info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Einstein in Sclipp up ?
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Chalky
Mar 24, 2012, 8:15:23 PM3/24/12
to
I could have sworn that, in MTW, I read a comment of Einstein's, in
response to a question from either Bohr or Born, to the following
effect:
Born/Bohr: Can Herr Einstein clarify for us the question of the speed
of gravity?
Einstein: It is a simple matter to show that the velocities of light
and gravity are the same.
(IIRC, this Q&A was credited as being originally published in Schlipp)
The reason I find this curious is as follows:
In a discussion group earlier , a Dutch contributor was claiming that
the original English translations of Einstein's works had erroneously
translated speed as velocity, since the same word (geschwindigkeit)
covers both, in German.
However, if that is true, I find it strange that the same translator
into English of the Schlipp discussion, would have translated Bohr's/
Born's words as speed, but Einstein's words as velocity.
Could either of our Deutschland based referees here (HvH or P.H.)
clarify this issue?
(I can find no convenient reference to this now in the back of MTW,
under Einstein, Bohr, Born, Schlipp, speed, or even velocity).
[[Mod. note -- I'm neither HvH or PH, and (alas!) I'm no longer
Deutschland-based, but I do think I recognize the quote you're looking
for as that opening MTW chapter 35. The full quote is as follows:
--- begin MTW quote ---
Born: "I should like to put to Herr Einstein a question,
namely, how quickly the action of gravitation is
propagated in your theory. That it happens with
the speed of light does not elucidate it to me.
There must be a very complicated connection between
these ideas."
Einstein: "It is extremely simple to write down the equations
for the case when the perturbations that one introduces
in the field are infinitely small. Then the g's
differ only infinitesimally from those that would be
present without the perturbation. The perturbations
then propagate with the same velocity as light."
Born: "But for great perturbations things are surely very
complicated?"
Einstein: "Yes, it is a mathematically complicated problem.
It is especially difficult to find exact solutions
of the equations, as the equations are nonlinear."
Excerpts from discussion after Einstein's Fall 1913 lecture in
Vienna on "The present position of the problem of gravitation",
already two years before he had the final field equations.
[EINSTEIN, 1913a]
--- end MTW quote ---
-- jt]]
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Mar 25, 2012, 8:55:41 PM3/25/12
to
In article
<31fa5803-1824-480d...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
characters explains to Sophie (who IIRC is from Poland) different words
for speed, including "winged" (two syllables). I saw this movie when it
was new, so it's been a while. (It is worth seeing in any case.) What I
don't understand is the importance of the distinction between "speed"
and "velocity" here. Sometimes, velocity is taken to be a vector while
speed is a scalar (i.e. the magnitude of the velocity without regard to
the direction---cue the old astronomy joke that the North Star is a
vector since it has a magnitude and a direction) and it is true that
"Geschwindigkeit" would be the usual translation of both. However,
given that presumably "Geschwindigkeit" was used in both cases in the
original, what is the basis for claiming that one was mis-translated?
Of course, it is common that one word in one language can correspond to
two in another, and the correct translation depends on the context, so
my question is what difference in the two contexts leads to the
conclusion that one translation is correct and the other incorrect? The
only way I see that it could possibly matter is that using "speed" could
imply that the direction is different even if the speed is the same, but
I don't see any evidence for that here.
<31fa5803-1824-480d...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Chalky <chalk...@bleachboys.co.uk> writes:
> Born/Bohr: Can Herr Einstein clarify for us the question of the speed
> of gravity?
> of gravity?
> Einstein: It is a simple matter to show that the velocities of light
> and gravity are the same.
> (IIRC, this Q&A was credited as being originally published in Schlipp)
>
> The reason I find this curious is as follows:
>
> In a discussion group earlier , a Dutch contributor was claiming that
> the original English translations of Einstein's works had erroneously
> translated speed as velocity, since the same word (geschwindigkeit)
> covers both, in German.
There is a scene in the movie Sophie's Choice where one of the American
> Born/Bohr: Can Herr Einstein clarify for us the question of the speed
> of gravity?
> of gravity?
> Einstein: It is a simple matter to show that the velocities of light
> and gravity are the same.
> (IIRC, this Q&A was credited as being originally published in Schlipp)
>
> The reason I find this curious is as follows:
>
> In a discussion group earlier , a Dutch contributor was claiming that
> the original English translations of Einstein's works had erroneously
> translated speed as velocity, since the same word (geschwindigkeit)
> covers both, in German.
characters explains to Sophie (who IIRC is from Poland) different words
for speed, including "winged" (two syllables). I saw this movie when it
was new, so it's been a while. (It is worth seeing in any case.) What I
don't understand is the importance of the distinction between "speed"
and "velocity" here. Sometimes, velocity is taken to be a vector while
speed is a scalar (i.e. the magnitude of the velocity without regard to
the direction---cue the old astronomy joke that the North Star is a
vector since it has a magnitude and a direction) and it is true that
"Geschwindigkeit" would be the usual translation of both. However,
given that presumably "Geschwindigkeit" was used in both cases in the
original, what is the basis for claiming that one was mis-translated?
Of course, it is common that one word in one language can correspond to
two in another, and the correct translation depends on the context, so
my question is what difference in the two contexts leads to the
conclusion that one translation is correct and the other incorrect? The
only way I see that it could possibly matter is that using "speed" could
imply that the direction is different even if the speed is the same, but
I don't see any evidence for that here.
Chalky
Mar 26, 2012, 6:51:13 AM3/26/12
to
================ Moderator's note =====================================
I'd be willing to look at this in the original German. I guess, you
discuss about the book
A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
Could you point me to the precise place where this debate about the
speed of gravity is located? Physically, of course, the fundamental
boundary speed of signal propagation of relativistic spacetime is a
scalar quantity. In my opinion, it's not easy to define, what you mean
by the propagation speed of gravitational waves, since these are
self-interacting (even on the classical level). Of course for weak
waves, i.e., in the linear approximation for free gravitational waves
the phase velocity's magnitude is c.
HvH.
=======================================================================
On Mar 26, 1:55 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article
> <31fa5803-1824-480d-b249-76eaa6c23...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
of his (subsequently formulated) fietd equation. (This subject has
already been talked to death here at spr).
The statement "the speeds of light and gravity are the same" would not
be so generally true.
Since this conversation predated the field equation by 2 years, I
suspect that Einstein went to pains to distinguish between speed and
velocity in this response.
However, this question can only be rigorously answered by someone
reasonably fluent in German, who can be bothered to read the original
discussion in the original language. (I am assuming the conversation
was conducted, and originally documented in the official language of
Austria, whigh is German)
> my question is what difference in the two contexts leads to the
> conclusion that one translation is correct and the other incorrect?
In this specific Born Einstein discussion, none, afaict.
However, there are examples elsewhere in English translations (eg the
authorised translation of Lawson) where the word velocity is used,
when the context clearly indicates that the only realistic
interpretation is speed.
> The
> only way I see that it could possibly matter is that using "speed" could
> imply that the direction is different even if the speed is the same,
NO, you are definitely misinformed here. When gravity is mocked up by
observers in a state of non uniform motion (ie in accordance with the
general principle, as expressed pregeometrically by Einstein), the
effect of a changing gravitational field relative to said observers is
instantly observable, irrespective of distance.
Thus, observed light and subjectively experienced gravity must
propagate in the opposite directions in both space and time, relative
to said observers.
I'd be willing to look at this in the original German. I guess, you
discuss about the book
A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
Could you point me to the precise place where this debate about the
speed of gravity is located? Physically, of course, the fundamental
boundary speed of signal propagation of relativistic spacetime is a
scalar quantity. In my opinion, it's not easy to define, what you mean
by the propagation speed of gravitational waves, since these are
self-interacting (even on the classical level). Of course for weak
waves, i.e., in the linear approximation for free gravitational waves
the phase velocity's magnitude is c.
HvH.
=======================================================================
On Mar 26, 1:55 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article
> <31fa5803-1824-480d-b249-76eaa6c23...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Chalky <chalkys...@bleachboys.co.uk> writes:
> > Born/Bohr: Can Herr Einstein clarify for us the question of the speed
> > of gravity?
> Chalky <chalkys...@bleachboys.co.uk> writes:
> > Born/Bohr: Can Herr Einstein clarify for us the question of the speed
> > of gravity?
> > Einstein: It is a simple matter to show that the velocities of light
> > and gravity are the same.
> > (IIRC, this Q&A was credited as being originally published in Schlipp)
>
> > The reason I find this curious is as follows:
>
> > In a discussion group earlier , a Dutch contributor was claiming that
> > the original English translations of Einstein's works had erroneously
> > translated speed as velocity, since the same word (geschwindigkeit)
> > covers both, in German.
>
> > and gravity are the same.
> > (IIRC, this Q&A was credited as being originally published in Schlipp)
>
> > The reason I find this curious is as follows:
>
> > In a discussion group earlier , a Dutch contributor was claiming that
> > the original English translations of Einstein's works had erroneously
> > translated speed as velocity, since the same word (geschwindigkeit)
> > covers both, in German.
>
> What I
> don't understand is the importance of the distinction between "speed"
> and "velocity" here.
Einstein's answer is true for both the advanced and retarded solutions
> don't understand is the importance of the distinction between "speed"
> and "velocity" here.
of his (subsequently formulated) fietd equation. (This subject has
already been talked to death here at spr).
The statement "the speeds of light and gravity are the same" would not
be so generally true.
Since this conversation predated the field equation by 2 years, I
suspect that Einstein went to pains to distinguish between speed and
velocity in this response.
However, this question can only be rigorously answered by someone
reasonably fluent in German, who can be bothered to read the original
discussion in the original language. (I am assuming the conversation
was conducted, and originally documented in the official language of
Austria, whigh is German)
> my question is what difference in the two contexts leads to the
> conclusion that one translation is correct and the other incorrect?
However, there are examples elsewhere in English translations (eg the
authorised translation of Lawson) where the word velocity is used,
when the context clearly indicates that the only realistic
interpretation is speed.
> The
> only way I see that it could possibly matter is that using "speed" could
> imply that the direction is different even if the speed is the same,
observers in a state of non uniform motion (ie in accordance with the
general principle, as expressed pregeometrically by Einstein), the
effect of a changing gravitational field relative to said observers is
instantly observable, irrespective of distance.
Thus, observed light and subjectively experienced gravity must
propagate in the opposite directions in both space and time, relative
to said observers.
Chalky
Mar 27, 2012, 4:53:09 PM3/27/12
to
On Mar 26, 11:51 am, Chalky <chalkys...@bleachboys.co.uk> wrote:
> ================ Moderator's note =====================================
> I'd be willing to look at this in the original German. I guess, you
> discuss about the book
>
> A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
Quite possibly so.... It may well also be described in there too.
> ================ Moderator's note =====================================
> I'd be willing to look at this in the original German. I guess, you
> discuss about the book
>
> A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
I have only ever read the English translation of this particular
snippet of conversation, in MTW, as JT correctly recognised.
Reference Einstein 1913a, as quoted by JT, is given in the MTW
bibliography as:
Einstein, A., 1913a "Zum gegenwartigen Stand des Gravitationsproblems"
Phys. Z. 14, 1249-1262, discussion 1262-1266.
>
> Could you point me to the precise place where this debate about the
> speed of gravity is located?
I hope this is good enough
[snip]
harald
Mar 28, 2012, 11:17:32 PM3/28/12
to
"Chalky" <chalk...@bleachboys.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31fa5803-1824-480d...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Yes that's a curious inconsistency but here it doesn't seem to matter, as
it's very clear what they are talking about: speed/velocity in the sense of
"how quickly propagated".
Note: I may have been the Dutch contributor that you refer to, but I don't
think that I claimed that the translations were wrong. "Velocity" was the
usual (and correct) translation for "Geschwindigkeit"; the problem is that
in later years has that word acquired in some circles the exclusive meaning
of vectorial speed (check the dictionary!), and that has caused confusion.
news:31fa5803-1824-480d...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> I could have sworn that, in MTW, I read a comment of Einstein's, in
> response to a question from either Bohr or Born, to the following
> effect:
>
> Born/Bohr: Can Herr Einstein clarify for us the question of the speed
> of gravity?
> Einstein: It is a simple matter to show that the velocities of light
> and gravity are the same.
> (IIRC, this Q&A was credited as being originally published in Schlipp)
>
> The reason I find this curious is as follows:
>
> In a discussion group earlier , a Dutch contributor was claiming that
> the original English translations of Einstein's works had erroneously
> translated speed as velocity, since the same word (geschwindigkeit)
> covers both, in German.
>
> However, if that is true, I find it strange that the same translator
> into English of the Schlipp discussion, would have translated Bohr's/
> Born's words as speed, but Einstein's words as velocity.
[..]
> I could have sworn that, in MTW, I read a comment of Einstein's, in
> response to a question from either Bohr or Born, to the following
> effect:
>
> Born/Bohr: Can Herr Einstein clarify for us the question of the speed
> of gravity?
> Einstein: It is a simple matter to show that the velocities of light
> and gravity are the same.
> (IIRC, this Q&A was credited as being originally published in Schlipp)
>
> The reason I find this curious is as follows:
>
> In a discussion group earlier , a Dutch contributor was claiming that
> the original English translations of Einstein's works had erroneously
> translated speed as velocity, since the same word (geschwindigkeit)
> covers both, in German.
>
> However, if that is true, I find it strange that the same translator
> into English of the Schlipp discussion, would have translated Bohr's/
> Born's words as speed, but Einstein's words as velocity.
--- begin MTW quote ---
Born: "I should like to put to Herr Einstein a question,
namely, how quickly the action of gravitation is
propagated in your theory. That it happens with
the speed of light does not elucidate it to me.
There must be a very complicated connection between
these ideas."
Einstein: "It is extremely simple to write down the equations
for the case when the perturbations that one introduces
in the field are infinitely small. Then the g's
differ only infinitesimally from those that would be
present without the perturbation. The perturbations
then propagate with the same velocity as light."
[..]
Born: "I should like to put to Herr Einstein a question,
namely, how quickly the action of gravitation is
propagated in your theory. That it happens with
the speed of light does not elucidate it to me.
There must be a very complicated connection between
these ideas."
Einstein: "It is extremely simple to write down the equations
for the case when the perturbations that one introduces
in the field are infinitely small. Then the g's
differ only infinitesimally from those that would be
present without the perturbation. The perturbations
then propagate with the same velocity as light."
Yes that's a curious inconsistency but here it doesn't seem to matter, as
it's very clear what they are talking about: speed/velocity in the sense of
"how quickly propagated".
Note: I may have been the Dutch contributor that you refer to, but I don't
think that I claimed that the translations were wrong. "Velocity" was the
usual (and correct) translation for "Geschwindigkeit"; the problem is that
in later years has that word acquired in some circles the exclusive meaning
of vectorial speed (check the dictionary!), and that has caused confusion.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Mar 28, 2012, 11:18:23 PM3/28/12
to
> However, this question can only be rigorously answered by someone
> reasonably fluent in German, who can be bothered to read the original
> discussion in the original language.
I'm fluent in both German and English. If you can point me to the
> reasonably fluent in German, who can be bothered to read the original
> discussion in the original language.
original and the translation(s) I can have a look. I have several books
on Einstein and his work, in English and German (originals in both
cases; no translations) but I don't recall this passage being quoted.
It would be much faster if you could send me a link to something I can
read on the web.
While we're on the topic: supposedly Einstein's own translation of
"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht" was not "The
Lord is subtle but not malicious" but rather "God may be slick, but he
ain't mean". :-)
Hendrik van Hees
Mar 28, 2012, 11:20:40 PM3/28/12
to
On 27/03/12 22:53, Chalky wrote:
>> A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
In this book I couldn't find about this debate. I'm not sure, what you
>> A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
cite then in the subject line of this thread...
>
> Quite possibly so.... It may well also be described in there too.
>
> I have only ever read the English translation of this particular
> snippet of conversation, in MTW, as JT correctly recognised.
>
> Reference Einstein 1913a, as quoted by JT, is given in the MTW
> bibliography as:
>
> Einstein, A., 1913a "Zum gegenwartigen Stand des Gravitationsproblems"
> Phys. Z. 14, 1249-1262, discussion 1262-1266.
I couldn't find this source online. I'd have to go to the library and
> Quite possibly so.... It may well also be described in there too.
>
> I have only ever read the English translation of this particular
> snippet of conversation, in MTW, as JT correctly recognised.
>
> Reference Einstein 1913a, as quoted by JT, is given in the MTW
> bibliography as:
>
> Einstein, A., 1913a "Zum gegenwartigen Stand des Gravitationsproblems"
> Phys. Z. 14, 1249-1262, discussion 1262-1266.
look for it in printed form, but I'm not sure whether it's worth the
effort since in 1913 Einstein had not found the full solution for the
"problems concerning gravitation", which meant nothing else than to find
a relativistic theory of gravitation, which finally lead to General
Relavity in 1915/16.
--
Hendrik van Hees
Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies
D-60438 Frankfurt am Main
http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/
Chalky
Mar 29, 2012, 7:51:20 AM3/29/12
to
On Mar 29, 4:20 am, Hendrik van Hees <h...@fias.uni-frankfurt.de>
wrote:
quoted.
> > Reference Einstein 1913a, as quoted by JT, is given in the MTW
> > bibliography as:
>
> > Einstein, A., 1913a "Zum gegenwartigen Stand des Gravitationsproblems"
> > Phys. Z. 14, 1249-1262, discussion 1262-1266.
>
> I couldn't find this source online. I'd have to go to the library and
> look for it in printed form, but I'm not sure whether it's worth the
> effort since in 1913 Einstein had not found the full solution for the
> "problems concerning gravitation", which meant nothing else than to find
> a relativistic theory of gravitation, which finally lead to General
> Relavity in 1915/16.
See also my response of today to Phillip Helbig.
Any ideas on how you specifically say the vector not scalar meaning of
geschwindigkeit, in German?
[Let me take the liberty to post a brief response here. Normally,
"Geschwindigkeit" is used for both, though in a non-physics context most
people think of it as "speed", while in a physics context it is
essentially "velocity". If one wanted to emphasize the speed meaning in
a physics context, one would say "Betrag der Geschwindigkeit" ("Betrag"
is also used for "absolute value" in a mathematical sense; colloquially
it means "amount"). My feeling, though, is that this distinction is a
red herring and there is no mis-translation involved. I have MTW, but
since the passage is there only in translation that is of no help.
--P.H.]
wrote:
> On 27/03/12 22:53, Chalky wrote:
>
> >> A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
>
> In this book I couldn't find about this debate. I'm not sure, what you
> cite then in the subject line of this thread...
That was my mistake, I did not correctly recall the source that MTW
>
> >> A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
>
> In this book I couldn't find about this debate. I'm not sure, what you
> cite then in the subject line of this thread...
quoted.
> > Reference Einstein 1913a, as quoted by JT, is given in the MTW
> > bibliography as:
>
> > Einstein, A., 1913a "Zum gegenwartigen Stand des Gravitationsproblems"
> > Phys. Z. 14, 1249-1262, discussion 1262-1266.
>
> I couldn't find this source online. I'd have to go to the library and
> look for it in printed form, but I'm not sure whether it's worth the
> effort since in 1913 Einstein had not found the full solution for the
> "problems concerning gravitation", which meant nothing else than to find
> a relativistic theory of gravitation, which finally lead to General
> Relavity in 1915/16.
Any ideas on how you specifically say the vector not scalar meaning of
geschwindigkeit, in German?
[Let me take the liberty to post a brief response here. Normally,
"Geschwindigkeit" is used for both, though in a non-physics context most
people think of it as "speed", while in a physics context it is
essentially "velocity". If one wanted to emphasize the speed meaning in
a physics context, one would say "Betrag der Geschwindigkeit" ("Betrag"
is also used for "absolute value" in a mathematical sense; colloquially
it means "amount"). My feeling, though, is that this distinction is a
red herring and there is no mis-translation involved. I have MTW, but
since the passage is there only in translation that is of no help.
--P.H.]
Chalky
Mar 29, 2012, 7:51:41 AM3/29/12
to
On Mar 29, 4:18 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
in
1) Einstein, A., 1913 "Zum gegenwartigen Stand des
Gravitationsproblems"
Phys. Z. 14, discussion p 1262-1266.
is probably too obscure to have been uploaded.
Similarly for Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, 1972, GRAVITATION,
(Freeman, San Francisco),
(where the relevant passage was given in English translation on p
943.)
This is also unlikely to be on the net both because the book is 1,279
pages long, and because it is still copyright protected.
However, I will be asking at my nearest library on Friday, about
ordering a photocopy of ref 1), from the British Lending Library.
This is likely to take ~ 2-3 weeks to arrive, if, indeed, they have a
copy or can get one from the British Museum, or most appropriate
German library.
Presumably, I should then be able to locate the names Born & Einstein,
in association with the word Geschwindigkeit, in the original
documentation.
undress to reply) wrote:
> > However, this question can only be rigorously answered by someone
> > reasonably fluent in German, who can be bothered to read the original
> > discussion in the original language.
>
> I'm fluent in both German and English. If you can point me to the
> original and the translation(s) I can have a look. I have several books
> on Einstein and his work, in English and German (originals in both
> cases; no translations) but I don't recall this passage being quoted.
> It would be much faster if you could send me a link to something I can
> read on the web.
I doubt that either can be found on the web. The original discussion,
> > However, this question can only be rigorously answered by someone
> > reasonably fluent in German, who can be bothered to read the original
> > discussion in the original language.
>
> I'm fluent in both German and English. If you can point me to the
> original and the translation(s) I can have a look. I have several books
> on Einstein and his work, in English and German (originals in both
> cases; no translations) but I don't recall this passage being quoted.
> It would be much faster if you could send me a link to something I can
> read on the web.
in
1) Einstein, A., 1913 "Zum gegenwartigen Stand des
Gravitationsproblems"
Phys. Z. 14, discussion p 1262-1266.
is probably too obscure to have been uploaded.
Similarly for Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, 1972, GRAVITATION,
(Freeman, San Francisco),
(where the relevant passage was given in English translation on p
943.)
This is also unlikely to be on the net both because the book is 1,279
pages long, and because it is still copyright protected.
However, I will be asking at my nearest library on Friday, about
ordering a photocopy of ref 1), from the British Lending Library.
This is likely to take ~ 2-3 weeks to arrive, if, indeed, they have a
copy or can get one from the British Museum, or most appropriate
German library.
Presumably, I should then be able to locate the names Born & Einstein,
in association with the word Geschwindigkeit, in the original
documentation.
Chalky
Apr 15, 2012, 5:49:02 PM4/15/12
to
On Mar 29, 12:51 pm, Phillip Helbig wrote:
> [Let me take the liberty to post a brief response here. Normally,
> "Geschwindigkeit" is used for both, though in a non-physics context most
> people think of it as "speed", while in a physics context it is
> essentially "velocity". If one wanted to emphasize the speed meaning in
> a physics context, one would say "Betrag der Geschwindigkeit" ("Betrag"
> is also used for "absolute value" in a mathematical sense; colloquially
> it means "amount"). My feeling, though, is that this distinction is a
> red herring and there is no mis-translation involved. I have MTW, but
> since the passage is there only in translation that is of no help.
> --P.H.]
A copy of Zum gegenwartigen stand des gravitations problems is now
> [Let me take the liberty to post a brief response here. Normally,
> "Geschwindigkeit" is used for both, though in a non-physics context most
> people think of it as "speed", while in a physics context it is
> essentially "velocity". If one wanted to emphasize the speed meaning in
> a physics context, one would say "Betrag der Geschwindigkeit" ("Betrag"
> is also used for "absolute value" in a mathematical sense; colloquially
> it means "amount"). My feeling, though, is that this distinction is a
> red herring and there is no mis-translation involved. I have MTW, but
> since the passage is there only in translation that is of no help.
> --P.H.]
available for me to pick up at my nearest public library, when it is
open again.
Hopefully, I should be able to locate the relevant passage without too
much difficulty, and post it here shortly.
Chalky
Apr 16, 2012, 8:07:34 AM4/16/12
to
On Mar 29, 12:51=A0pm, Chalky <chalkys...@bleachboys.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:20 am, Hendrik van Hees <h...@fias.uni-frankfurt.de>
> wrote:
>
> > On 27/03/12 22:53, Chalky wrote:
>
> > >> A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
>
> > In this book I couldn't find about this debate. I'm not sure, what you
> > cite then in the subject line of this thread...
>
> That was my mistake, I did not correctly recall the source that MTW
> quoted.
>
> > > Reference Einstein 1913a, as quoted by JT, is given in the MTW
> > > bibliography as:
>
> > > Einstein, A., 1913a "Zum gegenwartigen Stand des Gravitationsproblems=
> On Mar 29, 4:20 am, Hendrik van Hees <h...@fias.uni-frankfurt.de>
> wrote:
>
> > On 27/03/12 22:53, Chalky wrote:
>
> > >> A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein - Philosopher-Scientist
>
> > In this book I couldn't find about this debate. I'm not sure, what you
> > cite then in the subject line of this thread...
>
> That was my mistake, I did not correctly recall the source that MTW
> quoted.
>
> > > Reference Einstein 1913a, as quoted by JT, is given in the MTW
> > > bibliography as:
>
"
> > > Phys. Z. 14, 1249-1262, discussion 1262-1266.
>
> > I couldn't find this source online. I'd have to go to the library and
> > look for it in printed form, but I'm not sure whether it's worth the
> > effort since in 1913 Einstein had not found the full solution for the
> > "problems concerning gravitation", which meant nothing else than to fin=
> > > Phys. Z. 14, 1249-1262, discussion 1262-1266.
>
> > I couldn't find this source online. I'd have to go to the library and
> > look for it in printed form, but I'm not sure whether it's worth the
> > effort since in 1913 Einstein had not found the full solution for the
d
> > a relativistic theory of gravitation, which finally lead to General
> > Relavity in 1915/16.
>
> See also my response of today to Phillip Helbig.
>
> Any ideas on how you specifically say the vector not scalar meaning of
> geschwindigkeit, in German?
>
> [Let me take the liberty to post a brief response here. =A0Normally,
> > a relativistic theory of gravitation, which finally lead to General
> > Relavity in 1915/16.
>
> See also my response of today to Phillip Helbig.
>
> Any ideas on how you specifically say the vector not scalar meaning of
> geschwindigkeit, in German?
>
> "Geschwindigkeit" is used for both, though in a non-physics context most
> people think of it as "speed", while in a physics context it is
> essentially "velocity". =A0If one wanted to emphasize the speed meaning i=
> people think of it as "speed", while in a physics context it is
n
> a physics context, one would say "Betrag der Geschwindigkeit" ("Betrag"
> is also used for "absolute value" in a mathematical sense; colloquially
> it means "amount").
Ignoring Umlauts, and interpreting "almost Greek beta" as "ss",
> a physics context, one would say "Betrag der Geschwindigkeit" ("Betrag"
> is also used for "absolute value" in a mathematical sense; colloquially
> it means "amount").
relevant part of original reads:
Born: Ich mochte eine Frage an Hern Einstein richten, namlich, wie
rasch die Gravitationswirkung nach Ihrer Theorie sich ausbreitet. Dass
es mit Lichtgeschwindigkeit geschieht, leuchtet mir nicht ein, es muss
ein sehr komplizierter Zusammenhang sein.
Einstein: Es ist ausserordentlich einfach, die Gleichungen
hinzuschreiben fur den Fall, dass die Stornungen, die man in das Feld
hineinsetzt, unendlich klien sind. Dann unterscheiden sich die g nur
um unendlich wenig von denen, die ohne jene Storung vorhanden waren;
die Storungen pflnzen sich dann mit derselben Geschwindigkeit fort wie
das Light.
=============== Moderator's note ===================================
I take the oportunity to just provide an as literal translation into
English as I'm able to give. It's not very spectacular, anyway:
Born: I'd like to pose a question to Mr. Einstein, namely, how fast
gravitation propagates according to your theory. It does not make sense
to me that this should happen with the speed of light; it should be a
very complicated relation.
Einstein: It is very simple to write down the equation for the case that
the perturbations of the field are infinitesimally small. Then the g
[i.e., the components of the metric tensor, HvH.] deviate only
infinitesimally from those that are there [i.e., the Minkowski metric,
HvH.] without any perturbation; then the perturbations propagate with
the same speed as light.
HvH.
===================================================================
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 16, 2012, 4:06:38 PM4/16/12
to
In article
<684a28ca-0b14-4c5b...@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
What is the reason why you think that there is some problem with the
translation?
<684a28ca-0b14-4c5b...@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Chalky <chalk...@bleachboys.co.uk> writes:
> Born: Ich mochte eine Frage an Hern Einstein richten, namlich, wie
> rasch die Gravitationswirkung nach Ihrer Theorie sich ausbreitet. Dass
> es mit Lichtgeschwindigkeit geschieht, leuchtet mir nicht ein, es muss
> ein sehr komplizierter Zusammenhang sein.
>
> Einstein: Es ist ausserordentlich einfach, die Gleichungen
> hinzuschreiben fur den Fall, dass die Stornungen, die man in das Feld
> hineinsetzt, unendlich klien sind. Dann unterscheiden sich die g nur
> um unendlich wenig von denen, die ohne jene Storung vorhanden waren;
> die Storungen pflnzen sich dann mit derselben Geschwindigkeit fort wie
> das Light.
I don't see any indication at all that anything was lost in translation.
> Born: Ich mochte eine Frage an Hern Einstein richten, namlich, wie
> rasch die Gravitationswirkung nach Ihrer Theorie sich ausbreitet. Dass
> es mit Lichtgeschwindigkeit geschieht, leuchtet mir nicht ein, es muss
> ein sehr komplizierter Zusammenhang sein.
>
> Einstein: Es ist ausserordentlich einfach, die Gleichungen
> hinzuschreiben fur den Fall, dass die Stornungen, die man in das Feld
> hineinsetzt, unendlich klien sind. Dann unterscheiden sich die g nur
> um unendlich wenig von denen, die ohne jene Storung vorhanden waren;
> die Storungen pflnzen sich dann mit derselben Geschwindigkeit fort wie
> das Light.
What is the reason why you think that there is some problem with the
translation?
Chalky
Apr 17, 2012, 6:25:08 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 16, 9:06 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
yesterday. My own basic education in (British English) mathematical
physics made the distinction between speed and velocity very clear to
me. Speed is a scalar, having magnitude only, and velocity is a vector,
having magnitude and direction. It thus looked to me like Born asked
about apples, and Einstein answered about oranges.
Although my own German is very poor, now that the original German is
available, and with the aid of an online dictionary, even I can see
(today) that Born asked about how quickly (rasch) gravity spreads out /
extends (ausbreitet). He said that the statement that it travels with
light speed (Lichtgeschwindigkeit) does not clarify it to him.
The compound word Lichtgeschwindigkeit seems significant here, as it,
presumably, already means the constant of nature, c, as well as the
speed of light, thus making it clear to the translator that speed not
velocity of light is meant.
It also now seems from context, that Einstein HAD used the word
Lichtgeschwindigkeit in the preceding lecture.
I also now have the whole of that lecture in the original German, but
wading through that is a bit like wading through double Dutch to me.
However, it appears to me from the formulae published, that Einstein
was, at that time, still using the flat spacetime Minkowski metric,
which seems to imply he was still investigating gravity mocked up by
acceleration.
Given that, I am inclined to side with Born in this debate.
undress to reply) wrote:
> I don't see any indication at all that anything was lost in translation.
>
> What is the reason why you think that there is some problem with the
> translation?
I, like you, only had the English translation of this conversation until
> I don't see any indication at all that anything was lost in translation.
>
> What is the reason why you think that there is some problem with the
> translation?
yesterday. My own basic education in (British English) mathematical
physics made the distinction between speed and velocity very clear to
me. Speed is a scalar, having magnitude only, and velocity is a vector,
having magnitude and direction. It thus looked to me like Born asked
about apples, and Einstein answered about oranges.
Although my own German is very poor, now that the original German is
available, and with the aid of an online dictionary, even I can see
(today) that Born asked about how quickly (rasch) gravity spreads out /
extends (ausbreitet). He said that the statement that it travels with
light speed (Lichtgeschwindigkeit) does not clarify it to him.
The compound word Lichtgeschwindigkeit seems significant here, as it,
presumably, already means the constant of nature, c, as well as the
speed of light, thus making it clear to the translator that speed not
velocity of light is meant.
It also now seems from context, that Einstein HAD used the word
Lichtgeschwindigkeit in the preceding lecture.
I also now have the whole of that lecture in the original German, but
wading through that is a bit like wading through double Dutch to me.
However, it appears to me from the formulae published, that Einstein
was, at that time, still using the flat spacetime Minkowski metric,
which seems to imply he was still investigating gravity mocked up by
acceleration.
Given that, I am inclined to side with Born in this debate.
harald
Apr 17, 2012, 10:03:04 PM4/17/12
to
"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote
in message news:jmhtqn$q7s$3...@online.de...
The problem was not that something was *lost* in translation, but that a
wrong suggestion was *added*: the translation suggests that Einstein used a
different word than Bohr, which readers could interpret as a correction in
formulation by Einstein - but that's all wrong.
in message news:jmhtqn$q7s$3...@online.de...
wrong suggestion was *added*: the translation suggests that Einstein used a
different word than Bohr, which readers could interpret as a correction in
formulation by Einstein - but that's all wrong.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Apr 17, 2012, 10:04:18 PM4/17/12
to
In article
<99ee7061-d72d-4c75...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Chalky <chalk...@bleachboys.co.uk> writes:
> On Apr 16, 9:06 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
exchange the terms in casual conversation. The use of the word "rasch"
indicates a more informal conversation.
> It thus looked to me like Born asked
> about apples, and Einstein answered about oranges.
That's not the way I see it.
> Although my own German is very poor, now that the original German is
> available, and with the aid of an online dictionary, even I can see
> (today) that Born asked about how quickly (rasch) gravity spreads out /
> extends (ausbreitet).
I would say "propagates".
> He said that the statement that it travels with
> light speed (Lichtgeschwindigkeit) does not clarify it to him.
Yes, but because it wasn't obvious to him how this is derived. It has
nothing to do with the word "Geschwindigkeit" (which is commonly used
for both speed and velocity; again, if one really means just the speed,
and this is important, one would say "Betrag der Geschwindigkeit").
Thus Einstein's statement that it is easy to derive in a certain
approximation (which is not to say that it doesn't hold if this
approximation is not valid).
> The compound word Lichtgeschwindigkeit seems significant here, as it,
> presumably, already means the constant of nature, c, as well as the
> speed of light, thus making it clear to the translator that speed not
> velocity of light is meant.
I don't follow this at all. (I'm usually not in favour of trotting out
qualifications in a usenet discussion, but my native language is
English, which has always been actively used, especially in a scientific
context, and I have lived in Germany for almost 30 years, so that my
German is essentially as good as my English, and I studied physics in
German (in Hamburg). I have also done a lot of free-lance work
involving scientific and technical translations. If there were an issue
here, I'm pretty sure I would see it.) "Lichtgeschwindigkeit" is the
"speed of light", as in the constant of nature usually written "c". In
this context, one says "Lichtgeschwindigkeit" and not "Betrag der
Lichtgeschwindigkeit" since it is clear to everyone what is meant. I'm
not sure what should be clear to the translator. Born wanted to know if
the speed of light and the speed of gravity are the same and Einstein
said yes.
You seem to think that someone involved wanted to imply that the speed
is the same but that the direction is different or something like that.
If not, please explain what, exactly, you think the issue is and why you
think it is important.
> It also now seems from context, that Einstein HAD used the word
> Lichtgeschwindigkeit in the preceding lecture.
Anything else would be unnatural.
> However, it appears to me from the formulae published, that Einstein
> was, at that time, still using the flat spacetime Minkowski metric,
> which seems to imply he was still investigating gravity mocked up by
> acceleration.
That might be, but I don't think it has anything to do with the
questions you raise.
> Given that, I am inclined to side with Born in this debate.
Can you state what you think the positions of Born and Einstein are?
<99ee7061-d72d-4c75...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Chalky <chalk...@bleachboys.co.uk> writes:
> On Apr 16, 9:06 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
> undress to reply) wrote:
>
> > I don't see any indication at all that anything was lost in translation.
> >
> > What is the reason why you think that there is some problem with the
> > translation?
>
>
> > I don't see any indication at all that anything was lost in translation.
> >
> > What is the reason why you think that there is some problem with the
> > translation?
>
> I, like you, only had the English translation of this conversation until
> yesterday. My own basic education in (British English) mathematical
> physics made the distinction between speed and velocity very clear to
> me. Speed is a scalar, having magnitude only, and velocity is a vector,
> having magnitude and direction.
Yes, this is often the way things are defined, but even scientists will
> yesterday. My own basic education in (British English) mathematical
> physics made the distinction between speed and velocity very clear to
> me. Speed is a scalar, having magnitude only, and velocity is a vector,
> having magnitude and direction.
exchange the terms in casual conversation. The use of the word "rasch"
indicates a more informal conversation.
> It thus looked to me like Born asked
> about apples, and Einstein answered about oranges.
> Although my own German is very poor, now that the original German is
> available, and with the aid of an online dictionary, even I can see
> (today) that Born asked about how quickly (rasch) gravity spreads out /
> extends (ausbreitet).
> He said that the statement that it travels with
> light speed (Lichtgeschwindigkeit) does not clarify it to him.
nothing to do with the word "Geschwindigkeit" (which is commonly used
for both speed and velocity; again, if one really means just the speed,
and this is important, one would say "Betrag der Geschwindigkeit").
Thus Einstein's statement that it is easy to derive in a certain
approximation (which is not to say that it doesn't hold if this
approximation is not valid).
> The compound word Lichtgeschwindigkeit seems significant here, as it,
> presumably, already means the constant of nature, c, as well as the
> speed of light, thus making it clear to the translator that speed not
> velocity of light is meant.
qualifications in a usenet discussion, but my native language is
English, which has always been actively used, especially in a scientific
context, and I have lived in Germany for almost 30 years, so that my
German is essentially as good as my English, and I studied physics in
German (in Hamburg). I have also done a lot of free-lance work
involving scientific and technical translations. If there were an issue
here, I'm pretty sure I would see it.) "Lichtgeschwindigkeit" is the
"speed of light", as in the constant of nature usually written "c". In
this context, one says "Lichtgeschwindigkeit" and not "Betrag der
Lichtgeschwindigkeit" since it is clear to everyone what is meant. I'm
not sure what should be clear to the translator. Born wanted to know if
the speed of light and the speed of gravity are the same and Einstein
said yes.
You seem to think that someone involved wanted to imply that the speed
is the same but that the direction is different or something like that.
If not, please explain what, exactly, you think the issue is and why you
think it is important.
> It also now seems from context, that Einstein HAD used the word
> Lichtgeschwindigkeit in the preceding lecture.
> However, it appears to me from the formulae published, that Einstein
> was, at that time, still using the flat spacetime Minkowski metric,
> which seems to imply he was still investigating gravity mocked up by
> acceleration.
questions you raise.
> Given that, I am inclined to side with Born in this debate.
0 new messages