps that Einstein's Gravitational equation was first published by David Hilbert and that recognition for the equation must go to David Hilbert. So WHY don't you allow this to be posted in the section regarding General Relativity ? Kip Thorne is as good a source there is. Why do you disallow his words ? - Stephan Hawking agrees with Kip Thorne as I pointed out above. - Why do you censure this information  ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 04:10, January 8, 2006 (UTC)

Paul August's revert is understandable, given the lack of citation. However, I must admit being puzzled by the following revert (by Zsinj et al), since you did provide the source.

No doubt a large part of the reason why people are keen to revert you is that you are an anonymous user. Anons are regarded with suspicion by the community of Wiki-editors, especially on Featured Articles. I recommend you get an account. Lucidish 04:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Very Good, thank you, for finally adding to the article that Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation was indeed first published by David Hilbert. This equation is what Einstein called General Relativity and yes, it was first published by Hilbert, not Einstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 05:12, January 8, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the Kip Thorne source. However his statement needs to be placed in context. According to Thorne, Hilbert published the result five days earlier than Einstein, after "mulling over things he had learned" from a recent visit by Einstein to Gottingen. He goes on to say:

"Quite naturally, and in accord with Hilbert's view of things, the resulting law of warpage was quickly given the name the Einstein field equation rather than being named after Hilbert. Hilbert had carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded those steps: the recognition that tidal gravity must be the same thing as a warpage of spacetime, the vision that the law of warpage must obey the reativity principle, and the first 90 percent of that law, the Einstein field equation. In fact without Einstein the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later." (Kip Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps pp. 117-118)

So Einstein seems deserving of the credit. Perhaps the fact that Hilbert published five days earlier together with the above quote could be placed in a footnote.

Paul August ☎ 05:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein could not do it, it took Hilbert to complete it, and what counts in science is who publishes first, not second. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 January 2006 vandalism has occured from this IP

What is your source for saying that Einstein "could not do it alone"? The source you cite above indicates that Einstein developed the equation independently from Hilbert. Paul August ☎ 17:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein submitted wrong field equations on November 4 and 11, 1915. The first set was only invariant under volume-preserving diffeomorphisms while the second was generally covariant, but required the vanishing of the trace of the stress-energy tensor of matter. On November 18, Einstein confirmed the arrival of a postcard (or letter) from Hilbert, probably written on November 16, containing information about Hilbert's work on the field equations. Also on November 18, Einstein submitted his Mercury paper, (wrongly) claiming twice (on p. 831 and p. 834) that the solution is based upon this assumption, while adding (apparently shortly before submission) a footnote stating that this assumption is not really necessary, and that he intended to change the field equations yet another time. This happened on November 25, 1915. See my WN wiki survey of the issue. User:De kludde Feb 5, 2006

Credit is about merit. Temporal priority is important as a means toward determining who merits what, who developed what independently of who. The fact that Hilbert's work was provoked by Einstein seems like a cogent enough reason to give Einstein credit. Lucidish 16:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert's merit is to have arrived at the correct field equations and also for pointing out that the problem of energy conservation, which was bothering Einstein, has a trivial solution if the field equations are derived from the principle of least action. This became known as the "Noether theorem" later on, and Emmy Noether was of course motivated by Hilbert's work, and acknowledged this in her paper. While it is is possible that Einstein might have arrived at the correct field equations pursuing his earlier line of thought, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he did so, and there is every reason to believe that his decision to change his November 4/November 11 field equations was motivated by Hilbert's November 16 letter. The fact that Einstein (or Einstein/Grossmann) were the first authors to point out that gravity ought to be described by a pseudo-Riemannian metric doesn not at all change this situation. Theories may have several fathers. For instance, consider electromagnetism. The insight that electricity and magnetism are somehow linked together is totally non-trivial. In a way, the Einstein/Grossmann Entwurf paper can be compared to this insight. It pointed out that gravity should be described by a tensor theory, while people had previously tried to describe it as a scalar theory (like Poincare in his second Sur la Dynamique d'Électron paper). But without the correct field equations, you don't have a useful theory. No one would consider the fact that Maxwell was probably motivated by (inter alia) Faraday and Ørsted as a "cogent reason" to give them credit for the Maxwell equations! Thus, general relativity should be considered to be the work of Einstein AND (probably) Grossmann AND Hilbert. See, for instance, the remarks at the end of Winterbergs paper debunking the Corry-Renn-Stachel claims: In summary, one can say that general relativity is the work of three men: 1. Einstein ... 2. Grossmann ... 3. Hilbert ... User:De kludde, February 5, 2006

To Referees: It is correctly stated on your Henri Poincare Page that Poincare first published the famous equation E=mc2 in 1900, five years before Einstein. This fact needs to be inserted on your Einstein Page for correctness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

• That page, as you might note, is listed as factually problematic for reasons such as this. --Fastfission 17:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• As for the substance of it — if the question is really one of historical dispute, then the dispute itself needs to be mentioned in neutral terms. One does not cherry-pick one POV (see WP:NPOV) and use it to stand in as the general truth of the thing. One reason the anon is getting reverted consistently is because he or she is inserting contentious information repeatedly and is otherwise acting like a POV-pusher. I have not pored over this particular question in detail but I don't trust the anon's contributions at all; they have not shown themselves to be anything more than a crank. The misconstruing of Kip Thorne's quote -- which does not simply say that Hilbert had priority, but points to a more complex and nuanced approach -- and "flattening" of it to fit the anon's pre-held POV about it, is simply more evidence of this. --Fastfission 17:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Hilbert claim may not stand up to scrutiny, but the Poincare thrusts seem to have legs -- though I'm not sure if he came up with the E=mc2 principle, unless that's what's meant by "principle of relativity". Lucidish 18:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, the principle of relativity is not the same thing as matter/energy equivalence (it refers to the fact that simultaniety is merely a convention. However unlike Einstein I'm fairly sure Poincaré still believed there was an absolute reference even if it was unobtainable. Lorentz surely believed in such a thing. But anyway this can be checked fairly easily), not the same thing at all. --Fastfission 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, good to know, thank you. Regarding relativity/absolute: Darrigol points out that Poincare privileged one point of view, the "ether" view, as absolute. But in practical terms, he talked in terms of relativity. Anyway, the merits of Poincare are that he had published "the relativity principle, the physical interpretation of Lorentz's transformations (to first order), and the radiation paradoxes" five years prior to Einstein. Lucidish 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To Fastfission: Kip Thorne is categorical: Thorne's page 117 says and I quote Recognition for the first discovery of the equation must go to Hilbert - that is a precise quote.

To Lucidish: Wikipedia's Poincare Article is absolutely precise, that Poincare published E=mc2 in 1900. The article even describes the precise way in which Poincare derived E=mc2. This is exactly why Sir Edmund Whittaker called it Poincare's E=mc2. There is no arguing this it is precisely clear, no way around it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs)

In what paper did Poincare give this equation? Lucidish 22:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• On Kip Thorne: The exact quote is above. You'll see it is not categorical. You are taking a quote out of context in a very intellectual dishonest way. --Fastfission 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If Thorne did write the quote attributed to him by Anon, what did he mean by it / what was he referring to? Lucidish 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To Lucidish: The equation that Thorne is referring to is the famous Field Equation of General Relativity, it is the central equation of General Relativity, the heart of the theory, and is regarded as the theory itself, in just one concise statement, which is the beauty of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .
  • To Fastfission, Kip Thorne wrote recognition for the first discovery MUST go to Hilbert, and I italicise MUST. Sir, can you not read English ? Have you looked at Thorne's book ? I suggest you do so. Credit MUST go to Hilbert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .
    • Read above. The quote is there in its entirety, including all of the parts you are ignoring. It specifically discusses the way in which Hilbert's work was built upon Einstein's. Perhaps you are the one who cannot read English. Kip Thorne very clearly says "In fact without Einstein the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later." But perhaps he was just trying to keep his job, right? --Fastfission 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To both Fastfission and Lucidish: I have a PhD in Physics from UCLA. I suggest you leave the pages as they are, until another Physicist checks in, because obviously neither one of you is functional in this domain. I will be glad to continue to offer my expertise, as other Physicists check in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

You're quite right that I'm not a physicist. That doesn't mean I can or cannot read sources, citations, or observe when they are lacking. None of these skills are especially unique to physics scholarship (and if they were considered so, I would be worried, since they are quite elementary).

One example of where you were lacking in this department is, evidently, your selective ommission from Thorne, as demonstrated by Paul August. Though admittedly it remains to be proven what's going on with your particular "must be given credit" quote, a superficial interpretation of the quote indicates that Thorne thinks Hilbert deserves credit for doing it first, but not overall credit, which involves other factors.

Here is another bit of strange scholarship, re: the Time citation of Hawking: "Einstein had discussed his ideas with the mathematician David Hilbert during a visit to the University of Gottingen in the summer of 1915, and Hilbert independently found the same equations a few days before Einstein. Nevertheless, as Hilbert admitted, the credit for the new theory belonged to Einstein. It was his idea to relate gravity to the warping of space-time." What's interesting is that it says the very same thing as the Thorne quote provided by Paul August: that Einstein deserved the credit, because he laid the foundation for what Hilbert did. Quite clear.

But as I've indicated, I'm no physicist. Fastfission, on the other hand, is a historian of science. If we go by authority alone, then he has more than you, since credit has more to do with history and less with actual physics. Luckily, we being reasonable people, would not resort to such empty conceits, would we? Lucidish 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• It wouldn't matter if I or he were the Queen of England; he's POV-pushing, citing bonkers sources on the one hand, taking quotes completely out of context from legitimate sources on the other, and engaging in a rather pointless edit war at the same time. All of these are very serious violations of Wikipedia editing policy and I've personally seen no reason to assume any good faith with this guy in comparison with a dozen reasons to assume he is a quack. --Fastfission 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's reasonable to point out the relative contributions of Poincare and Hilbert, once a review of the literature is completed. Because of Darrigol's comments, I believe there is great substance to the claim that Poincare did a lot of seemingly unrecognized work that predates Einstein. It remains to be seen if he formulated E=mc2, or if anyone really has claimed he did. That'll require a trip to the library. Hilbert's contributions seem minimal given what I've read so far from Thorne and Hawking, but perhaps deserving of some brief mention, as Paul August suggested. Lucidish 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I've looked up the Whittaker reading. Whittaker does, indeed, state that Poincaré had formulated E=mc2 in 1900. The citation is "Archives Néerland. v (1900), p252." This absolutely deserves mention. However, what also deserves mention is that Poincaré never proved it, while Einstein did (at least, for one particular phenomenon). This is mentioned on page 52 of the same source. So Anon's point is a half-truth, but an important half-truth (assuming Whittaker got it right). Lucidish 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The question in this case has not been whether or not Whittaker (and others) have assigned priority one way or the other over time (it is well known that many people -- usually mathematicians or physicists taking a play as historian -- have made conclusions on all sides of things. Whittaker is apparently one of the rare anti-Einsteinians from the period with no history of anti-Semiticism,[1] good for him!) but 1. whether this priority question is notable enough to worth mentioning and 2. how Wikipedia's article should word it. Let me look into this a bit. --Fastfission 04:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish: (Regarding E=mc2) You need to put on your reading glasses, you are misquoting Whittaker - he did not say that Poincare never proved it. Whittaker said that Poincare gave practically no proof, but Whittaker adds (p. 51) that Poincare did however give good scientific reasoning for stating that E=mc2.

Alright, "practically no proof". I think that that in itself is pretty clear on the point. Lucidish

Poincare's reasoning was correct, in deducing E=mc2, as described by Whittaker (p.51). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

To Lucidish: You write that Hilbert's contributions seem minimal ? If you were a physicist you would know better than to say that. Hilbert published the famous gravitational Field Equations of General Relativity before Einstein. - and The Field Equations ARE the theory itself ! Einstein was furious that Hilbert was the first to correctly deduce and publish the Field Equations, because THAT IS the Theory of General Relativity, before Einstein. If you were a physicist you would understand this. Try reading Folsing's biography of Einstein. Folsing quotes Einstein who said it himself that the Field Equations are the theory itself.

I've tracked down your sources, read them, noted what each said. In both cases, the issue is that Hilbert a) used Einstein's ideas, and b) Einstein did the work, anyway (albeit five days later). Unless Hilbert's formulations were in turn read by Einstein, and Einstein used them in the creation of his own formulations, Hilbert's contribution is minimal. Noteworthy, I guess, but minimal, at least with respect to credit. Lucidish

Yes of course Einstein did read Hilbert's correct derivation of the Field Equations and then Einstein republished them. See Folsing, he cites the letter that Hilbert sent to Einstein giving him the correct Field Equations, days before Einstein then republished them. - Fully documented by Folsing. In addition, Hilbert in public conference presented the Field Equations five days before Einstein republished them, see Folsing it is all there, search Hilbert in Folsing's index for the pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

To Lucidish: You need understand some physics here. Keswani (p.276) wrote what any physicist can tell you, that what Einstein inaccurately called the General Theory of Relativity is in fact in no sense a general theory of relativity, it is only a theory of gravity. -This is why Kip Thorne's book on general relativity is entitled simply Gravitation.

To Lucidish: Kip Thorne and Hawking have to say something good about Einstein to get their books distributed, but I am certain that they BOTH know that it was Grossmann who constructed the theory for Einstein. Einstein couldn't do it. It took Hilbert's genious to complete it.

Grossman is a new name. So is Smoluchowski. I'm not exactly interested in what Google has to say, have you got credible sources on hand for this? Lucidish 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See Folsing's biography of Einstein, he writes in detail regarding Marcel Grossmann who did the work constructing for Einstein the framework that Einstein had regarding General Relativity. Folsing continues, that Grossmann's work was still lacking terms, and how it took the genius of Hilbert to correctly produce the correct Field Equations. Regarding Smoluchowski, it is right there in Wikipedia, just click on Smoluchowski. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

To Lucidish: Search Smoluchowski on the net and you will find references that Einstein's solution for Brownian Motion was copied line for line from Smoluchowski. Einstein was indeed the Incorrigible Plagiarist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) . on 22:50, January 10, 2006)

I think we've come to the end of our reading of Whittaker. He says both a) that Poincare, in "referring to the fact that in free aether the electromagnetic momentum is (1/c^2) times the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density equal to (1/c^2) times the energy density : that is to say, E=mc^2 where E is energy and m is mass", and remarked that this fact would predict that a "Hertz oscillator" would recoil when fired; and b) that "Poincare had suggested this equation [E=mc^2] but had given practically no proof, while Einstein, who had also suggested it, had given a proof ... for a particular case". In the former, you have a very good point. In the latter, at least in Whittaker's estimation, you do not.

Alright, most of the rest of these comments are novel allegations with novel sources that need to be looked into. What is the exact title of Folsing's work? Lucidish 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask at any bookstore for Folsing's biography on Einstein, it is usually right on the shelf, it is considered the definitive biography of reference. Also, search on the net for The Einstein Myth Ives, to see Ives' publication regarding Einstein's 1905 derivation of E=mc2 which was an incorrect derivation, that nevertheless yielded the correct E=mc2, proving that Einstein was trying to derive what he knew was the correct answer, namely Poincare's E=mc2. -Einstein's 1905 paper derived therefore nothing. See Ives. The book The Einstein Myth reproduces Ives' published paper, and this book is in most major university librairies in the Physics section.

Lorentz transofrmation? Poincare and E=mc^2

Current version (1/27/06) says that Henri Poincare published the E=mc^2 equation first. As I understand it, this is inaccurate. I believe that Poincare developed results (the Lorentz transformation) which IMPLIED that E=mc^2 but that Poincare did not actually explore this aspect of his own work. I do not think the mass/energy conversion equation had been published in that form prior to Einstein, even if it was 'latent' within Poincare's own work. Perhaps an expert could clarify this and edit the page if necessary?Ben Kidwell 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert in this area, but I can independently verify that this bit of information has been claimed (if not established) in the work cited and discussed above by Sir Edmund Whittaker. Moreover, I have run this particular text by historian/philosopher of science Howard Plotkin, who has indicated that Whittaker's claim seems to have some autheticity to it (though his area of concentration appears to be in astrophysics-related things). I will continue to investigate by presenting other authorities with the Whittaker text.

Fastfission is (so far as I can tell) the only one with an interest in this page who is an expert in the field of the history of science, but I believe he is occupied with other duties at the moment. So for the timebeing, it would not be prudent to remove the claim unless more evidence is put forward. Lucidish 19:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some research with one of the best tools available (wikipedia, that is) and discovered a huge quantity of useful information at Talk:Henri_Poincaré. This issue has been debated extensively there, and it seems to me that crediting Poincare with the basic proportionality that underlies the equation is correct, altho he did not have the contextual understanding that Einstein created. I think the current one sentence statement in the article should be expanded. The whole topic of priority for the E = mc^2 equation is actually worth a whole article of its own, it's a fascinating case study in how complex these issues become when examined in detail. I'd like to see text along the lines of the following in the main:

"Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2 is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations that structure Minkowskian space-time. Henri Poincare anticipated this result in a prescient 1900 paper, but did not have Einstein's unifying perspective to give this proportionality context and significance."Ben Kidwell 04:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That sentence seems a little too dismissive of Poincare. Try: "In 1900 Poincare had shown, as a consequence of Maxwell's radiation pressure, and Lorentz's theory of electrons, that radiation, when emiited or absorbed, could be considered as a fictitious fluid with an equivalent mass of m = E/c^2. Einstein (1905), working from the variation of mass with velocity, suggested that when a body lost or gained energy of the amount E its mass decreased or increased by the amount E/c^2". This 1905 paper is the last? published in 1905, not the elctro-dynamics one. E4mmacro 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"The whole topic of priority for the E = mc^2 equation is actually worth a whole article of its own" -- Writtenonsand 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It can be avoided by instead concentrating on the contribution of Einstein: he was the first to present that equation as implying the equivalence of mass and energy content. Harald88 07:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's Introduction must be rewritten

Wikipedia's own articles point out that Henri Poincare discovered Relativity, and David Hilbert first published on Novemer 20, 1915 the famous Field Equations of general relativity which completed that theory. Reference See Einstein-Hilbert action. Also, the so called theory of general relativity is only a theory of gravity, which should be pointed out. Thus, Einstein's Introduction on Wikipedia must be re-written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 11:21, January 31, 2006.

Your complaint is no longer about facts, and now about presentation. How does any of this justify a factual accuracy warning on the article page? Lucidish 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This idea was covered many months, if not years, ago on the talk pages here. An anonymous user tried to accuse Einstein of plagarism. It may be the same person. It is certainly true that Einstein's work built substantially on those who had gone before, and that Poincare and Hilbert both made significant advances in what might be called Relativity. Who exactly 'discovered' it is one of those questions that depends on exactly what you mean by Relativity. What is certainly true is that Einstein was fully deserving of the praise he eventually got for the discoveries he did make. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Made a slight tweak to acknowledge Poincare's simultaneous proposal of reltivity. Besides E=mx² deserves a mention in the intro. DJ Clayworth 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs more re-writing. He was not one of the original proposers. The theory was fully formulated, final discovery demonstrated, by Henri Poincare, all before Einstein's first paper even appeared. Also, Einstein did not correctly derive E=mc2 ever, his derivation was a tautology (Ives 1952). Also, the formula E=mc2 first appeared in 1900 in a paper by Poincare. Also David Hilbert completed the General theory, not Einstein. Hilbert first published the key equation the Field Equation, which completed General Relativity, not Einstein. Also General relativity is a misnomer, it is only a theory of gravity which needs be pointed out for correctness.69.22.98.146 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the principle of relativity, and the theory of relativity. While Pointcare and Lorentz certainly made huge advances, it was Einstein's interpretation that gave us the complete theory and made it more than a thought experiment.--Stephan Schulz 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

to Schultz, you are incorrect. Einstein's 1905 paper had no new interpretations from Poincare's 1905 paper. -- And the subject here is the 1905 discovery of relativity. 69.22.98.146 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just now re-wrote it factually. If everyone agrees, we could lift the red tag. 69.22.98.146 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Your interpretation is far out of the maintream (to avoid a stronger word, like "false"). --Stephan Schulz 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the dates, it is precise what I wrote. 69.22.98.146 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please get a consensus on this talk page instead of reintroducing that priority dispute on the main article page. The Rod 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's silly to point to Wikipedia articles as proof of anything. If you want to document a controversy, create a page on "Disputes over the origin of Relativity" and describe the controversy there, and CITE YOUR SOURCES. --Alvestrand 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Precise dates with Sources are at Henri Poincare and David Hilbert. Einstein's Introduction ignores all the precise historical dates. 69.22.98.146 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"The theory was fully formulated, final discovery demonstrated, by Henri Poincare". Whittaker's work says the exact opposite of this. Explain your conclusions. Lucidish 00:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire ! Whittaker calls it Poincare's Relativity, and Poincare's E=mc2, in 1900. Also it is a fact Hilbert completed General relativity before Einstein. FACTS ! 69.22.98.146 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Whittaker caled it "The relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz". E4mmacro 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think History of special relativity gives background on why it's called Einstein's relativity, not Poincaré's relativity. And History of general relativity gives the same background on Hilbert - mentioning that Hilbert never tried to get credit for his earlier publication. With reference. Did Poincaré ever dispute the general perception that it was Einstein's theory? --Alvestrand 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure did, Poincare always claimed it was Lorentz's theory, not Einstein's. See the Poincare page and the Lorentz page. E4mmacro 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I should read talk pages before adding to them. This is covered in much greater detail further up the page. --Alvestrand 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

dates are all that matters. Face the facts. 66.194.104.5 00:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Whittaker talks about "The relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz" as a chapter heading, sure -- but this is not substance, it is superficial. Actual substance would involve justification, facts. And Whittaker's testimony is, in fact, the opposite of what you attribute to him wrt Poincare. Poincare did NOT fully formulate E=mc2, only arrived at that conclusion with the help of "practically no proof" (which we discussed above). It was Einstein who proved it. If you read the Whittaker text, and recall the discussion on this we've already had, you'd note it.

2. Again, dates are one consideration to be weighed against many others, such as the depth of the explanation involved.

The article is factually accurate. The header should be removed. Lucidish 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish: Shame on you Lucidish. How much plainer could Whittaker make it ! -- And you call it no substance, are you crazy or blind ? -- Whittaker made it clear that Einstein's 1905 paper had the equivalent content, with no new interpretations, as Poincare's 1905 paper. 69.22.98.146 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. "Practically no proof": page 52. You are engaging in simple fabrication. Lucidish 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UT

Header removed, slight change to intro. Aside from your Hilbert complaint, I'm at a loss to see any lingering dispute. Perhaps you'd like to show where your greivance lies within the text.

About the "general theory" complaint: indeed, the general theory of relativity is just about gravity. It's a very popular misnomer which is well understood in physics circles (or so I'm told by my undergraduate physics friends). Its inclusion here would be harmless, if you insist upon it. Lucidish 01:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Lucidish yes I do insist. I shall then insert it. 69.22.98.146 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT : Hilbert published the Field Equations, which completed the General theory on November 20, 1915, before Einstein, and Hilbert called the general theory Meiner theorie . Einstein is NOT therefore the discoverer of general relativity, SOURCE: Folsing's biography of Einstein. Also SEE David Hilbert. 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT: Einstein did NOT FORMULATE the General theory in November of 1915. It was David Hilbert who first derived the Field Equation and published it on November 20, 1915, not Einstein. -- Therefore Hilbert FORMULATED it, not Einstein. -- It must be removed that Einstein is the one who formulated it. SOURCE: Folsing. 69.22.98.146 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. First to formulate != the only to formulate.

Credit goes to those who put most work into the conceptual foundations AND mathematical acumen to follow through. Hence: Einstein credit. Lucidish 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish by your logic you must credit Marcel Grossman who did 90% of the work for Einstein. -- But Neither Grossmann nor Einstein could complete the theory, it took the mathematical acumen of Hilbert to correctly formulate the theory (the Field Equation). 69.22.98.146 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to read Folsing's bio and info on Grossman, because the bio seems to have gone missing from my school's library. I will contiue to look. Hopefully your reading of Folsing is not as blatantly and explicitly false as your reading of Whittaker. Lucidish 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT : H. E. Ives (1952) proved that Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 was a tautology ( 0 = 0 ). Einstein derived nothing, no E=mc2, in his 1905 paper. -- It must be removed from Wikipedia that Einstein proved E=mc2 in 1905, he did not. -- IVES (1952) was never refuted and still stands. 69.22.98.146 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So? Anything with an equal sign involved is a tautology. That doesn't mean anything. Lucidish 05:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm heading off to sleep right now, but point #1 seems to be somewhat more complicated than you make it out to be. Hilbert's Nov. 20 paper was not the final version published, as I understand it. One article which discusses all of the math and the publication history in detail is: Leo Corry, Jürgen Renn, and John Stachel, "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute" Science 278:5341 (14 Nov 1997), 1270-1273. I'm happy to send a PDF to anyone interested in following this up, just use the "E-mail this user" button. --Fastfission 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Leo Corry was totally discredited, by Dr. Winterberg, whose published article destroying Corry is reproduced in full at the site http://www.xtxinc.com 69.22.98.146 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Where on that site? It seems to be a commercial site adverising a couple of polemical, pseudo-scholary books by a certain Bjerknes. I could not find a Winterberg there, or the full text of anything serious. I take an article in science over that site any day. Bjerknes even proudly points to a publication in Infinite Energy, an obvious quack publication. Oh yes: FACT: Writing "FACT:" in front of an alleged fact does not necessarily make it so. --Stephan Schulz 07:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Winterberg's paper is here on his homepage. The article of Logunov et al. debunking CRS is here, but only the Russian version is for free. A list of links compiled by the publisher of a recent anti-CRS book written by Wuensch is here. You may also have a look at the mutilation of Hilbert's printer proofs (a fact which CRS did not tell their readers) here. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

click on his second book, go to references. 69.22.98.146 12:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT: Hilbert's publication of the Field Equation on Nov 20, 1915 which completed GR is indeed the final discovery of GR, before Einstein(Source: SEE Folsing). -- Also in Folsing: Hilbert sent Einstein a copy of the Field Equation, only then did Einstein later publish it, after Hilbert published it. THUS, Hilbert FORMULATED GR, not Einstein, so the Wikipedia Introduction must be re-written. 69.22.98.146 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes Einstein a major proponent of relativity ? 69.22.98.146 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he (along with Poincare) posited the universal validity of the relativity principle, relativistic laws of motion, etc. Lucidish 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish, Lucidish, you know better than that. -- Poincare showed those points in his 1905 paper which was identical in content to Einstein's 1905 paper, which was hailed as the discovery. -- Poincare's was the same, and first. -- Second does not count in science, you know that. 69.22.98.146 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Look again at the claim you're supposed to be disputing -- that he was a "major proponent" -- and you'll find that your above comment does not conflict with it. (Presuming you meant "1900" in reference to Poincare). Dates do matter; so does the quality and degree of proof; which, according to Whittaker, and contrary to your claims, lies in Einstein's favor. Lucidish 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish: a major proponent publishes first, not last. -- And, you need re-read Whittaker who calls it Poincare's theory of Relativity and Poincare's E=mc2. 69.22.98.146 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this. Won't repeat myself. For my reply, see above. Lucidish 05:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thorne, Kip, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy, W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition, January 1, 1995, ISBN 0393312763, deals with the priority issue. From our David Hilbert article:

According to Thorne pp. 117–118, after "mulling over things he had learned" from a recent visit by Einstein to Gottingen, Hilbert published the correct derivation of the field equation five days before Einstein, going on to say: "Quite naturally, and in accord with Hilbert's view of things, the resulting law of warpage was quickly given the name the Einstein field equation rather than being named after Hilbert. Hilbert had carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded those steps: the recognition that tidal gravity must be the same thing as a warpage of spacetime, the vision that the law of warpage must obey the reativity principle, and the first 90 percent of that law, the Einstein field equation. In fact without Einstein the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later."

Kip Thorne is making excuses for Einstein. And what Kip Thorne won't tell you is that it was Marcel Grossmann who did 90% of the work for Einstein. 69.22.98.146 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Now Corry, from looking at new evidence (some original galley's) calls into question the whether Hilbert actually published the result five days earlier. But even if he did publish first (and that begs the question who actually proved the equations first), by five days, the standard view, as given by Thorne and shared by Hilber, is that Einstein deserves the Lion's share of the credit.

Paul August ☎ 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget Corry, Corry was destroyed by Dr. Winterberg's article published recently in Z. Naturforsch. 69.22.98.146 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So, the FACT remains, that David Hilbert was the first to correctly formulate and publish General relativity, before Einstein, who could not do it, reference see Einstein-Hilbert action. Hilbert gave the solution to Einstein who only then re-published Hilbert's solution, source reference: Folsing. 69.22.98.146 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: Hilbert FORMULATED general relativity, not Einstein, -- Also, Ives (1952) proved that Einstein did NOT derive E=mc2 in 1905. -- So, the Introduction must be re-written. 69.22.98.146 20:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice, but you have been told above, that even Winterberg gives the credit for GR to Einstein-Grossman-Hilbert (not just Hilbert). Just as you didn't notice that that even Whittaker gives the credit for SR to Poincare-Lorentz (not just Poincare). These anti-Einstein authors (Whittaker and Winterberg) at least attempt some nuance to give themselves more credibility. E4mmacro 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kip Thorne in his book referenced above, wrote that Hilbert MUST be given credit. --Hilbert was the first to correctly formulate GR. 69.22.98.146 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT: Einstein did not FORMULATE GR. --The INTRO must be re-written for accuracy. 69.22.98.146 21:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your facts, but this is really not the place to expose conspiracy theories. Einstein has received credit for this work- whether or not he deserves it doesn't matter. -Gyzmr

Keswani 1966 wrote that GR is only a theory of gravity. Kip Thorne p. 117 says David Hilbert Must be given credit for the completed formulation of GR, not Einstein. Ives 1952 proved that Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 was wrong and proved nothing. Henri Poincare first published E=mc2 in 1900. -- DOES WIKIPEDIA OPERATE BY SOURCES OR NOT ? -- The INTRO needs be completely re-written. 69.22.98.146 15:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you have not noticed so far, Wikipedia works by consensus. It requires sources (well, in fact, it requires verifiability). Secondary source like the ones you cite are at best evidence, not proof of something. In this case, the consensus seems to be that your evidence is lacking and unconvincing. --Stephan Schulz 16:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. Anon's point about Poincare has substance, and his point about GR being a theory of gravity is true (though obvious, and banal). The rest is either a misreading of the sources cited or depends upon a very narrow and out-of-the-way criterion of priority. Lucidish 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I quote KIP THORNE. 16:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

...apparently out of context and without understanding. Hint: What is the title of his pular science book on general relativity and black holes?--Stephan Schulz 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

KIP THORNE IS PRECISE, p. 117. 66.194.104.5 16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a poll on Hilbert & Poincare!

Since the lone ranger promoting the Hilbert/Poincare viewpoint simply won't give up, I suggest we take a poll, so that the community (and the logs) can show that there IS a commonly held view that SHOULD be the one given in the introduction. Sign up below! Of course polls can't decide what the facts are. But they DO show pretty clearly the majority opinion among the Wikipedia crowd on how to evaluate those facts. --Alvestrand 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've noticed user 69 has refused to sign under any of the options. To 69: could you, you know, come up with a name so we won't have to continually refer to you by your IP adress? Delta[XK] 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 1A: Albert Einstein should have main credit for Special Relativity

• --Alvestrand 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Gyzmr 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• --24.253.120.206 12:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Dalmoz 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Delta[XK] 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 1B: Henri Poincare should have main credit for Special Relativity

• --User:De kludde

Alternative 1C: Both Poincare and Einstein should receive equal (or near-equal) credit

• Lucidish 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• E4mmacro 21:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 1D: Poincare-Lorentz and Einstein/Minkowski should receive equal (or near equal) credit

• E4mmacro 21:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Einstein's work was the keystone to an arch which Lorentz, Poincare and others had built and which was to carry the structure erected by Minkowski. I think it is wrong to forget these other men ...", Max Born, Physics in My Generations, Pergamon Press, 1956, p 195, as quoted by G. H. Keswani "Origin and Concept of Relativity (II)", Brit J Phil Sci 1966. So I added to Minkowski to my alternative 1D. Actually I thought my one vote looked lonely so I dragged in Max Born :) E4mmacro 04:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 2A: Albert Einstein should have main credit for General Relativity

• --Alvestrand 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Lucidish 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Paul August ☎ 19:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Gyzmr 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• 24.253.120.206 12:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• E4mmacro 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Dalmoz 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Delta[XK] 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Muugokszhiion 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 2C: Einstein (and possibly Grossmann) and Hilbert should receive equal (or near equal) credit

• --User:De kludde

I adapted the formulation of the intro to the known facts. For now I left "author" of GRT; but in view of Hilbert, that might be considered POV as it could be seen as suggesting that Einstein was the sole contributor. Harald88 07:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Quality

The quality of the introduction has been seriously deteroriating over the last couple of days. It seems some people are intent on spoiling a once well written and fluent page on Einstein, with pointless references to Poincare and Hilbert in the intro. D Simms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.166.26 (talk • contribs) 16:32, February 4, 2006 (UTC)

"Some people" = the anon user who's argued for days just above on the talk page. I just reverted him (again) - when nobody listens to his arguments, he just goes ahead and does it. Let's poll! --Alvestrand 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT mob rule, it is rule by SOURCES. Look at wikipedia's own articles on Henri Poincare and David Hilbert. They are fully referenced. Poincare COMPLETED the discovery of the theory of relativity before the plagiarist Einstein's first paper even appeared. - KIP THORNE p.117 states that Hilbert MUST get the credit for the Field Equation, which is general relativity itself, formulated correctly and published 20 Nov 1915 by Hilbert, not Einstein. The INTRO must be completely re-written. -- Poincare published E=mc2 five years before Einstein. 69.22.98.146 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is completely ridicules; so far I have seen maybe four sites and one book claiming Einstein did not come up with these theories- that's five sources! I can show you at least 100 encyclopedias all claiming the opposite. I'm sorry but you simply can't discredit one of the world's most famous scientists with just that. I suggest we stick the mainstream opinion of how events took place. At the moment this artical is very well written, so stop editing it. If you want, add a note at the end and a link to one of your sources. Gyzmr 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is NO BETTER SOURCE than Kip Thorne. and it is a published fact that Poincare derived and published E=mc2 in 1900, five years before Einstein.. 69.22.98.146 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish had agreed that GR is only a theory of gravity -- Lucidish approved this -- so do not knock it out. 69.22.98.146 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, say it is true- this kind of information doesn't belong in the first paragraph- the one that should sum the life of Einstein; I think this note in the body of the article is more than enough: "A few historians of science believe that Einstein and his wife were both aware that the famous Frenchman Henri Poincare had already published the equations of Relativity, a few months before Einstein; most believe their work independent, especially given Einstein's isolation at this time."

OK, but Hilbert should be mentioned in the body as well. 69.22.98.146 21:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Second, please stop editing the article until we have reached an agreement! Give the poll a week, and we'll see the general feeling is regarding this subject.

OK, I'll wait some, but the INTRO is simply factually WRONG and must be completely re-written, to conform with facts and with the body of the article. The INTRO makes it sound like he discovered E=mc2 and the Field Equation, which he did not. 69.22.98.146 21:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And your edition makes it sound as if Einstein stole it! Here is the passage from Hilbert's article regarding the subject: "Hilbert had carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded those steps: the recognition that tidal gravity must be the same thing as a warpage of spacetime, the vision that the law of warpage must obey the reativity principle, and the first 90 percent of that law, the Einstein field equation. In fact without Einstein the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later." There was a reason Einstein received credit for this work and he deserved every bit of it- the scientific community agrees on that, and as you can see from the poll, so do we. Now if you want, add a small note at the end about Hilbert having published the last bit five days before him- but that's it. Gyzmr 22:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What Kip Thorne will not tell you is that Marcel Grossmann did 90% of the work for Einstein. So why aren't you hypocrits crying for poor Grossmann ?? -- The fact is, neither Grossmann nor Einstein could figure it out. -- That is why Einstein went begging to Hilbert to figure it all out for him. -- Hilbert worked on the problem four or five months and put it all together in the correct Field Equation which Hilbert then published, and ALL SCIENTISTS KNOW that who publishes first gets the credit. The theory of gravity (GR) belongs to Hilbert, So stop your cry baby and correct the INTRO it must be re-written. 17.255.240.78 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Know what? Noone-nowhere around the world thinks like you. I've read the links from both articles, and none of them mentions the things you say. Why do you think this theory was named after Einstein in the first place? Because everyone likes him? The scientific community was facing the same facts you have- and they've decided Einstein deserves the credit. We all agree with them. I doubt Even Hilbert himself argued. It's you and you alone who wants to change history, and you're just mad because no one here lets you do it. Now either add a note at the end about Himler having published the last step of the theory five days before Einstein, or pray for a majority. Gyzmr 08:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am newly arrived and definitely NOT an Einstein basher. However, I find plausibility in the thesis that to some extent Einstein succumbed to plagiarism. E.g., his 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of a Moving Body, contains no references whatever -- odd in itself -- and there is pretty firm documentation that he was aware of Poincare's seminal work on the Principle of Relativity and clock synchronization. Both concepts are featured prominently in his 1905 paper but there is not acknowledgement of Poincare. green 65.88.65.217 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the 90% of the work done by Einstein/Hilbert made the last step thing above, so Einstein has to get majority of credit. It is similar to what I think about Lorentz and special relativity. Some large % of the work was done by Lorentz and Poincare/Einstein independently took the last step. However, I notice the argument is always about Poincare/Einstein, never Lorentz, which seems a bit strange to me. At least Lorentz has his name on the transformations. E4mmacro 21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot claim that Einstein has done 90% of the work. He came up with the correct framework in which to describe gravity, but then failed to find the correct field equations for several years, until Hilbert solved that problem. See my remarks above, or the WN Wiki article on the subject. Also, even if your remark was correct, this would not change the fact that Einstein probably plagiarized these alleged 10% from Hilbert. User:De kludde, Feb 5, 2006

Note how you said "probably"; you yourself are not quite sure about the subject you're arguing about! Anyways, an encyclopedia is not where you can post new ideas; it has been accepted for some time that Einstein desereves the credit. Delta[XK] 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert field equations revisited

Indeed the world is cruel. Marcel Grossmann did 90% of the work for Einstein, and is never mentioned. -- In science he who publishes first gets the credit. -- David Hilbert first published the correct Field Equation, so GR belongs to Hilbert, even though Grossmann, and not Einstein, did 90% of the work. -- Hilbert in 1924 stated that GR is MEINER THEORIE-- So the INTRO must be re-written for correctness. 69.22.98.146 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To Mr. 69: What you state above flat-out contradicts what you wrote today on Poincare Talkpage, namely,

"To anyone who may be overly sensitive, I want it clear that I am in no way implying in the article that GR belongs to Hilbert instead of Einstein -- I am simply writing down in chronological correctness for the article. 69.22.98.146 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)"

On that particular site it is true, I was not making a point of it, but here, I am, and why not? . 69.22.98.146 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, what your wrote today on this page is a serious distortion of history. Hilbert was put on the path to the field equations by Einstein's profound physical intuition that matter-energy warps spacetime. Moreover, Einstein had been working the problem for many years before contacting Hilbert. These points have been made here and on the Poincare Talkpage. It's a no-brainer; namely, that even if Einstein was unable to derive the equations himself -- and I am not sure this was the case -- the credit for GR must go primarily to Einstein, with some recognition of course and deep gratitude to Hilbert. green 65.88.65.217 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is no one insisting that Grossmann be recognized, instead of Einstein ? -- Grossmann did 90% of the work, not Einstein. Neither Grossmann nor Einstein could finish the theory. Einstein went begging to Hilbert, to finish it, which Hilbert did. Hilbert called the theory MEINER THEORIE, and the published record fully justifies his doing so. 69.22.98.146 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know Einstein went "begging"? Were you there? Btw, if Hilbert thought it was his theory, why did he name the field equations, "Einstein's"? I read that somewhere on these Talkpages and it seemed authoritative. I forget the source. green 65.88.65.217 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what Einstein wrote to Hilbert on November 15, 1915: Your analysis interests me tremendously *** If possible, please send me a correction proof of your study to mitigate my impatience. (Volume 8 of the Princeton edition of Einstein's collected papers, document 144). Whether one should call this "begging" is open to dispute, but he clearly asked Hilbert for a copy of Hilbert's paper, and confirmed on November 18 that he received the information he wanted, while Einstein's November 25 field equations paper does not mention Hilbert at all. A clear cut case of plagiarism, no matter what you believe about the details of Hilbert's November 16 letter/postcard.User:De kludde, Feb 6, 2006

The way I see it is that Einstein and Hilbert collaborated when the former got bogged down in highly esoteric mathematics. No "begging" afaict or guess; rather, an extremely reasonable division of labor. However, as I recently posted, the case for plagiarism is hardly vacuous. Einstein could still have legimately called GR his theory while crediting Hilbert's key contribution. Or they could have negotiated an "Einstein-Hilbert GTR". green 65.88.65.217 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

They did not really collaborate. Einstein had published several versions of his theory along the lines of the Entwurf paper, and Hilbert started work of his own along the same line, quoting Einstein as the author of the idea to describe graivity by Riemannian geometry. This is a perfectly normal thing to do. For instance, the guys who came up with the electroweak interaction started work on their own, rather than contacting Yang and Mills about possibly writing a joint paper. They should have settled on "Einstein-Hilbert GTR" or "Einstein-Hilbert-Grossmann GTR", depending on what you believe about Grossmann's role. The Entwurf paper was divided in a physics section, written by Einstein, and a mathematics section, written by Grossmann. It is the physics section which contains what was to become the decisive new contribution of this paper, the use of the metric tensor to describe gravity. But Grossmann's role in the invetion is difficult to assess. I dont know how this division of the Entwurf paper came about, nor what is known about the subject. Grossmann may have objected to Einstein's looking for non-covariant field equations, for instance. Given the way Einstein treated Hilbert and Poincare, I am not inclined to believe anything Einsein may have written about the subject, unless it is confirmed by someone else. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

Einstein went begging to Hilbert see Einstein-Hilbert action. -- Hilbert called the theory MEINER THEORIE in 1924, how much clearer could he be ? 69.22.98.146 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I read it. Now stop avoiding my questionS. How do you know he went "begging"? Didn't AE have something to offer?! (It's a no-brainer.) Why did Hilbert name the equations after Einstein? green 65.88.65.217 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein was UNABLE to finish the theory. 69.22.98.146 04:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You continue avoiding the question! How do you know he went "begging"? Istm, he did the smart thing. He needed help from perhaps the greatest living mathematician of his time, and if Einstein didn't have something reeeeely substantial, do you think Hilbert would have wasted his (Hilbert's) time?

Hilbert did not waste much time. Wuensch, in the book [Wue05] I am quoting here, thinks he sent Einstein a postcard or two, containing the functional to which Hilbert applied the principle of least action, the least action principle itself, and the explicit field equations. She bases her speculation upon Hilbert's personal notes, which have a remark "3 Eq(uations) on a postcard, underlined in blue" on a sheet of paper devoted to the subject. Writing down these three equations would have taken a few minutes at most. But this information would have been sufficient for Einstein to come up with a slightly modified form of the field equations in his November 25 paper. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

Why do you think Hilbert called it MEINER THEORIE. 69.22.98.146 04:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Again you avoid my question. Why did Hilbert originally call it "Einstein's" field equation? Was it not because he understood Einstein's crucial conceptual role. Is this so hard to understand? green 65.88.65.217 04:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that Hilbert ever called his field equations "Einstein field equations". Could you give a source for this claim? Hilbert did mention Einstein as the inventor of the correct framework to describe gravity (ie, as a pseudo-Riemannian metric). He did this in the printer proofs of his field equations paper, as well as in all published versions tereof. But I am not aware of a single line where he attributes the field equations to Einstein. And Hilbert did claim priority for the field equations, see my WN wiki article on the subject. User:De kludde, Feb 6, 2006

Thanks. I'll check out your link. I recall reading that claim within the last few days, either here or on Poincare Talkpage I think, but it would be hard to locate. It could be an error. Did Hilbert ever refer to GR as "MEINER THEORIE" as 69 alleges? green 65.88.65.217

Yes, absolutely. His field equations paper was reprinted in the Mathematische Annalen in 1924. He writes: Einstein *** kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradewegs zu meiner Theorie zurück (Einstein *** in his most recent publications, returns directly to my theory, highlighting made by myself). And in his November 13 letter to Einstein he refers to his paper as meine axiomatische Lösung Ihres großen Problemes (my axiomatic solution to your big problem.) I am quoting Wuensch's book, 81-83, instead of the original sources. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

De Kludde, your paper system seems to have suffered a LaTex crash - the equations are replaced with error messages. However, more interesting to me is your quote:

The version of his paper printed in 1916 contains the sentence "Die so zu Stande kommenden Differentialgleichungen der Gravitation sind, wie mir scheint, mit der von Einstein in seinen späteren Abhandlungen aufgestellten großzügigen Theorie der allgemeinen Relativität in gutem Einklang." "The differential equations of gravity obtained in this way appear to me to be in good accordance with the magnificant theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later publications", where later (später, highlighted by the author) appears to refer to the fact that Hilbert had submitted the first version of his paper earlier.

This seems to say that Hilbert claimed that his formulas WERE NOT general relativity. Just that they WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH general relativity - a completely different claim. do you have a reference for this version of the Hilbert paper, or are they quoted in the sources you cite there? --Alvestrand 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The TeX problem seems to be caused by the fact that the people who run WN wiki have not installed all the math programs (latex,gs) yet. I will complain to them again. But it works perfectly well for the wiki I run from my hard drive (which is unaccessible to the outside world). It would probably work here as well, but may face quick deletion if I try to post it here. Concerning your other claim, my point of view is that Hilbert, while he held Einstein's achievements as a physicist in high esteem, always insisted upon his priority for the field equations, and that later (später) is his polite way of expressing that Einstein's paper depended on his. See my response to "green 65.88.65.217" above. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

De Kludde, if you create a page called "Hilbert, Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity", I doubt very much that it will be deleted. I even think it's likely that a link in "see also" of the Einstein article will stay there. As far as I can tell, it's only the modifications to the Einstein article intro that get rapidly reverted.

My personal conclusion at the moment is that Hilbert seems to have considered the field equations to be *part* of General Relativity, and give Einstein credit for the whole, while he wanted some credit for the part. That doesn't seem like a very controversial issue... --Alvestrand 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the field equations are "part" of the theory downplays their importance way of too much. This is a correct description of the situation only if it is understood that removal of that "part" causes the collapse of the entire edifice. Without the equations, the theory does not make any prediction which you can test experimentally. One could say that Einstein only pointed out the direction in which one should look for a theory and that Hilbert filled this program with life. If this was a mere "part" of the theory, then why did Einstein write paper after paper in his vain attempt to get the correct field equations? Also, look at the plagiarism issue which is involved: Einstein published two papers containing wrong field equations on November 4 and 11, the main text of this November 18 Mercury paper still states that Einstein believed in this theory, while a footnote apparently added shortly before submitting the paper announces that Einstein was going to modify his equations. It is reasonable to assume that Einstein received Hilbert's postcard on November 17, and his November 18 letter confirms its arrival, and the fact that Einstein had read it and compared it to his own theory. So the picture is that Einstein changed his mind on the theory he had developed in early November in the first 24 hours after he received Hilbert's postcard. A clear cut case of plagiarism, in my opinion. Why should Einstein have done such a thing if Hilbert's paper was of minor importance? De kludde 06:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert preferred to correctly call it The Theory of Gravity, and he also called it MEINER THEORIE in 1924, and the published record fully backs up his statement. -- GR belongs to Hilbert not Einstein. 69.22.98.146 06:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To De kludde, et al: Here's a reputable link from your site, an article written in 2004 by authors at the Max-Planck Institute for the History of Science, that claims Einstein had the field equations as early as 1913 but didn't believe they were correct and hence didn't publish them at that time. The article is 86 pages in length and appears extremely well researched by individuals who know GR well. If the argument is valid, to some non-trivial extent it attenuates allegations of Einstein's plagiarism and mathematical deficiencies.

http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P264.PDF , green 65.88.65.217 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed this issue in section 7 of my WN wiki article on the CRS paper you are referring to. Their claim that Einstein found his way back to the correct field equations he had given up in 1913 is misleading. The 1996 Renn-Stachel paper only claims this to be true on the level of the linearized field equations ("auf der Ebene der linearisierten Feldgleichungen"). The preprint you are quoting does not really modify this assertion, although they state more in the title and in the introduction. The only chapter in it which deals with the notebook in detail is chapter 2 on p. 14, and as far as I can see they cannot pinpoint a line in the notebook where Einstein has the correct field equations.

Understanding the notebook is not easy, but it is easy (assuming a modicum of familiarity with the math being used) to form an educated guess about such claims, using Einstein's November 11 paper. On p. 800 he writes:

Dieser Tensor $G_{im}$ ist der einzige Tensor, der für die Aufstellung allgemein kovarianter Gravitionsgleichungen zur Verfügung steht.

Setzen wir nun fest, daß die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation lauten sollen

$G_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

so haben wir damit allgemein kovariante Feldgleichungen gewonnen.

I am now translating into English, using the modern $R_{im}$ instead of $G_{im}$ (in case you try to read the origninal paper, be warned that Einstein denotes something else by $R_{im}$):

This Tensor $R_{im}$ is the only one which can be used to formulate covariant equations of gravity.

If we postulate that the field equations of gravity should be

$R_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

then we have obtained generally covariant field equations.

Now, Hilbert's field equations are

$R_{\mu \nu }-{\frac {R}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

where are $R=\sum _{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu }$ is the scalar derived from $R_{\mu \nu }$. If Einstein was familiar with forming this kind of field equations, then why didn't he propose

$R_{\mu \nu }-\lambda Rg_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

or

$R_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu }+\lambda Tg_{\mu \nu }$

(where the scalar T is obtained the same way as R), and then present his case for $\lambda =0$ (resulting in Einstein's wrong field equations of November 11)? Jannsen/Renn discuss this November 11 paper on pp. 48-50 without answering (or even posing) this very natural question.

This way of making bombastic and misleading claims seems to be typical of the Renn/Stachel crowd. They make a bombastic claim about the correct field equations beeing found and abandoned in 1912/13, and when you look closer it only applies to the linearized form or something else close to but not identical with the correct field equations. Maybe Einstein could have arrived at the correct form easily, but the simple truth appears to be that he didn't. Another example for their way of making misleading claims is the claim, made in their paper with Corry, that Hilbert was allegedly motivated by Einstein's November 25 paper to introduce the trace term (this notion refferring to terms like $Tg_{\mu \nu }$ or $Rg_{\mu \nu }$) into his equations. The simple fact is that they have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Hilbert ever wrote down field equations of gravity which have to be corrected by introducing such terms. The extant part of Hilbert's printer proofs no longer contains the field equations in explicit form, but only the correct principle of least action. Most likely this is so because part of the proofs has been cut off, a fact which CRS failed to tell their readers. But even if the missing part of the proofs did not contain the field equations in explicit form, this simply means that Hilbert did not bother to derive this form (which is somewhat unlikely since he wanted to discuss things with Einstein and since he gave a lecture about his work on November 16, of which Einstein btw obtained notes from a third person). There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Hilbert ever miscalculated the derivative of his action functional.De kludde 06:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is some material that puts the issue in perspective. http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/Response.htm. Is Bjerknes generally respected among his peers and considered reliable? Do you know when the mutilation of Hilbert's printer proofs was discovered? green 65.88.65.217 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Bjerknes' formal qualifications are, or if he is a kinsman of [Vilhelm Bjerknes]. I have both his books and think they are an indispensible item on your bookshelf if you are interested in this matter. It was Bjerknes' second book from which I learned the significance of some remarks in the Mercury paper for the priority dispute over the field equations. However, I am not always happy with his way of presenting things. Part of these problems may be caused by the fact that Bjerknes writes for a popular publisher. Sommer, Wuensch and Winterberg (who wrote about the field equations issue) all have academic titles in one of the relevant fields. The same holds for Logunov, who is coauther of a refutation of the CRS article and author of a useful book on Poincaré and special relativity, giving an english translation, using modern notations, of Poincaré's E=mc² on p. 113. Logunov points out, among other important facts, that Einstein reviewed papers for the Beihefte der physikalischen Annalen in 1905, and that these Beihefte had published a review of the Lorentz transformation paper. This discredits the often made claims that Einstein was working in isolations and did not know about the Lorentz transformation when he wrote the 1905 paper. Bjerknes has interesting ideas and his books are useful if you have some familiarity with the subject, but he often formulates things in a misleading way. It is the Logunov, Sommer, Wuensch and Winterberg works to which I would turn for reliable information. But they all quote Bjerknes, probably because Bjerknes contributed several useful ideas to this debate.

It is not known when the cut to Hilbert's printer proofs was made. Wuensch (who is a historian of physics as well as a Hilbert and Kaluza expert) presents her case for the theory that it was made in modern time, while authors closer to the Renn/Stachel crowd naturally disagree. She thinks it was done by someone without a scholarly reputation to loose (perhaps acting on behalf of others with such a reputation), not by "Corry with his little razor blade". The cut must have been present when CRS wrote their paper, because they would have pointed out the opposite otherwise. The presence of the cut is mentioned by CRS themselves in a later article (but not in the Science article which attracted so much attention) and by Sauer and Winterberg. Bjerknes was informed about the cut by Winterberg.

I will be offline for a couple of days and cannot answer further questions before Sunday.De kludde 07:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing I am not clear about. Did Hilbert's first paper contain the same equations now known as Einstein's field equations, or is there some ambiguity here as well? Was his paper submitted and published first? green 65.88.65.217 19:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have explained all this in the WN Wiki article on the CRS paper. Hilbert derived his field equations from the principle of least action. There is no doubt at all that he had the correct action functional in early November 1915. To derive the field equations from this, you have to calculate the derivative of this action functional. As Hilbert rewrote his article and the printer proofs of the original article have been mutilated, we no longer have direct proof that the article contained the field equations in explicit form.

Indirect evidence is, however, overwhelming. Einstein never accused Hilbert of having introduced essential new material not described in his November 16 postcard. Several people have heard his November 16 lecture or received notes from it. Not one of them claimed that Hilbert's theory was lacking an explicit version of the field equations. Calculating the derivative is not that hard (I think Lorentz gave his own calculation when he wrote about the field equations), and it is likely that Hilbert has done it because he gave a talk about his theory and because he wanted to exchange ideas with Einstein.

In Hilbert's published paper, the field equations take the form $R_{ij}-(R/2)g_{ij}=-\kappa T_{ij}$, from which one obtains $R=\kappa T$ by taking traces. The trace term $(R/2)g_{ij}$ can now be identified with $(\kappa /2)Tg_{ij}$ and brought to the other side. The result is

$R_{ij}=-\kappa (T_{ij}-(T/2)g_{ij}),$

which is the form in which Einstein formulated the field equations in his November 25 paper. This purely algebraic manipulation was not hard for Einstein to carry out. But Hilbert's paper was only printed in 1916. It is the November 16 postcard, and the fact that Einstein had been given notes of Hilbert's November 16 Goettingen lecture by a third person (which was recently pointed out by Wuensch) upon which accusations of plagiarism against Einstein may be based.De kludde 07:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Worst case scenario; Einstein flat-out stole Hilbert's equations. But is it still not the case that it was Einstein who had the crucial physical insight to model gravity as a distortion of spacetime? Clearly, it was a bitch working out the details -- in this case the field equations -- but without the physical insight there would have been no details to work out! Isn't this the ultimate reality of the situation? green 65.88.65.217 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein was presenting versions of the Field Equations during that period, and they were all missing key terms. 69.22.98.146 20:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Leo Corry went to Goettingen University with his little razor blade and started slicing up the archives to make it look like Hilbert did not have the Field Equations, but Corry did not cut enough -- Hilbert clearly did have the Field Equations, and as the published record clearly shows, GR belongs to Hilbert not Einstein, and the INTRO must be re-written. 69.22.98.146 12:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is another big problem that still no one is addressing, the paper by H.E.Ives (1952) which proves that Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 was a tautology which proved nothing, no E=mc2 in 1905 by Einstein. Einstein was TRYING to derive the E=mc2 that Henri Poincare had published five years earlier, but Einstein couldn't do it in 1905. -- The INTRO must be re-written. 69.22.98.146 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New article: Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories

It may seem strange to start trying to write an NPOV article about a subject where I have a strong opinion on the validity of the issues being questioned. But since the proponent of the theories refuses to do so, I guess someone has to start. Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories is a stub. Once it's no longer a stub, it makes sense to me to link it from the Einstein article. --Alvestrand 05:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just re-word Einstein's existing article to make it consistent with the facts and dates. This can be easily done. -- David Hilbert first (20 Nov 1915) published the Field Equations to complete the General theory of Relativity, which is a misnomer by Einstein and which is actually only a theory of gravity. -- And Henri Poincare first (5 June 1905) completed the Special Theory of Relativity, which is then actually the unique Theory of Relativity. -- Also Poincare first published E=mc2 in 1900 five years before Einstein, who never properly derived the equation in 1905. -- Just re-write the article consistent with these facts and dates and you'll be accurate. -- There is no need for any separate article, except perhaps one on Einstein the liar and plagiarist and media clown. --Einstein's article will forever be red tagged, unless you correct its inconsistency with historical publication dates. 69.22.98.146 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I think you're wrong. Poincare never (AFAIK) abandoned the concept of the "unique frame of reference" aka "ether", and Hilbert never (AFAIK) claimed to have invented the concept of "curved spacetime" to describe what he had helped to describe mathematically. Indeed, my impression is that both were extremely impressed with Einstein. Since we have a dispute, the Right Thing is to document it, not to make the Einstein article into a POV for the not-generally-accepted viewpoint. --Alvestrand 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are ignorant of the subject -- Poincare refused the idea of an absolute reference frame. - Also, Poincare never mentioned Einstein, why should he ? -- And Hilbert was the first to correctly publish GR, not Einstein. -- Also Grossmann told Einstein about curved spacetime. - BTW you can always still today keep a concept of an ether, it is superfluous. 69.22.98.146 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources, cite sources, cite sources! So far I have one Nevada professor and one distorting, Jew-hating quote-collector with no cited qualifications as your sole quoted witnesses. Your addition of sources to Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories are unlikely to be reverted out. Put your sources where your mouth is! --Alvestrand 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

sources are wikipedia's own articles on Poincare and Hilbert ! 67.78.143.226 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

before or after you edited them? Wikipedia can't be an authoritative source for Wikipedia! --Alvestrand 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For sure! (that is, Wiki can't be used as an authoritative source) green 65.88.65.217 19:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SOURCES : SEE Folsing's authoritive biography of Einstein in any bookstore, look in the index, he has quotes of Sir Edmund Whittaker that Poincare published Relativity in detail before Einstein, and also look in index for Hilbert, Folsing documents Hilbert's publishing the Field Equations to complete GR before Einstein, to whom Hilbert later gave the Equation and Einstein then re-published it, it is all in Folsing. SEE also Whittaker's 1953 book he calls it Poincare's formula E=mc2 five years before Einstein. 69.22.98.146 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added Folsing's biography to the references on the "Disputes" page. Amazon's "search inside the book" couldn't find "Poincare" inside it, which probably says more about Amazon than about the book. --Alvestrand 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have only read material from Bjerknes's site, not his book, but he says he's Jewish and proud of his heritage. I am open-minded on this issue and applaud you for starting the new article. Can you state why you think Bjerknes is anti-semitic? green 65.88.65.217 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See the reference on the bottom of Christopher Jon Bjerknes to a defense of David Irving, which I found when I googled for his name. I was surprised to find it. Where does he say that he's Jewish? --Alvestrand 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I also was surprised at his defense of David Irving and his association with holocaust revisionists. I don't think anyone should be imprisoned for questioning the existence of the holocaust. Laws allowing such prosecution seem an overreaction to the holocaust. However, the case for Bjerkes being a crank is getting very strong imo. I also noticed that seems obsessed with Einstein's Zionism, as if that's necessarily a black mark on Einstein. green 65.88.65.217 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/Response.htm

"In conclusion, we should all acknowledge the importance of recognizing and recording the facts of the history of the theory of relativity and the history of the "insane publicity" which has promoted and which continues to promote Einstein, virtually to the exclusion of his predecessors. We face a moral imperative to give Einstein's predecessors justice, if only posthumously, and we must acknowledge their legacy. We have an obligation to the science of history to accurately record the past. It was for this purpose of accurately recording the history that I wrote my book. I am quite proud of my Jewish heritage, and if John Stachel wants to change the subject to anti-Semitism, I will join him in condemning it in all its forms, and go about the work of a historian recording the facts surrounding Einstein's career of plagiarism, even if it means enduring Dr. Stachel's petty insults. I do not think that alarmist slogans and attempts to render the subject taboo have any place in a scholarly exploration of the facts." green 65.88.65.217 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One other thing; does Poincare's clock synching method consist of using a light source placed equidistant from two stationary clocks? If so, it seems to deny the existence of an ether since such a method implies that the speed of light is the same in both directions regardless of whether the frame is at rest wrt the ether or not. I am confused on this point and would appreciate clarification from any knowledgeable individual. If Einstein adopted this method, he also implicitly denied the ether, as distinguished from just making the ether hypothesis "superfluous". green 65.88.65.217 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Add on: If I have correctly stated Poincare's clock synching method (I am not sure of that), and if this is the method used by Einstein in his 1905 paper, then I would have to agree with Anon69 that Poincare denied the existence of a preferred frame (the ether) and that notwithstanding what many commentators claim, so did Einstein. green 65.88.65.217 19:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct the intro

Forget the antisemitism crap. -- No more distractions. -- The INTRO must be re-written to become consistent with facts. -- H.E.Ives (1952) proved that Einstein's 1905 derivation of E=mc2 was a tautology, which proved NOTHING. -- Poincare did publish E=mc2 in 1900 (Whittaker 1953). -- Hilbert did first publish the Field Equation to complete the Theory of General Relativity before Einstein (Folsing). -- The so called General theory is a misnomer by Einstein, and is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966, and V.Fock ). -- So how do we re-write the INTRO ? -- Any suggestions ? -- 69.22.98.146 04:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd make specific suggestions, but not in polite company. The facts are in dispute, and, your ranting and raving to the contrary, a solid majority opinion, both on Wikipedia and in the science history world, holds that the intro as written is fair. --Alvestrand 04:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

BULL !!!

BE SPECIFIC Alvestan, You are not addressing my precise SOURCES. 69.22.98.146 04:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm collecting the sources you mention, but it's hard, since you don't give complete references, just an author last name and a year. For some of them (like Bjerknes' book), I've also managed to find other people's comments on it - the reviews on amazon.com were interesting!

Among the things you haven't mentioned is Stachel's note that Hilbert's article, dated Nov 20 by Hilbert, was altered substantially from the version that's in the printer's proofs dated Dec 6 - there's probably multiple ways to explain this, but it does throw your rant about "five days" into a strange light. See CRS' response to Winterberg, referenced on the "dispute" page. --Alvestrand 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that that same old reponse they had, that they couldn't get published anywhere ? -- I think so, it's crap. 69.22.98.146 05:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not the old version of their response. In the old version, they admit that:

the Editors of Science submitted his paper to us for comment, and that we prepared a substantial set of comments that he received. It was on the basis of these comments that his paper was rejected. We quote from the letter of Stewart Wills, Online Editor, Science, dated 9 January 2003.

We have now received a response from the authors of the original paper, which is enclosed for your information. On evaluation of the comment and response, we regret to say that your comment received a lower priority rating than other technical comments under consideration. As a result, we won't be able to publish it. We believe that, at this point- particularly in view of the age of the original article- this discussion is best pursued through new papers and contributions in the specialty history-of-science literature than in the Technical Comments section of Science.

If I interpret this correctly it means that Science has dealt with an accusation of bad scholarship by having it refereed by the authors of the paper it criticized, and then based its rejection upon their opinion alone. A highly unusual way to proceed, unless you have a strong political pressure group trying to defend an otherwise untenable theory against criticism.De kludde 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal to send a paper criticising a particular paper to the authors of the first paper for comment. Quite often the second (perhaps revised) paper is then published and the authors of the original paper write a rebuttal to appear immediately after. If so both the second paper and rebuttal are sent to referees. Clearly in this case the issue was going to consume a lot of space on an issue of the history of science, in a Journal concerned with science, rather than its history. The editors of Science say that a history of science journal is much better equipped to evaluate this controversy, and they clearly right. It seems a big step to assume "a strong political pressure group" influenced them to do what is perfectly normal. I don't think the paper Science rejected has appeared in a history of science journal, has it? What does that tell us? That Winterberg was discouraged by one rejection and never submitted it elsewhere? E4mmacro 21:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Winterberg in fact got a revised version of the paper published in a German English-language journal - "Zeitschrift für Naturforschung". See Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories.

Thanks to Anon for pointing out that Winterberg's paper was eventually published in a peer-reviewed Journal (as was Logunov/Mestvirishvili/Petrov. I don't think that the way 'Science' dealt with the accusations against CRS was appropriate for a journal devoted to the impartial investigation of facts. Not to mention the fact that a quarter of a page of their source was missing can be construed as bad scholarship, and accusations of this type usually go to an independent referee, not the accused party alone. I am familiar with the procedure as I have seen it in action when someone lost his PhD after his thesis turned out to be based on fraudulent evidence. If 'Science' thinks that a journal devoted to the study of the history of sciences is better equipped to evaluate the controversy, they should not have published the CRS paper claiming to bring a decision of that controversy. CRS basically made an accusation of plagiarism against Hilbert, even though they didn't call it that way, just as the attackers of Einstein don't normally use the p-word. After 'Science' had published such a paper, fairness towards Hilbert would have commanded that they investigate accusations of fraud made against the authors of such accusations. At the very least, they should have published a note pointing out that CRS had failed to mention that part of the proofs was missing, and that a debate about the significance of this fact was going on in journals devoted to the history of physics.De kludde 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As for my suspicion that there is a strong political pressure group behind their efforts to discredit Hilbert, this is what anyone with a modicum of common sense would suspect, given they way this debate proceeds. Moreover, CRS and their sycophants are also making such claims, at least indirectly. They did this in the initial version of their response to Winterberg, and they did it again when they published a polemical article, written by Renn against Wuensch in a daily newspaper in November 2005. On the same pair of pages was an article, written by Wazeck about the Nazi opposition to Einstein on the same pair of pages. Naturally, Renn's allegations about the proponents of Hilbert were rather unspecific and stopped short of being justiciable insults. But at least for me, mentioning antisemitism in the Weimar time and then, in the next paragraph, continuing that one has to keep that in mind ("Dies muß man sich klarmachen") when taking a closer look at the current Einstein-Hilbert debate, is not that far away from accusing Wuensch and Winterberg of Nazi sympathies (see the response of the Hilbert proponents containing links to the Renn and Wazeck articles.De kludde 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

keep the disputed sign there until you do 69.22.98.146 04:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The attackers seem generally to have had no problem getting published, although Bjerknes' book was supposedly published from a "vanity" publishing house - Amazon doesn't give publisher data, and I can't tell if Library of Congress does, so I can't test that. Ives' 1952 article seems to have appeared in the Journal of the Optical Society of America, for instance - and Bjerknes' response to Stachel's criticism appeared in the magazine "Infinite Energy". But just saying "Whittaker (1953)" is not a complete reference. --Alvestrand 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you leave the Intro basically as is for the time being, but add a section which lists some of the outstanding disputes that have recently arisen -- such as whether Einstein used Poincare's results without proper citation and the plausibility that he was aware of them; and e.g. whether Ives presents a good argument that E's derivation of the famous equation is wrong. This requires some analysis of Ives' 1952 paper. I also suggest you do this with other editors, and ignore the offensive individual. His view is distorted by an obsessive Einstein hate agenda, like Bjernkes as I am coming to believe, and nothing can be gained by engaging him in discussions. green 65.88.65.217 05:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest linking to the Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories article in the intro.De kludde 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Stachel was not even worth responding to. 69.22.98.146 05:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Folsing has it all, Whittaker's quote, and how Hilbert discovered the Field Equations and sent Einstein a copy which Einstein re-published five days later, see Folsing. Also, Whittaker's famous 1953 book calls it Poincare's E=mc2 in 1900, five years before Einstein. 69.22.98.146 05:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I still miss a citation for Folsing. --Alvestrand 07:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ASK for FOLSING on Einstein in any bookstore Licorne 14:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Good, I see E=mc2 is now removed from the Introduction, good. -- Now, please see Kip Thorne's p. 117 in his popular book he writes that credit MUST go to David Hilbert for the Field Equations. -- And note that the Field Equations ARE THE THEORY ITSELF. -- The Field Equation is to GR the same way that Maxwell's Equations are to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism ! ! -- David Hilbert called it (general relativity) MY theory of gravity (MEINER THEORIE). -- Note GR is NOT a general theory of relativity, it is only a theory of gravity as Hilbert correctly called it. -- Einstein mistakenly called it GR which is a misnomer. - All this needs be in the article for accuracy. 69.22.98.146 13:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To Alvestrand: Let's be very careful not to distort history. Worst case scenario; Einstein flat-out stole Hilbert's equations. But it was Einstein, working with Grossman, who had the crucial physical insight to model gravity as a distortion of spacetime using tensor fields. Clearly, it was exceeding difficult to work out the details -- in this case the field equations -- but without the physical insight and the tensor modeling there would have been no details to work out. This is the ultimate reality of the situation. Einstein was open about his progress and problems. He gave several lectures at Goettingen in 1915 about GR which Hilbert attended. Without Einstein, Hilbert would not have known about the theory, its progress and problems. Without Einstein there would be no GR. green 65.88.65.217 16:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Without Newton there would have been no GR. -- Without Grossmann there would have been no Einstein. -- Einstein couldn't do it. -- Hilbert 's genious did it.69.22.98.146 20:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Depending on what you believe about $E=mc^{2},$ you risk adopting a position which would be perceived as hypocritical by most unbiased observers. Poincaré observed that electromagnetic radiation can be considered as a fluid with mass density equal do energy density divided by $c^{2}.$ whereas Einstein predicted that a body emitting a certain amount $E$ loses mass $E/c^{2}.$ While this is not what was stated by Poincaré, it is what everyone familiar with Poincaré's result would suspect. In this case, if you follow the majority opinion on Einstein, your view is that this was not just "a bitch working out the details" or "exceeding difficult to work out the details", but the most important contribution to the subject, for which Einstein should receive all the credit for $E=mc^{2}.$ By constrast, you are apparently willing to believe that Hilbert worked out a mere detail of a theory estabished by Einstein.

To De kludde: I didn't mean to give the impression that the discovery of the field equations was a mere detail. Hardly. If Einstein used Hilbert's solutions, he should have given Hilbert credit. But since there was so much work that anteceded their discovery, I think name-sharing would have been appropriate in this case -- to wit, the Einstein-Hilbert field equations. If you take Einstein's irate comment at face value -- what he was sharing with a friend, not intended for posterity -- apparently he (Einstein) believed he had derived the equations on his own and that Hilbert was trying to get credit for the entire theory. It is therefore conceivable that both derived the equations independently. Otherwise, why would Einstein have been so irate? green 65.88.65.217 03:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that name-sharing would have been appropriate. But Einstein's irate reaction can easily be explained by assuming that he did not want to share his fame with Hilbert. While it cannot be ruled out Einstein developed the field equations independently, a look at the November 18 Mercury paper makes that unlikely. I am not going to discuss this here, as it might be more appropriate for the Talk on Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories.

That this is not the case can be seen from the Wikipedia definition of "scientific theory":

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

The Einstein-Grossmann Entwurf paper is, of course, a theory in this sense because it contained field equations. However, it is a theory which had to be abandoned. Take the Einstein-Grossmann paper and remove the field equations, you no longer have a theory (because no falsifiable predictions can be made without the field equations) but a mere program for building a theory. It was Hilbert who finished this program, creating the modern theory of gravity. Therefore, credit for this achievement should go to both Einstein and Hilbert.

Agreed. I would add Grossman as well, as does Norton. green 65.88.65.217 03:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this is already generous towards Einstein because there are similar cases where the scientists starting such a program for creating a theory get less attention than the ones who finished it. For instance, consider non-abelian gauge field theory created by Yang and Mills, for which t'Hooft proved renormalizability, while Weinberg and Salam got most of the credit for the theory of electroweak interaction they obtained by finishing this program.De kludde 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true Poincare's E=mc2 was for the case of radiation. Sir Edmund Whittaker nevertheless called it Poincare's E=mc2 because even though derived for a special case it was correct, and later generalized. --Also, it was not Einstein who generalized it, it was Planck, -- Ives (1953) showed that Einstein derived nothing, a tautology. -- Einstein was TRYING to derive Poincare's E=mc2. 69.22.98.146 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hilbert who called it MEINER THEORIE. --If Grossmann and Einstein couldn't do it, that's the way it goes. -- And why should Hilbert remember Einstein, when Einstein didn't remember Grossmann ! -- 69.22.98.146 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In physics if you can't put ideas into equation you are just blowing smoke. 69.22.98.146 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To Alvertrand: Norton's paper at www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades.pdf gives a balanced view of the history of GR and concludes that it is the work of three individuals -- Einstein, Grossman and Hilbert. green 64.136.26.226 19:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To Nikodemos: I reverted your latest edit, which was incorrect. Einstein was not the sole author of the theory of relativity as your edit suggests. It was originally developed by Lorentz and Poincare. Einstein changed its postulational basis in his 1905 paper, in addition to making some innovations, e.g., his method of deriving the Lorentz transformations from his postulates. It is not factual correct to state that Einstein was the "author" of the theory of relativity. green 65.88.65.217 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Henri Poincare COMPLETED the Theory of Relativity. -- Lorentz couldn't do it. -- Lorentz was more of an experimentalist. -- 69.22.98.146 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... I wish those who lengthen sections indefinitely would break them up once in a while. This is hard to read. And the page needs archiving... --Alvestrand 07:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker's credibility

To Alvestrand. You probably know from the Poincare page that I think Whittaker is a tad one-sided on the E = mc^2 issue. On p.51 Whittaker writes

"In 1900, referring to the fact that in the free aether the electromagnetic momentum is 1/c^2 times the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess density equal to 1/c^2 times the energy density: that is to say E = mc^2."

Whittaker did not mention that Poincare did not believe this result and advanced it as a criticism of Lorentz's theory. He did not mention that Poincare called it a "fictitious" density and that Poincare had no idea where the mass came from; it was just created and if it was real mass this creation would violate the conservation of mass principle. Nor did Whittaker mention that Poincare retained this view until 1904 at least, since he discussed this problem a number of times in his popular science books from 1902-1904. (I am not knocking Poincare, just pointing out that Whittaker did not mention all this). On the next page Whittaker jumps to a paper by Lewis (1908) where he says that Lewis "affirmed" that a body absorbing energy dE increases its mass by dE/c^2, and

"affirmed that the mass of a body is a direct measure of its total energy, according to the equation E = mc^2. As we have seen, Poincare had suggested this equation but had given practically no proof, while Einstein, who had also suggested it had given a proof (which however, was put forward only as approximate) for a particular case [if Einstein's case is particular, then Poincare's case is even more so - e4] (Whittaker 1953, p 52, comments in [] by me)"

You will notice that Whittaker does not mention that Lewis was affirming Einstein’s (1905) and Planck’s (1907) result and suggests he was affirming Poincare’s result. Apart from the downplaying of Einstein's efforts, Whittaker is wrong to say that Poincare had suggested this equation in the sense that (Einstein and Planck and) Lewis had meant. Poincare (1900) had meant nothing of the kind, and had no idea of it in his book of 1904 (This result would have solved the whole problem of mass violation, energy violation, momentum violation that Poincare couldn’t solve and which he still in 1904 thought cast doubt on Lorentz’s theory). Nor did Poincare mention E = mc^2 it in his 1905 paper or his 1906 paper (I may have missed it in the 1906 paper, can anybody else find it?). It seems very difficult to imagine that Whittaker couldn't see the difference between Poincare's "ficititious fluid of radiation" and the different idea that a body had less mass when it cooled down (lost heat by any means, so I conclude he sees what he wants to see. E4mmacro 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

E4mmacro, do you really want us to believe that $E=mc^{2}$ in the sense of Einstein and Planck is difficult to guess if one has the result of Poincaré? If a body cools down, it emits electromagnetic radiation which Poincaré tells us can be considered as a fluid with mass density equal to the energy density divided by $c^{2}$. The total mass of the fluid is the energy divided by $c^{2}$. Isn't it natural to assume that this is the mass lost by the body as a result of cooling down? The more intelligent high school students would we able connect the dots, when informed about Poincaré's work. And for this reason, Whittaker was justified to treat the Einstein, Planck and Lewis papers as part of a development started by Poincaré (and, perhaps, JJ Thomson).De kludde 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It may appear easy now, but the fact is that Poinacre never did connect the dots in the easy way you say. So I guess it was not so easy then. Poincare is on record in 1904 as being baffled by Madame Curie's radium experiments. He had no idea where the energy came from. And the technical reason why he couldn't get Einstein's results is that, although Lorentz had shown mass varied with velocity in 1899, Poincare still did not believe it until 1905. You need the mass being $\gamma m$ before you can get Einstein/Planck result. And even when Poincare did believe it, 1905 and 1906, he still did not produce Einsteins's or Planck derivation. So Poincare did not do everything, what's the big surprise? E4mmacro 00:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker has little credibility on this issue, and one day it might be worth listing all the mistakes of facts, as well as the correct things, in his chapter on "The relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz". It will be worth only when those who use Whittaker as an infallible published source are taken too seriously. E4mmacro 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

On another point De kludde. A body can cool down by convection or conduction, not just by emitting radiation. Einstein (Ann. der Phys, v17, 1905) started with a radiation process "if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c^2" and immediately extended to any form of losing energy. "The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content." Whether one agrees with the reasoning or not it is clear he is talking about something very different from Poincare's 1900 "momentum of radiation", and Whittaker should have realised that.

Einstein then immediately applied the new result to the Madam Curie/radium problem that Poincare (1904, Science and Method) had no answer to. Thus: "It is not impossible that with the bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.q. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully but to the test (Einstein 1905)". Einstein finishes off by going back to the radiation process "If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies". He means the mass (inertia) lost from the emitting body, is gained by the receiving body. Poincare, on the other hand, said the "ficitious mass" was created (appeared from nowhere) when the radiation was emitted and was destroyed (disappeared to nowhere) when the radiation was absorbed. Poincare never suggested that the mass of the emitter or the receiver changed when radiation was emitted or absorbed. Now you can argue that Einstein should have mentioned Poincare's "fictitious fluid", or J. J. Thomson or any others who nearly got the result in Einstein's sense, and you may argue that Einstein "must have known" of these results. Einstein might counter claim that the "momentum of radiation" was as old as Maxwell's radiation pressure and required no reference and in any case Poincare never repeated or used his equation again after 1900, and that he (Einstein) was unaware of Poincare (1900). But Einstein is not my point here, Whittaker is: Whittaker never mentioned all the above things which show Einstein (1905), Planck (1907), Lewis (1908) meant something different from Poincare (1900); Whittaker never clarified what Poincare meant or said. These are more reasons why I say Whittaker is not a reliable source on the issue of Poincare/Einstein and E = mc^2. E4mmacro 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

One point I tried to make was that Whittaker's sentences are ambigious enough to make the casual reader think that Poincare had suggested that "mass of a body is a direct measure of its energy content, accoding to the equation E = mc^2", something Poincare never suggested. Either Whittaker was careless, or lacked some easily gathered knowledge of Poincare's writings, or lacked good enough judgement to assess the material available, or something worse. In any case, I caution against relying on Whittaker's word as definitive. You have to check it. E4mmacro 04:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To forestall any possible flaming by anon69,I will mention that Ives J Opt Soc Am. V42, p540 1952 claimed Einstein’s “proof” was a tautology, J. Riesman and I. G. Young, JOSA, v43(7) July 1953, disputed Ives’ assertion, defended Einstein’s proof and his physical insight. In reply Ives, JOSA, v43(7) July 1953, reasserted his claim that Einstein’s assumption was not a valid physical consideration. E4mmacro 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker correctly called it Poincare's E=mc2. -- Poincare correctly derived it first, for radiation, and Max Planck extended it, to massive bodies. --69.22.98.146 23:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the two extra words "correctly" the information you wrote is contained in the analysis above. So I can't imagine you think what you wrote is a rebuttal. Thanks for repeating it, anyway. I will repeat it too: we know Whittaker called it Poincare's E = mc^2. E4mmacro 07:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And, in case anyone doesn't notice, the analysis above is about Whittaker, what Whittaker says, what he notices and what he ignores or doesn't know. E4mmacro 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why hasn't the massive Einstein lobby published dozens of articles contradicting Ives ? -- Interesting they haven't. -- 69.22.98.146 23:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone cares about it, perhaps they think Riesman and Young's paper is enough. You may as well ask why hasn't the anit-Einstein lobby published dozens of articles proving Einstein's derivation was wrong (rather that just quoting Ives). The answer would be, because these supposed papers would be nothing new, if they merely repeated Ives. So we have two published papers which contradict each other - an insoluble dilemma for anyone who thinks anything published is auotmatically correct. Everyone else has to read Einstein, read Ives, read Riesman and Young and read Ives's answer to them, try seriously to understand what each is saying, and come to a reasoned judgement. You can see above a reasoned analysis of Whittaker. One doesn't have to agree with it, but it shows what is required. i.e. something different from the endless repetition of the parrot cry "Whittaker called it Poinacre's E = mc^2", something that isn't diened in the above analysis of Whittaker.

Ives answered them and they had no response. Licorne 14:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Institute for Advanced Study

The link to Unified Field Theory is incorrect. It links to GUT, which is something later, and different. I think the former was an attempt to unify gravity and EM. green 65.88.65.217 05:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Green stop wasting people's time will you 69.22.98.146 05:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's a point here .... Unified Field Theory as Einstein imagined it is not necessarily the same thing as a GUT. But the link is useful in context. I moved the link to the term "unification of the forces" a little later in the paragraph. --Alvestrand 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's improved. I added one sentence for further clarification. Check it out. green 65.88.65.217 05:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's letter to Zangger

I would like to know from the defenders of Einstein's cause what they think about a letter from Einstein to Heinrich Zangger written on November 26, a day after Einstein submitted (if I am correct) Hilbert's field equations as his own:

Die Theorie ist von unvergleichlicher Schönheit. Aber nur ein Kollege hat sie wirklich verstanden und der eine sucht sie auf geschickte Weise zu 'nostrifizieren' ***. Ich habe in meinen persönlichen Erfahrungen kaum je die Jämmerlichkeit besser kennen gelernt wie gelegentlich dieser Theorie ***

The theory is of incomparable beauty. However, only one colleague has really understood it, and he is trying to 'appropriate' it *** in a clever way. In my personal experiences I have rarely come to know the wretchedness of mankind better than while developing this theory ***

What do the astericks above signify? Thanks, green 65.88.65.217 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The asterisks are placeholders for omitted portions of text.De kludde 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what one assumes about the content of Hilbert's November 16 letter, Einstein's accusations against Hilbert are brazen beyond any comparison. The only thing Einstein knew at this time was that Hilbert had started his own research in a field started by Einstein, a procedure which is perfectly normal in science, and that he intended to publish his results. The preserved part of the printer proof mentions Einstein's previous work. The only reason for which Einstein may have feared that Hilbert might not duly mention him is perhaps the example given by his, Einstein's, use of ideas of Henri Poincaré without attributing them to their author. The November 1915 events are indeed a good lesson about the wretchedness of mankind, but is was Einstein's own wretchedness which resurfaced after it became apparent earlier when Einstein plagiarized Poincaré.

Moreover, is Einstein's nervousness about Hilbert's achievement consistent with your view that this was just a "a bitch working out the details"?De kludde 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You say the printer's proofs. Did Hilbert's published paper refer to Einstein? 220.237.80.193 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

An excellent question! green 65.88.65.217 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I really must read additional analyses of this issue before reaching a definitive conclusion. However, istm pretty clear that we would have no GR were it not for Einstein. He was the prime mover and had been for around 10 years. As I indicated above, he gave several lectures at Goettingen in 1915 which Hilbert almost certainly attended, giving the state of his research and its problems. I see them as a "heads-up" for Hilbert, to catalyze his work (and Noether's) as a collaborator -- someone that Einstein solicited when his theory was near completion. It would not surprise me if Hilbert solved the field equations first, given that that was what he was tasked to do. Nonetheless, I think the theory owes its existence to Einstein. As for the 1905 paper, one of its original features is that Einstein derived the LT's from the two postulates of relativity, not from physical hypotheses related to an ether. There is no evidence this was done by Poincare. If this is an incorrect assessment, then someone should be able to produce a link to Poincare's paper where he does so. But so far, there are no links, only repetitious bombastic claims. Poincare was already a very famous fellow in 1905, when Einstein was an unknown. If Einstein had simply reproduced Poincare's results, it is certainly odd -- indeed egregiously implausible -- that the scientific establishment didn't notice Poincare's achievement and defaulted to Einstein. green 65.88.65.217 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Claim that Poincare's 1905 paper (4 1/4 pages) is identical in content to Einstein's much longer paper 1905

YES, Einstein's (Sept)1905 paper was identical in content to Poincare's (June)1905 paper and with no new interpretations, and not a single footnote, PLAGIARISM, by any definition. 69.22.98.146 21:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant to plagarism charges that Einstein 1905 paper was submitted on 30 June 1905 (19-21 days after the appearance of Poincare's short paper in Paris). But "identical in content"? Poincare's 1905 paper was 4.25 pages long. How long was Einstein's 1905 paper - considerably more than 4.25 pages? Einstein's paper had, for example, the relativistic Doppler formula, Poincare's 1905 did not. Einstein took a different approach to the force on a moving charge. Poincare followed Lorentz, the moving charge was moving relative to both the rest frame and the moving frame. Einstein needed to only have the charge at rest in the moving frame. Just another content difference. E4mmacro 07:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The discovery content was identical, and you know it well. Licorne 14:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To 69. If your purpose is to denigrate Einstein, you would have a much better chance of saying that he worked from Lorentz (1904), just as Poincare did, but did not credit Lorentz the way Poincare did. The idea that Einstein had the opportunity from 9 or 11 June (when Poincare's 41/4 page paper appeared) to 30 June (when Einstein submitted his paper to Annalen der Physik) to plagarise Poincare's paper (published in Paris) seems far-fetched. On the other hand Einstein could have had plenty of time to read Lorentz 1904, the acknowledged expert on electrodynamics at the time (I am not saying he did). It seems your pro-Poincare stance stops you taking the best anti-Einstein stance available to you. Irony is so ironic :) E4mmacro 11:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited the first paragraph as follows:

Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879–April 18, 1955) was a theoretical physicist, and is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century. The generally accepted view is that Einstein is the originator of the theory of relativity. However, the theory has historical roots in previous work by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré that contains many (but not all) of the same results. He also made major contributions to the development of quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and cosmology. He was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 (his "miracle year") and "for his services to Theoretical Physics."

I don't think there is any dispute as to what I refer to above as "[t]he generally accepted view". I also gave Lorentz and Poincare due credit, but it is surely not true that Poincare's 1905 paper is identical in content to Einstein's 1905 paper. E.g., it doesn't contain the same interpretation of E = mc^2. green 65.88.65.217 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Green are you re-writing the article ? GOD HELP US. You know nothing at all of physics ! ZERO ! 69.22.98.146 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green. Your rewrite (above is very fair and balanced. Well done. Will it survive? Who knows. E4mmacro 10:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest. It keeps getting reverted even though it's completely in accord with the historical facts! What I wrote isn't even controversial (except from an obsessed, anti-Einstein pov). green 65.88.65.217 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Thanks for confirming above (under Whittiker section) that Einstein's 1905 paper was not identical in its results to Poincare's paper of the same year. green 64.136.26.226 23:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Green you are a new-comer here, E4 agreed long ago that the two papers are identical. - And in the section above E4 is talking about a different 1905 paper, so Green please bug off will you. 69.22.98.146 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is news to me. I think the content of Poincare 1905 is different from Einstein 1905 (the relativity paper submitted 30 june 1905) (see below). Maybe you are confused. I remember you told me that Poincare's 5 page paper of June 1905 is identical in content to Poincare's 60+ page paper of 1906 (written in July 1905, published in 1906). I merely thanked you for making your view clear - if you thought I agreed with your view I apologise - I was maintaining a tactful silence. E4mmacro 07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I need to correct my previous comment. I was interrupted in my editing -- otherwise this comment would have appeared earlier. The famous equation appears in Einstein's last paper in 1905. This, together with the fact that Poincare never mentions said equation in his unique 1905 paper, makes the latest Intro (edited by Anon) unconscionably misleading. It gives the fallacious impression that Poincare's relativity is identical to Einstein's relativity. As we have discussed ad nauseum, Einstein gave a dramatically different interpretation to the famous formula which is clearly part of relativity theory. Also, as an aside, I am pretty sure that Poincare did not derive the LT's from postulates as Einstein did in his 1905 paper on Electrodynamics, the one that Anon is comparing to Poincare's unique effort that year. If he did so, why would a complete unknown (like Einstein in 1905) have been given accolades, whereas an already famous man, Poincare, was ignored for that achievement? It makes no sense whatsoever, because it didn't happen that way! I have to leave soon so I suggest that someone else correct the Intro. green 64.136.26.226 00:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To 64: It depends what you mean by the Lorentz transformations. If you mean only x',y',z',t' = f(x,y,x,t) then Poincare did not derive them at all. He got them from Lorentz (but he used a slightly new notation and re-arranged them algebraically, and named them the Lorentz transformations). Unknown to Poincare the LT had beed published in 1897 by Joseph Larmor. Poincare (1905) pointed out that these transformations formed a group and satisfied the principle of relativity. If by LT you mean x',y',z',t' = f(x,y,x,t) plus something extra, the way Maxwell's equations transform, then Lorentz made at least one mistake in the second bit, which Poincare corrected. Poincare does seem to have been guided by the Principle of Relativity in the way he corrected the mistake. E4mmacro 11:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To 64: You also ask why was an unknown like Einstein given accolades, when a famous man like Poincare was not? I think the answer is that generally the theory was at first considered to be Lorentz's theory (not Poincare's not Einstein's). Some like Planck noticed Einstein, but Poincare consistently referred to it as the "Lorentz's new mechanics"; Poincare never claimed it was his theory. In the 1912/3 edition of a German book book "The principle of relativity" the author list was Lorentz, Einstein and others (with no Poincare). When GR was confirmed in 1919 (Eddington's eclipse experiments) Einstein became world famous and the de facto "owner" of relativity in the public mind. The later editions of "The principle of relativity" had the author list as Einstein and others. Anyone new to the theory who tried to read GR was naturally puzzled and then tried Einstein's 1905 paper which was easier to understand. Since that paper had not a single reference (which was a bit lax of Einstein and the journal, did they not have referees in 1905?), it appeared to readers in the 1920s that the SR came from nowhere, with perhaps a lingering bafflement as to why the principle equations were called the Lorentz transformations. I think I got this interpretation of the history from Herbert Dingle. It sounds plausible to me. E4mmacro 11:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Green please telephone E4 and let him fill you in. 69.22.98.146 00:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The latest version has the baseline value of not being misleading, but it is too watered down. green 65.88.65.217 00:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you rather we tell the truth ? 69.22.98.146 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Malice or poor prose?

I draw your attention to the following excerpt, especially the last sentence.

Max Planck had made the formal assumption that energy was quantized in deriving his black-body radiation law, published in 1901, but had considered this to be no more than a mathematical trick. The photoelectric effect thus provided a simple confirmation of Max Planck's hypothesis of quanta.

Can I suggest:

Max Planck had made the formal assumption that energy was quantized in deriving his black-body radiation law, published in 1901, but had considered this to be no more than a mathematical trick. The photoelectric effect was thus afforded a simple confirmation by virtue of Max Planck's 'trick'.

That preserves a relationship in the subject of the two sentences, without the absurdity of implying a mathematical trick is a theory.

There's other examples of this sort of hack in the text: it's not looking too good right now. And after having read this talk page I can see there is a determined effort to revise the mainstream history. Maybe y'all should do something about this--wouldn't want to be in your shoes trying to sort out the good from the malicious, but that's where you are.

On a second read I understand the intent of the author... still, it's clumsy

168.253.132.188 07:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

168.253.132.188 07:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Quantum hypotheses

My understanding is that Planck assumed something a little different. He assumed that a vibrating system (the atoms in the walls of the black-body container) could change their energy only by a discrete amount. That is, he assumed the vibrational states of the oscillators were quantized, so the energy of oscillation of the matter could be $jh\nu$, for integer values of j only. He did NOT assume that the electromagnetic energy in the black-body container was quantized. It is a slightly different thing to say energy was absorbed or emitted from the oscillators in discrete amounts, those amounts depending on a physical property of the oscillator (the matter) - its natural frequency $\nu$. My understanding is that Einstein (in the photo-electric paper) turned it around, or extended it to the radiation, introducing the photon at the same time. Well that is what I think I was first taught, anyway. E4mmacro 07:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You may be well informed about this. But it still means that Planck did not consider his quantum hypothesis to be mere mathematical trick, as the original (biased) Wikipedia article claims.De kludde 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Max Planck had the wisdom to let future experiments show the full extent of the possible applicability of QUANTA. --Poincare did the same when he first discovered E=mc2, it no doubt occurred to Poincare the future possible ramifications of his formula E=mc2, but like Planck he showed the wisdom to not speculate until experiments could confirm. -- Poincare no doubt had in mind the obvious possbility of m=E/c2 being a real mass - it was no doubt obvious for him to consider such. Licorne 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Have they worked out yet on this page that Licorne is 66/69? E4mmacro 20:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been mentioned. It's an intelligence test of sorts, and if one passes, the individual is assured that his/her IQ is above 61. LOL. green 65.88.65.217 02:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to Priority Page directly FROM THE INTRO

The Intro is clearly inaccurate, but no one can re-write it without making Einstein look like what he really was, a plagiarist. -- So the next best thing would be to keep the politically correct crap in the Intro to please those who are religiously attached to the myth, but to have a link FROM THE INTRO to a Priority Page for those who want hard facts and dates. Licorne 14:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking Suggestions

The Intro still needs re-wording to make it factual. Any suggestions ? -- Problems are that it was David Hilbert who first published the Field Equation which completed the Theory of General Relativity and which legitimately gives Hilbert rightful claim to the theory, and Henri Poincare completed the Special Theory of Relativity three months before Einstein. -- So how do we re-write the Intro without calling Einstein a plagiarist ? Any suggestions ? Licorne 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Hilbet issue is adequately dealt with in note 9. Paul August ☎ 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It affects the Intro. -- I strongly disagree with the Intro, due to Hilbert's first discovery. Licorne 05:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the tiny footnote number 9, in the general relativity section, which goes to Kip Thorne. Thorne is there misquoting Hilbert. Thorne claims in Hilbert's view of things.... --There Thorne is WRONG. --Hilbert called the Field Equations MEINER THEORIE in 1924. -- So Hilbert is the AUTHOR of the theory, not Einstein. -- Also Thorne is WRONG to say Hilbert did the last tiny steps. --Hilbert created the magnificent variational principle, which completed the theory. Finally Thorne is WRONG to say Einstein did 90% of the work. -- It was Grossmann who did 90% of the work for Einstein. --Thorne is making excuses for Einstein, because Thorne's wife Ms. Weinstein would kill him if he didn't. Licorne 15:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That footnote number 9 should go to Hilbert's quote MEINER THEORIE in 1924. Licorne 15:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

General Relativity is a misnomer it is only a Theory of Gravity, as Hilbert properly called it. -- this must be in the Intro to not be misleading. Licorne 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Intro nows claims Einstein made major contributions to the development of Special Relativity. --In fact SR was completed before Einstein's first paper appeared ! -- Also Einstein's later derivation of E=mc2 was incorrect, Planck first derived E=mc2 for massive bodies, not Einstein. -- So what did Einstein contribute as it claims in the Intro ? -- Please explain ! --Licorne 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Intro is very misleading. -- The General Theory is a misnomer and is only a theory of gravity -- the Intro makes it appear Einstein completed Relativity which he did not. -- The Special Theory is Relativity, the General theory is just a theory of gravity. Einstein deliberately created the misnomer to hide these facts.Licorne 15:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong: the article on general relativity is wrong on this point too. Einstein explained very clearly (read intro 1916, it's online) that GRT contained a theory of gravitation, it wasn't itself a theory of gravitation. But in the end only that part was retained in full. Harald88 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

GOOD HARALD, yes GR is only a theory of gravity, Hilbert always called it his (MEINER THEORIE) Theory of Gravity. -- Vladimir Fock said that Einstein's calling it General Relativity proved that Einstein never understood it. -- Grossmann constructed it for Einstein, and Hilbert completed the theory. Licorne 02:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Famous in 1915 or 1919?

A small point: did someone have a specific objection to the statement that Einstein became world famous after the 1919 eclipse expedition (rather than the 1915 paper) or did it just get changed back as part of the revert wars? I think "world famous" means having the NYTimes write the headlines shown in the article. I doubt there were similar headlines in 1915 when a theory was published in a germany language scientific journal. In other words: "After a dramatic prediction of general relativity, the bending of light by the sun's gravity, was confirmed in 1919, Einstein became world-famous ..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E4mmacro (talk • contribs) 20:02, February 14, 2006 (UTC)

YES the New York media created the Einstein Myth after the eclipse. Poincare had died in 1912, and after the war no one would defend the German Hilbert because he no doubt had put babies on bayonets. Licorne 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the NYTimes knew of Hilbert (did Eddington ever mention Hilbert?). I guess the NYTimes thought someone working in Germany, and born in Germany, (and if they had bothered to check, with German citizenship from 1914), i.e. Einstein, was German. Or is Licorne's comment part of a Jewish conspiracy thing? E4mmacro 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Did Eddington discuss Hilbert: not in his (jointly authored) paper on the eclipse. As for Licorne, he's just spouting off his typical nonsense. --Fastfission 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It was E4 who mentioned the NEW YORK TIMES. Licorne 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• As for the popularity... he didn't become world famous (outside of the community of physicists) until after 1919. Mentioning of Einstein in American newspapers was almost nil before 1919 (the only real incidence was he was one of many German scientists who signed a petition against WWI, and that gets mentioned); between 1919 and, say, 1922, he was discussed in well over a hundred articles in major U.S. newspapers, according to a ProQuest search I conducted. --Fastfission 01:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro is still wrong

Henri Poincare completed the discovery of Special Relativity on 5 June 1905, before Eistein's first paper even appeared, so Einstein is NOT the AUTHOR of relativity. Also, David Hilbert first correctly published the so called General Theory of Relativity on 20 November 1915, before Einstein. So the INTRO must be changed. -- Also, Hilbert called the theory his (MEINER THEORIE) Theory of Gravity. - Einstein later republished Hilbert's equations mistakenly calling it a General Theory of Relativity, a misnomer. -- All this needs be clearly reflected in the Intro. -- Licorne 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with yout that the statement "author" of GRT lacks subtleness, and might be considered POV. I wasn't inspired with a good objective alternative though. Maybe someone else will get a good idea how to phrase that in a straightforward but undisputable way.

Some of Einstein's contributions to SRT in 1905 "after the fact":

- published derivation from minimal assumptions (which, btw, some regard as the most important step; but that's a matter of taste of course)

- published symmetrical ("relativistic") Doppler effect

- published the "mass corresponds to energy" interpretation of E=mc2

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harald88 (talk • contribs) 21:33, February 14, 2006 (UTC)

GOOD HARALD, yes Einstein was after the fact. -- and GOOD HARALD Einstein was NOT the AUTHOR of GR. -- you better be careful Harald, fastfission will be calling you names too, soon enough. Licorne 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I also wrote above: Einstein: he was the first to present that equation as implying the equivalence of mass and energy content. Harald88 07:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC) ; moreover:

In 1905 he was also the first to make a prediction about measurable time dilation. Harald88 06:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that you failed to read the replies the last time you submitted exactly this comment? There is no point in saying the same thing over and over if you are not going to listen to the replies. DJ Clayworth 20:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No one had replied !!!!! Not even you !!!! Licorne 21:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I read this talk page I find almost nothing discussed except the points you bring up. DJ Clayworth 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct, no one can deny the facts. Not even you. Licorne 21:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DJ, when someone speaks against him, he insults them; when nobody does, he takes it as evidence he's right. You can't win by argument against someone who doesn't listen. --Alvestrand 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And DJ, he will say the same thing any number of times, at least once again for every time any statement he makes is shown to be wrong. In answer to this post he will say "I have never been shown to be wrong" or "no censorship", or something else he has already said many times. E4mmacro 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

MACROSSAN GROW UP --- HILBERT BEAT OUT EINSTEIN -- THE PUBLISHED RECORD IS CLEAR. - CORRECT THE INTRO. 17.255.240.78 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kip Thorne's Quote is WRONG (reference 9)

Kip Thorne's quote in reference number 9 is flatly contradicted by the published record -- Hilbert did not approve of Einstein stealing credit for GR -- in 1924 Hilbert called it MEINER THEORIE in published article -- so Kip Thorne is flat WRONG -- that quote need be deleted. Licorne 21:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So you only want secondary sources quoted when they agree with your misconceptions? Interesting that you can't imagine that Hilbert wasn't talking about the same thing as einstein when he said "meiner theorie".... --Alvestrand 21:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This famous quote from Hilbert seems to support Thorne's view that Hilber gave credit for the theory to Einstein: Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians. — Paul August ☎ 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT SUPPOSED QUOTE ? Licorne 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha -- amazing that YOU were the one the first bring in Kip Thorne's opinion on this, but only when you were happy taking it out of context and interpretting it the way YOU wanted to. But now that the full quote is included and Kip Thorne's meaning is clear, suddenly he becomes a bad source, suddenly his quote becomes a liability rather than a benefit. How intellectually dishonest can you get? --Fastfission 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

fastfission how childish ! -- Kip Thorne is human, he makes mistakes, and his quote in reference number 9 is indeed a mistake by Thorne. Licorne 02:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh come now, you don't think it is a mistake. I have it on good authority that you think he says what he says because "if he didn't, his wife Ms.Weinstein would kill him." I'm not the only one who detects an anti-Semitic streak in such a comment, but I'll just leave that aside, because your dishonesty is more than enough in this instance. --Fastfission 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

KIP THORNE IS CERTIFIABLY WRONG ON THIS ONE (reference 9). -- GR BELONGS TO HILBERT.- HILBERT PUBLISHED GR BEFORE EINSTEIN 17.255.240.78 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald please remove footnote number 9, Thorne clearly missed Hilbert's famous MEINER THEORIE in 1924. Licorne 03:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an OUTRAGE that Hilbert is NOWHERE even mentioned in the article ! -- He should be right in the Intro ! -- Licorne 03:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The published record indisputably documents that HILBERT is the AUTHOR of GR. -- Correct the Intro. Licorne 03:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See [2], which notes that although Hilbert submitted his original article on November 20, 1915, ... the proofs of Hilbert's paper (dated 6 December 1915) do not contain the field equations. It also excerpts the following:

In the printed version of his paper, Hilbert added a reference to Einstein's conclusive paper and a concession to the latter's priority: "The differential equations of gravitation that result are, as it seems to me, in agreement with the magnificent theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later papers". If Hilbert had only altered the dateline to read "submitted on 20 November 1915, revised on [any date after 2 December 1915, the date of Einstein's conclusive paper]," no later priority question would have arisen.

Please stop pushing the minority anti-Einstein POV. The Rod 03:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

NO Rod, Your source is outdated, Corry was destroyed in Z.Naturforsch last year. Hilbert's proofs do contain the Field Equations in full. -- Also the quote in your source confirms what I said, that Hilbert published the Field Equations FIRST: your source quotes Hilbert pointing out that Einstein's work was LATER. -- That is precisely why Hilbert correctly called it Meiner Theorie. Licorne 03:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the Winterberg paper. If I recall, he does not say that the proofs contain the field equations in full; his entire argument is based on the fact that part of the Hilbert proof he looked at was simply missing and thus no answer could be easily drawn from it. I'll give you some time to review the article yourself and decide on what you want to insist on, before calling you intellectually dishonest again. I'm happy to provide a copy of the Winterberg paper to anybody who wants it by e-mail, though I don't think it is of very much value. (For the record, the authors of the original article think that Winterberg concentrated on something completely inconsequential, and ignores all of the other differences in the proofs.[3] Personally I think the fact that Winterberg cites his major contributor to the paper as being the certified nutball Bjerknes does not help his credibility, and neither do his ties to Lyndon LaRouche, but that's just my take on things.) --Fastfission 04:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true that part of the paper is missing. But the fact, pointed out by Winterberg, is that Corry/Renn/Stachel made their argument without pointing this out to their readers, a clear and dishonest violation of principles of scientific research, similar to an experimental physicists mentioning only the results he likes while keeping silent about the facts he dislikes. By contrast, Winterberg simply points out that the missing part of the proof may have contained the equation, and presents his argument (based on a comparison of text preceeding the gap with text from the published paper) that it has contained the field equations in explicit form. Wuensch does the same thing, and bases her attempt to reconstruct the missing text upon the preserved text of lectures of Hilbert on the subject. If CRS had done the same thing, presented the facts they have together with their speculation that the missing piece did not contain the explicit field equations, no one would have critized them.De kludde 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, they claimed it wasn't relevant to their argument. I haven't gone over the technicalities of it very closely, but it doesn't seem like an inplausible reply, and they also go into some detail in their long-reply looking at some of Winterberg's assumption as well. I'm not sure who gets the "bad behavior" award (Winterberg calling them frauds, them calling Winterberg paranoid), but in any event I brought this up primarily to emphasize that unlike Licorne's claim, the Winterberg paper does not settle things -- at best, it indicates towards the conclusion that the CRS paper does not settle things, at worst, it does not do even that. --Fastfission 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not surprise me at all that they say it is not relevant. This is so because the fact that part of the proofs is missing is hard to overlook. And if they failed to mention a fact to their readers which is relevant and inconvient to them, and which is hard to overlook, this means that they violated the principles of good historical research. It is in a way close to fraud, and could totally destroy their reputations as historians of science.De kludde 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how I have to understand your assertion that you have not gone over the technicalities of it very closely. Do you understand what the principle of least action is, and what it means to calculate a variational derivative? But even so, you can look at the formulation of the Hilbert field equations (wrongly attributed to Einstein) in the Wikipedia article on the subject. They clearly fit on the missing piece of paper, which means that CRS have to come up with some argument supporting their assertions that they have not been there. This they failed to do, however. And even if they had done it, it would still have had the character of a speculation, contradicted by practically all the other facts around the issue.De kludde 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what I individually understand about the mathematical disputes -- it is not our job on Wikipedia to discern out the "ultimate truth of these things" but rather to report on the state of the mainstream research primarily, and fringe research secondarily if at all (see our policy on Neutral Point of View and No Original Research). I find the boundary-work here ("who gets to write about these things?") fairly humorous, since half of this involves physicists pretending to be historians in the first place. ;-) But seriously, what matters here is assessing what is the mainstream POV and what is not. I think it is pretty clear that Winterberg and Bjerknes are not the mainstream POV in this case, whatever one thinks of their ultimate accuracy (I'm doubtful of it, myself). --Fastfission 03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about the ties between Winterberg and LaRouche. Could you give further comments? While I hold LaRouche in low esteem, I do not see why such ties necessarily discredit him as a physicist. As for Bjerknes, he is never listed as a substantial contributor to the Winterberg paper. Winterberg pointed out to Bjerknes what CRS failed to mention in their paper. Bjerknes then wrote a book about relativity, which for the first time reprinted the extant part of the printer proofs. Bjerknes also brought the Logunov paper to Winterberg's attention, and read the manuscript before its final publication. It was perfectly natural to mention him for this.De kludde 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I bring up Bjerknes simply to emphasize that Winterberg is not working here with respected historians -- he's working exclusively with a fellow who is known to have a major anti-Einstein bias, self-publishes, and has no positive reputation within the historical or physical community whatsoever. Whatever one thinks about what that indicates for his overall reputation, I think it indicates strongly that Winterberg should not be considered a "consensus" historical opinion, but is rather somewhat more fringe. As for the LaRouche connection, when I get home later today I'll be happy to write up a summary of it with some citations (I am away from my home office at the moment, where my books relating to the subject are). I stumbled across Winterberg and his LaRouche connections some time ago in connection with other research I was doing. Personally I think it again serves to bode poorly on his historical aptitude (I make no judgments of his aptitude as a physicist, of course, but he would not be the first physicist who made a poor historian). My memory of it is that he got connected with the LaRouche people in the 1970s as part of their fusion power advocacy wing, wrote a book for them, and then got involved in some issue relating to whether certain German scientists had done bad things during World War II. This is discussed in Dennis King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, though I don't have the exact page numbers on me this minute (but I have the book at home). There's a nice picture of LaRouche and Winterberg in one of LaRouches' "autobiographies" too, if I recall. But anyway, I'll write that up in a little more detail. --Fastfission 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- I wrote up all I had on him as a new article. It is now at Friedwardt Winterberg. Enjoy. --Fastfission 03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

One last little thing I stumbled across. The Corry paper authors apparently took down their long response (which Z. Naturforsch refused to publish) from the site linked above at the request of Winterberg. However one can still find the full version with the Wayback Machine, if one is curious. --Fastfission 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that "the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science has decided to replace the original" after Prof Winterberg complained - the authors seem to imply they would leave it there, if it were up to them. In my opinion the short reply is more effective than the longer reply which was marred by insults (I remember when I first read the long reply last year sometime I was a little doubtful about which side to believe because both sides seemed to have reached the paranoid stage). I think there is lesson for all those who like to indulge in personal attacks - the attacks just detract from one's argument. (End of sermon, thanks) E4mmacro 08:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

fastfission you are wrong on all counts. Z.Naturforsch did NOT refuse to publish a response by Corry - Corry withdrew his response and could find NO ONE who would publish it anywhere. Also, the Field Equations are still in the proofs in several equivalent forms -- Corry was not smart enough to realize that not enough had been cut off by someone with their little razor blade. Also Winterberg is a top notch theoretician, who received his PhD from Werner Heisenberg at Goettingen University (Germany's MIT). Licorne 05:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Z.Naturforsch refused to publish without modifications. I don't know the nature of those, but anyway one can read Corry's full account in the link above of his side of the story. I never, by the way, disputed that Winterberg was a physicist; my comments are merely on his reliability as a historian. Both of my assertions about him (the LaRouche connection, the reliance on Bjerknes) are true and verifiable. In connection with the question of his respectability as a historian, it should also be noted that the one other time I am familar with his "historical" contributions it has had something to do with denying the culpability of accused German war criminals or something along those lines (it has been some time since I looked into him, for totally different reasons than this). Happy to provide citations to whoever wants them on any of these points. --Fastfission 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually asked Stachel about the Winterberg attack. He informed me that they had put up a longer reply on the Max Planck Institute website, but it was removed and replaced with the shorter reply after Winterberg threatened a lawsuit against the institute, leaving only the shorter note in place. So much for Winterberg's respect for the free exchange of ideas. --Alvestrand 11:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can get the full reply at the link above, it was archived by the WayBack Machine. It accuses Winterberg of being paranoid (personally I think such accusations are in bad taste), but also goes very carefully over the argument and the equations. --Fastfission 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand, if you contacted Stachel, would be willing to contact Fölsing as well? The opponents of CRS (and thats not just Winterberg, in case you haven't noticed yet) quote him as saying that not to mention the cut to the printer proofs is comparable to an experimental physicist omitting unconvenient data. Fölsing is, as far as I can see, not publisher of a research paper on this subject and for this reason he is more likely to be an independent witness than Stachel. Stachel can probably be considered to be biased towards his own party.De kludde 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stachel says the main reason for withdrawing the original response was the fact that Winterberg felt insulted. This may well be the case. The original version of the Winterberg article was sent to CRS by Science and then rejected based upon their opion alone. A predictable response, given the fact that Winterberg's claims can well be construed to be an accusation of bad scholarship against these authors. Winterberg must have perceived this as an indication that there is a movement for falsifying the historic record about the matter, and added suspicions about forgery and a few comments about scientific hoaxes like the Piltdown man hoax at the end of his paper. Note that his comments were still not political in nature and did not mention Jewish or Zionist interests. It is the CRS response which completely dragged things on the political arena by making comparisons with "german physics" during the 1930s and "bourgeois genetics" in the Soviet Union. Renn has done a similar thing recently, in the newspaper article discussed here. The pattern in both cases is that one of the authors of the CRS papers is attacked of using unscientific methods (justifiably so, given their silence about the missing part of the proofs and their absurd claims that Hilbert introduced a trace term into his equations in December 1915), to which they respond by attempts to swing the nazi club against their opponents. Now, who is obstructing the free exchange of ideas?De kludde 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Corry withdrew his response, because all he could offer was a childish personal attack. -- That is why NO ONE will publish the response from Corry who's reputation is today nil. --Licorne 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We're getting pretty far outside the bounds of verfiable claims here, though I know that's not a new thing for you. Regardless, my point is simply that there seems to be little to no reason to think that Winterberg is at all a final word on the matter, and that you mischaracterized his conclusions on top of that. --Fastfission 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

JUST LOOK at the photocopies reproduced in Winterberg's published article of the butchered proofs all cut up ! - The proofs prove NOTHING to ANYONE ! -- FASTFISSION ARE YOU BLIND !?! -- and the field equation is still there, in the other equations ! - Corry is destroyed ! --Licorne 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the photocopies, but if you look over the CRS papers they contain much more on that question. And it is you who claimed that the proofs proved something, not me: "Hilbert's proofs do contain the Field Equations in full." Why is it you change your story every other posting? By the way, in order to establish someone as "destroyed", you'd have to show that mainstream researchers considered him "destroyed", not just that you find Winterberg compelling. --Fastfission 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is OBVIOUS, that I was saying that it proved NOTHING for corry's argument. -- It proves everything for Winterberg, which is why this REFEREED paper was accepted for publishing. --Corry is destroyed.-- Licorne 21:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To Fastfission, your personal attacks against Winterberg are irrelevent and prove nothing. -- ALL THAT MATTERS is that Winterberg's observation that the field equation is still contained in the proofs was in fact heavily scrutinized by REFEREES who certified Winterberg's correctness. -- That is all that matters here. -- Corry is destroyed. -- Licorne 21:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

MEINER THEORIE

Hilbert called GR Meiner Theorie in 1924, the exact reference is D.Hilbert,Grund Lagen der Physik, Mathematische Annalen, 92, p.2, 1924. Licorne 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald you are the only one I have any intellectual respect for there. You display intellectual integrity at times. I suggest this to you Harald, that the Intro be re-written vaguely by saying simply that Einstein made contributions to Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc etc. -- Also, Hilbert should definitely figure prominantly and by name, in the GR section, as soon as the Field Equation is mentioned. -- And Kip Thorne's reference number 9 does NOT suffice, it is wrong. -- Hilbert clearly did NOT credit Einstein as Thorne's quote states. Licorne 05:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: The Intro is flatly contradicted by the published record which indisputably credits Hilbert with the discovery of General Relativity on 20 November 1915. The Intro is in total contradiction with the published record. Licorne 13:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the dispute article should be linked to the intro.De kludde 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The "dispute" is not something taken seriously by most historians, and most of the people on the "dispute" page who promote the idea of the "dispute" are not historians and are not respected in the historical community. If mentioned at all, it should be mentioned in the context of the disputed things themselves, later in the article where they appear in more detail. The intro is for the basics. See, for example, how the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article is dealt with at Project Apollo. --Fastfission 20:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is NO dispute. The published record is clear, GR belongs to Hilbert. -- The INTRO must be corrected, to be in accord with the published record of the discovery of GR by Hilbert on 20 November 1915, a published fact. -- Licorne 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Hilbert and GRT: If it is true that the field equations are relatively unimportant because the Einstein/Grossman Entwurf paper is the only major step, then why does the wikipedia article on General Relativity give 1915 as the date of publication of GRT, and not 1913 (the year the Entwurf paper was published?)De kludde 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hilbert called GR Meiner Theorie in 1924, the exact reference is D.Hilbert,Grund Lagen der Physik, Mathematische Annalen, 92, p.2, 1924." — Die Mathematische Annalen are online, so this can easily be checked. That page is at [4] (I'm not sure the URL will work; if not, follow the link in Mathematische Annalen). The words "Meiner Theorie" do not appear. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have photocopies of the original, in German, it is there MEINER THEORIE. Licorne 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the link I gave goes to The Center for Retrospective Digitization, Göttingen State and University Library, and they say it is scanned from either the original or microfilm. I doubt that would be incorrect.

Where do your copies differ from the Göttingen version? Are you sure of the page number? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it is on page 2, at the very beginning of the article. Thank you again. Licorne 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My German is not so great (I'll go over the parts I'm having trouble with with a dictionary later when I get the chance), but it seems to me that on page one he refers to the "general relativity theory of Einstein" and says that his contribution is putting it into a more simple and natural expression of it. (Die gewaltigen Problemstellung und Gedankenbildungen der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie von Einstein finden nun, wie ich in meiner ersten Mitteilung ausgefürht habe, auf dem von Mie betretenen Wege ihren einfachsten und natürlichsten Ausdruck und zugleich in formaler Hinsicht ein systematische Ergänzung und Abrundung.) Though I think all of this is rather inconsequential to the decisions made regarding this encyclopedia article (this definitely crosses the lines of WP:NOR), especially as the crucial question is not what Hilbert may have claimed at one point, I'm somewhat curious about it in general. The selection with the "meiner Theorie" is part of a longer paragraph, and I'm having some difficulty figuring out whether or not Hilbert is intending at all to weigh in on the priority issue. The paragraph in question is:

Seit der Veröffentlichung meiner ersten Mitteilung sind bedeutsame Abhandlungen über diesen Gegenstand erschienen: ich erwähne nur die glänzenden und tiefsinnigen Untersuchungen von Weyl und die an immer neuen Ansätzen und Gedanken reichen Mitteilungen von Einstein. Indes sowohl Weyl gibt späterhin seinem Entwicklungsgange eine solche Wendung, daß er auf die von mir aufgestellten Gleichungen ebenfalls gelangt, und andererseits auch Einstein, obwohl wiederholt von abweichenden und unter sich verschiedenen Ansätzen ausgehend, kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradenwegs zu den Gleichungen meiner Theorie zurück.

Perhaps someone with some better German can help with this. --Fastfission 21:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert there says that Einstein in his LAST publication, has FINALLY come to the equations of MEINER THEORIE. - as clear as anyone could say it ! -- Hilbert is clear on his priority. -- Kip Thorne's quote in reference 9 is clearly WRONG. --Licorne 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a pretty bad history of taking things out of context (remember it was you who was championing the including of the Kip Thorne quote originally, but only if the full quote was not included), so I don't think we're going to leave it to your take on things, thank you very much. Besides, the question has never been what Hilbert thought about it, but what independent historians have concluded (see our policy on No Original Research). For those interested, I've typed out the German of the non-technical part of the article here. I'm happy to help work through the translation, so we can see exactly what it is that Hilbert reffered to once as "his theory". --Fastfission 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop playing Stupid. -- It is obvious I was saying that Thorne was correct when he said the Field Equation belongs to Hilbert, BUT he was WRONG when he said Hilbert did not claim priority. -- YOU GOT IT NOW ? ? -- Licorne 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's quite obvious that you were happy to quote Thorne, cite him as an authority, ask if others had read him, etc., as long as people didn't actually quote him completely. You never indicated that it was taken out of context until it was pointed out to you, and then you made up excuses for why Thorne was wrong. Don't you agree that such behavior is a cause for suspicion? That it looks like you were trying to intentionally mislead? And yet, you have never admitted to it, or provided the slightest explanation -- all you do is make excuses for Thorne, rather than offer accounts of your own errors. This is why I do not trust you. --Fastfission 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem man ? I simply say that Thorne did make one mistake, what is wrong with that ! Licorne 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My German isn't so hot (babel de-1), but I read "den Gleichungen meiner Theorie" as "the equations of my theory". My sense of the logic of the paragraph is that Einstein's been wandering all over the place, trying different things, but has now in his last publications returned to the equations of Hilbert's theory. Note that I don't accept the theory that equation = theory; theories have text that relate them to the real world, not just equations. So Hilbert could have a theory that contained an equation that Einstein wanted to use in his theory, without the two theories being equal. I think. (BTW, I upgraded this para from 4th level to 1st level - it seems separate from the above topics, and the ToC looks awful) --Alvestrand 21:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just told you what it says . Licorne 21:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

GR indisputably belongs to Hilbert. -- The INTRO must be corrected. Licorne 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• You can keep repeating that as much as you'd like, but the fact remains that there seems to be quite a bit of people who do dispute that, and most of the people who think it belongs to Hilbert are, frankly, not representative of mainstream historical opinion. By the way, are you familiar with Tilman Sauer's article on the "missing page"? If you're interested, I could send you (or anyone else) a copy. Tilman Sauer, "Einstein Equations and Hilbert Action: What is missing on page 8 of the proofs for Hilbert’s First Communication on the Foundations of Physics?" Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 59 (2005) 577–590. --Fastfission 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The published record is completely on my side. -- If you have anything from Sauer that might challenge the published record, post it here by all means. Start a new topic and post what you claim to have. Licorne 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The only "side" that an encyclopdia article is allowed to take, is to cite facts about opinions as well as (more importantly) bare facts by themselves. Up tot the reader to decide. It's that simple. Harald88 06:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I saw Tilman's paper, it changes nothing. -- the Field Equation is still imbedded on other pages which were not cut off, as Winterberg clearly shows. Licorne 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I translated the start of Hilbert's article, as posted by Fastfission, and I noted that in the third paragraph, Hilbert appears to ascribe GR to Einstein. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what does he know? He's only a dead German....--Stephan Schulz 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Hilbert says Einstein did produce a magnificent Theory, but LATER. (it's easy when someone already gives you the right answer). Licorne 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes

There are several quotes from Hilbert which seem to support Thorne's view that Hilbert gave credit for the theory to Einstein. Both of the following quotes are given in both Phillip Frank's, Einstein, His Life and Times, Da Capo Press; Rev edition (May 1, 1989), ISBN 0306803585, p. 206 and Constance Reid's, Hilbert, Springer; 1 edition (April 19, 1996) ISBN 0387946748, p. 142

• Every boy in the streets of our mathematical Gottingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, despite that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians.
• Do you know why Einstein said the most original and profound things about space and time that have been said in our generation? Because he had learnt nothing about all the philosophy and mathematics of time and space.

On the same page Reid goes on to say:

• To Hilbert, The beauty of Einstein's theory lay in its great geometrical abstraction; and when the time arrived for the awarding of the third Bolyai Prize in 1915, he recommended that it go to Einstein "for the high mathematical spirit behind his achievements

J J O'Connor and E F Robertson, Hilbert referring to the Corry, Renn and Stachel paper Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute, Science 278 (14 November, 1997) write:

• Many have claimed that in 1915 Hilbert discovered the correct field equations for general relativity before Einstein but never claimed priority. The article [11] however, shows that this view is in error. In this paper the authors show convincingly that Hilbert submitted his article on 20 November 1915, five days before Einstein submitted his article containing the correct field equations. Einstein's article appeared on 2 December 1915 but the proofs of Hilbert's paper (dated 6 December 1915) do not contain the field equations.

As the authors of [11] write:-

In the printed version of his paper, Hilbert added a reference to Einstein's conclusive paper and a concession to the latter's priority: "The differential equations of gravitation that result are, as it seems to me, in agreement with the magnificent theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later papers". If Hilbert had only altered the dateline to read "submitted on 20 November 1915, revised on [any date after 2 December 1915, the date of Einstein's conclusive paper]," no later priority question would have arisen.

Paul August ☎ 06:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul you are wrong, Hilbert said LATER regarding Einstein's work. Licorne 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In sci.physics.research and sci.physics.relativity, recently evidence was cited for the allegation that Hilbert was fooled into thinking that Einstein had priority, while all evidence shows the contrary (I now have no time to elaborate on this, I go on vacation, sorry). Harald88 06:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE to Paul August: WHO THE HECK is Philip Frank ? ? -- Don't believe what Frank says, look at what Hilbert himself said in the published record Hilbert published it MEINER THEORIE, that is what counts, the published record. Licorne 14:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Licorne, you might want to check out Philipp Frank. --Alvestrand 14:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE to Paul August: WHERE THE HECK have you been ? ? - those Proofs prove nothing at all for Corry who was destroyed in Z.Naturforsch last year. Licorne 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein, Smoluchowski and Brownian Motion

Mr. Anon69, in the discussion above you claim that "Einstein's solution for Brownian Motion was copied line for line from Smoluchowski." Could you give more details? Which paper(s) of Smoluchowski did Einstein copy from? Did Smoluchowski have $E[x_{t}^{2}]={\frac {kT}{3\pi \eta r}}t$, the equation used by Jean Baptiste Perrin to determine $k$?

I attended a conference in Paris about three years ago by Jean-Paul Auffray, with Jules Leveugle, they both were aware of this fact that Einstein copied line for line Smoluchowski's equations for Brownian motion. If you contact them I'm sure they have your precise answer. Max Planck credited Smoluchowski with the solution of Brownian motion, not Einstein. This is on page 258 of Jules Leveugle's magnificent book at the Ecole Polytechnique, for consultation. Copies of Leveugle's book are in other major Physics libraries in Paris, for consultation, I believe at the Institut Poincare, and probably the Bibliotheque Nationale. It is Leveugle's unabridged book Poincare et la Relativite: Question sur la Science. I believe Jean-Paul Auffray speaks perfect English, Jules Leveugle reads several languages including English. Licorne 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS in the article

1) That Einstein was the author of General Relativity is in blatant contradiction with the published record. -- Hilbert published it FIRST, on 20 November 1915.

2) What were Einstein's major contributions to the development of Special Relativity ? ? -- PLEASE NAME JUST ONE ? ?

3) The reference number 9 (Thorne's claim) is blatantly contradicted by Hilbert's Meiner Theorie. -- GET RID OF THORNE'S QUOTE NOW ! !

Licorne 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ad 2) I named them above, in answer to your same question. And I forgot to mention one, I'll add it now. Harald88 06:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald you youself had said AFTER THE FACT, did you not ? ? -- And the Intro says in the development. -- How can after the fact be in the development ? ? -- You clearly have a contradiction. -- Let me ask you once again: What were his contributions to the development ? ? Licorne 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

According to many, the development continued with Minkowski. Harald88 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• You first point is, as noted, highly disputed and repeating it again and again is not helping anything. Your third point is a non-point. Just because Hilbert once elliptically referred to something as his does not make it his, and more to the point on Wikipedia our job is to use mainstream secondary sources, not primary sources. See our policy on No Original Research. Also, simply repeating your claims does not make them so, nor does it move any of this forward. --Fastfission 13:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission can you not read plain Engilsh or German ? ? -- Hilbert states categorically it is his theory, which Einstein later republished. - Can't you plainly read that ? ? -- So, Thorne is absolutely wrong -- you don't want to use a standard source if it is clearly wrong, do you now ? ? Licorne 13:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission you are wrong, the first point is NOT highly disputed, rather , it is universally recognized that Hilbert discovered the Field Equation to complete the theory, before Einstein, who could not do it, see also Einstein-Hilbert action, Einstein was unable to do it. -- Hilbert's name MUST be included in the article, right in the Intro, so as to not be misleading to readers. -- Hilbert was the AUTHOR not Einstein, by the published record. ---- Licorne 13:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, even if Hilbert made a categorical claim -- I don't see it in quite the same light as you, frankly, and I think resting your entire argument on a single possessive pronoun is rather weak -- it wouldn't matter. On Wikipedia, what matters is the consesus historical opinion from secondary sources. Please see our policy entitled "No Original Research". This is not up for debate, it is Wikipedia policy. And on the first point, it is clearly highly disputed, there has been a flurry of publication back and forth on the issue in the past thirty years. That counts as "highly disputed". The introduction is not the place to go into that sort of thing in any case. --Fastfission 14:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NO it is NOT a single pronoun, it is the entire crystal clear passage ! - Can't you read English ? ? - Thorne never read that passage or Thorne is just a liar -- Thorne's quote is WRONG, and must be deleted. Licorne 14:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hilbert states categorically it is his theory, which Einstein later republished" — even if we go by Hilbert's article, he only says that Einstein, in deriving general relativity, used the equations of some theory of Hilbert. So, the question is: which theory? It cannot be general relativity, because Hilbert himself says that GR is Einstein's theory.

I do agree that Einstein used the help of Hilbert and others to complete the mathematical formulation of GR. That's how science works: nobody creates a theory solely by himself. However, Einstein established the field of GR, thus, he is the author / creator / father / founder (if you disagree with "author", is there any other word you would agree with?). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (via edit conflict)

Which Theory ? ? -- Are you blind ? ? -- Can't you read English ? ? -- Licorne 14:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't you answer a question? Which theory does Hilbert refer to? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In Science, the AUTHOR is he who correctly publishes first, in this case HILBERT indisputably. Licorne 14:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In "Einstein is the author of GR", the word author does not mean writer but originator. It is too simplistic to say that the originator of a theory is he who correctly publishes first. To give an extreme example, Isaac Newton was not the first to publish his theory of fluxions, that was John Wallis, but we still attribute the theory of fluxions (and half of the founding of calculus) to Newton. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In modern Science he who correctly publishes first is the author AND originator. -- Licorne 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The scientific community credited Albert Einstein with that discovery and until the scientific renounces this decision the decision stands. By the way Kip Thorne does not represent the scientific community, so the shut the hell up about him. Whether their decision was wrong or not is irrelevant.

(unsigned comment by 68.146.81.136; Licorne blocked for 24 hours)

Move priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories

The Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories page seems to be a better place than here to continue priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. I suggest, therefore, moving the discussions to that talk page. Does everyone agree to such a move? If anyone disagrees with such a move, I will open a straw poll with a one week deadline and options similar to the following:

• Current and subsequent discussion of priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories will move from Talk:Albert Einstein to Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. Only a short summary of and a link to that discussion will remain here.
• Discussion of priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories may continue on Talk:Albert Einstein.

Note, the poll is not open, since a consensus would be preferable. Please do not vote yet, because if we do have to resort to such a poll, I will want some input on the best wording of the options. The Rod 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be a great move. And despite what Licorne says below, I think the term "priority dispute" is exactly right - different people argue different viewpoints, both inside and outside Wikipedia, which makes it a dispute. --Alvestrand 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See HARALD's statement above, he says the page needs re-writing. -- Harald has more intellectual integrity than all of you put together. -- Wait for Harald to get back here. Licorne 23:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is Not a Priority Dispute - Wait for Harald

This is not a priority dispute. The three blatant contradictions listed above are more than that. We all know Hilbert published GR first, the published record is clear. What needs be done is to correct the wording of the article to make it consistent, regarding the three contradictions listed above. -- Wait till Harald returns, he is the only person halfway intelligent there amoungst you all. -- Harald acknowledges there is a problem with the wording, just wait for him to get back. --Licorne 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Source of name "relativity"?

Does anyone have a quote for the source of the name "relativity" for the Special Relativity theory? The History of special relativity article says:

The original title for Einstein's paper translates from the German as "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Max Planck suggested the term "relativity" to highlight the notion of transforming the laws of physics between observers moving relative to one another, and the term 'Special' was later given to it by Einstein in order to distinguish it from the general theory of relativity.

But that article is light on citing sources. --Alvestrand 09:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani(1965) asserts that Relativité is Poincaré's word, that Einstein ripped off from Poincaré. Keswani points out this proves that Einstein WAS INDEED reading Poincare contrary to Einsteins's denials later in his life. Licorne 13:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

actually History of special relativity claims that the term was introduced to physics by Galileo, so the statute of copyrights seems to have expired on it. But I'm interested in finding a reference for who attached it to the STR. --Alvestrand 18:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare used the phrase "Principle of relativity motion" a number of times from 1900-194 when discussing Lorentz's work. He sometimes means it is Newton's principle, he sometimes means what we now call the principle of relativity. i.e he was wondering whether electro-magnetics violated the principle of relative motion and was interested in Lorentz's work which kept rescuing the principle, but he thought perhaps Lorentz was trying to hard - "too many hypotheses". In 1904, (St Louis conference) when he was discussing the principle results of Lorentz 1904 he used "The principle of Relativity" since by then Lorentz had produced a theory which obeyed it exactly, well Poincare noticed a small mistake later. (If we couldn't see that Poincare was discussing Lorentz from the 1904 paper itself, he mentions this to Lorentz in his first letter to Lorentz 1905 - I mention this because Poincare-only fans never mention that Poincare 1904 was discussing Lorentz 1904). E4mmacro 21:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The word probably existed in Ancient Greece, but it was Lorentz who said that Poincaré was the first to employ the term Principe de la Relativité. Licorne 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

standard question: reference for above statement? --Alvestrand 13:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It is there, you can look it up if you are really interested, Lorentz did say it, it should be in Keswani.-- Why are you so interested in Lorentz' quote ? -- I can get it myself if you have a real need for it ? why ? -- Look in Keswani I believe he has it, amoungst many others. --Licorne 14:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It should probably be obvious by now, but I don't believe a word you say when you're quoting without naming your source - and especially I don't believe that the words say what you claim they say when they are read in context - see the Kip Thorne debate, for example. If you give a book for which I can find the ISDN number and the page you're quoting from, I may believe you. --Alvestrand 14:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe a word of yours there son. -- I have been proved correct on everything. -- You are simply in a learning process. -- Thorne's quote is flatly contradicted by MEINER THEORIE, now is it not, there son. -- You want a quote on Lorentz ? For what ? Your personal curiosity ? I am not your secretary, you go look in Keswani it is there, son. -- Licorne 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

By my count, you're five years older than me. Hardly a reason to call me "son".... and you're the one who makes the extraordinary claims, you're the one who bears the burden of proof. And so far, I haven't found one point you've been proved *right* on.... I do accept that you don't seem to have changed your mind on a single point based on the discussion, but that's not the same thing. --Alvestrand 15:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the teacher, you are the ignorant student. -- IF I feel like it I'll put Lorentz' precise reference here just to make a complete FOOL out of you there son, but frankly, you're not worth it. -- Licorne 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If David Hilbert's name does not appear somewhere on Einstein's page, then the name Einstein should be knocked off of all other's Wikipedia pages. -- Fair is Fair. -- Licorne 19:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. -- When does Harald get back ? -- He agrees the wording in Einstein's page needs be re-written. -- Also, it is ridiculous that the name David Hilbert appears nowhere on Einstein's page, and is only buried deep in an untrue footnote. -- Licorne 14:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I've opened a Request for Comments about the editing behavior of User:Licorne. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne, and those participating in this are encouraged to contribute as they see fit. --Fastfission 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Fastfizzy, did I hurt your feelings ? -- Licorne 23:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

How about putting the scientific work into a separate article?

This article is already too long. Folk keep adding new information. Is it time to make it into several smaller articles?Barbara Shack 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

One reason why it's growing is that there's a POV war going on (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne) - the usual response to a POV claim is to change the article towards being more precise about facts, but that makes it grow, since facts are messy. A lot of info is duplicated between articles; some "see also" tags would probably be a good feature. --Alvestrand 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Addition

I am new to this site as a contributor, but have utilized it extensively. I seek to maintain the integrity of the site but feel that the Einstein page should include, at least in the body of the site, mention of two of his most famous, and needless to say inspirational, quotes. Strike me down if I am wrong, but I posted them here before inserting them to the page: 1."Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds..." 2."God does not roll the dice...". I do not have the citations for the original documentation of these statements, but feel that they are significant to the history, lore, and objective view of the man that has become a face of the modern scientific world.Sven1olaf 03:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll find the "dice" remark under the "Copenhagen interpretation" section, including citation and context... once you have the context of the first remark, I'm sure it fits somewhere. Welcome to Einstein! --Alvestrand 06:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The dice quote shows Einstein was all wrong about Quantum Mechanics too. If he weren't plagiarizing someone, he was always wrong. Licorne 12:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for Harald

Harald said above the Intro must be rewritten, so keep the red tag until he does it, thank you. Licorne 01:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

E=mc2 is Wrong, Fast fission !

Fast fission you took the qualifying comments off of the paragraph on E=mc2 ? ? ? -- It is now very misleading ! -- Sir Edmund Whittaker credited Poincare with E=mc2 in 1900. --You make it sound like Einstein was first, but he was not. -- -- Also, Einstein's derivation was False as published by Max Planck and H.E. Ives. -- Revert it back please, to be correct and not misleading. --EXPLAIN YOURSELF.--Licorne 01:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whittaker is not a mainstream historical opinion about this. If we are to include it, it needs to be specifically attributed to Whittaker, labeled for what it is (a not-common opinion), and the references need to be to secondary literature, not primary literature. I've explained this about a dozen times to you, and it's clear that you have no intention of ever attempting to understand what I, or any other editor on here, are trying to tell you. The policies on this are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you don't show any evidence of having read and understood them, I'm not sure this is worth discussing with you. --Fastfission 02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan accurately wrote it up on Poincare's page, with sources, regarding E=mc2, so I will transcibe it to Einstein's page, then you can bitch at Macrossan for it. -- I just now went to put Macrossan's words onto the Einstein page regarding E=mc2, but it is I believe frozen ? --Licorne 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no false statement in the paragraph about e=mc^2 on the Einstein page, as reverted by FastFission. Planck did not say Einstein was wrong - he said Einstein's derivation was approximate as did Einstein ("ignoring terms of ...") and Planck produced what he thought was a better proof of Einstein's result (not Poincare's different result). The whole issue has been discussed ad nauseaum, so I can write Licorne's response for him: "Whittaker called it Poincare's E = mc^2". Thanks, but we know that. Whittaker is adequately discussed above under "Whittaker's credibility". E4mmacro 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Macrossan, I like the way you wrote it up on Poincare's page, I'll transcribe it to Einstein's page. -- Note Planck questioned the reasoning in Einstein's paper, and Ives showed it a tautology, just as you wrote it yourself I will transcribe it for you.Licorne 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that. On the Poincare page (which was the result of a tug-of-war between you and me) the emphasis is on Poincare's DIFFERENT result and why it is NOT the same as Einstein's result. You made the last edit (a deletion of Einstein's name) so that the final (frozen) text seems to imply that Poincare obtained Einstein's result. The Einstein page (as left by fastfission) accurately states Einstein's result that the energy of a body at rest is mc^2. This result was NOT derived by Poincare. If you want to denigrate Einstein with a footnote about Ives, I suppose you can, and I will add to the footnote Reisman and Young contradicting Ives on this point, but there is no point lengthening the article in this way. E4mmacro 05:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Give yourself more credit Macro, you wrote it up great, we'll use it. Licorne 05:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, Licorne, if Macrossan wants to change it, he's more than welcome to -- he's someone I trust to do things the right way. You, on the other hand, seem to make a consistent habit of misrepresenting sources as well as other editors. And it should be noted, as illustrated by Macrossan's link, is remove the statements about what other people thought about Einstein's work. I'm not convinced that those are representative of the larger scientific reaction to it, and as such I'm not convinced they should be in Einstein's biography (as opposed to, say, the article on E=mc2, where details about individual assessments, whether representative or not, could be relevant). --Fastfission 05:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, I think Macrossan did a fine job writing it up about E=mc2, we can use Macrossan's own exact wording, on Einstein's page, because Macrossan is someone we trust to do the right way, as you just said. Licorne 05:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I did not make myself clear. I like the present paragraph

A fourth paper, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?", ("Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?") published late in 1905, showed one further deduction from relativity's axioms, the famous equation that the energy of a body at rest (E) equals its mass (m) times the speed of light (c) squared: E = mc².

I do not want to change it. E4mmacro 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You made yourself perfectly clear, as did I, but Licorne seems to fancy purposefully misinterpretting editors, as he does his historical sources. I suspect he is just trying to get a rise out of people, so I've taken to just ignoring him on such things, since he obviously cannot be reasoned with. Fortunately his arbitration case has been launched so his time around here is very limited. --Fastfission 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading and must be changed. Too simplistic, very misleading. -- You were very precise on Poincare's page, we'll use it again here.Licorne 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You can change whatever you want, but you will simply be reverted. Nobody is fooled by your nonsense. --Fastfission 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the red tag on there until Harald corrects the Intro. Licorne 05:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If Harald has problems with the Intro, he can voice them himself. He doesn't need you to be his watchdog, nor has he -- or anyone else -- ever asked you to be. Harald's authority, nor any other editor's, cannot be invoked for your pet projects, and should and will be ignored. --Fastfission 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"The greatest" or "one of the greatest"?

An anonymous IP has edited the intro changing "widely regarded as the greatest" to "widely regarded as one of the greatest", citing Encarta, which he claims ranks Newton above Einstein. I don't have a strong POV, but I'd like to see if there are enough authoritative sources for "the greatest" that we should put it back - if not, "one of" is fine with me. --Alvestrand 06:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "one of the greatest of all time" is probably safest. Many people might think Newton was greater. Picking the greatest of all time is too difficult, wouldn't you say? 130.102.2.60 08:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how he is regarded. I imagine that would vary from demographic to demographic, though. Perhaps "among the greatest"? that implies that there could be multiple "greatests". --Fastfission 14:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I never wrote that Encarta claims that Einstein ranks just below Newton. "See Encarta" was a reference to the fact that the encyclopedia states that he was one of the greatest scientists of all time. It is an understatement to state that Einstein is merely the greatest scientist of the 20th century. -- 24.253.120.206 17:46, 24 February 2006

I think English-speakers such as myself have always been told or thought Newton was "the greatest", which is understandable. But here are some quotes from Einstein (as quoted by by James Gleick in a book "Isaac Newton" 1988) which suggest to me that leaving Einstein as "one of the greatest of all time" (rather than the greatest) is OK by Einstein. "Let no one sippose that the mighty work of Newton can really be superseded by this or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundations\ of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" (What is the theory of Relativity? Times of London, 28 Nov 1919, reprinted in "Out of My Later Years"). "We have to realize that before Newton there existed no self-contained system of physical causality which was somehow capable of representing any of the deeper features of the empirical world" (Ideas and Opinions). E4mmacro 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dream on, Macro. -- Licorne 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you think Einstein is the greatest, not Newton? Do you think Poincare was the greatest scientist ever? We value your input, pelase let us know. E4mmacro 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein and Newton are the only credible possibilities for the title of "greatest of all time". I can't think of another physicist anywhere close to their stature. Maxwell would be my third choice, but a distant third. So I think the phrase should read "one of the two greatest". "One of the greatest" sounds like there's a bunch of others with a legitimate claim and it just isn't so. Clarityfiend 08:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton are the greatest scientists of all time. There are two figures who are simply off the charts. Isaac Newton is one. The other is Albert Einstein. If pressed, physicists give Newton pride of place, but it's a photo finish—and no one else is in the race. Newton's claim is obvious. He created modern physics. His system described the behavior of the entire cosmos, and while others before him had invented grand schemes, Newton's was different. His theories were mathematical, making specific predictions to be confirmed by experiments in the real world. Little wonder that those after Newton called him lucky—"for there is only one universe to discover, and he discovered it." But what of Einstein? Well, Einstein felt compelled to apologize to Newton. "Newton, forgive me," Einstein wrote in his Autobiographical Notes. "You found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thought and creative power." Forgive him? For what? For replacing Newton's system with his own—and, like Newton, for putting his mark on virtually every branch of physics. Einstein transformed humankind's understanding of nature on every scale, from the smallest to that of the cosmos as a whole (for special relativity is embodied in all motion throughout the universe), through fundamental problems about the nature of energy, matter, motion, time, and space—all the while putting in 40 hours a week at the patent office. (In 1905, Einstein is 26, a patent examiner, working on physics on his own.) The problems he could not solve remain the ones that define the cutting edge, the most tantalizing and compelling. Who's smarter? You can't touch that. No one since Newton comes close. (Genius Among Geniuses [5])

The following shows that to say that he is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of all time is not POV pushing.Albert Einstein is considered one of the greatest and most popular scientists of all time. (Encarta Encyclopedia[6]) Others who support this claim: The famous Russian physicist Lev Landau ranked Einstein in a "superleague" of his own, beyond all others, at a 1/2. [7] A survey among today's leading 100 physicists put him as the greatest. [8] To state that he is merely the greatest scientist of the twentieth century is insulting; note that Maxwell is a very distant third to these two giants. --24.253.120.206 02:50, 27 February 2006

Yes I agree, Einstein is one of the greatest scientist to have ever lived. No one doubts that. But to say he is widely regarded as being perhaps the greatest of all time is not only a badly written piece of the intro, it isn’t true. He is considered the greatest by some but the majority would give Newton that title. As for the poll, Newton has been ranked number 1 in nearly all polls over the last couple of decades. But in my opinion Newton and Einstein should both be described as one of the greatest ever scientists in their articles - Arthur Rimbaud

The Greatest Plagiarist of the Century

Einstein was a media clown who plagiarized others and lied to cover himself all his life. -- He got away with it thanks to Sultzberger the owner of the New York Times. -- Why not tell the truth ! --Licorne 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Did Sultzberger own The Times of London, and control Eddington who also helped make Einstein famous? E4mmacro 20:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sulzberger's cousin owns the Times.-- Eddington didn't realize it was Hilbert's work, with the war going on publications were limited, but Einstein was front page, with his tongue sticking out. Also, had Eddington tried to promote the German Hilbert he would have gotten ZERO press. Licorne 23:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What was the name of Sultzberger's cousin who owned The Times? I think the "tongue stuicking out photo" dates from the 1930s, not 1919 (but I could be wrong). I thought we were talking about 1919, Eddington and the eclipse observation. E4mmacro 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about the picture, but you know what I mean. Licorne 03:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

References for the above statement (apart from Bjerknes)? --Alvestrand 13:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good for Bjerknes he has the guts to say it, and he lists many sources. - I was personally interviewed at length on two national French Radio stations from Paris and I said it all. -- A half dozen books were published soon after by French Professors, Scientists and Mathematicians. -- I have named all their books in the discussion section of Henri Poincare's page. -- Lots of them, published by major French publishing houses. -- Licorne 13:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a reference or a link or a date or the name of the radio stations, or anything more about your "saying it all" on two National French Radio stations? E4mmacro 20:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have the tapes, but you can't speak French. You are cultureless. Licorne 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I asked for the dates, names of radio station, link etc, not for the tapes. E4mmacro 02:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar ? -- What difference does it make to you which ones ? -- I had an enormous impact, that is what matters. Licorne 03:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know the names of the radio stations, and the radio host too, because it might give some information about the importance of your broadcast, whether it had an ernomous effect in France. This are some of the reasons why anyone wants references for any claim. You may have over-estimated its effect (I am sure we all sometimes over-estimate the importance of what we do). Don't take it personally. Is the information secret? E4mmacro 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No secret at all, it was right on national French radio, but now you're asking me to brag about myself, which you know I never do. But I had a large enough impact that the French Minister of Education wrote an article entitled Poincaré le Grand in which he made reference to my radio interviews. I pointed out in my radio interviews how many years later, Einstein claimed to have a General theory of Relativity, which was only a theory of gravity, and that he called it General just to try to steal credit for Relativity from Poincare. Needless to say I was wined and dined by French politicians, and treated like Benjamin Franklin, it was the greatest thing I've ever done, and will not be forgotten there. --Licorne 13:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And why can't we be given the dates of the radio shows and the article you mention, and where the article was published? E4mmacro 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me first why you're so interested, then put down a little wager, say 10,000. Licorne 13:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Unless you think Albrecht Fölsing is "lots of French people". You have promised six books by French authors, published by major French publishing houses. ISBN numbers, please. --Alvestrand 15:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't look at Bjerknes' list of books did you ? And you didn't go to Poincare's talk page where I listed them did you ? Try searching on Yahoo for Professor Dr. Jean Hladik's new book for starters. It's Title in French is How the young ambitious Einstein Plagiarized Poincare. Then try searching Jules Leveugle, Jean-Paul Auffray, Bernard D'Espagnat, see Wuensch's new book, go look at Bjerknes' list of top world publications such as the UK Register, etc, where have you been ! -- Read Folsing closely he has it all in so many words between his lines.Licorne 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This why everyone has so much trouble with your contributions, Licorne. You can "read between the lines" and are prepared to quote your imagination as an authorative source. I think the sensible strategy from now on is not to accept anything you say unless you give complete quotes, sources that anyone can check easily. Given that the chances are that you have read between the lines again, there is little incentive for anyone to go to the trouble of finding the originals (we are "not your secretary"). In summary: You have to realise that "in so many words" is not the same as "between the lines", it is the opposite. You cannot claim that an author said something ("in so many words") if you have only seen these words "between the lines". If it was just a typing error and you ment to say "not in so many words", I apologise. E4mmacro 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan what does is mean ? -- Stop playing games. -- Folsing points it out how Hilbert sent Einstein the solution on the eve of his November 20 presentation, but Einstein then went and republished it anyhow, just five days later. - Folsing is clear enough ! -- Folsing also reproduces a large quote of Sir Edmund Whittaker saying that Einstein republished Poincare's discovery of Relativity just a few months after Poincare. -- Bravo Folsing ! -- Licorne 22:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As entertaining as your outbursts are, they really aren't germane to writing an encyclopedia article. Here we try and stick only to real historians, not the mixed up work of anti-Semites. But thanks though. --Fastfission 16:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're a true intellectual who can only resort to name calling ? --Just look at the record, right when Smoluchowski was circulating his solution for Brownian motion to laboratories in Berlin in 1904 for experimental verification, Einstein suddenly in 1905 discovers the same solution, and then a few months after Poincare's final discovery of Relativity Einstein suddenly comes up with the same results as Poincare and once again no footnotes, just like how Einstein republished Hilbert's Field Equation five days after Hilbert, and again no footnotes. -- The Incorrigible Plagiarist by anyone's definition. Licorne 21:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen, if you want to laud a crank Holocaust denier, be my guest, but don't get uptight when someone points it out. --Fastfission 04:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to show the ascertainable facts about when things were published and when they were submitted, but that isn't enough to prove plagarism. There are many cases throughout the history of science of simultaneous discovery. We know Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare published the LT before Einstein, We know Einstein submitted 25 days after Poincare's paper was read to the Academy in Paris on 5 June 1905. I think the consensus view is that Einstein, working in isolation in the Swiss patent office, (i.e. not in Paris, not in Berlin) wrote his 1905 papers independently of Poincare's 1905 paper. He knew from his student days that using electromagnetics to detect the earth's motion through the aether was a big issue. He could know from his student days that statistical mechanics (Maxwell-Boltzmann stuff) was a big issue. He could have discovered these things independently. E4mmacro 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan, NO FOOT NOTES IS PLAGIARISM ! -- Einstein did it in 1905 and again in 1915, the Incorrigible Plagiarist. - And yeah sure Einstein was a little fart working in a patent office and dreamed all this up in isolation, yeah sure. -- Remember that everyone was reading Poincare including Einstein's wife who I suspect pushed Einstein to plagiarize him, because Einstein long after their divorce paid for her silence when he gave her the Nobel Prize money - it was indeed actually hers ! -- Finally note that Jules Leveugle's publications compare line for line Einstein's work with that of Poincare, no coincidence at all, Macrossan ! -- Licorne 22:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had read the relevant Poincare and Einstein papers and am surpised to hear they can be compared line for line. But we have discussued that before, so there is no point repeating ourselves. If they are not line for line the same, "no footnotes" does not equal "plagiarisim". And your "suspicions" about Einstein's wife are not valid sources for wikipedia. I encourage you to publish your suspicions in a good journal. E4mmacro 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

NO FOOT NOTES IS PLAGIARISM, that's how I was taught, apparently you are from a completely different school of morality. Licorne 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the French have some material indicating that there was a correspondence between Einstein and Poincaré in 1905, just like the exchange of ideas between Einstein and Hilbert in 1915? Unfortunately, Licorne only quotes Auffray and similar authors, but does not attempt to outline their line of thought in the [Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories|Priority dispute article]. Of course, Einstein's 1905 Elektrodynamik paper and Poincaré's second 1905 paper are quite different. Logunov thinks that Poincaré's is the BETTER article, for instance. This of course is an argument against the theory that Einstein plagiarized from Poincaré's large paper, but he may have had some information about the Comptes Rendues paper. Note that I base my claim that Einstein plagiarized Poincaré not on such speculations but upon the fact, which we know for sure, that he was familiar with Poincaré's position on simultaneity.De kludde 12:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no correspondance between Einstein and Poincaré, why should Poincaré have wanted to speak to a little crapper like Einstein down there at some Swiss Patent office, what for ? -- Also, compare the two 1905 papers, the structure and sujects are far too similar to have been coincidental, and Einstein even used phrases like these form a group which were mathematician's phrases that Einstein clearly lifted out of Poincare's paper. -- Licorne 13:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Without a correspondence, I don't see how Einstein was able to plagiarize one (or both) of Poincaré's 1905 papers. By dowsing? From some conspirator on the editorial board of the journals, xeroxing Poincaré's papers and sending them to Einstein? I agree that Einstein plagiarized Poincaré's rejection of absolute space and time, and may have plagiarized the clock setting procedure and $E=mc^{2}.$ But without any specification of the channel through which Einstein is supposed to have obtained the knowledge of Poincaré's 1905 papers, I don't see how one can claim that he plagiarized them.

Concerning the group theoretic language: One has to be careful, because what Einstein wrote is not what Poincaré wrote. Einstein considers Lorentz transforms belonging to movement in one direction, which form a one-parameter group:

... man sieht daraus, daß solche Paralleltransformationen, wie es sein muß, eine Gruppe bilden.

Highlighting is by myself. See the last dozen lines of Part I of Einstein's paper. Note that Einstein carfully avoids the wrong claim that all the Lorentz transformations in dimension 4 form a group. Now, this is what Poincaré writes in his 1905 Comptes Rendues paper:

L'ensemble de toutes ces transformations, joint à l'ensemble de toutes les rotations de l'espace, doit formener un groupe...

More precisely, if $K$ is the (compact) group of rotations and $P$ the set of Lorentz transforms for the given choice of space and time variables, then $G=KP=PK$ is a group (the Poincaré group), and the decomposition $G=KP=PK$ is a Cartan decomposition of that group. Note that the Cartan decomposition was not known in 1905, but Poincaré, being one of the greatest mathematicians ever, was probably familiar with examples of it. Einstein wasn't, and apparently had no idea of the symmetry group involved, at least not in 1905. This is one of the reasons why Logunov thinks that Poincaré's 1905 papers are SUPERIOR to the Einstein Elektrodynamik paper, and I tend to agree.144.92.82.21 14:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lightning can't keep striking repeatedly in the same place, it is plagiarism. Everyone was reading Poincare, including Einstein and his wife. -- Licorne 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said above: I agree that Einstein's use of the ideas about space and time from [Poi02] without naming Poincaré is plagiarism. Moreover, it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that Einstein was familiar with the things Poincaré published until 1904. But the 1905 papers of Einstein and Poincaré were submitted at about the same time. Unless you explain how Einstein learned about Poincaré's paper, there is no reason to believe he plagiarized it.De kludde 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist that the 1905 papers of Poincaré and Einstein are similar? Poincaré's is SUPERIOR in many ways.De kludde 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Compare side by side the two 1905 papers, one by Poincare one by Einstein, they are the SAME POINT FOR POINT and in the same order, No coincidence at all. Principle of Relativity - speed of light - transformations - velocity transformations addition rule - invariance of Maxell -- POINT FOR POINT. -- And Einstein's wife had no trouble quickly procuring Poincare's papers, if Poincare would even spit, Einstein would lick it off the floor. Licorne 00:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you might compare the two papers, side by side, point for point, for us. Please publish the comparison soemwhere on the net where we can get to it. I am intruged to know how a 5 page paper (Poincare 1905) will line up with a 30 page paper. On the face of it, it seems there will be large gaps on the Poincare side (about 25 pages of gaps), but it would be a useful exercsie which I encourage you to do. 130.102.2.60 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that you say Einstein plagiarized Poincare but never say that he plagiarised Lorentz or Larmor? Am I missing something? E4mmacro 02:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why copy Lorentz ? -- It is Poincare's 1905 that he copied, right down the line, you know that. Licorne 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why copy Lorentz? Well, according to one of your favorite sources the theory of relativity belongs to "Poincare AND Lorentz" (Whittaker 1953). It seems to follow (if Whittaker is right) that if Einstein stole the theory of relativity from anyone it must have been Poincare AND Lorentz (I am not saying that Einstein did do so). Is this some sort of French pride thing: because Poincare is French and Lorentz is not? BTW, in case you think it is relevant, I love France. E4mmacro 07:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is that Poincaré was willing to give up absolute time, while Lorentz was not, at least if Whittaker is correct. Also, Poincaré apparently was the first one to actually use the condition of Lorentz invariance as an important design criterion for a physical theory (his 1905 theory of gravitation).De kludde 12:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't ask about Larmor, but I will answer anyway. According to your standards of proof (published second with no footnotes=plagiarism) Poincare and Lorentz plagiarised Larmor. Larmor published the Lorentz transformations in 1897; we have evidence in Poincare's books and Lorentz's papers that each knows of Larmor (each mentions Larmor). Neither Lorentz or Poincare credited Larmor with the Lorentz transformations. So it seems to me that, by your logic, this should be more than enough proof that Poincare and Lorentz (the originators of relativity, according to Whittaker) plagiarised Larmor (though I am not saying that). E4mmacro 07:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I read a paper about Larmor a couple of weeks ago and think it says that Lamor's article only contained the Lorentz transformations in an implicit form. You had to carry out some substitutions to arrive at the explicit version. This may explain why the importance of this paper went unnoticed (eg, by Whittaker, who claims that Larmor only had the correct second order transformations). In Einstein's case we KNOW that Einstein was informed about Poincaré's position on absolute space and time, and nevertheless did not quote Poincaré. Moreover, it is at least not unreasonable to assume that Einstein was familiar with the Lorentz transformation from the review the Beiblätter of Physikalische Annalen, as Einstein was a frequent contributor of reviews for this journal in 1905 (Logunov's argument).De kludde 12:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Beiblatter" is is a new spurce to me de Kludde. Can you tell me more about it? E4mmacro 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Beiblätter seem to have been the review section of the Annalen der Physik. Einstein's reviews are reprinted in his collected works. See my comments on the credibility of the Einstein worked in isolation defense below.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WAIT A MINUTE, I thought Einstein was in complete isolation at the time he discovered relativity? - HA HA. -- All these old excuses for Einstein are garbage aren't they ! -- Licorne 14:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these insinuations that Einstein worked in isolation like Ramanujan did in Chennai are total bullsh--. And even if they were true, he should not claim familiarity with the state of the art of the subject he was writing on, claiming to have found "die Wurzel der Schwierigkeiten, mit denen die Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper gegenwärtig zu kämpfen hat" - "the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies currently encounters".83.245.15.87 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan did you see that ? -- Whittaker said your Larmor did not have anything after all. -- HA HA -- What's your response Macrossan ? --Licorne 14:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I said above in "Whittaker's credibility" that it might be worth pointing out all the mistakes Whittaker made, if people take him too seriously. Whittaker was wrong on Larmor and hadn't noticed that Larmor's form of the Lorentz Transformation is exactly Lorentz's form, the same equations that Poincare called "the Lorentz transformation". Larmor called his transformation "the second order version", and maybe Larmor himself never realised what he had. Whitakker's credibility would be greater if he had noticed two sets of equations (Larmor's and Lorentz's) were the same (except Lorentz had a term l = 1, scattered throughout). Please don't now quote Ives again saying Lorentz was wrong and Poincare corrected him (and also Larmor). We have been thru it many times - Poincare was correct to say the equations he (Poincare) wrote (the coordinate transformations) are the same equations as Lorentz's transformations (the same once you realized that Lorentz and Poincare used a different notation, a different meaning for the term x in each equation, and it is only this different notation which makes them appear different - this is the "substituion" de KLudde refers to above, which de Kludde's unnamed source appears to misinterpret). Read "A note of relativity before Einstein". Please don't quote again the statement in Poincare 1905 "a little different from Lorentz" where he was refering to the convection current and the forces on a moving charge, not the coordinate transformations. E4mmacro 20:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Licorne does not have to quote Ives, as Lorentz says the same thing (Acta Math. 38(1921), p. 295): En effet, pour certaines des grandeurs physiques je n'ai pas indiqué la transformation qui convient le mieux. Cele a été fait par Poincaré et encore par M. Einstein et Minkowski. I think this refers to the tranformation rule for j, the 4-current, as you mention above.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the Larmor paper(s). If I remember correctly, you had to introduce a scale factor for x and t into a first stage version of the transformation to obtain the correct form. It was easy to see, and Larmor must have noted this when the Lorentz paper appeared. But did he give the correct transformation for the quantities entering the Maxwell equations?De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just list all mistakes of Whittaker? At the moment, Whittaker does not have a section in the "Attackers and defenders" part of the priority dispute article. I think you are overblowing your case by making a big credibility issue out of the fact that Whittaker failed to notice something in Larmor's paper which, as you admit, has escaped the attention the other contemporary authors and perhaps even of Larmor himself. I will perhaps say more about this credibility issue below.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

de Kludde, my case against Whittaker's credibility was stated in a previous section above (see the contents at the top of the paper) and it had nothing to do with Larmor. Larmor was just a side issuse for Licorne to show that his simplistic "arguments" "prove" not only that A.E. plagarised Poincare (who got it from Lorentz), but that Lorentz (by Licorne "logic") must have plagiarised Larmor. The issue of the Lorentz coordinate transformation has been covered mant times in these pages and the Poinacre talk pages. If you want the exact form of what Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare wrote for the coordinate transformation, in one short paper (so you can check the simple alegbra to see why they are the same coordinate transformations) then I recommend a journal paper A Note of Relativity before Einstein. I would like to know the reference you referred to above which talked of Larmor. Thanks E4mmacro 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker was right to be unimpressed by Larmor, and who is some civil engineer to criticize Whittaker ! -- Licorne 00:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

By civil engineer you mean me? It's a long time since I did any civil engineering but I have come to expect partial quotes from you. I am just someone who can read sources. E4mmacro 00:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't the proper background credentials nor IQ to grasp what you read. Licorne 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But what I don't think you have answered is why you think Whittaker should be unimpressed with Larmor but impressed with Lorentz? Are the Lorentz transformations insignificant? Maybe, but Whittaker doesn't appear to think so. The LT are one of the reasons Whittaker credits Poincare AND Lorentz with the relativity theory. Is the prediction that dynamic electromagnetic processes run slower in a moving system (a prediction published in 1897) insignificant? Maybe, but I confess it sounds significant to me. I find Whittaker's assessment of Larmor strange enough (given his views on Lorentz) to make me wonder if Whittaker actually read Larmor in any detail. E4mmacro 00:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare COMPLETED the Theory, that's why Whittaker names Poincare first. Licorne 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jean Hladik is on the French Wikipedia: [9]. Unfortunately I can't read French, but someone else can translate Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprié la relativité restreinte de Poincaré (Mai 2004), ISBN 2729819541, and tell us whether that's published by a reputable publisher. --Alvestrand 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a fool Alvestrand, Jean Hladik is a very well known French scientist. Licorne 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Licorne - what I'm trying to say is that I can't check this, and someone else might. If you give us verifiable facts, we can (and should) verify them. You apparently have Bjerknes' book right by your hand. Why don't you open it up and type in the author, title and ISBN number of the six books by "French Professors, Scientists and Mathematicians" you told us about above? And no, they're NOT currently on the Poincaré talk page - I found your Jan 19 references in the archived page: [10]. Still no ISBN numbers. --Alvestrand 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bjernes' site http://www.xtxinc.com He there has the exact information on those books in France, click on Bjerknes' first book, then scroll to sources, you'll see Jules Leveugle, Hladik, etc. Licorne 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that in the end, you always come back to Bjerknes -- a self-published amateur historian, well-known to be a complete crank. Says a lot about your ability to use secondary literature. --Fastfission 04:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Bjerknes has all the sources together conveniently, is why I cite him. Licorne 05:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Who else directs these criticisms, aside from Bjerknes? El_C 14:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, if an obscure patent examiner could steal the work of people of sterling reputations like Poincare and Hilbert without them raising an enormous stink, and somehow bamboozle all the great physicists he worked or corresponded with for decades, he would have to be the greatest plagiarist of all time, not just the 20th century. Tell me, from whom did he steal the famous EPR paradox, the solutions of the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion? Did he also claim to have written the plays of Shakespeare? Clarityfiend 08:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare died in 1912. Hilbert did in 1924 call the Theory of Gravity (so called GR) MEINE THEORIE. What more could Hilbert do ? When the mass media swarmed all over Einstein, how do you fight that ? -- Also the EPR paradox, like God playing with dice, shows that Einstein never understood or believed Quantum Mechanics, really nothing to brag about. And Einstein copied Smoluchowski's solution for Brownian motion line for line. The dumb ass photoelectric effect is something you can show in high school level physics, but I'll bet he even got that from someone, given his track record. -- If Einstein could have plagiarized Shakespeare he no doubt would have tried that too. -- Licorne 14:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What more could Hilbert do? How about publishing a refutation in any of the physics or math journals? As the foremost mathematician of his time, it wouldn't have been difficult. It's also strange that none of the readers of Hilbert's article noticed the "theft". Plagiarism of this magnitude is absurd - in the small, closely-knit community of physicists, it's just too difficult to hide. Plagiarism in general can only succeed when you steal from somebody who is obscure, not someone as famous as Hilbert.

The rest of your allegations show that you can't be the physicist I believe you claim to be. Sure, the photoelectric effect is taught in high school now. So are Newton's laws. By your "reasoning", Newton is just as overrated. Maybe he stole HIS ideas from some other Frenchman! And if the effect was so obvious, how come other physicists didn't come up with the explanation first? As for the EPR paradox, it took a lot of hard thinking before the flaws were uncovered. If Einstein didn't have a deep understanding of QM, it should have been trivial to demolish. I don't know about Smoluchowski, but I guess you're implying the Nobel award committee was made up of gullible fools for giving Einstein the prize instead of this other fellow. Clarityfiend 08:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Einstein and plagiarism, we have Solvay's testimony that Poincaré's reflections on absolute time in La science et l'hypothèse had been discussed in the circle around Einstein and Habicht. This means that Einstein would have been obliged to quote Poincaré in the first two sections of his 1905 Elektrodynamik paper. The same holds for the clock setting procedure, assuming that Einstein knew Poincaré's 1900 paper or the 1904 St. Louis paper. We know that he knew [Poi1900] in 1906. E4mmacro, you make a big issue out of the fact that Einstein worked in isolation. But Bern had a university at that time, and Einstein was almost certainly able to use its library. As Logunov points out (page 142), Einstein wrote reviews for the Beiblätter of Annalen der Physik, the review section of that Journal. Einstein contributed 21 reviews in 1905. According to Logunov, Issue 4/1905 (of 24) contains a review of Lorentz' 1904 paper, and this review contains the Lorentz transformation.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, de Kludde, I said "mainstream opinion" says he worked in isolation. I am always happy to hear of any proof that he didn't. But I am dead against accepting Licorne's imaganation as proof. What is the 1906 reference where Einstein knows of Poincare 1900? E4mmacro 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you care to track down anotehr lead, I recall somewhere, someone who attended Minkowski's lectures round about 1905 or before saying they studied papers by Lorentz and Larmor (and he may have said Poincare). He went on to say that it wasn't till he read Einstein 1905 that it all becamse clear. I can't remember who said this or where, so it is not much of a lead for you. But Einstein did attended lectures by Minkowski didn't he? E4mmacro 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And can't someone check Logunov's statement about issue 4/1905.

For all these reasons, it is not unreasonable to assume the Einstein was familiar with most of the papers of Poincaré and Lorentz on the subject published in 1904 or earlier. Of course, the only case in which we have a clear-cut proof (provided by Solvay's recollections) is Einstein's familiarity with Science and Hypothesis. In principle, Einstein may have overlooked the review of the Lorentz 1904 article, or he may have found his clock-setting procedure independently. But should we really believe this, given the similarity between Einstein's and Poincaré's procedure and the fact that we have a clear-cut proof that Einstein knowingly failed to quote similar work of Poincaré? By "not unreasonable" I mean that a PhD student doing a similar thing would probably be in serious trouble. Most plagiarism guidelines seem to make it easy to convict, according to the Wikipedia article on Plagiarism:De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also accidental plagiarism. One case involved a boy whose mother had repeatedly read to him a story as a very small child. Later in life he was writing a story for an assignment, and a story 'came to him', but the story turned out to be exactly that which his mother had read to him as a small child, though he had no recollection of her reading it to him.

However, due to their fear of litigation, many editors refuse to recognize any difference between either simultaneous or accidental inspiration and true plagiarism. In many academic settings intent does not even enter into consideration. Princeton dismisses intent as "irrelevant", and Doug Johnson says that intent is "not necessary for a work to be considered plagiaristic, and as one respondent put it, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' (Of course, this is a fallacy, as plagiarism is not even legally recognised as an offence.) Some universities will even revoke a degree retroactively if an alumnus' plagiarism comes to light within a year after graduation.

Note that in Einstein's case we have Solvay's recollections which exclude the cryptomnesia excuse and prove conscious malpractice, while students could easily get into serious trouble for less. If Einstein had been unaware of Poincaré's other articles, he should at least have given him due credit later on. Compare his behaviour, for instance, to Lorentz' willingness to give Woldemar Voigt credit for the Lorentz transformation despite the fact that Voigt's transformation differs from the correct one by a scale factor.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Add to this the Einstein-Hilbert isssue. Regardless of the precise content of Hilbert's November 16 letter, Einstein should have mentioned this letter somewhere in his publications, either to point out the differences between the letter and the final field equations or to acknowledge Hilbert's influence upon his own work. Should we really exonerate someone of plagiarism against so many odds?

Bjerknes is absolutely correct. http://www.xtxinc.com Licorne 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Robetking academy"?

From the article:

...at the insistence of his mother, was given violin lessons at the musical arts academy, Die Robetking Schule (english translation "The Kingdome of Robet academy").

As English, the "e" at the end of the "Kingdome" looks offensive to me. But the whole translation looks dubious - and a Google search for "Robetking" turns up only one occurence apart from the Wikipedia article. Could someone check with a reliable source whether the name is spelled correctly, and whether an "official English translation" exists? A true nit, but nits are important... --Alvestrand 08:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that does look suspicious. Google books hasn't heard of it at all, and they have a number of Einstein biographies on there. None of the ones I have checked have named where he took his lessons. I honestly don't think it is an important fact about him, in any event, as to where he took the lessons. I would probably go with dropping it no matter what the case, but especially if not verifiable. --Fastfission 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why doesn't "Die Robetking Schule" translate as "The Robetking School" or "Acdamey" - a naive question? 203.101.227.3 05:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, it probably should be translated as that. But even with that, there's no evidence that that was the correct name, that I can find. "Robetking" gets no Google hits outside of the Wikipedia article, gets no Google Books hits, gets no Google Scholar hits. Not a good sign. ;-) --Fastfission 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    Furthermore, "Robetking" or even "Robert King" do not sound German at all. Lupo 20:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein Image

The main image is clearly inverted, as it was modified with Photoshop. Look at his hair. Can someone please find a better image with copyright information? --24.253.120.206 13:18, 25 February 2006

Put the clown picture with his tongue sticking out. -- Licorne 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The photograph is fine. It would of course be inverted as it would have been taken with a negative-film camera, which creates a 'negative' of the image. This is then inverted in order to create the 'positive'. The image looks perfectly usable. The one which you are trying to replace it with is not a good image as it has an incorrect copyright tag (it is not a screenshot and therefore cannot be used under fair use), it is bad quality - low scan quality and this one is a 'free' image so it should be chosen above fair use images anyway (as per the guidelines). -Localzuk ^(talk) 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If the image should be flipped, we can do that without too much difficulty. I think the current version is inferior in quality but I'm not going to bother trying to fix it until you've finished all of your editing. --Fastfission 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

"Born in Germany to Jewish parents, he temporarily renounced his German citizenship and took Swiss citizenship in 1901. He remained a Swiss citizen for the rest of his life, but regained German citizenship from 1914-1933 and in 1940 added American citizenship."

I find the information on his nationality distracting for the introduction. The information on his Jewish heritage and Swiss citizenship in addition to his American and German ties are already mentioned in a section entitled Nationality: German, Swiss or American?

--24.253.120.206 20:33 25, February 2006

The problem is that summing up Einstein's nationality/ethnicity takes a lot more than doing it in one or two adjectives. By putting that small explanation down a little lower, it keeps people from endlessly changing it, which is a constant nuisance otherwise. --Fastfission 04:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But then the quality of the article is sacrificed to appease concerns on a trivial matter. --24.253.120.206 20:49 25, February 2006

It's not a trivial matter to many people, some of whom don't like that he is identified as German when he clearly didn't want to be German, and things of that nature. Einstein himself seemed to find the whole nationality question irrelevant: "If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will say I am a man of the world. If it's proven wrong, France will say I am a German and Germany will say I am a Jew." But anyway, since there is no way to create a brief, one-or-two adjective version of this, I don't think it is too incorrect to have two short sentences about it early on. I don't think it harms the quality that much. --Fastfission 14:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is Harald, to Rewrite the Intro

Harald said the Intro must be rewritten, in light of the Blatant Contradictions section above. -- Where is Harald ? ? Licorne 00:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On the credibility issue/Whittaker and mc²

E4mmacro, I would like to address some of your complaints against Whittaker. I quote from his passage about $E=mc^{2}$, omitting most of the footnotes: As we have seen, J. J. Thomson in 1881 arrived at the result that a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line behaves as if it had an additional mass of amount (4/3c²) times the energy of its electrostatic field. At this point, Whittaker adds a footnote to Fermi, Lincei Rend. xxxi₁ (1922) pp. 184, 306 for a paper of Fermi pinpointing the mistake in Thomson's deduction, arriving at the correct value of c^-2) times the energy. In 1900 Poincaré, referring to the fact that in free aether the electromagnetic momentum is (1/c²) times the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density equal to (1/c²) times the energy density : that is to say, E=mc² where E is energy and m is mass : and he remarked that if this were so, then a Hertz oscillator, which sends out electromagnetic energy preponderantly in one direction, should recoil as a gun does when it is fired. Whittaker now quotes a 1904 paper of F. Hasenöhrl (1874-1915) considering a hollow box with perfectly reflecting walls filled with radiation, and arriving at an excess mass of (8/3c²) times the energy, which Hasenöhrl corrected to (4/3c²) times the energy in 1905, to which Whittaker adds to comment quoted by Licorne: ... that is, he [Hasenöhrl] agreed with J. J. Thomson's E=(3/4)mc² rather than with Poincaré's E=mc². He then quotes Einstein's famous paper that when a body is losing energy in the form of radiation its mass is diminished approximately (i.e. neglecting quantities of fourth order) by (1/c²) times the amount of energy lost.De kludde 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I could have quoted this in more detail but don't want to risk a copyright violation. In your above criticism of Whittaker, you claim that Whittaker's sentences are ambiguous enough to make the casual reader think that Poincare had suggested that "mass of a body is a direct measure of its energy content, according to the equation E = mc^2", something Poincare never suggested. This assertion is difficult to defend, in my opinion. Whittaker's comment : that is to say, E=mc² where E is energy and m is mass : (at least as I would read it) simply means that formally integrating Poincaré's proposal for the energy density gives =mc². And Whittaker added this remark not in the intention to mislead his readers but to point out the difference between Thomson's and Poincaré's result, which have a different $\lambda$ in $E=\lambda mc^{2}$. Whittaker is calling it Poincaré's E=mc² in the comment on Hasenöhrl for a similar reason, to point out that Poincaré has $\lambda =1,$ and the reader of Whittaker is not likely to be misled, as Whittaker had given a correct description of Poincaré's statement previously. Of course, it is possible to quote this Poincaré's E=mc² out of context, but Whittaker is certainly not responsible for this. It is, however, correct to claim Whittaker considered Einstein's paper as a mere step in a development of ideas going from Thomson via Poincaré, Einstein and Planck to Lewis. And this is an opinion which I share, since Einstein's result is what one would guess when reading Poincaré's 1900 paper and accepting Lorentz' theory, which Poincaré did by 1905. Whittaker's is diminished approximately in connection with Einstein's work may merit further comment, but I don't have the time for this now and the remark is certainly not germane to the question of whether or not Whittaker tried to obfuscate the difference between Einstein's and Poincaré's version of $E=mc^{2}$.De kludde 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The bit of Whittaker that I think shows his sloppiness and unreliability and lack of credibility is where he says that Lewis

"affirmed that the mass of a body is a direct measure of its total energy, according to the equation E = mc^2. As we have seen, Poincare had suggested this equation ...".

While it is technically true that Poincare had suggeested this equation, it is wrong to imply, as I think Whittaker's sentence does, that Poincare had suggested the mass of a body is a direct measure of its energy content. This is something Poincare (1900) did not do. Also the later claim that Einstein's result was a "particular case" (I think Einstein's case was rather general) with no mention that Poincare's case is very particular (restricted to momentum of radiation) again shows Whittaker has odd views. One could almost think Whittaker deliberately wrote this way to take some credit from Einstein and give it to Poincare. But let's just say Whittaker is unreliable, makes mistakes. E4mmacro 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you compare this to the Wikipedia article on E=mc², it is difficult to see who has a bigger credibility problem: Whittaker, who has given an essentially correct description of how the theory developed (even if you may disagree with his assessment of the relative importance of Einstein's article)? Or the large Wikipedia article, which gives you the impression that $E=mc^{2}$was a totally new result in 1905, whereas in fact at least four authors (Thomson, Poincaré, Hasenöhrl, de Pretto) had published articles with closely related results, save for the different $\lambda$, by 1905? I could also add a comparison with certain assertions of Stachel and friends, but again I don't have the time for this now.De kludde 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein in 1905 was simply trying to rederive Poincare's E=mc2. -- To De Kludde, Ives' paper said Planck questioned the reasoning in Einstein's derivation. Ives said Einstein's derivation was a tautology, which is something far worse than just a simple approximation. Could you expound on why it was a tautology please, thank you. Licorne 14:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot expound on the Ives issue because I am not familiar with Ives' paper. But in any case I don't think that one can dismiss Ives' view as outlandish, comparable to flat earth. For instance, as Logunov, p. 121 points out that Max Jammer ("The concept of mass in classical and modern physics") accepted Ives' criticism. And of course, Logunov himself also accepts it.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it is true that Max Planck considered the reasoning in Einstein's 1905 E=mc² paper to be only approximately valid. In footnote 1 §17 of "Zur Dynamik bewegter Systeme", p. 204 vol. II of his collected works, he points out that Einstein's reasoning is valid "unter der nur in erster Näherung zulässigen Voraussetzung, daß die gesamte Energie eines bewegten Körpers sich additiv zusammensetzt aus seiner kinetischen Energie und aus seiner Energie für ein in ihm ruhendes Bezugssystem" - "under the assumption, which is valid only in first approximation, that the total energy of a moving body is the sum of its kinetic energy and its energy in an inertial system at rest in the body". I think this is absolutely correct. As far as I understand it, the problem here is that, in the classical approximation and for a body composed of many particles with masses m_i, one can identify the difference of $\sum {\frac {m_{i}}{2}}v_{i}^{2}$ and $\sum {\frac {m_{i}}{2}}v_{i}^{(o)2}$ (where the superscript (o) denotes speeds in the inertial system where the body rests) with ${\frac {m}{2}}v^{2}$, formed using the body's mass and speed. For the classical situation, using ${\frac {m}{2}}v^{2}$ and the classical addition of speeds, this is easily seen to be valid, but for relativistic speeds the situation is more complicated. The fact that Einstein lets v tend to zero does not help because the quotient $v_{i}^{(o)}/c$ may still fail to be $\ll 1$. Therefore, Planck's assertion that there is a problem of relativistic thermodynamics which has to be addressed is imho correct. Actually, the result at which Planck arrives, and to which the footnote I quoted refers, is his equation (48)

$M=\left({\frac {G}{q}}\right)_{o}={\frac {R_{o}}{c^{2}}}={\frac {E_{o}+pV_{o}}{c^{2}}}$

where G (called Bewegungsgröße by Planck) is momentum, q is speed, the subscript o denotes values taken at speed zero, and R ("Gibbssche Wärmefunktion bei konstantem Druck") is enthalpy.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's 1905 article was, as far as I know, the first to suggest that E=mc2 applied for ALL mass, not just mass being exchanged by means of radiation. See [Ein05d]. --Alvestrand 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And all for all energy, not just radiation. i.e. heat has mass. (And I hope Alvestrand or anyoner is not thinking Poincare 1900 talked of mass being exchanged between two bodies by radiation?). E4mmacro 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

De kludde: Whittaker's view is not considered the mainstream approach; he is considered eccentric by most historians, and the vast majority of historians of physics and Einstein do not put any truck on the priority issue. See our policy on WP:NPOV, which clearly discusses the importance of giving the consensus view priority. Now I think it would be fine to put a line on the E=mc^2 article about this and note that it is not considered true by most historians, which is, as you will see, exactly what is there, at least in relation to de Pretto. --Fastfission 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare should be there, not de Pretto. Also, Whittaker is considered the greatest British historian of science of the 20th century. Whittaker called it like it is, he had integrity unlike Fastfission. Licorne 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, I was writing this in response to e4mmacro's earlier criticism of Whittaker. Apparently e4mmacro thought that simply stating that Whittaker "is considered eccentric by most historians" may not suffice, given Whittaker's undoubtedly excellent reputation as a mathematician. I never said that my attempt to address e4mmacro's criticism should occupy a prominent space in the Einstein article. In fact, I never tried to push large changes to the Einstein article on this Wiki. But note that the NPOV states that "Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating." For me, this means that the fact that a dispute exists should not be denied, and the positions should be stated. I think this means that the dispute page should be linked to a place in the Einstein article where people looking for details (other than date of birth/death,...) will find it.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out NPOV specifically states that "Facts ... are not Points Of View". That the papers of Thomson (1881) and Poincaré (1900) quoted by Whittaker exist probably is a fact ("a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."), unless someone wants to claim that Whittaker misquoted them. And that they are part of the history of E=mc² may also be quite non-controversial. I don't know whether e4mmacro (or you) want to disagree here. In this case, it would be a fact that the history of E=mc² started in 1881 and that the article I was quoting, which in its current form has the history of this equation starting in 1905, has to be rewritten.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be most interesting to study Ives's paper, I only have excerpts, I wonder if it is on the internet complete ? ? -- In the excerpts Ives points out that Einstein built in E=mc2 then derived it back out, in other words he derived nothing at all, a tautology. --Einstein just essentially stated what he wanted to prove, namely, Poincare's E=mc2.--Licorne 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add a reference to the Whittaker they're talking about to the Einstein article and the "disputes" article? "Whittaker (1953)" isn't a complete citation by any metric. The E. T. Whittaker page does not list any 1953 book in his publication list. --Alvestrand 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They had the wrong date on Whittaker's page, I put it right, 1953, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Licorne 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The bibliographical data, as given by Bjerknes, are Edmund T. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, 1954. Note that it was reprinted in the 1970s (something unusual for the "eccentric" work of a dead man), and it is this version which I have seen in the library.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference from the Library of Congress LC Control Number: 85240132 Whittaker, E. T. (Edmund Taylor), 1873-1956. A history of the theories of aether and electricity from the age of Descartes to the close of the nineteenth century [microform] / by E.T. Whittaker. London ; New York : Longmans, Green ; Dublin : Hodges, Figgis, 1910. xiii, 475 p. ; 23 cm. I note it came out in 1910, so maybe his understanding of what Einstein had so recently done was not complete. I notice the title explicitly says "to the close of the nineteenth century" which would exclude Einstein, 1905. GangofOne 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It was 1953. -- Licorne 03:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the 1953 edition a reprint of the 1910 edition, or has it been modified/expanded? I don't see a note about "second edition" in any refs that mention 1953. GangofOne 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this 1910 stuff ? 1953 is the only date I've seen. You may be looking at a typo error somewhere ? Unless he began it as a young man and finally finished it at the end of his life. The 1953 is the important one. Licorne 03:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

http://catalog.loc.gov/ GangofOne 03:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I see he did do one in 1910, but the 1953 update is the one we all use and quote from. Licorne 03:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ives's paper

There is a copy of Ives's paper in a Book called "The Einstein Myth and the Ives papers" (a complete collection of Ives relativity papers. Licorne said somewhere this book is in every University Library, if that is any help. There is something odd about Ives's criticism. Ives claims that Eisntein assumption that the energy = rest energy + kinetic energy (the assumption Planck questioend and de Kludde discusses above) "builds in the relation E = mc^2". If this were so one would think that Einstein would then derive E = mc^2 exactly. However Einstein does not derive it exactly, he has to approximate the term $\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}-1$ as $\approx {\frac {1}{2}}v^{2}/c^{2}$, so I am not entirely satisfied with Ives's criticism (why doesn't the results "fall out" exactly if it were "built in". On anotehr point, I don't think anyone has claimed that Planck's rederivation was not correct and in fact better than Eisntein's. But Planck never claimed to have priority in suggesting the mass-energy equivalence. E4mmacro 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

References

This is an encyclopedia article, not a wikibook. I am concerned that it is

1. getting too long
2. being hijacked by highly POV dispute regarding alleged "controversy" about who introduced relativity (which is regarded by mainstream as having long since settled with the various significant contributions sorted out).

As a tiny first step toward restoring the once glorious state of this article (a former featured article), I have removed the Whittaker reference as being irrelevant to a biography of Einstein. The user who added that reference might want to consider moving it to Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories, where it is relevant as an example of a well-known contemporary attack of relativity theory (and arguably of Einstein himself). ---CH 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP ! -- I shall put it back. Licorne 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive the priority "dispute" discussion?

The whole priority "dispute" [sic] is very long, ugly and contentious. I strongly urge everyone to take that entire dispute to Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. I'd like to propose a highly unusual step: let's move the priority "dispute" sections above to Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories/Archive0 and add a link to that at the top of this talk page. Comments?---CH 02:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no priority dispute. Only in the minds of disappointed Einstein fans.

The published record is crystal clear, Poincare discovered Special Relativity, which is the only theory of relativity, because so called GR is just a theory of gravity, that was discovered by Hilbert. -- And Einstein could not even derive E=mc2, even when Poincare had first given the correct formula.

It is time for Harald to correct the Intro. --Licorne 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just Do It, Hillman. --Alvestrand 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

11 Feb 2006 – 27 Feb 2006

Relevance of special relativity before 1905?

Thanks for the long section e4mm - I have a bit of trouble seeing their relevance, but that may be my lack of background - what it tells me is that the Lorenz observations and various mathematical methods for explaining them, including the concept of "local time", was extensively discussed before 1905 - and that the term "relative" is used a lot in the discussion. Is that what you're saying? If so, the timeline might (also?) be useful on History of special relativity, which is far less structured at this point. --Alvestrand 10:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess I was trying to just list the facts about what was published before 1905, assuming it was relevant, and might make people think. Because there is a view, unavoidable if you read only Einstein 1905, that the the theory popped out of nowhere, flabergasting everybody with its originality and brilliance. I think, in fact, it was entirely uncontroversial, the whole idea having been "in the aether" :) for at least 10 years. If I wanted to say more about what the history shows, it would be that one might "charge" Einstein with ignorance of the previous literature, or a laziness in not looking more into Lorentz's latest publications and not putting his paper into perspective w.r.t. to those publications. More important, it seems to me, is that most of the accusations of plagarism of SR center on Poincare's very short paper of 1905, published in french about 20 days before Einstein submitted. (That is, there is a pov which trys to give Poincare something that he never claimed for himself). I think that it is really stretching to say Einstein somehow got a copy of Poincare 1905 and derived everything from that in 20 days. If one wanted to charge Einstein with improper behaviour, it would be much more plausible to say he worked from exactly the same sources as Poincare did, i.e. all of Lorentz's previous publications, but unlike Poincare, did not explicitly give credit to Lorentz. I don't say this, since it is conjecture. On a unrelated matter I think the history of SR shows why Journals gradually introduced proper review procedures (and when did this happen?). It is hard to imagine that nowadays Einstein wouldn't be told by a referee about Lorentz, and told to explain why the new paper was different, to put it in perspective, at least to give explicit references. (But then I think I have a rep. as a demanding referee in my own field.)

(found this on rescanning the talk page - don't know how long I missed it for...) indeed, I think "priority" disputes are contributing to underplaying the contribution of interaction between the people concerned a *lot*. I was a little surprised, after all the talk about Einstein "failing to give credit", to read one of his papers and finding that it had *no* references section or credits section whatsoever - so if he had given credit in the paper, that would have been a *big* departure from his norm - not giving credit was the *standard* procedure for him, it seems. Perhaps on the principle of "none mentioned, none slighted", but more likely (I'm hypothesizing) because he thought the work of adding references was not worth the bother... --Alvestrand 09:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The field equations of general relativity

It is my understanding that the field equations that Hilbert published in 1915 were embedded in an attempt by Hilbert to formulate a unified theory of electromagnetism and gravitation. Since the two are not unified to this day, it can be concluded that Hilbert's endeavour was unfruitful.

It is known that the 1915 field equations occur in Einstein's notes as early as 1913. However, in 1913 Einstein level of understanding wasn't sufficient yet to recognize those as the ones he was looking for, or he discarded them on incorrect grounds.

To be the discoverer of a theory, it is not enough to have jotted down the main equations, or even to have published the main equations. To be recognized as 'the discoverer', a physicist must have a certain command of what purpose the equations are going to serve.

By 1915 Einsteins experience in dealing with the mathematics of the GR field equations enabled him to obtain good approximations. Einstein calculated to within a very narrom margin of accuracy the precession of the orbit of Mercury according to the GR field equations, and found that the answer precisely accounted for the known anomaly in the precession of Mercury, turning the theory from sheer exploration to applied physics.

So I'm not surprised that Einstein is seen as the originator of general relativity. I'm not surprised that Hilbert never claimed priority in the general relativity matter. I think Hilberts reaction is consistent with Hilbert's endeavour turning out to be unfruitful. --Cleonis | Talk 22:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: It is known that the 1915 field equations occur in Einstein's notes as early as 1913. This is not really true. I have addressed this issue in the talk page to the Einstein article, from which part of the following is taken. Their claim that Einstein found his way back to the correct field equations he had given up in 1913 is misleading. The 1996 Renn-Stachel paper only claims this to be true on the level of the linearized field equations ("auf der Ebene der linearisierten Feldgleichungen"). A more recent Janssen/Renn preprint does not really modify this assertion, although they state more in the title and in the introduction. The only chapter in it which deals with the notebook in detail is chapter 2 on p. 14, and as far as I can see they cannot pinpoint a line in the notebook where Einstein has the correct field equations.De kludde 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Understanding the notebook is not easy, but it is easy (assuming a modicum of familiarity with the math being used) to form an educated guess about such claims, using Einstein's November 11 paper. On p. 800 he writes:

Dieser Tensor $G_{im}$ ist der einzige Tensor, der für die Aufstellung allgemein kovarianter Gravitionsgleichungen zur Verfügung steht.

Setzen wir nun fest, daß die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation lauten sollen

$G_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

so haben wir damit allgemein kovariante Feldgleichungen gewonnen.

I am now translating into English, using the modern $R_{im}$ instead of $G_{im}$ (in case you try to read the origninal paper, be warned that Einstein denotes something else by $R_{im}$):

This Tensor $R_{im}$ is the only one which can be used to formulate covariant equations of gravity.

If we postulate that the field equations of gravity should be

$R_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

then we have obtained generally covariant field equations.

Now, Hilbert's field equations are

$R_{\mu \nu }-{\frac {R}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

where are $R=\sum _{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu }$ is the scalar derived from $R_{\mu \nu }$. If Einstein was familiar with forming this kind of field equations, then why didn't he propose

$R_{\mu \nu }-\lambda Rg_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

or

$R_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu }+\lambda Tg_{\mu \nu }$

(where the scalar T is obtained the same way as R), and then present his case for $\lambda =0$ (resulting in Einstein's wrong field equations of November 11)? Jannsen/Renn discuss this November 11 paper on pp. 48-50 without answering (or even posing) this very natural question.De kludde 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This way of making exaggerated and misleading claims seems to be typical of the Renn/Stachel crowd. They make a bombastic claim about the correct field equations being found and abandoned in 1912/13, and when you look closer it only applies to the linearized form or something else close to but not identical with the correct field equations. Maybe Einstein could have arrived at the correct form easily, but the simple truth appears to be that he didn't. Another example for their way of making misleading claims is the claim, made in their paper with Corry, that Hilbert was allegedly motivated by Einstein's November 25 paper to introduce the trace term (this notion refferring to terms like $Tg_{\mu \nu }$ or $Rg_{\mu \nu }$) into his equations. The simple fact is that they have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Hilbert ever wrote down field equations of gravity which have to be corrected by introducing such terms. The extant part of Hilbert's printer proofs no longer contains the field equations in explicit form, but only the correct principle of least action. Most likely this is so because part of the proofs has been cut off, a fact which CRS failed to tell their readers. But even if the missing part of the proofs did not contain the field equations in explicit form, this simply means that Hilbert did not bother to derive this form (which is somewhat unlikely since he wanted to discuss things with Einstein and since he gave a lecture about his work on November 16, of which Einstein btw obtained notes from a third person). There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Hilbert ever miscalculated the derivative of his action functional.De kludde 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re To be the discoverer of a theory You seem to be trying to represent this as a case where a mathematician proves a theorem of mathematical physics or a conjecture made by a physicist. Like Dyson/Lenard proving a semiboundedness assertion for the hamiltonian of matter or Kontsevich proving a conjecture of Witten. But in Hilbert's case, the result is simply quintessential to have a working theory of gravity along the lines of the Einsein/Grossmann Entwurf. Moreover, Hilbert's plan seems to have been that the problems which bothered Einstein (conservation of energy) is solved automatically if the equations produced from a covariant Lagrangian, in view of what is nowadays called Noether's theorem. This means that Hilbert really took the physical principles which have been a major design criterion to Einstein (and which let him to abandon $R_{kl}=\kappa T_{kl}$ in 1913) serious and addressed them in a way which nowadays would be standard, but was not not trivial at this time. Note that Noether's paper lists the Hilbert field equations paper as one of its motivations. De kludde 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the Mercury paper: I think this is based upon a faulty reasoning, as Einstein claims that his condition g=1 from the November 4 paper is essential whereas in fact it is not. It then tries to correct things in footnote which probably was added at the last minute, after Hilbert's letter had arrived. I think I should perhaps discuss this in more detail later on.De kludde 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the priority: He did claim priority for the field equations. This has, as far as I can see, never really been refuted. And if this was of minor importance, then why does the Wikipedia article on General Relativity give 1915 (publication of the field equation papers) and not 1913 (Einstein/Grossmann Entwurf) as its date of publication?De kludde 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

De Kludde, the claim that Hilbert claimed priority may never have been refuted (outside of Wikipedia, where it has been refuted multiple times) because it was never made. See his 1924 text at Talk:Albert Einstein/Hilbert1924. That text is very much non-explicit about what he claims as his own, but is very explicit in refering to the theory of general relativity as Einstein's. --Alvestrand 09:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincaré's Method of Clock Synchronization

" * Poincaré had described a synchronization procedure for clocks at rest relative to each other in [Poi00] and again in [Poi04a-c]. It is very similar to the one proposed by Einstein ([Sta89, p. 893, footnote 10]). "

Does the method consist of placing a light source equidistant between two stationary clocks? If so, doesn't this imply that Poincare (and Einstein as well if he used this method) denied the ether? Istm that the method assumes that light moves at the same speed in either direction regardless of whether the frame is at rest in the ether. I don't see how one could synchronize clocks using this method if the ether existed as a transmission medium for light. This relates to the issue of whether Einstein denied the ether in his June 1905 paper. Most commentators claim he simply made the hypothesis, as he stated, "superfluous". But I think not. Iiuc, I think his clock synching method is tantamount to a denial of the ether. Comments appreciated. green 64.136.26.226 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it is not a denial of the ether, but it is a radical step. The second postulate is as follows: When light is emitted from a single source, it will propagate away in all directions with velocity c, both with respect to an observer A and with respect to an observer B, who have a velocity relative to each other. That postulate can only be viable if velocity with respect to the ether does not enter the theory. Over the years, theoreticists had been adjusting the properties of the assumed ether, to make it "behave" in ways that match the observations. In the end only a single property remained that ether had in common with matter: it was assumed that there is such a thing as velocity with respect to the ether. In his 1920 Leiden lecture presented his views on the issue. One might say that the concept of an ether is the concept that space is endowed with physical properties. Relativistic physics confirms that space is endowed with physical properties, and that these physical properties play a huge part in the physics taking place. The radical move is that velocity with respect to the structure of space and time does not enter the theory of special relativity. --Cleonis | Talk 09:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• A good book dedicated specifically to Einstein and Poincaré's dealings with clocks -- and the differences between their approaches -- is Peter Galison's, Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's Maps. --Fastfission 18:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincaré's considerations of synchronisation procedures

About the synchronisation procedure that was examined by Poincaré: to my knowledge, Poincaré's discussion is in the context of the theories of Lorentz. Poincaré describes for example synchronisation of clocks that are hundreds of kilometers apart. (It is known at that time that the transmission is not instantaneaous, but the time is too short to be measurable with the instruments available around 1900)

From Poincaré's discussion I infer that without the Lorentz theories he expects the following: if sufficiently accurate measurement is possible, then a difference in the two-way transit time would be measurable in signals exchanged from, say, Paris to Berlin. Measurements 6 hour apart would be compared (in 6 hours the line paris-berlin rotates over 90 degrees of angle, as the Earth rotates.)

But Poincaré is aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Lorentz theory to account for that. Fundamentally, the Michelson-Morley experiment is a time-dissemination procedure, using light. If the transit time of the light is direction dependent then a shift of interference fringes should be detected, depending on direction of motion of the experimental setup. (Instead of having a 6 hour interval between measurements that are to be compared, Michelson and Morley had a setup that could swivel; a huge circular slab of stone floating on mercury.)

Poincaré recognized the significance of the Lorentz theory for synchronisation procedures. If the Lorentz theory for accounting for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is good, then a synchronisation procedure between clocks in Paris and Berlin will be similarly affected.

That, is my understanding, was the perception of Poincaré. --Cleonis | Talk 10:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it could you could succinctly state Poincare's clock synchronization method. It's still not clear exactly was it is. Same for Einstein's method and how it differs from Poincare's, if at all. I will then be in a better position to understand your other remarks. Thanks. green 65.88.65.217 15:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Let there be two cities A and B, at such a distance apart that a signal transmitted by wireless telegraph takes 10 units of time to complete a two-way transit. Let the master clock be in city A. City B sends a signal, on reception city A immediately sends a return signal. Encoded in A's signal is the exact moment in A's time keeping that the return signal is sent. The operators in city B then subtract half of the two-way transit time, and use that for the official time-keeping.

Poincaré points out that the operators have no way of knowing whether both legs of the transit took the same amount of time.

I've tried to illustrate something like that in the following two images (I've used three clocks that are to be synchronized instead of two but that does not affect the logic) Clocksync01 and clocksync02 --Cleonis | Talk 16:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I really must scan Einstein's 1905 paper to ascertain his clock synchronization method, but can I assume that neither Poincare nor Einstein synchronized two stationary clocks by using a light source equidistant? I cannot recall where I got this idea from. It might be nonsense. green 65.88.65.217 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. The synchronisation procedure is just a tool to illustrate some things. The synchronisation procudure does not matter for the content of the theory, the content of the theory being the two postulates of the 1905 paper. --Cleonis | Talk 13:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anatoly Alexeevich Logunov

"According to Bjerknes, a former Vice President of the Russian [Soviet] Academy of Sciences and currently Director of the Institute for High Energy Physics. Author of a book about Poincarés relativity theory. Coauthor, with Mestvirishvili and Petrov, of an article refuting the Corry/Renn/Stachel paper. They discuss both Einstein's and Hilbert's papers, claiming that Einstein and Hilbert arrived at the correct field equations independently."

This needs to be rewritten. It reads as if Bjerknes, author of "Einstein -- The Incorrigible Plagiarist", is a former Vice President, etc., etc., and the first sentence has no verb. green 64.136.26.226 05:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Special Relativity by 1905

This section has an excellent quote from "The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection", but who's the author? The book(?) isn't in Amazon's catalogue. green 65.88.65.217 04:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Valid encyclopdia title?

Is a "dispute" a valid encyclopdia article? Does anyone know such a title in another encyclopdia? Harald88 07:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia at least has a lot of articles with "dispute" in the title, but the first ones that "search" came up with seem to be references to border conflicts that didn't quite make it as "wars". I'd be surprised if this article was unique. --Alvestrand 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that all such articles will be deleted in the end: I've never seen such in a serious encyclopedia.

Maybe the article can be merged in part with SRT ("history of SRT) and GRT, or linked from those as "development" of SRT and GRT. The guidelines encourage to write neutrally about the facts when there is a dispute about a subject, not to make "dispute" itself the subject. Harald88 21:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a separate article is worthwhile -- most of the people involved in this "dispute" are self-published or very minor characters and should not be a dominant thread in the main articles at all (in simple analogical form, Priority dispute over Einstein : History of SRT :: Apollo moon landing hoax : Apollo moon landing). My suggestion for the article title is to add the word "priority" before "disputes", which makes it clear what the issue is. --Fastfission 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

All such opinions can be deleted, they have little importance: just the facts will do -- and the facts belong in the respective articles, not in a "dispute" article. Harald88 06:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia - almost anything can be deleted, but few things are... it seems to me that the history of Einstein-bashing (outside of Wikipedia) is indeed worthy of an article. And I regard it as a subject mostly touching on psychology and history, not as a subject touching much on physics.... --Alvestrand 07:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding the word "priority" makes sense to me too - although it makes the title long. I think the page is by now a good resource for people who look for information to evaluate more-or-less wild-eyed claims about "what happened first". And wikipedia doesn't seem a place where much is deleted..... --Alvestrand 20:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Article by Sauer on the Hilbert proofs

There's an additional article on the subject of the Hilbert proofs recently published by Tilman Sauer in Archive for History of Exact Sciences ("What is missing on page 8 of the proofs for Hilbert's First Communication on the Foundations of Physics?"). If anybody wants a copy, send me an e-mail (fastfission@gmail.com). My brief skimming of it indicates that Sauer attempts to figure out what is missing in a very systematic way, and concludes that it is highly unlikely that they contain the Einstein equations. --Fastfission 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Any attempt to reconstruct this missing piece involves some sort of speculation. In this case, I do not see why Sauer should have a stronger case than Wuensch, who takes text from Hilbert's lectures about the subject. In addition, CRS should have informed their readers that their argument involved a speculation about the content of the missing quarter page, which means that they cannot really decide the priority issue, contrary to what they claim in the title.De kludde 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying Sauer is "correct", but was merely adding it to the pile of things, and offering to send a copy to anyone who wants one. Sauer is an established figure in the history of relativity, so his POV is relevant here, and I was pointing it out simply because it seems to have been overlooked. I think the NPOV approach to the question of "what was in the missing part of the proofs?" is that nobody really knows and there are a number of solutions that experts in the subject think are plausible. --Fastfission 01:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Did Einstein make a claim to SRT?

If that can't be backed up by a direct, unambiguous quote from himself, the title is unsupportable for Wikipedia (even apart of the foregoing subject). Harald88 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the SRT name was coined by Einstein in connection with the search for a more general relativity theory (one that would include gravitation). I'm not sure at what point the name "relativity" was attached to it - others will certainly know better. --Alvestrand 20:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember that: he labeled relativity theory "SRT" in 1916 (it's online), because he relabeled the PoR then "Special Principle of Relativity"; he there did not claim that he was the first or only author of SRT (just as whoever labeled Newton's theory "classical mechanics" wasn't its author!). Harald88 06:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Being bold - page moved and linked

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

I have now renamed this article per the discussion, and linked it into the Einstein, Hilbert, History of SR and History of GR articles. I can't link it into Poincaré - that page is still protected. I think the page can still be improved - but I think it carries useful information, so it's now worth linking. --Alvestrand 09:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bullet points

Too many! Really, subsections would be better. Charles Matthews 16:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Which section(s)? There seems to be a lot of small facts that people think important here - one could reformat some of them in paragraphs rather than bullet points, but I think it's hard to subhead very many of them - the article already has a lot of sections. --Alvestrand 21:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can talk about that. But on a related point, taking out the Einstein-Hilbert action link on the David Hilbert article, as you have done, was surely premature. This article is pretty new; also it speaks almost entirely to Einstein's reputation, and not to Hilbert's. Charles Matthews 22:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go back - the article deserves mention on the Hilbert page - but it was featured as a "main article" link in a section whose title was specifically about the priority dispute, not what the mathematics was about. I put the link back into the section as a "see here for the mathematics" - feel free to move it about! --Alvestrand 22:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to that section. Its title two days ago was 'Hilbert, Einstein and field equations', which I changed to reflect its actual content. This wasn't of course meant to put the focus entirely on the priority issue. Some more work needed there. Charles Matthews 08:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert "Meiner theorie" sentence

I've changed the Hilbert quote a bit. Old version was: "Einstein kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradewegs zu meiner Theorie zurück" - after looking around in the Web, the best I could get for a real quote was "Einstein kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradewegs zu den Gleichungen meiner Theorie zurück" - not quite the same thing. I added the citation data to references, but this was from Licorne, and I haven't matched it to an online version yet, so it needs checking. --Alvestrand 07:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Note - the mangled quote on this page was added by De Kludde, not by Licorne. The text, in both German and English, can be found on Talk:Albert Einstein/Hilbert1924. --Alvestrand 08:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now added a whole section on the claim that Hilbert claimed priority - Licorne's flagged it enough that it's a Good Thing to have it in plain sight. There's some missing data here... I don't have a reference (or an online copy) for the 1916 version of Hilbert's article, and I don't have a reference for the claim that some people claimed that the 1916 sentence showed that Hilbert was claiming priority. I also discovered that the Talk:Albert Einstein/Hilbert1924 page seems a little incomplete in translation - there's a subsentence "..obwohl wiederholt von abweichenden und unter sich verschiedenen Ansätzen ausgehend.." about Einstein that I can't match to the translated text. Help? --Alvestrand 08:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Link for finding out what journals' names are

Just so that I can find it again - if someone wonders what "Brit J Phil Sci" means, there's a page that explains it all, at least for some of them: [11]. But it didn't have the full name of "Rep. Bog. Phys." - help? --Alvestrand 10:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think that one is a typo (or an artifact of poor OCR) -- Reports on the Progress of Physics seems to be the full journal title. --Fastfission 17:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

White Nationalist Wiki account

I removed the "White Nationalist Wiki" account of the dispute. I don't find it useful and I think it's probably one of the worst sources one could imagine using -- this is a webpage whose About statement says that it is to create a "wiki free from the strong Jewish bias dominating the classical Wikipedia." That's not the language of a reliable source, in my opinion.

Also, it might be worth pointing out that the page on the WN Wiki was written by a user with the name of De kludde. Coincidence? Seems pretty unlikely. He's also the one who wrote the "About" statement. Sigh.

I know the user who posted it was probably not implying it was a good source, but I just felt it was worthwhile to explain my reasons for removing it. I don't think Holocaust deniers are really a great source for answering complicated historical question involving the prominence of a Jewish physicist. The user who posted it may have in fact included it as a way of showing what the White Nationalist account was -- even in that role I don't think it is very good, since 1. it was written entirely by one user (one who has been editing on this page as well), and 2. it is not a published source on it (if one wants to get the White Nationalist take on Einstein, there is plenty written on the Deutsche Physik movement as it is). Just my two cents! --Fastfission 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm the one who added it. Not in order to make people believe it - but in order to point out that some people hold a completely different view of the world. NPOV. Of course, my personal hope would be for people to look at that wiki and recoil in horror..... but you're probably right in the argument for removing it. --Alvestrand 22:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops -- you were talking about the text I copied, not about the link in the references. The reason for the text was different - I wanted to get the author names and page numbers, so that we could distribute them around the article, but didn't do the distribution work myself. Laziness - but it's almost midnight here. --Alvestrand 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue. A well-known (and, sadly, often-validated) principle says that anything on the WWW is doomed as soon as Nazi's (White Nationalists probably count) are mentioned. OTH, to properly understand the full context of some contemporary and modern ad hominem attacks on Einstein, one needs to see the ugly language used by this type of writer. So there is strong case to made for and against including these links. Barf. ---CH 05:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then it's alright if I add the Ku Klux Klan's version of black history to the pages on Martin Luther King and so forth. NPOV. We must repesent all sides equally. Nonsense. This is epistemological relativism or radical skepticism. What if I decided to put up a site dedicted to the idea that Eienstin never existed?? Shall I add the view of the flat eart h society to all the astronomy pages??--Lacatosias 09:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that a link to the Ku Klux Klan's version of black history would be appropriate under Historical revisionism (negationism) - but definitely not on Martin Luther King! The existence of revisionism is a fact, and Wikipedia is about documenting facts - but I'll certainly try to document the existence with due reference to the sources that have made me not believe it! --Alvestrand 09:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Of course it should be documented. But I often hear the interpretaion of NPOV as the idea that all views need to be accorded equal merit. For example, The choice of sources might, in itself, provoke someone to suggest that the people who write these alleged facts are 3 jews, four portuese and 1 Italian. Therefore, we need to belance this spurce with one that has 3 Nigerians, 4 Greman, etc.. And we end up with endless nonsense. --Lacatosias 10:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we're in violent agreement. --Alvestrand 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea that Einstein has done only part of the things for which he is famous (eg, that Poincare and Lorentz did much or most of SRT, and Hilbert did the field equations of GRT) has better supporters (Logunov, Winterberg, Whittaker) than flat earth or related nonsense.De kludde 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But then it is these particualr authors and their credentials (I'm not suuficently specialized in theis area to judge them) which should be included and discussed in the artcile, not the White Nationalist Wikipeaid or someone who is writing exclusivelt for the White Naionalist wikipedia and obvioiusly intending to denigrate the contributuions of a Jew. --Lacatosias 10:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've now integrated the (verifiable) references I wanted to have from the WNWiki page into the text. No more need for the quote; we can go on discussing the link. --Alvestrand 09:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have linked the CRS article on the WN Wiki (which has GNU FDL), as it contains the references you are using and because it is certainly relevant to the discussion.De kludde 10:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, do you want to know the truth? The addition of the (now two) links to the White Nationalist Wikipedia will almost certainly have on the general reader the effect it is beginning to have on me: I can no longer take seriosuly the substantive and responsible criticims and scholarly discussions of these "disputes" because the first thing that pops immediately into my mind is "they must be racist and anti-Semitic, hateful, revenge-seeking white supremacists." Sorry, I can't help it, but that is the unintended effect that your insistence on including such nonsense in the article is having on my view of the whole thing. You are discrediting the work of Hilbert, Poincaré, Lorentz and all of the serious scholars involved in this debate, sir. Perhaps this is what you really intended all along??--Lacatosias 11:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact (which you mention above) that you are not qualified in this area of course explains why it is of such importance to you that the article I was linking is from a White Nationalist website. This is perfectly understandable. For instance, I am not familiar with THC biochemistry but tend to disregard most claims that THC is harmless or may even be beneficial. I do this because I am familiar with the political views of those pushing for THC liberalization, and think they are up to no good. But I understand that this way of forming your opinion, while often being a good rule of the thumb, is prone to error. In the majority of cases we just have no other choice, because we have in-depth-familiarity only with a limited number of subjects. But for the Hilbert/Einstein debate I think I have at least some of the prerequisites to form an educated opinion about the issue.De kludde 13:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss his point. He's saying that instead of it being a problem of POV because the "White Nationalist" point of view is over-emphasized, it makes it POV the other direction because most sane people know that anything associated with Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and White Supremacists is probably a complete crock of lies. Now, you can say that you think that's wrong all along (as an active contributor to something which seeks to remove "Jewish influence" from Wikipedia, I can imagine your take on it), but that doesn't change the fact that most people are not very cool with anti-Semitism and White Supremacy (it is a descriptive, not a prescriptive statement). --Fastfission 21:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lacotosias, no-one is proposing to systematically add links to that wiki from all physics articles, and I think we would all (except maybe de Kludde) strongly oppose anything like that. I was just saying that it does seem relevant to me to describe in an article dealing with certain attacks on Einstein the frankly antisemitic motivation of at least some of those who have made such attacks in public. IOW, while I certainly don't want to see references to church bombings in every article on churches in the WP, some articles do have a legitmate need to address head-on some very ugly topics. Since those articles tend to raise passions which I prefer not to have to deal with, I do agree that we should keep reference to hate speech in the physics article space to an absolute minimum. But it just does not seem possible to avoid this particular citation in this particular article, especially since the presence of here of User:De kludde this discussion as an author (?) of Einstein-related articles on the WN wiki seem to imply that while we did not go looking for hate speech trouble, such trouble came looking for us. Does that make sense?---CH 02:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I wasn't suggesting that it should either be removed or not removed. As Fastfission clarified, it was more of a descriptive statment than a prescptive statement. If anything, there may have been an implicit suggestion to De Kludee that, if he really thinks he can successfully contaminate this artcile with such nonsense by citing it, he should probably think again. The content is not very subtle and his the strategy is bound to be counterproductive for him. I also suggested that it detracts from serious dicussion of this material and I think that should be obvious from what has happned on the talk pages. But not suggesting cleaning up all refrences to anti-semtimism or denial of the existence of anti-semiticism. If DK insists on introducign anti-semitic material as relevant, then it will probably be interpreted as relevent to the existence of anti-semtism in these "disputes". Unfortunately, this may detract from the work of non-antisemiic scholars who are intersted in the facts. --Lacatosias 09:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that last bit is a good thing to note. Nobody had made any insinuations about alterior motives about editors here until they were stated explicitly! If you come here citing your great work at an explicitly anti-Semitic website, don't be surprised if someone suggests you might be an anti-Semite. --Fastfission 03:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

27 Feb 2006 – 3 Mar 2006

Mach

I haven't read through this whole article yet... too busy. But I would like to point out one thing I noticed right away: the article seems to attribute the idea that absolute space and time do not exist to Poincare. Ernst Mach suggested as much in 1883 and this was generally well-known. Einstein was heavily influenced by Hume and the positivism of Mach, as he himself admitted. Of course, Mach did not in any way "prove" or seven set out to prove the idea. Neither did Poincaré. --Lacatosias 14:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a reference to where Mach said that, that would be most appreciated! --Alvestrand 09:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's in Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung Historisch-kritic dargestelt (1883). In the Italian translation "La Mechanica nel suo svillupo storico-critico" (The historical-critical developement of Mechanics), the clearest statement is in Chapter 2.6, p. 241-242:

A motion can be uniform only in relation to another. The problem of whether a motion is uniform in itself is meanningless. In the same way one cannot speak of "absolute time" (independent from every change). In fact this absolute time cannot be compared with any motion, and therefore has no practical or scientific value. No one can claim to know anything with respect to it. It is therefore a useless "metaphysical" concept. (his emphasis).

He then goes on to explain that it can be proved by psychology, etc.... that man owes his temporal representation to the mutual dependence of things...we arrive at our representation of time through the existing relation between the content of of our memory and the content of our actual perceptions.

He defends his phenomenalism and then criticizes Netwon's thought experiments to demonstrate the existence of absolute motion. "All" of the masses, "all" of the speeds, therefore all of the forces are relative. There is no difference between absolute and relative, which we can grasp with our senses....No one is able to say anything about absolute space and absolute motion, which are pure ideal entities unknowable by experiment.

--Lacatosias 13:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And it was to this work of Mach that Einstein refers in the introduction to the 1915 (1916?) "Foundations of genral theory of relativity". He says something like "an epsitemoligcal objection to Newtonian mechanics noted by Mach" but doesn't give the exact reference. E4mmacro 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A possibly related issue is that Poincare never gives me the impression that he thinks his own statements about the principle of relative motion are much more that what everybody knows. Einstein (1905) may have had a similar idea when he stated the "Principle of Relativity" - everybody knows it, there is no need to reference it. E4mmacro 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that one needs to keep in mind in all of this discussion something that I've only recently come to understand: the standards for (explicit) references and citations were not the same 100 years ago as they are im modern science. It's very easy to sit here and, in hindsight, condemn the practices of Einstein or Poincaré or whomever for not citing the influence of a certain work. As someone put it nicely (I don't reemeber where I read this now but it was one of the references I think): we should be impressed by the relative politeness and tact with which Hilbert, Einstein and the others attempted to settle these diputes when compared to Newton versus Liebnitz (which ended up provoking something close to a war at that time!!). Back then the rule was something like: write a better version than the other and get more powerful friends on your side and you are the inventor of the idea. Yet there is no systematic attempt to diminish the accomplishments of either Newton or Leibniz. Why Einstein? Well, I'm sorry but I can only think of one, horrifying, reason really.--Lacatosias 09:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first part. Someone was going on somewhere about the standards now applied at Universities to PhD students. I think that Journal refereeing probably didn't exist in 1905 either (a modern referee would ask for references to Lorentz etc, and explanations of why it was different, which would have saved us lots of trouble). On the other hand, Planck in 1907, redriving E = mc^2 or enthalpy = mc^2, did have many references, according to de Kludde (I do not have the original). E4mmacro 19:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can quote different standards here. Look at the Poincare or Planck papers, or even at Maxwell's paper publishing the field equations. They have lots of references, although they sometimes only name the person, without identifying the article. As far as I can judge this based upon the old articles I have seen, not naming the authors of ideas you are using was not usually accepted even then. --De kludde 09:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume the only reason you can think of is anti-semitism? Poincare appears not to be anti-Einstein (writes him a good job reference) but nevertheless never acknowledges his relativity work. A review of Whittaker's book makes a good case that Whittaker is not anti-Einstein (praises Einstein in many ways), but that Whittaker is just anti-"the interpretation given to relativity by Einstein" (Whittaker wants to show an aether theory is just as good). i.e there is a possibility that people just do not like the theory (or even the word relativity for its various connotations) but it doesn't follow that they are anti-semetic, does it? Einstein was fairly anti-"Copenhagen interpretation" but that doesn't make him an anti-Danite. Some (or many) anti-relativists are anti-semetic. A is a anti-relativist. Therefore A is .... E4mmacro 19:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If we were only talking about the theory of special relavity OR only talking about the theory of general realtivity OR only talking about the field equations for general relativity OR only talking about E=mc2 OR only talking about something else that Einstein has been accused of plagiarizing, then I would agree with you. But it's rather obvious, to me anyway, that there are a number of participants in these discussions and many of the sources tthat tey cite, who are disputing Einstein's claim to have invented ALL of these things. This is morally dubious and completely unjustifiable behavior (why isn't there such a movement to discredit all of the work of Newton or Liebniz)) which brings into play the question of their motives. As a friend of mind has recently put it bluntly, there are an enormous number of cranks on the Wikepedia who can't get an airing for their far-out ideas anywhere else. I'm beginning to suspect they are the majority, in fact.--Lacatosias 09:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream approach

I thought it might be useful if I outlined briefly what the mainstream histories of science generally make of this priority dispute. I am not referencing any specific sources, nor am I attempting to be definitive, but to give a general overview of the impressions that I, as someone who has read a not-insubstantial amount of academic literature about Einstein. It may be useful as well to people coming to these question for the first time from the RFC/RFA. My impressions might be off, but perhaps they can serve as a general framework for further discussion.

• Einstein and Poincaré and Relativity: Poincaré has been neglected in much of the popular Einstein literature but he has been discussed in detail in the academic literature. The most definitive and recent book on Einstein and Poincaré's work to come out (Galison's Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's Maps) discusses in detail the overlaps and differences between the two. Everybody knows that Poincaré's work on simultaneity was almost undoubtedly an inspiration for Einstein, however pains are taken to emphasize that Einstein and Poincaré had entirely different interpretations of what the ultimate consequences were. Nobody to my knowledge frames it as a straight priority dispute; they were both working on similar problems and came up with some similar concepts and formulations, but Poincaré had an entirely different program than Einstein and never embraced the latter's SR at all. The literature uses their work as a way to contrast between "classical" and Relativistic physics, and also to show how practical considerations of time-synchronization were present in both of their individual lives (Poincaré in his government work, Einstein in his work at the patent agency). The only major contingent that frames it as a priority dispute as of recent seems to be some nationalist groups in France, but they are not taken seriously at all by historians of physics. This should probably not be mentioned much in the main Einstein article (Poincaré should be noted as an important figure in physics at the time), but probably should be discussed a bit in the Poincaré article.
• Einstein and Hilbert and GR: This is sometimes discussed as a priority dispute over the field equations, primarily because the scientists in question framed it that way for a time. However the dispute is usually regulated to specifically the priority of the field equations, not the priority of GR as a whole. The correspondence between the two is usually discussed as part competition, part collaboration. This should probably be mentioned briefly in the Einstein article, with a little bit more discussion in the Hilbert and GR articles.

Fastfission, it is sometimes difficult to determine what the mainstream approach says. In the case of the field equations, it might still be the opinion that Hilbert and Einstein worked independently, and that Hilbert obtained his result somewhat earlier. For instance, according to Winterberg this is the view presented by Stephen Hawking in the millennium issue of time magazine. For me, however the assertion that Hilbert and Einstein worked independently is untenable because of Einstein's November 18 letter to Hilbert and his November 25 letter to Zangger, and the motivation of Corry/Renn/Stachel for writing their famous (infamous?) paper was to defuse the suspicions of PLAGIARISM against Einstein which might be caused by this fact. See their article's text, where they discuss this, as opposed to the title, which only mentions the priority issue (which, in this form, indeed never existed). --De kludde 11:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Einstein and other's priorities to E=mc^2: I've never seen this discussed as a serious priority dispute in modern histories of physics. Should not be included on the Einstein page in any great degree.
• Einstein and Lorentz: A similar situation to that of Poincaré. Seeing this as a priority dispute misses the entire point about what Einstein was doing, and confuses the historical issues. Lorentz saw his contractions as a way to preserve the aether from the implications of Michelson-Morley; Einstein used them explicitly as a way to destroying the need for the aether. Not regarded as a priority dispute at all from what I read of it.

Again, I don't mean these to be definitive, but I wanted to try and provide a more balanced and sober look at these than our POV-pushing friends have been able to. I also fear that in response to the POV-pushers, editors might be inclined to expunge all reference to certain aspects of these issues (i.e., there should be some mention of Hilbert's part in the the field equations, even though it should not be the POV-pushing version of things) in response. Of course, I might have misread something, and I'm happy for people who know otherwise to provide other thoughts on this. This discussion, again, is in reference only to mainstream and fairly recent works of academic history of science. --Fastfission 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well summarized. All the works I've read on the topic (either translations into Italian of one or two English works or works written by "mainstream" Italian scholars in philosophy of physics) concord exactly with these views about the so-called "disputes". In fact, I never knew there were any disputes until reading the Hilbert page and then this page. All of these works emphasize that, to put it simply, Einstein's rejection of the ether was essential to the whole project. Lorentz's intepretation of Michelson-Morley was simply wrong. Einstein developed special relativity as an alternative: it's not the molecules and atoms inside the matter that contract or dilate, it is spacetime itself which deforms. This idea was rejected by almost everyone, including Mach. Lacatosias 08:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A little unfair to Lorentz perhaps. Lorentz (and Heaviside) had shown in the 1880s that a static system of electric charges held together in an equilibrium configuration by static electric froces, would contract to a new equilbrium position if the whole arrangment was set in motion wrt the aether - a physical prediction of Maxwell's equations. Lorentz then spent many years trying to prove it for dynamic systems (charges that were moving, orbiting electrons for example). Larmor (1897) and later Lorentz predicted that these "atomic" clocks would run slow, the new dynamic equilbrium configuration was one in which the orbital period was longer. But, yes it seems different from what Einstein is saying - they were making physical predictions from Maxwell's equations. E4mmacro 01:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it that Lorentz's view has the virtue of being (to some degree) physically comprehensible, whereas Einstein's invariant speed of light postulate is physically unintelligible? Zorba 194.44.154.6 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Lorentz's view depends on the existence of the ether (shall we go back to phlogiston and other non-existent entities as well). But, to be honest, what I find unintelligible is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, specifically the absurd but widely accepted notion of complementarity. Sounds like post-modernist rejection of the physical world to me. But that's neither here nor there.--Lacatosias 09:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the ether hypothesis inherently inferior to Einstein's postulate of SoL invariance? The former has the virtue of being physically based and gives length contraction an objective, absolute property that is amenable to human understanding. Otoh, Einstein's SoL postulate is inherently unintelligible and in his version of SR length contraction is an apparent phenomenon only. I don't think the comparison to phlogiston is fair because the modern view, that is, Einstein's SR, does not offer anything intelligible simply because the result can be deduced from two principles. I tend to agree that the complementarity is also unintelligible. I still haven't figured out what it really is. Zorba 194.44.154.17 12:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Put very simply and quickly: entia non sunt multiplicandum praeter necessitum (also known as Il razoio di Uncle Bill). Of course, speed of light invariance is a postulate and may someday be proved wrong. But it has held up pretty well so far. Ether is a mysterious and useless ontological abstraction. It violates all the principles of Quinian naturalism. Of course, if you disagree with even Quinian naturalism, I don't know what to tell you!! (; --Lacatosias 17:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have more time to formulate a full response now. In the first place, the SOL invariance postulate is a necessary logical consequence of the rejection of the absolutness of simultaneity. Without it, there is no special relativity theory and hecne no such phenonenon as the relativity of simultaneity. You are not rejecting the ROS, are you? The reason is simple algebra: In Newton's space-time, a ray of light emitted in A and reflected in B travels two different distances $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$ in the two different inertial systems K1 and K2, in relative motion with the velocity V: $d_{1}\neq d_{2}=d1-Vt$ Since the two observers, in the absolute Newtonian system, agree on the amount of time that has passed from a to b, they must be in disagreement on the speed of light in the two reference systems. If you divide the above formula by $t=t_{b}-t_{a}$ the result is $c_{1}\neq c_{2}=c_{1}-V$ with c1 and c1 being the SOL in K1 and K2 respectively. The principle of SOL invariance requires that c1 and c2 are equal in all inertial systems. Since there can't be agreement on the distance that the light has traveled, it's necessary to change the time that has passed as it is calculated by the different observers. This is the principle of realtivity of simultaneity.

You also asserted that the strange effects of contaction of space and time dilation were only apparent in Einstein's theory.This is a misinterpretation. Actually, since there is no privileged system of reference in special relativity, the question of how long the ruler is or how much time has passed on the clock presupposses an absolute system of reference in which to pass universal judgment. The length of the ruler or the time that has passed on the clock is dependent in the system of referecne of the observer. Inside that system of reference, the time that passes is real and not conventional. You have confused the relativity of simultaneity between systems with the conventionality of simultaneity within the same system. --Lacatosias 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You must be an enemy of the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, then. --De kludde 09:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. Postulates can be more or less intelligible from a physical pov. The Principle of Relativity is an example of an intelligible one (based on symmetry), whereas the invariant SoL postulate is an example of an UN-intelligible one. So the choice between Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity seem to boil down to which poison, or confusion, one finds it easier to live with. Why does the ether violate "all the principles of Quinian naturalism"? Maxwell and Lorentz regarded the ether as a reasonable hypothesis, and so did Einstein. See his Leiden lecture of 1920. Zorba 193.108.45.252 15:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It violates Quinian naturalism because it is not needed in our most successful and useful scientific hypotheses (the ones which the majority of scientists apparently prefer to actually use in their explanations and predictions of phenomena). If it is not needed, in the view of Quine, it simply is not. It may have been a reasonable hypothesis, but it is not an absolutely indispensable hypothesis. Therefore, it is an unnecessary violation of Ockham's razor to continue to invoke it. I understand your point about unintelligibility perfectly. There have been many unreasonable, or unintelligible postulates throughout the history of science: absolute space and time, for example, or atomism. Many of them have resulted in extraordinarily fruitful and fertile research and investigation of nature. I think we are getting a bit off topic here, though.--Lacatosias 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The pov you espouse is symptomatic of an unhealthy trend in modern physics -- it has given up trying to explain anything. If one has a set of postulates that fit the data, no matter how bizarre or anti-intuitive, one is content that the job is done. Btw, you need a spell checker. I assume your native tongue is not English. Zorba 193.108.45.233 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, one is content until a new research program, to use a Lakatosian term, has come along and successfuly displaced the previously predominant model of explanation and prediction. The ultimate goal is indeed to try to explain reality as closely as possible,however. For example, there is a fundamental incompatibility between GR and QM. Some scientists (call them the anti-realists) accept and tolerate this , suggesting that it doesn't really matter as long we achieve useful practical results. I don't agree with this. I am convinced that there will eventually be some sort of grand unified theory (string theory is the closest things we have now, but it is almost impossible to verify or falsify its predictions) that will replace both of these theoretical and mathematical approximations with more accurate but still inadequate theoretical and mathematical approximations. In the meantime, though, they seem to be the best we have.

As to spelling, my English is impeccable (I was born and raised in the US) but I don't know how to type and I don't like using spell-checkers when writing comments because it takes too much time. I am much more careful when I actually write or edit articles, on the the hand. --Lacatosias 08:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistently with the Ockham's razor argument, part of "mainstream" has now adopted some kind of physical, absolute Spacetime - which is incompatible with the argument with which the ether was removed. But indeed, most physicists don't even ask the question about physical reality... Harald88 23:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct Reference?

Olivier Darrigol (2004): "The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection". Isis: Vol.95, Iss. 4; pg. 614, 14 pgs

What does "Iss. 4" mean? green 82.207.4.17 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Issue 4, I think. --Alvestrand 21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

comment

Someone left this comment: I don't think the the White National wiki is noteworthy enough to be a reliable source (even of that particular POV)

Are you pulling my leg or what?? Almost everyone I talk to at over here in soutern Italy, at least, is constantly mentioning the WNW. Every time I open up a book or magazine (specialized, non-specialized, science, philopshy, mathemtics, everything), I canìt avoid running into references to the WNW!! This is big-time stuff, kids. It' almost up there with Carlo Bianco (google) and the neo-monarchic movement to abolish the Risrogimento.--Lacatosias 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lacatosias, I would like to point out that the WN Wiki article is GNU FDL, as the normal Wikipedia, and that some contributors (including some defending to conventional view) found it useful and have taken material from it. Fairness and honesty would require linking that article. The only argument against it might be that their math is sometimes (or often) broken, so that things don't display well. This could be fixed by copying the material to my user page, but these pages are not normally linked to an article. --De kludde 11:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no, actually I wasn't the one who pulled the reference nor did I even support pulling it in this case. I was just being ironic at the expense of the WNW. People who think they are superior by virtue of race (I don't know for certain if you belong in this class BTW), should be a little more thick-skinned, one would think.--Lacatosias 17:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Einstein and plagiarism

I am taking this and the follwoing section from the archive since these two sections of the talk page are ongoing discussions which I would like to continue, which contain reasonable work and which as far as I see are free from personal insults. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Einstein and plagiarism, we have Solvay's testimony that Poincaré's reflections on absolute time in La science et l'hypothèse had been discussed in the circle around Einstein and Habicht. This means that Einstein would have been obliged to quote Poincaré in the first two sections of his 1905 Elektrodynamik paper. The same holds for the clock setting procedure, assuming that Einstein knew Poincaré's 1900 paper or the 1904 St. Louis paper. We know that he knew [Poi1900] in 1906. E4mmacro, you make a big issue out of the fact that Einstein worked in isolation. But Bern had a university at that time, and Einstein was almost certainly able to use its library. As Logunov points out (page 142), Einstein wrote reviews for the Beiblätter of Annalen der Physik, the review section of that Journal. Einstein contributed 21 reviews in 1905. According to Logunov, Issue 4/1905 (of 24) contains a review of Lorentz' 1904 paper, and this review contains the Lorentz transformation.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, de Kludde, I said "mainstream opinion" says he worked in isolation. I am always happy to hear of any proof that he didn't. But I am dead against accepting Licorne's imaganation as proof. What is the 1906 reference where Einstein knows of Poincare 1900? E4mmacro 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is [Ein06] in the Relativity priority dispute article. --De kludde 11:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you care to track down anotehr lead, I recall somewhere, someone who attended Minkowski's lectures round about 1905 or before saying they studied papers by Lorentz and Larmor (and he may have said Poincare). He went on to say that it wasn't till he read Einstein 1905 that it all becamse clear. I can't remember who said this or where, so it is not much of a lead for you. But Einstein did attended lectures by Minkowski didn't he? E4mmacro 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Minkowski left Zurich for Göttingen in 1902, so anything Einstein has learned from Mikowki must date from 1902 or earlier. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And can't someone check Logunov's statement about issue 4/1905.

I will do so, but can devote only part of my time to this issue. The fact that Einstein published reviews in 1905 is, however, easy to check if one has the Princeton edition of his collected works. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For all these reasons, it is not unreasonable to assume the Einstein was familiar with most of the papers of Poincaré and Lorentz on the subject published in 1904 or earlier. Of course, the only case in which we have a clear-cut proof (provided by Solvay's recollections) is Einstein's familiarity with Science and Hypothesis. In principle, Einstein may have overlooked the review of the Lorentz 1904 article, or he may have found his clock-setting procedure independently. But should we really believe this, given the similarity between Einstein's and Poincaré's procedure and the fact that we have a clear-cut proof that Einstein knowingly failed to quote similar work of Poincaré? By "not unreasonable" I mean that a PhD student doing a similar thing would probably be in serious trouble. Most plagiarism guidelines seem to make it easy to convict, according to the Wikipedia article on Plagiarism:De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also accidental plagiarism. One case involved a boy whose mother had repeatedly read to him a story as a very small child. Later in life he was writing a story for an assignment, and a story 'came to him', but the story turned out to be exactly that which his mother had read to him as a small child, though he had no recollection of her reading it to him.

However, due to their fear of litigation, many editors refuse to recognize any difference between either simultaneous or accidental inspiration and true plagiarism. In many academic settings intent does not even enter into consideration. Princeton dismisses intent as "irrelevant", and Doug Johnson says that intent is "not necessary for a work to be considered plagiaristic, and as one respondent put it, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' (Of course, this is a fallacy, as plagiarism is not even legally recognised as an offence.) Some universities will even revoke a degree retroactively if an alumnus' plagiarism comes to light within a year after graduation.

Note that in Einstein's case we have Solvay's recollections which exclude the cryptomnesia excuse and prove conscious malpractice, while students could easily get into serious trouble for less. If Einstein had been unaware of Poincaré's other articles, he should at least have given him due credit later on. Compare his behaviour, for instance, to Lorentz' willingness to give Woldemar Voigt credit for the Lorentz transformation despite the fact that Voigt's transformation differs from the correct one by a scale factor.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Add to this the Einstein-Hilbert isssue. Regardless of the precise content of Hilbert's November 16 letter, Einstein should have mentioned this letter somewhere in his publications, either to point out the differences between the letter and the final field equations or to acknowledge Hilbert's influence upon his own work. Should we really exonerate someone of plagiarism against so many odds?

Bjerknes is absolutely correct. http://www.xtxinc.com Licorne 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't Hilbert give Einstein any credit for what he called "meiner theorie"? Didn't Einstein regularly report his progress on GR at seminars at Gottingen in 1915? Zorba 194.44.154.17 12:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert gave considerable credit to Einstein for the general relativity theory - "die gewalte Problemstellungen und Gedangenbildungen der allgemeine Relativitetstheorie von Einstein" appears in the same 1924 paper that Licorne loves to quote the "meiner theorie" from. Complete text at the reference. Also, when considering the "why didn't he give X credit".... read the Einstein papers - in the one I read, he references NOTHING, and says NOTHING about where the ideas came from. His total focus is on presenting the ideas. --Alvestrand 12:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I was implicitly referring above to Hilbert's original (1915?) paper that contained the field equations. Imo, Einstein had something to be irate about. They both acted foolishly since GR was a joint result, with the help of Grossman. Zorba 194.44.154.17 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I consider GR to be a joint result, but think the field equations are Hilbert's, this is what he means by "meine Theorie". Note that Einstein expressed his ire about Hilbert in a letter to Zangger, written on November 25, 1915. This was before Hilbert's paper appeared in print, and only makes sense if the things Hilbert had sent to him gave Einstein the impression that he had been anticipated by Hilbert. And when Hilbert published the 1924 reprint of his article, Einstein was on the editorial board of the "Matematische Annalen" which printed the paper in volume 84. If he considered Hilbert's formulation as inappropriate, he could have resigned under protest. He left the editorial board after volume 100, several years later, because of a conflict over Brouwer. --De kludde 08:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there an English translation of Hilbert's 1924 paper on the Internet? If so, it should be referenced in the article. What about the 1915 paper? Zorba 194.44.154.17 13:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On the credibility issue/Whittaker and mc²

E4mmacro, I would like to address some of your complaints against Whittaker. I quote from his passage about $E=mc^{2}$, omitting most of the footnotes: As we have seen, J. J. Thomson in 1881 arrived at the result that a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line behaves as if it had an additional mass of amount (4/3c²) times the energy of its electrostatic field. At this point, Whittaker adds a footnote to Fermi, Lincei Rend. xxxi₁ (1922) pp. 184, 306 for a paper of Fermi pinpointing the mistake in Thomson's deduction, arriving at the correct value of c^-2) times the energy. In 1900 Poincaré, referring to the fact that in free aether the electromagnetic momentum is (1/c²) times the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density equal to (1/c²) times the energy density : that is to say, E=mc² where E is energy and m is mass : and he remarked that if this were so, then a Hertz oscillator, which sends out electromagnetic energy preponderantly in one direction, should recoil as a gun does when it is fired. Whittaker now quotes a 1904 paper of F. Hasenöhrl (1874-1915) considering a hollow box with perfectly reflecting walls filled with radiation, and arriving at an excess mass of (8/3c²) times the energy, which Hasenöhrl corrected to (4/3c²) times the energy in 1905, to which Whittaker adds to comment quoted by Licorne: ... that is, he [Hasenöhrl] agreed with J. J. Thomson's E=(3/4)mc² rather than with Poincaré's E=mc². He then quotes Einstein's famous paper that when a body is losing energy in the form of radiation its mass is diminished approximately (i.e. neglecting quantities of fourth order) by (1/c²) times the amount of energy lost.De kludde 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have previously given some quotes from Poincare 1900. In my opinion Whittaker misrepresnts Poincare's intentions by saying "Poincare ... suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density equal to (1/c²) times the energy density". It is a fine point perhaps, but Poincare said that Maxwell-Lorentz Theory violated the principle of action and reaction becasue it predicted a recoil of the energy emitting device - i.e. Poincare is showing the problems that Maxwell's radiation prissure implies - one problem being that it suggests that something which "obviously" didn't have mass (undulations in the aether) behaved as though it had "fictitious mass". Poincare specifically rejected the notion that this mass was a real mass (the quote is linked above). Whittaker's sentence, in my view is unbalanced in its representation of Poincare's role in the development of E = mc^2. As I have said before, Poincare had no idea what he had here. You only need to read the last chapter of The Value of Science, 1904, to see this. He never mentions e=mc^2 which would solve all the problems he spoke about. If, as you say, Whittaker was correct to ignore Larmor because Larnor didn't know he had derived the Lorentz transformations, then Whittaker would be equally correct to ignore Poincare's e = mc^2. One explanation for Whittaker (apart from ignorance of Poinacre's books) is that he is just anti-Einstein, and this leads him astray occasionally. E4mmacro 05:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I could have quoted this in more detail but don't want to risk a copyright violation. In your above criticism of Whittaker, you claim that Whittaker's sentences are ambiguous enough to make the casual reader think that Poincare had suggested that "mass of a body is a direct measure of its energy content, according to the equation E = mc^2", something Poincare never suggested. This assertion is difficult to defend, in my opinion. Whittaker's comment : that is to say, E=mc² where E is energy and m is mass : (at least as I would read it) simply means that formally integrating Poincaré's proposal for the energy density gives =mc². And Whittaker added this remark not in the intention to mislead his readers but to point out the difference between Thomson's and Poincaré's result, which have a different $\lambda$ in $E=\lambda mc^{2}$. Whittaker is calling it Poincaré's E=mc² in the comment on Hasenöhrl for a similar reason, to point out that Poincaré has $\lambda =1,$ and the reader of Whittaker is not likely to be misled, as Whittaker had given a correct description of Poincaré's statement previously. Of course, it is possible to quote this Poincaré's E=mc² out of context, but Whittaker is certainly not responsible for this. It is, however, correct to claim Whittaker considered Einstein's paper as a mere step in a development of ideas going from Thomson via Poincaré, Einstein and Planck to Lewis. And this is an opinion which I share, since Einstein's result is what one would guess when reading Poincaré's 1900 paper and accepting Lorentz' theory, which Poincaré did by 1905. Whittaker's is diminished approximately in connection with Einstein's work may merit further comment, but I don't have the time for this now and the remark is certainly not germane to the question of whether or not Whittaker tried to obfuscate the difference between Einstein's and Poincaré's version of $E=mc^{2}$.De kludde 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The bit of Whittaker that I think shows his sloppiness and unreliability and lack of credibility is where he says that Lewis

"affirmed that the mass of a body is a direct measure of its total energy, according to the equation E = mc^2. As we have seen, Poincare had suggested this equation ...".

While it is technically true that Poincare had suggeested this equation, it is wrong to imply, as I think Whittaker's sentence does, that Poincare had suggested the mass of a body is a direct measure of its energy content. This is something Poincare (1900) did not do. Also the later claim that Einstein's result was a "particular case" (I think Einstein's case was rather general) with no mention that Poincare's case is very particular (restricted to momentum of radiation) again shows Whittaker has odd views. One could almost think Whittaker deliberately wrote this way to take some credit from Einstein and give it to Poincare. But let's just say Whittaker is unreliable, makes mistakes. E4mmacro 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Whittaker is misleading here if he is quoted out of context. I got my information from Whittaker before taking a look at some of the original papers, and I don't remember getting the impression that Poincaré had something different from the virtual fluid stuff. But I think Whittaker is correct to present Poincaré's paper as part of the line of development leading to E=mc². --De kludde 11:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you compare this to the Wikipedia article on E=mc², it is difficult to see who has a bigger credibility problem: Whittaker, who has given an essentially correct description of how the theory developed (even if you may disagree with his assessment of the relative importance of Einstein's article)? Or the large Wikipedia article, which gives you the impression that $E=mc^{2}$was a totally new result in 1905, whereas in fact at least four authors (Thomson, Poincaré, Hasenöhrl, de Pretto) had published articles with closely related results, save for the different $\lambda$, by 1905? I could also add a comparison with certain assertions of Stachel and friends, but again I don't have the time for this now.De kludde 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein in 1905 was simply trying to rederive Poincare's E=mc2. -- To De Kludde, Ives' paper said Planck questioned the reasoning in Einstein's derivation. Ives said Einstein's derivation was a tautology, which is something far worse than just a simple approximation. Could you expound on why it was a tautology please, thank you. Licorne 14:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot expound on the Ives issue because I am not familiar with Ives' paper. But in any case I don't think that one can dismiss Ives' view as outlandish, comparable to flat earth. For instance, as Logunov, p. 121 points out that Max Jammer ("The concept of mass in classical and modern physics") accepted Ives' criticism. And of course, Logunov himself also accepts it.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it is true that Max Planck considered the reasoning in Einstein's 1905 E=mc² paper to be only approximately valid. In footnote 1 §17 of "Zur Dynamik bewegter Systeme", p. 204 vol. II of his collected works, he points out that Einstein's reasoning is valid "unter der nur in erster Näherung zulässigen Voraussetzung, daß die gesamte Energie eines bewegten Körpers sich additiv zusammensetzt aus seiner kinetischen Energie und aus seiner Energie für ein in ihm ruhendes Bezugssystem" - "under the assumption, which is valid only in first approximation, that the total energy of a moving body is the sum of its kinetic energy and its energy in an inertial system at rest in the body". I think this is absolutely correct. As far as I understand it, the problem here is that, in the classical approximation and for a body composed of many particles with masses m_i, one can identify the difference of $\sum {\frac {m_{i}}{2}}v_{i}^{2}$ and $\sum {\frac {m_{i}}{2}}v_{i}^{(o)2}$ (where the superscript (o) denotes speeds in the inertial system where the body rests) with ${\frac {m}{2}}v^{2}$, formed using the body's mass and speed. For the classical situation, using ${\frac {m}{2}}v^{2}$ and the classical addition of speeds, this is easily seen to be valid, but for relativistic speeds the situation is more complicated. The fact that Einstein lets v tend to zero does not help because the quotient $v_{i}^{(o)}/c$ may still fail to be $\ll 1$. Therefore, Planck's assertion that there is a problem of relativistic thermodynamics which has to be addressed is imho correct. Actually, the result at which Planck arrives, and to which the footnote I quoted refers, is his equation (48)

$M=\left({\frac {G}{q}}\right)_{o}={\frac {R_{o}}{c^{2}}}={\frac {E_{o}+pV_{o}}{c^{2}}}$

where G (called Bewegungsgröße by Planck) is momentum, q is speed, the subscript o denotes values taken at speed zero, and R ("Gibbssche Wärmefunktion bei konstantem Druck") is enthalpy.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC) ::Einstein's 1905 article was, as far as I know, the first to suggest that E=mc2 applied for ALL mass, not just mass being exchanged by means of radiation. See [Ein05d]. --Alvestrand 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And all for all energy, not just radiation. i.e. heat has mass. (And I hope Alvestrand or anyoner is not thinking Poincare 1900 talked of mass being exchanged between two bodies by radiation?). E4mmacro 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

De kludde: Whittaker's view is not considered the mainstream approach; he is considered eccentric by most historians, and the vast majority of historians of physics and Einstein do not put any truck on the priority issue. See our policy on WP:NPOV, which clearly discusses the importance of giving the consensus view priority. Now I think it would be fine to put a line on the E=mc^2 article about this and note that it is not considered true by most historians, which is, as you will see, exactly what is there, at least in relation to de Pretto. --Fastfission 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare should be there, not de Pretto. Also, Whittaker is considered the greatest British historian of science of the 20th century. Whittaker called it like it is, he had integrity unlike Fastfission. Licorne 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, I was writing this in response to e4mmacro's earlier criticism of Whittaker. Apparently e4mmacro thought that simply stating that Whittaker "is considered eccentric by most historians" may not suffice, given Whittaker's undoubtedly excellent reputation as a mathematician. I never said that my attempt to address e4mmacro's criticism should occupy a prominent space in the Einstein article. In fact, I never tried to push large changes to the Einstein article on this Wiki. But note that the NPOV states that "Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating." For me, this means that the fact that a dispute exists should not be denied, and the positions should be stated. I think this means that the dispute page should be linked to a place in the Einstein article where people looking for details (other than date of birth/death,...) will find it.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that NPOV specifically states that "Facts ... are not Points Of View". That the papers of Thomson (1881) and Poincaré (1900) quoted by Whittaker exist probably is a fact ("a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."), unless someone wants to claim that Whittaker misquoted them. And that they are part of the history of E=mc² may also be quite non-controversial. I don't know whether e4mmacro (or you) want to disagree here. In this case, it would be a fact that the history of E=mc² started in 1881 and that the article I was quoting, which in its current form has the history of this equation starting in 1905, has to be rewritten.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be most interesting to study Ives's paper, I only have excerpts, I wonder if it is on the internet complete ? ? -- In the excerpts Ives points out that Einstein built in E=mc2 then derived it back out, in other words he derived nothing at all, a tautology. --Einstein just essentially stated what he wanted to prove, namely, Poincare's E=mc2.--Licorne 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, your ranting about how Ive's demonstrated that Einstein's derivation of E=mc^2 was just a "tautology", was not based on a study of his detailed argument (assuming it exists) since you had only excerpts of his paper. Is that correct? Zorba 194.44.154.6 20:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add a reference to the Whittaker they're talking about to the Einstein article and the "disputes" article? "Whittaker (1953)" isn't a complete citation by any metric. The E. T. Whittaker page does not list any 1953 book in his publication list. --Alvestrand 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They had the wrong date on Whittaker's page, I put it right, 1953, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Licorne 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The bibliographical data, as given by Bjerknes, are Edmund T. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, 1954. Note that it was reprinted in the 1970s (something unusual for the "eccentric" work of a dead man), and it is this version which I have seen in the library.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference from the Library of Congress LC Control Number: 85240132 Whittaker, E. T. (Edmund Taylor), 1873-1956. A history of the theories of aether and electricity from the age of Descartes to the close of the nineteenth century [microform] / by E.T. Whittaker. London ; New York : Longmans, Green ; Dublin : Hodges, Figgis, 1910. xiii, 475 p. ; 23 cm. I note it came out in 1910, so maybe his understanding of what Einstein had so recently done was not complete. I notice the title explicitly says "to the close of the nineteenth century" which would exclude Einstein, 1905. GangofOne 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It was 1953. -- Licorne 03:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the 1953 edition a reprint of the 1910 edition, or has it been modified/expanded? I don't see a note about "second edition" in any refs that mention 1953. GangofOne 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this 1910 stuff ? 1953 is the only date I've seen. You may be looking at a typo error somewhere ? Unless he began it as a young man and finally finished it at the end of his life. The 1953 is the important one. Licorne 03:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

http://catalog.loc.gov/ GangofOne 03:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I see he did do one in 1910, but the 1953 update is the one we all use and quote from. Licorne 03:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

3 Mar 2006 – 10 Mar 2006

Ives's paper

There is a copy of Ives's paper in a Book called "The Einstein Myth and the Ives papers" (a complete collection of Ive's relativity papers. Licorne said somewhere this book is in every University Library, if that is any help. There is something odd about Ives's criticism. Ives claims that Einstein assumption that the energy = rest energy + kinetic energy (the assumption Planck questioend and de Kludde discusses above) "builds in the relation E = mc^2". If this were so one would think that Einstein would then derive E = mc^2 exactly. However Einstein does not derive it exactly, he has to approximate the term $\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}-1$ as $\approx {\frac {1}{2}}v^{2}/c^{2}$, so I am not entirely satisfied with Ives's criticism (why doesn't the results "fall out" exactly if it were "built in". On another point, I don't think anyone has claimed that Planck's rederivation was not correct and in fact better than Einstein's. But Planck never claimed to have priority in suggesting the mass-energy equivalence. E4mmacro 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been later papers (i think one in the AJP) that showed (IMO, so let's say they claimed) that Ives was mistaken on that point. I have in mind to write myself (one day!) a paper that shows that he was not entirly mistaken, that indeed there was something wrong with that paper of Einstein; but that nevertheless we may say that Einstein derived E=mc2 there. The truth is often subtle! Harald88 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for the "History" section of E=mc².

I would propose a text like the following:

While some people see remarks of Newton in Opticks ("are not gross bodies and light convertible into each other") as a forerunner of E=mc², the history of this equation in the modern sense starts in 1881, when J. J. Thomson studied the movement of a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line. He found that its inertia increases as if it had an excess mass equal (4/3c²) times the energy of its electrostatic field. This differs from the correct result by the factor 4/3. The mistake in Thomson's deduction was analyzed by Enrico Fermi in 1922, who explained how one can derive the correct result following Thomson's considerations. Results similar to Thomson's, which also differ from the correct result by a factor, were published by Hasenöhrl in 1904/5. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Thomson's result is a forerunner of Poincare's result. It shows that radiation has inertia, or appears to have inertia because of Maxwell's radiation pressure on the inside of the cavity. What is different about Einstein's result is that it shows that mass can be converted to energy, acoording to Einstein, energy in any form - it could be heat lost by conduction which reduces the mass or inertia of the body. Now of course Einstein, if he knew of it, could have taken Poincare's or Thomson (or Maxwell's) fictitious mass of radiation seriously (in a way Poincare never did) and wondered if the mass was not spontaneously created from nowhere as Poincare (1900) had assumed (btw, this is WHY Poincare did not believe it, and one reason why his 1900 paper was a criticism of Lorentz's theory of electrons). Even if you guess the mass comes from somewhere you have to produce an argument to suggest the mass of a body losing energy is decreasing, don't you think? The missing link is the variation of mass with velocity, the recognition that perhaps all mass is electromagnetic in origin (something said by Poincare a few times). Now Poincare had Lorentz's 1899 paper which had $m=\gamma m_{0}$ yet Poincare never did "connect the dots" and give Einstein's or Planck's or Lewis's derivation of E = mc^2, in the meaning of Einstein. This was not a trivial step, and the mainstream is not outrageously wrong to think it is the biggest step. E4mmacro 21:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, sorry. I better check Thomson's paper. Maybe his result come not from radiation pressure but the self-induction effect of the moving charges being equivalent to an electric current. This is what Poincare means by "electromagnetic inertia" as far as I know. E4mmacro 21:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The first author to derive a related result with the correct factor 1 instead of 4/3 was Henri Poincaré in 1900, in a paper devoted to the discussion of Lorentz' theory of electromagnetism. Poincaré pointed out that the electromagnetic field behaved in a certain sense like a fluid possessing mass density equal to its energy density divided by c². He did not apply this to the inertia of macroscopic bodies. Moreover, as Special Relativity was still in development at that time, he treated the movement of charged particles in a classical framework. Another derivation of a formula related to E=mc², also in a non-relativistic setting, was published by Olinto de Pretto in 1903. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The subject was taken up by Albert Einstein in 1905, who presented a formal derivation that the mass of a body emitting light is diminished by (1/c²) times the amount of energy lost. His arguments could be formulated the same way for other emission processes as long as certain formal assumptions concerning the conservation of a 4-momentum transforming according to the Lorentz transformation are valid. There appears to be no doubt that this is the first time the formula was presented as a formal consequence of Special Relativity. The correctness of Einstein's derivation has, however, sometimes been questioned. In 1907 Max Planck pointed out that some hidden assumption in Einstein's argument leads to a question of relativistic thermodynamics, and presented a formula where enthalpy rather than energy is related to mc². Another criticism of Einstein's reasoning which is sometimes accepted by serious scholars was published by Herbert Ives in 1952. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern textbooks rarely present the formal derivation of E=mc² given by Einstein in 1905. Many follow the line of thought of an article published by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1908. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Some comments:

• I assume the correctnes of Whittaker's description of the development of E=mc². As far as I can see, this is still justified. I consider e4mmacro's criticism only as valid in the sense that some phrases used by Whittaker can be misunderstood when quoted out of context. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• As far as I can see, the derivation which Whittaker attributes to Lewis is the one often presented in modern textbooks. But this may be open to debate.
• I treat de Pretto from hearsay. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken about de Pretto as Bartocci now seems to claim that de Pretto predicted E=mc²/2, one more result with a wrong factor like in the Thomson and Hasenöhrl papers. --De kludde 22:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Apart from these points, I think that what I am presenting here is mostly covered by WP:NPOV saying that "Facts ... are not Points Of View".
• I may have copied a few consecutive words from Whittaker but think that this OK from the Copyright point of view as it never concerns more than about five consecutive words. As long as we mention his book in the references section, nobody is going to complain. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I think that the Ives criticism should be explained somewhere, as it is sometimes accepted by serious scholars. After this has been done, perhaps in the priority dispute article, that article should be linked to the short remark about Ives in E=mc². --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• e4mmacro, as you seem to be an expert on the history of special relativity: Which textbook for relativistic thermodynamics you would recommend? The only refernce I could find on Wikipedia is a German book by Neugebauer, which is about a quarter century old but may still be OK for this issue. I don't have this book. We should certainly figure out whether energy or enthalpy is the correct quantity, even for completely non-ideological reasons. If this was a bet about a horse race, my money would be on the correctness of Planck's analysis. --De kludde 11:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

re Max Planck and enthalpy: stating e=mc2 in terms of enthalpy, as the term is defined on enthalpy, would require defining the term "pressure" for a number of situations where I see no easy definition of it (photon in free space, for instance) . Planck may have been using another definition of enthalpy. --Alvestrand 12:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Planck's definition is the usual one, R=E+pV in the text I was quoting, or H=U+pV using modern notations. Planck also considers situations like a huge body with ideally reflecting walls filled with light. In this situation, the radiation pressure contributes to p. --De kludde 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Some might perhaps claim that because pV is so very tiny compared to mc² (unless you are in hell), the difference between Planck's and Einstein's formula is minimal and quite academic in nature. But what Einstein and perhaps Thomson as well (as opposed to Poincaré) considered was the way in which the mass of a body changes if it emits radiation or is given an electrical charge. In this case, the difference between the right hand side of

$\Delta m={\frac {\Delta U}{c^{2}}}$

and

$\Delta m={\frac {\Delta H}{c^{2}}}$

is $\Delta (pV)/c^{2}$, and this is not always so tiny compared to $\Delta (U)/c^{2}.$ --De kludde 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This should be a fairly non-ideological question, which has to be resolved for the sake of the article's quality. Note that I am not giving Planck's or Ives' criticism of Einstein's derivation undue weight, since the major contribution of Einstein's paper as I see it, pointing out the connection with special relativity, is still new and important even if the proof itself collapses. For this reason, Ives' criticism (as opposed to the question of whether energy or enthalpy is the correct quantity), should not be discussed in E=mc² but some other article (perhaps the priority dispute article) should be linked. But neglecting the fact that the equation had a history of almost a quarter century when Einstein published his paper, and that the development of ideas may not have stopped at this point but continued, with Planck and perhaps Lewis making the final steps, is in patent conflict with the facts. In any case, as Licorne has simply added his statement about Poincaré to the history section of this article, it might be worthwhile to point out how a somewhat larger version stating all the relevant facts might look like. I think it is still not too large, since the E=mc² article is quite large. --De kludde 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "History of special relativity" needs a section on the development of the theory after Einstein's 1905 papers? It doesn't seem to belong on the dispute page.... --Alvestrand 18:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think E=mc² should have its own history section. The way I understand it, it started when people realized that for bodies containing an electromagnetic field the Maxwell equations predict that an additional amount of force is needed to drag the field along with body. Of course you can analyze this even if you don't know about special relativity. Einstein seems to have been the first one who attempted to derive a intertia type (or, in fact, any type whatsoever) E=mc² result from assumptions of special relativity, and this is certainly a major achievement even if the details of his derivation are flawed. Lorentz invariance and 4-momentum conservation only allow for field equations exhibiting this type of E=mc² behaviour, but if you are familiar with Maxwell's equations you can derive the result for this special case in a classical framework. The fact that the formula had a history of one generation before it was interpreted in the framework of special relativity means, in my opinion, that it is a subject of its own, albeit with close relations to SRT and GRT. It is reasonable to give it its own history section. --De kludde 22:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a history of E = mc^2 is a reasonable idea. E4mmacro 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any relativistic thermodynamics textbook. E4mmacro 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Planck's derivation

As an engineer, I see Planck's getting the mass equivalent of enthalpy as more general. I always assume that enthalpy applies only to fluids (it accounts for flow work) - so for a solid Planck's result reduces to E/c^2 (I suppose I have to include enthalpy for solids to account for solid-gas phase changes though). Whittaker, as I remember, says that someone (possibly Lorentz in about 1910?) extended the E term to include potential energy, elastic strain energy, and that some of these missing terms explained why earlier results came out as (3/4)E/c^2 or some other constant. E4mmacro 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for the situation Einstein considered at the end of his paper (a radioactive solid), there is not much of a difference between the two results. --De kludde 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the correction to Thomson, this is footnote 2 on Whittaker II p. 51, concerning Thomson's result: It was shown long afterwards by E. Fermi, Lincei Rend. xxxi₁ (1922), pp. 184, 306, that the transport of the stress system set up in the material of the sphere should be taken into account, and that when this is done, Thomson's result becomes

Additional mass = ${\frac {1}{c^{2}}}\times$ Energy of field. --De kludde 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

de Kludde, can you tell us what papers are cited by Planck in his derivation? What does he start from? E4mmacro 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

He attributes (in the introduction) to Lorentz, Poincaré and Abraham the fact that electromagnetic radiation has momentum ("Bewegungsgröße"), without quoting their papers. Apparently he considers the fact that the energy content of a body influences its (inertial) mass to be a consequence of their considerations, without quoting Einstein at that moment:--De kludde 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Denn nach den Untersuchungen von H. A. Lorentz, H. Poincaré und M. Abraham besitzt die innere Wärmestrahlung eines bewegten Körpers, ebenso wie überhaupt jede elektromagnetische Strahlung, eine bestimmte endliche Bewegungsgröße, welche in der gesamten Bewegungsgröße des Körpers mit enthalten ist. Dieselbe hängt aber, ebenso wie die Strahlungsenergie, von der Temperatur ab, und infolgedessen auch die durch sie definierte Masse. --(Vol 2 Planck Coll. Papers, p. 178)

For, according to the investigations of H. A. Lorentz, H. Poincaré and M. Abraham, the internal thermic radiation of a moving body, just like any type of electromagnetic radiation, possesses a certain finite momentum contributing to the total momentum of the body. This [momentum] depends, just like radiation energy, on the temperature of the body, and therefore the same holds for its contribution to mass. --(Vol 2 Planck Coll. Papers, p. 178)

(I find it somewhat difficult to give a literal translation of this). It is clear that by "mass" he means inertial ("träge") mass, as this is what he is saying at the beginning of that paragraph. Interestingly, he then poses the question of whether thermic radiation also possesses a gravitational ("ponderable") mass, and seems to deny this: "Wenn diese Frage zu verneinen ist, was wohl das Nächstliegende sein dürfte ..." - "If this question is to be answered negatively, which perhaps is the most plausible assumption". --De kludde 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The papers which he quotes in his derivation are Lorentz (1904), Einstein (1905) and Michelson/Morley(1887) for the relativity principle, Mosengeil and Abraham for some radiation pressure considerations, Helmholtz for the principle of least action, some paper of Byk(1906) for the Equation of state, again Einstein(1905) for the transformation of Maxwell's equations, his own Lectures on Thermic Radiation for the Planck constant (which is not used later on, however), Abraham's textbook for the notion of transversal mass, and finally the Einstein 1905 mc² paper for comparing his own result with Einstein's. I only listed the literature up to that point, and did not list a reference a second time when I got the impression that it is used in the same way as before. --De kludde 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So, my impression of it is that Planck is unwilling to credit the fact that inertial mass depends on energy to any specific person, as he only quotes from the older papers in the introduction, but he does quote Einstein for the precise law, which he then improved. --De kludde 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not terribly clear on these definitions. But to me, it seems that what Planck was saying above is that the inertial mass of a hot body is larger than the inertial mass of a cold body, and that the relation is our good old E=mc2. From the way it is described, and from the pattern of quoting you mention, it looks to me as if Planck was deriving the formula for one specific case, but (NOTE: PERSONAL OPINION) that Planck did not want to believe Einstein's leap-of-faith that E=mc2 applies to ALL mass, so he did not quote that specific part of Einstein's paper. Same formula, different context. --Alvestrand 08:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Einstein 1905 article simply says that a body emitting light suffers a weight loss. The reasoning (whether right or wrong) could be formulated in the same for all type of energy emissions satisfying certains rules. Planck does not doubt this but makes it a bit more precise by pointing out that enthalpy and not energy is the quantity to consider (so it is not the same formula after all). What he DOES seem to doubt in the introduction is that all energy has a gravitational mass, which is just the OPPOSITE of what Whittaker claims about this paper in his chapter on gravity, p. 152. So e4mmacro may have his case against Whittaker after all, although I still think Whittaker's description of Poincaré's 1900 mc² result is correct. --De kludde 00:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He's a bit more forceful in [Ein05d] [12] - he says "The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that: The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 10^20" --Alvestrand 06:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See Kevin Brown's review of Whittaker. He concludes that Whittaker is not anti-Einstein, but just pro-aether. He just wants to show that relativity can be construed as an aether theory. Your quote from Planck 1907 about ponderable mass rang a faint bell, and I see now Brown in his reveiw mentions it - it certainly seems the most blatant distortion of Whittaker's. E4mmacro 18:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The arguments against Poincaré

I hope my claims that Poincare did not do everything in special relativity are not construed as anti-Poincare. I had also to argue strongly to Licorne that Poincare's gravity theories were a failure, and perhaps I express it too forcefully. In my view, it is clear that Poncare did not consider relativity to be his theory and I assume he wouldn't turn in his grave if I say others (such as Whittaker) have exaggerated what he did. E4mmacro 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at your (e4mmacro's) quotes of Poincaré's 1900 paper, and I am still not sure that your criticism is valid. You seem to insist that he did not really believe this result. But what he states in the introduction to his paper was his lack of confidence in the 1900 version of Lorentz' theory, which was of course justified. He never said, as far as I understand the intro of his paper, that he downright rejects the Lorentz theory. Therefore, disbelief in the 1900 version of Lorentz' theory does not necessarily mean that Poincaré did not trust this particular consequence.

From the two quotes you have given, I still do not see why they imply that Poincaré does not believe in his own result. The one from p. 256 (which p. 468 vol IX of his collected works) only says that the liquid is ficticious. For me, this simply says that it lacks some of the properties of normal liquids, in other words the analogy with normal liquids breaks down somewhere. It does not necessarily mean that Poincaré believed that the mass of this "liquid" is also fictitious. This is a long paper, and it is easy to overlook things. Could you give an example where Poincaré says that he considers the mass of this liquid also as fictitious? Also, what you quote from p. 258 is p. 470 in the collected works and there is a gap of 1/2 page between "èlectromagnétique" and "Pour definir". I assume you also have that gap in the version from which you were quoting. I don't know why either part of your quote should imply that Poincaré did not believe the result. Could you perhaps translate? I am not always sure whether I interpret Poincaré's French well when he tries to convey his intuition about things (as opposed to clear-cut statements like "Il n'y a pas de temps absolu". For me, his conclusion "L'énergie électromagnetique se comportant donc au point de vue qui nous occupe comme une fluide doué d'inertie", which I interpret that as saying that the inertia of electromagnetic radiation must be accepted once one accepts Lorentz' theory, which Poincaré eventually did after the difficulties of the 1900 version had been resolved. The considerations at the beginning of Poincaré's paper could easily be modified to work with the correct theory.

Before I go any further, may I ask have you read the chapter in the Value of Science which I claim makes clear what Poincare thought? I think that has to be read in conjuction with Poincare 1900. I will check if I have misquoted Poincare 1900 (do not have the original at hand). One quote from The Value of Science 1904: "the apparatus recoils ... and that is contrary to the principle of Newton since our projectile here has no mass, it is not matter, it is energy". E4mmacro 19:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I left out about 4 paragraphs starting "Mais il faut convenir ..." and ending " ... 3. aux forces d'inertie du fluide fictif renferme dans ce volume". E4mmacro 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, why did you add the remark "but did not specify any particular convention." to "Poincaré claimed that simultaneity of distant events would have to be established by convention". Why should he specify one? He did not believe in absolute time, after all.

Well, I add the remark because it is true and might be relevant. You think I have drawn some negative conclusion from it? Maybe I could, but I tried to state facts not conclusions. What I was thinking of is something I stated elsewhere. I think when Poincare saw Lorentz's 1895 introduction of local time (I am guessing Poincare saw this after his 1898) Poincare went "Aha! That is the convention I was looking for! And it does make a big difference". Both Poincare and Lorentz had previously used the idea of retarded potentials (i.e. for effects that propogate at the speed of light) but Lorentz's local time is more than that. You will notice that Poincare mentions it over and over again from 1900 to 1904 - I think he was impressed by it. The fact that Poincare mentioned no particular convention is significant for another reason. It is sometime suggested as part of a Einstein-plagiarism charge that Einstein got the definition of simultaneity from Poincare 1898, which cannot be true since it wasn't in it, or at least in the reprint in the popular book that Einstein might have read. I have assumed the reprint is the same as the original. E4mmacro 18:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, what do you mean? I found not long ago (I copy-paste it here from a newsgroup) that there, Poincare stated about measurements in inertial frames:

" [...] admit that light has a constant speed, and specifically that its speed is the same in all directions. Now that's a postulate without which no measurement of that speed could be attempted." (translation mine)

He next elaborated on the definition of simultaneity. Did you not read that part? Harald88 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't read that part. What definition did he propose? As I said, I was working from a reprint (or probably rewrite) of "The measure of Time" which appeared in his book of 1901 (Science and Hypothesis). If you can tell us the definition he used and the date, then clearly we should delete my statement that Poincare did not give any specfic definition or procedure (before 1900). I think "Science and Hypothesis" is relevant because it is the book usually mentioned in Einstein-plagiarism arguments ("we know Einstein read it"). E4mmacro 20:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what you are getting at with "He didn't believe in absolute time". Why does that mean he wouldn't give a convention, if he said a convention was necessary? E4mmacro 19:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Next, for your remark He said the "ensemble of these transformations together with all rotations of space" form a group (but did not give details of the proof). Note that Einstein never states (with or without proof) anything like this. The group theoretic picture enters his discussion only in a remark where he considers the 1-parameter group of Lorentz transforms in a given direction. It is Poincaré and not Einstein who really considered the symmetry group of x²-t². What you seem to try to insinuate looks like a revival of the old Pais claim that Einstein introduced the Poincaré group before Poincaré, which is completely wrong.

No I wasn't trying to say anything like that at all. I was thinking that Poincare had already written the (1-parameter) proof to Lorentz in a letter in 1905, and perhaps thought it was trivial by the time he published. But that sentennce was a pre-emptive anti-Licorne move intended to show that Einstein could not have copied a proof of the group property from Poincare 1905, even if he had seen Poincare 1905, which I very much doubt. (At some stage Licorne was hovering round a claim that because Poincare had the proof of the group property before Einstein - as proved by Poincare's letter to Lorentz in May 1904 - that Einstein must have plagiarised it). I am sure Poincare was a better mathetician than Einstein! E4mmacro 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I made no claims about Einstein in the "history of pre-relativity" section, and I am not saying Poincare had no proof. I thought I was merely stating the facts (all directed to showing what facts have to be taken into account in any plagiarism claims). E4mmacro 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And proving Poincaré's claim is fairly easy. One only has to prove that G=PK=KP holds, where G is the connected component of the group of isometries of x²-t², and K is the group of rotations of x-space, and P the set of Lorentz transformations. Let I(x,t)=(x,-t), and let ^T denote the adjoint operator wrto the Euclidean scalar product xy+st. Let G' be the group of all isometries of x²-t², then a linear automorphism A belongs to G' iff IAI=(A^T)^-1. Now, it is a well-known fact that every automorphism g of the (x,t)-space has a unique representation as g=kp, where k is an isometry of the Euclidean scalar product xy+st and p>0 is self-adjoint. In a situation where g belongs to G, we have

IkIIpI=IgI=(g^T)^-1=kp^-1,

from which it follows that IkI=k and IpI=p^-1 by the above mentioned uniqueness of the kp decomposition of matrices. Hence k and p belong to G', and it follows that p is an element of P. If g is in G, it also follows that k is in K, and the Cartan decomposition in this special case is proven. Poincaré was almost certainly familiar with this as the same group, and the same situation, also occurs in non-Euclidean geometry (where K is the group of rotations around a point and P is the set of translations along lines passing through this point). All this is standard stuff and would not occupy more than a few lines in a research paper. Poincaré was certainly justified in not devoting much space to this.

[all the above apparently by De kludde, 2 March 2006]

See above. I agree Poincare thought it was trivial. I was not blaming Poincare for not publishing it in his short note of his talk to the Academy. I hope my anti-Licorneness has not made me anti-Poincare (though it has made me more pro-Einstein that I was!). E4mmacro 18:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a hidey-hole for some history stuff

1905: The mathematics professors of Göttingen-- Hilbert and his protege Minkowski-- were fascinated by the physics of the time. They studied the work of Fitzgerald contraction, Lorentz "local-time", Michaelson and Morley interference experiment (Reid p. 105).

Then Einstein had difficulties with the math behind the General Theory. Hilbert solved the matrix equations that had stumped Einstein (Einstein was no Einstein when it came to tensor calculus...) (Funny quote from Minkowski here, re the lousy inattentive student Einstein was... that he could develop what he did seemed an outright miracle.

• "(Oh that Einstein, always missing lectures -- I really would not have believed him capable of it!) (Reid p. 105) But... hey Einstein's papers were there for all to read.

1908-1909 -- Minkowski describes "space-time" at the Society of German Scientists and Physicians in Cologne.(Reid p. 112). Hilbert is working on Waring's Problem. Minkowski dies suddenly of acute appendicitis.

1909 -- Born reconstructs Minkowski's notes them re the electromagnetic self-energy of the electron

1910 -- Hilbert works on "kinetic gas theory" and "elementary radiation theory"

1911 -- Einstein publishes a paper on the equivalence principle, with a rudimentary GRT Harald88 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1913 -- Neils Bohr puts forth his theory of the atom

1914 -- "The work of Einstein as he pressed forward toward a general theory of relativity was followd with great interest... while Einstein was attempting in a rather roundabout way to develop the binding laws for the 10 coefficients of the differential form which determines gravitation, Hilbert independently solved the problem in a different, more direct way.

"Both men arrivd at almost the same time at the goal....

"It was a remarkable coincidence...but even more remarkable was the fact that it led, not to a controversy over priority, but to a series of freindly encounters and letters.

"Hilbert freely admitted, and frequencly stated in lectures, that the great idea was Einstein's." (Reid, p. 141)

More funny quotes here from Hilbert re Einstein.

1915 --

"To Hilbert, the beauty of Einstein's theory lay in its great geometrical abstraction; and when the time arrived for the awarding of the third Bolyai Prize in 1915, he recommended that it go to Einsten..." (Reid, p. 142)

References

• Constance Reid, Hilbert, Copernicus: Springer-Verlag, 1966. First published 1970.

wvbaileyWvbailey 17:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert quotes crediting Einstein - Should we add these?

Both Phillip Frank and Constance Reid (perhaps relying on Frank?) quote Hilbert giving credit to Einstein.

• Every boy in the streets of our mathematical Gottingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, despite that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians.
• Do you know why Einstein said the most original and profound things about space and time that have been said in our generation? Because he had learnt nothing about all the philosophy and mathematics of time and space."

Should these quotes be included in the article?

Paul August ☎ 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You can of course put them in if you want to, but I think they should be interpreted with giving Einstein credit for starting the theory (something which no one in a sane state of mind has ever doubted), not for getting the field equations first or independently. Also, you should not forget that one could easily "prove" Woldemar Voigt's priority for the Lorentz transformations by quoting Lorentz. This shows that quotes of this kind are rather worthless, as theses scientists acted in a rather gentlemanly way and were always willing to give credit to their colleagues as long as this was not utterly unreasonable, and sometimes even then. --De kludde 08:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you insert the [Phillip Frank] quote, am I allowed to insert the following [Max Born] quote:

Von Einstein und Freundlich hörte ich jetzt, daß Sie die Gravitation in Ordnung gebracht haben; ... Einstein selbst sagt, er habe das Problem ebenfalls gelöst, doch scheint mir seine Betrachtung ein Spezialfall der Ihrigen.

I have now learned from Einstein and Freundlich that you have tackled gravitation; ... Einstein himself told me that he has also solved the problem, however his consideration looks to me like a special case of yours.

Note that Born wrote this in 1915. Did Frank quote someone else or did he quote Hilbert from memory, several decades after the event? --De kludde 08:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Hilbert quotes above don't "prove" anything. But even though I take your point about these guys being "gentlemanly", they still don't sound to me like the kind of thing Hilbert would be likely to say, if he thought Einstein was getting more credit than was his due. As regards to your opinion that Hilbert is crediting Einstein for formulating the theory, rather than finding the field equations, you may be correct. Nevertheless, the "priority dispute" regarding GR, is broader than just the dispute over the field equations. Unfortunately Frank gives no source for the Hilbert quotes. I don't intend to add the quotes. I will let others decide that. As for the Born quote I have no objection to it. Paul August ☎ 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

References

• Phillip Frank, Einstein, His Life and Times, Da Capo Press; Rev edition (May 1, 1989), ISBN 0306803585, p. 206
• Constance Reid, Hilbert, Springer; 1st edition (April 19, 1996) ISBN 0387946748, p. 142

Believing Stachel or Bjerknes

A discussion came up on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Licorne/Evidence on how much weight one shoudl put on Bjerknes vs Stachel as sources. Since I think that's a good question, but not relevant to Licorne's RfA case, I'll make a comment here.

My opinion is somewhat simple: In the case of Stachel, I know from [13] that he did his doctoral thesis on Einstein - and that presumably, a commission accepted his doctoral thesis. Furthermore, a group of people with budgetary responsibilities considered his qualifications seriously enough that they made him director of the Boston University Center for Einstein Studies.

In the case of Bjerknes, I know that he's published a book, and I've heard the claim (which I can't verify) that it's a "vanity" publisher - one that will publish anything people ask to have published.

So I know that a number of people have evaluated Stachel's work specifically about Einstein and found it good. I don't have any such reassurance about Bjerknes. So in a conflict, where neither party's arguments are convincing on their own, I tend to believe Stachel more.

(I also am much more turned off by the way Bjerknes presents things. So there are more things than just background that tend to make me doubt Bjerknes as a serious source. But I attach less weight to that.)

That's my reason. Other people need to make up their own minds. --Alvestrand 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Since they are both obviously biased, I take both their opinons with some grains of salt. Anyway: nearly all the relevant information is available to everyone, so that neither of them needs to be used as source for anything (except for the subject of the debate itself). Harald88 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

--

Being new wikipedia, I would like to ask a question about citation style related to this Bjerknes discussion. Some say it is ok reference a quote to a primary source directly, even if you got it from a secondary source. I strongly disagree. The authors I respect most follow a practice of distinguishing 'from source x as quoted in source y', in such a case, as distinct from 'from source x', the latter being reserved for the case when the author obtained or fully validated the quote against the primary source x. Even such an explicitly opinionated writer as Chomsky follows this convention. This is not trivial, in my view - you are relying not only on y's accuracy, but on y's judgement of quote being consistent with it's overall context. Dershowitz was, in my opinion, rightly criticized for not doing this, with the possible interpretation that listing the particular secondary source would reduce the credibility of the quotes (on the other hand, I find Finkelstein's characterization of this as plagiarism absurd). The connection to the matter at hand, is that, irrespective of one's view about Bjerkne's reliability in giving quotes consistent with their overall context, a quote obtained from Bjerknes without actually reviewing the primary source, should be credited as "from x as quoted by Bjerknes". Like it or not, this immediately reduces the credibility of the reference. Thus, I have no issue at all with someone using Bjerkne's ideas and information on a talk page, to be compared with other sources, but would generally oppose using it any way at all as a source on page whose general credibility is important - like Einstein or Poincare. Of course, he is a very relevant source for the dispute article. --Pallen 23:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as I stated before: secondary sources have use for putting our attention to primary sources; and in some cases, if we can't access the primary ones. However, often we have access to primary sources, after which the secondary sources become superfluous for the discussion. Harald88 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Having dabbled in Bible scholarship on occasion, I feel that I have to insert a word of warning... when reading primary sources without a background in the period from which it arises, it is easy to misunderstand what is being said. Secondary sources by reputable scholars have a value in interpreting the context for us who know it less well. That said, 1905 is only a hundred years ago - two years after the Wright brothers, I'd hesitate to interpret a sentence mentioning flight, but other aspects of the culture of the time are far less distant. --Alvestrand 08:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, except of course when the secondary sources are almost as old. Indeed secondary sources that point out differences in meaning of concepts can be very relevant; there are a few concepts that one could misunderstand, for example the definition of "mass" that Lorentz and Einstein used at the time, and some people mistakenly think that the modern American distinction between speed and velocity also existed at the time. But it's certainly more difficult to read and correctly understand translations of Newton's works (but then, in part, such translations are already secondary sources by themselves, just as in Bible scholarship). Cheers, Harald88 10:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that relying only on primary sources risks straying into original research, which of course is not our job. Ours is to simply report what the historians have concluded. Paul August ☎ 15:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

IWikipedia first of all aims to simply report on the facts; conclusions of historians are certainly interesting and useful (as any conclusions should be quoted from them), but open for change. Wikipedia is not a religion. Many Wikipedia readers are sufficiently intelligent to be able to draw their own conclusions from the available facts (which tend to change much less!). Harald88 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald, nobody is saying Wikipedia is a religion. But take a look at WP:NOR -- it explicitly demands that secondary sources be used wherever possible. You can disagree with this but it is a deliberate stance taken in regards to what constitutes a "fact" on Wikipedia. --Fastfission 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If it states what you seem to claim, then I think that WP:NOR is in conflict with Jimbo's demands for NOR as well as making a quality encyclopedia. In particular, it would imply that we should not refer to, for example, Einstein's 1905 publications, but only to opinions of others about his works. I'll have a look at that. Harald88 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, that was quickly done, and I see no confirmation of your claim, instead it states clearly:

"research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged".

And searching for "secondary", I found no such remark as you stated. Perhaps you refer to an older version, and the wording has been improved since? Harald88 11:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps I expressed the idea simplistically. I didn't mean to imply, nor does WP:OR say, that we should only use secondary sources. But it does say that using only primary sources, should be exceptional:

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

My point is just that we should be careful not to stray into doing original research here. It is fine to use primary sources, but when it comes to analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting or evaluating those primary sources, we should leave that to secondary sources. Paul August ☎ 21:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Related to this subject, all scientific sources ("primary sources"?) that I know of, analyze, interpret, and make evaluations - that's what good articles do. Thus, perhaps what you understand to be "primary" sources (raw data?) don't really exist in this context, and virtually all sources are, in that sense, both "primary" as well as "secondary" ... Harald88 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes a good research paper should, for example, do those things (analyze etc.) but not an encyclopedia article. Paul August ☎ 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Very right: an encyclopedia article should simply give an overview of the information (data + conclusions and opinions) that is contained in such sources. Harald88 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The case against Stachel

Stachel:

• has at least one case of mistranslating sources to fit his case, as Bjerknes points out on p. 202 of his "Incorrigible Plagiarist" book, he translates

... wenn wir beide zusammen unsere Arbeit über die Relativbewegung siegreich zu Ende geführt haben.

... when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end.

from a letter of Albert to Mileva as

... when we are together and can bring our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion.

Which is way of a difference and certainly fits Stachel's case better than the aforementioned, better translation. As Stachel has not responded to this assertion in his response to Bjerknes, I assume it is correct.

Yes, any kid who knows German will confirm that that is correct. It can be safely stated as fact. Harald88 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry for belaboring this sentence, but does anyone have the literature reference for the place where this quote comes from? I tried to google for the German phrase, but the best I could come up with was this one from [14]: Wie stolz und glücklich werde ich sein, wenn wir beide zusammen unsere Arbeit über die Relativbewegung siegreich zu Ende geführt haben. Wenn ich so andre Leute sehe, da kommt mirs so recht, was an Dir ist! Ref there is (Einstein an Maric, Dok. 94, 27. März 1901) - don't know how to resolve "Dok. 94", but the date was four years before Einstein published SR.

(Stachel's review wasn't in any way written as a response to Bjerknes' attack on him personally, so I wouldn't expect to see a response to that specific point there.) --Alvestrand 19:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Bjerknes mentions another case, in which it is not so clear however why Stachel profits from the mistranslation.

• accuses Bjerknes of citing Johannes Stark, which is not true.
• in the CRS article, fails to mention the missing piece of the printer proof.
• in the same paper, claims that Hilberts modification of his paper in December 1915 explains Einstein's outburst to Zangger from November 25, 1915, whereas in fact this outburst would be difficult to explain unless Einstein felt he had been anticipated by Hilbert. --De kludde 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A valid difference of opinion?? E4mmacro 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The case against Bjerknes

Bjerknes

• on P. 19 of "Incorrigible Plagiarist", mistranslates Thirring

Die Klärung des Zeitproblemes war schon mehrere Jahre vor dem Erscheinen von Einsteins grundlegender Arbeit (1905) durch H. Poincaré weitgehend vorbereitet worden.

The solution of the problem of time had already been mostly prepared by Poincaré, several years before Einsteins ground-breaking paper appeared.

as

H. Poincaré had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearence of Einstein's first work (1905).

• He does the same thing on p. 85 of his second book.
• The discussion in chapter 2.4 of his second book is not convincing. He misquotes Einstein's November 11 field equations as

$R_{i}^{k}={\frac {8\pi G}{c^{4}}}T_{i}^{k}$

whereas Einstein simply called his coupling constant κ and never considered the Newtonian limit or otherwise explained the relation between his coupling constant and Newton's.

• His way of presenting things is unreasonable: Not mentioning Poincaré, Lorentz or Hilbert while (possibly) knowing about their work is plagiarism. Not mentioning Gerber in the Mercury paper is imo inappropriate (as is not mentioning Poincaré in that paper), but not plagiarism. Other things pointed out by Bjerknes of course are not plagiarism at all, for instance would have been unreasonable for Einstein to quote all the authors mentioned on pages 231-233 of his first book. --De kludde 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

De kludde: Congratulations! you are one of those rare editors who is sufficiently unbiased to not defend a camp but instead read (and comment on) everything critically. Because of your obvious expertise and NPOV, I look forward to see more of your contributions to Wikipedia. Harald88 17:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Poincaré's considerations of synchronisation procedures (revisited from archives)

About the synchronisation procedure that was examined by Poincaré: to my knowledge, Poincaré's discussion is in the context of the theories of Lorentz. Poincaré describes for example synchronisation of clocks that are hundreds of kilometers apart. (It is known at that time that the transmission is not instantaneous, but the time is too short to be measurable with the instruments available around 1900)

From Poincaré's discussion I infer that without the Lorentz theories he expects the following: if sufficiently accurate measurement is possible, then a difference in the two-way transit time would be measurable in signals exchanged from, say, Paris to Berlin. Measurements 6 hour apart would be compared (in 6 hours the line paris-berlin rotates over 90 degrees of angle, as the Earth rotates.)

But Poincaré is aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Lorentz theory to account for that. Fundamentally, the Michelson-Morley experiment is a time-dissemination procedure, using light. If the transit time of the light is direction dependent then a shift of interference fringes should be detected, depending on direction of motion of the experimental setup. (Instead of having a 6 hour interval between measurements that are to be compared, Michelson and Morley had a setup that could swivel; a huge circular slab of stone floating on mercury.)

Poincaré recognized the significance of the Lorentz theory for synchronisation procedures. If the Lorentz theory for accounting for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is good, then a synchronisation procedure between clocks in Paris and Berlin will be similarly affected.

That, is my understanding, was the perception of Poincaré. --Cleonis | Talk 10:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it could you could succinctly state Poincaré's clock synchronization method. It's still not clear exactly was it is. Same for Einstein's method and how it differs from Poincaré's, if at all. I will then be in a better position to understand your other remarks. Thanks. green 65.88.65.217 15:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Let there be two cities A and B, at such a distance apart that a signal transmitted by wireless telegraph takes 10 units of time to complete a two-way transit. Let the master clock be in city A. City B sends a signal, on reception city A immediately sends a return signal. Encoded in A's signal is the exact moment in A's time keeping that the return signal is sent. The operators in city B then subtract half of the two-way transit time, and use that for the official time-keeping.

Poincaré points out that the operators have no way of knowing whether both legs of the transit took the same amount of time.

I've tried to illustrate something like that in the following two images (I've used three clocks that are to be synchronized instead of two but that does not affect the logic) Clocksync01 and clocksync02 --Cleonis | Talk 16:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I really must scan Einstein's 1905 paper to ascertain his clock synchronization method, but can I assume that neither Poincaré nor Einstein synchronized two stationary clocks by using a light source equidistant? I cannot recall where I got this idea from. It might be nonsense. green 65.88.65.217 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. The synchronisation procedure is just a tool to illustrate some things. The synchronisation procedure does not matter for the content of the theory, the content of the theory being the two postulates of the 1905 paper. --Cleonis | Talk 13:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. I looked at Einstein (June) 1905 paper and his method of synchronization expressly assumes that the SoL is the same in each direction for a round-trip path (as distinguished from Poincaré btw). See the Kinematical Part, Section 1, Definition of Simultaneity. In fact, he states that without this assumption it’s impossible to define synchronization. I think this answers the question as to whether he denied the ether in 1905. This is a contentious issue and opinions vary, but if I am reading his paper correctly, it would seem that he surely did deny the ether, implicitly, since if the ether exists, the one-way SoL can only be the same in each direction of a round-trip path for the unique frame at rest wrt the ether. In all other inertial frames this would not be so. Do you concur?

Another point worth mentioning is that his definition of simultaneity seems very important for his theory, along with the postulates of course, since it is used in his argument for length contraction and time dilation. Afaict, it is not just a tool to illustrate some things, but crucial in the development of the theory.

Finally, although my limited scan of his 1905 paper did not find any method for synchronizing clocks with a light source equidistant between two stationary clocks, it would be a viable method under Einstein’s assumption that the SoL is invariant on each leg of a round-trip path. This method is used in texts to demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity by synchronizing stationary clocks on a moving train. If this method (and the one used by Einstein in his paper) depends on the no-ether assumption, as I believe is the case, then the argument for the relativity of simultaneity likewise depends on this assumption. Comments appreciated. green 193.108.45.248 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I copy-paste here my comment to E4 of yesterday, which disproves one of your claims:

I found not long ago (I copy-paste it here from a newsgroup) that there [Poincare 1898], Poincare stated about measurements in inertial frames:

" [...] admit that light has a constant speed, and specifically that its speed is the same in all directions. Now that's a postulate without which no measurement of that speed could be attempted." (translation mine; he was discussing one-way speed). He next elaborated on the definition of simultaneity.

Indeed, it was (again!) Poincare who stated that this assumption is required to define synchronization. (Obviously this an operational definition, similar to that current flows from + to -, even if it's not so!).

Cheers,

Harald88 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven’t studied Poincaré’s works even casually, so I shouldn’t have added the parenthetical comment you object to. I inferred, perhaps incorrectly from Cleonis’s remark above (“Poincaré points out that the operators have no way of knowing whether both legs of the transit took the same amount of time.”) that Poincare’s view concerning the SoL on each leg of a round-trip path differed from Einstein’s. That said, it nonetheless seems straightforward and indisputable that Einstein’s definition of simultaneity (that is crucial for obtaining various results in his June 1905 paper) denies the ether. For if an ether exists, there is no way to synchronize clocks in any inertial frame that is not a rest wrt it. Do you concur? If so, I wonder how Builder handles this issue. From private email, I had the impression you thought that Builder successfully argued that Einstein’s version of relativity is consistent with the ether’s existence. Maybe Einstein’s results are consistent with an ether, but I don’t see how his arguments would work if an ether exists. green 193.108.45.129 09:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I already emphasized that one can define what one doesn't know by convention, as was done with current (in fact, the convention was chosen the wrong way round), with potential (the "earth" "is" "zero" volt, but is it?) as well as with light speed - Poincare explained that astronomers had no other option than to simply assume lightspeed to be homogenous, as working hypothesis. In 1905 he showed that the Lorentz transformations form a group, from which follows that there is no practical alternative to that convention.

OK, but my point stands. Einstein's theory or model defacto denies the ether. He assumes that lightspeed is the same on each leg of the round trip path. It is a defacto additional postulate, no different from his two primary postulates, and as such functions as a "law" of physics.

Not really: it was called a postulate by Poincare in 1898, while he at that point in time apparently didn't deny the stationary ether. Einstein repeated that. Moreover, Einstein didn't deny the existence of an ether either(see further).

About Builder:it always depends if one discusses physics (the laws) or also metaphysics (the models). There is no doubt about Einstein's model being different from that of Lorentz, and I understand that to be meant with "Einstein’s version of relativity".

OK, then Einstein's "model" denies the ether. But as I see it, the denial of the ether directly implicit in his concept of simultaneity, is defacto a postulate, aka, a "law".

Such a by definition unverifiable definition is (also by definition) not a law of physics - thus on that point I concur with Cleon. Einstein's model is obscure; in fact, there were jokes about that nobody but Einstein understood what he had in mind. I now simply assume that he had no model - it was in fact his argument that no model was needed to derive the laws. Harald88 20:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what distinguishes the "laws" (of physics) from the "model". What exactly is the "model" in Einstein's version of relativity that you distinguish from the "laws" (aka postulates, aka assumptions)? I find the distinction unclear.

What is the model of QM? The Copenhagen interpretation? Not everyone agreed (or even agrees). Modern physical theories exist independent of explanations. A modern theory of physics is about verifiability. What can't be verified, isn't considered part of the physics theory proper. Harald88 20:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Builder, as most physicists, understands a theory of physics such as SRT to only address the physics (that is, the observations); and he rediscovered that Lorentz's ether model is compatible with that. Harald88 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is possible. One cannot get from Einstein's theory (or model or metaphysics) to Lorentz's without an ether and Einstein denied it. All one can do is show that Einstein's results are the same as Lorentz's, but we knew this without Builder. So I am unclear what Builder accomplished. green 193.108.45.150 14:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually (and I'm sure we discussed this before), in 1905 Einstein didn't deny it, while in 1920 he denied the stationary ether, but proposed another kind of ether whcih I can't "copy", and which model nowadays often is labelled "the vacuum". What Einstein denied or not has nothing to do with physics, except those points that are part of physics - that is, that can be supported or disproved with experiments.

I have the impression that Builder, as so many (myself included) did not know that Einstein's results, following a certain logic, yield the denial of his GRT interpretation (Builder 1957, generally accepted) as well as the necessity of a physical reference frame (Builder 1958, largely unknown and not generally accepted). Builder's papers didn't add much to Langevin 1911, although they may be seen as useful elaborations; and likely he didn't know about Langevin's paper (I only discovered it recently, thanks to Wikipedia).

But also these things we have discussed before; thus I primarily reply to it on this page because some others may be interested in this info. You surely understand that I won't go into this with you again, since we have a history of misunderstanding each other, climaxing in irritation.

Regards, Harald88 20:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Harold: In his June 1905 paper, Einstein did not flat-out state that he denied the ether. However, his expressly stated assumption that lightspeed is the same on each leg of a round-trip path is tantamount (equivalent) to such a denial. There is simply no logical way to circumvent this conclusion. If Poincare anticipated Einstein without expressly denying the ether, it shows that either he did not realize, or chose not to express, the consequences of his conclusion. If an ether exists, lightspeed can only be identical in both directions of a round trip path in the unique frame at rest wrt the ether. Unless you can give a persuasive (or indeed any) counter-argument, you should acknowledge the validity of my conclusion; namely, that Einstein’s theory of relativity as stated in his June 1905 paper defacto denies the ether. Later, in his 1920 Leiden speech, he affirms an immovable ether. He can wax philosophic one way or the other, but his arguments in his June 1905 paper require that an ether that effects lightspeed is nonexistent.

I also take issue with your definition of what constitutes a “law of physics”. Your stated criterion is “verifiability”. If so, Ptolomy's epicycles can be interpreted as bonafide laws of physics. Is this your position?

Imo, you are confusing “theories” with “laws”. There is a general consensus that theories – which include the predictions of the laws -- must be verifiable by empirical means. However, the “laws” of physics are the postulates upon which physical theories are based. Defacto, they are assumptions about the nature of physical reality and are starting points or foundations for theories. In some cases they might be independently verifiable, either empirically or by thought experiments, but there is no necessity for postulates to be verifiable. In the case of Einstein in 1905, his laws (or postulates or assumptions) are the two familiar ones, plus at least a third in the form of invariant lightspeed on each leg of a round trip path; or if you prefer, that an ether that effects lightspeed does not exist. In your conceptualization of these issues, unverifiable postulates do not constitute physics. Imo, this is an error. Although postulates are usually not independently verifiable, they are defacto verified by verifying what they imply.

Concerning models, I strongly disagree that Einstein’s 1905 theory (which he referred to as ‘Special Relativity’ in 1916 to distinguish it from General Relativity) has no model. Every theory requires a model, either explicitly defined, or if not, then implicit. In the case of SR, the “model” consists of the set of interrelated concepts in which the theory is constructed and presented; namely, frames of reference (inertial only), observers with measuring rods and clocks, synchronized clocks, how measurements are performed, etc., etc. One cannot have a theory without a model, but strictly speaking neither the theory nor the model within which the theory is constructed, constitute “laws of physics”. E.g., the bending of light is not a law of physics in GR, but a consequence or prediction of the laws or postulates upon which GR is based; namely, the equivalence principle, etc.

At this point I don’t want to confuse these issues by discussing QM. Suffice it to say that QM has postulates that are empirically verifiable via their consequences, and a model. But unlike relativity, the postulates are closer to Ptolomy’s “philosophy” of science than Einstein’s; that is, the postulates of QM are essentially curve fits that do not explain anything; they merely allows us to correctly predict probabilities. green 193.108.45.233 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald: This discussion has been useful in clarifying your views. As I see it, your conceptual framework is flawed. E.g., your analysis implies that the postulates of a theory are not part of the theory itself and therefore should not be considered “physics" because they are not, or might not be verifiable. This is an extremely artificial distinction. According to this view, what Einstein assumed about the ether in 1905, implicitly or otherwise, has absolutely nothing to do with his “physics”. (“A modern theory of physics is about verifiability. What can't be verified, isn't considered part of the physics theory proper.”). As a factual matter, one cannot construct a theory without postulates, and the postulates are defacto verified by verifying their implications as expressed by the theory. Your claim that the postulates of SR do not constitute “physics” because they are not directly verifiable seems to miss the point of having a theory, or participating in the science enterprise. The point of physics is to discover the nature of physical reality as expressed by the laws of physics. To divorce the laws from the theories that issue from them, and to then relegate the laws themselves to the status of “metaphysics”, is to emasculate the objective of science. green 193.108.45.153 11:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your use of the term "law of physics"; most specifially, laws of physics make no claims about the nature of physical reality. That's philosophy and not physics, and what you call physics is what was called "natural philosophy". Many (most?) scientists have abandoned the old objective of science to understand nature. But I'm not here for a dispute about the scope of physics! We all know that the current in the wire flows from - to +, despite the convention (postulate) that it flows from + to -. Similarly the speed of light is defined by all with an operational definition, and not as a claim about reality. Scientists such as Newton and Poincare understood the difference very well - and without understanding their approach, their arguments can't be understood. I now guess that that's something that one understands immediately, or never; thus I abstain from further discussion about physics or Poincare's approach to it. Both SRT postulates were published by Poincare before 1905; for priority issues one's philosophy doesn't matter. Harald88 12:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If you equate “convention” with “postulate” when discussing physics, it's questionable whether you will ever really understand the subject. It’s a “convention” that the electron’s charge is “negative”; it could just as well have been defined as “positive”. Such conventions simply do not have the same status as, e.g., the symmetry postulate of SR, aka the Principle of Relativity. Further, the SoL has real physical content notwithstanding the modern operational definition (wrt frequency cycles of some atom or whatever, located in Geneva or wherever). If you’re stopped by a cop who clocks you traveling at .5c, will you tell the judge that the SoL has no objective content? Will this be a plausible defense? Like many modern physicists, particularly those who have been seduced by QM, you seem to have lost your common sense. This is why, in part, you simply cannot admit that Einstein’s clock synchronization method constitutes a defacto denial of an ether that effects lightspeed.

I now have stopped trying to explain. But again: it is essentially Poincare's clock synchronization method, and he didn't abandon the stationary ether concept; which disproves your claim that that method constitutes a defacto denial of an ether that affects lighspeed, and establishes your continuing lack of understanding.

Forget about Poincare, and forget about Einstein. Instead try some independent thinking. If the SoL is the same on both legs of a round-trip path, it surely does contradict the existence of a stationary ether that effects lightspeed. green 193.108.45.248 18:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Consider the MMX. The SoL is assumed as c - v and c + v along the non-transverse paths because of the assumed ether flow. If lightspeed is c in both directions, this is tantamount to assuming no ether effect on the SoL, or else no ether. Einstein assumes this for every inertial frame. Ergo, he assumes either that the ether doesn't exist, or that it has no effect on lightspeed. green 193.108.45.232 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Green, doing that brings us completely out of the scope of this Talk page, and I'm sure we have discussed this in private. But just in case a last repeat of this could "click", here is my thinking which agrees with that of others: The (one-way) SoL is and was defined as the time difference as measured between two distant clocks, while a light or radio signal passes by. In practice clocks have already since 1898 been synchronized by means of such signals, and according to the theory (Lorentz 1904, Poincare 1905, Einstein 1905) there is no means to "absolutely" synchronize these clocks. No claim about true isotropy is implied nor can be implied, in view of the theoretical impossibility to determine true or absolute simultaneity. Harald88 20:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read Einstein's comments in his June 1905 paper in the section I previously cited? He states that he assumes the SoL is the same in both directions for otherwise it is impossible to synchronize clocks. Defacto, this is a postulate in his theory. It assumes that space is isotropic. Of course it can't be proven "absolutely". Generally, postulates are not provable or testable, but they do have testable implications (predictions of the theory). Then, in the next section he uses his synchronization assumption to deal with length contraction and time dilation. Btw, we have not discussed these issues before and they may be important wrt priority issues to understand what Einstein's theory actually is. green 193.108.45.232 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I agree that we can't measure the one-way SoL without having synchronized clocks, but Einstein starts with the assumption that the one-way SoL is the same in both directions so as to make synchronization possible. It's an hypothesis. He expressly states that without this hypothesis, it is impossible to synchronize clocks. Read his words. green 193.108.45.228 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, Lorentz agreed with Einstein's 1905 relativity paper, suggesting that it contained nothing really new (but see below). Harald88 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, as far as priority disputes go, imo it is much more important what Einstein did with the two postulates, then whether Poincare stated them first. I could be mistaken, but I don’t believe Poincare used the implications of synchronizing clocks (using a defacto no-ether assumption), to derive the generally known results of relativity, as well as the LT’s. If not, then he never really developed relativity theory in full, which is why Einstein’s “version” has prevailed. green 193.108.45.244 14:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what you seem to think, synchronization methods have no importance for a theory of physics; but indeed (and contrary to some claims), according to the records Einstein was the first to publish a derivation of the LT straight from the PoR and the SoL - Lorentz later did express appreciation for that simpler approach to present the theory, and he adopted it in his teaching. Harald88 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Einstein's June 1905 paper. To measure the length of a moving rod, one needs to know the spacetime positions of the end points simultaneously! Einstein applied simultaneity in deriving some of the major results of relativity. green 193.108.45.248 18:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... Poincare obtained the LT without linking operational simultaneity to reality; and Ives later -as well as some others such as Selleri [15]- did similar without imposing such operational simultaneity (and in such case the transformations take a more complex form, whereby only two-way SoL equals c locally). There is nothing physical about your decision of how you want to set your' clock, it's just practical and mathematically simplest... Sorry, I can't be bothered anymore with such obvious stuff.Harald88 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your presumptuous laments to yourself. I don't trust your "analysis". I didn't claim that Einstein used simultaneity to derive the LT's. I just stated that he said clocks could not synchronized without assuming the same one-way speed for light on round-trip paths (and I agree), and without simultaneity of clocks within frames, his model and analysis breaks down. How one sets clocks is not "physical" wrt the actual positions of the hands. Any initial setting of any clock is fine. But unless one has a method to sync them, Einstein's theory collapses. The need for having an unambigious method for synching is not trivial and Einstein needed to introduce the additional defacto postulate about isotropy of space to make his theory work. Try reading the section I referenced before posturing as an Einstein expert. Does he not state that the method of using the round-trip circuit would be invalid for synching unless lightspeed is the same on each leg? Is this not tantamount to the assumption of isotropy of space? Is this not a physical assumption, similar in nature to his primary two postulates? green 193.108.45.157 07:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I am not claiming that another, to some extent similar theory could not be developed using the two way SoL for clock synching. But this is not what Einstein did. He definitely assumes isotropy of space. As you state above, the transformations that Selleri derived are different than the LT's. green 193.108.45.157 07:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The dispute about Lorentz and Poincare's assumptions about isotropy of space (and what they mean with it) vs. that of Einstein isn't the subject of this article nor of this section. You just stated that Einstein "said clocks could not synchronized without assuming the same one-way speed for light on round-trip paths (and I agree), and without simultaneity of clocks within frames, his model and analysis breaks down". I already emphasized that Poincare "said clocks could not synchronized without assuming the same one-way speed for light on round-trip paths" (and I agree also!), but this operational simultaneity of clocks within frames, is independent of Lorentz's (and his) model and analysis.

It may be worth noticing, as a last remark on this subject, that in SRT clocks that have been synchronized "are" still nearly synchronous in the original frame after acceleration, and not at all synchronous in the new one, if they were at different x coordinates (as also hinted at in the above paper by Selleri). Harald88 07:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Harold: THE BOTTOM LINE: I started this discussion to respond to Cleonis’s statement near the top: “The synchronisation procedure does not matter for the content of the theory, the content of the theory being the two postulates of the 1905 paper.” As I have stated repeatedly, in Einstein’s analysis of the synchronization issue he defacto assumes isotropy of space – which is a physical assumption although not directly testable. I reject extreme positivism that claims what is untestable is not part of “physics”. Imo, it is not arguable (that is, is common knowledge) that postulates in physics are assumptions about physical reality that need not be testable and usually are not. Postulates are indirectly verified by the predictions of theories that issue from them. Morevover, isotropy of space is equivalent to a denial of an ether that effects lightspeed. Consider again the MMX. If c – v and c + v are the assumed lightspeeds in the non-tranverse directions in the laboratory frame (which here stands for any inertial frame), and they are assumed equal in both directions, then v = 0. This means that either the ether has no effect on lightspeed, or else it doesn’t exist. I agree that the (implicit) denial of the ether in Einstein’s theory is not a priority dispute issue. But since this has been a contentious, ambiguous, and important issue in relativity, clarifying it is a worthwhile endeavor. Finally, if Poincare never explicitly denied the ether, it clearly suggests he didn’t realize the implication of his conclusion of invariant lightspeed on each leg of a round-trip path. If you disagree, then please address the following question directly: How can the SoL can be the same in both directions in the MMX consistent with an ether that effects lightspeed? green 193.108.45.140 10:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Green, I think the light source equi-distant between two clocks comes from one of Einstein's popular expositions of relativity. Or maybe just what seems the same to me: the two lights at each end of a moving railway carriage which are triggered when each end of the carriage coincides (in the rest frame/platform frame) with the ends of the platform. The pulses of light meet in the middle of the platform (rest frame) but not in the middle of the carriage (which has moved during the ligh transit). Hence the triggering events are not simultaneous in the carriage moving frame. (Incidentally those in the carriage can conclude the carriage is NOT the same length as the platform, whereas those on the platform conclude the moving carriage is as long as the platform). E4mmacro 00:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

E4: I find your example confusing and perhaps incorrect. If the carriage at rest is the same length as the platform, then the carriage in motion, from the pov of the rest frame of the platform, will be shorter than the platform. In this case, I don’t see how lights situated on the ends of the carriage can be triggered simultaneously by signals on the platform, when passing the ends of the platform. green 193.108.45.144 19:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

E4: Maybe you mean this: when the rear end of the forward-moving carriage coincides with the extremity of the platform when approaching the platform, the lights at either end of the carriages are triggered simultaneously from the pov of the platform frame. But it is unclear how would this be accomplished. green 193.108.45.156 19:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Triggered by this discussion, I now added more on Poincaré's considerations of synchronisation procedures in the article relativity of simultaneity. Harald88 22:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Harold: I went to the link above and read the section entitled “Poincaré's (1900) Calculation of Local Time for Moving Clocks” (which I presume you wrote). How can Poincare believe (your claim on this Talkpage) that the SoL is the same on each leg of a round-trip path and also assume that it is c-v and c+v due to the earth’s velocity v wrt the luminiferous ether? This makes no sense and relates to my comments and question above (in paragraph starting wth “The BOTTOM LINE”). green 193.108.45.237 10:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald: You may be suffering from a case of denial (of reality). The c+v and c-v speeds of light in those equations are not closing velocities. They are the speeds of light in the rest frame of the lab (or any inertial frame), different in each direction like the assumptions of the MMX. If Poincare eventually took the pov that the Sol is the same on each leg of a round-trip path, then something is awry with the presentation in the article you cite. He must have finally come to the (defacto) view, like Einstein, that the ether doesn't exist. green 193.108.45.227 08:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That section was written by someone else (E4 probably) and it suffices to remark that "the SoL" in the rest frame of the lab depends on one's definition; I added the information from Poincare's 1898 paper. And contrary to your claims, Poincare continued to refer to the ether, and so did Lorentz; while they both adhered to the (symmetrical!) LT - it was even Poincare who wrote them down in that form, to stress observational symmetry. There is no problem as long as one realises that they understood that physics language is not about reality, but about pragmatic models of reality. Harald88 09:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to want to do your own thinking on this issue. The SoL in the rest frame is c - v or c + v, where c is the SoL in the frame of the ether, and v is the assumed velocity of the ether wind along the x axis. The clocks are assumed at rest wrt each other. I don't see how some esoteric velocity convention can save the ether if one assumes the SoL is the same on both legs, but I am open to hearing the argument. In the good ole days, I believe they used the normal meaning of velocity; distance divided by time using (assumed) synchronized clocks. Also, I never claimed, as you state above, that Poincare or Lorentz ceased to refer to the ether. I simply stated that Poincare's belief that the SoL is the same on both legs of a round-trip path is inherently contradictory to the ether's existence. Further, in the good ole days, physicists were not seduced with extreme positivism and had the common sense understanding that the laws of physics refer to the behavior of nature. I'd be grateful if you would define the velocity or SoL convention that is consistent with the ether's existence and the assumption that the SoL is the same on each leg of a round-trip path. green 193.108.45.150 12:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

11 Mar 2006 – 21 Sep 2006

Archived discussions, 11 March 2006 - 21 Sept 2006. Next discussion is from Jan 2007.

Poincaré's considerations of synchronisation procedures (continued)

Harald: You may be suffering from a case of denial (of reality). The c+v and c-v speeds of light in those equations are not closing velocities. They are the speeds of light in the rest frame of the lab (or any inertial frame), different in each direction like the assumptions of the MMX. If Poincare eventually took the pov that the Sol is the same on each leg of a round-trip path, then something is awry with the presentation in the article you cite. He must have finally come to the (defacto) view, like Einstein, that the ether doesn't exist. green 193.108.45.227 08:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That section was written by someone else (E4 probably) and it suffices to remark that "the SoL" in the rest frame of the lab depends on one's definition; I added the information from Poincare's 1898 paper. And contrary to your claims, Poincare continued to refer to the ether, and so did Lorentz; while they both adhered to the (symmetrical!) LT - it was even Poincare who wrote them down in that form, to stress observational symmetry. There is no problem as long as one realises that they understood that physics language is not about reality, but about pragmatic models of reality. Harald88 09:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to want to do your own thinking on this issue. The SoL in the rest frame is c - v or c + v, where c is the SoL in the frame of the ether, and v is the assumed velocity of the ether wind along the x axis. The clocks are assumed at rest wrt each other. I don't see how some esoteric velocity convention can save the ether if one assumes the SoL is the same on both legs, but I am open to hearing the argument. In the good ole days, I believe they used the normal meaning of velocity; distance divided by time using (assumed) synchronized clocks. Also, I never claimed, as you state above, that Poincare or Lorentz ceased to refer to the ether. I simply stated that Poincare's belief that the SoL is the same on both legs of a round-trip path is inherently contradictory to the ether's existence. Further, in the good ole days, physicists were not seduced with extreme positivism and had the common sense understanding that the laws of physics refer to the behavior of nature. I'd be grateful if you would define the velocity or SoL convention that is consistent with the ether's existence and the assumption that the SoL is the same on each leg of a round-trip path. green 193.108.45.150 12:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Green, your way of defining the SoL is incompatible with how those 19th century astronomers, as well as Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein and myself define it (see relativity of simultaneity). It should therefore not be a surprise that you make claims about contradictions where there is none: Poincare did not assume that such clocks are truly synchronized. Harald88 22:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And you speak in riddles. I asked you how you define the SoL. Please state your preferred definition and how it is consistent with the same SoL on each each leg and an ether in which the speeds differ as in the MMX. Btw, I gave one definition. I could probably think of others. Meantime I will look again at your link, but on my last scan it didn't answer these questions. green 193.108.45.132 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

One obvious problem with what you have been claiming is its implication that the result of the MMX (fringe shift or not; ether detection or not) depends on one’s definition of the SoL, not on the existence of a physical phenomena. green 193.108.45.147 09:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are Poincare’s words as quoted in your Wiki link: "[An astronomer begins] with admitting that light has a constant speed, and particularly that its speed is the same in all directions. Now that is a postulate without which no measurement of that speed could be attempted. [...] this furnishes us a new rule for establishing simultaneity". He seems to be assuming that one measures lightspeed using one clock and a round-trip path, which is Einstein’s method in his June 1905 paper. Afaict, there is nothing esoteric in this definition or its assumptions. But the core question remains: How is this consistent with the assumption that lightspeed is c-v and c+v in the MMX along the x-axis (the assumed direction of the lab frame’s motion wrt the ether)? How can Poincare’s (and Einstein’s) assumption about constant lightspeed in all directions (isotropy of space wrt lightspeed) fail to contradict the basic assumption underlying the MMX that lightspeed is a variable depending on the frame’s motion wrt the ether? Please address this directly. Meanwhile, I will continue to read your link for possible clues wrt your alleged solution to this problem. My conclusion has been, and remains, that Poincare’s and Einstein’s assumptions defacto deny the ether’s existence. green 193.108.45.154 11:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald: After reading your "proof by reference" -- that is the link to the Wiki article on simultaneity you cited above -- it offers nothing to resolve the simply contradiction I have described. Your reluctance to give an argument makes me think you know not of what you claim and are just blowing smoke. green 193.108.45.141 10:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is not for such discussions, and i have given up trying to explain that to you - and why should I explain it anyway. Maybe somebody else likes to do it, but it appears not to be the case. But against better judgment and wasting more time and memory bites: in MMX the lightspeeds are c+v and c-v in the solar frame; it's c+v and c-v in all frames, incl. the ether frame (v=0 in the frame in which the instrument is resting). The basic assumption in MMX is first about reality, and next about measurability; the convention is simply about measurability alone. No more. Harald88 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is c+v anc c-v in the solar frame because that frame is assumed to be in motion wrt the ether. It is surely not c + v and c - v in all frames. Maybe all the textbooks are wrong and you are right. I agree this page is not for this discussion but it is an issue that is worthwhile resolving for a understanding of where Poincare and Einstein stood on this issue. green 193.108.45.136 07:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meaning of the "c+v" term: both are defined relative to the chosen frame. Thus "in" the solar frame (any frame), light speed is c by definition, as v=0. And "all textbooks" don't disagree with these basics that also are contained in Einstein's 1905 paper ("relative velocity"). Only a few textbooks present it in an erroneous/misleading way.Harald88 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[Oops, I meant v_sun=0 ; but apparently that was not too confusing!] Harald88 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, the basic idea is that the ether is the assumed medium for light propagation and its speed is c in the unique frame at rest wrt the ether, just as sound has some fixed velocity wrt the air, and will increase or decrease when wind exists. In the MMX, the earth/laboratory/instrument are assumed to be dragged with the sun creating an ether wind of speed v that changes lightspeed by v or -v depending on the beam's direction, and this is the effect that MM tried to detect. Your interpretation seems at variance with what I have read in textbooks. green 193.108.45.138 08:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is about Poincare's and Einstein's ways of formulating the problem, not M&M's. Harald88 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that the SoL is c + v and c - v is all frames (say in a MM-type experiment) implies that every star and galaxy would be assumed by M&M as moving at speed v wrt the ether. They get "v" by assuming an ether wind in the solar frame only, not in any frame one can imagine. If instead of a MMX, you assume a mirror 10 miles distant from a light source and clock for measuring the SoL, and further assume that the SoL is the same in each direction, you necessarily assume v = 0, or no ether wind. I thought your "way out" of this dilemma would be to assume that the assumption of the same speed in either direction is not provable/measurable, and hence according to your perspective should be relegated/demoted to philosophy (not physics). But this is still inconsistent with your presumed desire (which I infer from private email) for an objective reality in the form of the ether, which is also not measureable and hence also "just" philosophy from your perspective. green 193.108.45.136 11:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See above; M&M did not use the relativistic vocabulary of Poincare and Einstein, and you are mistaken about their assumption; which is another subject.

But I'm happy to see that you understand Poincare's (astronomers) "assumption" (in fact, definition) of v=0. Thus I'll not add anymore to this section.

Note that I disagree that philosophy implies a demotion; also, you are mistaken if you think that an impossibility to measure an ether speed must be a problem for the stationary ether concept. From twin paradox you know that it wasn't a problem for Langevin, and the impossibility to measure our velocity relative to Newton's absolute space apparently wasn't a problem for Newton either. Harald88 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In the MMX it is assumed that the SoL is not the same on each leg in solar frame. The length of each leg, L, is divided by c + v and c + v -- the assumed lightspeeds in each direction in the lab or solar frame -- for calculating the total round-trip time. This flat-out contradicts Poincare's and Einstein's assumptions wrt the SoL for synchronizing clocks. Here the lab or solar frame is the same as any frame in relativity where one needs synched clocks for the theory to work. green 193.108.45.136 11:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald: I am well aware that M&M did not have relativity in mind when they designed their experiment. As should be clear in the context of this discussion, I have used the MMX not only to illustrate the implications of Einstein’s and Poincare’s assumption wrt lightspeed on a round-trip path when synching clocks (that it is the same on each leg; hence no ether), but also to point out your flawed methodology of selectively applying a principle or assumption. If you agree with E & P that lightspeed is the same on each leg of a round trip path when synching clocks, consistency requires that you make the same assumption for the MMX. If one does this, it is tantamount to assuming that v = 0 in the MMX, which is equivalent to either a denial of the ether’s existence, or if it exists, that it has no effect on lightspeed. You cannot consistently assume that lightspeed is the same on each leg of a round-trip path when synching clocks, and also claim that it is not when analyzing the MMX.

Further, it is immaterial in this discussion that P referred to the "necessary" assumption of astronomers when discussing lightspeed on a round-trip path. His pov on this issue is more general, and includes, like Einstein’s, what he considers the necessary assumption for synching clocks. Iow, to synch clocks that are at rest in a given frame, one must (according to E in June 1905) make the assumption of an invariant lightspeed on both legs. You claim he obtained this concept from P, and you further stated your concurrence as to its truth. But when you discuss the MMX, you take the opposite position. This is inconsistent and totally inadmissible.

In contrast to your claim above, the “v” in the MMX is hypothetically different for each solar system, star or galaxy. It is the assumed speed of the ether wind due to the object’s motion wrt the ether. Thus, in the MMX, the assumed speed of light in the lab/earth frame – aka, the “solar frame” – is c + v and c – v, and not “c” as you claim above. (Btw, one can identify the lab/earth frame with the solar frame if one assumes the earth’s rotation and orbital motion are insignificant compared to the sun’s motion in creating the ether wind.) This “c”, which is indeed the same in all frames as you state above, is the measured speed. That is, your statement does not clearly distinguish the measured speed of light, which is “c” in any frame using the round-trip, single clock method of measurement, from the assumed one-way speed, which for M&M is definitely c + v and c – v. They made this assumption to test the ether hypothesis. Please be clear: I am not claiming that the failure to detect a fringe shift implies that the ether is non-existent. As we know, there are ether-based theories to explain this. However, such theories assume that lightspeed is different on each leg of a round-trip path, and from this pov attempt to account for the null result via additional hypotheses (length contraction, time dilation, or whatever). But if one directly assumes that lightspeed is the same on each leg, one doesn’t need these additional assumptions to explain the null result. It follows directly from the implied assumption of no ether. This was all I was claiming; that E & P implicitly deny the ether in their clock synching assumption, and an analysis of the MMX makes this fact evident.

Finally, I believe that what we are discussing is an important issue that should be clarified by those who claim to be able to interpret E and P. It is therefore appropriate that we do so here.

green 193.108.45.131 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I added parenthetical comment above for clarification about identifying the lab/earth frame with the solar frame. green 193.108.45.225 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, very last comments from my side:

Lorentz and Poincare (and Langevin etc.) assumed that the speed relative to the ether has no effect on measurable lightspeed; so that any inertial reference frame may be pretended to be the ether frame for the purpose of measurements - which is what Poincare's Lorentz transformations describe. Thus for the MMX, light speed appears ("is" by operational definition) isotropically in all frames, even if it's truly so only in the assumedly stationary ether frame.

Note that relativity of simultaneity as well as length contraction and time dilation can't be separated from the LT, and the LT can't be separated from SRT. But you are right that the LT are not necessary for that: Poincare's PoR implied the null result, in fact it was explicitly based on such null results!

Also, Poincare had suggested that one day the ether might be abandoned but in the end he didn't do so.

At that time (and very differently from Poincare), Einstein appears to have believed that reality is that which is measurable.

I look forward to hear of others here who think to be able to interpret P and E; and I don't claim to fully understand E (as is famously common!)Harald88 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The anon is nitpicking and does not understand the MMX. The MMX was set on a rotating platform, so that an ether wind across the device would result in a fringe shift as it was rotated.

Who's doing the nitpicking now? This fact wasn't relevant to the discussion -- which you clearly haven't read with discrimination since you haven't addressed any of the key issues. Obviously, one doesn't know beforehand the exact direction of the ether wind (if it exists), so the apparatus must be rotated to align one axis (the axis wrt which the velocity of light is presumed to be c+v and c-v), in order to detect the presumed fringe shift. Unfortunately your comments have no value added. green 193.108.45.151 12:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The c+v, c-v business only applied along one leg of the device when it was in the "ideal" position. Indeed, it was meant to detect aninsotopy in the speed of light. As for c+v being different is different frame of reference, that is true. When no aether wind was found the first time around, M&M assumed that within 6 months it would be present as the Earth orbited the Sun. Of course, they still got a null result.

Fine. Now tell us something new that is specifically related to the discussion. If I made any interpretive errors wrt MMX or whatever, please point them out instead of blowing general supercilious smoke in my direction. green 193.108.45.151 12:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Poincare, it is interesting that he grasped that a constant c would have implications for simultaneity, but unlike Einstein he does not seem to have grasped the full implications of that, at least not before 1905. --EMS | Talk 06:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but that's transparantly biased statement. Unbiased, it becomes: "As for Poincare, it is interesting that he grasped that a constant c would have implications for simultaneity, and just as Lorentz and Einstein he does not seem to have grasped the full implications of that before 1905." (And I disagree.)Harald88 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

But now that we have exhausted the interpretation of Poincare around 1905, I'm really interested to see if a consensus can be reached on the interpretation of Einstein around 1905. I'll start a section on that below. Harald88 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

State of this article

I must express some concerns about this article, if only in that it does not express clearly what the mainstream views on this relevant topics are. (namely that Einstein is single-handedly responsible of the sysnthesis of concepts that forms special relativity, for understanding the true meaning of E=mc² first, and for the doing the vast majority of the work in the creation of general relativity including devising the Einstein field equations). In fact, some of the quotes supporting Einstein do a good job of expressing this and should be placed into an introductory section as such. (BTW - This is a call for a new section to be placed after the lead. The current lead is actually farly good IMO.)

As I see it, the views that are being contested need to be aired first, possibly with a quick statement of what about it is being contested by others. Then the article can launch into the descriptions of what is being contested with respect to them, and what the various POVs are. --EMS | Talk 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, with one "hic": I doubt that a straightforward current mainstream view exists on all these topics; instead nowadays it's all in mainstream review. It should however be pointed out that until recently a simplistic mainstream POV existed, as described in many textbooks of physics; and then such a textbook should be quoted as example (maybe some general one, such as from a physics book by Feynman). Of course, that fits for 100% with the above suggestion to first air what statements are contested. Harald88 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think Harold is correct that the mainstream view is in flux, and has changed over time (mostly more recognition of Poincaré's work?). So I agree that a description of the mainstream view, together with some description of its change over time, is a good idea. Paul August ☎ 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I now have the Dutch version of Alonso&Finn's physics textbook in my hands; has anyone of you the English version? For it contains one good example of an old but now disputed (even disproved) mainstream claim. Roughly translated they wrote:

[Ch.2] "[Einstein] formulated his relativity principle [...]

[ch.7] "The German phyicisist Albert Einstein went a step further and in 1905 he put forward the special principle of relativity, which states that all laws of nature must be equal for all inertial observers who move with constant speed relative to each other.

That's a good example for the intro of this article. Harald88 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wise words from Todorov

Todorov seems to have some suspicions that Einstein got the correct equation from Hilbert's postcards to Einstein, since he emphasizes that Einstein presents the equation with no proof. On the other hand, Einstein presented all the versions without proof didn't he? Einstein stayed with Hilbert, in his house (see Folsing and Todorov), during the week in June 1915 when Einstein (at Hilbert's invitation) gave 6 two hour lectures on relativity. Who knows who suggested what equation to whom in that case: I imagine that nearly every possibility was covered and each would be capable of forgetting who said what (in fact I think this is typical). I think Todorov's summary is worth bearing in mind

Einstein and Hilbert had the moral strength and wisdom-after a month of intense competition ... to avoid a lifelong priority dispute ... It would be a shame [if] subsequent generations ... try to undo their achievments.

Hilbert seems to go out of his way to praise Einstein and credit him, Einstein is a little more grudging in his references to Hilbert - we should leave it at that. E4mmacro 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that quote from Todorov is already in the article. Still worth remembering it here. E4mmacro 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, I agree with you; and such an attitude is probably compatible with articles on Einstein and Hilbert, (if it's not too much POV to refer to Todorov as "right"!); but I fear such is really incompatible with an article that has as purpose to describe disputes... Harald88 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, historians are that way. Even if Hilbert and Einstein made their peace in December 1915, they still want to know how things developed. Also, see the introduction to my WN Wiki article which you have read. The problem here is Einstein's November 18 letter to Hilbert, which makes it clear that Einstein had some information from Hilbert when he wrote his November 25 field equations paper. When this letter resurfaced in 1978, the peace between Hilbert and Einstein became untenable. Hilbert had left a time bomb: To permanently protect that peace between Einstein and himself, it would have been necessary to burn that Einstein letter and also the Max Born letter to Hilbert containing the information that Einstein had seen Walter Baade's notes of Hilbert's lecture. It is certainly not to be blamed upon modern historians that things developed the way they did. So the "shame" is not on subsequent generations. Shame on Hilbert for not falsifying the historical record by burning those two letters! --De kludde 19:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If Todorov is right Bjerknes is wrong

The following quote from Todorov appears in the article:

The polemics is getting rough. A new book, (Wuensch 05), is advertised with a question mark: “Ein Kriminalfall in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte?” (“A criminal case in the history of science?”). The author asserts - already in the abstract to the book - that a missing fragment (also discussed in (Sau 99) and in (Win 04)) of the text on pages 7 and 8 of Hilbert’s proof-sheets, used in (CRS 97), contained “in all probability ... the explicit form of the field equations...” She further argues that “the passage ... was not excised originally but rather ... it must have been deliberately removed in more recent times in order to falsify the historical truth.”

This quote may have a place to tell us how ugly the debate has become, but it should be deleted. It might be mistaken for Todorov lending support to Wuensch's and Wintergberg's claims of falsification of the historical record and claims that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert. While Todorov thinks CRS went too far in accusing Hilbert of plagiarizing Einstein he does not support Winterberg’s claim that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert, and that the correct field equation is on the missing bit of the proof. We know Todorov’s view because:

1. Todorov recommends Sauer (Arch. Hist. Exact. Sci, v53, 529-575, 1999) as a calm non-confrontationalist discussion, and Sauer (p525) tells us “any possibility that Einstein took the clue for the final step towards his field equations from Hilbert’s note is now definitely precluded”.
2. Todorov himself says directly what he thinks – that Hilbert did not have the field equations until after the date of Dec 6 on the printer’s proofs. Thus (on p. 13) Todorov writes

After formulating the generally covariant action principle [Hilbert] appeals, in his original text, to Einstein’s long-promoted “causality principle” and restricts the general covariance by a (non-covariant formulation of) the energy momentum conservation law. Only at the stage of proof reading does Hilbert suppress all extra conditions and recognize the unqualified physical relevance of the covariant equation.

One can see that if Hilbert wrote the wrong field equations in his proofs (a fact that should be easily verified) then Sauer is correct to say there is no possibility that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert, and Bjerknes’ claim of plagiarism can be dismissed. E4mmacro 06:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That is, on one account. Harald88 23:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I count two, Sauer and Todorov. And I would add Hilbert. E4mmacro 01:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that Einstein's explicit field equation in terms of the Ricci tensor and the Riemann curvature scalar is not in the proofs. It is Winternerg's opinion that it was in the missing 1/3 of a page. Everybody else that I have read agrees the missing equation is $H=K+L$ where K is gravity part, L is electromagnetic part. A plagiarism charge based on Einstein copying the explicit form of the field equation cannot be sustained, in my view. The pladiarism charge has to be based on how easy it would have been for Einstein to derive his field equation from Hilbert's variational equation which was in the proofs. This is being wise after the event. It may seem easy now, but Hilbert actually got a slighlty different explicit equation, which was the same as Einstein's under some assumptions. Hilbert can only conclude it seems the same as Einstein's, but of course since Einstein has four papers in 4 weeks with a few different versions, he may have been uncertain as to exactly what Einstein's equation was. E4mmacro 11:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks like I have to retract Todorov and stick with Sauer. Despite what Todorv says above, because elsewhere in the same article he seems to say Einstein and Hilbert published the identical equations. So I guess I don't get it - it looks contradictory to me. E4mmacro 11:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert never wrote the wrong field equations in his article. Bjerknes reprinted the printer proofs, there is just some piece lacking, not the wrong field equations (i.e., field equations without a trace term). What he DID change in December 1915 was dropping some sort of gauge condition he had used in his treatment of the energy theorem. If you are not willing to give blind faith to Bjerknes, I agree with you but I nevertheless think Bjerknes' reprint of the printer proofs is correct. If Hilbert had given the wrong field equations in the printer proofs, CRS would have pointed this out in their response to Winterberg. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that the explicit field equations are not in the EXTANT part of the proof. But the accusations of plagiarism against Einstein are not based upon his seeing the proof. They are based upon the fact that Einstein received a postcard or letter from Hilbert, probably on November 17, in which Hilbert explained his theory to Einstein. To exonerate Einstein of plagiarism, it is necessary to assume that this postcard either did not contain the field equations in explicit form, or that Hilbert miscalculated the explicit form of his field equations. I don't think that calculating the derivative of his action functional was difficult for Hilbert. As Hilbert probably wanted Einstein to be able to compare his earlier equations to Hilbert's, it was natural for Hilbert to send an explicit version of the field equations and not the principle of variation. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But even if it was true that neither the printer proofs nor the November 16 postcard contained the field equations in explicit form, Einstein would still have been well-adviced to mention Hilbert's letter in his November 25 paper. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the CRS paper is that their claim is not confirmed by contemporary witnesses. Hilbert talked about his theory in Göttingen on November 16, the day he presumably wrote his letter/postcard to Einstein, and notes were taken by Walter Baade, who, according to [Wue04, p. 74] sent them to Einstein's friend Freundlich. Max Born has seen these notes, and this is what he wrote to Hilbert:

Von Einstein und Freundlich hörte ich jetzt, daß Sie die Gravitation in Ordnung gebracht haben; ... Einstein selbst sagt, er habe das Problem ebenfalls gelöst, doch scheint mir seine Betrachtung ein Spezialfall der Ihrigen.

I have now learned from Einstein and Freundlich that you have tackled gravitation; ... Einstein himself told me that he has also solved the problem, however his consideration looks to me like a special case of yours.

This means that Born was able to make a comparison, so it is unlikely that the notes did not contain the explicit version of the field equations. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that the fact that Einstein has seen these notes is another base for plagiarism charges against Einstein. The printer proofs are only of indirect importance in this connection as Einstein has never seen them. It is the content of Hilbert's November 16 talk and his letter to Einstein which matters. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniela Wuensch (2005)

"According to her publisher, Wuensch concludes though that:

This comprehensive study concludes with a historical interpretation. It shows that while it is true that Hilbert must be seen as the one who first discovered the field equations, the general theory of relativity is indeed Einstein's achievement, whereas Hilbert developed a unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism.[12] "

This claim is patently false. Hilbert never unified gravity and EM. I suggest that it be deleted. (Btw, wrt section on Tilman Sauer, is his first name Tilman or (as the text states) "Tolman"?) green 193.108.45.232 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

His name is Tilman, and his paper cited is very interesting. It shows that Hilbert was trying to develop a unified theory, hence there was some initial difficulty in showing that Hilbert's "version of the field equation given as variational derivatives of an invariant was the same as Einstein's given in terms of the Ricci tensor and the Riemann curvature scaler" were the same. First a few assumption had to be made, about splitting the gravitational and electromagnetic parts, and it was not straightforward to identify a term in Hilbert's equation with the Riemann scalar. Hence Hilbert tentative comment added at the proof reading stage "The resulting differential equations of gravitation are, it seems to me, in agreement with the broad theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later papers". BTW, even if we did not have the proofs, this should have made it fairly clear that Hilbert revised his paper after seeing Einstein's paper of Nov 25. He was here talking of his equation

$\left[{\sqrt {g}}K\right]_{\mu \nu }={\sqrt {g}}\left(K_{\mu \nu }-{\frac {1}{2}}Kg_{\mu \nu }\right)$

which is closest to the field equation in Einstein's last paper Nov 25, as far as I can see. E4mmacro 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

See comments below. green 193.108.45.234 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Otoh, maybe it is preferable to leave the false claim, but point out that it is false. This would tend to discredit Wuensch. I don't understand how an historian of Hilbert could be so far off on what he accomplished. green 193.108.45.251 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about whether the Wuensch book/claim is accurate or not (my German is in a sad shape, but the "big discovery" she seems to have made, if I understand correctly, is some small pencil notes on one of the proof pages, added who-knows-when by who-knows-who), but I thought it would make sense to have the "conclusion" section from the website pasted in here, so that it was clear what her "overall point" was, right or wrong. --Fastfission 02:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As a factual matter, her claim is surely false. Have you ever heard of a paper by Hilbert unifying gravity and EM? Certainly, if there were such a theory, it hasn't impressed anyone. If Hilbert was contemplating such a theory, would that qualify him as having "developed" such a theory? Her claim is nonsensical hyperbole imo. green 193.108.45.234 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I added an "Editor's note" to warn the reader about this nonsensical claim. green 193.108.45.139 19:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Green, I don't know if you realise that Hilbert's Nov 20, 1915-Mar 16, 1916 paper was an attempt at a unified field theory (trying to unify Einstein and Mie).

The substantial lasting innovation of Hilbert's first note on the foundation of physics was the foundation of Einstein's general theory of relativity on an invariant variational principle as an equivalent representation of the gravitational and electromagnetic field equations ... Other innovative features of his note have not stood the test of time. Among these are his ideas on a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and his energy vector. (T. Sauer, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci, v53, pp 529-575, at p. 569)

Perhaps, she is half right. He used the same methods for gravity and electromagnetism, and did think he had a unified field theory, which turned out to be wrong, which is why we have never heard much of it. E4mmacro 00:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I modified my comment. From an historical perspective her claim is hyperbole and the reader should be alerted. green 193.108.45.227 09:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a remark that was not in cursive, in cursive, assuming that the expressed opinion there is a note of the editor. If my assumption is wrong and in fact it can't be found in that article, then it must be deleted because it's a POV. Harald88 09:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption is wrong; the "editor" in this case is 193.108.45.231, and such "editor's comment"s are utterly and completely forbidden by WP POV and OR policies. -- Jibal 10:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What is 'cursive'? Italics? Hilbert didn't "develop" any theory unifying gravity and EM. If he had ideas that didn't work and which no one refers to, this doesn't qualify putting it on a par with Einstein's GR as one would infer from Wuensche's commment. It's not POV. It's a fact of history; no "developed" theory unifying gravity and EM! green 193.108.45.231 14:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Green, I changed your text to accuse only the publisher. I don't think you can much such a claim as you did against the author until you have read her book. It could be that she says no more than the truth, that Hilbert Nov 20, Mar 1916, and 1924 is a unified field theory that hasn't stood the test of time. The quote you object to was by the publisher who could easily be confused. In any case I don't see the quote as putting Hilbert's failed theory on the same footing as GR. E4mmacro 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

WP editors can't make claims at all, regardless of how many books they have read; it's a blatant violation of POV and OR policies. -- Jibal 10:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert developed his machinery and then applied it to Gustav Mies' nonlinear equations of electromagnetism, hoping that this might give him a unified field theory. Nothing wrong with the statement of Sommer or Wuensch. --De kludde 19:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The statement inferentially places Einstein's theory on the same footing as Hilbert's. What Einstein took 10+ years to develop successfully, can hardly be defacto equilibrated to Hilbert's much shorter and totally unsuccessful effort. green 193.108.45.228 14:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is your POV green and I am doubtful that wiki allows that as an editor's note. (I am sure my POV slips in here and there of course, removed by others as it should be.) E4mmacro 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Such a note is quite verboten, as it is explicitly POV and original research, and I've removed it. It's a fact that Wuensch made the claim, regardless of whether some editor thinks it is false. If someone of relevance (not a WP editor) has publicly stated that Wuensch's statement is false, then that can be included in the article. But WP articles must not present editor's views, beliefs, claims, arguments, etc. -- Jibal 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this quote from Hilbert's paper make any difference (as translated by Sauer 1999)?

Hence, Mie's electromagnetic energy tensor is nothing but that generally covariant tensor which is obtained by differentiation of the invariant L with respect to the gravitational potentiatl g^μν in the limiting case [of special relativity] ... a fact which pointed me in the first place to the necessary and close relation between Einstein's general theory of relativity and Mie's electrodynamics and which convinced me of the correctness of the theory developed here.

Also green, it is very possible (ISTM) that when Hilbert says "meiner theory" he is not trying to say Einstein's general relativity is his (Hilbert's) theory and he is not claiming priority for GR. He is claiming that both GR and Mie's electrodynamics can be derived mathematically from his invariant methods. He is not making a physics priority claim, just a mathemtically priority claim. I don't think anyone has said Hilbert has priority fro Mie's theory of electromagnetism (another non-stayer?). Of course if Mie's theory were Einstein's theory it might be a different matter .... E4mmacro 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC) E4mmacro 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What is "meiner theory"? - Tilman Sauer

According to Tilman Sauer (and I believe most historians of science) the whole issue of a prority dispute is a "non-starter", or a "beat-up" as they say in the newspapers here. Thus

"The independence of Einstein's discovery was never a point of dispute between Einstein and Hilbert. Nor was the independence of Hilbert's derivation of the field equation ever disputed by Einstein. Hilbert claimed priority for the introduction of the Riemann scalar into the action principle and the derivation of the field equations from it, and Einstein admitted publicly that Hilbert (and Lorentz) had succeeded in giving the equations of general relativity a particularly lucid form by deriving them from a single variational principle." T Sauer, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci v53 (1999)

It seems likely that when Hilbert refers to his theory in a mathematical paper he is talking about his way of deriving it, his way of trying to deduce physical results from as few axioms as possible and the usual sort of things mathematicians do. And his is also refering to the fact that he (Hilbert) had a unified theory (gravity and electromagnetism). After listing some of Hilbert's lasting contributions Sauer notes that "other innovative features of [Hilbert's] note have not stood the test of time. Among these are his ideas on a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and his energy vector". So I would say it is perfactly possible for Hilbert to say "my theory" without claiming priority for general relativity.

Sauer also gives a plausible explanation of why Einstein initailly thought Hilbert had plagiarised him. Hilbert sent Einstein some sort of copy of his Nov 20 talk before Nov 25 (could he have had printer's proofs that early? Hilbert handed his stuff to the printer on Nov 19, according to Sauer). In the printer's proofs Hilbert introduces "quantities which characterise the processes in the world" namely "(1) the ten gravoitational potentials $g_{\mu \nu }$ ..." without crediting Einstein at this point. According to Sauer, "Einstein had a clear understanding of the revolutionary and innovative conceptual implications of his general theory of relativituy which, at that time, had also made him an outsider in the field of gravitation theory". In the final verion, as published, Hilbert added the proper credit, saying that those ten gravitational potentials were first introduced by Einstein, and Sauer assume Hilbert had informed Einstein that he had made this change and hence Eisntein was molified.

Klaus Sommer (2005)

Well.... after a few times, I finally managed to get through to the link listed for Klaus Sommer. (The magic seems to be to click on the link, then go to the Wiley homepage, then go back, and reload).

I'm not quite sure what I read there - the abstract is in German, which I don't read too well, and the body of the article was only available to subscribers or those willing to pay USD 25. But I was able to capture the real publication data (journal, issue and date).

The funny thing is.... the abstract doesn't seem to describe a review of Wuensch's book, as the Wikipedia article claimed. So I modified the article a bit. But I'd REALLY like it if someone who's got access to the article and can read German can give an independent view of whether the article matches the description.

Yours for an accurate representation of sources on Wikipedia.... --Alvestrand 22:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

From the link to Wuensch's book it says Peter Sommer is the publisher, not Klaus Sommer. I have the full copy of Klaus Sommer's paper (in pdf) but cannot yet verify whether it says what is attributed to on wiki-dispute page. E4mmacro 02:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand: A German-speaking colleaguie has now read Sommer's article and agrees that the two paragraphs about Sommer's article are a fair description of what Sommer says. Sommer apparently has found a new letter by Born dated 23 Nov 1915 to Hilbert which says in part something like "Einstein ... tells me that you [Hilbert] have solved gravitation". "Von Einstein und Freundlich horte ich, dass Sie jetzt die Gravitation in Ordnung gebracht haben;" Quoted from K. Sommer Phys. Unserer Zeit 36 (2005) no. 5. p 234. Sommer does think Einstein probably got the field equations from Hilbert, but believes that general relativity is Einstein's theory, none the less. E4mmacro 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! Will you add info on the Born letter to the article?

One thing I can't believe is how fast the postal service was in those days - letters arriving in a day or so; these days it easily takes a week.... I wonder how the historians of 2106 will try to recover the conversations we're having now.... --Alvestrand 07:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't rely on my translation, but Born seems he has only heard about Einstein's result, so can't speak first hand. Anyway, the sentences that Sommer quotes from Born's letter are(with Sommer's additions in [ ], I assume)

Von Einstein und [dem Astronomen Erwin] Freundlich horte ich, dass Sie [also Hilbert!] jetzt die Gravitation in Ordnung gebracht haben; auch konnte ich einen kurzen Auszug Ihres Vortrages in der mathematischen Gesellschaft einsehen, den Dr. [Walter] Baade an Fruendlich gesandt hatte. Ich glaube[,] danach den Gedanken verstanden zu haben, da ich die Mieschhen Arbeiten gut kenne [...]. Einstein selber sagt, er habe das Problem ebenfalls gelöst, doch scheint mir Betrachtung (die ich nur aus Gesprächen kenne) ein Spezialfall der Ihrigen

Can someone translate this into English?? E4mmacro 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice that Born mentions the lecture to the Mathematical society (which was on Nov 16) - that Baade sent Freundlich a summary of lecture for the night Nov 16 at the Maths. Society. Hilbert did the same for Einstein - sent him a summary (or some information) of the Nov 16 lecture. Einstein wrote back to Hilbert on 18 Nov and Hilbert received the reply letter on Nov 19. It may be a small point, but note that the Nov 16 lecture, and summary sent to Einstein or exerpt seen by Born is not necessarily identical to the lecture on Nov 20 at the Gottingen Academy (manuscript handed in on Nov 19, for which we have proofs). Hilbert had 3 more days for any revisions after his Nov 16 lecture.

disputed facts/undisputed facts

IMO most of the "disputed facts" are undisputed (and quite undisputable!) facts, while possibly one "undisputed fact" (about E=mc2) happens to be disputed. For example, who published what and when is, when carefully formulated, pretty much undisputable. Typical subjects of dispute are claims that someone was "the first". Undisputed facts don't really belong here (except perhaps some of the most elementary ones); they belong in the corresponding articles. Harald88 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I reread, and think I disagree - most of the "disputed facts" under that heading involve states of mind (knowing about), which are very much not knowable. I also disagree with the way the attribution of E=MC2 to Einstein is phrased; I believe that Einstein was first to suggest that ALL mass is energy, not just the stuff that happened to be exchanged via radiation; the way it's phrased now is a more timid theory.

Hmm, and where when did Einstein publish that suggestion? In any case, you seem to agree with me about my disagreement with the selection of what is disputed and what not. BTW, "disputed facts" is literally selfcontradictory; "disputed claims" would be better. Harald88 12:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Where/when: [Ein05d] - "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energiegehalt abhängig?", Annalen der Physik 18(1905), 639-641. Agree about "disputed facts" - that term implies a value judgment that the disputers are wrong, and thus shoudln't be used in this Wikipedia article (even though that seems to fit perfectly with my opinion on some of the "disputers"...) --Alvestrand 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably you meanhis statement: "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". I agree, that is more general than the way it's phrased in the article. Harald88 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I meant. --Alvestrand 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WRT dates of submission/revision/publication, dates of letters that we do/don't have the content of and so forth, they are tedious to verify and document, and (most of the time) even more tedious to read; since they're mainly interesting as a background to the controversies, I think they are better put here than in the articles about the participants. But WP:BB - feel free to refactor, and see if you can sort it better! --Alvestrand 23:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have in mind to do so, at a later point in time, with an eye at comments and suggestions here. I'm currently fascinated by more interesting things (physics as opposed to history). Harald88 12:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In particular, the header "specific debates" misses the mark: there is little to debate about the summarized facts that are mentioned there, except for some word choicess here and there. Harald88 22:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened on November 20?

I realize this is continuing to harp on an unpopular subject, but.... what happened on that date? As far as I can tell, Hilbert wrote that date on top of an article before sending it to his printer. There's serious dispute about what was actually in that article on that date.

In contrast, Einstein's November 25 event was a lecture, with other people present and listening. I haven't heard anyone questioning what Einstein presented on that date.

Is there any evidence showing Hilbert doing something (like presenting his ideas in some forum) on November 20 that I've missed? --Alvestrand 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert did the same thing as Einstein, a public lecture was given on November 20 with loads of witnesses, the lecture immediately recorded in the university's records. -- Hilbert two days before had sent his work to Einstein and notified Einstein of the scheduled 20 November lecture. There is no question Einstein plagiarized Hilbert five days later. Licorne 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give the reference you are citing. --Alvestrand 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Folsing, amoungst many others. Licorne 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand, can we continue this on the dispute talk page. Licorne is half right above, but the Hilbert page as Licorne left is very wrong. E4mmacro 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. Licorne 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifiaclly "any possibility that Einstein took the clue for the final step towrads the field equations from Hilbert's note is now definitely precluded" (Sauer 1999). Einstein did not plagiarise Hilbert, that is where you are wrong. The bit you are right on is that the papers followed from lectures, presentations, to the Institue in Gottingen and the Academy in Berlin, later published in the proceedings.

Sauer is there just ass kissing. Licorne 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I moved the preceding part of the section from the Hilbert talk page to here. --Alvestrand 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand, you asked (on the Hilbert page) about the lecures/papers of Nov 1915. Einstein gave four lectures Nov 4, Nov 11, Nov 18, Nov 25 1915 to the Prussian Academy (four consecutive weeks). Each one was published - it seems the practice was to produce one's manuscript before the lecture and it was printed rather quickly (the days of cheap labor?). The Nov 25 lecture was in print and available by Dec 2 (Sauer, 1999, p565). Einstein sent the printer's copy of at least the first to Hilbert, telling him he was planning the four lectures. Einstein's second letter to Hilbert announced that he published generally covariant field equations using the Ricci tensor, but at the price of assuming that the trace of the energy-momentum tensor vanished, as it does for electro-magnetic energy-momentum tensor. He alluded to the fact that this meant gravity and electromagnetism were linked. Hilbert had been working on a unified field theory and seemed to panic at this news. He announced a lecture on the "fundamental equations of physics" at the Gottingen mathematical society, where he wanted to present his own recent investigations. Emmy Noether wrote in a letter "Hilbert wants to talk next week about his Einsteinian differential invariants, and so the Gottingers must get up to speed". Hilbert sent his manuscript to the printer on Nov 19 for his lecture on Nov 20. Sauer says there are only 8 times out of several hundred times at Gottingen that the manuscript went to the printer before the talk, implying I guess that Hilbert was in a hurry. On the same day he recived notice from Einstein that he had now got the correct perihelion advance for Mercury (the Nov 18 lecture). This is all from Sauer (1999). E4mmacro 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks E4! So Sauer(99) says that Emmy Noether said that Hilbert wanted to give a lecture on Nov 20, and it's reasonable to assume that he did so - but we don't have any eyewitness accounts of what was said there, so researchers can't check the Dec 6 proofs or the published article against that account. Right? --Alvestrand 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is little doubt he was scheduled to give a talk. Sauer has refered to the log-books or diaries for the Gottingen Institute of mathematics, where talks and dates are entered, and also recording when the manuscript of the lecture is given to the printers. I haven't heard of any accounts of the lecture, except the printer's proofs (maunscript handed to printer on Dec 19) E4mmacro 08:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

This discussion does not do justice to the issue. The paper associated with Einstein's 11/25/1915 lecture in which he announced the discovery of the Einstein field equations was published on 12/2/1915, promptly and apparently without significant alteration. OTOH, the paper associated with Hilbert's 11/20 lecture was not published until 3/31/1916, and was highly editted before being published. A study by Corry, Renn, and Stachel of the initial galley proofs of Hibert's article (dated 12/6/1915) shows that he had figured out the Einstein-Hilbert action but still lacked the field equations [16]. Furthermore, in its final form Hilbert's article credits Einstein with finding the field equations. Could Einstein have gleaned the need to use the Ricci trace to fix his own initially erroneous field equations from the Einstein-Hilbert action presented in Hilbert's notes (which he almost certainly did see before 11/25)? That much is possible. However, the allegation is that the field equations themselves were in the initial version that Einstein saw, and I am quite satisfied on the basis on the article linked to above that this was not the case. --EMS | Talk 19:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I confused the part talking about the final paper with the part talking about the intital version. Not even the Einstein-Hilbert action was present in the initial version. So there is no evidence that the intial version contained the correct field equations, other than a missing piece of the galley proof, but much evidence in the rest of the paper that Hilbert in this initial version was not using the Einstein field equations. See [17] --EMS | Talk 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

EMS, could you pelase go to the Hilbert page where Licorne is doing his usually butchering of the article, with repeated assertions that Hilbert published the Einstein field equations on Nov 20, 1915. If you mention the proofs, he will say "Who cares about the proofs. Winterberg destroyed the proofs". (Actually he will shout it, but you get the idea). Thanks E4mmacro 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have put a watch on that article, and will support you. This sounds to me like a case of POV pushing, and may need to be dealt with as such. --EMS | Talk 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne is blocked at the moment for 3RR, and there is a request for arbitration pending. On past form, it is likely he will be back during his ban, under a different IP, making all the same changes again. Thanks for keeping and eye on it. E4mmacro 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened from Nov 25 to Dec 6?

All the following is based on Sauer 1999, which seems to be a throughly researched and documented piece of work. My opinions are in [square brackets]:

1. Nov 19 Hilbert's maunscript of lecture Nov 20 sent to printer
2. Nov 20 Hilbert's lecture to the Gott. Math. soc.
3. Nov 25 Einstein's lecture to Prussian Academy
4. Nov 30, Hilbert and Caratheodory gave a talk to the Gottingen Math Soc on invariant theory.
5. Dec 2. Einstein's Nov 25 paper issued in print. [it seems likely that Einsstein would have sent the proofs to Hilbert even earlier, as he had done with at elast some of the three preceeding papers].
6. Dec 4 Hilbert presented a second communication on the "Foundations of Physics" to the Gottingen Math. Soc. [i.e. a second part of his Nov 20 lecture, at least the same title]. Nothing is known of that second communication since its publication was postponed¹,².
7. Dec 4, 1915, Hilbert wrote to the Prussian minister saying "... also the mathematical-physical developments (Einstein's theory of gravitation, theory of time and space) are presently moving towards an unforeseen point of culmination" (quoted in Cordula Tollmein, Zeitschrift fur Geschichte der naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin (NTM) 28 (1991), 13-32.)³
8. Dec 5, Hilbert, Klein, Voigt, Runge and Wiechert wrote a proposal to the Gott. Acad. suggesting that Einstein be elected as a corresponding member.
9. Dec 6 Hilbert had the proofs of his Nov 20 lecture and revised them, deriving an explicit form of the field equation to compare with Einstein's [Winterberg and Wuensch believe the explict form was in the missing bit of the proofs, Sauer and others believe not]. Hilbert also added more credit to Einstein (mentioning him by name for the introduction of the gravitational potentials $g_{\mu \nu }$, which expcit credit was not in the proofs - Sauer believes the omission was what Einstein was annoyed about, and this change was what molified him).
10. Dec 7 Hilbert and Cratheody continued their lecture on invariant theory at the Gott. Math. Soc.

It seems clear that Hilbert had plenty of time to think, and did think, about general relativity, and so coould improve on his first draft (the prrinter's proofs) after Dec 6. I have to agree with CRS on at least one thing: a lot of mis-conceptions might have been avoided if journals had then followed the present practice of giving the final revision date of everything they publish.

• ¹The entry for the Dec 4, 1915 talk was No. 731 in the log-book. It says "wiederholt in No. 739" (repeated in entry 739). Entry 739 says "Hilbert, Grundlagen der Physik Zweite MItteilung", 26 Feb, 1916, and "zum druck" (to the printer?) 2 March 1916, but this was deleted, with a note saying =No.731,759. Entry 759 is Hilbert, "Grundlagen der Physik (Zweite Mittelung)", presnetd 23 Dec 1916, to printer 29 Jan 1917, and published as Nach. Gelleschaft d. Wissen. z. Gott. Math-Phys (1917), 53=76.
• ²It seems to me, that someone with the necessary background and German language has an opportunity to determine exactly how much was added to the proofs and perhaps that way see what might have been in Hilbert's Dec 4 lecture, at a time when Hilbert thought the theory was not finished (see his letter to the minister, above).
• ³[Hilbert was writing on behalf of Emmy Noether for her "habilitation" (appointment to a job? granting a Ph.D. ? whatever habiltation is?) and saying he needed Noether "in this matter Miss Noether is my most successful collaborator". There is the possibility of a slight exaggeration about the work he was doing, over-stating how much more work needed to be done on relativity, but I guess he didn't know what might need to be done.]

The case against Bjerknes (revisited)

I added a line indicating that Bjerknes is a Holocaust denier. I think this bears on his credibility and objectivity as an historian, and the reader should be informed. green 193.108.45.139 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I clarified it a little bit -- the article he wrote isn't straight Holocaust denial (he states at one point that he won't address that in the article; I suspect he is a straight Holocaust denier but he doesn't cover it there), but it does have all sorts of other wacky denial-like theses in it (that the Nazis were really Jews, that Jews pushed for the Holocaust, that the Nazis didn't plot genocide and Wannasee, and other strange and thoroughly fringe statements). I agree that it does put him into better perspective and does contribute to one's overall assessment of his status. --Fastfission 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Private correspondence?

Who wrote this, and to what does "private correspondence" refer (in the cory/Winterberg section)?

"... attempt to placate Dr. Winterberg, who continues to threaten a law suit" (private correspondence).

Private correspondence is usually meant to be private (i.e. not revealed) but this may be nit-piking. I guess the author meant "personal correspondence" - a letter from Stachel to the author (whoever it was who wrote this). But since we don't know to whom Satchel wrote, the reference is pretty useless as it stands. E4mmacro 00:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's me - and yes, it should be "personal correspondence" - I'll add the recipient. --Alvestrand 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should include the lawsuit info unless Stachel publishes it somewhere online. I don't think it matches up with WP:V. --Fastfission 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

After rereading WP:V, I agree. WP:V is actually stronger and more specific than WP:NOR. --Alvestrand 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't, by the way, doubt it at all that this is why they took it down. But we should stick with the "official" reason, for both ours and their sakes. If Stachel wants to make it public, he has the ability to, of course. ;-) --Fastfission 14:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Question about Poincaré and Lorentz

Just a question: did Poincaré or Lorentz dispute Einstein's priority? Bubba73 (talk), 05:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Poincare always refered to it as Lorentz's theory of "The princople of relativity". Lorentz often credited Poincare and Einstein for correcting a mistake he had made. And I think Lorentz accepted that Einstein had a different view of the theory from his own. See the Lorentz and Poincare pages. E4mmacro 08:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

According to secondary literature, in the time of Lorentz the theory was known as that of Lorentz and Einstein. Since that acknowledged Lorentz (incl. his priority), while Poincare didn't value his own contributions, there was nothing to dispute. Harald88 09:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Several years ago I read a quote of Poincare where he was awfully close to special relativity. I don't think the quote is one of the ones given in WP articles, but I don't know where I read it. It said something like "in the future, we may have to regard ..." and then gave some SR results. But it seems that he didn't quite make the final step and accept the things as physically real. At least that is my impression, I'm not an expert on this. Bubba73 (talk), 00:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly it was in Poincare's 1904 paper; it may be worth to have another look at it, as Einstein's 1905 SRT paper looks like a reply to the challenges as outlined in one of his papers (that one, if I remember well). Note that what you call "the final step", concerning physical "reality", does not belong to modern physics but to philosophy. Harald88 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1913, in Berlin the first edition of "Das Relativitatprinzip" by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein and H. MInkowski with contributions by A. Sommerfeld and foreward by O. Blumenthal. In a footnote to his reprinted 1904 paper in that volume, Lorentz refers to "Einstein's Relativity Theory" ("Einsteinschen Relativatatstheorie"), acknowledging his co-author of the book, as correcting the mistake in the electric force equations that he (Lorentz) had made in 1904. "Es ist das Verdienst Einsteins, das Relativatatprinzip zuerst als allgemeines, streng und genau geltendes Gesetz ausgesprochen zu haben." This seems fairly close to what he later said about Poincare. E4mmacro 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's strange that he apparently had been unaware of some of Poincare's publications, and even not understood some of Poincare's letters. Harald88 08:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that in 1909, "The theory of electrons, a course of lectures delivered in Columbia University, New Yory in 1906", with revisions and footnotes, published in 1909, Lorentz speaks more about Einstein than about Poincare. And credits Einstein with getting the charge density equation correct, apparently forgetting that Poincare had told him pretty much the same thing in his letter to Lorentz, in May 1905. Perhaps Lorentz didn't read French so well?? E4mmacro 03:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So, who really cares anyway...

Gosh, such an extraodinary fuss over such a trivial matter of history. Shouldn't you all rather be working on the 95th epidode of Buffy the vampire slayer or King of the hill or something like that. After all, this IS the Populo-pedia where what really counts is fame and popularity.--Lacatosias 09:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some people need a place to vent. Much better here than polluting the Poincare, Hilbert and Einstein pages. E4mmacro 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

are you disparaging the value of us being able to rant about what's REALLY important to the future of the universe??????? I mean - what WOULD the world be coming to if there was even one shred of doubt about the exact date at which Einstein first put pen to paper to express the immortal symbols of his equation????? The apocalypse would be imminent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yours for the importance of having fun while doing something useful..... --Alvestrand 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wait until I start commenting on Buffy - I even have a poster of her! ;)) Harald88 21:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is a time factor in the law of gravity, it is very small. By some, it is less than 1 in 10 to the 11 per year. If it is linear, this is even less for the five days we have heard about. Those interested in the truth are not worried about Mighty Einstein's priority. Those actuated by egotistic considerations are very worried.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.59.71 (talk • contribs)

Lorentz 1904

Quote from article: "It is claimed that Lorentz' paper containing the transformations bearing his name appeared in 1904." Are we doubting the date of publication, surely not, since we know what paper it refers to. I guess it means "it is claimed that Lorentz's paper (1904) contains the transformations bearing his name".

Harald, I hate to start a discussion I thought we had finished, but I say it is a verifable fact, not just a claim, that Lorentz 1904 published the "Lorentz transformations". I assume this isn't a quibble about names, but I don't know what it is about. The following example argument is what I would call a quibble:

The form as written by Poincare was called the "Lorentz transformations" and hence that form IS, by definition, the Lorentz transformations. Thus if Lorentz had written A = C, where C = D + E, and Poincare had written A = D + E and Poincare called A = D + E the "Lorentz equation", then Lorentz did not write the "Lorentz equation".

So how can we say it in a way we both agree with? Can we say Lorentz (1904) found the transformations which make Maxwell's equation invariant (even though he didn't fully realise that they did so). E4mmacro 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, you wrote yourself one of the "disputing" sources on this subject; thus on this subject you "wear two hats", so to say, and I will not go in a discusion with you about it on this Talk page - especially as this is about disputes (disagreements), and not about agreements. But I do agree with your last formulation, it's just that there appear to be different opinions of what goes under the label "Lorentz transformations";

and I changed that phrasing for two reasons: as formulated, the claim suggests that such transformations that make Maxwell's equations invariant appeared for the first time in 1904 - which is dead wrong, as you pointed out in one of your publications, but indeed claims that such appeared either in 1904 or 1905 for the first time can be found in literature, if I'm not mistaken (we need more quotations!).

You may have forgotten that this article is about comparing disputed claims by sources between each other and with collected facts from such sources. As soon as we replace those by undisputed facts, that information doesn't really belong there anymore but should go to the relevant "history of ..." page, if it's not already included (in this case, history of special relativity) - and there we immediately hit on a related problem: I now notice that some parts are double, and I had made corrections here but not there! Harald88 10:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with what is there now: "Lorentz' paper [Lor04] containing the transformations bearing his name appeared in 1904." I guess there may be some people who dispute that the equations are in the paper, and if so I suppose you better mention it. And go to the Poincare page and put a disputed tag, where I quote exactly what is in Lorentz 1904 (a slight change in notation though). I guess you could dispute that Lorentz meant by x what we now mean by x - vt. My paper has disappeared into a black hole, whether because no one disputes it, or more likely, no one knows or cares about it, I couldn't say. :) And, we have Poincare (1905) for confirmation that the equations Lorentz wrote are the same as the equations he (Poincare) wrote in 1905. Some people, like Ives, and me initially, were puzzled by what Poincare said there, once they looked at Lorentz 1904, because the change in meaning for x between Lor04 and Poi05 is confusing. You might consider removing the banal and trival statement that 'Poincare was the first to rearrange the equations into their modern form". I am pretty sure Poincare doesn't want credit for a little piece of algebra. E4mmacro 03:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

By definition, transformations are mathematical formulas; and it's undisputable that the formula x is not the same formula as x-vt, eventhough of course we all (or at least the two of us!) agree that in this application the physics is the same. However, it's not my priority to correct such details everywhere; and it's more to the point here where details are discussed, than in a general article where such oversimplifications may be forgiven. And I request you to put your paper here, as it alleges (if I remember well) that Lorentz produced his Maxwell invariant transformations before 1904 - which does have relevance for the discussion about how much Einstein may be assumed to have known; I personally have reason to believe that Einstein may have missed the 1904 paper (as he also claimed) but knew the older publications of Lorentz, as well as the commentaries by Poincare. Harald88 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I finally see what you mean. If one asked Lorentz what is the relation between x and x' as meant by Poincare he would go to his equations and substitute Poincare's x - vt where he wrote x_L and get the relationship, which you call the transformation. If you want to define "Lorentz's equations" and "Lorentz transformations" seperately, even thought they have the same physical content, you can. But in my view there is a danger of implying Lorentz wrote the wrong relationship between moving and stationary lengths and time. E4mmacro 20:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of the 1899 transformations, it gets into a longish explanation. In 1899 Lorentz had written the pre-multiplying factor \ell but specified only that is was a function of w, that \ell = 1 for w = 0, and \ell differed from unity only by terms of order w^2/c^2. Under thos conditions he was able to show invariance for many of Maxwell's equatiosn (I assume he made the same mistake about the electric forces as he did in 1904, haven't re-checked). YOu will notce that Voigt's transformation for which \ell is the inverse of Lorentz factor satidfies these conditions, and hence c is cosntant in Voigt's transformations and the other properties of Voigt's transformations follow (as noted by that Chinese author we discussed). I agree it is more unlikely that Einstein never saw 1899 than he never saw Lorentz 1899 (or indeed Larmor 1897 and 1900), but we have no evidence, do we? E4mmacro 20:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We have only indirect evidence, and I don't even know a publication that provides it.

Off the record: Einstein made a poor presentation on a point that Lorentz correctly treated in 1904 (on the point that the theory must also hold for neutral matter), which suggests to me that Einstein didn't have that paper under his eyes when he wrote his; and I read at the Einstein exposition in Bern that due to lack of good physics books, Einstein studied the publications of physicists, in particular Lorentz, instead - according to my pictures, his third school year was 1898/1899, so that he likely read that paper in his 4th year (or even his third year: which month of 1899?). Harald88 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't everybody assume from the name "Lorentz transformations" that the equatiosn were published before Einstein 1905? 130.102.128.60 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

When they see that, many readers (myself included) tend to have a feeling that something is funny about it, and then simply forget about it. Note also that the "Lorentz transformations" as we call them were written down and named as such by Poincare, in honour of Lorentz who implied them without literally writing them down. Harald88 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that once a fact goes from disputed (in the outside world; who cares about Wikipedia) to undisputed, that nethen eds to be reflected in this article - but not by the removal of the description of the dispute; rather one should make a note that "after the publication of XX, the consensus is that the dispute is settled, and the result is YY". Or something. --Alvestrand 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that it's not always easy for us to make out what "the consensus" is, if any... Contrary to what people may believe, consensus is not always changed by publications; instead, conclusive publications are sometimes conveniently ignored. Harald88 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing the references of this article

At the moment, this article has a great number of quotes - and these are important. However, the references section is rather messy, and the links to it even more so - with URLs in the text, multiple different references to the same article, and so on.

I'd like to suggest (and carry out) a plan in 3 steps:

1. Reformat the references section in [authYY] format, the way Einstein's works are marked now. Use {{cite book}} and {{cite article}} for the references themselves.
2. Insert a new "Notes" section immediately before the "references" section, containing the <references/> tag from Wikipedia:Footnotes
3. Change all references on the page to use <ref>[authYY], page NN</ref>

I think this should give a much more reasonable layout, and one we'll be able to maintain better. But rather than rushing in and starting right away, I'd like to check first:

Does this make sense to others? --Alvestrand 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I have been considering doing the same thing myself at some point. --EMS | Talk 16:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose steps 2 and 3, because it will make the text harder to follow. On this subject, it's useful to be able to tell at a glance while reading the article, which paper is being referred to. The [authYY] format is great for this. Converting to <ref> links obscures this, though, because one then has to click on the link to find out which paper is being referred to. This is fine for articles where the references merely support the text, but is not fine for an article like this, which is about who wrote what, when. What would work well here would be for [authYY] to appear in the article, but for it to be a link to the full reference. The <ref> tag does not allow you have informative links like this. There are Harvard reference templates that might able to do this, but I haven't used them myself so I can't say for sure. --Srleffler 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Started - reformatting in [authYY] format done. I also sorted them in just two sections - works by the physicists involved (primary sources) and works by people commenting on them (secondary sources), both sections sorted by author. Even a brief scan of the article shows that this was needed - there are lots of references in the text that aren't in the references list, and a lot of the references aren't really very clear. --Alvestrand 19:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

==Please note and fix: math software lost in last archiving.== TY, green 193.108.45.154 11:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

don't understand... --Alvestrand 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I did the archiving but I have not the slightest idea what you mean by "math software" being "lost". Please clarify!!--Lacatosias 15:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be OK now. I meant that the equations didn't appear when I initially accessed the archived file. green 193.108.45.228 15:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

change of subject

I see that the subject has been changed of that of priority (which is verifiable in parts) to that of "credit"- which is purely a matter of taste. At least the priority dispute (= the main subject!) must be emphasized in the intro. I now correct that; further improvement may be needed. Harald88 07:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to change the subject - what I was trying to do to the intro was to make it clear that there exists a majority opinion on priority, but that this majority opinion has been challenged. Thanks for doing it better! --Alvestrand 09:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate 1905 and 1915 sections or pages?

I know it would be a lot of work, but might it be a good idea to separate the 1905 (SR) priority dispute from the (1915) GR dispute. The organization of the page by authors, rather than subject (1905) and (1915) is messy in my view. There are some authors in one section only, and some in both. The case about priority in the two cases is vastly different in quality in the two cases, in my view. E4mmacro 20:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Offhand, the only author who's quoted in both groups of discussions seems to be Bjerknes. So if we go for the same format for both, we could simply make a clone of the current page and delete everything that doesn't fit. Would make the page shorter too - it's more than 60Kbytes long. --Alvestrand 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree: the two disputes are really separate subjects, and with very different conclusions. Harald88 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I more support creating appropriate sections and consolidating what is currently here. This article lacks a coherent style and there is way too much quoted text here. Instead each dispute needs to identified separately and discussed briefly and succinctly. --EMS | Talk 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article currently reads like a kind of sourcebook on the priority disputes - making long quotes with proper references, so that it's possible to see what people intend with what they say. I think that's a Good Thing. But it does make the article long. --Alvestrand 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up between the two independent priority disputes surely will help to identify them! Harald88 22:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We can and should be more selective with the quoting and use paraphrasing more liberally to reduce the size of this article. I also strongly oppose splitting this article at this time. We first need to get the current content into good order, with the disputes identified and dealt with in an orderly manner. Once that is done, we can decide if and how to split this page.

I am not at all convinced that the obvious split is the right one. For instance, discussion of the priority issues involving the Lorentz transformations and E=mc² may be best dealt with in detail on the current subject pages for each, or even in their own page (instead of an SR page). This page may also need to be kept as an overview of the disputes with a set of multiple main articles. OTOH, we may be able to compress this article to the point where a split is unnecessary. Until we reorganize and reconsider this page and its issues, the right course of action will not be obvious. --EMS | Talk 16:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spitting the article is not a good idea. It's useful to have all the information in one place, and if the article is properly structured this will be reflected in the table of contents and the quantity of information should not confuse any literate individual. green 193.108.45.244 21:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the issues doesn't need to imply splitting the article in two articles. Harald88 08:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I have no objection. In fact, a logical parsing of the issues is important for making the article intelligible. green 193.108.45.136 11:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote: Einstein's considerations of the synchronisation procedure

Above we discussed with elaboration the view of Poincare on simultaneity in regards of reality. For him (following Lorentz) it was just a convention, not to be confused with hidden reality.

If the "convention" for determining simultaneity is required for the construction of relativity theory, then like the other postulates of relativity it must refer to, or be intimately related to physical reality. You seem to relegate physics to the consequences of postulates, when the core of physics consists of the postulates themselves. I would take a different view of Poincare's relativity if he didn't need his simultaneity convention to construct his theory of relativity. Is Poincare's relativity complete, or does it need this convention as does Einstein's? green 193.108.45.151 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In short, you apparently disagree with Poincare; it's useful to be aware of that.

I already pointed out that the LT contain that convention, while it's entirely irrelevant for observations.

I don't understand. To measure the length of a moving rod, doesn't one need to observe the ends of the rod simultaneously? Can one construct a theory of relativity absent the concept of simultaneity? green 193.108.45.149 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thus it's not really required for the construction of relativity theory, even though it's a preferable (practical) result - as also Ives showed in some publications (Phil. Mag.7-36, 1945, p.392, "derivation of the LT", with ref. to J.O.S.A. 29, 1939, p.50):

"By Einstein they were derived after a discussion of the nature of simultaneity, and the adoption of a definition of simultaneity which violates the intuitive and common-sense meaning of that term. It is proposed here to show that these transformations can be derived by imposing the laws of conservation of energy and of momentum on radiation processes as developed by Maxwell's methods."

(I haven't fully studied it as yet). Harald88 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Istm that Einstein's definition of simultaneity (that is, his method of synching clocks) is highly intuitive and satisfies the common sense meaning of the concept. How else would you (or Ives) propose to synch clocks? In what way is Einstein's method anti-intuitive? green 193.108.45.149

Ives's method is to use a transported clock, moving with a self measured speed q to the distant location, then adjusting the distant clock to read the same as the transported clock. (An intuitive method often used, when we say "synchronise our watches, and then go out different ways to do something at a prearranged time!). Ives then drives a very complicated set of transformations which include the setting clock speed q. If q/c goes to zero, you recover the Lorentz transformations. E4mmacro 00:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly anti-intuitive that when you change your speed relative to something, that if next you measure its speed, it appears to have the same relative speed to you (but note: only after recalibration!). It's more intuitively plausible to do like Ives: start with the postulates of conservation of energy and momentum, and find that in case of recalibration in each inertial frame, we find the LT as well as c in each frame. If it's really as straightforward as he claimed, I expect that I will favour his derivation of SRT over that of all the others. Harald88 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's more of a riddle what Einstein's view was on simultaneity, in connection with the synchronization procedure. I changed my view on that considerably over the years, and now (from his 1905 and 1918 papers) I think that he likely understood that his view implied multiple (infinite) realities, so that he saw reality as God-given, and personal: - he obviously would have agreed that the speed of a ray of light in the solar frame can be c-v relative to a M-M interferometer (nowadays often called "closing speed");

The "closing speed" is defined for an observer moving wrt a source of light.

No, your're mistaken. Doubly, as he didn't even use that term. Harald88 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed "closing speed" before and I have defined it correctly. It is the speed that a beam of light is assumed to pass a moving observer if, say, the source is fixed in the observer's frame. How do you define "closing speed"? What do you think it is? Btw, I didn't claim that Einstein used that exact phrase. green 193.108.45.152 18:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's relative speed of two entities is the speed of one entity subtracted from the speed of the other entity, as measured in a single coordinate system - which is the standard physics definition (note that it's better not to use the often misleading jargon "observer"; this is not QM!). As he put it: "the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v". Harald88 21:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The MM apparatus has a source of light, but all components of the apparatus are at rest wrt the source. I don't think "closing speed" as used by Einstein in June 1905 applies to this situation. If it does, you need to carefully define your terms. Is the observer at the center of the solar system moving wrt the light source in the MMX? And if so, why do we care, since "v" in the MMX refers to the ether wind in the lab frame? green 193.108.45.151 12:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

- he also would have agreed that the speed of light relative to a M-M interferometer is c in the lab frame;

If so, then E trashes the ether hypothesis. green 193.108.45.151 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

- he held that all such views correspond to "reality".

Interestingly, "everyone has his personal truth" was attributed to Einstein when I was a kid. I'm interested to hear the opinion of other editors about Einstein's 1905 interpretation of synchronisation procedures. Harald88 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Green? E4? Anyone? Without it we have nothing relevant to compare Poincare's views with! Harald88 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does he present his "interpretation" of his synchronization (spelled with a "z" btw!) method? From his June 1905 paper, I get the impression that he believes it corresponds to physical reality; that is, that lightspeed is the same on each leg of a round-trip path. I am not sure of his view concerning the objectivity of observations from different frames. green 193.108.45.152 18:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald: Fyi, I have been studying Einstein’s June 1905 paper, Part 1 Section 3, where he uses what we have referred to as “closing speed”, c+v and c-v, and derives the LT’s. I find his notation very confusing and his treatment opaque. Not what I had expected. I can report for certain that he uses simultaneity to derive the LT’s. At the end of the section he discusses the issue of a moving clock losing synch with a stationary clock, and upon return being behind the stationary clock. He doesn't call it a paradox or claim that the result is peculiar. I shall persevere.

Btw, the "v" in the MMX is definitely (imo) the speed of the ether wind in the laboratory frame. It is "caused" by all motions of the earth, of whatever origins (orbital motion, motion of solar system around galaxy, motion of galaxy, motion of local group, etc.). If one gets a null result at some point in time, one might believe that by chance the earth happens to be in the rest frame of the ether at that time. Hence, one waits 6 months when the orbital velocity reverses direction, in the hope of getting a non-null result. I am not sure how rotation fits into this picture. green 193.108.45.149 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis is qualitatively correct (IMO), but in the MMX paper all speeds are relative to the ether (=the inverse of what you thought). In other papers, symbols have the meanings that the authors give them. Harald88 21:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I stated that the earth has various relative motions, and the assumption of the MMX is that there is a net “v” wrt the ether. What did I invert?

Your statement above: "v" in the MMX is definitely (imo) the speed of the ether wind in the laboratory frame. Let's say <earth velocity relative to ether frame> = +1E8 (= to the right). Then, <velocity of the ether wind in the laboratory frame> = -1E8 (to the left; v is vectorial, and thus rarely or never called "speed"). Harald88 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the ultimate splitting of hairs and really doesn't add much to the discussion. I am sure you knew what I meant. To reply in kind: "v" without an arrow above it, or not in bold, is a scalar, not a vector! LOL. green 193.108.45.238 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The more important issue is your claim at the top of file that “simultaneity” is a “convention” for Poincare, not to be confused with a “hidden reality” (aka, objective reality?). Since you refer to our earlier discussion, I assume you mean Poincare’s clock synchronization method. (Note: I make this point because I believe there is a technical distinction between a clock synching method and the definition of simultaneity.) Istm that one cannot develop a theory of relativity without a defacto postulate about how clocks are synched. Otherwise, there is no way to measure the length of a moving rod, or, I believe, derive the time dilation result. If so, then the clock synching “convention” has the same logical status in relativity as the two primary postulates. Either all three postulates, or none, relate to objective reality. You take the view that the postulates of physics are not really part of “physics” because they are not directly confirmable. Imo, this is positivism gone awry insofar as the postulates of physics are indirectly verified by what they imply, aka their “predictions”. It seems inadmissible to assume that the clock synching method is a mere convention when it is absolutely crucial to developing a bonafide theory of relativity.

You misunderstand me almost completely, as I already observed above; and for the rest, I've said it all at least twice. You have the right to disagree with Poincare and Ives, as long as you don't substitute their opinions by yours in an article. Harald88 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I can read English fairly well -- in fact very well -- and what I wrote above is what I understand your words to mean. At this exact juncture, instead of pointing me back to some indefinite place in your various expositions, it would be enlightening if you would rebut what I wrote, point for point. But you never do this, and so we go round in circles. green 193.108.45.238 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To modify an earlier analysis, the MMX tests the hypothesis of anisotropy of space wrt lightspeed. One can argue that the test fails in a manner (possibly) consistent with spatial isotropy by invoking the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis. In this view, all inertial frames are operationally indistinguishable even though lightspeed is c in only the preferred frame. The fatal flaw with this view is that the contraction is assumed to be an EM phenomenon only, whereas the modern view is that nuclear (and sub-nuclear) shrinkage occurs as well. If so, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis would seem insufficient to explain the MMX null result and its apparent consistency with isotropy of space under the LF hypothesis. green 193.108.45.232 14:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No such "fatal flaw" as you claim existed in the theory in 1904, since the contraction was then assumed not to be an EM phenomenon only, in view of M-M and the PoR; nevertheless, such a flaw may be attributed to Einstein's 1905 reasoning (as I explained above, it's the basis for my opinion that Einstein didn't know Lorentz 1904). Harald88 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was specifically referring above to the "fatal flaw" in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis. If Poincare came up with a theory of relativity in 1904 that circumvented this flaw, then I have to assume his theory was, in essence, identical to Einstein's (the claim made by many editors here), and quite distinct from the relativity theory of Lorentz. Are you saying Poincare completed Lorentz's theory of relativity, or anticipated a distinctly different theory -- that of Einstein's? (notwithstanding that at the time, people referred to the "Lorentz-Einstein theory of relativity").

I referred to Lorentz's 1904 theory which didn't have that flaw. If you like to discuss such allegations as you apparently found somewhere (where?), please start that subject under a new header, it may be interweting. But sorry, I won't repeat replies to other questions again on this page. For that there are discussion groups such as sci.physics.relativity and sci.physics.research. Harald88 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

YOU INVARIABLY RESORT TO THE ABOVE BS-TYPE EVASION WHEN ASKED A DIRECT QUESTION. I REFUSE TO WASTE MY TIME IN A DISCUSSION THAT CAN GO NOWWHERE WITH SOMEONE WHO IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST (OR SHALL WE SAY FEARFUL OF GIVING DIRECT, CANDID, CLEAR REPLIES?).

I leave it to others to waste their time with you, if they like. Harald88 07:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I also ask again; how could Poincare have come up with a bonafide theory of relativity without it being crucially dependent on his clock synching method (which most editors here claim is the same as Einstein's)? That is, how can a defacto added postulate (of invariant lightspeed on each leg of a round trip path) be relegated to a mere convention? Do we not require clock synching to derive length contraction and time dilation? With all due respect, I don't think you understand the profound difference between a convention -- say the negative charge of the electron -- and a postulate in physics that makes a claim about physical reality. green 193.108.45.238 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC

The answer to your last question may very well be replied by the below discussion of what happens to "reality" with Einstein's interpretation of the postulates. Harald88 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

DITTO.

As Green's interpolations above make my analysis hard to follow, here it is again:

It's more of a riddle what Einstein's view was on simultaneity, in connection with the synchronization procedure. I changed my view on that considerably over the years, and now (from his 1905 and 1918 papers) I think that he likely understood that his view implied multiple (infinite) realities, so that he saw reality as God-given, and personal:

- he obviously would have agreed that the speed of a ray of light in the solar frame can be c-v relative to a M-M interferometer (nowadays often called "closing speed");

- he also would have agreed that the speed of light relative to a M-M interferometer is c in the lab frame;

- he held that all such views correspond to "reality".

Consistent with that, "everyone has his personal truth" was attributed to Einstein when I was a kid.

I'm interested to hear the opinion of other editors about Einstein's 1905 interpretation of synchronisation procedures. Harald88 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Hilbert Page

This section from the David Hilbert section of Hilbert and Physics belongs somewhere in this article, I believe:

Hilbert had sent Einstein some summary of his theory which Einstein received on November 17 or 18, a week before Einstein submitted his field equations article. Hilbert published his results in a paper which appeared in March 1916, bearing the submission date of November 20, 1915 but which was extensively revised after Dec 6 1915 ⁴. In the published version, Hilbert gave Einstein credit for the introduction of the metric tensor² and said that his results seemed to agree with Einstein's "magnificient theory of general relativity".

^2 Hilbert wrote these gravitational potentials were "first introduced by Einstein"Sauer p. 565.

^4 With the discovery of the printer's proofs which show differences from the final published paper, some have argued over whether or not Hilbert's original munscript (and hence Hilbert's theory as of Nov 16 to Nov 20) contained the field equations in explicit form.

This note was referenced as a citation that there was not a public dispute. It doesn't seem to say that, so I am moving it here.

^3 According to Sauer, Einstein claimed credit for the physical part of the theory and "Hilbert claimed priority for the introduction of the Riemann scalar into the action principle and the derivation of the field equations from it, and Einstein admitted publicly that Hilbert (and Lorentz) had succeeded in giving the equations of general relativity a particularly lucid form by deriving them from a single variational princinple (Einstein, Sit. Preuss. Acad. Wissen. Berlin, 1916, pp1111-1116)", Sauer, p. 568.

John (Jwy) 07:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Sauer's point was that there was no dispute because Einstein claimed GR as his and the first presentation of the explicit equations, and Hilbert accpeted this; and Hilbert claimed his contribution was an elegant derivation of the field equations from what Hilbert considered a more general theory (an attempt at a "unified field theory" I think we would say nowadays, combining Mie's electrodynamics and Einstein's GR).—This unsigned comment was added by e4mmacro (talk • contribs) .

I see I already said much the same thing above, some time ago, under the heading "What is Meiner" Theory. E4mmacro 00:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed events over here on this page, so I haven't attempted to incorporate the copied text anywere into this article. I just didn't want it to get lost if it is deemed important to incorporate here. John (Jwy) 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wuensch comments

This following two paragraphs of discussion are taking place on the article page. I have copied it here (originally, I moved it but I didn't realize the original "Editor's Note" has been out there a while so I've left both there for people more involved to decide how to handle. John (Jwy) 14:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Editor's Note: It is misleading to claim that Hilbert "developed" a unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism. Hilbert's approach to such a unification cannot be construed as tantamount to having "developed" such a theory that still, today, is nonexistent, and it is hyperbole to place his "theory" on the same footing as Einstein's, that has stood the test of time. The fact that Wuensch's publisher would make the claim bears on the book's credibility.

A Reader's Note: Is there any Editor of Wikipedia? Is this an interesting point in the discussion of the Hilbert-Einstein priority dispute? The word "to develop" mustn't mean, that Hilbert had reached his goal to develop a unified theory, but that he had made an important step on the way to it - and who will deny this?

Yes that was a strange part, I think it's warranted to simply delete it from the article space for the time being. In this form it's certainly not encyclopedic (as I mentioned a long time ago). Harald88 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it; I don't understand why it persisted for so long, as it blatantly violates WP policies (POV and OR). -- Jibal 11:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Rothman article

It seems that someone has been inserting a couple of claims in the article with reference to this URL: [18] But this hasn't been added to the references. I'll try to do so, and make the proper linkages (as well as reading the article and trying to see what it actually says). --Alvestrand 14:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Constantin Who?

A citation has been added to Constantin Carathéodory, with a justifcation URL that doesn't work - C's article has [19], referring to a 1916-1930 exchange of letters between the two.

While I'm sure he contributed a lot of stuff, a conversation that began in 1916 could hardly have an impact on a discovery published in 1915.... unless someone argues against it, I'll simply remove the references to him from this dispute page. --Alvestrand 14:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The section title caught my eye. Constantin Carathéodory is of course a towering figure in modern mathematics, but I happen to know that he is also regarded as a pioneer of attempts to give a rigorous formulation of thermodynamic entropy. Er... who is alleging what about Carathéodory?---CH 05:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The initial edit adding Caratheodory is here: [20] - it is not clear to me what the editor actually wanted to claim. --Alvestrand 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The IP address User:218.102.79.5 is registered to PCCW-HKT DataCom Services Limited in Hong Kong. This netvigator.com anon claimed that Caratheodory's name is frequently mentioned along with those of Einstein, Lorentz, and Poincaré as an originator of special relativity. I have never heard this claim before. The anon attempted to cite a yahoo group web page but the link appears to be dead.

The article Constantin Carathéodory currently claims "More recently, on 19 December 2005 Israeli officials along with Israel' ambassador to Athens, Ram Aviram presented to the Greek foreign ministry with copies of 10 letters between Albert Einstein and Constantin Carathéodory [Karatheodoris] that suggest that the work of Carathéodory help shape some of Albert Einstein's theories. The letters were part of a long correspondence which lasted from 1916 to 1930. Aviram said that according to experts at the National Archives of Israel - custodians of the original letters - the mathematical side of Einstein's physics theory was partly substantiated through the work of Carathéodory." We need to look into this. Didn't a recent silly vandalism edit of Albert Einstein replaced "Einstein's theory" with "Aviram's theory"?---CH 21:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked that before deleting it - if we accept the theory that the general theory of relativity was substantially complete by the end of 1915, an exchange of letters in 1916 can serve to work out the implications of the theory, but couldn't possibly serve to create the theory. Since nobody's claimed any communication before 1916, I deleted the reference. --Alvestrand 17:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Licorne/banned editor/69.22.98.184

This edit [21] by 69.22.98.184 has all the marks of an obession of the banned editor Licorne and is POV. Similar Licorne style edits are being made on the Poincare page.

• The IP is also for the same ISP (Earhtlink in Tampa Bay) that Licorne used. I've added it to the blocked list. --Fastfission 01:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur that

1. User:Licorne has used IPs including 69.22.98.146, 69.22.98.162, 69.22.98.184
2. These are in the mindspring.com domain and registered to Earthlink, Inc.
3. These are geolocated near the town of Seminole in Pinellas County, FL, which belongs to the Tampa Bay area.

Good catch.---CH 03:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wayback Machine redaction

I think it's somewhat noteworthy that the earlier versions of the CRS notes in the Winterberg dispute has been removed from the Wayback Machine archives. I suspect that the reason is a takedown order issued by Winterberg, but I couldn't put that into the article, since it is just a suspicion. Taking things off the Wayback Machine is real easy, BTW. --Alvestrand 05:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was almost shocked that it has been removed from the archive (are you sure the short version was archived?), thanks for bringing that to our attention. Does anyone have a copy by any chance? And what now about verifiablity? Archive.org really let us down! Harald88 07:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand archive.org's viewpoint. They are in the business of not getting sued. The US laws say (roughly) that people who just make copies of others' insults are safe from libel suits - but ONLY if they take down the material when receiveing a takedown notice.

BTW, I have access to all the versions, but that's a private cache; the new disclaimer went in between Sept 7 and Sept 12, and the "short statement" replaced the "long statement" between June 3 and June 22, 2005. Nothing that people want to hide is ever lost on the 'Net.... --Alvestrand 08:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)