Re: Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the true discoverer of special relativity?
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
discoverer of special relativity?
Probably by a mixture of historical imprecision of early biographies, lack
of some relevant papers recently discovered, popularisation by Edington
and others (in the style of most heavy string hype), the fact that
Poincaré was more mathematician than physicist, etc.
However, history is not an evolutionary field and often the old versions
of historical facts are rewritten when additional data is available. The
last years, a number of papers and books offers to us a new perspective on
history of relativity (some references are cited in the text). It has been
already historically proven that,
i)
Relativistic theory was mainly an achievement of Lorentz, Poincaré, and
others. Now historians agree that all basic ideas of relativity theory,
including constancy of c and existence of a maximum velocity for
transmission of signals, were previously known in literature.
ii)
That none of famous formulas of Einstein, including E = mc^2 was obtained
by Einstein. Even when he did attempts to derive formulas, he failed. For
example, Ives showed in 1952 that original Einstein proof of E=mc^2 was
completely wrong [Ives, H. E. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. Xlii (1952) p.540]. Other
formulas derived by Einstein are also wrong. Some reviews are very recent.
Also the famous mass variation formula (generally attributed to Einstein
in physics textbooks) was previously obtained by H. Lorentz on Amst. Proc.
vi (1904) p. 809.
There exists recent historical work that suggests, without doubt, that
relativistic theory was mainly due to Lorentz and Poincaré.
All this was maintained by Poincaré and others long before the time of
Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to
him.
---- Charles Nordmann
It is not surprising that Whittaker standard manual (American Institute of
Physics) claims little contribution for Einstein. I would remember to
readers the title of second chapter in the volume on modern theories: "The
relativistic theory of Poincaré and Lorentz".
iii)
Einstein copied the work of others without cite them, how even Max Born or
S. Hawking have recognized.
[Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in Annalen der
Physik. . . contains not a single reference to previous literature. It
gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course,
as I have tried to explain, not true.
---- Max Born
Wilhelm Wein proposed that the Nobel Prize of 1912 was awarded jointly to
Lorentz and Einstein, saying
"While Lorentz must be considered as the first to have found the
mathematical content of relativity, Einstein succeeded in reducing it to a
simple principle. One should therefore assess the merits of both
investigators as being comparable."
iv)
There is a general misunderstanding on that Einstein really did. Many
initial biographies are wrong. For example Pais famous book contain
several mistakes and imprecisions. E.g. Pais' claim that Hilbert did not
known the important Biachi identity in 1915 has been recently shown to be
false. Hilbert obtained it before Weyl (rediscovered it in 1917) and this
new historical data offers a new view on the priority of GR.
Recent L.Corry, J.Renn and J. Stachel. Belated Decision in the
Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute. Science. 278, 1270 (1997) claiming
priority for Einstein has been shown to be wrong.
There is an increasing interest on the role of Poincare on relativity
theory, sustaining initial Whittaker statements. See A. A. Logunov. Henri
Poincaré and relativity theory. M: Nauka, 2005.
Begin to appear serious historical studies that show that GR was not an
outcome of Einstein. See, for example, Witenberg (Z. Natursforsch 59a,
715-719, 2004). Witenberg shows that recent Science (article cited above)
attempt to prove that Hilbert copied to Einstein is incorrect.
v)
Historians have recently shown that Einstein said not the true to Hilbert
in the correspondence on GR. In his letter to Hilbert (November 18, 1915)
Einstein said
"The system you furnish agrees - as far as I can see - exactly with
what I found in the last few weeks and have presented to the Academy."
But just a days ago (not weeks ago) Einstein sent a paper to Academia
containing still the wrong equations of GR. Was just after of reading
Hilbert paper that Einstein changed his previous equations (obtained with
help of Grossmann) and sent the paper of 25 Nov to Academia; five days
after publication of Hilbert paper, and 9 days after of Hilbert
presentation of his paper Grundgleichungen der Physik at the Göttingen
Mathematical Society.
Hilbert newer claimed priority because Einstein said not the true to him
in the letter of Nov 18. Einstein had not submitted the correct field
equations to Academia! Both his papers of Nov 11 and 4 still contain the
incorrect equations!
Further historical data (including additional references) will be openly
available on
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/
the next week.
-------
Juan R. González-Álvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
mark...@yahoo.com
> Re: Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the true
> discoverer of special relativity?
>
> Probably by a mixture of historical imprecision of early biographies, lack
> of some relevant papers recently discovered, popularisation by Edington
> and others (in the style of most heavy string hype), the fact that
> Poincaré was more mathematician than physicist, etc.
The correct question is: why does this question keep coming up after it
has been clearly and desively answered?
The reason Poincare' is not granted as the true discoverer of special
relativity is that he, himself, disavowed such claim, citing Einstein
as the discoverer of the theory.
If the man, himself, says he didn't, then who is anyone else to presume
otherwise?!
cma...@yahoo.com
> juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com wrote:
> > Re: Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the tr=
ue
> > discoverer of special relativity?
> >
lack
> > of some relevant papers recently discovered, popularisation by Edingt=
on
> > and others (in the style of most heavy string hype), the fact that
>
> The correct question is: why does this question keep coming up after it
> has been clearly and desively answered?
>
> The reason Poincare' is not granted as the true discoverer of special
> relativity is that he, himself, disavowed such claim, citing Einstein
> as the discoverer of the theory.
It would be interesting to have references. I'm sure you remember the
document by heart.
> If the man, himself, says he didn't, then who is anyone else to presume
> otherwise?!
I'm not sure it was such a blessing at that time to have discovered
this exotic theory. Maybe he was just relieved that someone else was
begging to wear the hat. Let's judge on the theory's evolution only. In
fact, the only merit I see in Einstein was his total dedication to this
theory.
Chris
Perspicacious
> The correct question is: why does this question keep coming
> up after it has been clearly and desively answered?
>
> of special relativity is that he, himself, disavowed such
> claim, citing Einstein as the discoverer of the theory.
>
> else to presume otherwise?!
That was your response to the thread titled, "Resolved: Henri
Poincare Discovered Special Relativity, not Albert Einstein"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/d590f6a61dc6c76d
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/bdb56b959a29bc24
Will you now list references to support your contention?
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
leave out any prejudice and focus on research and historical data.
Previous historical researches are always open to debate, somewhat like
theories of physics are tested each day.
****************************
mark...@yahoo.com wrote:
The correct question is: why does this question keep coming up after it
has been clearly and desively answered?
The reason Poincare' is not granted as the true discoverer of special
relativity is that he, himself, disavowed such claim, citing Einstein
as the discoverer of the theory.
If the man, himself, says he didn't, then who is anyone else to presume
otherwise?!
****************************
My previous post on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:21:43 +0000 (UTC) explains why
many of contemporary researchers of Einstein did not know Einstein was
doing exactly. Then there was not ArXiv!
I already explained why Hilbert newer claimed priority over Einstein in
the formulation of GR. It was due to misunderstanding of Hilbert on WHAT
Einstein was really doing. See post cited for some historical details.
As said, some initial biographies of Einstein were wrong and this did
generate a lot of hype around Einstein. For example, today we read Jackso=
n
standard textbook on classical electrodynamics and find the two postulate=
s
of Einstein on the chapter on special relativity. Why call them =93Einste=
in
postulates=94?
Jackson attributes postulates to Einstein assuring that Poincar=E9 newer
formulated (Jackson explicitly says that Poincar=E9 =93did speculate=94 w=
ith
light speed barrier) them. Jackson also says that was Einstein the first
who proposed a modification of mechanics. That is, it appears that
Poincar=E9 was a kind of =93mystical philosopher=94 and Einstein a true
physicist.
But this is not correct. Einstein formulated none of relativistic formula=
s
(which is not an impressive record for a =93physicist=94). Poincar=E9 alr=
eady
was formulated almost all of formulas and principles needed. Poincar=E9
papers from 1909 and 1906 has been cited in sci.physics.research for
sustaining the thesis of the Einsteinian priority, but I am surprised tha=
t
nobody cited his <b>1904</b>. The principle of Relativity. Bull, des Sc.
Math. xxviii (1904) p.302.
=93The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a =91fixed=92 obse=
rver as
for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him:
so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of discerning
whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion=94.
Poincar=E9 also declared: =93From all these results there must arise an
entirely new kind of dynamics, which will be characterised above all by
the rule, that no velocity can exceed the velocity of light.=94
It is clear that Poincar=E9 was therein formulating =93Einstein postulate=
s=94
before the own Einstein did. This crucial point, more the formulas
obtained by both Lorentz and Poincar=E9 (e.g. the law of increasing of ma=
ss,
E=3Dmc^2, Lorentz transformations, etc.), sustains the =93modern=94 thesi=
s that
there is not significant contribution of Einstein to relativity theory.
This is the reason of Wittaker title =93The relativity theory of Poincar=E9
and Lorentz=94.
Perhaps a more exact description would be =93The relativity theory of
Poincar=E9, Lorentz, and Einstein=94 if, and only if, one proves that Ein=
stein
newer read Poincar=E9 (as Einstein claimed often in a =93non convincing f=
orm=94)
but in any case, Einstein was not a pioneer and did not formulate the
equations of relativity.
I see the current historical portrait an injustice, especially when in an
informal poll to laymen I see that nobody know to Poincar=E9 or Lorentz a=
nd
that laymen incorrectly think that E=3Dmc^2 or other formulas are ORIGINA=
L
FROM Einstein when were copied of others without citing them.
-------
Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Harry
<juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:3224.217.124.88.154...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
> History is an evolutionary field. Often debate is heated, but one would
> leave out any prejudice and focus on research and historical data.
> Previous historical researches are always open to debate, somewhat like
> theories of physics are tested each day.
>
>
> ****************************
> mark...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> The correct question is: why does this question keep coming up after it
> has been clearly and desively answered?
>
> The reason Poincare' is not granted as the true discoverer of special
> relativity is that he, himself, disavowed such claim, citing Einstein
> as the discoverer of the theory.
>
> If the man, himself, says he didn't, then who is anyone else to presume
> otherwise?!
>
> ****************************
>
>
> My previous post on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:21:43 +0000 (UTC) explains why
> many of contemporary researchers of Einstein did not know Einstein was
> doing exactly. Then there was not ArXiv!
>
> I already explained why Hilbert newer claimed priority over Einstein in
> the formulation of GR. It was due to misunderstanding of Hilbert on WHAT
> Einstein was really doing. See post cited for some historical details.
>
> As said, some initial biographies of Einstein were wrong and this did
> generate a lot of hype around Einstein. For example, today we read Jackson
> standard textbook on classical electrodynamics and find the two postulates
> of Einstein on the chapter on special relativity. Why call them "Einstein
> postulates"?
>
> Jackson attributes postulates to Einstein assuring that Poincare newer
> formulated (Jackson explicitly says that Poincare "did speculate" with
> light speed barrier) them. Jackson also says that was Einstein the first
> who proposed a modification of mechanics. That is, it appears that
> Poincare was a kind of "mystical philosopher" and Einstein a true
> physicist.
>
> But this is not correct. Einstein formulated none of relativistic formulas
> (which is not an impressive record for a "physicist"). Poincare already
> was formulated almost all of formulas and principles needed. Poincare
> papers from 1909 and 1906 has been cited in sci.physics.research for
> sustaining the thesis of the Einsteinian priority, but I am surprised that
> nobody cited his <b>1904</b>. The principle of Relativity. Bull, des Sc.
> Math. xxviii (1904) p.302.
>
> "The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a _fixed_ obse=
> rver as
> for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him:
> so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of discerning
> whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion".
>
> Poincare also declared: "From all these results there must arise an
> entirely new kind of dynamics, which will be characterised above all by
> the rule, that no velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
>
> It is clear that Poincare was therein formulating "Einstein postulates"
> before the own Einstein did. This crucial point, more the formulas
> obtained by both Lorentz and Poincare (e.g. the law of increasing of mass,
> E=3Dmc^2, Lorentz transformations, etc.), sustains the "modern" thesis
that
> there is not significant contribution of Einstein to relativity theory.
> This is the reason of Wittaker title "The relativity theory of Poincare
> and Lorentz".
>
> Perhaps a more exact description would be "The relativity theory of
> Poincare, Lorentz, and Einstein" if, and only if, one proves that Einstein
> newer read Poincare (as Einstein claimed often in a "non convincing form")
> but in any case, Einstein was not a pioneer and did not formulate the
> equations of relativity.
Einstein _did_ read Poincare but nevertheless, apparently he was the first
to show that the LT can be derived from just a few basic assumptions,
without explicit use of any models. For that that reason Einstein deserves
to be included.
> I see the current historical portrait an injustice, especially when in an
> informal poll to laymen I see that nobody know to Poincare or Lorentz and
> that laymen incorrectly think that E= mc^2 or other formulas are ORIGINAL
> FROM Einstein when were copied of others without citing them.
E= mc^2 is quite original from Einstein (despite what Ives claimed),
eventhough also here most likely Einstein was inspired by the writings of
others.
Harald
> -------
> Juan R. GonzE1lez-C1lvarez
>
> Center for CANONICAL SCIENCE)
Harry
<mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123966293.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com wrote:
> > Re: Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the true
> > discoverer of special relativity?
> >
> > Probably by a mixture of historical imprecision of early biographies,
lack
> > of some relevant papers recently discovered, popularisation by Edington
> > and others (in the style of most heavy string hype), the fact that
> > Poincaré was more mathematician than physicist, etc.
>
> The correct question is: why does this question keep coming up after it
> has been clearly and desively answered?
>
> The reason Poincare' is not granted as the true discoverer of special
> relativity is that he, himself, disavowed such claim, citing Einstein
> as the discoverer of the theory.
I never read that - most likely it's a simple misinterpretation of his
words.
Please give the exact reference, thanks.
> If the man, himself, says he didn't, then who is anyone else to presume
otherwise?!
What people supposedly claim is less important than the hard facts
(publications) that are available to all.
Harald
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
****************************
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com on 14 Aug 2005 17:30:05 +0000 (UTC)
wrote:
History is an evolutionary field. Often debate is heated, but one would
leave out any prejudice and focus on research and historical data.
Previous historical researches are always open to debate, somewhat like
theories of physics are tested each day.
****************************
But
****************************
l...@csb.bu.edu (Levin) on 14 Aug 2005 17:30:19 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
The interest in Poincare (as well as Lorentz or Hilbert) hardly can be
increased. Their great role in this and many other areas was hardly
unrecognized :-). However, the reference to Logunov explains a bit
the origin of the tone of this thread. From what I know of Logunov
(the President of Moscow University under Soviet regime), the greatest
problem he had with relativity was Einstein's ethnic background.
****************************
One would valuate Logunov proposals in its own value, far from
pre-established prejudices like =93before reading him I already know that=
he
says is incorrect.=94 I am sorry but I cannot accept this methodology lik=
e
valid one.
I -and historians like C. J. Bjerknes- prefer to valuate Logunov proposal=
s
after study them with care. The contrary would to be so strange as the
claim that Pais=92 biography is completely polarized just alluding to tha=
t
he was a =93pro-Einstein physicist=94.
The claim on the renovated interest on Poincare (as well as Lorentz or
Hilbert) means that the interest on the role of Poincar=E9 and Hilbert on
formulation of relativity theory has increased due to new historical data.
E.g. the recent discovering of lost print-proofs of a Hilbert paper of
1915 originated the controversial (wrong) paper on Science of 1997 (278,
1270) and the recent reply of 2004 I already cited.
I think that you are not fixing the point here.
Murray Arnow
It seems to me much of the confusion about Einstein and SR is the result
of the Nazis discrediting Jewish Physics. Sommerfeld, who was certainly
no Nazi or anti-Semite, mentions Einstein only once in his 1943
"Mechanics;" the censorship must have been severe. His only mention of
Einstein was with regard to GR; a much more tenuous theory then.
The SR postulates that Sommerfeld used ignore Einstein completely. He
used this remarkable statement, in section 1.2, to derive the Lorentz
transformation: "Maxwell's equations, which form the basis of this field
(Sommerfeld was referring to electromagnetic theory and optical
phenomena), require that the process of the propagation of light in a
vacuo with the velocity c be independent of the frame of reference from
which the process is observed."
I'm quite certain the Nazis were quite eager to find another discoverer
of SR. Sommerfeld, by not crediting anyone with the discoveries peculiar
to SR, gave tacit credit to Einstein.
Cl.Massé
> discoverer of special relativity?
Henri Poincaré was a famous mathematician, white and Christian, belonging to
a university, the academy, had many friends and colleagues, wrote a lot
about various fields of physics and mathematics, was known by personalities
of politics, arts and industry, and was a national of the country that won
WWII. It is right he be ascribed the paternity of the biggest discovery of
the century, isn't it?
By the same token, quantum mechanics must be ascribed to Hamilton (oops,
Jacobi), because he derived its mathematical content as the eikonal
equation.
Now, we'll ascribe the Joconde to Feynman, the creation of the world to
Mark Twain, and the Tour Eiffel to Georges W. Bush.
While we are at it, the Von Neumann computer goes to Bill Gates, Yesterday
goes to Shakira, and the discovery of the polonium goes to Sharon Stone.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Harry
"Cl.Massé" <to...@tata.ti> wrote in message
news:4300d7c6$0$18495$636a...@news.free.fr...
> > Re: Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the true
> > discoverer of special relativity?
>
> Henri Poincaré was a famous mathematician, white and Christian,
> belonging to a university, the academy, had many friends and
> colleagues, wrote a lot about various fields of physics and
> mathematics, was known by personalities of politics, arts and
> industry, and was a national of the country that won WWII. It is
> right he be ascribed the paternity of the biggest discovery of the
> century, isn't it?
So? I really can't follow that way of reasoning, and one may write a
similar text about Einstein. BTW, I had the impression that Poincare was
French - then that part about winning WWII does not apply to Poincare.
> By the same token, quantum mechanics must be ascribed to Hamilton
> (oops, Jacobi), because he derived its mathematical content as the
> eikonal equation.
>
> Now, we'll ascribe the Joconde to Feynman, the creation of the world
> to Mark Twain, and the Tour Eiffel to Georges W. Bush.
In fact, what you wrote doesn't make any scientific sense, not can I
find any logical argument in it. It appears that you didn't follow the
discussion and just make silly, unintelligent jokes.
-> Moderator, how did that nonsense get through?
Harald
Cl.Massé
43019a48$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> So? I really can't follow that way of reasoning, and one may write a
> similar text about Einstein.
Certainly not. Einstein was rejected by the universities, was
completely unknown in the year 1905 as he published five papers, among
which the one on the photoelectric effect, and the famous _Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper_ [On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies]. He was German and fled the nazi regime in 1933, which didn't
won WWII. It is extraordinarily unrealistic that at that time, a little
employee of the patent office at Bern would be ascribed the paternity of
the work of Poincaré-Lorentz, scientists of the establishment. The
relativity principle of Galileo, the Lorentz contraction and the
Poincaré group, yet, are apparently correctly ascribed.
First, it was his wife. Before the very thin evidences, it became
Poincaré. Who is next in the list?
I read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, in his own
writings. I'm sorry to have to say that there is no trace of relativity
as a constructed theory. He speaks of transformations that make up a
group, but acting on what? He never says it. Poincaré was rather a
mathematician, and was probably happy with a beautiful group, and also
not very comfortable with the physical reality.
Now the relativity, like every theory, isn't a collection of formulas,
but a complete set of principles from which a full mathematical model
derives logically, plus an interpretation which makes the link with the
physical reality, plus verifiable and verified physical predictions.
Are you sure the official historians master this subtlety, given that
such a revolution is very rare in physics, or that their consultants are
of good faith? I still awaits any phrase written by Poincaré that has
any bearing with the relativity theory as such. Especially, I want to
see his physical predictions. If you have any reference or excerpt,
it's the time.
Analogously, *all* the equations of quantum mechanics where known for at
least one century. The Schrödinger equation is no more than the
non-relativistic version of the Klein-Gordon equation, already known for
describing the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a plasma. The
Hamilton-Jacobi equation already shows that the trajectory of a particle
is mathematically equivalent to the high energy approximation of a wave
(eikonal equation). The operators were well known in the field of
linear algebra. Does that disqualify Plank, Einstein, and De Broglie as
the pioneers of quantum mechanics?
As to the picture of Einstein as a crook who constantly loots the works
of other physicist, even before these had the time to publish them, is
way too unlikely to be credible. Could you tell me where is the
pre-prints department in the library of the patent office? What are the
evidences that Lorentz, Hilbert, Minkowski... weren't crooks too.
Homo Lykos
news:4300594f$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
>> The reason Poincare' is not granted as the true discoverer of special
>> relativity is that he, himself, disavowed such claim, citing Einstein
>> as the discoverer of the theory.
Lorentz, not Einstein
(SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
" *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à la
mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de la
détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à faire dans son
article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l'Académie d'Amsterdam,
27 mai 1904).
L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats que
j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux de
*Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter dans
quelques points du détail. "
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
>
> E= mc^2 is quite original from Einstein (despite what Ives claimed),
? ? ?
> eventhough also here most likely Einstein was inspired by the writings of
> others.
1. Hasenöhrl, Zur Theorie der Strahlung in bewegten Körpern, Annalen der
Physik, Juli 1904
2. Hasenöhrl, Berichtigung [zu 1.], Annalen der Physik, 26. Jan. 1905
Homo Lykos
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
formulation of relativity theory opened in this newsgroup, I introduced
in
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
new data.
%% Some relevant comments on the issue (see above for details) %%
I believe that the primacy of Einstein over other people like Poincaré or
Hilbert is an injustice. Standard version of history of relativity theory
would be immediately rewritten for accounting recent discoveries and
interpretations.
Ironic attempts for highlighting still more the traditional portrait of
Einstein, such as the recent paper in Science (see references cited on
above link) would be stopped.
I like Whittaker or others believe that special relativity is mainly an
achievement of Poincaré and Lorentz. Of course, other people like
Minkowski, Planck, etc. played a role. Contrary to popular belief, I see
no significant role of Einstein except, perhaps, like an `organizer'
of
the work of others.
However, I cannot offer priority to Einstein and I cannot think he was a
gentleman because both his style of omission of the work of others and his
falsification of true in his letters (e.g. he said not the true to Hilbert
as now one can see from The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.
Princeton, N.Y: Princeton Univ. Press. Vol 8, 1998) impedes it.
In 1904, Poincaré stated the two basic principles of relativistic theory:
"The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer as
for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him:
so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of discerning
whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion."
"From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of dynamics,
which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no velocity can
exceed the velocity of light."
The idea of absence of aether is not new of Einstein and probably Einstein
learned it also from Poincaré (probably read on La Science et
l'hypothèse).
There is historical evidence (shown in above web document) that Einstein
plagiarized work of others. There is also historical evidence that
Poincaré did most of the work on some topics but left the paternity to
others.
It is also interesting to note that the Nobel Committee decided to award
Einstein the price, but was objected that Poincaré was who had found
special relativity. Nevertheless, as Poincaré passed away at that time
Einstein was awarded the Nobel price for his work on the photoelectric
effect. It is important to remark the diplomacy of the Nobel committee.
As also stated Stephen Hawking, none of relativistic formulas of Albert
Einstein is from him.
Contrary to popular claim, Einstein did not developed the gravitational
theory alone -even ignoring that "alone" means with the assistance of
Grossmann in traditional language-. The only important contribution to GR
that I know from actual historical research is Einstein proposal that
gravitational "field" may be represented by a 10-component tensor on a
curved spacetime.
Regarding general relativity, I think that is also proved that the
paternity of the theory is mainly for Hilbert, with Einstein and Grossmann
playing a secondary role, and other people doing tertiary work. Contrary
to popular claim that Hilbert copied Einstein work, it has been shown that
was Einstein who copied to Hilbert the correct version of the field
equations.
Hilbert obtained the correct equations of general relativity at least
nine, no five as thought until recently, days before Einstein.
I said `at least' above because there exists some evidence that perhaps
was ten days before. Further research will be needed for fixing the real
data.
I propose that I was acknowledged that special relativity is mainly an
achievement of Poincaré and Lorentz and the Einstein field equations of GR
renamed to Hilbert field equations.
P.S:
Of course, I would acknowledge debate in this heated topic, but I WILL NOT
REPLY noisy posts or without a minimum of basis. For example, to my
initial description that Einstein original derivation of E=mc^2 was shown
wrong by Ives, harald.v...@epfl.ch intelligently replied on Mon, 15
Aug 2005 13:16:37 +0000 (UTC):
> E=3D mc^2 is quite original from Einstein (despite what Ives claimed),
eventhough also
> here most likely Einstein was inspired by the writings of others.
I quoted Ives' paper (Ives, H. E. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 1952, xlii, 540.) in
a previous post with the aim of showing that Einstein original derivation
WAS wrong (somewhat as one can see that original Einstein derivation of
Lorentz transformation is also). This is rather independent of if E=mc^
2
is original from Einstein or is not. The claim of incorrect derivation is
RIGOROUS and was also stated by Planck and by J. Stark.
Bold questions like, `did Poincaré write explicitly in some part the
constancy of c on different frames?' will be not replied.
Different formal systems rely on different basic premises and, therefore,
obtain different secondary premises. Constancy of c on different frame is
implicit in Poincaré works (it is implicit for example in the LT), and
this is independent if Poincaré choose this like a postulate (like
Einstein did) or considered it a derivate premise of the formal system.
Replies to authors work without read them and based in prejudice (this
author is known by...) or similar will be no considered.
Javier Bezos
> The claim of incorrect derivation [of E=mc^2] is
> RIGOROUS and was also stated by Planck and by J. Stark.
So what? On the other hand, Planck derivation of his law was
wrong (oscilators with energy = n h nu, for example) and Einstein
gave a correct one.
> Contrary to popular belief, I see no significant role of
> Einstein except, perhaps, like an `organizer' of the work
> of others.
So, Einstein said the same as Poincaré and Lorentz.
> Bold questions like, `did Poincaré write explicitly in some part the
> constancy of c on different frames?' will be not replied.
>
> Different formal systems rely on different basic premises and, therefore,
> obtain different secondary premises. Constancy of c on different frame is
> implicit in Poincaré works (it is implicit for example in the LT), and
> this is independent if Poincaré choose this like a postulate (like
> Einstein did) or considered it a derivate premise of the formal system.
So, Einsteis didn't say the same as Poincaré and Lorentz. ;-)
Three points:
1) I wonder if Poincaré realized this, and apparently he didn't.
I would like to know if there is something in the Poincaré's
work revealing he realized this (because I don't have all his
papers) but it seems you think that's a bold question and
you refuse to answer it (which, btw, is not very polite).
3) The constancy of c is implicit not only in LT but in
Maxwell's equations. However, that doesn't mean Maxwell is
the author of SR.
2) You are saying Poincaré developped a formal system based in
other principles and postulates. Then, that's not Einstein's SR,
it's another system developped by Poincaré and therefore SR
cannot be credited to him. I've never seen the Poincaré system,
but if you are saying his system was developped by him, I must
agree. But at least, you are recognizing Einstein's postulates
are by him, not by Lorentz or Poincaré.
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
Cl.Massé
3059.217.124.69.211...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
> In 1904, Poincaré stated the two basic principles of relativistic theory:
>
> "The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer as
> for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him:
Dating back to Galileo, hardly ascribable to Poincaré.
> so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of discerning
> whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion."
The Lorentz contraction achieves this goal.
> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of dynamics,
> which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no velocity can
> exceed the velocity of light."
The rule follow from the dynamics, not the other way round like in
Relativity. The Lorentz contraction is also a new kind of dynamics, while
the Relativity is a new kind of space-time transformation.
> The idea of absence of aether is not new of Einstein and probably Einstein
> learned it also from Poincaré (probably read on La Science et
> l'hypothèse).
> There is historical evidence (shown in above web document) that Einstein
> plagiarized work of others.
While there is no trace of the "theory of relativity" as such in the said
works.
> There is also historical evidence that
> Poincaré did most of the work on some topics but left the paternity to
> others.
There is no trace of the "theory of relativity" as such from others.
> It is also interesting to note that the Nobel Committee decided to award
> Einstein the price, but was objected that Poincaré was who had found
> special relativity. Nevertheless, as Poincaré passed away at that time
> Einstein was awarded the Nobel price for his work on the photoelectric
> effect. It is important to remark the diplomacy of the Nobel committee.
The price has been founded by Nobel in order to reward the people who bring
something useful to humanity. The Relativity doesn't, the photo-electric
effect does, and the motives of the Nobel jury are kept secret.
etc...
> Of course, I would acknowledge debate in this heated topic, but I WILL NOT
> REPLY noisy posts or without a minimum of basis.
You didn't give the basis yourself, that is, the writing from Poincaré or
someone else that contain the "theory of relativity" as such. That is, not
only a mathematical model, but also physical assumptions and an
interpretation. Your gave only fragmented data, that put together don't
yield a complete theory with physical predictions.
> Bold questions like, `did Poincaré write explicitly in some part the
> constancy of c on different frames?' will be not replied.
Of course, since the answer is 'no', and that closes the debate
definitively.
> Different formal systems rely on different basic premises and, therefore,
> obtain different secondary premises. Constancy of c on different frame is
> implicit in Poincaré works (it is implicit for example in the LT), and
> this is independent if Poincaré choose this like a postulate (like
> Einstein did) or considered it a derivate premise of the formal system.
Again, the Lorentz contraction *is* a different formal system with the same
equations, but it lost.
Anyway, the Lorentz contraction, followed by the Relativity of Einstein
which won because it was more predictive, is written in all history books.
It is an epitome of the difference between mathematics and physics.
Therefore, I don't see any kind of change, save for the role of Poincaré in
the *Lorentz contraction*, but here it seems Poincaré looted Lorentz. So
let's give back the Poincaré group to Poincaré, the Lorentz contraction to
Lorentz, and the Einsteins theory of relativity to Einstein, to Caesar what
belongs to Caesar, and "much ado for nothing", or like would have stated
Poincaré after La Fontaine: "La montagne a accouché d'une souris."
cma...@yahoo.com
You almost fooled me with your pontificating tone. But here you are
showing your blatant ignorance of the situation. Lorentz and Poincare
were very good friends. They worked in collaboration on this theory.
Chris
cma...@yahoo.com
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[snip]
> Three points:
>
> 1) I wonder if Poincar'e realized this, and apparently he didn't.
> I would like to know if there is something in the Poincar'e's
> work revealing he realized this (because I don't have all his
> papers)
"The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer
as for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to
him: so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of
discerning whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion."
(Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. González-Álvarez
The speed of light is c in inertial frame A. You can't discern relative
motion in inertial frame B. What is the speed of light in frame B?
> but it seems you think that's a bold question and
> you refuse to answer it (which, btw, is not very polite).
>
> 3) The constancy of c is implicit not only in LT but in
> Maxwell's equations. However, that doesn't mean Maxwell is
> the author of SR.
"From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
(Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. González-Álvarez
The speed of light is c in inertial frame A. And c is the maximal
velocity in A. A body B is observed in A, and B emits light, what is
the velocity of that light?
Do you really think a man of Poincare's stature writes stuff randomly?
Chris
Cl.Massé
43065e57$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
> Lorentz, not Einstein
> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
>
> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à
> la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de
> la détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à faire dans
> son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with
> any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l'Académie
> d'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).
>
> L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats
> que j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux de
> *Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter
> dans quelques points du détail. "
>
> http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
Here, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*. The impossibility to
determine the absolute motion is an experimental fact, or a direct
hypothesis from one, given by the MM experiment. It isn't a matter of
Relativity, but of the Lorentz contraction, a concurrent theory that lost.
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
see_belo...@yahoo.es on 20 Aug 2005 16:07:30 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> The claim of incorrect derivation [of Emc^2] is
> RIGOROUS and was also stated by Planck and by J. Stark.
So what? On the other hand, Planck derivation of his law was
wrong (oscilators with energy n h nu, for example) and Einstein
gave a correct one.
****************************
If Einstein own `derivation' of Emc^2 is partial and incorrect (as shown
by many people) and formula was previously known on literature, then
Einstein copied from some part without acknowledging. Moreover, Poincaré
obtained before.
There are other derivations and proofs by Einstein that suggest that he
copied things. For example, his standard derivation of LT from the two
postulates of relativity is completely wrong in mathematical details, and
imply that Einstein known previously the LT and simply did an irrelevant
attempt to derive it from an `axiomatic basis'.
****************************
see_belo...@yahoo.es on 20 Aug 2005 16:07:30 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Contrary to popular belief, I see no significant role of
> Einstein except, perhaps, like an `organizer' of the work
> of others.
So, Einstein said the same as Poincaré and Lorentz.
****************************
Compare by your-self Einstein postulates with
`The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer as
for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him:
so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of discerning
whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion.'
`From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of dynamics,
which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no velocity can
exceed the velocity of light.'
Above are own words by Poincaré on 1904. Since c is constant in each frame
of reference -Poincaré used the LT where this is already implicit- and
since 1904 < 1905, then Einstein postulates are simply Poincaré
postulates. Priority is for Poincaré.
As shown, there is historical evidence that Einstein plagiarized work of
others. Why would it be different on SR?
****************************
see_belo...@yahoo.es on 20 Aug 2005 16:07:30 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Bold questions like, `did Poincaré write explicitly in some part the
> constancy of c on different frames?' will be not replied.
>
> Different formal systems rely on different basic premises and, therefore,
> obtain different secondary premises. Constancy of c on different frame is
> implicit in Poincaré works (it is implicit for example in the LT), and
> this is independent if Poincaré choose this like a postulate (like
> Einstein did) or considered it a derivate premise of the formal system.
So, Einsteis didn't say the same as Poincaré and Lorentz. ;-)
****************************
I already explained that. Look the difference between CKC and MTE
formulations of classical thermodynamics. Is thermodynamics an outcome of
Tisza and Callen?
****************************
see_belo...@yahoo.es on 20 Aug 2005 16:07:30 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Three points:
1) I wonder if Poincaré realized this, and apparently he didn't.
I would like to know if there is something in the Poincaré's
work revealing he realized this (because I don't have all his
papers) but it seems you think that's a bold question and
you refuse to answer it (which, btw, is not very polite).
3) The constancy of c is implicit not only in LT but in
Maxwell's equations. However, that doesn't mean Maxwell is
the author of SR.
2) You are saying Poincaré developped a formal system based in
other principles and postulates. Then, that's not Einstein's SR,
it's another system developped by Poincaré and therefore SR
cannot be credited to him. I've never seen the Poincaré system,
but if you are saying his system was developped by him, I must
agree. But at least, you are recognizing Einstein's postulates
are by him, not by Lorentz or Poincaré.
Javier
****************************
1) The theory of relativity was formulated in a number of papers by
Poincaré and Lorentz. I already cited main work where he developed the
theory of relativity (even invented the name!!!!) BEFORE Einstein's annus
mirabilis. Extended pointers to Poincaré works are in some of general
works I referenced.
3) The constancy of c was known before Maxwell's equations, e.g. in Weber
electrodynamics. The last part of your comment is childish. Einstein is
not the father of the theory of relativity, because just copied and
reorganized the work of others, did not cited them, and after claimed in
public that he did not know (when is proven that this is false).
For example, I have new data on Einstein `plagiarism'. I cited his letter
to Carl Seelig on <a
href"http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html">what
is history of relativity theory?</a>
Einstein said that at that time he only knew Lorentz work of 1895, but he
knew neither Lorentz nor Poincaré further work. I showed that Einstein
said not the true and read fundamental Poincaré works on relativity on
1902-1904. Probably he learned the absence of aether from Poincaré
readings.
Now I would ask, if Einstein DID NOT know Lorentz work posterior to 1895,
why Einstein used the SAME notation that Lorentz used in his paper of
1904?
2) You are misleading, I already shown that Einstein postulates are
Poincaré 1904 postulates more the LT (and its constancy of c).
This is the reason that when it was suggested that Nobel prize were
awarded to Einstein by relativity, Nobel committee decided that Poincaré
had played an very important role and would be an injustice to award to
Einstein. But Poincaré had died years before (The Nobel is for living
people) and then the Nobel prize was finally for Einstein's work on
photoelectric work.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3059.217.124.69.211...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
> In 1904, Poincaré stated the two basic principles of relativistic theory:
>
> "The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer as
> for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him:
Dating back to Galileo, hardly ascribable to Poincaré.
****************************
but `easily ascribable to Einstein'. No?
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of discerning
> whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion."
The Lorentz contraction achieves this goal.
****************************
No comment!
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of dynamics,
> which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no velocity can
> exceed the velocity of light."
The rule follow from the dynamics, not the other way round like in
Relativity. The Lorentz contraction is also a new kind of dynamics, while
the Relativity is a new kind of space-time transformation.
****************************
No comment, except the beauty of the limit c -> infinite!
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> The idea of absence of aether is not new of Einstein and probably Einstein
> learned it also from Poincaré (probably read on La Science et
> l'hypothèse).
> There is historical evidence (shown in above web document) that Einstein
> plagiarized work of others.
While there is no trace of the "theory of relativity" as such in the said
works.
****************************
As explained, Einstein `organized' the work of others. Note: without
acknowledging.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> There is also historical evidence that
> Poincaré did most of the work on some topics but left the paternity to
> others.
There is no trace of the "theory of relativity" as such from others.
****************************
If had no `trace', then Einstein would NEWER be asked if he read works of
Lorentz or Poincaré, He would NEWER be accused of `plagiarism' and he
would NEWER say not the true in his writings, such as his letter to
Seelig. Why, if there is no `trace', did Einstein omit to reference
previous works no the topic (read Born comment again, please)? Why, if
there is no `trace', did Einstein omit to say that read Poincaré when did?
Why, if there is no `trace', did Einstein omit to say that read Lorentz
works of 1904 when copied even the notation?
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> It is also interesting to note that the Nobel Committee decided to award
> Einstein the price, but was objected that Poincaré was who had found
> special relativity. Nevertheless, as Poincaré passed away at that time
> Einstein was awarded the Nobel price for his work on the photoelectric
> effect. It is important to remark the diplomacy of the Nobel committee.
The price has been founded by Nobel in order to reward the people who bring
something useful to humanity. The Relativity doesn't, the photo-electric
effect does, and the motives of the Nobel jury are kept secret.
etc...
****************************
`The price has been founded by Nobel in order to reward the people who bring
something useful to humanity. The Relativity doesn't' by `tototatati'
No comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
You didn't give the basis yourself, that is, the writing from Poincaré or
someone else that contain the "theory of relativity" as such. That is, not
only a mathematical model, but also physical assumptions and an
interpretation. Your gave only fragmented data, that put together don't
yield a complete theory with physical predictions.
****************************
Already explained that Poincaré believed that was doing no just math. His
own words are self-explicative. There is no further physical work below
Einstein own writings, just recollection of data from others and, this is
important, without acknowledging them.
You appear blocked to my comments or just replying to other. Please read
with care my posts and links before reply. AS SAID, relativity theory is
from Poincaré, Lorentz, and others. There is nothing wrong with a theory
that arises of collective effort. A fabulous example is classical
thermodynamics. But the popular claim that Einstein DID the SR alone is
completely unsustainable on a rigorous historical basis. There is no
formula or concept on Einstein writings that were not published and known
before the `annus mirabilis'.
People would be informed!
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Bold questions like, `did Poincaré write explicitly in some part the
> constancy of c on different frames?' will be not replied.
Of course, since the answer is 'no', and that closes the debate
definitively.
****************************
Absurd! For a mathematician (and Poincaré was, and great!) implicit
hypothesis do not need to be highlighted because arise easily from
mathematical manipulations.
If 1904 < 1905 is a premise in a formal system, a mathematician
(especially one good :-) does not need explicitly state the premise 2 < 3,
which follow from above one.
Constancy of c is implicit on the LT, which Poincaré knew. To believe that
Poincare, probably the most important mathematician of his époque, not
considered that c was the same on
x' (x ??? vt)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
is ridiculous, since the transformation has mathematical inverse.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 21 Aug 2005 23:19:48 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Different formal systems rely on different basic premises and, therefore,
> obtain different secondary premises. Constancy of c on different frame is
> implicit in Poincaré works (it is implicit for example in the LT), and
> this is independent if Poincaré choose this like a postulate (like
> Einstein did) or considered it a derivate premise of the formal system.
Again, the Lorentz contraction *is* a different formal system with the same
equations, but it lost.
Anyway, the Lorentz contraction, followed by the Relativity of Einstein
which won because it was more predictive, is written in all history books.
It is an epitome of the difference between mathematics and physics.
Therefore, I don't see any kind of change, save for the role of Poincaré in
the *Lorentz contraction*, but here it seems Poincaré looted Lorentz. So
let's give back the Poincaré group to Poincaré, the Lorentz contraction to
Lorentz, and the Einsteins theory of relativity to Einstein, to Caesar what
belongs to Caesar, and "much ado for nothing", or like would have stated
Poincaré after La Fontaine: "La montagne a accouché d'une souris."
****************************
`to Caesar what belongs to Caesar'.
1) All formulas of relativity are not from Einstein, therefore Emc^2 and
Einstein mass formula and ... are not from Einstein.
2) Einstein postulates are literally copied from previous work of
Poincaré; therefore, they are Poincaré postulates.
3) The rest of machinery was developed by Lorentz and others, doing the
theory of relativity one work of Poincaré, Lorentz, and others.
4) Regarding GR, since Einstein field equations were previously obtained
by Hilbert, and it has been historically proven that Einstein said not the
true in pioneering issues (modified his wrong equations after read Hilbert
work), the field equations of GR belong not to Caesar or Einstein, belong
to Hilbert.
5) People are very, very, very misguided. Would popular biographies on
Einstein not claim that none of works of Einstein on relativity was
pioneering one? I already cited an example of wrong biography on the
Internet, where it is suggested that Einstein arrived to physics with a
number of equations totally unknown for rest of scientists, when true is
that Einstein copied the formulas and principles from others. Or perhaps
has Einstein become the best piece of marketing for physics?
-------
Juan R. Gonz1lez-varez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Javier Bezos
> "The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer
> as for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to
> him: so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of
> discerning whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion."
> (Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. González-Álvarez
I knew this statement, which was published in an article
whose title is "L'avenir de la Physique mathématique" and
not "The principle of Relativity" as González-Álvarez says
on his site. A translation into English could be "The
future of Mathematical Physics" (which is very revelatory
about Poincaré's intentions).
> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
> dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
> velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
The original reads:
Peut-être devrons-nous construire toute une mécanique
nouvelle //que nous ne faisons qu'entrevoir//, où,
l'inertie croissant avec la vitesse, la vitesse de
la lumière deviendrait une limite infranchissable.
Italics are mine, and that important part is missing in
the cite as given by González-Álvarez. It means, more or
ess, "which we only can guess". The part "characterized
above all by the rule" is not in the original. This is
quite a general statement by Poincaré, which is important
and he has to credited for it, but provides no hints about
the fact c is independent from the **emitting body**,
which is the currently accepted PoR formulated in very
specific physical terms.
Now, take for example the famous paper "Sur la dynamique
de l'electron". If you read the paper you will see he just
repeats the Lorentz results in a better mathematical form.
This is not a mistery as that "paper" is in fact a short
note where we can read: "j'ai eté seulement conduit a
les modifier [the LT] et a les completer dans quelques
points de détail". Then, he moves quickly to see how
gravity can be modified (the latter part is reproduced
almost literally in Science and Method). (Interestingly,
in the paper of 1900, Poincaré reproduced the Lorentz
results, too, by then still wrong--eg, the wrong local
time).
In both this paper (I mean that of 1905) and Science and
Method (1908) he reviews candidates for this "new dynamics"
(Lorentz, Hertz, Abraham, etc.) trying to "discover" which
theory is the right one, but he says very little of his
own. Please, note I'm not saying he stole ideas from
others--he never said these theories were of his own.
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
Homo Lykos
news:4308e240$0$30470$636a...@news.free.fr...
> "Homo Lykos" <ly...@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 43065e57$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
>
>> Lorentz, not Einstein
>> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
>> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
>>
>> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à
>> la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de
>> la détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à faire
>> dans
>> son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with
>> any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l'Académie
>> d'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).
>>
>> L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats
>> que j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux
>> de
>> *Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter
>> dans quelques points du détail. "
>>
>> http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
>
> Here, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*.
No (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):
1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz
2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz
3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by
Lorentz/Poincaré
Homo Lykos
Cl.Massé
> Above are own words by Poincaré on 1904. Since c is constant in each frame
> of reference
Where does that come from? Poincaré never assumed it, and never derived it
too.
In fact, the independence of c is highly counter-intuitive, and that's why
all the physicists were kept at bay since the MM experiment, and even since
the Maxwell equations. A bold vision of physical reality was necessary, AND
for postulating the independence of c, AND for postulating other
counter-intuitive principles, such a the relativity of simultaneity and the
mixing of space and time.
Einstein did them all, Poincaré did neither. For instance, the formula of
the Lorentz contraction doesn't mix space and time, but only modifies the
length of physical objects. It uses an absolute velocity, even though no
physical experiment should be able to measure it. In Einsteins Relativity,
this velocity is the relative one of two frames of reference, and that's
what make the conceptual difference (and the name of the theory), and the
bigger predictive power of Relativity.
I would do another parallel. Newton postulated the existence of two
different masses, AND their equality, and that's what make the difference
between Kepler and Newton. The moon fall on the earth AND the moon doesn't
fall on the earth. Clearly, Newton has the priority, even though the
formula of an orbit is the same. Newton dynamics has obviously a bigger
predictive power.
> As shown, there is historical evidence that Einstein plagiarized work of
> others. Why would it be different on SR?
Why not?
I wrote:
> > The Lorentz contraction achieves this goal.
> No comment!
And for a reason. Lorentz contraction was designed in order to predict the
non-displacement of the interference fringes in the MM experiment, and it
succeeded. Now, there were no more experiment able to spot the absolute
motion, fulfilling the weak "relativity principle" of Poincaré, or rather
the "extended relativity principle of Galileo."
Notice the formulation: "So that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any
means of discerning whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a
motion." where this absolute motion is explicit. There is no absolute
motion, explicit or implicit, In Einsteins Relativity, just a transformation
of space-time for a frame in a *relative* motion.
> If had no `trace', then Einstein would NEWER be asked if he read works of
> Lorentz or Poincaré, He would NEWER be accused of `plagiarism' and he
> would NEWER say not the true in his writings, such as his letter to
> Seelig. Why, if there is no `trace', did Einstein omit to reference
> previous works no the topic (read Born comment again, please)? Why, if
> there is no `trace', did Einstein omit to say that read Poincaré when did?
> Why, if there is no `trace', did Einstein omit to say that read Lorentz
> works of 1904 when copied even the notation?
I really don't care about an emotional and irrelevant plea. Is there a
trace, in the form of a writing, yes or no?
> But the popular claim that Einstein DID the SR alone is completely
> unsustainable on a rigorous historical basis.
That's your opinion.
> There is no
> formula or concept on Einstein writings that were not published and known
> before the `annus mirabilis'.
I never saw any of those purported concepts, in a constructed form. You
provided no further cite. The debate is closed.
> If 1904 < 1905 is a premise in a formal system, a mathematician
> (especially one good :-) does not need explicitly state the premise 2 < 3,
> which follow from above one.
Well, really it's closed. A mathematician works in a predefined
mathematical system, for instance arithmetic with the Peano's axioms etc.
But the constancy of c obviously doesn't belong to such a system, and would
even be a revolutionary *novelty*. Poincaré didn't explicit it, but it is
taken for
granted? I really can't follow such an oriented logic.
Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
[Bien que ce ne soit pas explicité, nous voyons que la vitesse de la lumière
est la même quel que soit le référentiel dans lequel on se trouve!! C'est
une différence essentielle avec les théories précédentes.] Or was he a
misunderstood genius, even by himself?
Cl.Massé
> >> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
> >>
> >> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon
> >> à la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète
> >> de la détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à
> >> faire dans son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system
> >> moving with any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de
> >> l'Académie d'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).
> >>
> >> L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats
> >> que j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux
> >> de *Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les
> >> compléter dans quelques points du détail. "
I wrote:
> > Here, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*.
"Homo Lykos" <ly...@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
430a3...@news.bluewin.ch...
> No (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):
>
> 1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz
>
> 2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz
>
> 3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by
> Lorentz/Poincaré
Don't know and don't care. In the excerpt given, Poincaré is speaking about
the Lorentz contraction, as I read it in my mother tongue. No reference of
writings where Poincaré speaks about the relativity theory as such has been
given in this thread.
Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,
therefore it can't be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote, changed
only details.
Harry
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 43019a48$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> > So? I really can't follow that way of reasoning, and one may write a
> > similar text about Einstein.
>
> Certainly not. Einstein was rejected by the universities, was
> completely unknown in the year 1905 as he published five papers, among
> which the one on the photoelectric effect, and the famous _Zur
> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper_ [On the Electrodynamics of Moving
> Bodies]. He was German and fled the nazi regime in 1933, which didn't
> won WWII. It is extraordinarily unrealistic that at that time, a little
> employee of the patent office at Bern would be ascribed the paternity of
> the work of Poincaré-Lorentz, scientists of the establishment. The
> relativity principle of Galileo, the Lorentz contraction and the
> Poincaré group, yet, are apparently correctly ascribed.
The above text that you wrote left out the similarity points that I
referred to and therefore should have been in there. For example, you
"overlooked" to mention his skin colour and his religion, while you
emphasized those of Poincare. On top of that, you made a statement that
is both correct and extremely misleading: in 1905 he was indeed *not*
ascribed the paternity of the work of Poincaré-Lorentz, scientists of
the establishment. Did you consider to go in politics?
> First, it was his wife. Before the very thin evidences, it became
> Poincaré. Who is next in the list?
That question is also incorrect. Corrected: "From a flood of pertinent
evidence, Poincare played an important role in the development of
special relativity. *Lately*, according to her family and someone who
had seen the manuscript, his wife was co-author. Who is next in the
list?" I can tell you: Larmor and Fitzgerald are also sometimes given
some credit in more elaborate reviews. My excuses if I still overlooked
someone who should be mentioned.
> I read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, in his own
> writings. I'm sorry to have to say that there is no trace of relativity
> as a constructed theory. He speaks of transformations that make up a
> group, but acting on what? He never says it.
He referred in that note to the constructed theory of Lorentz as
published in 1904, and which was in part a reply to Poincare's earlier
writings. From what you state here above, I dare conclude that you did
*not* study those writings nor the 1904 paper of Lorentz, but just that
one note.
> Poincaré was rather a
> mathematician, and was probably happy with a beautiful group, and also
> not very comfortable with the physical reality.
With such a misguided remark you support my above conclusion.
> Now the relativity, like every theory, isn't a collection of formulas,
> but a complete set of principles from which a full mathematical model
> derives logically, plus an interpretation which makes the link with the
> physical reality, plus verifiable and verified physical predictions.
> Are you sure the official historians master this subtlety, given that
> such a revolution is very rare in physics, or that their consultants are
> of good faith? I still awaits any phrase written by Poincaré that has
> any bearing with the relativity theory as such. Especially, I want to
> see his physical predictions. If you have any reference or excerpt,
> it's the time.
Indeed Poincare didn't do so, as far as I am aware of. He considered
Lorentz to be the father of the new mechanics, not himself. He incited
Lorentz (and as it turned out, Einstein) to develop the right theory,
and next polished it up by presenting the Lorentz transformations. And
as you hopefully know, the first verification of SRT was of Lorentz'
prediction of the precise electron trajectory. For that reason I
consider that Poincare may indeed be simply labelled initiator as well
as discoverer and perfectioner of SRT, while Lorentz could be called the
main architect. I think that Einstein was the first to show that the
Lorentz transformations can be directly derived from the PoR. How should
we call him for that? Maybe the "perfector" of SRT?
> Analogously, *all* the equations of quantum mechanics where known for at
> least one century. The Schrödinger equation is no more than the
> non-relativistic version of the Klein-Gordon equation, already known for
> describing the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a plasma. The
> Hamilton-Jacobi equation already shows that the trajectory of a particle
> is mathematically equivalent to the high energy approximation of a wave
> (eikonal equation). The operators were well known in the field of
> linear algebra. Does that disqualify Plank, Einstein, and De Broglie as
> the pioneers of quantum mechanics?
I'd say that that disqualifies Plack as "The True Discoverer" of quantum
mechanics.
The problem and likely cause of this thread is the oversimplification of
history by physics text books.
> As to the picture of Einstein as a crook who constantly loots the works
> of other physicist, even before these had the time to publish them, is
> way too unlikely to be credible. Could you tell me where is the
> pre-prints department in the library of the patent office? What are the
> evidences that Lorentz, Hilbert, Minkowski... weren't crooks too.
The evidence about others being crooks too has little to do with the
evidence of a certain individual being a "crook". But surely a patent
office is usually a very good location to enable one to be aware of the
latest publications.
Harald
Cl.Massé
1124687289.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You almost fooled me with your pontificating tone. But here you are
> showing your blatant ignorance of the situation. Lorentz and Poincare
> were very good friends. They worked in collaboration on this theory.
That doesn't enter the debate. Of course I don't think Poincaré looted
Lorentz, but it is presented so by his advocates in order to make him
the discoverer of Relativity, while in reality the so-called theory of
Poincaré is no more than the Lorentz contraction. Poincaré pointed out
that the *equation* describing the contraction made up a group with the
rotations and the translations, and it is so on whichever it applies.
That's his only contribution, bar some general comments and word
minting.
Cl.Massé
> "The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer
> as for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to
> him: so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of
> discerning whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion."
> (Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. González-Álvarez
>
> The speed of light is c in inertial frame A. You can't discern relative
> motion in inertial frame B. What is the speed of light in frame B?
It doesn't work like that. The speed may be different, but the lengths
change. In other word, the constancy of the light speed doesn't follow
from the principle of relativity alone. A further hypothesis is needed.
Poincaré never gave one. Lorentz gave the Lorentz contraction, that
failed because it was less predictive than Einsteins relativity.
> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
> dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
> velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
> (Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. González-Álvarez
>
> The speed of light is c in inertial frame A.
Not necessarily, see supra.
> And c is the maximal velocity in A.
The maximal velocity is the one of the light in the local frame,
whatever it is. That follows directly from Lorentz formula, and that's
why he speak about a new dynamics, since in the old there were no speed
limit. Nevertheless, he never derived this dynamics, therefore didn't
even developed the mathematical model.
> A body B is observed in A, and B emits light, what is the velocity of that
> light?
I don't know. Which theory have I to use?
> Do you really think a man of Poincare's stature writes stuff randomly?
Irrelevant. A mathematician is used to fully write down the new
hypothesis. He didn't write down the ones of Einsteins Relativity,
period.
cma...@yahoo.com
> cma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > "The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observ=
er
> > as for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative t=
o
> > him: so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of
."
> > (Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez
>
> I knew this statement, which was published in an article
> not "The principle of Relativity" as Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez says
> on his site. A translation into English could be "The
> future of Mathematical Physics" (which is very revelatory
So it's clear to me that he knew that the speed of light (true or
apparent) was the same in all frames, if emitted from a source at rest.
>
> > "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
> > dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
> > velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
>
> The original reads:
>
> Peut-=EAtre devrons-nous construire toute une m=E9canique
> nouvelle //que nous ne faisons qu'entrevoir//, o=F9,
> l'inertie croissant avec la vitesse, la vitesse de
> la lumi=E8re deviendrait une limite infranchissable.
>
> Italics are mine, and that important part is missing in
> the cite as given by Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez. It means, more or
> ess, "which we only can guess". The part "characterized
> above all by the rule" is not in the original. This is
> quite a general statement by Poincar=E9, which is important
> and he has to credited for it, but provides no hints about
> the fact c is independent from the **emitting body**,
> which is the currently accepted PoR formulated in very
> specific physical terms.
I have to agree that the two versions are quite different. In the
second version, it looks like matter is limited to speed c, but it
doesn't explicitly say anything about the speed of signals. Whereas the
first version looks more general and encompasses signals too. Maybe
Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez has some explanation.
So in summary, he knew that the speed of light is c in every frame, but
it's not clear whether or not he knew that the speed of light was
independent from the velocity of its source.
I bet he knew that too, since he must have viewed light as a wave; and
the velocity of waves is independent of the source. And he probably
viewed that fact as fairly obvious. Of course, I'm speculating here,
but that's a very plausible educated guess. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez's quote
would confirm this guess, but you claim it's wrongly cited.
Chris
Homo Lykos
news:1124737802.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> cma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
>> dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
>> velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
>
> The original reads:
>
> Peut-être devrons-nous construire toute une mécanique
> nouvelle //que nous ne faisons qu'entrevoir//, où,
> l'inertie croissant avec la vitesse, la vitesse de
> la lumière deviendrait une limite infranchissable.
Nonsense
Correct original (Conférence le 24 septembre 1905, Saint Louis or chapter 8
in La valeur de la Science) :
" De tous ces résultats //, s'ils se confimaient,// sortirait une mécanique
entièrement nouvelle qui serait surtout caractérisée par ce fait qu'aucune
vitesse ne pourrait dépasser celle de la lumière (1), ..."
s'ils se confirmaient: because of the poor experimental basis
Footnote (1):
" Car les corps opposeraient une inertie croissante aux causes qui
tendraient à accélérer leur mouvement; et cette inertie deviendrait infinie
quand on approcherait de la vitesse de la lumière.
Next sentence:
" .... Pour un observateur, entraîné lui-même dans une translation dont il
ne se doute pas, aucune vitesse apparente ne pourrait non plus dépasser
celle de la lumière; et ce serait là une contradiction, si l'on ne se
rappelait que cet observateur ne se servirait pas des mêmes horloges qu'un
observateur fixe, mais bien d'horloges marquant le "temps local". "
Important originals in:
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
Homo Lykos
Homo Lykos
>> >> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
>> >> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
>> >>
>> >> " *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon
>> >> à la mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité
>> >> complète
>> >> de la détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à
>> >> faire dans son article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system
>> >> moving with any velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de
>> >> l'Académie d'Amsterdam, 27 mai 1904).
>> >>
>> >> L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les
>> >> résultats
>> >> que j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec
>> >> ceux
>> >> de *Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les
>> >> compléter dans quelques points du détail. "
>
>
>> > Here, Poincaré speaks about the Lorentz *contraction*.
>
>
>> No (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):
>>
>> 1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz
>>
>> 2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz
>>
>> 3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by
>> Lorentz/Poincaré
>
> Don't know and don't care. In the excerpt given, Poincaré is speaking
> about the Lorentz contraction, as I read it in my mother tongue.
It's not a question of language, but of physics/mathematics. In [3] there
are only the results of [4]: read also chapter LT in [4].
> No reference of
> writings where Poincaré speaks about the relativity theory as such has
> been given in this thread.
>
> Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
> velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,
> therefore it can't be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote,
> changed only details.
Without these details the proof of Lorentz of tho covariance of the
Maxwell-equations is wrong and the PoR would not be valid.
Homo Lykos
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> There is no
> formula or concept on Einstein writings that were not published and known
> before the `annus mirabilis'.
I never saw any of those purported concepts, in a constructed form. You
provided no further cite. The debate is closed.
****************************
I repeat again, there is no basic formula or fundamental concept of
relativity on Einstein writings that were not published and known before
the “annus mirabilis”. Popular version of history or personal web pages
like reference [1] I cited are example of how the history of relativity is
distorted.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> If 1904 < 1905 is a premise in a formal system, a mathematician
> (especially one good :-) does not need explicitly state the premise 2 < 3,
> which follow from above one.
Well, really it's closed. A mathematician works in a predefined
mathematical system, for instance arithmetic with the Peano's axioms etc.
But the constancy of c obviously doesn't belong to such a system, and would
even be a revolutionary *novelty*. Poincaré didn't explicit it, but it is
taken for
granted? I really can't follow such an oriented logic.
Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
[Bien que ce ne soit pas explicité, nous voyons que la vitesse de la lumière
est la même quel que soit le référentiel dans lequel on se trouve!! C'est
une différence essentielle avec les théories précédentes.] Or was he a
misunderstood genius, even by himself?
****************************
No is not closed. The difference that you fail to understand is that from
different formal systems, premises to be highlighted are different. If you
take the PoR and the LT you can derive the constancy of c (Poincaré
approach). If you take the PoR and the constancy of you can derive the LT
(Einstein approach).
Perhaps Poincaré failed to explicitly write in a clear form the relativity
principle in the form that Einstein did. That is, perhaps Poincaré was
more obscure. But 1) Always it is more easy to be more clear when other
did the basic work previously (that is the advantage of Einstein). 2) In
that case, the difference of Einstein would be that was able to explain
better that already was known.
If constancy of c is implicit on Poincaré math, he did not need explicit
to say this. There is no more novelty on claim that c is constant and
derive (INCORRECTLY) the LT that claim that LT and maximum speed of c form
the basis of a new (NOVEL) mechanics.
Perhaps Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
But wrote on 1905
“If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light.”
That and the fact that developed the basis of 4D formulation and
discovered that ds was an invariant before Minkoski offer no doubt that
constancy of c in each frame was well known from Poincaré.
It is really really difficult believe that Poincaré (one of BEST
mathematicians and excellent physicist) needed explicitly to claim that
constancy of c follow from invariance of
ds = (ct)^2 – (dr)^2 = (ct’)^2 – (dr’)^2
or that the LT to be a real transformation (with mathematical inverse)
need that c was a constant.
It was Poincaré newer Einstein who fully showed the covariance of Maxwell
to LT and stated that this would be applicable to ALL phenomena. Poincaré
obtained some like
(1/c^2) \partial^2 \phi / \partial t^2 = (1/c^2) \partial^2 \phi’ /
\partial t’^2
Above formula is valid elsewhere if second derivatives are e.g. 1, we obtain
(1/c^2) = (1/c^2)
Do you need you establish that c is a constant a posteriori or claim that
it is a new postulate? I Do NOT and Poincaré who was infinitely smarter
than I in mathematical issues no.
Now Einstein do not asumme the LT from the beginning, then may use the fact
(1/c^2) = (1/c^2)
which characterizes the LT but is not present in Galilean-Newton mechanics
as a NEW POSTULATE.
Your claim that Poincaré did not know the situations is so surprising like
Stachel’s claim that Hilbert, one of most brilliant mathematicians, could
not do a simple 3-line routinely computation from the GR action he
obtained, whereas Einstein who was well-known by his very low mathematical
level and newer formulated correct equations did and, this is still more
surprising, Hilbert copied.
No significant improvement was done by Einstein in SR. Einstein copied GR
field equations from Hilbert.
****************************
Regarding
“It doesn't work like that. The speed may be different, but the lengths
change. In other word, the constancy of the light speed doesn't follow
from the principle of relativity alone. A further hypothesis is needed.
Poincaré never gave one. Lorentz gave the Lorentz contraction, that
failed because it was less predictive than Einsteins relativity.”
Again, own Poincaré words (1905) about his principle of relativity.
“If we were to accept the relativity principle, then we would find a
common constant in the law of gravity and in electromagnetic laws, the
velocity of light.”
The further hypothesis does not contained in Poincaré principle of
relativity is the LT, which Poincaré take like a substitute of Galilean
mechanics.
That does Poincaré and Lorentz the main fathers of relativity theory.
Precisely it was the claim of Witthaker between others: Weyl, Pauli, Born,
etc.
Javier Bezos
cma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have to agree that the two versions are quite different. In the
> second version, it looks like matter is limited to speed c, but it
> doesn't explicitly say anything about the speed of signals. Whereas the
> first version looks more general and encompasses signals too. Maybe
> Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez has some explanation.
Homo Lykos has pointed out the citation given by
Gonzalez Álvarez is actually in "Le valeur de la
science" and comes from a talk given in sept. 1905.
See my reply to him.
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references.
****************************
cma...@yahoo.com on 4 Aug 2005 15:11:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
That being said, I can buy Einstein's claim that he was unaware of
Poincare's work; but it's hard to imagine that the editor of Annalen
der Physik wasn't: this person was none other than Max Planck.
****************************
It appears that both Planck and Hilbert were rather interested in the
publicity of Einstein paper. Perhaps did it for the competition with
French physics?
Einstein claimed that newer read Poincaré and just Lorentz work of 1895
for sustaining his thesis of that his 1905 work was independent.
His colleagues Maurice Solovine and Carl Seelig reported that Einstein had
read the Poincaré book La Science et l'hypothèse around 1902-1904
contradicting Einstein. Einstein’s position at the Swiss office patent in
charge of "electromagnetism" implied that part of his job was to read and
summarized the main publications on this topic. There is some evidence
that Poincaré works were usually read and discussed on Einstein place. A
colleague informed to me that Einstein used the same notation that Lorentz
in a paper of 1904 therefore contradicting above Einstein claims. The
question is at what extension Einstein read and copied work of others
saying not the true? It has been recently shown that Einstein also did not
say the true to Hilbert, copying Hilbert work as own work without citing
him.
Why a so-claimed genius of physics doing research so different of others
would follow those very questionable ways if he was in a supreme position
over the rest of normal physicists and mathematicians. Obliviously the
only explaining for that Einstein did not say the true on priority issues
is that his own work is not very different from the work of others.
****************************
harald.v...@epfl.ch on 4 Aug 2005 15:11:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein are all credited in good text books for their
contributions:
- Lorentz to first propose a rudimentory version of SRT
- Poincare to next come up with the Lorentz Transformations in order to
fulfill the PoR
- Einstein to next derive the LT from the PoR
And there were (of course) also some others who are worth of credit.
Often for simplicity only Einstein is mentioned because he developed the
general theory of relativity as well.
****************************
I cannot agree in almost books of science, manuals and popular books
Einstien is credited like the father of relativity theory. In fact the
misunderstanding of people is so great that many people believe that
Einstein received the nobel Prixe for relativity theory. I already cited a
example of good book (standard Jackson on electrodynamics) where only
Einstein is credited. Jackson claims that Poincaré did “philosophy”.
I do not see Einstein’s derivation of the LT from the PoR as a
breakthrough, since there is no net new physics contained in it that one
cannot find before that. I see it like interesting or very interesting. In
fact, Einstein derivation of LT from PoR alone is WRONG, full of
additional assumptions and incorrect mathematical details, which imply
that he know previously relativistic theories of Poincaré and Lorentz, and
LT in final form. Contrary to popular claim the LT does NOT follow from
Einstein PoR. He fact, that Einstein did notice this fact imply to me that
had not a good understanding of relativity physics. Einstein derivation of
LT appears like an attempt to split his version of relativity from that of
Lorentz and Poincaré.
As shown recently the paternity of GR is not from Einstein.
****************************
see...@end.of.post.ch (Martin Ouwehand) on 4 Aug 2005 15:11:13 +0000
(UTC) wrote:
In the article <1123101871.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Perspicacious <iperspi...@yahoo.com> writes:
] Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincaré acknowledged as the true
] discoverer of the special theory of relativity?
because he didn't discover the theory of relativity as we now understand it.
But despite this, Poincaré still believed somehow in the aether and that
the speed of light is *not* the same in all inertial frames: for example
in his 1909 Conference [1], he explains that it is not possible to
synchronize two clocks A and B *which are mutually at rest* by exchanging
light signals because, if they were moving (I guess with respect to the
aether), the time for trip A->B wouldn't be the same as the time for trip
B->A, by an amount which it is impossible to determine, because the
principle of relativity.
He certainly did not explain, as Einstein did, the changes to the concepts
of space and time that follow from the theory of relativity.
All claims about Poincaré's priority come from the fact that in his
article [2] "Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron" he does show that the Maxwell
equations are invariant under the Lorentz transformation. But this article
is a follow-up to an article by Lorentz [3] were the Lorentz transformation
is presented *as a formal change of variables* used to show that the Lorentz
contraction, together with an hypothesis about the transformation of forces,
would explain why it is impossible to detect any movement with respect to
the aether. Indeed, Poincaré sometimes uses a phrase like "the real electron
corresponds through the Lorentz transformation to an ideal electron..."
Nowhere do Lorentz or Poincaré say that the Lorentz transformation connects
space-time measurements in two inertial frames in relative motion.
Finally, the bulk of Poincaré's article is devoted to a *dynamical*
explanation of the Lorentz contraction (he has to postulate some kind of
"pressure" inside the electron to do this), whereas we now believe with
Einstein that the Lorentz contraction is purely kinematical.
****************************
It is true that Poincaré didn't discover the theory of relativity as “we
now understand it”, but that is not an excuse for omitting his name like
ONE of the fathers of relativity. The popular claim that Einstein derived
special relativity alone is an clear injustice. Moreover it is difficult
understand that mean “the theory of relativity as we now understand it”,
I think that a theory is the collection of mathematical formulas more
physical principles and insight. About this, Einstein did NONE of formulas
of SR, did NOT many of modern insight (e.g. Einstein newer formulated a
four-momentum, Poincaré was pioneer in recognizing that c was a limiting
speed for any body, etc.), the group theoretical approach that is thought
in modern books is from Poincaré no from Einstein, etc. Moreover, of the
two “Einstein” principles, one is from Poincaré and the other, constancy
of c, is easily derived from the LT.
The popular but wrong idea of a great difference between pre-Einstein and
post-Einstein physics (as a basis for Einstein total priority in these
issues) is even broke by Einstein thought in posterior years
Surprisingly, however, it turned out that a sufficiently sharpened
conception of time was all that was needed to overcome the difficulty
discussed. One had only to realize that an auxiliary quantity introduced
by H. A. Lorentz, and named by him “local time”, could be defined as
“time” in general. If one adheres to this definition of time, the basic
equations of Lorentz’s, theory correspond to the principle of relativity .
. .
But that was basically obtained by Poincaré, according to Lorentz,
In one of them were used — such was my reasoning — coordinate axes with a
definite position in ether and what could be termed true time; in the
other, on the contrary, one simply dealt with subsidiary quantities
introduced with the aid of a mathematical trick. Thus, for instance, the
variable t′ could not be called time in the same sense as the
variable t. Given such reasoning, I did not think of describing phenomena
in the reference system x′, y′, z′, t′ in
precisely the same way, as in the reference system x, y, z, t . . . I
later saw from the article by Poincaré that, if I had acted in a more
systematic manner, I could have achieved an even more significant
simplification. Having not noticed this, I was not able to achieve total
invariance of the equations; my formulae remained cluttered up with excess
terms, that should have vanished. These terms were too small to influence
phenomena noticeably, and by this fact I could explain their independence
of the Earth’s motion, revealed by observations, but I did not establish
the relativity principle as a rigorous and universal truth. On the
contrary, Poincaré achieved total invariance of the equations of
electrodynamics and formulated the relativity postulate — a term first
introduced by him . . . I may add that, while thus correcting the defects
of my work, he never reproached me for them.
I am unable to present here all the beautiful results obtained by
Poincaré. Nevertheless let me stress some of them. First, he did not
restrict himself by demonstration that the relativistic transformations
left the form of electromagnetic equations unchangeable. He explained this
success of transformations by the opportunity to present these equations
as a consequence of the least action principle and by the fact that the
fundamental equation expressing this principle and the operations used in
derivation of the field equations are identical in systems x, y, z, t and
x′, y′, z′, t′.
“the theory of relativity as we now understand it” is a 4D formulation.
Einstein newer achieved that. It was again Poincaré who did pioneering
work.
I remind on these ideas by Poincaré because they are closed to methods
later used by Minkowski and other scientists to easing mathematical
actions in the theory of relativity.”
The idea of that great difference between Poincaré theory and Einstein
theory may be wrong is aether. From Poincaré 1902 Poincaré book ” La
Science et l'hypothèse” (no absolute time, no absolute space, no aether
.. ). This book was read by Einstein around 1903. It is true that after
Poincaré return to aether in 1908 but his conception of aether is not an
absolute aeither it is akind of physical mediator instead of vacuum. The
aeheter of Poincaré is not a mechanism for absolute motion since may
verify the principle of relativity. Moreover, and this is very interesting
for me, Einstein also returned to the concept of aether around 1920.
Why is 1908 Poincaré aether used for eliminating to him from citing on
history whereas 1920 Einstein aether is newer used against Einstein?
Einstein clock synchronizing procedure is mainly based in own Poincaré
method of 1900. Yes, perhaps he “did go down” with his return to aether
but is not an impediment for priority of his works before 1905. Or would
1920 Einstein returns to aether also be used for eliminating annus
mirabillis papers from citing?
Before Einstein did Poincaré already explained the changes to the concepts
of space and time that follow from the theory of relativity. E.g. on “La
science et l’hypothèse” (1902), Poincaré said “there is no absolute time”
I think that Poincaré established that the Lorentz transformation connects
space-time measurements in two inertial frames in relative motion when
obtained the Minkoski invariant ds in 1906 (data of publication, a short
resume of ideas of this work were presented previously even before 1905
Einstein paper was submitted).
****************************
cma...@yahoo.com on 5 Aug 2005 10:45:01 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
It's hard for me to doubt the sincerity of such a great man, but yes
there are troubling facts that are hard to swallow. I found
Perspicacious' links very interesting, especially the arxiv document. I
have merely glanced at it yet, and already I keep telling myself "say
it ain't so". Just consider the fact that it is Poincare who gave the
equations that he dubbed himself the "Lorentz transformations", and
there you have Einstein using exactly the same term, and decades later
he claimed that he only was aware of Lorentz's work in 1895. Pure
coincidence? Maybe, but as I said: hard to swallow. So far I've barely
glanced at Poincare's discussion on silmulataneity, but it was enough
to give me a feeling of deja vu.
****************************
Still more interesting is that Einstein used the same notation that
Lorentz in his 1904 article. Another coincidence?
Why do not explicitly say that Einstein was a genius of “plagiarism” in
the light of abundant data.
****************************
hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de on 7 Aug 2005 22:04:44 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
even if Einstein had been motivated by the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment,
****************************
Michel Janssen says that popular idea about the theoretician worried by
the MM experiment is just legend, no history.
****************************
hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de on 7 Aug 2005 22:04:44 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Sometimes its Poincaré, sometimes it's Mileva Maric, sometimes it's
Lorentz who was supposed to have been there first, only to get cheated
out by Einstein; sometimes it is the statement that OF COURSE Einstein
was heavily influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment. All of these
claims have been debunked. See, for example, Pais's excellent SUBTLE IS
THE LORD. (The title is a translation of Einstein's famous phrase
"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht; Einstein's own
translation was "God is slick, but he ain't mean".)
****************************
1) There is nothing wrong with revising our historical thoughts.
2) That can be danger only if the old version of history was not
infallible, and full of mistakes and imprecision. If is not the case do
not worry!
3) Pais book is good but is not conclusive in some crucial points and
flagrantly wrong in others. The books of history, as books of science, are
subjected to continuous revision. History is an evolutionary field. There
is not one version of history and remains forever untouchable. That is
surprising is the tacit attitude of many physicists and believers of
“please do not study history of relativity again. Einstein is our myth, do
not break it even if you say is correct”
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references.
****************************
see...@end.of.post.ch (Martin Ouwehand) on 8 Aug 2005 19:03:11 +0000
(UTC) wrote:
the priority question would arise only if Poincaré's 1905 note, 1906 article,
or anything else he wrote, contained relativity theory or something
equivalent
to it. I don't think it does.
****************************
This is a bold statement. Many parts of standard relativity theory are due
to Poincaré, Lorentz, and others still it is publicised that Einstein
achieved alone. I am not claiming that Poincaré alone was the father of
SR.
However, Einstein obtained none physical formula, none new mathematical
insight, the first postulate is from Poincaré and the second one easily
derived from LT and posterior Poincaré work (Poincaré shows the invariance
of ds). Further insight like absence of absolute time, no aether,
contraction of bodies, maximum speed of c, the necessity of a new
mechanics because CED is not Galilean invariant (was Poincaré who showed
Lorentz covariance, etc. are not original from Einstein.
****************************
see...@end.of.post.ch (Martin Ouwehand) on 8 Aug 2005 19:03:11 +0000
(UTC) wrote:
my point was that Poincaré's theory is not the same as Einstein's: in his
1905 article, Einstein explains how to synchronize clocks which are mutually
at rest, while in this 1909 Conférence Poincaré explains that it can't be
done ("il leur est absolument impossible de savoir si leurs chronomètres
marquent ou non la même heure") -- and from the context I understand that
it's because he believes that the speed of light in a moving frame is
not the same as its speed with respect to the aether (another difference
with Einstein.)
****************************
Einstein procedure of how to synchronize clocks which are mutually
at rest, is directly inspired in a previous one by Poincaré. The main
problem with Poincaré was his great mathematical mind which obligated to
him to doubt of some assumptions. This is often cited to be a symptom of
evidence that Poincare still failed to understand the situation, but as
Einstein himself later acknowledged, the two famous principles of
Einstein's 1905 paper are not sufficient to uniquely identify special
relativity, and Poincaré just speciulated on other alternatives,
additional hypotesis, etc. Do not forget that the own Einstein modify
after his SR, introducing aditinoal postulates. One must also stipulate,
at the very least, homogeneity, memorylessness, and isotropy. Perhaps
Poincaré was thought on the absence of the assumption of isotropy when did
doubt on relativity.
Poincaré was characterized by an excess of mathematical discernment and
philosophical sophistication, whereas Einstein was satisfied with his
“proofs” full of mathematical mistakes and implicit assumptions. I have
counted, at least, six sound mathematical errors in Einstein derivation of
LT.
****************************
see...@end.of.post.ch (Martin Ouwehand) on 8 Aug 2005 19:03:11 +0000
(UTC) wrote:
it's for those people who say "Look ! a Lorentz transformation ! it's
the theory of relativity !" -- for Lorentz it was some kind of mathematical
trick ("a change of variable"), not the transformation rule for space-time
measurements between two inertial frames, for which he still used the
galilean transformation.
****************************
Curiously, Einstein derivation of the Lorentz transformation presented in
Einstein’s 1905 paper begins by applying a Galilean transformation to the
original coordinates to give an intermediate system of coordinates, just
like Lorentz did in one of his papers.
****************************
****************************
l...@csb.bu.edu (Levin) on 13 Aug 2005 06:21:52 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
I do not remember seeing Poincare or Lorentz talking about any phenomena
other than electromagnetic interactions governed by Maxwell equations.
My impression was that the ether was supposed to be the medium just for
these interactions and Lorentz transformations were properties of Maxwell
equations. Of course, Galileo stated a much more general principle but
he used different transformation. Sorry if this is just my ignorance.
****************************
Poincaré established a more general principle of relativity, developed a
new mechanics based in the maximum speed of c, assumed the LT to be valid
to all phenomena. So early as 1905-1906 Poincaré was extending Lorentz
invariance to the gravitational force.
****************************
see_belo...@yahoo.es on 15 Aug 2005 16:57:57 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
I think a key point in the PoR as stated by Einstein is:
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body". Does Poincaré make a similar statement
in his papers? Please, don't answer that it says something
implying that (which now _a posteriori_ could seem obvious
once Einstein formulated it)---what I would like to know
is if he said _that_ and when.
****************************
Your emphasis on find exactly the same phrase on Poincaré writings for
showing Einstein priority or non equivalence or Poincaré thought is not
accurate. It is so bold like if you claim “is there in Callen
thermodynamics a similar statement on zero law of thermodynamics.” There
is not exactly that in the four postulates of MTE formulation, but MTE
formulation of thermodynamics is EQUIVALENT to CKC formulation since zero
law can be derived from MTE postulates (is implicit).
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body" is clearly implicit on the LT of Maxwell equations, but
moreover Poincaré obtained the invariant ds and worked with a 4D
formulation for the spacetime (ct, x) where c is a constant in 1905-1906.
He was claiming that c is invariant.
The most close that I find by now is this passage from 1905
“If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light.”
The relativity principle is Poincaré relativity principle I already cited
in previous posts.
****************************
see_belo...@yahoo.es on 20 Aug 2005 11:10:23 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Let's think...
Maxwell did not discover the laws of EM. They are based in laws
which were well know before he wrote his equations. Further,
he introduced a displacement current in the ether which is
known to be false.
Newton did not discover the laws of Mechanics...
Then, why are they so famous? Because they were able to
make obvious what for many people was not, and to reduce
to basic principles what by then was a large amount
of unconnected laws. This was exactly what Einstein
did---now, we can understand the Lorentz and Poincaré ideas
in a consistent framework. If currenly could seem Lorentz
and Poincaré discovered the SR as we know it, is just
because Einstein (and Minkowski shortly after, taking ideas
from Poincaré) was able to synthetize and to put order in
all these laws so that we **a posteriori** could find them
obvious and consistent (thus, your "immediately follows" is
essentially a tribute to Einstein). This achievement cannot
be credited to neither Lorentz nor Poincaré.
****************************
Yes, Maxwell did not discover the laws of EM, but 1) nobody cite to him as
the only father of EM 2) nobody omit cite to the Faradays, Coulombs,
Amperes, etc. 3) Nobody claim that Coulomb force law was obtained by
Maxwelll because before Maxwell nobody knew interaction between charges.
On relativity history is completely different
1) almost all people and popular books cite to Einstein like the only
father of SR and GR 2) Poincaré, Lorentz, Hilbert, and others are ignored.
A decade ago, almost all physicists were thought that Einstein obtained GR
alone, which is false. I talked with some physicists and are surprised of
close collaboration Hilbert-Einstein that they unknown until my web
document. 3) Formulas as E=mc^2, field equations of GR, or mass variation
SR formula are incorrectly attributed to Einstein.
That is an injustice.
So far as I understand, you are supporting my thesis of that Einstein was
mainly an “organized” of previous work of others. He was a kind of
Maxwell, but then Einstein was not the father of SR. At the best, he was
the father of “modern SR” or, I prefer, ONE of fathers.
****************************
see_belo...@yahoo.es on 22 Aug 2005 09:11:05 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
I only have a translation into Spanish and not the original, and
that's more or less what he said. However, it's not _all_ what
he said--he added his deduction was not fully satisfactory and
that Einstein has to be credited for showing that experiments
like those of Michelson, Rayleigh and Brace are not explained
as a fortuitous compensation of opposite effects but they are
the manifestation of a fundamental and general principle. It's
in his book The Theory of Electrons (1909, sec. 194, based on
a series of lectures given in 1906). Thus, Lorentz himself
says Einstein was the discoverer of the SR and emphasizes its
importance and novelty.
****************************
Really, Lorentz emphasizes the importance of Poincaré work more than that
of Einstein. Moreover, when the Nobel Committee decided to award Einstein
the price, Lorentz, who was a member, objected that Poincaré was who had
found special relativity -which was the thesis maintained by Whittaker and
sustained by several modern historians and physicists-, and it would be
unfair not to associate him. Nevertheless, as Poincaré passed away at that
time –He got a cancer in 1909 and died in 1912–, Einstein was awarded the
Nobel price for his work on the photoelectric effect. It is important to
remark the diplomacy of the Nobel committee, which suggests to us that was
not clear then the priority of Einstein on the formulation of special
relativity. This explains why Einstein newer received the Nobel Prize for
his “work” on relativity.
Harry
> > >> (SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L'ÉLECTRON, Henri Poincaré,
> > >> Comptes rendus, 5./11. Juni 1905):
>
> > No (view http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm, [3]):
> >
> > 1. Approximated Lorentz contraction 1892 by Lorentz
> >
> > 2. "Relativistic" Lorentz contraction as result of LT 1899 by Lorentz
> >
> > 3. PoR as result of LT (+ Maxwell; + generalisation) 1904/1905 by
> > Lorentz/Poincaré
>
> Don't know and don't care. In the excerpt given, Poincaré is speaking
about
of
> writings where Poincaré speaks about the relativity theory as such has
been
> given in this thread.
I really wonder... why you present irrelevant arguments as if they have any
relevance.
Don't you know that nobody at that time - including Einstein - spoke about
the "relativity theory"?
> Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
> velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,
> therefore it can't be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote,
changed
> only details.
That's not clear from the title, just as it's not clear from Einstein's
title "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES". Apart of that, Einstein's relativity as you present it
here is not distinguishable as a different theory of physics. For that one
needs to have in principle a possible measurable distinction, obtainable
from measurements.
Regards,
Harald
Harry
> <cma...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1124687289.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You almost fooled me with your pontificating tone. But here you are
> > showing your blatant ignorance of the situation. Lorentz and Poincare
> > were very good friends. They worked in collaboration on this theory.
>
> That doesn't enter the debate. Of course I don't think Poincaré looted
> Lorentz, but it is presented so by his advocates in order to make him
> the discoverer of Relativity, while in reality the so-called theory of
> Poincaré is no more than the Lorentz contraction.
Strange - how could you overlook his emphasis on local time and his
perfection of the Lorentz tranformations?! Aren't all such things
pointed out in the papers on which the discussion in this thread is
based?
> Poincaré pointed out
> that the *equation* describing the contraction made up a group with the
> rotations and the translations, and it is so on whichever it applies.
> That's his only contribution, bar some general comments and word
> minting.
You continue to present an endless stream of errors and
misrepresentations to this group - I won't bother anymore to point out
your new ones.
Harald
Perspicacious
>
> The constancy of the light speed doesn't follow
> from the principle of relativity alone.
It most certainly does:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0302/0302045.pdf
> A further hypothesis is needed.
> Poincaré never gave one.
Evidence suggests that you're relying on a revisionist history.
Poincaré derived the form of the Lorentz transformation in
1906 by only using his relativity postulate:
http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm
> Lorentz gave the Lorentz contraction, that failed because
> it was less predictive than Einsteins relativity.
Einstein assumed Lorentz contraction in his 1905 derivation.
It shouldn't be called Einstein's relativity. It only required
an easy baby step to assemble the previously existing ideas.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100
Even Einstein admitted the inevitability of special relativity
being finished by someone in 1905:
At the end of his life, Einstein said this in a letter to Carl
Seelig:
`There is no doubt, if we look back to the development
of the Relativity theory, special Relativity was about to
be discovered in 1905. Lorentz already noticed that the
transformations (named Lorentz transformations) were
essential in the Maxwell theory and Poincaré had gone
even further.
At that time I only knew Lorentz work of 1895, but I knew
neither Lorentz nor Poincaré further work. This why I can
say that my work of 1905 was independent '
http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm
Aside from the charge of plagiarism and Einstein's claim of
originality, can we assume that Einstein's admission on the
completion rate and rapid progress toward the inevitable
discovery of special relativity is reasonably accurate?
Javier Bezos
> >> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
> >> dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
> >> velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
> >
> > The original reads:
> >
> > Peut-ètre devrons-nous construire toute une mécanique
> > nouvelle //que nous ne faisons qu'entrevoir//, où,
> > l'inertie croissant avec la vitesse, la vitesse de
> > la lumi`ere deviendrait une limite infranchissable.
>
> Nonsense
>
> Correct original (Conférence le 24 septembre 1905,
> Saint Louis or chapter 8 in La valeur de la Science) :
[On the Abraham theories and the Kauffman experiments:]
> " De tous ces résultats //, s'ils se confimaient,// sortirait une
mécanique
>e nti`erement nouvelle qui serait surtout caractérisée par ce fait
qu'aucune
> vitesse ne pourrait dépasser celle de la lumi`ere (1), ..."
(?)
We were talking about "L'état et l'avenir de la Physique
matematique" (1904), not about that talk given in 1905.
So, the "original" didn't say this or at least I haven't
seen it, but if I'm wrong I'll have no problem to rectify.
Further, in "Le valeur de la science" he repeats "que nous
ne faisons qu'entrevoir" in a paragraph reproducing almost
literally that he wrote in 1904, which was my point (in
section "La physique mathématique future", again a
revelatory title).
Anyway and despite your manners, thank you for pointing out
Poincaré actually said that (which I never doubted because
I don't know everything he wrote), which reveals that Poincaré
was still making very general statements about what could arise
in the short term (and it was really short, because Einstein's
paper was published IIR a couple of days after this talk).
Chapters VII to IX of "Le valeur de la science" are available
on:
http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/valeurdelascience.htm
Thus, anyone can see Poincaré was saying nothing new there
but just explaining the state of Mathematical Physics and
the (by then) recent results by Abraham, Lorentz and Kauffman
and how they fit in his principle of relativity and in the
principle of reaction.
Javier
------------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
Harry
<juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:3202.217.124.88.226...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
SNIP
> Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
> explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
> reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
> [Bien que ce ne soit pas explicité, nous voyons que la vitesse de la
lumière
> est la même quel que soit le référentiel dans lequel on se trouve!! C'est
> une différence essentielle avec les théories précédentes.] Or was he a
> misunderstood genius, even by himself?
>
> ****************************
>
> No is not closed. The difference that you fail to understand is that from
> different formal systems, premises to be highlighted are different. If you
> take the PoR and the LT you can derive the constancy of c (Poincaré
> approach). If you take the PoR and the constancy of you can derive the LT
> (Einstein approach).
>
> Perhaps Poincaré failed to explicitly write in a clear form the relativity
> principle in the form that Einstein did. That is, perhaps Poincaré was
> more obscure. But 1) Always it is more easy to be more clear when other
> did the basic work previously (that is the advantage of Einstein). 2) In
> that case, the difference of Einstein would be that was able to explain
> better that already was known.
>
> If constancy of c is implicit on Poincaré math, he did not need explicit
> to say this.
But he *did* do so (in 1898!), as I quoted in the other thread.
Cheers,
Harald
Harry
"Cl.Massé" <to...@tata.ti> wrote in message
> <cma...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1124631565.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a `fixed' observer
> > as for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to
> > him: so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of
> > discerning whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion."
> > (Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. González-Álvarez
> >
> > The speed of light is c in inertial frame A. You can't discern relative
> > motion in inertial frame B. What is the speed of light in frame B?
>
> It doesn't work like that. The speed may be different, but the lengths
> change. In other word, the constancy of the light speed doesn't follow
> from the principle of relativity alone. A further hypothesis is needed.
> Poincaré never gave one. Lorentz gave the Lorentz contraction, that
> failed because it was less predictive than Einsteins relativity.
This thread (BTW some of you may have overlooked part of it, it started on
August 4) contains all the references to allow anyone who takes the effort
to read those to know better than that!
I will stop repeating it.
- For example, all necessary hypotheses were given (and worked out!) by
Lorentz and Poincare in the period 1900-1905, as the articles discussed in
this thread and the papers that they refer to clearly show.
And I already showed elsewhere in this thread (19/8/2005) that Poincare
postulated as early as 1898 that light speed is measured to be constant and
isotropic in all inertial frames.
- As an interestingly side note, a number of recent articles show that the
constancy of light speed is not crucial for SRT. For example (thanks to Bill
Hobba): chapter 10 of :
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ (click on Textbook)
under the heading of Relativity without c (par.10.8).
- Lorentz did not just "give the Lorentz contraction". I invite you to show
how Lorentz' theory as corrected by Poincare - and which for experimental
physics happens to be indistinguishable from that of Einstein - can be less
predictive than that of Einstein. An elaborated example would be
enlightening for this discussion.
Harald
Homo Lykos
[1] Bull. des Sciences Mathématiques, deuxième Série, tomé XXVIII, 1904:
L'État actuel et l'Avenir de la Physique mathématique, Conférence lué le 24
septembre 1904 au Congrès d'Art et des Science de Saint-Louis, pages 302 -
324
[2] The same text is printed in: La Valeur de la Science as chapter 7 to 9
and it's probable that Einstein read it; chapter 2 is the reprinted La
mesure du temps from 1898.
[3] La Science et l'Hypothèse (1902) Einstein read with certainty and there
you find (non literal) PoR as postulate (chapter 10, at the end of the
section La physique et le mécanisme). He believed that Lorentz-theory
(therfore) should be modified (section État actuel de la science, subsection
9).
Overview with important originals in context:
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
"Javier Bezos" <see_belo...@yahoo.es> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1124985777....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "Homo Lykos" <lykos@.ch> wrote:
>
>> >> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
>> >> dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
>> >> velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
Page 316 in [1]
>> >
>> > The original reads:
>> >
>> > Peut-ètre devrons-nous construire toute une mécanique
>> > nouvelle //que nous ne faisons qu'entrevoir//, où,
>> > l'inertie croissant avec la vitesse, la vitesse de
>> > la lumi`ere deviendrait une limite infranchissable.
Page 324 in [1]
>>
>> Nonsense
>>
>> Correct original (Conférence le 24 septembre 1905,
>> Saint Louis or chapter 8 in La valeur de la Science) :
Sorry for typing error: correct is 1904, not 1905! But because of
Saint-Louis everybody should realize it.
>
>> " De tous ces résultats //, s'ils se confirmaient,// sortirait une
>> mécanique entièrement nouvelle qui serait surtout caractérisée par ce
>> fait qu'aucune vitesse ne pourrait dépasser celle de la lumière (1),
>> ..."
>
> [On the Abraham theories and the Kauffman experiments]
Not only as next sentence shows (and don't forget: longitudinal and
transversal masses introduced Lorentz first time in other context 1899):
" .... Pour un observateur, entraîné lui-même dans une translation dont il
ne se doute pas, aucune vitesse apparente ne pourrait non plus dépasser
celle de la lumière; et ce serait là une contradiction, si l'on ne se
rappelait que cet observateur ne se servirait pas des mêmes horloges qu'un
observateur fixe, mais bien d'horloges marquant le "temps local". "
Homo Lykos
Javier Bezos
In this thread there are in fact four topics (very likely
even more, but I think there are four important ones):
1) Many sources says Einstein was the sole discoverer of the
PoR and the LT.
2) Einstein gave no references in his paper.
3) Einstein later said he didn't know the Lorentz and Poincaré's
papers.
4) What Einstein said was just what Poincaré and Lorents said.
These topics are independent and my personal conclusions are:
1) Many sources says Einstein was the sole discoverer of the
PoR and the LT.
That SR was the work of Einstein only is definitely false,
as I said in a paragraph you have omitted in your answer. So,
agreed.
2) Einstein gave no references in his paper.
This is definitely true. Just compare the Einstein's paper with
Poincaré's to see the latter gives references for almost everything.
None can claim this is false for obvious reasons.
3) Einstein later said he didn't know the Lorentz and
Poincaré's papers.
I think we'll never know if that's true, but I'm convinced
(and this is just an opinion) he *did* know at least part of
their work, as well as the LT as proposed by Larmor in 1900,
and the 4D space and the local time as proposed by Voigt in
1887. And I'm convinced Poincaré knew them, too. Very likely
he even knew the Poincaré idea that associates to the EM field
a ficticious fluid with mass density related to energy density
by c^2, to preserve the principle of reaction (even if the
formula *looks* very similar, Eintein's E=3Dmc^2 is quite
different physically and appears in a different context).
4) What Einstein said was just what Poincaré and Lorents said.
You are claiming this is true but I and most of researchers
and scientists don't think so, including Lorentz himself. In
fact, I find things like the relativity of simultaneity
in clear contradiction with Poincaré's PoR as he formulated
it (IMO). Point 4 a has *no* relation with the fact 1 is false
and 2 is true. Even if Einstein were the most vile being in
the universe, that won't change the content of his SRT and
the novelty of most (but not all) of it.
And somewhat OT...
Formerly I sympathized with the idea that Poincaré was
the actual author of the SR, but after reading the originals
several year ago I changed my mind. Recently I read Science
and Method (1908) and while I was reading it I couldn't
avoid having the impression Poincaré was answering Einstein's
thories (just an opinion, but I discovered I'm not alone and
that there are some people who had the same impression). Why
did Poncaré never cite them? Why did Poincaré return to the
ether? Why was Poincaré still concerned with light velocity
in relation to the ether (as classically a wave needs a medium,
which also affects its velocity)? Why does Poincaré still
consider the Abraham's theories after implicitly rejecting
them in 1905? Why does he still formulate the PoR in classical
terms? Why is he still saying the mechanical mass is different
from the EM mass? I think we'll never know, but this book
definitely convinced me SR was quite different from Poincaré
ideas.
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
cma...@yahoo.com
> <cma...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1124631565.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
er
> > as for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative t=
o
> > him: so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of
."
> > (Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez
> >
> > The speed of light is c in inertial frame A. You can't discern relati=
ve
> > motion in inertial frame B. What is the speed of light in frame B?
>
> It doesn't work like that.
> The speed may be different, but the lengths
> change. In other word, the constancy of the light speed doesn't follow
> from the principle of relativity alone.
Of course it does. You are not paying attention to what Poincare is
stipulating. Poincare STIPULATES: "whether I put you in inertial box A
or B, you won't be able to tell the difference". So now, here's a
thought experiment: you are inside box A, and you measure the speed of
light to be c. Suddenly, you are teleported inside B. You measure the
speed of light again. If this speed is different from c, then you can
tell you are not in box A anymore. But Poincare STIPULATED that you
can't tell the difference between A and B. Therefore it is an absurd
situation, and consequently the speed of light measured in B has to be
c. Thus the principle of relativity does contain the stipulation that
the speed of light is c in every frame.
> A further hypothesis is needed.
> Poincaré never gave one.
As shown above, no further hypothesis is needed to ASSERT the constancy
of the speed of light.
However, one is not necessarilly prevented to go beyond assertion; one
is allowed to venture into an explanation. Einstein never tried to
explain, he just asserted, fair enough. But now Poincare also tried to
explain, and he proceeded as you are now mentioning:
> Lorentz gave the Lorentz contraction, that
Bravo Henri for trying to explain. Sorry Albert, no cigar, you didn't
even try.
> failed because it was less predictive than Einsteins relativity.
False. As Harald challenged you, give us a phenomenon which Einstein's
theory predicts that Lorentz-Poincare's theory does not.
>
> > "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
> > dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
> > velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
> > (Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez
> >
> > The speed of light is c in inertial frame A.
>
> Not necessarily, see supra.
>
> > And c is the maximal velocity in A.
>
> The maximal velocity is the one of the light in the local frame,
> whatever it is. That follows directly from Lorentz formula, and that's
> why he speak about a new dynamics, since in the old there were no speed
> limit. Nevertheless, he never derived this dynamics, therefore didn't
> even developed the mathematical model.
>
> > A body B is observed in A, and B emits light, what is the velocity of=
that
> > light?
>
> I don't know. Which theory have I to use?
>
> > Do you really think a man of Poincare's stature writes stuff randomly=
?
>
> Irrelevant. A mathematician is used to fully write down the new
> hypothesis. He didn't write down the ones of Einsteins Relativity,
> period.
As you can see from the above, you didn't dig sufficiently deep into
Poincare's writing. And it wasn't that deep. So it illustrates my
point. Such men write less casually than you imagine.
Chris
Javier Bezos
> [1] Bull. des Sciences Mathématiques, deuxième Série, tomé XXVIII, 1904:
> L'État actuel et l'Avenir de la Physique mathématique, Conférence lué le 24
> septembre 1904 au Congrès d'Art et des Science de Saint-Louis, pages 302 -
> 324
> >> >> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
> >> >> dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
> >> >> velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
>
> Page 316 in [1]
I stand corrected.
> >> > nouvelle //que nous ne faisons qu'entrevoir//, où,
.....
>
> Page 324 in [1]
Well, at least Poincaré wrote that :-), which was my point.
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
Poincare thread)
****************************
harald.v...@epfl.ch on 15 Aug 2005 13:16:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Einstein _did_ read Poincare but nevertheless, apparently he was the first
to show that the LT can be derived from just a few basic assumptions,
without explicit use of any models. For that that reason Einstein deserves
to be included.
****************************
Therefore, Einstein did not the true in his claims of priority. Poincare
was not sure of derivation of physical phenomena from just two
assumptions, Einstein apparently was but in posterior years Einstein
himself acknowledged that the two famous principles of 1905 paper were not
sufficient to uniquely identify special relativity, just that Poincare
apparently had in mind in 1908, 1909, etc. Do not forget that the own
Einstein introduced additional postulates like homogeneity,
memorylessness, and isotropy.
****************************
see_belo...@yahoo.es on 22 Aug 2005 22:19:41 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
cma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> "The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a 'fixed' observer
> as for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to
> him: so that we have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of
> discerning whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion."
> (Poincare, 1904) as cited by Juan R. González-Álvarez
I knew this statement, which was published in an article
whose title is "L'avenir de la Physique mathématique" and
not "The principle of Relativity" as González-Álvarez says
on his site. A translation into English could be "The
future of Mathematical Physics" (which is very revelatory
about Poincare's intentions).
> "From all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
> dynamics, which will be characterised above all by the rule, that no
> velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
The original reads:
Peut-être devrons-nous construire toute une mécanique
nouvelle //que nous ne faisons qu'entrevoir//, où,
l'inertie croissant avec la vitesse, la vitesse de
la lumière deviendrait une limite infranchissable.
Italics are mine, and that important part is missing in
the cite as given by González-Álvarez. It means, more or
ess, "which we only can guess". The part "characterized
above all by the rule" is not in the original. This is
quite a general statement by Poincare, which is important
and he has to credited for it, but provides no hints about
the fact c is independent from the **emitting body**,
which is the currently accepted PoR formulated in very
specific physical terms.
Now, take for example the famous paper "Sur la dynamique
de l'electron". If you read the paper you will see he just
repeats the Lorentz results in a better mathematical form.
This is not a mistery as that "paper" is in fact a short
note where we can read: "j'ai eté seulement conduit a
les modifier [the LT] et a les completer dans quelques
points de détail". Then, he moves quickly to see how
gravity can be modified (the latter part is reproduced
almost literally in Science and Method). (Interestingly,
in the paper of 1900, Poincare reproduced the Lorentz
results, too, by then still wrong--eg, the wrong local
time).
In both this paper (I mean that of 1905) and Science and
Method (1908) he reviews candidates for this "new dynamics"
(Lorentz, Hertz, Abraham, etc.) trying to "discover" which
theory is the right one, but he says very little of his
own. Please, note I'm not saying he stole ideas from
others--he never said these theories were of his own.
****************************
Thanks by the corrections!
It is true that the document is titled "The future of Mathematical
Physics". Therein Poincare proposes "The principle of Relativity". I will
correct this error mine on the web document and will acknowledge to you.
Would you not apply always the same criterion to all titles of papers of
all authors? Would Einstein article titled "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies" reveal that Einstein was just talking of electrodynamics
instead of a new theory of mechanics?
I cannot agree with your interpretation of "Poincare intentions" as
explained below.
The first part of Poincare PoR is correct; there are errors on the
translation of second part that unfortunately appear in some books. Still
the correct translation does not modify I am saying.
At 1904 Poincare only could say, "which we only can guess", since the new
mechanics was not formulated until 1905-1906.
The part "characterized above all by the rule" is not in the original but
basic idea of the cite appears in others Poincare's writings of 1904
(translation from French is not mine):
If all these results would be confirmed there will arise an absolutely new
mechanics. It will be characterized mainly by the fact that neither
velocity could exceed the velocity of light, as the temperature could not
drop below the absolute zero. Also no any observable velocity could exceed
the light velocity for any observer performing a translational motion but
not suspecting about it.
The fact that c is independent from the **emitting body**, is not
derivated from 1904 papers, only in posterior works of 1905 and 1906
Poincare developed that idea. c appears like a constant in his
transformations and geometry. Your last words are a bit surprising.
Poincare was who formulated mains points of relativistic dynamics, that
Einstein newer obtained by itself or obtained after of Poincare:
relativistic generalization of force.
the concept of four-momentum.
the definition of four velocity, now standard in relativistic literature.
The basic dynamical equations of relativistic mechanics: temporal
variation of impulse and energy.
Even he applied his new mechanics to computation of Mercury anomalous
perihelion. Of course failed but this indicates that i) Poincare was
working in a new mechanics before Einstein and others ii) Poincare was not
"philosophising" or doing "mathematical work" as is often claimed for
discrediting to him, since he was attempting to solve physical problems.
"This result, is, thus, not in favour of the new mechanics, but at any
rate, it also is not against it. The new doctrine does not contradict
astronomical observations directly".
It appears that also obtained mechanical E=mc^2, previously Poincare
obtained in basis of EM reasoning.
Discovered the invariant ds
Discovered the Lorentz group
Generalized the LT to all physical phenomena
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 24 Aug 2005 22:00:31 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,
therefore it can't be Einsteins Relativity. Poincare, as he wrote, changed
only details.
****************************
That is very difficult to believe. Poincare (1902):
"Absolute space does not exist. We only perceive
relative motions".
"Absolute time does not exist".
In posterior years, Poincare developed this initial ideas on the absence
of traditional concepts of absolute motion, Galilean simultaneity, etc. on
that after was called the principle of relativity, who Lorentz attributed
first to Poincare before Einstein.
It is difficult believe that changed only details when was "proposed" for
the Nobel Prize.
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
****************************
harald.v...@epfl.ch on 26 Aug 2005 09:25:04 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
3202.217.124.88.226...@webmail.canonicalscience.com">news:3202.217.124.88.226...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
SNIP
> Poincaré didn't even made a comment of the kind: "although it isn't
> explicit, we see that the speed of light doesn't depend on the frame of
> reference!! That's what makes the difference with every previous theory."
> [Bien que ce ne soit pas explicité, nous voyons que la vitesse de la
lumière
> est la même quel que soit le référentiel dans lequel on se trouve!! C'est
> une différence essentielle avec les théories précédentes.] Or was he a
> misunderstood genius, even by himself?
>
> ****************************
>
> No is not closed. The difference that you fail to understand is that from
> different formal systems, premises to be highlighted are different. If you
> take the PoR and the LT you can derive the constancy of c (Poincaré
> approach). If you take the PoR and the constancy of you can derive the LT
> (Einstein approach).
>
> Perhaps Poincaré failed to explicitly write in a clear form the relativity
> principle in the form that Einstein did. That is, perhaps Poincaré was
> more obscure. But 1) Always it is more easy to be more clear when other
> did the basic work previously (that is the advantage of Einstein). 2) In
> that case, the difference of Einstein would be that was able to explain
> better that already was known.
>
> If constancy of c is implicit on Poincaré math, he did not need explicit
> to say this.
But he *did* do so (in 1898!), as I quoted in the other thread.
Cheers,
Harald
****************************
Yes, I read, Thanks!
I also obtained an explicit quote from him (1905)
"If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light."
Naturally, this follows from the LT which not only Poincare accepted like
a new definition of simultaneity, but he claimed that was the basis for a
new mechanics that he developed from his own PoR. Einstein newer obtained
a mechanics, because Einstein newer obtained the expression for
relativistic forces.
The constancy of c follows directly from LT, which Poincare thought of a
substitute of Galilean ones. How can some think that the thought that c
was different in different frames if was accepting that Galilean T was not
valid?
c' = c + v only follows from Galilean transformation which Poincare
rejected even for gravitation when Einstein was only doing some remarks on
EM!
Above quote is self-explicative.
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3041.217.124.88.135.1124696816.squi...lscience.com...
> Above are own words by Poincare on 1904. Since c is constant in each frame
> of reference
Where does that come from? Poincare never assumed it, and never derived it
too.
In fact, the independence of c is highly counter-intuitive, and that's why
all the physicists were kept at bay since the MM experiment, and even since
the Maxwell equations. A bold vision of physical reality was necessary, AND
for postulating the independence of c, AND for postulating other
counter-intuitive principles, such a the relativity of simultaneity and the
mixing of space and time.
Einstein did them all, Poincare did neither. For instance, the formula of
the Lorentz contraction doesn't mix space and time, but only modifies the
length of physical objects. It uses an absolute velocity, even though no
physical experiment should be able to measure it. In Einsteins Relativity,
this velocity is the relative one of two frames of reference, and that's
what make the conceptual difference (and the name of the theory), and the
bigger predictive power of Relativity.
****************************
The idea of constancy of c is implicit in many writings of Poincare and
also in his formulas. There is amephasis on shown that like he did not
used that as postulate his theory is inferior or impredictive, but is not
true. Poincare computed many things Einstein newer imagined. In fact,
Einstein was unable to obtain a relativistic mechanics since was unable to
obtain the relativistic generalization of forces, which was done by
Poincare. At the best, Einstein obtained (copying others) a kinematics.
Poincare was able to say (1905)
"If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light."
This and the fact of that always worked with c constant on different
frames establish that he was really formulating relativity theory.
Poincare do not need use constancy of c like a postulate like Tisza-Callen
formulation do NOT formulate zero law. But since that does not imply that
Callen has no idea of thermodynamics, that does not imply that Poincare
had no idea of relativity.
The others "counter-intuitive principles, such a the relativity of
simultaneity and the mixing of space and time." Are NOT from Einstein. One
finds again in Ppoincare writings. He assumed explicitly that traditional
understanding of simultaneity was incorrect and developed a new mechanics
around the new relative simultaneity (even Einstein clock synchronizing is
based in Poincare previous method).
The full mixing of space and time was done by Poincare who discovered the
4D formulation (ct, x) find four components of impulse, force, etc and his
mechanical equations. Obtained the 4D invariant before Minkoski, etc.
began to extend the relativity principle to gravitation a decade before
Einstein (who only worked on EM). Einstein did noting really new or
important on our current understanding of relativity. When Einstein still
was thinking in derivation of LT fro EM phenomena, Poijcaré was already
computing Mercury perihelion from his new mechanics. He obtained a better
result that with Newtonian theory but now we know that the full result is
obtained with GR.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> As shown, there is historical evidence that Einstein plagiarized work of
> others. Why would it be different on SR?
Why not?
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Because the historical evidence that Einstein plagiarized work of others,
e.g. Hilbert without even cite to him in his 1915 paper containing correct
GR field equations imply the kind of "gentleman" that Einstein was. And
this sustains the thesis of that plagiarized SR work.
Why would he say that newer read Poincare and just an old paper by Lorentz
when was not true. Only a man sure that his work is not very different of
work of others or only a man knowing that plagiarized would follow so
dishonest attitude.
Why would Einstein no notice a work of author who he READ (Poincare) that
says that there is no absolute time and not absolute motion, just
relative.
Regarding absolute motion and aether, Please, notice that in posterior
years, Einstein recovered the concept of aether like needed.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 23 Aug 2005 22:16:54 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> But the popular claim that Einstein DID the SR alone is completely
> unsustainable on a rigorous historical basis.
That's your opinion.
****************************
That is, Einstein is the only father of relativity theory when
1) copied main ideas from Poincare and others (e.g. absence of absolute
time or absolute motion)
2) based all his work on the work of Poincare and Lorentz (e.g. clock
synchronization method is directly based in a previous model by Poincare)
3) developed just basic elements of formulation, nothing about groups,
nothing about spacetime metric, nothing about four velocity, nothing about
mechanical equations of 4D...
4) Failed to aknowledge the work of others authors, offering the idea of
that all his work was novel.
5) Formulated exactly none formula of supposed theory of physics that he did.
6) At the best Einstein was a kind of Maxwell, organizing work of others,
but nobody cite Maxwell like the only father of EM, and nobody call to
Coulomb law the law that Maxwell obtained by first time for example.
7) Einstein had no a good understanding of relativity theory. In fact, he
common claim that he derived SR consequences from his two postulates
already known to others is incorrect. Einstein derivation of LT from "his"
two postulates is full of implicit assumptions and incorrect mathematical
details. Poincare newer could publish that nonsense (sic sound
mathematical errors on nine equations!!!), and this would be his great
mistake to the eyes of people like you.
8) Etc.
Homo Lykos
> Hello again,
>
Reading Poincaré is difficult:
1) You have to know physics/mathematics. (e.g. that ether generally cannot
be disproved)
2) You have to know the history of science of that time
3) You have to know the (rather unusual didactic) style of Poincaré: some
people have difficulties to differentiate between his own opinion and
historical/didactic remarks.
This difficulty we see in the following questions:
> Recently I read Science
> and Method (1908) and while I was reading it I couldn't
> avoid having the impression Poincaré was answering Einstein's
> thories (just an opinion, but I discovered I'm not alone and
> that there are some people who had the same impression). Why
> did Poncaré never cite them?
1. He never changed his mind about priority of SR (5 June 1905):
" *Lorentz* a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à la
mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de la
détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à faire dans son
article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l'Académie d'Amsterdam,
27 mai 1904).
L'importance de la question m'a déterminé á la reprendre; les résultats que
j'ai obtenus sont d'accord sur tous les points importants avec ceux de
*Lorentz*; j'ai été seulement conduit à les modifier et à les compléter dans
quelques points du détail. "
Poincaré never has spoken of SR; he has spoken about Lorentz-relativity and
about the new mechanics. This means that Poincaré did not believe that
Einsteins SR was a physically new (and independent) work at that time.
> Why did Poincaré return to the ether?
2. He never changed his mind about ether as written in La Science et
l'Hypothèse (1902) in chapter 12 at begin and in the section "De
l'explication mécanique des phénomènes physiques"; don't forget 1).
> Why was Poincaré still concerned with light velocity
> in relation to the ether (as classically a wave needs a medium,
> which also affects its velocity)?
Read referencees in 2 and don't forget 1).
> Why does Poincaré still
> consider the Abraham's theories after implicitly rejecting
> them in 1905?
In 1905 the expermental situation was undecided betwenn Lorentz (SR),
Abraham and Langevin.
Since 1906 theory of Abraham explained new experimental data of Kaufmann
clearly better then SR could do. The situation changed next time only abaut
1909 with new experimental data of Bucherer.
> Why does he still formulate the PoR in classical
> terms?
Do you know, what you want to say?
> I think we'll never know, but this book definitely convinced me SR was
> quite different from Poincaré ideas.
Differences exist, but others as you think. View all 3 articles (Sur) la
Dynamique de l'Électron: 2 of 1905 and the last one of 1908:
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
The first one (5/11 June 1905) with all important results of the great
SR-article (July 1905) may have given important hints to Einstein to finisch
his own SR-article successfully in such a short time: The comptes rendus
were a very well known weekly scientific magazine at that time.
Homo Lykos
Cl.Massé
> > I read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, in his own
> > writings. I'm sorry to have to say that there is no trace of relativity
> > as a constructed theory. He speaks of transformations that make up a
> > group, but acting on what? He never says it.
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
430ae419$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> He referred in that note to the constructed theory of Lorentz as
> published in 1904, and which was in part a reply to Poincare's earlier
> writings. From what you state here above, I dare conclude that you did
> *not* study those writings nor the 1904 paper of Lorentz, but just that
> one note.
Lorentz correctly wrote down a transformation under which the Maxwell
equation are invariant. But a similar transformation also exists for a
material wave, with its velocity taking the place of c. It is obvious not
enough. Lorentz-Poincaré wrongly postulated that material bodies are
contracted through an absolute motion. They failed to complete the theory,
so that there is no trace of relativity as a constructed theory. More, with
their hypothesis, we can show that *the velocity of light isn't constant.*
If Poincaré had postulated it is constant, his theory would have been
self-contradictory.
> Indeed Poincare didn't do so, as far as I am aware of. He considered
> Lorentz to be the father of the new mechanics, not himself. He incited
> Lorentz (and as it turned out, Einstein) to develop the right theory,
> and next polished it up by presenting the Lorentz transformations. And
> as you hopefully know, the first verification of SRT was of Lorentz'
> prediction of the precise electron trajectory.
Yet, Lorentz hadn't the possibility with his theory to predict that an
atomic clock, conveyed by the Concorde around the globe, will show a shift
in time.
> The evidence about others being crooks too has little to do with the
> evidence of a certain individual being a "crook". But surely a patent
> office is usually a very good location to enable one to be aware of the
> latest publications.
Like Poincaré-Lorentz is a crook and stole the early results of Einstein?
Do you know any today's famous physicist who don't "a little steal" his
students? Or do you want to say that Einstein was a Jew living off usury?
A patent office deals with patentable appliances, which tentative physical
theories are not. Let's remain in physics argument.
--
~~~~ clmasse chez libre Hexagone
Liberté, Egalité, Rentabilité.
cma...@yahoo.com
> I wrote :
>
> > > I read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, in his own
> > > writings. I'm sorry to have to say that there is no trace of relativity
> > > as a constructed theory. He speaks of transformations that make up a
> > > group, but acting on what? He never says it.
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 430ae419$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> > He referred in that note to the constructed theory of Lorentz as
> > published in 1904, and which was in part a reply to Poincare's earlier
> > writings. From what you state here above, I dare conclude that you did
> > *not* study those writings nor the 1904 paper of Lorentz, but just that
> > one note.
>
> Lorentz correctly wrote down a transformation under which the Maxwell
> equation are invariant. But a similar transformation also exists for a
> material wave, with its velocity taking the place of c. It is obvious not
> enough. Lorentz-Poincaré wrongly postulated that material bodies are
> contracted through an absolute motion. They failed to complete the theory,
> so that there is no trace of relativity as a constructed theory.
I've suspected for a while that you were yet another victim of the very
widespread misconception about Einstein's so-called repudiation of
absolute motion. It is true that he repudiated it, but only 'hand
wavingly' in his opening paragraphs of his 1905 paper. His 1916 paper
on GR is the first occasion he actually put his money where his mouth
was. If you erased the opening paragraphs of the 1905 paper, you
couldn't possibly tell whether Einstein was a relationist or an
absolutist: because he subsequently refers every velocity with respect
to the same "system at rest K". Take a look again, you'll see it is
true.
He may or may not have done this purposely, but the hard reality is
that his paper could have been written by an absolutist. Despite that
fact, Einstein arrived at a consistent theory. The same goes with
Poincare-Lorentz.
> More, with
> their hypothesis, we can show that *the velocity of light isn't constant.*
> If Poincaré had postulated it is constant, his theory would have been
> self-contradictory.
And moreover, I've suspected for a while that you were yet another
victim of a very widespread omission about the Poincare-Lorentz theory.
In this theory, moving space is contracted. But so are the moving rigid
measuring rods (rulers). That's a subtlety that countless people forget
about. That's the reason why the apparent speed of light is the same in
every inertial frame in this theory.
Chris
Murray Arnow
w.r.t. Lorentz, Poincare and others are answered by Pauli in his "Theory
of Relativity." Pauli discusses the history of the subject and its
contributors. He concludes that the credit is Einstein's, because "it is
absolutely essential to insist that such a fundamental theorem as the
covariance law should be derivable from the simplest possible basic
assumptions. The credit for having succeeded in doing just this goes to
Einstein. He showed that only the following single axiom in
electrodynamics is assumed: 'The velocity of light is independent of the
motion of the source.'"
Earlier I had remarked about Sommerfeld's "remarkable" statement,
"Maxwell's equations,... require that the process of the propagation of
light in a vacuo with the velocity c be independent of the frame of
reference from which the process is observed." Which he then used to
derive the Lorentz transformations. I have since found that this
statement was first made by Einstein as a footnote in his 1905 "Does the
Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?" The footnote reads:
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course
contained in Maxwell's Equations".
It appears to me that Einstein may have thought that the PoR and the
absence of an ether were more fundamental than the constancy of c.
Cl.Massé
1124980214.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Evidence suggests that you're relying on a revisionist history.
> Poincaré derived the form of the Lorentz transformation in
> 1906 by only using his relativity postulate:
> http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm
The Lorentz transformation *isn't* the theory of relativity, Einsteins
Relativity is more. Anyway, thanks for the "revisionist." I can read
both in French and German, and I have read both Poincaré and Einstein in
the text. And you?
> At the end of his life, Einstein said this in a letter to Carl
> Seelig:
>
> `There is no doubt, if we look back to the development
> of the Relativity theory, special Relativity was about to
> be discovered in 1905. Lorentz already noticed that the
> transformations (named Lorentz transformations) were
> essential in the Maxwell theory and Poincaré had gone
> even further.
>
> At that time I only knew Lorentz work of 1895, but I knew
> neither Lorentz nor Poincaré further work. This why I can
> say that my work of 1905 was independent '
> http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm
>
> Aside from the charge of plagiarism and Einstein's claim of
> originality, can we assume that Einstein's admission on the
> completion rate and rapid progress toward the inevitable
> discovery of special relativity is reasonably accurate?
We can't say for sure whether those who took the same way would have
arrived. And/or other approaches could have solve the problem before,
perhaps without the defects of Relativity (Langevin Paradox etc.).
There are other transformation, not mixing space and time, compatible
with the outcome of the MM experiment. Relativity is merely more
beautiful.
Einstein wasn't in the shoes of the other physicists, he can't speak for
them. It seems he assumed they had the same faculties as himself, what
history proved wrong.
Cl.Massé
> > Even in English: "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
> > velocity smaller than that of light", is implying an absolute motion,
> > therefore it can't be Einsteins Relativity. Poincaré, as he wrote,
> > changed only details.
"Homo Lykos" <ly...@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
430d1f72$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
> Without these details the proof of Lorentz of tho covariance of the
> Maxwell-equations is wrong and the PoR would not be valid.
No, Poincaré acknowledged that the Maxwell equations are invariant under
the Lorentz transformation. The details concern the dynamics of the
electron calculated from this transformation. Poincaré try incorrectly
and unsuccessfully to derive the relativity principle, by postulating
that the electron is flatten by a constant force.
"Le point essentiel, *établi* par Lorentz, c'est que les équations du
champ electromagnétique ne sont pas altérées par une certaine
transformation ([...]) et qui est de la forme suivante:" (Poincaré, _Sur
la Dynamique de l'Electron_ June 5th 1905, emphasis is mine)
[The basic point, *found* by Lorentz, is that the equations of the
electromagnetic field aren't changed by a given transformation ([...]),
which is in the following form:]
Actually, all what Poincaré added makes no step toward the present
formulation of Relativity. If Einstein hasn't the priority, Lorentz has
it and not Poincaré.
I'm afraid some people don't know French enough, and think to have read
what was never written.
Paul Stowe
<see_belo...@yahoo.es> wrote:
>Hello again,
>
> In this thread there are in fact four topics (very likely
> even more, but I think there are four important ones):
>
> 1) Many sources says Einstein was the sole discoverer of the
> PoR and the LT.
>
> 2) Einstein gave no references in his paper.
>
>3) Einstein later said he didn't know the Lorentz and Poincaré's
> papers.
>
>4) What Einstein said was just what Poincaré and Lorents said.
>
> These topics are independent and my personal conclusions are:
>
> 1) Many sources says Einstein was the sole discoverer of the
> PoR and the LT.
>
> That SR was the work of Einstein only is definitely false,
> as I said in a paragraph you have omitted in your answer. So,
> agreed.
OK, that's appears from the records to be true. Therefore 99%
of all course & textbooks are historically incorrect. He didn't
develop or discover Lorentz Covariant Relativity' (of which SR
is one philosophical interpretation).
> ) Einstein gave no references in his paper.
>
> This is definitely true. Just compare the Einstein's paper
> with Poincaré's to see the latter gives references for almost
> everything. None can claim this is false for obvious reasons.
>
> 3) Einstein later said he didn't know the Lorentz and
> Poincaré's papers.
>
> I think we'll never know if that's true, but I'm convinced
> (and this is just an opinion) he *did* know at least part of
> their work, as well as the LT as proposed by Larmor in 1900,
> and the 4D space and the local time as proposed by Voigt in
> 1887.
I think most dispassionate rational people will agree with
you. Thus, the question, what was the motive to claim
otherwise? Further, why were there not references to their
works in his? Apply Ockham's Razor to this question.
> ... And I'm convinced Poincaré knew them, too. Very likely
> he even knew the Poincaré idea that associates to the EM field
> a ficticious fluid with mass density related to energy density
> by c^2, to preserve the principle of reaction (even if the
> formula *looks* very similar, Eintein's E=3Dmc^2 is quite
> different physically and appears in a different context).
How can they be different?
> 4) What Einstein said was just what Poincaré and Lorents said.
>
> You are claiming this is true but I and most of researchers
> and scientists don't think so, including Lorentz himself. In
> fact, I find things like the relativity of simultaneity
> in clear contradiction with Poincaré's PoR as he formulated
> it (IMO). Point 4 a has *no* relation with the fact 1 is false
> and 2 is true. Even if Einstein were the most vile being in
> the universe, that won't change the content of his SRT and
> the novelty of most (but not all) of it.
Well, as you say, we cannot read minds but, the context of
Poincare' writing clearly indicate that he was quite aware of
the issue of the inablility to determine absolute simultaneity.
Poincare' perspective was indeed different 'philosopically'
(a.k.a. metaphysically) but all technical issues of relativity
as known today were present and accounted for. Personally, I
disagree with your assessment based solely upon the written
historical evidence. What novelty was in Einstein's 1905 paper
related to physics, and not of a purely philosophical perspective?
> And somewhat OT...
>
> Formerly I sympathized with the idea that Poincaré was
> the actual author of the SR, but after reading the originals
> several year ago I changed my mind. Recently I read Science
> and Method (1908) and while I was reading it I couldn't
> avoid having the impression Poincaré was answering Einstein's
> thories (just an opinion, but I discovered I'm not alone and
> that there are some people who had the same impression). Why
> did Poncaré never cite them? Why did Poincaré return to the
> ether? Why was Poincaré still concerned with light velocity
> in relation to the ether (as classically a wave needs a medium,
> which also affects its velocity)? Why does Poincaré still
> consider the Abraham's theories after implicitly rejecting
> them in 1905? Why does he still formulate the PoR in classical
> terms? Why is he still saying the mechanical mass is different
> from the EM mass? I think we'll never know, but this book
> definitely convinced me SR was quite different from Poincaré
> ideas.
Is it not considered that ideas not quantified by formal
mathematical definitions which are testable, and falsifiable,
are not science? To this day, the ether interpretation of
Poincare' & Lorentz with respect to this particular branch of
physics cannot be formally falsified. Thus this point would
seem to be regulated to the subjective issue of personal tastes,
not physical science. However, if one sticks to the issue of
pure physics, if 1 is provably false it does not matter about
2, 3, or 4. By accepted convention priority must (ethically)
go to those that formally presented the physics formalisms
first. For, to do otherwise, distroys the very foundation upon
which all scientific recognition is based, shattering the
integity (both perceived & real) of the whole system. No???
Paul Stowe
Joe Rongen
"Cl.Massé" <to...@tata.ti> wrote in message
[snip]
> Actually, all what Poincaré added makes no step toward the present
> formulation of Relativity.
Not according to Claude Kacser's book:
"Introduction to special theory of relativity" Page 4:
"In 1900 Poincare went further and asked: "Our ether, does it really exist?
I do not belief that more precise observations could ever reveal anything
more than -relative- displacements." By 1904 Poincare had stated the
second half of the above as a postulate, the Principle of Relativity; and
even went as far as to say that " from all these results there must arise an
entirely new kind of dynamics, which will be characterized above all by
the rule that no velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
............
Poincare, on the other hand, could well be called the first "relativist",
but he did not have a complete theory."
Cl.Massé
> > It doesn't work like that.
> > The speed may be different, but the lengths
> > change. In other word, the constancy of the light speed doesn't follow
> > from the principle of relativity alone.
<cma...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1125126591.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Of course it does. You are not paying attention to what Poincare is
> stipulating. Poincare STIPULATES: "whether I put you in inertial box A
> or B, you won't be able to tell the difference". So now, here's a
> thought experiment: you are inside box A, and you measure the speed of
> light to be c.
How do you measure it? You need a standard, and you need further
assumptions to define the standard. Does have a same measuring
stab the same length in A and in B? How is measured a time span for two
distant points? In his writing up to 1905, Poincaré assumed that a material
body is contracted along its absolute motion. For
Einstein, the lengths are the same in any frame where they are at rest, but
are different in one where they are moving. And he precisely define how
length, time, and speed are measured.
You make the same conceptual error as the other physicists at that time, you
make hidden assumptions. Einstein begins his paper with his assumptions,
then point out some hidden assumption. He's then able to develop his theory
unambiguously using logics (mathematics) alone.
"Die allgemein gebrauchte Kinematik nimmt stillschweigend an, dass die durch
beiden erwähnten Operationen bestimmten Längen einander genau gleich seien,
oder mit anderen Worten, dass ein bewegter starren Körper in des Zeitepoche
t in geometrischer Beziehung vollständig durch *denselben* Körper, wenn er
in bestimmter Lage *ruht*, ersetzbar sei." (A. Einstein, _Zur Elektrodynamik
Bewegter Körper_, I §2, June 30th 1905
[The usual kinematics makes the hidden assumption that the measured lengths
by both given procedures [measurement by a observer moving with the stab or
an observer at rest] are equal. In other words, that a moving rigid body at
date t is completely geometrically replaceable by *the same* body *at
rest*.]
Clearly, Poincaré made this hidden assumption, since he needed the
contraction to account for the difference. As the measuring stab is moving
in the first procedure, the *measured* lengths are different, but the moving
body isn't geometrically superposable with the one at rest.
> Bravo Henri for trying to explain. Sorry Albert, no cigar, you didn't
> even try.
Well, That's not the purpose of a physical theory. A theory explains
nothing, a theory is the logical consequences of a set of first principles,
which through an interpretation describe reality. Albert gave those first
principle from the beginning, and those principles hypothetically "explain"
what basically happen in reality.
Cl.Massé
3193.217.124.88.226...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
> The popular but wrong idea of a great difference between pre-Einstein and
> post-Einstein physics (as a basis for Einstein total priority in these
> issues) is even broke by Einstein thought in posterior years
Einstein did the paradigm shift. Before him, the physicists were stuck with
a hidden assumption. Einstein eliminated it, and physics changed radically
its face. So is history.
cma...@yahoo.com
think I understand that theory well enough to answer your points.
Cl.Massé wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't work like that.
> > > The speed may be different, but the lengths
> > > change. In other word, the constancy of the light speed doesn't follow
> > > from the principle of relativity alone.
>
> <cma...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1125126591.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Of course it does. You are not paying attention to what Poincare is
> > stipulating. Poincare STIPULATES: "whether I put you in inertial box A
> > or B, you won't be able to tell the difference". So now, here's a
> > thought experiment: you are inside box A, and you measure the speed of
> > light to be c.
>
> How do you measure it? You need a standard, and you need further
> assumptions to define the standard. Does have a same measuring
> stab the same length in A and in B?
I suppose that the standard is: if B is stopped and stays at rest with
respect to A, then the stabs in B are now similar to those in A, and
the clocks in B now run at the same rate as those in A.
> How is measured a time span for two
> distant points?
I guess the same way it is measured in Einstein's theory.
> In his writing up to 1905, Poincaré assumed that a material
> body is contracted along its absolute motion.
True, but with respect to the stabs in the absolute frame! The stabs in
the moving frame are equally contracted with respect to those in the
absolute frame. So much so, that within the moving frame, the material
body is NOT contracted with respect to the stabs that are relatively
stationary. No difference with Einstein's theory.
> For
> Einstein, the lengths are the same in any frame where they are at rest, but
> are different in one where they are moving. And he precisely define how
> length, time, and speed are measured.
>
> You make the same conceptual error as the other physicists at that time, you
> make hidden assumptions. Einstein begins his paper with his assumptions,
> then point out some hidden assumption. He's then able to develop his theory
> unambiguously using logics (mathematics) alone.
>
> "Die allgemein gebrauchte Kinematik nimmt stillschweigend an, dass die durch
> beiden erwähnten Operationen bestimmten Längen einander genau gleich seien,
> oder mit anderen Worten, dass ein bewegter starren Körper in des Zeitepoche
> t in geometrischer Beziehung vollständig durch *denselben* Körper, wenn er
> in bestimmter Lage *ruht*, ersetzbar sei." (A. Einstein, _Zur Elektrodynamik
> Bewegter Körper_, I §2, June 30th 1905
>
> [The usual kinematics makes the hidden assumption that the measured lengths
> by both given procedures [measurement by a observer moving with the stab or
> an observer at rest] are equal. In other words, that a moving rigid body at
> date t is completely geometrically replaceable by *the same* body *at
> rest*.]
He's clearly talking about Newtonian kinematics, not Poincare
kinematics which he denied knowing about.
> Clearly, Poincaré made this hidden assumption, since he needed the
> contraction to account for the difference. As the measuring stab is moving
> in the first procedure, the *measured* lengths are different, but the moving
> body isn't geometrically superposable with the one at rest.
In Poincare's theory the observer sees exactly the same contractions as
in Einstein's theory. Everybody knows that, and I'm sure this includes
you too. So I don't see what you are trying to say. But I guess I've
already answered your point in the previous paragraph about stabs.
(BTW, the usual word is "rods", no?)
> > Bravo Henri for trying to explain. Sorry Albert, no cigar, you didn't
> > even try.
>
> Well, That's not the purpose of a physical theory. A theory explains
> nothing, a theory is the logical consequences of a set of first principles,
> which through an interpretation describe reality. Albert gave those first
> principle from the beginning, and those principles hypothetically "explain"
> what basically happen in reality.
One can start from the constancy of light speed, or one can start from
an explanation for that constancy. One can start from Kepler's
principles to describe stellar systems, or one can start from Newton's
explanation of these principles. Again, I say: Bravo Isaac for
explaining. Sorry Johannes, no cigar you didn't even try.
Chris
Homo Lykos
news:4310a880$0$315$626a...@news.free.fr...
>
> Actually, all what Poincaré added makes no step toward the present
> it and not Poincaré.
Exactly this has written Poincaré himself at 5 June 1905 and he never
changed his mind. This you find in my first note here and in my note of
yesterday again. But because all important more philosophical ideas come
from Poincaré and because the proofs of Lorentz 1904 were not fully correct
(and convincing) and because Lorentz not really fully understood his own
theory 1904 I think its correcter to give priority to Lorentz/Poincaré.
> I'm afraid some people don't know French enough, and think to have read
> what was never written.
My knowledge of foreign languages (english, french, italian and spain) is
really bad, but I'm sure, that I have understood correctly - better then you
in your mother-language - the following passage in the note of Poincaré of 5
june 1905 with the most important results of his great SR-article of july
1905 (NOT 1906 as most people write here incorrectly!):
" Lorentz a cherché à compléter et à modifier son hypothèse de facon à la
mettre en concordance avec le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de la
détermination du mouvement absolu. C'est ce qu'il a réussi à faire dans son
article intitulé "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any
velocity smaller than that of light" (Proceedings de l'Académie d'Amsterdam,
27 mai 1904). "
Especially:
"le postulat de l'impossibilité complète de la détermination du mouvement
absolu"
is a very short and pretty formulation (as postulate) of the PoR before
Einstein did it. And don't forget: Einstein may have read this note of
Poincaré before finsishing his own paper about SR (the comptes rendus were
at that time a very well known scientific weekly magazine!)
And don't think that Einstein based firstly on the principle of the contancy
of c and not on the postulate of PoR:
1905 Einstein did not think so: In "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von
seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" he wrote in the footnote **:
" Das dort [Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper] benutzte Prinzip der
Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit ist natürlich in den Maxwellschen
Gleichungen enthalten.. "
Homo Lykos
Cl.Massé
3196.217.124.88.226...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
> Poincaré was characterized by an excess of mathematical discernment and
> philosophical sophistication, whereas Einstein was satisfied with his
> "proofs" full of mathematical mistakes and implicit assumptions. I have
> counted, at least, six sound mathematical errors in Einstein derivation of
> LT.
The epitome of the difference between mathematics and physics. Physics need
not to be mathematically correct, it only need to be descriptive and
predictive. Mathematics is void of any reference to reality, it is an
hermetically closed system. Poincaré was unknowingly prisoner of his own
physical intuition, while Einstein was seeking his hidden physical
assumption. Poincaré was living in an imaginary world. Einstein had his
feet solidly stuck in earth.
Finally, this debate aims at showing the superiority of the mathematicians.
Alas, a reasoning without any mathematical flaw is not a criterion in
physics. Physics is about finding the axioms, whatever the method used.
Mathematics is about working out the consequences of these axioms, in a
perfect rigorous way. Poincaré did it very well in classical mechanics
were the axioms are definitively set, but failed in a field where they were
to be discovered. Einstein used more his imagination than his mathematical
knowledge, and created something new. They are two very different trades.
> Yes, Maxwell did not discover the laws of EM, but 1) nobody cite to him as
> the only father of EM
That's not the debate.
> 2) nobody omit cite to the Faradays, Coulombs,
> Amperes, etc.
Nobody omit cite to the Lorentz transformation, the Poincaré group, the
Maxwell equations etc.
Cl.Massé
> "If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
> we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
> and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light."
(Poincaré? from?)
I make you notice that I don't use the term "constant" but "independent."
That c is a constant doesn't make the velocity of light independent on the
frame of reference. It only says that some measurement process gives the
same value in any frame. You make that conclusion by using a hidden
assumption, namely that the measure of the light speed *is* the real light
speed, that is, the light speed defined in the first principles.
Notice further that Poincaré made only a general comment, as didn't define
the meaning of c, nor the measurement process. Obviously, the relativity
principle imposes that the *measured* light speed is the same in any frame,
if not, we could sense the absolute motion of the frame. Here, we lacks a
physical theory whose consequence is a constant *measured* light speed.
Now, Poincaré stuck to the principle that a body is contracted through its
absolute motion, which is definitely different from Einsteins relativity.
Notice finally that he only said that c is common to gravity, without
saying that c doesn't depend on the frame, and because he postulated that
the Lorentz transformation applies also to the gravitational force. Notice,
to the force, not to space. The important word is *common*, as would show
the context.
That phrase is merely (wrongly) reinterpreted in the light of Einsteins
relativity.
Cf:
"On a ainsi l'explication de l'impossibilité de montrer le mouvement absolu
et de la *contraction de tous les corps* dans le sens du mouvement
terrestre." (Poincaré, _Sur la Dynamique de l'Electron_, june 1905, emphasis
is mine)
[So we have the explanation of the impossibility to demonstrate the absolute
motion, and of the *contraction of every body* in the direction of the
terrestrial motion.]
Ilja Schmelzer
> - Lorentz did not just "give the Lorentz contraction". I invite you to show
> how Lorentz' theory as corrected by Poincare - and which for experimental
> physics happens to be indistinguishable from that of Einstein - can be less
> predictive than that of Einstein.
Ok.
Assume we have a hidden preferred frame. In this preferred frame,
hidden information transfer is possible. This hidden information
transfer can lead to violations of Bell's inequality. Example: Bohmian
mechanics, which has a preferred frame and violates Bell's inequality.
Assume the notion of causality should be Lorentz-covariant. In this
case we obtain Einstein causality, hidden information transfer in some
hidden preferred frame is impossible. We can prove Bell's inequality.
Thus, Bell's inequality is an additional falsifiable (and falsified)
prediction of the Einstein-Minkowski version of SR, which is not
possible in the Lorentz-Poincare ether.
Ilja
cma...@yahoo.com
> <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news=
:
> 3193.217.124.88.226...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
>
> > The popular but wrong idea of a great difference between pre-Einstein=
and
> > post-Einstein physics (as a basis for Einstein total priority in thes=
e
> > issues) is even broke by Einstein thought in posterior years
>
with
> a hidden assumption. Einstein eliminated it, and physics changed radic=
ally
> its face. So is history.
The ether assumption? Well, later on he said it existed. His
predescessors understood before him that it wasn't a useless concept.
Chris
Harry
news:1125376925.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I hope Poincare-Lorentz experts will correct me if I'm wrong, but I
> think I understand that theory well enough to answer your points.
Below I will comment on your answer only, as the message that you replied to
is IMO beyond repair.
> Cl.Massé wrote:
> > I wrote:
> >
> > > > It doesn't work like that.
> > > > The speed may be different, but the lengths
> > > > change. In other word, the constancy of the light speed doesn't
follow
> > > > from the principle of relativity alone.
> >
> > <cma...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 1125126591.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Of course it does. You are not paying attention to what Poincare is
> > > stipulating. Poincare STIPULATES: "whether I put you in inertial box A
> > > or B, you won't be able to tell the difference". So now, here's a
> > > thought experiment: you are inside box A, and you measure the speed of
> > > light to be c.
> >
> > How do you measure it? You need a standard, and you need further
> > assumptions to define the standard. Does have a same measuring
> > stab the same length in A and in B?
>
> I suppose that the standard is: if B is stopped and stays at rest with
> respect to A, then the stabs in B are now similar to those in A, and
> the clocks in B now run at the same rate as those in A.
I believe that to be correct.
> > How is measured a time span for two distant points?
>
> I guess the same way it is measured in Einstein's theory.
Measurement protocols as used by Einstein were identical to those of
Poincare - therefore it is one of the points on which Einstein is suspected
of copying from Poincare.
> > In his writing up to 1905, Poincaré assumed that a material
> > body is contracted along its absolute motion.
>
> True, but with respect to the stabs in the absolute frame! The stabs in
> the moving frame are equally contracted with respect to those in the
> absolute frame. So much so, that within the moving frame, the material
> body is NOT contracted with respect to the stabs that are relatively
> stationary. No difference with Einstein's theory.
That is exact.
SNIP
> > "Die allgemein gebrauchte Kinematik nimmt stillschweigend an, dass die
durch
> > beiden erwähnten Operationen bestimmten Längen einander genau gleich
seien,
> > oder mit anderen Worten, dass ein bewegter starren Körper in des
Zeitepoche
> > t in geometrischer Beziehung vollständig durch *denselben* Körper, wenn
er
> > in bestimmter Lage *ruht*, ersetzbar sei." (A. Einstein, _Zur
Elektrodynamik
> > Bewegter Körper_, I §2, June 30th 1905
> >
> > [The usual kinematics makes the hidden assumption that the measured
lengths
> > by both given procedures [measurement by a observer moving with the stab
or
> > an observer at rest] are equal. In other words, that a moving rigid
body at
> > date t is completely geometrically replaceable by *the same* body *at
> > rest*.]
>
> He's clearly talking about Newtonian kinematics, not Poincare kinematics
which he denied knowing about.
Exactly - if he had admitted knowing Lorentz' new kinematics (which Poincare
adopted), he would have given away that his paper was not as original as he
pretended.
> > Clearly, Poincaré made this hidden assumption, since he needed the
> > contraction to account for the difference. As the measuring stab is
moving
> > in the first procedure, the *measured* lengths are different, but the
moving
> > body isn't geometrically superposable with the one at rest.
>
> In Poincare's theory the observer sees exactly the same contractions as
> in Einstein's theory. Everybody knows that, and I'm sure this includes
> you too. So I don't see what you are trying to say. But I guess I've
> already answered your point in the previous paragraph about stabs.
> (BTW, the usual word is "rods", no?)
Again correct.
> > > Bravo Henri for trying to explain. Sorry Albert, no cigar, you didn't
> > > even try.
> >
> > Well, That's not the purpose of a physical theory. A theory explains
> > nothing, a theory is the logical consequences of a set of first
principles,
> > which through an interpretation describe reality. Albert gave those
first
> > principle from the beginning, and those principles hypothetically
"explain"
> > what basically happen in reality.
>
> One can start from the constancy of light speed, or one can start from
> an explanation for that constancy.
Exactly. Of course it's for argument's sake safer and simpler to just use
its outcome, and leave the explanatory model ("ether waves") out
altogether...
Anyone who can provide Einstein's *physical model* for light propagation is
welcome to explain it. ;-)
> One can start from Kepler's
> principles to describe stellar systems, or one can start from Newton's
> explanation of these principles. Again, I say: Bravo Isaac for
> explaining. Sorry Johannes, no cigar you didn't even try.
There are two "takes" on that - for actually, Keppler himself expressed
regret for not being able to do so; and still the laws of Keppler are
called after him because he was the first to propose them (as far as we
know), and not after Newton.
Similarly Poincare named his transformations "Lorentz transformations"
because they directly followed from Lorentz' theory. He could instead
have honoured himself for being the first to write them down and to
point out their group properties; in any case they are rarely called the
"Einstein" transformations, eventhough Einstein managed to derive them
without explicit use of models.
Harald
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativit=
y-theory.html
for additional details and references. I am preparing a new extended
version with more references and further data.
****************************
ar...@iname.com on 28 Aug 2005 07:23:22 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
I just did a little research and found most of the questions asked here
w.r.t. Lorentz, Poincare and others are answered by Pauli in his "Theory
of Relativity." Pauli discusses the history of the subject and its
contributors. He concludes that the credit is Einstein's, because "it is
absolutely essential to insist that such a fundamental theorem as the
covariance law should be derivable from the simplest possible basic
assumptions. The credit for having succeeded in doing just this goes to
Einstein. He showed that only the following single axiom in
electrodynamics is assumed: 'The velocity of light is independent of the
motion of the source.'"
****************************
Yes, but that was in so early like 1921. In subsequent years, Pauli
studied more carefully Poincar=E9 works. On 1955, Pauli said:
"Both Einstein and Poincar=E9, took their stand on the preparatory work o=
f
H.A. Lorentz, who had already come quite close to the result, without
however quite reaching it. In the agreement between the results of the
methods followed independently of each other by Einstein and Poincar=E9 I
discern a deeper significance of a harmony between the mathematical metho=
d
and analysis by means of conceptual experiments (Gedankenexperimente),
which rests on general features of physical experience"
His "the agreement between the results of the methods" is illustrative.
On 2005, there are further data and studies that show that Einstein
"plagiarized" the work of Poincar=E9 at a great extension. Today, Pauli
could not talk of independence, since the postulate of constancy of c was
also established by Poincar=E9 and even extended to gravitation when
Einstein was still "philosophizing" about EM.
The timeline of the history of priority looks like
Einstein =3D=3D=3D> Einstein, Lorentz, and Poincar=E9 =3D=3D=3D> Poincar=E9=
and Lorentz
-------
Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Homo Lykos
news:depqqn$emg$1...@e250.ripco.com...
>
> [1] Earlier I had remarked about Sommerfeld's "remarkable" statement,
> "Maxwell's equations,... require that the process of the propagation of
> light in a vacuo with the velocity c be independent of the frame of
> reference from which the process is observed."
> Which he then used to
> derive the Lorentz transformations. I have since found that this
> statement was first made by Einstein as a footnote in his 1905 "Does the
> Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?" The footnote reads:
> [2} "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course
> contained in Maxwell's Equations".
I think you make a strong overinterpretation of [2]. I'm relatively sure,
that for Einstein [1] was a consequence of [2] + PoR.
>
> It appears to me that Einstein may have thought that the PoR and the
> absence of an ether were more fundamental than the constancy of c.
Here I agree. But at least PoR he learned by Poincaré in La Science et
l'Hypothèse and it may be that he did not accept the proof of Poincaré that
an infinity of (mechanical) models of ether can in principle always be
found, if the principle of least action is valid, but that these models
would be good only for didactic reasons, for better understanding and that
in future probably the physicists would leave the question about ether to
metaphysics. In this point I think Poincaré thought differently to Einstein
*and* Lorentz.
Homo Lykos
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references. I am preparing a new extended
corrected version with more references and further data. This interesting
debate -and people that has corrected and improved to me- will be properly
acknowledged therein.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 30 Aug 2005 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3196.217.124.88.226...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
> Poincaré was characterized by an excess of mathematical discernment and
> philosophical sophistication, whereas Einstein was satisfied with his
> "proofs" full of mathematical mistakes and implicit assumptions. I have
> counted, at least, six sound mathematical errors in Einstein derivation of
> LT.
The epitome of the difference between mathematics and physics. Physics need
not to be mathematically correct, it only need to be descriptive and
predictive. Mathematics is void of any reference to reality, it is an
hermetically closed system. Poincaré was unknowingly prisoner of his own
physical intuition, while Einstein was seeking his hidden physical
assumption. Poincaré was living in an imaginary world. Einstein had his
feet solidly stuck in earth.
****************************
I mean that an incorrect derivation of LT such as hat given by Einstein
cannot be found in Poincaré writings. Therefore, one cannot say that
Poincaré failed to understand the situation, because it was the inverse.
Einstein failed and, in posterior years, acknowledged that LT does not
follow from "his" two basic postulates. Precisely, Poincaré understood the
situation and was more careful in his studies.
That you say regarding math-physics is incorrect. It is standard that
Lorentz, the physicist, played a more mathematical role, whereas Poincaré
the "mathematician" did the role of physics regarding SR.
Your "Physics need not to be mathematically correct, it only need to be
descriptive and predictive" is completely wrong. I think that you are
confounding science with pure empirics or "enginnering".
your "Poincaré was living in an imaginary world." May be based in a
misreading of own Poincaré writings. It was Poincaré who developed almost
all of PHYSICS of relativity, including basic concepts about simultaneity,
absence of absolute motion, etc. so early as 1906 Poincaré was computing
perihelion of Mercury from his own relativistic mechanics (which is today
called SR). Poincaré:
"Thus, the new mechanics is still on unsteady soil.
So we are to wished it new confirmations. Let us see
what astronomical observations give us in this connection... The only
effect, with respect to which one could expect it to be
noticeable is the one we actually see: I mean the perturbations
of the fastest of all planets - Mercury. It
indeed shows such anomalies in its motion that can
still not be explained by celestial mechanics. The shift
of its perihelion is much more significant than calculated
on the basis of classical theory. Much effort has
been applied with the aim of explaining these deviations... The new
mechanics somewhat corrects the error in the theory of Mercury's motion
lowering it to 32'', but does not achieve total accordance between
the observation and calculation. This result, is, thus,
not in favour of the new mechanics, but at any rate, it also is not
against it. The new doctrine does not contradict astronomical observations
directly."
Impossible to sustain that Poincaré was doing only mathematics :-)
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 30 Aug 2005 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Finally, this debate aims at showing the superiority of the mathematicians.
Alas, a reasoning without any mathematical flaw is not a criterion in
physics. Physics is about finding the axioms, whatever the method used.
Mathematics is about working out the consequences of these axioms, in a
perfect rigorous way. Poincaré did it very well in classical mechanics
were the axioms are definitively set, but failed in a field where they were
to be discovered. Einstein used more his imagination than his mathematical
knowledge, and created something new. They are two very different trades.
****************************
Incorrect definition of both math and physics. Moreover, last words about
supposed superiority of Einstein on physical questions are pure prose
without historical basis.
It is really difficult for us to understand the use of imagination by
means of the direct copy of the work of others.
Your claim of that Einstein theory is some new is incorrect as many
specialists claimed during decades. For example, Pauli in 1955 claimed
that both Poincaré and Einstein theories were equivalent.
I think that you are misuderstanding the role of constancy of c on SR on
your claims that Einstein theory is new. You believe that postulate
DEFINES SR. But that is FALSE since one can develop a SR without the
postulate of constancy of c.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 30 Aug 2005 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Yes, Maxwell did not discover the laws of EM, but 1) nobody cite to him as
> the only father of EM
That's not the debate.
****************************
It IS the debate!! "Someone" cited to Maxwell for supporting his ideas of
that Maxwell reorganized work of others without being called plagiarist
and I said that by that reason Maxwell was not the only father of
classical EM, and Ampere, Coulomb, etc, laws do not renamed to Maxwell
laws.
****************************
to...@tata.ti on 30 Aug 2005 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> 2) nobody omit cite to the Faradays, Coulombs,
> Amperes, etc.
Nobody omit cite to the Lorentz transformation, the Poincaré group, the
Maxwell equations etc.
****************************
But, Lorentz obtained the formula for "local time", the formula for
relativistic mass, the contraction of bodies, etc. Poincaré obtained the
PoR, the constancy of c, the mechanical equations, the four velocity and
momenta, E=mc^2, the invariant ds, the 4D representation (spacetime), the
relativistic force, the procedure for synchronizing clocks, etc.
Einstein obtained nothing new. Simply clarified a bit was obtained by
others and without acknowledged them.
Similar questions arise on GR. GR is not achievement of Einstein. His only
important contribution was the postulate of 10-component tensor. The rest
is not from him.
Moreover, people think that Einstein alone did ALL of relativity. People
does not know to Lorentz, Poincaré, or Hilbert. Popular portraits of
Einstein are very wrong. See for example my reference [1] cited in above
link.
Why are physicists are satisfied with this distortion of laymen
understanding? This supports my thesis that Einstein is one of best
marketing devices of physics.
****************************
****************************
Above quote is from Poincaré 1905.
Perhaps I am wrong but you appear a bit interested in distorted things
with your claims.
"I make you notice that I don't use the term "constant" but "independent."
That c is a constant doesn't make the velocity of light independent on the
frame of reference. It only says that some measurement process gives the
same value in any frame. You make that conclusion by using a hidden
assumption, namely that the measure of the light speed *is* the real light
speed, that is, the light speed defined in the first principles."
How can c be independent being no a constant?
How can c be constant being dependent?
The no constancy of c follows from an ultra-simple algebraic
(multiplication by 1/ t) manipulation on Galilean transformation.
c' = c + v
with v the source velocity. In Galilean physics light velocity is not
independent of frame and is not constant, c' = c'(v)
Now, Poincaré neglects the transformation and defines a new simultaneity
based in LT.
Again from two trivial algebraic manipulations one obtains
c' = c
Now, c is independent of v. Therefore, c is constant and independent of
source. c cannot be constant being dependent of the source, because then
is not constant!!!!
It is unnecessary to consider it a new postulate because follows from the
LT which is a "postulate" on Poincaré relativity.
Einstein took the contrary way, assuming c' = c as a postulate derived the
Lt. But the derivation is incorrect, since LT does not follow from Einste
two postulates. Even Einstein recognized this years after and add at least
three new postulates. From both a mathematical and physical view Poincaré
approach is more solid: define new simultaneity, procedure for sincornize
clocks, shows covariance and obtain formulas.
You say
"Notice finally that he only said that c is common to gravity, without
saying that c doesn't depend on the frame, and because he postulated that
the Lorentz transformation applies also to the gravitational force. Notice,
to the force, not to space. The important word is *common*, as would show
the context."
He says a "common constant". The important words are *common constant*. If
c is constant then it cannot depend on frame, because then is not a
constant, it is a function of frame.
"Notice, to the force, not to space."
?
Ah, and the contraction of bodies is one of basis in Einstein relativity.
****************************
Harry
"Cl.Massé" <to...@tata.ti> wrote in message
> <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3202.217.124.88.226...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
SNIP a lot of stuf that was already discussed in either this thread, the
thread on Poincare's contribution, or the referred papers.
> Now, Poincaré stuck to the principle that a body is contracted through its
> absolute motion, which is definitely different from Einsteins relativity.
Now that is an interesting point: it concerns a different *metaphysics*.
And exactly the same happend with Newton's theory: someone that I never
heard of removed absolute motion from Newton's theory, thus giving it
definitely a different metaphyisical interpretation by which necessarily
also the definition of uniform rectilinear motion had to be changed. But
that person was *not* given credit for Newton's theory of physics... and I
wonder if anyone here even knows his(?) name!
Harald
Cl.Massé
43144c0b$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> <cma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Below I will comment on your answer only, as the message that you replied
> to is IMO beyond repair.
No comment.
> Measurement protocols as used by Einstein were identical to those of
> Poincare - therefore it is one of the points on which Einstein is
> suspected of copying from Poincare.
Yes, they used light beams to synchronize the clocks. It isn't a so great
discovery as to celebrate it all the night long.
Now, the BIG difference is on the status of the light speed, settled no
later than at the second postulate by Einstein. Poincaré makes no statement
about it, and if he uses his definition of synchronization to deduce
anything about the light speed, he makes a circular reasoning. Einstein
escaped this circular reasoning by adding a postulate which pointed out the
hidden assumption that seemed make it not showing so. In this respect, the
rigour of the physical reasoning of Einstein stands no comparison with the
one of the mathematician Poincaré. There were then no physicist to copy it
from.
Cl.Massé
> "If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
> we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
> and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light."
I make you notice that I don't use the term "constant" but
"independent." That c is a constant doesn't make the velocity of light
independent on the frame of reference. It only says that some
measurement procedure gives the same value in any frame. You make that
conclusion by using a hidden assumption, namely that the measure of the
light speed *is* the real light speed, that is, the light speed defined
in the first principles.
Notice further that Poincaré made only a general comment, and didn't
define the meaning of c nor the measurement procedure. Obviously, the
relativity principle imposes that the *measured* light speed is the same
in any frame, if not, we could sense the absolute motion of the frame.
Here, we lack a physical theory whose consequence is a constant
*measured* light speed. Now, Poincaré stuck to the principle that a body
is contracted through its absolute motion, which is definitely different
from Einsteins relativity.
Notice finally that he only said that c is common to gravity, without
saying that c doesn't depend on the frame, and that because he
postulated the Lorentz transformation applies also to the gravitational
force. Notice, to the force, not to space. The important word is
*common*, as would show the context.
> Because the historical evidence that Einstein plagiarized work of others,
> e.g. Hilbert without even cite to him in his 1915 paper containing correct
> GR field equations imply the kind of "gentleman" that Einstein was. And
> this sustains the thesis of that plagiarized SR work.
Irrelevant. Why wouldn't it be different on SR?
> Why would he say that newer read Poincare and just an old paper by Lorentz
> when was not true. Only a man sure that his work is not very different of
> work of others or only a man knowing that plagiarized would follow so
> dishonest attitude.
Or an exceptional man like Einstein, who wasn't a member of the
scientific establishment. You are drifting into subjective arguments.
Why the hell would a man, who was rejected by all the universities, cite
anyone who he know wouldn't cite him? Poincaré cited everybody, even
inappropriately, because he knew that he would be cited in return, even
inappropriately. They call that: "renvoyer l'ascenseur", a known
practice in the establishment, and it is only marginally more honest
than what Einstein did.
Cl.Massé
1125200589....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've suspected for a while that you were yet another victim of the very
> widespread misconception about Einstein's so-called repudiation of
> absolute motion. It is true that he repudiated it, but only 'hand
> wavingly' in his opening paragraphs of his 1905 paper. His 1916 paper
> on GR is the first occasion he actually put his money where his mouth
> was. If you erased the opening paragraphs of the 1905 paper, you
> couldn't possibly tell whether Einstein was a relationist or an
> absolutist: because he subsequently refers every velocity with respect
> to the same "system at rest K". Take a look again, you'll see it is
> true.
"Wir nennen dies Koordinatensystem zur *sprachlichen* Unterscheidung von
später einzuführenden Koordinatensystemen und zur Präzisierung des
Vorstellung das 'ruhende System'." (A. Einstein, _Zur Elektrodynamic
bewegter Körper_, I §1, june 30th 1905, emphasis is mine)
[We name this frame of reference, to distinguish it *verbally* from the
frames to be introduced later, and to clarify the discussion, the 'frame
at rest'.]
It appears it is only a language convention, without the implied
semantics.
> He may or may not have done this purposely, but the hard reality is
> that his paper could have been written by an absolutist. Despite that
> fact, Einstein arrived at a consistent theory. The same goes with
> Poincare-Lorentz.
I disagree. With an absolute frame of reference there is something, at
least formally, that distinguishes it. In Einsteins relativity, every
frame has exactly the same properties, as well physically as
mathematically. In Poincaré, the absolute frame is distinguished by a
spherical electron.
Anyway, Einstein would be early in his time, since we now know that
there is a preferred frame, the one where the momentum and the angular
momentum of the Universe as a whole are zero, the one of the 3K
radiation.
Homo Lykos
news:deubh0$69n$1...@beech.fernuni-hagen.de...
I think this is correct in the case of Lorentz, but not in the case of
Poincaré, because I don´t believe, that Poincaré believed in a hidden
(physically) preferred frame.
Homo Lykos
Harry
"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Sc...@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote in message
news:deubh0$69n$1...@beech.fernuni-hagen.de...
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> schrieb
> > - Lorentz did not just "give the Lorentz contraction". I invite you to
show
> > how Lorentz' theory as corrected by Poincare - and which for
experimental
> > physics happens to be indistinguishable from that of Einstein - can be
less
> > predictive than that of Einstein.
>
> Ok.
>
> Assume we have a hidden preferred frame. In this preferred frame,
> hidden information transfer is possible.
It's not at all clear to me what you mean. I can imagine a laser and photo
detector, together inside a black box that is at rest in the
Ether/Space/Vacuum, whatever you want to call it. That would be "hidden
information transfer in the preferred frame", but of course it would be
hidden in all frames.
-> Looking below where you mention Bell: perhaps you mean hidden information
transfer that is much faster than light?
> This hidden information
> transfer can lead to violations of Bell's inequality. Example: Bohmian
> mechanics, which has a preferred frame and violates Bell's inequality.
I'm unfamiliar with Bohmian mechanics - a separate thread on that could be
instructive!
> Assume the notion of causality should be Lorentz-covariant. In this
> case we obtain Einstein causality, hidden information transfer in some
> hidden preferred frame is impossible. We can prove Bell's inequality.
>
> Thus, Bell's inequality is an additional falsifiable (and falsified)
> prediction of the Einstein-Minkowski version of SR, which is not
> possible in the Lorentz-Poincare ether.
Maybe you want to elaborate on this? According to all, light speed is the
limit speed.
Perhaps you mean that faster-than-light information transfer might in
principle enable the detection of the frame that according to
Lorentz-Poincare can't be detected, while it would lead to
self-contradiction in Einstein's theory.
If so, IMO both hypotheses are equally predictive, but a failure of the
prediction would have other consequences for Einstein-Minkowski metaphysics
than for that of Lorentz-Poincare. Please correct me if this is wrong.
Regards,
Harald
Cl.Massé
005a01c5ac13$30c4ff20$2723fea9@research...
> Poincare, on the other hand, could well be called the first "relativist",
> but he did not have a complete theory."
The first relativist was Galileo. It may seems strange, but the ether was
a way to restore the relativity principle which was seriously challenged by
the Maxwell equations. The material waves, although their description
implies a preferred frame of reference, abide by the classical relativity.
That because the laws of physics must be formulated by taking into account
the state of the medium, after which they are independent of the frame. The
MM experiment had the purpose to measure the speed of the earth with respect
to ether. One of the explanations of its result was that the earth should
carry the ether along. A theory without ether could break the relativity
principle, since there would be a "metaphysical" absolute frame. The name
of the theory we are speaking about is "relativity", which introduces that
confusion. Special relativity is only a relativist theory without (use of
an) ether. Actually, Poincaré said something slightly different: "We can't
determine the absolute motion", which doesn't exclude the existence of an
absolute frame.
"Il semble que cette impossibilité de démontrer le mouvement absolu soit une
règle générale de la nature." (H. Poincaré, _Sur la Dynamique de
l'Electron_, June 5th 1905.)
[It seem that this impossibility to show the absolute motion be a general
rule of nature.]
Cl.Massé
> > How is measured a time span for two distant points?
<cma...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1125376925.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I guess the same way it is measured in Einstein's theory.
But not with the same postulates. You need a further postulate in order to
define unambiguously what is a measure. I could as well define
synchronization using sound waves, it won't be the same thing.
> > In his writing up to 1905, Poincaré assumed that a material
> > body is contracted along its absolute motion.
> True, but with respect to the stabs in the absolute frame! The stabs in
> the moving frame are equally contracted with respect to those in the
> absolute frame. So much so, that within the moving frame, the material
> body is NOT contracted with respect to the stabs that are relatively
> stationary. No difference with Einstein's theory.
I don't understand you reasoning. Could you clarify it by being more
specific?
> > [The usual kinematics makes the hidden assumption that the measured
> > lengths by both given procedures [measurement by a observer moving with
> > the stab or an observer at rest] are equal. In other words, that a
> > moving rigid body at date t is completely geometrically replaceable by
> > *the same* body *at rest*.]
> He's clearly talking about Newtonian kinematics, not Poincare
> kinematics which he denied knowing about.
Poincaré kinematics wasn't yet formulated. He only predicted an "entirely
new dynamics".
> In Poincare's theory the observer sees exactly the same contractions as
> in Einstein's theory. Everybody knows that, and I'm sure this includes
> you too.
Two different things can look the same, but they are different, like in an
anamorphose.
> One can start from the constancy of light speed, or one can start from
> an explanation for that constancy. One can start from Kepler's
> principles to describe stellar systems, or one can start from Newton's
> explanation of these principles. Again, I say: Bravo Isaac for
> explaining. Sorry Johannes, no cigar you didn't even try.
This analogy is exact, but in the other way round! Lorentz had a formula,
but didn't know how to derive it.
Joe Rongen
"Cl.Massé" <to...@tata.ti> wrote in message
> "Joe Rongen" <joer...@sprint.ca> a écrit dans le message
> de news:> 005a01c5ac13$30c4ff20$2723fea9@research...
>
> > Poincare, on the other hand, could well be called the first
> > "relativist", but he did not have a complete theory."
>
> The first relativist was Galileo.
Galileo was a genius in his days but I would not write that
he was the first relativist. The reason being that the concept
of energy and its conservation seems self evident today, but
it was a novel idea as late as the 1850's and had eluded such
man as Galileo (1564 - 1642) and Newton (1642 - ??).
Poincare born in 1854 understood the concept of energy
and its conservation.
From; "Poincare", The VALUE of SCIENCE". Essential
Writings of Henri Poincare. 2001, ISBN: 0-375-75848-8
"His breakthroughs in mathematical astronomy were outlined in
three-volume treatise, "Les methodes nouvelles de la mecanique
celeste" (1892 - 1899), translated as "New Methods of Celestial
Mechanics" in 1993, the aim of which was, in Poincare own words,
"to ascertain whether Newton's law of gravitation sufficed to explain
all celestial phenomena" In 1906, in a paper on the dynamics of
the electron, he obtained, quite separately from Einstein many of the
results of the special theory of relativity."
---------
Remember, that by 1904 Poincare had stated as a postulate,
the Principle of Relativity; and even went as far as to say that
"from all these results there must arise an entirely new kind of
dynamics, which will be characterized above all by the rule that
no velocity can exceed the velocity of light."
--------
All those facts point to Henri Poincare as the first "relativist."
Cl.Massé
43118...@news.bluewin.ch...
> And don't forget: Einstein may have read this note of
> Poincaré before finsishing his own paper about SR (the comptes rendus were
> at that time a very well known scientific weekly magazine!)
Einstein certainly knew the existence of this journal, but had he access to
it? Such very academic matter is of no use in a patent office. Besides, I
wonder whether there are historical evidences that Einstein could read
French well enough. France and Germany were then "hereditary enemies", and
it is likely that Einstein only knew the Poincaré's works written in
English.
> And don't think that Einstein based firstly on the principle of the
> contancy of c and not on the postulate of PoR:
>
> 1905 Einstein did not think so: In "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von
> seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" he wrote in the footnote **:
>
> " Das dort [Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper] benutzte Prinzip der
> Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit ist natürlich in den Maxwellschen
> Gleichungen enthalten.. "
["the principle of the constancy of the light speed used here is of course
contained in the Maxwell equations...]
That doesn't support your assertion. I see only a hindsight interpretation
there. Einstein used the two postulates on an equal footing, they are both
necessary.
Harry
"Cl.Massé" <to...@tata.ti> wrote in message
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 43144c0b$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > <cma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Below I will comment on your answer only, as the message that you
replied
> > to is IMO beyond repair.
>
> No comment.
>
> > Measurement protocols as used by Einstein were identical to those of
> > Poincare - therefore it is one of the points on which Einstein is
> > suspected of copying from Poincare.
>
> Yes, they used light beams to synchronize the clocks. It isn't a so great
> discovery as to celebrate it all the night long.
>
> Now, the BIG difference is on the status of the light speed, settled no
> later than at the second postulate by Einstein. Poincaré makes no
statement
> about it,
Maybe your newsreader fails? Again, Poincare 1898:
" [...] 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)
> and if he uses his definition of synchronization to deduce
> anything about the light speed,
No he didn't.
> he makes a circular reasoning.
That's all, I'm moving on.
Harald
cma...@yahoo.com
dared pursue it that far is that I understand and share the vision of
the Poincare-Lorentz proponents, but I'm definitely no expert on this
theory; like most people I know Einstein's theory much better. But I'll
try my best to answer your points. I think you are missing something
interesting, it only requires a change of perspective to appreciate it.
Cl.Massé wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > > How is measured a time span for two distant points?
>
> <cma...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1125376925.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I guess the same way it is measured in Einstein's theory.
>
> But not with the same postulates. You need a further postulate in order to
> define unambiguously what is a measure. I could as well define
> synchronization using sound waves, it won't be the same thing.
I din't think deep about it, but it seems to me that synchronization
only requires the postulate that light speed be constant and isotropic
within each inertial frame. I think Harald mentioned that it was
postulated by Poincare.
> > > In his writing up to 1905, Poincaré assumed that a material
> > > body is contracted along its absolute motion.
>
> > True, but with respect to the stabs in the absolute frame! The stabs in
> > the moving frame are equally contracted with respect to those in the
> > absolute frame. So much so, that within the moving frame, the material
> > body is NOT contracted with respect to the stabs that are relatively
> > stationary. No difference with Einstein's theory.
>
> I don't understand you reasoning. Could you clarify it by being more
> specific?
Okay, but this time I'll use the term "rulers". We have a ruler at rest
in absolute frame A, and a ruler at rest in moving frame B which
travels at the same velocity as the material body. If you observe from
A, you'll see the moving ruler being contracted with respect to the
stationary ruler; in other words, its length units will be shorter. As
seen from A, the material body will equally be contracted by the same
factor. And therefore, seen from A, the measurement of the body with
the help of the moving ruler will show the same value as if the body
were at rest and measured with the stationary ruler. Thus seen from A,
there is no difference between the contraction of the moving ruler and
the contraction of the moving body. This implies that if you were in B,
you would likewise see no difference between the contraction of these
two objects, therefore the ruler in B would give you the same
measurement of the body, as if the body were at rest in A and measured
by the ruler in A.
>
> > > [The usual kinematics makes the hidden assumption that the measured
> > > lengths by both given procedures [measurement by a observer moving with
> > > the stab or an observer at rest] are equal. In other words, that a
> > > moving rigid body at date t is completely geometrically replaceable by
> > > *the same* body *at rest*.]
>
> > He's clearly talking about Newtonian kinematics, not Poincare
> > kinematics which he denied knowing about.
>
> Poincaré kinematics wasn't yet formulated. He only predicted an "entirely
> new dynamics".
The dynamics was clearly ready, in fact he predicted an "entirely new
mechanics" according to the excerpts I've seen.
> > In Poincare's theory the observer sees exactly the same contractions as
> > in Einstein's theory. Everybody knows that, and I'm sure this includes
> > you too.
>
> Two different things can look the same, but they are different, like in an
> anamorphose.
>
> > One can start from the constancy of light speed, or one can start from
> > an explanation for that constancy. One can start from Kepler's
> > principles to describe stellar systems, or one can start from Newton's
> > explanation of these principles. Again, I say: Bravo Isaac for
> > explaining. Sorry Johannes, no cigar you didn't even try.
>
> This analogy is exact, but in the other way round! Lorentz had a formula,
> but didn't know how to derive it.
Well, Poincare did it. And if you think that he did it by guessing, I'm
convinced that this is a wrong cliche. My understanding of his thought
process is this:
1) He noticed that Michelson-Morley experimentally showed that the
speed of light was the same in all frames.
2) He reformulated the Galilean relativity by extending it beyond the
laws of dynamics, and thus added all laws of physics to this principle;
which of course meant adding the laws of electromagnetism. The subtle
goal behind this is to implicitly embody the constancy of light
observed by Michelson-Morley.
3) His understanding of light was that it was a wave. And waves have
speeds independent of their source's velocity. Therefore it was clear
and obvious to him, that light speed is invariant. In fact, he had
abundant proof of that fact in the Doppler-Fizeau effect.
4) He noticed that the Galilean transformations were inadequate in
order to derive the phenomenon of constancy of light from the
invariance of light. Therefore he set out to find the transformations
that conformed with that phenomenon.
5) He must have told himself: the rulers and clocks in moving frame B
must limit to become identical to those of stationary frame A, as B's
velocity tends to 0.
6) Fact (5) provided such a constraint that Poincare found that the
solution to problem (4) was unique, and the solution is of course the
set of Lorentz transformations.
We know it didn't happen that linearly, and Lorentz' influence was
seminal, but overall I think my speculation sums up how Poincare
proceeded. And even if there were variations with historical facts,
things could have happened that way, and this means that Poincare's
work is exact science. It is truly physics that involves a logical
chain, and it is not just a mathematical game. In order to deny this,
you would have to demonstrate that the constancy of light is more
fundemental than the transformation of space-time. And heuristically, I
feel it cannot be done, since the propagation of light is defined in
terms of space and time.
Finally, don't let the ether fool you. Poincare and Lorentz ascribed no
physical property to it other than saying it was the inertial frame
wherein Maxwell's law held good. If it turns out to be unique, well,
they were right; and if it turns out to be non-unique, then pick any
one such frame and call it "ether". So if Einstein is right, you just
pick any random inertial frame and call it "ether", and then apply
Poincare's chain of thought to it. There's nothing metaphysical about
it. It's such a no-brainer that it would be foolish to imagine that
Poincare and Lorentz didn't think of that.
Chris
Cl.Massé
> Your "Physics need not to be mathematically correct, it only need to be
> descriptive and predictive" is completely wrong. I think that you are
> confounding science with pure empirics or "enginnering".
Not at all. That's precisely the case for the incompatibility between
quantum mechanics and general relativity, there is no unified mathematical
theory while each model works in certain conditions. Even the
interpretation of quantum mechanics isn't logically sound, we use one or
another rule according to the situation.
In physics, there are many places where heuristics reasoning is used.
Granted, they are shortcuts for a rigorous formalism, but Einstein could
have taken those shortcut without his physical reasoning being false. The
only important thing is the first principles, even if to get at them, one
uses "illegal" calculus. The end justifies the means, while in mathematics,
the means suffice to themselves.
> Impossible to sustain that Poincaré was doing only mathematics :-)
Indeed, as any absolute statement. Yet, Poincaré was marked by the
mathematical method, which is more a handicap than an advantage for doing
physics. Never in mathematics are the axiom challenged, they are a firm and
reassuring ground. That explain why he kept hidden assumptions.
> > Physics is about finding the axioms, whatever the method used.
> > Mathematics is about working out the consequences of these axioms, in a
perfect rigorous way. They are two very different trades.
> Incorrect definition of both math and physics.
Sorry, it's correct, even if oversimplified. Especially, the fundamental
difference is made clear.
> > Einstein used more his imagination than his mathematical knowledge, and
> > created something new.
> It is really difficult for us to understand the use of imagination by
> means of the direct copy of the work of others.
You take the conclusion as the hypothesis. Einstein imagined something that
was different from what was taken for granted by the others, and explained
it explicitly as a "hidden assumption".
> > "I make you notice that I don't use the term "constant" but
> > "independent." That c is a constant doesn't make the velocity of light
independent on the
> frame of reference. It only says that some measurement process gives the
> same value in any frame. You make that conclusion by using a hidden
> assumption, namely that the measure of the light speed *is* the real light
> speed, that is, the light speed defined in the first principles."
> How can c be independent being no a constant?
Constant in what? Space? Time?
> How can c be constant being dependent?
Constant in space but dependent on the frame?
Anyway, you didn't defined what is c. A numerical constant? The measured
velocity of light? By which procedure? The postulated velocity of light?
You make a lot of hidden assumption. And as Poincaré didn't explicit much
more, probably did he some also and thought differently to what appears.
In contrast, Einstein defined everything clearly and unambiguously, as he
had a clear mind. Poincaré was still groping around in his haze.
> The no constancy of c follows from an ultra-simple algebraic
> (multiplication by 1/ t) manipulation on Galilean transformation.
>
> c' = c + v
>
> with v the source velocity. In Galilean physics light velocity is not
> independent of frame and is not constant, c' = c'(v)
>
> Now, Poincaré neglects the transformation and defines a new simultaneity
> based in LT.
Well, only handwaving, that besides doesn't appears in the Poincaré's
writings.
> > "Notice finally that he only said that c is common to gravity, without
> > saying that c doesn't depend on the frame, and because he postulated
that the Lorentz transformation applies also to the gravitational force.
Notice,
> to the force, not to space. The important word is *common*, as would show
> the context."
> He says a "common constant". The important words are *common constant*.
Common to what? You need to be very precise, otherwise we won't advance a
bit. Besides, could you cite any place where c isn't considered a
"constant", from the very beginning since it is known? c is a fundamental
constant since Maxwell, derivable from other measurable constants. In the
theory of the ether, it is the relative *constant* velocity between light
and ether. Poincaré meant that c was also to be used in gravity, and meant
nothing else, otherwise he would have stated it separately. French is a
very precise language, that's why it is used for arbitrating fencing. If
something is stated unclearly, it isn't stated at all, period.
> If c is constant then it cannot depend on frame, because then is not a
> constant, it is a function of frame.
No, it's a spurious thinking. You make a hidden identification between a
numerical constant and a measure of length / time. It's that sort of lose
reasoning that kept at bay all those great physicists.
> Ah, and the contraction of bodies is one of basis in Einstein relativity.
No, you didn't read his 1905's article. The bodies aren't contracted, their
measures using the procedure he fully describes give a lesser value. He
don't speak about a constant force like Poincaré.
> Why are physicists are satisfied with this distortion of laymen
> understanding? This supports my thesis that Einstein is one of best
> marketing devices of physics.
Well, we are very far from the original debate. While we are at it, what is
the advantage for the physicists, the historian... that Einstein did
nothing? It is clear and evident. It suffices compare the achievements of
physics in the last 30 years to any other 30 years period since some
centuries. They are comparatively inexistent. So the today's establishment
succeeded in nothing. By a well known law of Nature, this establishment set
upon everything successful that doesn't belong to itself. That's why this
anniversary, instead of a renewed effort of research, has transformed into a
chase after Einstein. The next in the list is Marie Curie, who also was a
maverick, but the sole two Noble prize-winner. Good luck!
Homo Lykos
> "Homo Lykos" <ly...@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 43118...@news.bluewin.ch...
>
>> And don't forget: Einstein may have read this note of
>> Poincaré before finsishing his own paper about SR (the comptes rendus
>> were
>> at that time a very well known scientific weekly magazine!)
>
> Einstein certainly knew the existence of this journal, but had he access
> to it? Such very academic matter is of no use in a patent office.
I think the Comptes rendus were also at patent office, but if not: Bern has
also a university, almost directly at station, about 5 to 10 minutes from
the Kramgasse 49.
> Besides, I
> wonder whether there are historical evidences that Einstein could read
> French well enough.
Not only evidences, but certainty: his french speaking friend Chavan
memorized later that Einstein spoke correctly french at his time in Bern.
< France and Germany were then "hereditary enemies", and
Nonsense: Bern is the capitale of Switzerland and Einstein was Swiss since
1901 and the french speaking part of Switzerland begins very near to Bern.
> it is likely that Einstein only knew the Poincaré's works written in
> English.
Nonsnse again: At this time Einstein knew no or almost no english, but he
knew also italian.
>
>> And don't think that Einstein based firstly on the principle of the
>> contancy of c and not on the postulate of PoR:
>>
>> 1905 Einstein did not think so: In "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von
>> seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" he wrote in the footnote **:
>>
>> " Das dort [Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper] benutzte Prinzip der
>> Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit ist natürlich in den Maxwellschen
>> Gleichungen enthalten.. "
>
> ["the principle of the constancy of the light speed used here is of course
> contained in the Maxwell equations...]
not here, but there (in Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper)
>
> That doesn't support your assertion. I see only a hindsight
> interpretation
> there. Einstein used the two postulates on an equal footing, they are
> both necessary.
The interpretation is very clear and simple: 1905 Einstein saw the constancy
of c in all inertial systems as a consequence of the constancy of c in the
"Ruhesytem" (because of Maxwell) + the PoR.
A little bit more about the history of SRT in:
http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm
If you want discuss here, you should first learn a minimum of facts.
Homo Lykos
Phil
"Homo Lykos" <ly...@lykos.ch> wrote in message
news:43190459$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
> "Cl.Massé" <to...@tata.ti> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> to it? Such very academic matter is of no use in a patent office.
>
> I think the Comptes rendus were also at patent office, but if not: Bern
> has
> also a university, almost directly at station, about 5 to 10 minutes from
> the Kramgasse 49.
>
In 1907 Einstein wrote in a letter to Johannes Stark
"I must also note that I am not in a position to aquaint myself with
everything published on this topic, because the library is closed in my free
time" (translation from collected papers vol 5 doc 58) This letter and
others of the time show that he had very little access to papers at that
time. Other physicists had to send him copies of their papers to read.
Cl.Massé
> Hi Cl. (Claude?),
Yes.
> Okay, but this time I'll use the term "rulers". We have a ruler at rest
> in absolute frame A, and a ruler at rest in moving frame B which
> travels at the same velocity as the material body. If you observe from
> A, you'll see the moving ruler being contracted with respect to the
> stationary ruler; in other words, its length units will be shorter. As
> seen from A, the material body will equally be contracted by the same
> factor. And therefore, seen from A, the measurement of the body with
> the help of the moving ruler will show the same value as if the body
> were at rest and measured with the stationary ruler. Thus seen from A,
> there is no difference between the contraction of the moving ruler and
> the contraction of the moving body. This implies that if you were in B,
> you would likewise see no difference between the contraction of these
> two objects, therefore the ruler in B would give you the same
> measurement of the body, as if the body were at rest in A and measured
> by the ruler in A.
But something is still lacking: how is measured the moving body by the
stationary ruler in A? The hidden assumption steals here. We can't use the
usual superposition. We measure "at the same time" the distance between the
ends. When we change frame, the notion of "at the same time" change, and as
the body is moving, the length is changed to an amount corresponding to its
velocity multiplied by the "time difference" arising from the different
simultaneity. We don't deal with one-dimensional segments, but with
space-time strips. The strip itself isn't contracted, but according to the
angle under which its width is measured, the numerical value change. For
determining the "time difference", we need a postulate about the relation
between frame and light speed.
So. The hidden assumption is that the same body measured in either frame
has the same length, that's why Poincaré introduced a further "physical"
contraction (caused by the relative motion with ether or the absolute one)
by hand to account for the needed difference. But Einstein showed it isn't
necessary, since the procedures of synchronization and of measure provide
it, if the right assumption is made. He explained the formula from first
principles.
> Well, Poincare did it. And if you think that he did it by guessing, I'm
> convinced that this is a wrong cliche. My understanding of his thought
> process is this:
>
> 1) He noticed that Michelson-Morley experimentally showed that the
> speed of light was the same in all frames.
No, the MM experiment shows only that the fringes don't displace. The
genuine physics is that. There have been many tentative explanations, as
eligible as one another: ether is following the terrestrial motion, the
bodies are contracted by their relative motion with ether...
> 4) He noticed that the Galilean transformations were inadequate in
> order to derive the phenomenon of constancy of light from the
> invariance of light. Therefore he set out to find the transformations
> that conformed with that phenomenon.
It's an empirical way. Finding the formula that describes at best the
phenomenon. But than doesn't give the reason "why" this formula works. The
reason is given by first principles.
Kepler noticed that the epicycles were inadequate in order to derive the
motion of the celestial bodies, therefore he set out to find the formula
that conformed with that phenomenon. He found that 3 mathematical relations
were able to describe correctly the trajectories, and ascribed them to some
deity (obscure forces contracting the electron). One may thing that the
Kepler rules are more fundamental, and derive classical mechanics with them,
one merely doesn't do it.
> In order to deny this,
> you would have to demonstrate that the constancy of light is more
> fundemental than the transformation of space-time.
The independence of light speed is more simple than the transformation,
that's why it is and has been preferred. There is no such thing as "more
fundamental." Physics isn't philosophy, all what we ask to it is to be
efficient.
> There's nothing metaphysical about it. It's such a no-brainer that it
> would be foolish to imagine that Poincare and Lorentz didn't think of
> that.
Why Poincaré and Lorentz, and none of the fine physicists before them?
cma...@yahoo.com
> <cma...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1125634915.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
.. as the two frames are brought to relative rest. That's the fine
point you're missing. Let me rephrase that:
As delta_v --> 0: delta_length --> 0 and delta_time_rate --> 0.
If there is a hidden assumption, that's the one; and it's extremely
acceptable.
> that's why Poincaré introduced a further "physical"
> contraction (caused by the relative motion with ether or the absolute one)
> by hand to account for the needed difference. But Einstein showed it isn't
> necessary, since the procedures of synchronization and of measure provide
> it, if the right assumption is made. He explained the formula from first
> principles.
>
> > Well, Poincare did it. And if you think that he did it by guessing, I'm
> > convinced that this is a wrong cliche. My understanding of his thought
> > process is this:
> >
> > 1) He noticed that Michelson-Morley experimentally showed that the
> > speed of light was the same in all frames.
>
> No, the MM experiment shows only that the fringes don't displace. The
> genuine physics is that. There have been many tentative explanations, as
> eligible as one another: ether is following the terrestrial motion, the
> bodies are contracted by their relative motion with ether...
Wait a second. You're applying double standards here. So you are saying
that Poincare has no right to interpret the MM experiment as indicating
the constancy of light, whereas Einstein has every right to do so.
Where exactly do you think Einstein's notion of constancy of light
comes from, out of thin air?
In reaction to MM they both formulated the PoR. Their PoR is different
from Galilean relativity precisely for that reason.
Objecting against Poincare is alright, but you first have to make sure
your objection does not apply to Einstein as well.
> > 4) He noticed that the Galilean transformations were inadequate in
> > order to derive the phenomenon of constancy of light from the
> > invariance of light. Therefore he set out to find the transformations
> > that conformed with that phenomenon.
>
> It's an empirical way.
No, it's mathematical and purely logical. And that's exactly why many
people claim that his theory is purely mathematical. But that's a
spurious conclusion from their part, as Poincare had empirical evidence
of the constancy of light available to him. A mathematical construction
is just a game, unless its axioms fit physical empirical evidence; in
that case it turns into physics. And that's what we have here. Poincare
uses the PoR as a constraint to be satisfied, but a constraint is a
form of axiom.
> Finding the formula that describes at best the
> phenomenon. But than doesn't give the reason "why" this formula works. The
> reason is given by first principles.
Sure, it does. Every mathematical solution to a problem is the purest
of explanations one can provide. That you and I can't make intuitive
sense of it is irrelevant. No one will ever have an intuitive feel for
the 4-color theorem, but it is an undisputable fact that thousands of
hours of computing time furnished the EXPLANATION for it.
> > In order to deny this,
> > you would have to demonstrate that the constancy of light is more
> > fundemental than the transformation of space-time.
>
> The independence of light speed is more simple than the transformation,
> that's why it is and has been preferred.
It is deemed more simple only because the transformation is not
perceptible to human sense. Otherwise, the cavemen and animals would
have discovered the transformation long ago, and we would all think it
is more simple than the constancy of light.
> There is no such thing as "more fundamental."
That's very much debatable. And that's why Poincare's theory is just as
fundemental as Einstein's, if not more so
> Physics isn't philosophy, all what we ask to it is to be efficient.
It is philosophy. In fact, it used to be called "natural philosophy".
And we ask it to progressively peel off the layers of assumptions that
we rely upon.
> > There's nothing metaphysical about it. It's such a no-brainer that it
> > would be foolish to imagine that Poincare and Lorentz didn't think of
> > that.
>
> Why Poincaré and Lorentz, and none of the fine physicists before them?
The context is missing, so let me bring it back. I wrote:
"Finally, don't let the ether fool you. Poincare and Lorentz ascribed
no physical property to it other than saying it was the inertial frame
wherein Maxwell's law held good. If it turns out to be unique, well,
they were right; and if it turns out to be non-unique, then pick any
one such frame and call it "ether". So if Einstein is right, you just
pick any random inertial frame and call it "ether", and then apply
Poincare's chain of thought to it. There's nothing metaphysical about
it. It's such a no-brainer that it would be foolish to imagine that
Poincare and Lorentz didn't think of that."
My mistake, what I actually meant was:
"Finally, don't let the ether fool you. Poincare and Lorentz ascribed
no physical property to it other than saying it was the inertial frame
wherein Maxwell's laws held good. If it turns out to be unique, well,
they were right; and if it turns out to be non-unique, then pick any
one such frame and call it "ether". So if Einstein is right (i.e. that
Maxwell's laws hold good in all inertial frames), you just pick any
random inertial frame and call it "ether", and then apply Poincare's
chain of thought to it. It's such a no-brainer that it would be foolish
to imagine that Poincare and Lorentz didn't think of that. There's
nothing metaphysical about their version of the ether concept."
Chris
Homo Lykos
news:dfbi23$et0$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
If you want say that Einstein had (almost) no access to such well known
journals as Comptes rendus or die Annalen you should proof it (I'm
relatively sure that Einstein himself did never make such a strong
statement.). Moreover at patent office probably it was one of his duties to
search for news in important jornals (eg by reading the titles of the
articles). But in relation to less known journals and some books your
statement - I think - is correct.
And don't forget: If Einstein should have really read the note of Poincarè
of 5 june 1905 before finishing his SR-paper he had 1907 very strong reasons
to emphasize his difficulty of access to the library of the university of
Bern.
Homo Lykos
Javier Bezos
Murray Arnow wrote:
> I just did a little research and found most of the questions asked here
> w.r.t. Lorentz, Poincare and others are answered by Pauli in his "Theory
> of Relativity." Pauli discusses the history of the subject and its
> contributors.
I would suggest two further readings:
- http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-12
("Relativity").
- Feynman's Lectures on Physics, chap 28 ("Electromagnetical
mass").
Javier
-----------------------------
http://www.texytipografia.com
Ilja Schmelzer
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> schrieb
> "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Sc...@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote
> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> schrieb
> > > - Lorentz did not just "give the Lorentz contraction". I invite you to
> > > show
> > > how Lorentz' theory as corrected by Poincare - and which for
> > > experimental
> > > physics happens to be indistinguishable from that of Einstein - can be
> > > less
> > > predictive than that of Einstein.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > Assume we have a hidden preferred frame. In this preferred frame,
> > hidden information transfer is possible.
>
> It's not at all clear to me what you mean. I can imagine a laser and photo
> detector, together inside a black box that is at rest in the
> Ether/Space/Vacuum, whatever you want to call it. That would be "hidden
> information transfer in the preferred frame", but of course it would be
> hidden in all frames.
Indeed. I mean something completely different - the hidden variables
of realistic QM interpretations, for example.
> -> Looking below where you mention Bell: perhaps you mean hidden
information
> transfer that is much faster than light?
>
> > This hidden information
> > transfer can lead to violations of Bell's inequality. Example: Bohmian
> > mechanics, which has a preferred frame and violates Bell's inequality.
>
> I'm unfamiliar with Bohmian mechanics - a separate thread on that could be
> instructive!
Look for Duerr and Goldstein on arxiv.org.
In BM reality consist of two parts: The wave function Psi(Q), and the state
Q. For the wave function we have the usual Schrödinger equation, for
Q the guiding equation
d_t Q = (Psi^* J Psi) / (Psi^* Psi)
If we have a state with probability distribution for Q named quantum
equilibrium:
rho(Q) = Psi^*(Q) Psi(Q)
it remains in this state forever.
Q is the configuration of our world (say, Q in R^3 for one particle,
in R^3N for N particles, some functional space in field theory) in a fixed
moment t.
> > Assume the notion of causality should be Lorentz-covariant. In this
> > case we obtain Einstein causality, hidden information transfer in some
> > hidden preferred frame is impossible. We can prove Bell's inequality.
> >
> > Thus, Bell's inequality is an additional falsifiable (and falsified)
> > prediction of the Einstein-Minkowski version of SR, which is not
> > possible in the Lorentz-Poincare ether.
>
> Maybe you want to elaborate on this? According to all, light speed is the
> limit speed.
The theory is deterministic, but has absolute time, and the
trajectory of a single particle depends on the whole state of the world,
even if the resulting distributions rho(Q) don't.
> Perhaps you mean that faster-than-light information transfer might in
> principle enable the detection of the frame that according to
> Lorentz-Poincare can't be detected, while it would lead to
> self-contradiction in Einstein's theory.
> If so, IMO both hypotheses are equally predictive, but a failure of the
> prediction would have other consequences for Einstein-Minkowski
metaphysics
> than for that of Lorentz-Poincare. Please correct me if this is wrong.
This consideration is correct, I agree with it, but this is not what I mean.
The statistical predictions of BM in equilibrium and QM are identical, and
the preferred frame cannot be detected by statistical observation in above
theories.
The situation with predictive power is more complex than often imagined
if we talk about the "predictive power of theories". The problem is that
to make a prediction we need more than one theory. For example, in the
theory of gravity we need not only GR but also a theory of matter to
make predictions. (In principle, we have to include theories about the
behavious of measurement instruments and so on too. Even theories about the
reliability of certain experimenters.) Thus, in some sense we have to talk
about the predictive
power of groupes of theories.
Nonetheless, it seems justified that we can compare the "predictive power of
two theories T1, T2" if we use the same set of additional theories Tx,Ty,Tz,
that means,
if T1 + Tx + Ty + Tz allows to make a prediction which cannot be made in
T2 + Tx + Ty + Tz, T1 has more predictive power.
In this case, we use a set of assumptions I name "realism". Deterministic
theories
which predict the outcome of all experiments as depending on a (possibly
hidden) initial state (like Bohmian mechanics) are realistic. In the Lorentz
ether, reality itself may not be Lorentz-invariant, especially because the
ether is part of this reality. In Einstein's SR reality itself should be
Lorentz-invariant, there is no place for an ether
with a preferred frame, and also no place for BM which also needs a
preferred frame. Causality means Einstein causality.
Now a hidden variable theory for QM which meets the "metaphysical"
restrictions imposed by SR (Einstein causality not only for observations but
for hidden variables too) is impossible. This is Bell's theorem:
realism + Einstein causality => Bell's inequality
(Here "realism" denotes all explicit and implicit assumptions beyond
Einstein causality used by Bell, thus, a search for loopholes in Bell's
theorem does not
invalidate these considerations. At best, they can show that there are
other, weaker notions of realism which do not allow to prove this theorem.)
But there is no such theorem for the Lorentz ether. Instead, BM defines a
counter-example: BM is realistic, even deterministic, it is compatible with
Lorentz ether
metaphysics, but Bell's inequality does not hold (as in QM).
Ilja
Cl.Massé
> > its absolute motion, which is definitely different from Einsteins
> > relativity.
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
43156e85$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> Now that is an interesting point: it concerns a different *metaphysics*.
It may or may not. Could somebody give a sketch of what would be the
"Poincaré theory", with a complete and non contradictory set of postulates,
the working out and the physical predictions? In particular, I'd like to
know what the "constant force causing the contraction" corresponds to in
Einsteins relativity. Without that, the dispute goes nowhere.
> And exactly the same happend with Newton's theory: someone that I never
> heard of removed absolute motion from Newton's theory, thus giving it
> definitely a different metaphyisical interpretation by which necessarily
> also the definition of uniform rectilinear motion had to be changed. But
> that person was *not* given credit for Newton's theory of physics... and I
> wonder if anyone here even knows his(?) name!
Galileo?
juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
3134.217.124.88.181...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
> Your "Physics need not to be mathematically correct, it only need to be
> descriptive and predictive" is completely wrong. I think that you are
> confounding science with pure empirics or "enginnering".
Not at all. That's precisely the case for the incompatibility between
quantum mechanics and general relativity, there is no unified mathematica=
l
theory while each model works in certain conditions. Even the
interpretation of quantum mechanics isn't logically sound, we use one or
another rule according to the situation.
In physics, there are many places where heuristics reasoning is used.
Granted, they are shortcuts for a rigorous formalism, but Einstein could
have taken those shortcut without his physical reasoning being false. Th=
e
only important thing is the first principles, even if to get at them, one
uses "illegal" calculus. The end justifies the means, while in mathemati=
cs,
the means suffice to themselves.
****************************
Hum, that is not an argument for I said. The problem of "incompatibility"
(really there is no one) of QM and GR is due to they are approximate
theories and do not apply in the field of the other. GR is not
mathematically incorrect, simply is a classical formulation and,
therefore, does not apply in the quantum regime. In physics, consequences
(laws) may be derivable from axioms or postulates, illegal "calculus" is
not allowed except in pure empirical studies, engineering, etc.
The fact, Einstein used the same axioms used by others (first postulate i=
s
directly from Poincar=E9 and second postulate is present in Poincar=E9 -n=
ot in
the form of postulate-), but applied incorrect mathematical and physical
thoughts to derive knowledge that already was know to others. Therefore 1=
)
he is doing nothing new 2) he already did know that would obtain.
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Impossible to sustain that Poincar=E9 was doing only mathematics :-)
Indeed, as any absolute statement. Yet, Poincar=E9 was marked by the
mathematical method, which is more a handicap than an advantage for doing
physics. Never in mathematics are the axiom challenged, they are a firm =
and
reassuring ground. That explain why he kept hidden assumptions.
****************************
You claimed that Poincar=E9 was "philosophing", whereas Einstein was doin=
g
serious physics. I already showed that was incorrect, showing how Poincar=
=E9
was computing physical stuff and comparing with experimental data, when
Einstein was only "phylosophing" about the axiomatic basis for "his"
theory.
As already said the LT and other stuff do not follow from two Einstein
postulates. Precisely, Poincar=E9 was characterized by precision on the
mathematical structure of the theory of relativity, whereas Einstein kept
hidden assumptions. How even Einstein recognized in posterior years, the
two initial postulates might be completemented by at least three new
"axioms".
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> > Physics is about finding the axioms, whatever the method used.
> > Mathematics is about working out the consequences of these axioms, in=
a
perfect rigorous way. They are two very different trades.
> Incorrect definition of both math and physics.
Sorry, it's correct, even if oversimplified. Especially, the fundamental
difference is made clear.
****************************
I am sorry to say this again but you say is incorrect. In mathematics, th=
e
detailed formal structure of the axiomatic system is very important,
because math is an axiomatic-formal system.
Physics is not about finding the axioms. A clear example is CKC vs MTE
formulations of thermodynamics. The axioms are completely different; stil=
l
the physics (thermodynamics) is exactly the same. You also fails to
understand that Einstein relativity is not superior to Poincar=E9 relativ=
ity
(because Einstein postulate of constancy of c does not introduce new
physics). Absence of that postulate in Poincar=E9 relativity does not imp=
ly
that his theory was less successful.
Again, I explain to you that absence of zeroth principle in MTE
formulation of thermodynamics does not imply that was not 100% compatible
with CKC formulation of thermodynamics.
However, from a mathematical point of view both formulations are very
different. The CKC is an "integral approach" for a mathematician, whereas
MTE is a "differential geometric approach" for a mathematician.
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> > Einstein used more his imagination than his mathematical knowledge, a=
nd
> > created something new.
> It is really difficult for us to understand the use of imagination by
> means of the direct copy of the work of others.
You take the conclusion as the hypothesis. Einstein imagined something t=
hat
was different from what was taken for granted by the others, and explaine=
d
it explicitly as a "hidden assumption".
****************************
I am fixing your point.
You claim that I, in basis to historical evidence I (and others) provided=
,
am taking "the conclusion as the hypothesis". However, next I claim
"Einstein imagined something that was different from what was taken for
granted by the others".
Were you inside his brain to know that he imagined? I prefer historical
arguments; I see that his writings are copy of others (even literal ones).
I prefer see that do not cited. I prefer to see that said that newer read
Poincar=E9 when is false. I prefer see that said that did not know previo=
us
memorie by Lorentz, but begin his derivation of the LT from a Galilean
transformation exactly as Lorentz did, use the same notation that Lorentz
used, claim in his letters to submit papers that newer submitted, etc.
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> > "I make you notice that I don't use the term "constant" but
> > "independent." That c is a constant doesn't make the velocity of lig=
ht
independent on the
> frame of reference. It only says that some measurement process gives t=
he
> same value in any frame. You make that conclusion by using a hidden
> assumption, namely that the measure of the light speed *is* the real li=
ght
> speed, that is, the light speed defined in the first principles."
> How can c be independent being no a constant?
Constant in what? Space? Time?
****************************
Again your double criterion is intriguing. Poincar=E9 claims that c is
constant and you say constant in what? Space? Time?
Einstein wrote in his famous 1905 article "light is always propagated in
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state
of motion of the emitting body." Was Einstein claiming that c was functio=
n
of space? of time? of the state of experimental apparatus used? of
temperature in Oklahoma? of...?
Poincar=E9 is still more precise: c is a constant. What is that we say to=
day
:-)
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> How can c be constant being dependent?
Constant in space but dependent on the frame?
****************************
Aha! Then the new definition of constant is something that is "dependent
of" and, therefore, is not constant. Ok! Now 2x is a constant and 2 is a
function. I understand now.
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Anyway, you didn't defined what is c. A numerical constant? The measure=
d
velocity of light? By which procedure? The postulated velocity of light=
?
You make a lot of hidden assumption. And as Poincar=E9 didn't explicit m=
uch
more, probably did he some also and thought differently to what appears.
In contrast, Einstein defined everything clearly and unambiguously, as he
had a clear mind. Poincar=E9 was still groping around in his haze.
****************************
Poincar=E9 did. In contrast, Einstein only copied, for example copied the
definition of simultaneity of events in different spatial points by means
of a light signal as well as the definition of time in a moving reference
system by means of light signal, etc. Used the same arguments that
Poincar=E9 regarding to aether, etc.
Moreover, ambiguity of Einstein methods was even recognized by him but yo=
u
ignore all of this. Einstein was unable to recognize that LT implied a
link between space and time and four-dimensional formulation was lacking,
failed to obtain the relativistic force and newer was able to formulate a
mechanics (only a kinematics over the work of others), etc.
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> The no constancy of c follows from an ultra-simple algebraic
> (multiplication by 1/ t) manipulation on Galilean transformation.
>
> c' =3D c + v
>
> with v the source velocity. In Galilean physics light velocity is not
> independent of frame and is not constant, c' =3D c'(v)
>
> Now, Poincar=E9 neglects the transformation and defines a new simultane=
ity
> based in LT.
Well, only handwaving, that besides doesn't appears in the Poincar=E9's
writings.
****************************
Do not appear in Einstein writings that space and time are real
quantities. Does that imply that are imaginary or really, it is clear tha=
t
Einstein was using real quantities?
Poincar=E9 neglected the GT, defined a new simultaneity based in the LT a=
nd
assumed that the LT is the correct transformation for a new mechanics. Th=
e
constancy of c follows in a trivial manner. Poincar=E9 did not write the
demonstration (two elementary algebraic manipulations), but wrote the
result c is a constant for both EM and gravitation.
Your attempt to show that postulate of c is fundamental is even refuted b=
y
own Einstein (1948).
"With the aid of the Lorentz transformation the special
relativity principle can be formulated as follows:
the laws of Nature are invariant with respect to the
Lorentz transformation (i. e. a law of Nature must not
change, if it would be referred to a new inertial reference
system obtained with the aid of Lorentz transformation
for x, y, z, t)."
That was Poincar=E9 did
PoR more LT =3D PoR more "constancy of c".
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> > "Notice finally that he only said that c is common to gravity, withou=
t
> > saying that c doesn't depend on the frame, and because he postulated
that the Lorentz transformation applies also to the gravitational force.
Notice,
> to the force, not to space. The important word is *common*, as would s=
how
> the context."
> He says a "common constant". The important words are *common constant*.
Common to what? You need to be very precise, otherwise we won't advance =
a
bit. Besides, could you cite any place where c isn't considered a
"constant", from the very beginning since it is known? c is a fundamenta=
l
constant since Maxwell, derivable from other measurable constants. In th=
e
theory of the ether, it is the relative *constant* velocity between light
and ether. Poincar=E9 meant that c was also to be used in gravity, and m=
eant
nothing else, otherwise he would have stated it separately. French is a
very precise language, that's why it is used for arbitrating fencing. If
something is stated unclearly, it isn't stated at all, period.
****************************
Poincar=E9 said common constant. I replied omitting "constant". I replied
saying that said "common constant". It is clear what mean *common*
Yes! c was already known like constant regarding Electromagnetism but was
not constant regarding mechanics (already explained why). Therefore,
conflict between mechanics and EM. Poincar=E9 solved by assuming that c w=
as
a constant always, therefore the GT was not correct and a new mechanics
arise, one that he developed.
Aether does not modify Poincar=E9 priority because aether in Poincar=E9 w=
as
not a mechanism for detecting absolute motion (was a kind of "relativisti=
c
aether"). However, the "clarity" of Einstein (that you claim) is absent.
In fact, in posterior years Einstein returned to aether and claimed that
his theory of relativity was a theory of aether. Popular (inaccurate)
biographies highlights that the main contribution of Einstein was the
abandoning of concept of aether :-)
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> If c is constant then it cannot depend on frame, because then is not a
> constant, it is a function of frame.
No, it's a spurious thinking. You make a hidden identification between a
numerical constant and a measure of length / time. It's that sort of lose
reasoning that kept at bay all those great physicists.
****************************
Numerical constant? Poincare always calls to c the velocity of light
c =3D (space)/(time)
space and time are defined from a system of reference: Earth, laboratory,
etc. in 1900.
and assumes that c is constant (which contradict non relativistic
mechanics) and the same in all directions. What part do not you
understand?
Perhaps I would rewrite for you Poincar=E9 1905 quote
"If we were to accept the relativity principle, then we would find a
common constant in the law of gravity and in electromagnetic laws, the
velocity of light."
Am I doing a hidden identification between the numerical constant c of EM
and a measure of length / time in mechanics or is clearly Poincar=E9 sayi=
ng
that velocity of light is constant and extending his domain to gravitatio=
n
(where there are not Maxwell equations)?
****************************
<to...@tata.ti> on 2 Sep 2005 19:29:37 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Ah, and the contraction of bodies is one of basis in Einstein relativit=
y.
No, you didn't read his 1905's article. The bodies aren't contracted, th=
eir
measures using the procedure he fully describes give a lesser value. He
don't speak about a constant force like Poincar=E9.
****************************
Hum! Again wrong. It is not true that are his measures which are
contracted. It si more easy to see fro time dilation. It is time which
dilates due to motion. Independently I am observing/measuring or no.
Moreover,
Your "The bodies aren't contracted, their measures" is beyond physics.
Juan R.
of a unified quantum gravity theory. Whereas semiempirical approaches
(semiclassical gravity, etc.) are sufficent for most practical
purposes.
The fact Einstein used bad derivations, implies that he knew the
results previously.
It is contrary your say! Do not forget that standard view is that
Poincar=E9 did physical stuff whereas Lorentz did math.
It is true that Poincar=E9 kept hidden assumptions, but Einstein also.
He said years after that LT does not follow from PoR more constancy of
c alone, but you continue to ignore this important point.
I will explain again to you that you definition of math and physics are
wrong. CKC and MTE formulations of thermodynamics are different from a
mathematical point of view (different axioms) but the same physics,
both formulations are physically identical ones for physics
aplications. The same for Einstein vs Poincar=E9. Poincar=E9 does not use
postulate about constancy of c because is a theorem is his theory.
Poincar=E9 defined c. Was not a numberical constant like in EM, he said
was the velocity of light. As Einstein said years after
Harry
"Cl.Massé" <to...@tata.ti> wrote in message
> > > Now, Poincaré stuck to the principle that a body is contracted through
> > > its absolute motion, which is definitely different from Einsteins
> > > relativity.
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 43156e85$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> > Now that is an interesting point: it concerns a different *metaphysics*.
>
> It may or may not. Could somebody give a sketch of what would be the
> "Poincaré theory", with a complete and non contradictory set of
postulates,
> the working out and the physical predictions?
Yes and no - he made errors, but so did Einstein. About predictions: already
Lorentz had made a pertinent and correct prediction, and Einstein added a
few more - some correct, and some erroneous...
The only effect of different metaphysics on the calculations is related to
intuition, thus more easily finding the most convenient approach, or more
easily making one kind of mistake instead of another one...
> In particular, I'd like to
> know what the "constant force causing the contraction" corresponds to in
> Einsteins relativity. Without that, the dispute goes nowhere.
I'm against disputes on discussion boards. Perhaps you refer to what I
interpret as an erroneous understanding by Poincare related to length
contraction - it follows from the Maxwell equations, thus there is no
additional force (if he meant that) in the atomic equilibrium positions.
> > And exactly the same happend with Newton's theory: someone that I never
> > heard of removed absolute motion from Newton's theory, thus giving it
> > definitely a different metaphyisical interpretation by which necessarily
> > also the definition of uniform rectilinear motion had to be changed. But
> > that person was *not* given credit for Newton's theory of physics... and
I
> > wonder if anyone here even knows his(?) name!
>
> Galileo?
Certainly not, Newton came later!
Harald
Harry
<juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:3196.217.124.88.226...@webmail.canonicalscience.com...
>
> See
>
>
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
>
> for additional details and references.
>
>
In addition, it has intrigued me how Lorentz could have overlooked
Poincare's short paper that was published mid 1905. From his comments I
infer that at that time he only knew about Einstein's paper which was
published late 1905, so that he was unaware of Poincare's role in the
finalisation of his theory and didn't acknowledge it at that time but
acknowledged Einstein's contributions instead.
A possible explanation comes from:
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/poincare.et.la.relativite/
According to them, Poincare's 1905 note was omitted - and apparently
purposefully - from discussion in the "Beiblatter" of that journal in which
Einstein's paper was published (directed by Max Planck).
Thus I think that Lorentz may have relied on information of that journal.
Harald
Harry
"Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Sc...@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote in message
I think I got the point now, related to Einstein's metaphysics according to
which it's equally true to say of two such separated distant events that one
happened before the other as after the other, depending on one's chosen
reference frame; while in contrast with Lorentz' metaphysics this is truth
about observation only, resulting from a hidden reality in which really one
happened before the other - we just can't measure which one.
IOW, that difference in metaphysics has crept into the realm of physics and
Einstein's interpretation of SRT was apparently disproved by quantum
experiments.
Correct?
Thanks,
Harald
Martin Ouwehand
Harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> writes:
] In addition, it has intrigued me how Lorentz could have overlooked
] Poincare's short paper that was published mid 1905.
he couldn't, Poincaré kept him informed of the progression of his
work:
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/chp/text/lorentz3.html
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/chp/text/lorentz4.html
http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/chp/text/lorentz5.html
--
| ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne
__|_____________ Email/PGP: http://slwww.epfl.ch/info/Martin.html _____________
I don't understand people who say life is a mystery,
because what is it they want to know ? [Jack Handey]
Ilja Schmelzer
to
> which it's equally true to say of two such separated distant events that
one
> happened before the other as after the other, depending on one's chosen
> reference frame; while in contrast with Lorentz' metaphysics this is truth
> about observation only, resulting from a hidden reality in which really
one
> happened before the other - we just can't measure which one.
>
> IOW, that difference in metaphysics has crept into the realm of physics
and
> Einstein's interpretation of SRT was apparently disproved by quantum
> experiments.
> Correct?
Yes. Unfortunately, this is not the mainstream point of view. Instead of
going back to Lorentz' position (as proposed by Bell) people prefer to
give up realism.
Quite strange.
Ilja
Harry
"Martin Ouwehand" <see...@end.of.post.ch> wrote in message
news:43254a5c$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> In article <4321816e$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch>,
> Harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> writes:
>
> ] In addition, it has intrigued me how Lorentz could have overlooked
> ] Poincare's short paper that was published mid 1905.
>
> he couldn't, Poincaré kept him informed of the progression of his
> work:
>
> http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/chp/text/lorentz3.html
> http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/chp/text/lorentz4.html
> http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/chp/text/lorentz5.html
Thanks, they are very interesting, that's great!
It doesn't tell if he knew about the note of 1905, but indeed he could
(should) have known about Poincare's progress...
Still, I think that at that time he didn't understand "Ces transformations
forment un groupe" and simply overlooked the full equivalence between frames
that Poincare's calculations implied. We can be almost certain of that,
because even after he read Einstein's paper it still didn't immediately
become clear to him - discussions in groups like this show how difficult it
is to make something understood, even when it's told black on white!
BTW, I'm impressed to see the velocity-sum equation expressed so
fundamentally and clearly in may 1905, as just a by-the-way part of a
derivation.
Harald
Cl.Massé
> > Could somebody give a sketch of what would be the
> > "Poincaré theory", with a complete and non contradictory set of
> > postulates, the working out and the physical predictions?
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
431ec3d4$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> Yes and no
Einstein built his theory logically from first principles, Poincaré did not.
And that closes the "argument".
Cl.Massé
> > France and Germany were then "hereditary enemies", and
"Homo Lykos" <ly...@lykos.ch> a écrit dans le message de news:
43190459$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
> Nonsense: Bern is the capitale of Switzerland and Einstein was Swiss since
> 1901 and the french speaking part of Switzerland begins very near to Bern.
Bern is in the German-speaking Switzerland. Einstein is born in Germany and
lived there at the age when foreign languages are usually learnt. Zürich is
also in the German-speaking part. And do you know that today, the
German-Swiss speak very little French, less than the German?
But ok, you releaved my doubts.
> > Einstein used the two postulates on an equal footing, they are both
> > necessary.
> The interpretation is very clear and simple: 1905 Einstein saw the
> constancy of c in all inertial systems as a consequence of the constancy
> of c in the "Ruhesytem" (because of Maxwell) + the PoR.
Not at all. Read the original paper:
"Die folgenden Überlegugen stützen sich auf das Relativitätsprinzip und auf
das Pinzip der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindingkeit, welche beiden Pinzipien
wir folgendermassen definieren." (_Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper_, §2,
A. Einstein, 30 June 1905)
[the following discussion rest on the principle of relativity and on the
principle of the constancy of the light speed, which both principles we
define as the following.]
Einstein made no use, and even no reference to the Maxwell equations.
Actually, they aren't needed even to derive the Lorentz transformation. The
latter is universal, and consequently the Maxwell equation *have to be*
invariant under it. Still a big difference with Poincaré.
Cl.Massé
> Moreover at patent office probably it was one of his duties to
> search for news in important jornals (eg by reading the titles of the
> articles). But in relation to less known journals and some books your
> statement - I think - is correct.
I can't see here anything else than an "ivory tour" view of the external
word. A patent office is by no mean a research laboratory, there is life
outside of them. A research paper is the last writing having some bearing
with technology, it contains no workable information until it is synthesized
in textbooks.
> And don't forget: If Einstein should have really read the note of Poincarè
> of 5 june 1905 before finishing his SR-paper he had 1907 very strong
> reasons to emphasize his difficulty of access to the library of the
university of
> Bern.
If so, he had only a few days to understand Poincaré and to write a paper
completely different in form, a still bigger genius then.
Cl.Massé
news: 1126013680.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The fact Einstein used bad derivations, implies that he knew the
> results previously.
Of course. The results are given by experimental facts (empirical
formulas). The game of physics is finding the first principle leading to
these results.
> I will explain again to you that you definition of math and physics are
> wrong. CKC and MTE formulations of thermodynamics are different from a
> mathematical point of view (different axioms) but the same physics,
> both formulations are physically identical ones for physics
> aplications.
I will continue to affirm you are wrong. Different axiom systems may be
mathematically different, as theorems become axioms and the other way round.
Anyway, the goal is to find an axiomatic system up to a logical equivalence.
It is not what we are debating here, since Poincaré gave no axiomatic
system, but tried to demonstrate the result of the MM experiment from
granted assumptions and additional input.
> The same for Einstein vs Poincaré. Poincaré does not use postulate about
> constancy of c because is a theorem is his theory.
The "Poincaré's theory" as such doesn't exist. It is only a fantasy, that's
why nobody answered my challenge to formulate it. Poincaré never made
explicit the principles he started from, saying the independency of c
follows from them is therefore inappropriate.
> Poincaré defined c. Was not a numberical constant like in EM, he said was
> the velocity of light. As Einstein said years after.
c is the velocity of light? Well, if Poincaré only issued such hollow
general comments, what are we speaking about?