- #1
vincentm
- 323
- 3
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einx.htm
Last edited:
Who said that?vincentm said:http://www.serve.com/herrmann/einx.htm
Juan R. said:Effectively,
E=mc^2 is not from Einstein. The formula was obtained by several people mainly Poincaré. The special version of relativity is not from Einstein. It is from Poincaré and Lorentz. This is the reason that modern historians provide no credibility to physicists' claim that was Einstein.
Whittaker bible on history already said that Einstein plyed no reole on the formulation of special relativity.
Moreover, it would be highlighted that Einstein famous article of 1905 contains NONE reference to previous work by others, doing Einstein a "plagiarist".
More information on http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
Neopolitan, this kind of data is of course used by people with strange ideas like Dr Hermann but he is providing to you references to work.
It is very easy critique an author instead of the argument of that author. And note that the claim of E=mc^2 is not from Einstein is also supported by physicists like Hawking who said that none of formulas of Albert Einstein is from him. Hawking admits that GR was formulated by Hilbert.
Do you know why Einstein newer received the Nobel Prize for "his" work on special relativity?
selfAdjoint said:This is trashy. Whittaker has no evidence for his claim (I read and studied his book years ago) and he is not regarded as authoritative on this issue. Just quoting some famous name, as you tend to do, without noting their parti pris is not good discourse. Whittaker had professional issues with Eddington and transferred his animus to Einstein. He also, as an expert on partial differential equations, tried to find alternatives to relativity, something I believe you are into too, with your Canonical science.
The issue of Einstein and the discovery have been rehearsed on these boards several times. In brief:
Poincare talked a good game but didn't publish any derivations until after Einstein did.
Lorentz had his transofrmations in the 1890's but didn't think of them as physical. And Lorentz WAS cited by Einstein.
Various people suggested [tex]\frac {1}{\sqrt{1- \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex] in the nineteenth century as an explanation for Michelson Morley but they didn't give any true physical account of where it came from (with a partiial exception for Voigt).
Likewise the expression [tex]e = mc^2[/tex] has been found in a couple of nineteenth century documents, but not AFAIK with any correct physical explanation, whereas Einsten's paper on the subject, also in 1905, was a straight derivation from relativistic premises.
Juan R. said:Yes, Whittaker has evidence, this is the reason that wrote that authoritative standard manual on the history of relativity. Historians agree with him and lot of physicists from Planck to Hawking.
The aim to attack or invalidate to anyone who do not follow the mainstraim but wrong history is irrisorious. Like your claim on canonical science (?)
"Poincare talked a good game but didn't publish any derivations until after Einstein did."
This is completely false. Poincaré published the theory of relativity before Einstein did. Moreover, Einstein said newer read to Poincaré but at least two colleagues said the contrary.
The claim of Lorentz didn't think of them as physical is another of miths. Einstein cited Lorentz as the father of Lorentz transformations but does not cited to Poincaré and did not cite that mass formula was also from Lorentz.
The theory of relativity was completely done by Poincaré. Einstein simply copied. In fact the two postulates of Einstein (1905) are exactly the two postulates of Poincaré (1904), exactly the same!
Einsten's paper on the subject, contain an incorrect derivation of E=mc^2 as noted by Ives, Planck, Stark, and others, which imply that copied the formula.
There is also historical evidence that Einstein copied to Hilbert the equations of GR.
selfAdjoint said:So YOU say. Put up or shut up on Planck and Hawking. Citations and no excuses about you're too busy, when you always seem to have time to tell tall tales.
selfAdjoint said:I don't attack everybody, but I attack people who post phony claims. I don't know what irrisorious means, but just calling names is childish.
selfAdjoint said:Give the citation. What Poincare published BEFORE EINSTEIN was just popscience talk about "physics of the future". That is NOT publishing a theory of relativity. Poincare did eventually do the math of deriving Lorentz's transformations from relativistic postulates but that paper came out AFTER Einstein's.
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 characterized above all by the rule, that no velocity can exceed the velocity of light.
[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.
selfAdjoint said:Your statement about Lorentz disagrees with what serious historians say. Give your citations for this variant. Also show in what paper Lorentz derived the mass formula.
selfAdjoint said:Postulates without deriving consequences do not constitute physics. Poincare's approach to relativity was then and later mathematically oriented (Poincare group) not physical. I repeat, everybody at the time, including Lorentz, saw Einstein's paper as making a new breakthrough.
selfAdjoint said:Give the citations.
selfAdjoint said:Bottom line from careful analysis of the dates and correspondence of the two shows that Einstein finalized his field equations in 1915 before Hilbert got his action, and that Hilbert at that late period wrote to Einstein to request clarification on some points. In any case both theories were incomplete until Noether rediscovered the Bianchi identities.
εllipse said:Hahaha, if Einstein really did copy all these ideas, as Juan is asserting, then you sure have to give him credit for being awesome at judging which ideas to copy! Special relativity remained controversial for decades after it was published; there was no true indication that the experimental evidence would support it in 1905. Many still held to ether theories. Similarly with [tex]E=mc^2[/tex], GR, and his discoveries in quantum mechanics (would you allege Einstein "copied" his QM discoveries as well, Juan?). If Einstein copied these ideas before they were generally accepted and long before they were verified by experiment, one has to conclude that Einstein was the most brilliant copy cat in the history of physics. Furthermore, if he was so into copying, why did he give credit to those who sent him papers that hadn't been published yet? For instance, Kaluza sent Einstein a paper on incorporating EM into GR, and Einstein didn't publish Kaluza's idea as his own, even though since Kaluza's idea hadn't been published yet, that would have been a MUCH better idea to copy than Lorentz and Poincare's.
(?)neopolitan said:Excellent point Ellipse (not in the least because it was one I was also going to make) particularly about the fact that it took quite a while for relativity to gain the wide acceptance it does today.
neopolitan said:Similarly, thanks selfAdjoint, it would have seemed churlish of me to point out to Juan that his canonical science efforts seem to diminish his credibility just as much as Dr. Hermann's beliefs re Intelligent Design. (Anyone in any doubt should attempt to wade through the canonical point of view.)
neopolitan said:What I would like to point out in addition is that, when you read the three page document published by Einstein in 1905 which most closely approaches the E=mc^2 equation (Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy-Content? 27 September 1905, available here), it reads as a curiosity. Einstein certainly does not assume a tone of one big-noting himself, his final comment is quite modest: "If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies."
neopolitan said:Two other points might be salient. First, no amount of hyping of Einstein and his work makes him wrong (it doesn't make him right either, only demonstrable conformance of theory with objective reality does that).
neopolitan said:Second, just because journals are much more stringent today doesn't mean that Einstein was being underhand in his authorship - clearly Annalen der Physik did not require a raft of citations of previous work, otherwise they would not have published.
neopolitan said:In closing, Einstein didn't have to parade around proclaiming himself to be the "father of Relativity", the scientific community as a whole - eventually - did that. And with that, he gets credit not necessarily for writing m = L/c^2 but for leading us towards a physical understanding of the equation.
neopolitan said:Oh, and Juan, Einstein didn't get the Nobel for Special (or General) Relativity because he got the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the photo electric effect in a paper also published in his golden year, 1905. It is said that that work was the beginning of what became quantum theory, check here for a short but interesting article on it.
Professor Planck. The Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded you the Nobel Prize for 1918 in recognition of your epoch-making investigations into the quantum theory.
... a century before Einstein, the great chemist John Dalton had suggested that all chemicals were made of tiny invisible molecules, which in turn were made of even tinier atoms. The problem was that there was no proof of their existence, until Einstein looked into the problem of Brownian motion.
neopolitan said:Juan,
you seem obsessed with denigrating Einstein's efforts, even those for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize - which you seem to think should have been awarded to Planck. Note that Planck was actually awarded the 1918 Nobel Prize for his discovery of "energy quanta", not for what we now call quantum theory, the term used by by the President of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was the quantum theory. It might sound like semantics, but it does make a difference, and Planck's contribution to quantum theory is certainly not in any doubt - see http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1918/press.html for the transcript of Planck's presentation speech and also here and here for historical notes on quantum theory which indicate that the foundations of quantum theory were still being laid in the mid 1920s.
Of course, in this discussion, we are overlooking all the other prizes that Einstein was awarded but that seems to be of little import since I am sure you have arguments as to why he should not have received those accolades either.
Since your objective seems painfully clear, and you do not seem to be swayed at all by credible evidence or patient discussion, I see little point in discussing this issue further and hereby withdraw from this thread.
neopolitan
neopolitan said:Oh, and Juan, Einstein didn't get the Nobel for Special (or General) Relativity because he got the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the photo electric effect in a paper also published in his golden year, 1905. It is said that that work was the beginning of what became quantum theory
Juan R. said:Perhaps are you are thinking on Pais’ “old” biography with some incorrect statements? Perhaps are Corry, Renn, and Stachel serious for you? Or, perhaps, history is a rigid system and when some thing is said, it remains in time forever
Einstein Freed from Charge of Plagiarism
According to the accepted view, the mathematician David Hilbert completed General Relativity five days before Albert Einstein in November 1915. Einstein may thus have copied crucial equations of this theory from Hilbert.
Members of an international research group at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, argue in their study, published in this week's issue of Science, that it was instead Hilbert who appropriated crucial results from Einstein and then published his paper under a misleading dateline.
Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on General Relativity on 25 November 1915. David Hilbert, one of the most eminent mathematicians of the 20th century, published a paper in March 1916 which also contains the correct field equations of General Relativity. Einstein came to know Hilbert's contribution in late November, even before he found his final equations. He immediately claimed that Hilbert had appropriated his results. The dateline of Hilbert's paper, "20 November 1915," however, suggests that it was submitted five days earlier than Einstein's contribution. Did Einstein even copy the correct field equations from Hilbert's paper, as has been argued? This possibility can now definitely be excluded.
The authors of the present paper succeeded in identifying proofs of Hilbert's article that are dated "6 December 1915," that is after the submission of Einstein's conclusive contribution. Their detailed analysis of these proofs has revealed that they contain only an immature version of General Relativity, without the explicit field equations. These equations must have been inserted only later - after 6 December and before the published version appeared in 1916. Hilbert was, so the authors argue, still deeply ingrained in wrong assumptions about the physical meaning of his formalism, asssumptions which Einstein had meanwhile painfully overcome. Einstein can hence definitively be freed from the charge of plagiarism.
Hilbert's contribution, on the other hand, cannot even be considered as an independent alternative discovery of the field equations of General Relativity. Clearly, before he published the final version of his article, he must have seen Einstein's conclusive paper. If Hilbert had only altered the dateline of this paper to the date when he inserted the correct equations into the proofs no later priority discussion could have arisen.
Although disputes about priority and plagiarism can be crucially important to working scientists, they are not necessarily a key issue in the history of science. Historians of science are often less interested in who made an important new discovery but rather in how new insights become possible. In the case of Einstein's and Hilbert's struggle for establishing the field equations of a new, relativistic theory of gravitation the situation is, however, different since the approaches taken by the two scientists were dramatically distinct: Whereas Einstein combined mathematical strategies with a search for physical meaning, Hilbert very much relied on the power of his superior mathematical formalism. Clearly, in this case, the who of the discovery tells indeed much about the how.
Since 1907 Einstein had attempted to carefully reconcile, step by step, tentative mathematical formulations of his heuristic goal to formulate a relativistic theory of gravitation with the then available physical knowledge. Hilbert, on the other hand, had only begun to work on General Relativity in the second half of 1915. He boldly aimed from the beginning at an axiomatic foundation of physics and at a kind of world formula, unifying gravitation with electromagnetism. This approach caused the wrong impression that the field equations of General Relativity could be found by pure mathematical reasoning.
The results reported in the article in Science are an outcome of an international research project dedicated to the history of General Relativity. The project is centered at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin and has produced in the last years several new insights into the development of this theory.
It took eight years after Einstein announced the basic physical ideas behind the
relativistic gravity theory before the proper mathematical formulation of general relativity
was mastered. The efforts of the greatest physicist and of the greatest mathematician of
the time were involved and reached a breathtaking concentration during the last month of
the work.
Recent controversy, raised by a much publicized 1997 reading of Hilbert’s proofsheets
of his article of November 1915, is also discussed.
Hilbert's paper on ``The Foundations of Physics (First Communication),'' is now primarily known for its parallel publication of essentially the same gravitational field equations of general relativity which Einstein published in a note on ``The Field Equations of Gravitation,'' five days later, on November 25, 1915. An intense correspondence between Hilbert and Einstein in the crucial month of November 1915, furthermore, confronts the historian with a case of parallel research and with the associated problem of reconstructing the interaction between Hilbert and Einstein at that time.
Previous assessments of these issues have recently been challenged by Leo Corry, J\"urgen Renn, and John Stachel who draw attention to a hitherto unnoticed first set of proofs for Hilbert's note. These proofs bear a printer's stamp of December 6 and display substantial differences to the published version. By focussing on the consequences of these findings for the reconstruction of Einstein's path towards general relativity, a number of questions about Hilbert's role in the episode, however, are left open. To what extent did Hilbert react to Einstein? What were Hilbert's research concerns in his note, and how did they come to overlap with Einstein's to some extent in the fall of 1915? How did Hilbert and Einstein regard each other and their concurrent activities at the time? What did Hilbert hope to achieve, and what, after all, did he achieve?
With these questions in mind I discuss in this paper Hilbert's first note on the ``Foundations of Physics,'' its prehistory and characteristic features, and, for heuristic purposes, I do so largely from Hilbert's perspective
If Einstein copied these ideas before they were generally accepted and long before they were verified by experiment, one has to conclude that Einstein was the most brilliant copy cat in the history of physics.
selfAdjoint said:No it wasn't Pais.
Yes it was Correy Renn and Stachel, in Science in 1998, as referenced in This statement from the Max Planck Society :
To be fair I looked up a http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0504/0504179.pdf ; from the abstract:
This paper cites an earlier work on Hilbert's December 1915 proof by Tilman Sauer. Fome the abstract of that paper:
Now from a reading of these papers I reach the following conclusions
1) The two men were in close communication, so what one discovered was quickly known to the other, without waiting for publication. This was not a hostile standoff like Newton/Leibniz.
2) Hilbert published a derivation of the field equations from a covariant action a few days before Einstein published his covariant field equations, but analysis of the December 1916 proof sheets of Hilbert's subsequent paper on the subject, Hilbert as late as December did not believe the equations he had derived were complete. Einstein had a few weeks earlier used a noncovariant version of the equations, the entwurf equations, to derive the perihelion motion of Mercury, and he had communicated this result to Hilbert. Hilbert therefore seems to have believed that he had to deform his equations to make them match the entwurf equations, and he introduced an additional four equations in the December proofsheet, for this purpose. So it's hard to give him clean credit for the field equations OR the covariance. On the other hand, Einstein did not derive his equations, and the trace term he inserted, although he had found out how to make it covariant, was unnecessary, due to the Bianchi Identities, which I repeat, neither man was aware of at that moment. I would appreciate your citation for the claim that Hilbert knew the Bianchi Identities early. My statement that Emmy Noether rediscovered them a year or two later is based on an article in Mathematical Intelligencer which is no longer in my possession (I lost some material when I moved three years ago).
The authors of the present paper succeeded in identifying proofs of Hilbert's article that are dated "6 December 1915," that is after the submission of Einstein's conclusive contribution. Their detailed analysis of these proofs has revealed that they contain only an immature version of General Relativity, without the explicit field equations.
ahrkron said:Great post, SelfAdjoint!
I also like the post from ellipse:
If Einstein copied these ideas before they were generally accepted and long before they were verified by experiment, one has to conclude that Einstein was the most brilliant copy cat in the history of physics.
ahrkron said:Also, Neopolitan's first post is a very good point. Juan interpreted it as an 'ad-hominem', but I think it is a very reasonable call.
For my money, anyone who is looking for a General Grand Unified Theory based on Genesis 1-8 is going to have to be selective about what science he will accept and what he will attempt to refute irrespective of the evidence for or against.
ahrkron said:I have read AE's 1905 article, and various works from Poincare. As far as I'm concerned, AE's main contribution (regarding this) is to go from the two postulates all the way to Lorentz Transformations (LT), hence firmly establishing them as a direct consequence from those two simple ideas. Although Poincare mentioned the postulates, and although the LT and other equations were around, he did not establish the connection.
ahrkron said:As for the postulates themselves, I do not think you can reasonable argue that they were "plagiarized". The talk about the aether and the fact that Maxwell's equations are not galilean-invariant were both out in plain sight. When attempting to put together a new dynamics (which, in itself, requires at least a good amount of courage), you had to decide between absolute and relative motion, and whether Maxwell equations (with their prediction of a constant value for c) were to be modified.
Absolute space does not exist. We only perceive relative motions.
Absolute time does not exist.
ahrkron said:The fact that two intelligent men agreed on what assumptions to make is just natural.
ahrkron said:Also, one thing is to mention ideas that seem correct and to say that they should be the basis of things to come (as in your quote from Poincare), and a very different one to actually roll your sleeves and follow through with what they imply. Poincare's work was definitely important, but regarding relativity, it was AE who found how LT arise from seemingly unrelated principles.
For my money, anyone who is looking for a General Grand Unified Theory based on Genesis 1-8 is going to have to be selective about what science he will accept and what he will attempt to refute irrespective of the evidence for or against.
which imply previous censoring of Dr Hermann.
Juan R. said:That you say about Hilbert did not obtained correct equations is not correct. A detailed analisys of article of 1915 shows that Hilbert had obtained the correct field equations of GR. See references cited on my web document.
ahrkron said:Again: you can hardly talk of "plagiarism" related to such well-known possibilities at the time.
If Einstein had aknowledged or cited to Poincaré like the true originator of the postulates of SR, then nobody would use the word. Moreover, he said that newer read Poincaré when did, offering a "proof" that plaguiarized Poincaré relativistic theory.
ahrkron said:Also: I did not said that AE showed ME invariance wrt the LT. I said that his 1905 paper makes a clear link from two very simple (almost common-sense) statements to the LT. This is in itself quite an achievement.
ahrkron said:Should we understand from here that you trust Dr. Hermann's statements about physics issues? What about his Genesis-based attempts at a GUT? What about Intelligent Design? (in support of which he has published a book)
Juan R. said:Neopolitan, this kind of data is of course used by people with strange ideas like Dr Hermann but he is providing to you references to work.
It is very easy critique an author instead of the argument of that author.
selfAdjoint said:Yes he did that, and then in his December 6 proofsheet he claimed that he had to add four equations to what he had published and once again made them not generally covariant. Your attempt, showing an unscholarly animus against Einstein (it is fair for me to say that since you are so free withaccusations of pro-Einstein predjudice) to draw conclusions from the text alone is unhistorical. We have to understand the mind-set of the players. Hilbert in December 1916 was NOT in possession of the full generally covariant theory, to judge by what he wrote in his proofsheet, in spite of the fact that he had indeed published the correct derivation in November.
The full record shows him trying variuos things, trying to include different materials, and not settling down till January 1916. As far as I am concerned it was not a case of who stole from whom but rather that they both discovered the theory by working together.
Your attempt, showing an unscholarly animus against Einstein (it is fair for me to say that since you are so free withaccusations of pro-Einstein predjudice)
This is certainly not correct for the true equations of general relativity, Gµ = Tµ where Gµ := Rµ −R gµ, (1) first reported by Hilbert in his paper submitted (to Nach. Ges. Wiss. G¨ottingen), 20 November 1915. Indeed, Gµ satisfies the Bianchi identities (Gµ ); = 0 in accord with the (covariant) energy momentum conservation law.
Probably, after having Hilbert’s criticism (which has been lost)
Einstein opted on 11 November for the generally covariant equation
On 20 November Hilbert presents to the Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in
G¨ottingen his work. He derives the correct equations from the variational principle assuming
general covariance (we would say today reparametrization invariance) and a second
The fact that Hilbert modified his paper after its submission has been known before: as we noted he had cited all four Einstein’s November papers
and had commented on the last one (submitted after his) in the published version of his November 20 article. The authors strive to attribute a great significance to the fact that the original text only involves the Hilbert action, while the field equations, which are derived from it, appear to be first inserted at the stage of the proofreading. Their attempt to support on this ground Einstein’s accusation of “nostrification” goes much too far.
A direct critical comment on the unfounded accusations in (CRS 97) [the famous article of Science that is completely wrong], finally appears in a more specialized journal (Win 04).
Your attempt, showing an unscholarly animus against Einstein (it is fair for me to say that since you are so free withaccusations of pro-Einstein predjudice)
Juan R. said:You say about Bianchi identy is wrong as already said because Pais book was written before modern data (e.g. the recently dicovered paper by Hilbert). Of course Einstein did not know, but Hilbert did. In fact, it was Hilbert who obtained before Wey in 1917 and used for deriving his field equations of GR in 1915.
And I repeat again, I already talked of that on the web document, including a reference, but your appear to reply my comments witout reading which offers an idea of with is the tone of this post: direct attack to any idea against Einstein myth.
12. Witenberg F. Z. Natursforsch 2004, 59a, 715.
selfAdjoint said:Your citation for the Bianchi claim at your site is
12. Witenberg F. Z. Natursforsch 2004, 59a, 715.
This is a misspelling of Winterberg, as a reference to the Zeitschrift's own site for 2004, http://www.znaturforsch.com/c59a.htm diectly shows (scroll down to page 715). I notice you don't mention the Zeitschrift's retraction notice for this article, on page 1004, which references a response by Corry, Renn, and Stachel.
I was able to obtain a public copy of Professor Winterberg's article from his own site: http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/Hilbert-Einstein.pdf
and have studied it carefully. There is nothing in it about the Bianchi Identities.
Instead it contains a conjectural restoration of the missing part of the proofsheet, from which he infers that Hilbert obtained the correct equations with the trace term. This is possible, but it is, like other similar arguments, strictly modern theorists' guesses from what Hilbert could have done to speculations about what he did. Interesting but not definite. Professor Winterberg then passes to a conspiracy theory that the missing portion of the proofsheet was cut off by someone who wished to deny Hilbert the credit for GR. There is not one speck of evidence even to suggest this wild claim, much less support it. And this claim seems to be the source of assertions you make on your website and have repeated here. They are bunk!
Anybody who wants to check my reasoning can look at the links.
selfAdjoint said:Your citation for the Bianchi claim at your site is
12. Witenberg F. Z. Natursforsch 2004, 59a, 715.
This is a misspelling of Winterberg, as a reference to the Zeitschrift's own site for 2004, http://www.znaturforsch.com/c59a.htm diectly shows (scroll down to page 715). I notice you don't mention the Zeitschrift's retraction notice for this article, on page 1004, which references a response by Corry, Renn, and Stachel.
I was able to obtain a public copy of Professor Winterberg's article from his own site: http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/wint...rt-Einstein.pdf
and have studied it carefully. There is nothing in it about the Bianchi Identities.
As stated by authors of [11] A. Pais was right in that Einstein did not know the Bianchi identity in that crucial November 1915. Concerning Hilbert, Pais is wrong. The matter is that Hilbert did know the Bianchi identity; indeed, Hilbert, one of most brilliant mathematicians, just himself obtained it, such as shows the recently discovered proof of a lost paper of Hilbert in the archives of the Göettingen library
(see for example [12] for reproductions of the original).
Juan R. said:The web site
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.co...ity-theory.html )
exactly says
Quote:
As stated by authors of [11] A. Pais was right in that Einstein did not know the Bianchi identity in that crucial November 1915. Concerning Hilbert, Pais is wrong. The matter is that Hilbert did know the Bianchi identity; indeed, Hilbert, one of most brilliant mathematicians, just himself obtained it, such as shows the recently discovered proof of a lost paper of Hilbert in the archives of the Göettingen library
And after says
Quote:
(see for example [12] for reproductions of the original).
As stated by authors of [11] A. Pais was right in that Einstein did not know the Bianchi identity in that crucial November 1915. Concerning Hilbert, Pais is wrong. The matter is that Hilbert did know the Bianchi identity; indeed, Hilbert, one of most brilliant mathematicians, just himself obtained it, such as shows the recently discovered proof of a lost paper of Hilbert in the archives of the Göettingen library (see for example [12] for reproductions of the original).
But if even everything were so, then at any rate Hilbert needed
nothing to “introduce” in addition because Eq.(2) turns exactly into Eq.(1)
after some quite trivial calculations.
Locrian said:I've actually found this debate to be very informative.
On a side note though, this is the first time I've ever seen one side of a debate call the other "ravenous" and "hungry." I'm really not sure wtf that is supposed to mean here.
Juan R. said: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.
E = mc^2 is the famous equation that represents the relationship between mass, energy, and the speed of light. It states that energy (E) is equal to mass (m) multiplied by the speed of light (c) squared.
While Einstein is often credited with discovering the equation, it was actually first derived by physicist J.J. Thomson in 1881, and later by physicist Henri Poincaré in 1900. Einstein's contribution was in his theory of special relativity, which provided the theoretical framework for understanding the equation.
Einstein's theory of special relativity showed that mass and energy are interchangeable and that the speed of light is a fundamental constant. This led to the understanding that a small amount of mass can contain a large amount of energy, as represented by E = mc^2.
Yes, there are several other equations that are related to E = mc^2, including the mass-energy equivalence equation (E = m0c^2) and the momentum-energy equivalence equation (E = pc).
E = mc^2 has had a significant impact on science and technology, particularly in the fields of nuclear energy and particle physics. It has also played a role in the development of technologies such as nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.