E = mc^2 is Not Einstein's Discovery?

  • Thread starter vincentm
  • Start date
  • #26
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Juan R. said:
The web site

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.co...ity-theory.html [Broken])

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).
By separating out the last line you make it seem unrelated to the first. Here is the papragraph as it appears on your site.

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).

Now any fair minded person would, I think, conclude that you are offering [12] as an original copy of a document containing Hilbert's discovery of the Bianchi identities. I chose not to go to your secondary author citation [11], but to your apparent original document citation [12]. But I found it's just a screed opposing the Corry, Renn, and Stachel interpretation of the proofsheet.


Reference [11] is at http://arxiv.org/physics/0405075 [Broken]. It is another of those papers I mentioned where modern students of GR use their familiar knowledge and understanding to infer what Hilbert COULD have done, and then state the because he was a great mathematician he MUST HAVE done that. Here is an example of their reasoning:

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.
Trivial to a student who has learned it in school, maybe not so trivial to even the greatest of mathematicians who is hot on the trail of something in particular and by that very fact will impatiently discard any "irrelevant" ideas that may pass through his head.

I repeat that I do not respect these modern day recalculations as evidence. The facts on the ground are that in the December 1915 proof sheet, damaged as it is, Hilbert says he believes the equations need to be in form (2), that is with four extra equations and not generally covariant, and by the time the paper is published in January 1916 that belief has been erased, and the equations as presented there agree with the equations Einstein obtained in November, and mailed to Hilbert.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
1,842
210
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.
 
  • #28
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
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.

Well he's right in a way. I'm ravenous for accuracy and hungry for facts. :rofl:
 
  • #29
918
16
Juan, you quoted Poincare as follows:

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.
I assume you meant to show that Einstein had taken his second postulate from Poincare. However, this is not Einstein's second postulate. Einstein's second postulate says that the speed of light is the same to all inertial observers. Can you clarify for me what you mean?

As for Einstein's first postulate, I had understood that it was first proposed by Galileo. Am I wrong?
 
  • #30
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Although "informative", this thread has spiraled out of control into a cloud of accusations and insults. Enough is enough.
 

Related Threads on E = mc^2 is Not Einstein's Discovery?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
902
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
39K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
482
Top