Einstein's 1905 papers

SamtheBam

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 6:10:48 PM9/3/05

to

Per the adage about going to the source, and seeing
this is the Year of Physics, how readable are Einstein's
original 1905 papers?

They have been reprinted now in a few books, and I
would like to try it. Is it reasonable for someone
with an engineering degree?

Sam

Androcles

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 6:36:41 PM9/3/05

to

"SamtheBam" <samth...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1125785448.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Per the adage about going to the source, and seeing
| this is the Year of Physics, how readable are Einstein's
| original 1905 papers?

Easy enough.

Yes if you have math and know what to do with a stupid definition.
Don't give up your day job and don't throw money away.

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

I do it differently.
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle
to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel
from B to A.
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Don't give up your day job and don't throw money away.
Androcles.

Bill Hobba

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 6:43:27 PM9/3/05

to

"SamtheBam" <samth...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1125785448.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I would say they are. But IMHO they are not the best place to start in
relativity since it has moved on consrably in 100 years. I think the
following papers are better to begin with:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.

Once you understand the modern view then supplementing that by reading the
original Einstein would broaden your knowledge. Although I must admit I
followed that path and can not say I actually learnt too much from the
original papers - I read them many years ago and nothing really sticks out
in my mind as being of immediate value. Indeed regarding his papers on GR
Kretchman wrote an attack on his idea of general covariance pointing out is
was vacuous physically (and Einstein eventually admitted he was right) so if
you read the original Einstein you may have to unlearn stuff later -
probably not the best introduction. For GR I rather like the introduction
given by John Baez:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

Thanks
Bill

>
> Sam
>

SamtheBam

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 7:31:47 PM9/3/05

to

Bill Hobba wrote:
> > Per the adage about going to the source, and seeing
> > this is the Year of Physics, how readable are Einstein's
> > original 1905 papers?
> >

> I would say they are. But IMHO they are not the best place to start in
> relativity since it has moved on consrably in 100 years. I think the
> following papers are better to begin with:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
> and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
> and chapter 10 of
> http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
> under the heading of Relativity without c.

Thanks.
What about the other papers, on atoms and photoelectric?

Sam

Perspicacious

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 7:34:14 PM9/3/05

to

Sam,

If you want to study the sources for special relativity,
you should be reading Einstein's sources:

http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00002307/01/larmor.pdf
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000987/00/Michelson.pdf
http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm

Einstein's contribution to special relativity was the simple
yet grisly and tortured way he combined into one package
the ideas of Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincaré:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1094
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077

Einstein's 1905 paper, which only added a simple baby
step to all previously known results, is presented here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The final synthesis of special relativity foundations with
the clearest and deepest understanding is given here:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

SamtheBam

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 7:34:32 PM9/3/05

to

>

> Yes if you have math and know what to do with a stupid definition.
> Don't give up your day job and don't throw money away.
>
> [quote]
> we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
> from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
> [end quote]
> Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> I do it differently.
> we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle
> to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel
> from B to A.
> Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.

So you have field equations, which predict waves at the
speed of turtles? And tests of the speed of turtles
through the water?

Sam

Perspicacious

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 7:35:51 PM9/3/05

to

Bill Hobba wrote:
> IMHO they are not the best place to start in
> relativity since it has moved on consrably in
> 100 years. I think the following papers are
> better to begin with:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
> and ancient, but I still think excellent post
> by Tom Roberts

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a1b1aa766a22394b

The paper http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076 is
unenlightening and unnecessarily complex and the
attempt to derive the Lorentz transformation by
Tom Roberts is loaded with mathematical and
conceptual errors.

The clearest and deepest understanding of SR is given here:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Martin Hogbin

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 7:31:54 PM9/3/05

to

"SamtheBam" <samth...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:1125785448.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

That depends what you are trying to achieve. For example
do you want to understand the subject or are you more
interested in studying its history?

Martin Hogbin

Perspicacious

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 8:01:11 PM9/3/05

to

Bill Hobba wrote:
> IMHO they are not the best place to start in
> relativity since it has moved on consrably in
> 100 years. I think the following papers are
> better to begin with:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
> and ancient, but I still think excellent
> post by Tom Roberts

Perspicacious

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 8:01:21 PM9/3/05

to

Sam,

If you want to study the sources for special relativity,
you should be reading Einstein's sources:

http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00002307/01/larmor.pdf
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000987/00/Michelson.pdf
http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm

Einstein's contribution to special relativity was the simple
yet grisly and tortured way he combined into one package
the ideas of Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincaré:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1094
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077

Einstein's 1905 paper, which only added a simple baby
step to all previously known results, is presented here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The final synthesis of special relativity foundations with

the clearest and deepest understanding is given here:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Androcles

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 8:22:24 PM9/3/05

to

"SamtheBam" <samth...@lycos.com> wrote in message

news:1125790472.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

This is mathematics, relativity has nothing to do with physics
and there are no tests except mathematical tests. If you want
physical tests, shoot the moon with a laser from the ISS and
time the round trip both when the ISS is approaching at
moon-rise and receding at moonset. There is a mirror handy
that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins and subsequent crews
left behind, you have caesium clocks, the GPS, computers
to control the experiment and you can see the reflection using
HST.
When you've done that experiment the way will be open
for high speed interplanetary communication ready for a man
on Mars shot.

I'd offer to write the program, but 'they' don't want it done.
It's 'cheaper' to build super colliders with your money and
pretend they are physicists proving the huckster with the
the violin... err... sorry... Dr. Einstein was right when he made
his royal proclamation
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle...
oops....light... to travel from A to B equals the "time" it

requires to travel from B to A."

I don't know why he didn't define pi as 3 while he was at it,
enough people would believe him.
Anyway, what you believe is up to you, some people think
a straight stick protruding from water really is bent, they can
see it is, so obviously it must be me that's wrong.
Knock yourself out, I've given you the URL for the 1905 paper
you asked about, that dingbat Hobba is one of the people that
think sticks in water are really bent. You'll find quite a few cranks
just like him.

Androcles.

Bill Hobba

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 9:00:34 PM9/3/05

to

"SamtheBam" <samth...@lycos.com> wrote in message

news:1125790306.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Same view. Understand the modern approach then use it a supplementary
reading.

Thanks
Bill

>
> Sam
>

Bill Hobba

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 9:04:11 PM9/3/05

to

"Perspicacious" <iperspi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125790551....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

A note to the original poster. Perspicacious is an incarnation of Eugene
Shubert a well known crank. He purports to derive SR from the Galilean
transformations - which is not possible because the Galilean transformations
are the same as the Lorentz transformations with an infinite c - a quantity
can not be finite and infinite at the same time.

Thanks
Bill

Perspicacious

unread,

Sep 3, 2005, 10:47:26 PM9/3/05

to

Bill Hobba wrote:

> "Perspicacious" wrote:
> > The clearest and deepest understanding of SR is given here:
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>

> A note to the original poster. ...He purports to derive SR

> from the Galilean transformations - which is not possible
> because the Galilean transformations are the same as the
> Lorentz transformations with an infinite c - a quantity
> can not be finite and infinite at the same time.
>
> Thanks
> Bill

It's easy to understand how superficial thinkers and
unthinking trolls could jump to your conclusion. Shubert
has discovered two very insightful derivations of the
Lorentz transformation. In his first derivation, Shubert
derives the Lorentz transformation logically from the
equations x'=x-uT and T'=T. This might seem remarkable
to the shallow and ignorant who don't understand Shubert's
paper and to those who haven't read Shubert's references.

Consider this support:

Richard J. Cook wrote the following in Physical Time and
Physical Space in General Relativity, Am. J. Phys. 72 (2),
February 2004:

"I often start my lecture on the meaning of the line
element in general relativity (GR) with the provocative
statement, 'In general relativity the Galilean transformation
of classical mechanics is just as valid as the Lorentz
transformation of special relativity, because all space-time
coordinate transformations are equally valid in general
relativity' (the democracy of coordinate systems)."

The only thing Shubert has done in his first derivation
is to interpret the equations x'=x-uT and T'=T in a general
relativistic context for special relativity. There is nothing
truly amazing or contradictory in Shubert's paper unless
you're a bigoted amateur or an ignorant troll.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 4, 2005, 4:30:44 AM9/4/05

to

"Perspicacious" <iperspi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1125802046....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > "Perspicacious" wrote:
> > > The clearest and deepest understanding of SR is given here:
> > > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> >
> > A note to the original poster. ...He purports to derive SR
> > from the Galilean transformations - which is not possible
> > because the Galilean transformations are the same as the
> > Lorentz transformations with an infinite c - a quantity
> > can not be finite and infinite at the same time.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bill
>
> It's easy to understand how superficial thinkers and
> unthinking trolls could jump to your conclusion. Shubert
> has discovered two very insightful derivations of the
> Lorentz transformation. In his first derivation, Shubert
> derives the Lorentz transformation logically from the
> equations x'=x-uT and T'=T. This might seem remarkable
> to the shallow and ignorant who don't understand Shubert's
> paper and to those who haven't read Shubert's references.

You are a very stupid and dishonest person, Shubert.
Careful with that axe.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 4, 2005, 4:32:31 AM9/4/05

to

"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:47rSe.5331$pm2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Androcles, the "Electronic Engineer, Professionally" has spoken:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
Amen.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 4, 2005, 4:59:01 AM9/4/05

to

"SamtheBam" <samth...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:1125785448.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Looking at the number of engineers who have lost their
mind over the simplest of the papers, probably not.
With two exceptions, all the engineers who post here,
are crackpots.

Even some mathematicians (see Eugene Shubert aka
Perspicacious) can't handle it :-)

And, recently we even got a
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MScPhD.html
who flipped on it:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cringe.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Inconsistent.html
etc...

I just wrote this a few days ago, but I will repeat it:

I would recommend the following two books:
"General Relativity from A to B" by Robert Geroch:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226288641/102-4108931-...
which is IMO the best introduction to *both* special and
general relativity one can find (check the sample pages)
and
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler:
http://www.eftaylor.com/special.html
and much more at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html

Enjoy,
Dirk Vdm

Harry

unread,

Sep 5, 2005, 3:47:49 AM9/5/05

to

"SamtheBam" <samth...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1125785448.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I'd say yes: if you already know the basics - for example from your
mechanics courses - then they're quite readable, at least the papers on and
related to relativity.
At some points he doesn't clearly define his variables or state what he does
in derivations but if you get stuck on some points you may find clarifying
remarks by searching this newsgroup.
Note that in his relativity ("electrodynamics") paper he made two mistakes
on subjects that you may not be interested in anyway: one related to a mass
definition that is obsolete now, and one related to stellar aberration. As
far as I know the rest is quite ok - perhaps one or two glitches - despite
persistent claims of countless errors by people who don't understand his
paper.

Cheers,
Harald

Androcles

unread,

Sep 5, 2005, 4:18:25 AM9/5/05

to

"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:431bf821$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

| Note that in his relativity ("electrodynamics") paper he made two
mistakes

You don't think the definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A was a
mistake, then?
Oops.. Did I say 'turtle'?... Sorry, 'light'.
Androcles

Harry

unread,

Sep 5, 2005, 5:49:09 AM9/5/05

to

"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message

news:lbTSe.7417$pm2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:431bf821$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> | Note that in his relativity ("electrodynamics") paper he made two
> mistakes

[...]

> | As far as I know the rest is quite ok
>

> You don't think the definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
> travel
> from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A was a
> mistake, then?
> Oops.. Did I say 'turtle'?... Sorry, 'light'.
> Androcles

Certainly not: it came from a necessity of enabling oneself to do
measurements. It was the way it was already done and Poincare had explained
it before: otherwise even no inertial measurement system could be set up at
that time!
Just think of currents: also the convention was made that currents flow from
+ to - .

Harald

Androcles

unread,

Sep 5, 2005, 9:59:17 AM9/5/05

to

"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message

news:431c...@epflnews.epfl.ch...

I see. How do we enable a phuckwit like you to do the measurements?
Put a turtle at the end of a metre rule, hold up the lettuce, time the
turtle
over a distance of one metre. Pick up the turtle, turn it round, run to
the other
end of the room and hold up the lettuce.
The "time" required by a turtle to travel from A to B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A.

LOL! "Just think of"... We don't you just think?

Androcles.

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member!"--"Groucho"
Marx