Who said this (20) ...
Stephen Speicher
words, and two points for the year in which they were published.
In addition, ten points for the name of the person to whom the
author refers [XX], and five points for the journal reference of
XX's paper.
"_Note added in proof_. In explaining on p. 85 that
there is no necessity for just three of the four
line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
[Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
simplest form with _two_ of the
coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
not possible to find a frame such that the customary
distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
_signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
(- - - +), as required!"
The Current Standings on "Who said this ..."
-------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel 77
John Zinni 37
Tom Bedford 27
Matthew Nobes 22
Nicholas Steele 20
Ilja Schmelzer 20
Jem 14
Jeff Krimmel 11
Daryl McCullough 10
David Evens 10
Mel Lep 10
Shaun Webb 10
Russell Blackadar 10
Domino Plural 10
Arfur Dogfrey 7
David A. Smith 5.5
Michel Mouly 5
David McAnally 3
Courtney Mewton 2
Aardvark 2
Tom Clarke 2
Eli Botkin 1
Bob Kolker 1
Tim Shuba 1
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Titan Point
> 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> words, and two points for the year in which they were published.
> In addition, ten points for the name of the person to whom the
> author refers [XX], and five points for the journal reference of
> XX's paper.
>
> "_Note added in proof_. In explaining on p. 85 that
> there is no necessity for just three of the four
> line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
> I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
> frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
> an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
> [Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
> entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
> Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
> simplest form with _two_ of the
> coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
> space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
> not possible to find a frame such that the customary
> distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
> _signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
> (- - - +), as required!"
>
I would guess that XX was Karl Schwarzchild
Stephen Speicher
Nice guess, but no.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030305...@localhost.localdomain...
> 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> words, and two points for the year in which they were published.
> In addition, ten points for the name of the person to whom the
> author refers [XX], and five points for the journal reference of
> XX's paper.
>
> "_Note added in proof_. In explaining on p. 85 that
> there is no necessity for just three of the four
> line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
> I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
> frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
> an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
> [Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
> entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
> Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
> simplest form with _two_ of the
> coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
> space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
> not possible to find a frame such that the customary
> distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
> _signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
> (- - - +), as required!"
XX = Lemaitre?
Dirk Vdm
Mike Varney
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030305...@localhost.localdomain...
> words, and two points for the year in which they were published.
> In addition, ten points for the name of the person to whom the
> author refers [XX], and five points for the journal reference of
> XX's paper.
>
> "_Note added in proof_. In explaining on p. 85 that
> there is no necessity for just three of the four
> line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
> I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
> frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
> an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
> [Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
> entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
> Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
> simplest form with _two_ of the
> coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
> space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
> not possible to find a frame such that the customary
> distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
> _signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
> (- - - +), as required!"
Gödel, K. ''An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solution of
Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity." Reviews of Modern
Physics 21 (1949) 447
Stephen Speicher
When I saw Dirk's name in a response, my heart skipped a beat!
I groaned: oh no, not another massive sweep again. :)
>
> XX = Lemaitre?
>
<sigh of relief>
Thankfully, NO!
But, an interesting guess, nonetheless.
Stephen Speicher
Excellent, Mike. Goedel it is. 10 points for that!
I am going to give you the five points for the reference -- even
though the paper title is not completely correct, the Journal
reference is what I asked for, and that is exact.
The correct title of the paper is:
"An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solutions of Einstein's
Field Equations of Gravitation."
Good work.
We still need the author of those words, worth 10 points, and the
year they were published, worth 2 points.
Mike Varney
Alan D. Sokal
1992?
Stephen Speicher
No.
The correct date should be fairly delimited by what is written in
the quote which I gave.
Mike Varney
Last try.. (don't know the rules)
Bondi
1947
Stephen Speicher
The rule is: one try per customer, for each category.
If no one guesses after a period of time, I usually give hints
and open it up for second and third tries.
Mike Varney
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030305...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Mike Varney wrote:
> > Last try.. (don't know the rules)
> >
> > Bondi
> > 1947
> >
>
> The rule is: one try per customer, for each category.
>
> If no one guesses after a period of time, I usually give hints
> and open it up for second and third tries.
Ahh... ok. :-)
Nicholas Steele
Nicholas Steele
Stephen Speicher
> XX = Sakharov?
>
No, Nicholas.
Mike has already identified XX as being Goedel.
Nicholas Steele
Nicholas
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030305...@localhost.localdomain...
Stephen Speicher
> 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> words, and two points for the year in which they were published.
> In addition, ten points for the name of the person to whom the
> author refers [XX], and five points for the journal reference of
> XX's paper.
>
> "_Note added in proof_. In explaining on p. 85 that
> there is no necessity for just three of the four
> line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
> I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
> frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
> an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
> [Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
> entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
> Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
> simplest form with _two_ of the
> coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
> space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
> not possible to find a frame such that the customary
> distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
> _signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
> (- - - +), as required!"
>
Mike has correctly identified Goedel as being "XX," and the
Journal reference was to Goedel's 1949 paper in _Reviews of
Modern Physics_.
A hint for the author of the words: He is a _very_ well-known
physicist, but usually thought of in a completely different field
than relativity.
As to the date the words were published, between Goedel's
publication date and what the author tells us, it should be a
very narrow range.
Let's open this up for second and third tries.
Jeff Krimmel
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030305...@localhost.localdomain...
> words, and two points for the year in which they were published.
> In addition, ten points for the name of the person to whom the
> author refers [XX], and five points for the journal reference of
> XX's paper.
>
> "_Note added in proof_. In explaining on p. 85 that
> there is no necessity for just three of the four
> line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
> I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
> frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
> an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
> [Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
> entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
> Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
> simplest form with _two_ of the
> coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
> space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
> not possible to find a frame such that the customary
> distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
> _signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
> (- - - +), as required!"
My (almost entirely random) guess for the year written is 1951. Note that I
am withholding my guess for the author until I come up with a (somewhat)
reasonable offering.
Regards,
Jeff
Stephen Speicher
No, but you cannot get any closer!
> Note that I
> am withholding my guess for the author until I come up with a (somewhat)
> reasonable offering.
>
A reasonable approach.
We know that he is a _very_ well-known physicist, in a field
other than relativity, but let me add that he is also a Nobel
Prize winner.
John Zinni
> We know that he is a _very_ well-known physicist, in a field
> other than relativity, but let me add that he is also a Nobel
> Prize winner.
Wolfgang Pauli, 1950
--
Cheers
John Zinni
Nicholas Steele
Nicholas Steele
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030305...@localhost.localdomain...
Shaun Webb
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030305...@localhost.localdomain...
> words, and two points for the year in which they were published.
> In addition, ten points for the name of the person to whom the
> author refers [XX], and five points for the journal reference of
> XX's paper.
>
> "_Note added in proof_. In explaining on p. 85 that
> there is no necessity for just three of the four
> line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
> I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
> frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
> an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
> [Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
> entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
> Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
> simplest form with _two_ of the
> coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
> space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
> not possible to find a frame such that the customary
> distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
> _signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
> (- - - +), as required
Niels Bohr, 1950
Shaun
Mike Varney
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030305...@localhost.localdomain...
> words, and two points for the year in which they were published.
> In addition, ten points for the name of the person to whom the
> author refers [XX], and five points for the journal reference of
> XX's paper.
>
> "_Note added in proof_. In explaining on p. 85 that
> there is no necessity for just three of the four
> line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
> I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
> frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
> an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
> [Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
> entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
> Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
> simplest form with _two_ of the
> coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
> space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
> not possible to find a frame such that the customary
> distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
> _signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
> (- - - +), as required!"
Einstein, 1950.
Stephen Speicher
Good guess, but no.
> 1950
>
You got it. 2 points for John for the correct date.
Stephen Speicher
Another good try, but no to Bohr.
1950 is correct, but John just beat you out for the points.
Stephen Speicher
> Subramanyan Chandrasekhar.
>
No on that one, Nicholas.
Stephen Speicher
Keep the hint in mind: he was most famous for another field than
relativity.
1950 is correct, but John got there first.
John Zinni
> > 1950
> >
>
> You got it. 2 points for John for the correct date.
Woo ... hoo!!!! :)
--
Cheers
John Zinni
Mike Varney
Bardeen.
Mike Varney
Misinterpreted that as having won a Nobel in field other than
relativity! :-)
Got to wake up.
John Zinni
> > Wolfgang Pauli,
>
>
> Good guess, but no.
Werner Heisenberg
--
Cheers
John Zinni
Stephen Speicher
Sorry, no.
Stephen Speicher
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > Wolfgang Pauli,
> >
> >
> > Good guess, but no.
>
> Werner Heisenberg
>
Another nice try, but no.
Nicholas Steele
Nicholas Steele
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030305...@localhost.localdomain...
> 10 points to the first person to identify the author of these
> words, and two points for the year in which they were published.
> In addition, ten points for the name of the person to whom the
> author refers [XX], and five points for the journal reference of
> XX's paper.
>
> "_Note added in proof_. In explaining on p. 85 that
> there is no necessity for just three of the four
> line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
> I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
> frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
> an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
> [Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
> entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
> Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
> simplest form with _two_ of the
> coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
> space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
> not possible to find a frame such that the customary
> distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
> _signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
> (- - - +), as required!"
>
>
> The Current Standings on "Who said this ..."
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Dirk Van de moortel 77
> John Zinni 37
> Tom Bedford 27
> Matthew Nobes 22
> Nicholas Steele 20
> Ilja Schmelzer 20
> Jem 14
> Jeff Krimmel 11
> Daryl McCullough 10
> David Evens 10
> Mel Lep 10
> Shaun Webb 10
> Russell Blackadar 10
> Domino Plural 10
> Arfur Dogfrey 7
> David A. Smith 5.5
> Michel Mouly 5
> David McAnally 3
> Courtney Mewton 2
> Aardvark 2
> Tom Clarke 2
> Eli Botkin 1
> Bob Kolker 1
> Tim Shuba 1
John Zinni
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, John Zinni wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > > Wolfgang Pauli,
> > >
> > >
> > > Good guess, but no.
> >
> > Werner Heisenberg
> >
>
> Another nice try, but no.
Last try: Enrico Fermi (Il mio paesano)
--
Cheers
John Zinni
Stephen Speicher
> How about Schrodinger?
>
Give that man a cigar! (And, 10 points.)
None other than Erwin Schroedinger. What a surprise!
Congratulations, Nicholas.
Here then are the updated scores:
The Current Standings on "Who said this ..."
-------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel 77
John Zinni 39
Nicholas Steele 30
Tom Bedford 27
Matthew Nobes 22
Ilja Schmelzer 20
Michael Varney 15
Mel Lep
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, John Zinni wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > > Wolfgang Pauli,
> > >
> > >
> > > Good guess, but no.
> >
> > Werner Heisenberg
> >
>
> Another nice try, but no.
Dirac?
M.L.
Stephen Speicher
there is no necessity for just three of the four
line-elements (10.15) being space-like, one time-like,
I added that I was not aware of anybody ever using a
frame in which this was not so. Since this was written,
an example of the contrary was furnished by [XX],
[Journal reference]. [XX] communicates a fascinating
entirely novel type of cosmological solution of
Einstein's 1915 theory. This solution acquires its
simplest form with _two_ of the
coordinate-line-elements time-like (the other two
space-like). As far as I can see, it is in this case
not possible to find a frame such that the customary
distribution (3 + 1) holds _everywhere_. The
_signature_ of [XX's] line-element is, of course,
(- - - +), as required!"
As Nicholas Steele correctly identified, these words were written
by Erwin Schroedinger, and, as Jeff Krimmel surmised, the year
was 1950. The full reference of Schroedinger's book is,
"Space-Time Structure," _Cambridge At The University Press_,
1950.
In the "Note added ..." Schroedinger was referring to Kurt
Goedel's "An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solutions of
Einstein's Field Equations of Gravitation," _Reviews of Modern
Physics_, Vol. 21, No. 3, July 1949. Michael Varney correctly
noted Goedel, and he gave the reference (for a nice 15 point
start in the contest).
Most people are quite surprised to learn of a book on relativity
written by Erwin Schroedinger, since his name is so indelibly
linked to his quantum equation and to atomic physics in general.
Even lesser-known is that earlier, in 1939, Schroedinger was
amongst the first -- and perhaps the first in substance -- to
establish the roots for formulating a quantum field theory in a
curved spacetime (E. Schroedinger, _Physica_, 6, p. 889, 1939).
Max Born is another quantum physicist who wrote a book on
relativity, as did P.A.M. Dirac. While Dirac's very short
monograph (69 pages) is generally considered a classic ("General
Theory of Relativity," _Princeton University Press_, 1975/1996)
-- and, deservedly so -- I have become even more enamored with
Schroedinger' earlier 1950 work.
Unlike some of his more philosophical writings, here Schroedinger
is very clear and precise, writing with a rather remarkable
modern tone for a fifty-three year old work. In this short volume
(119 pages) he covers the structure and the essence of the
theory, and even has time at the end for a brief introduction to
generalizations of Einstein's theory. Though the scope and the
mathematical precision is nowhere near the more modern tomes,
such as Robert Wald's "General relativity,"
Schroedinger was amongst the first to mention Goedel's 1949 work,
as seen in the quote of the "Note added ..." up above. [There
was an earlier short note by C. Y. Fan (of the Institute for
Nuclear Studies at the University of Chicago) submitted in
November 1949, "Note on Rotational Universe," _Physical Review_,
77, p. 140, 1950.] Einstein, of course, was greatly interested in
this first demonstration of Goedel's "closed time-like lines,"
and he acknowledged Goedel's work as being
"...an important contribution to the general theory of
relatvity, especially to the analysis of the concept of
time. The problem here involved disturbed me already at
the time of the building up of the general theory of
relativity, without my having succeeded in clarifying
it."
--Albert Einstein, "Reply to Criticisms," in
"Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist," Volume II,
Edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, _Harper Torchbooks_,
1949/51.
In his paper, talking about the properties of the new solution,
Goedel says:
"(6) Every world line of matter occurring in the
solution is an open line of infinite length, which
never approaches any of it's[sic] preceding points
again; but there also exist closed time-like
lines.[note 3] In particular, if P,Q are any two points
on a world line of matter,[note 4] and P precedes Q on
this line, there exists a time-like line connecting P
and Q on which Q precedes P; i.e., it is theoretically
possible in these worlds to travel into the past, or
otherwise influence the past."
Very strange, indeed. (Note, however, that Goedel modified this
latter notion of influencing the past in his later writings.) In
his paper Goedel spoke of the "physical meaning of the solution,"
and discussed the distribution and the average period of rotation
of galactic systems. Goedel became a bit obsessed with all this,
and followed up further with his "Rotating universes in general
relativity theory," "Proceedings of the International Congress of
Mathematicians," Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A., August 30 -
September 6, 1950, pp. 175-181, _American Mathematical Society_,
1952.
In this paper Goedel states that "a directly observable necessary
and sufficient criterion for the rotation of an expanding
spatially homogeneous and finite universe" was that "for
sufficiently great distances there must be more galaxies in one
half of the sky than in the other half."
After Goedel's death, two bound notebooks were found in which
Goedel had recorded the angular orientation of galaxies. Clearly
Goedel had made an initial effort towards providing the evidence
for rotation which he wrote about in his 1952 paper. And,
according to Freeman Dyson, for many years, almost up to his
death, Goedel would call Dyson to ask about any new observational
evidence for rotation. Dyson would always tell Goedel there was
no such new evidence, but Goedel still did not give up the
possibility for his rotating universe.