- #26

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 6,786

- 7

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

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:

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.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.

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: