Henri Poincaré: The Real Discoverer of Special Relativity

[russ_watters]

Yah, this has devolved into pretty mediocre conspiracy theory.

 

[Juan R.]

This has really turned into Theory Development, and probably should be shifted there. Presumably, the same posting rules apply to the history of SR as to SR itself. Little of what is being quoted here is mainstream scientific history. Even the title of this thread presupposes that Poincare is the actual discoverer of SR, a theory that I reject.

Note for administrator. I unlike that this threat was posted on this forum. To say that recent historical research on relativistic theory may be posted on "Scepticism and debunking" is simply an insult for a historian of science.

Of course, Einstein is a myth and would be conserved by physicists. All atempts to rewrite Einstein portrait will be considered a direct offense to physics comunity, but historians may do their work, write history and justice the work of honest scientists.

Fortunately, some valiant physicists do not think so. Hawking and Born said that Einstein was a excellent plagiarist. Born admitted that the style of publication of Einstein (paper with zero references) offers the wrong idea of that work is original when all formulas were copied.

Hawking said that none of Einstein formulas was of them and offers and list of people that did them.

Dr Chinese, your "Little of what is being quoted here is mainstream scientific history." is completely false. All i say is historical modern research. For example, the discovering of that Einstein proof of E=mc^2 is wrong (i.e. he only could copy the formula from other) was given in 1952. Paper by Hilbert was rediscovered very recently (1994?), etc.

All of this is standard in historical literature (Note: the history introductory chapter in a book of physics or a presentation speech cannot be considered real references in a historical research).

Take the second volume of standard Whittaker work, the title of chapter 2 is The relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz. Almost all of respected historians, many scientists (W.W. etc.) know that SR is not from Einstein.

Einstein did no significant contribution (no formula, no principle...), just copy without aknowledgement the work of others and assembly.

 

[Juan R.]

Is the article you're talking about discussing the same evidence that's discussed here?

http://www.tau.ac.il/taunews/97winter/einstein.html Another story on this here:

http://augustachronicle.com/stories/111997/tech_einstein.html

Also, I don't think Hilbert ever claimed that Einstein plagiarized from him, maybe just that he had derived the equations independently. In this thread on sci.math, a poster writes: And in this sci.physics thread, someone quotes a paper by Hilbert showing clearly that he did not claim Einstein plagiarized the theory of general relativity from him:

Well, it is all the contrary. The "tau.ac" page that you cites refer to article published in Science (i cited above) and wrote by physicists claiming that controversy was solved. That article has been strongly critiqued by historians (e.g. in article i cited) as completely false and manipulating data.

Hilbert submited his work with correct equations of GR the 20 Nov, whereas Einstein did the 25. Moreover it has been show that Einstein was not sincere. In a letter to Hilbert says that Hilbert paper (Einstein received a copy) contains the same equations that he obtained by his own methods weeks ago, but

i) He does not submited until 5 days after Hilbert.

ii) Einstein was dishonest with Hilbert since it is false that weeks ago he had got the correct equations. Just some days before receive paper by Hilbert, Einstein submited two papers with the wrong equations (4 and 11 of Nov).

iii) It was shown that Einstein was working in the wrong equations during many time, and just when received the proof by Hilbert then in only 5 days obtained the correct equations.


Moreover recent article (2004) that i cited include a serious study of Hilbert manuscript found. It is curious that original manuscript has been mutiladed, cutting parts of it that prove that was Hilbert who discovered GR. Still historians studied the proof and the cut offs of relevant equations (it is proved that were done recently on the reading room) and proved that Hilbert obtained correct equations.

The idea of that correct equation was inserted on Hilbert paper after 6 dic (claimed in links that you provide and citing the wrong Science article) is completely false. There is a letter of Nov 18 of Einstein to Hilbert where Einstein recognize that Hilbert had the correct equations in the proof that sent to Einstein. It is the same letter where Eintein said that he also obtained the correct equations weeks ago, but just some days ago he has submited a paper containing still the wrong equations.

Hilbert does not claimed plagiarism by Einstein because Einstein was very habil when in his letter of Nov 18 said to Hilbert that had got the same equations that Hilbert weeks ago. But Hilbert did not known that only one days ago einsten submited a paper to Prussian Academy containing still the incorrect equations. "Popular version" of history was that Einstein was a genious and Hilbert copied to him, because Hilbert a famous mathematician could not obtain the trace term, but Eintein, the math supergenious, could...

History is inflexible. The same conclusions on primacy of Hilbert and copy of Einstein have been achieved by a number of other very recent historians, including C. J. Bejrknes in his book of 2003. Steven Hawking also has recently claimed that was Hilbert who did the equations of GR.

 

[Juan R.]

I agree. I don't think this is the correct forum for this.

You must be joking. Are you trying to claim that Einstein doesn't deserve credit for general relativity. Saying that Einstein doesn't deserve credit for special relativity is one thing, since so many people had similar ideas around the same time, but no one was close to being on the same page as Einstein when it came to general relativity. It is true that Hilbert published a complete form of general relativity before Einstein, but that was in 1915. Einstein had been struggling since 1907 toward the general theory of relativity, and found all of the key elements alone (well, with the help of Grossman, but Grossman just assisted Einstein; Einstein was undoubtedly the one who made the discoveries). It was Einstein who realized the equivalence of acceleration and gravitation; it was Einstein who realized that bodies in free fall can be considered inertial, but moving along curved spacetime; it was Einstein who realized that the special principle of relativity would have to be replaced with a more general one, and it was Einstein who intuitively realized that Euclidean geometry had to be replaced by the new geometries Grossman told him about. In 1914 and 1915 (7 years after Einstein realized the equivalence principle.. 2 years after Einstein began solely working on the problem of gravitation), Hilbert read the papers Einstein was publishing and became fascinated. In June of 1915, Hilbert invited Einstein to Gottingen, where Einstein lectured Hilbert and his colleagues on his recent discoveries. And in November of that same year, Hilbert presented a complete form of the general relativity laws, just five days before Einstein. Saying that Hilbert should be recognized as the father of general relativity is quite cruel. Einstein made the intuitive discoveries and took the theory to the next to last step; Hilbert just filled in the last piece of the puzzle. As Kip Thorne writes, "Quite naturally, and in accord with Hilbert's own view of things, the resulting law of warpage was quickly given the name Einstein field equation, rather than being named after Hilbert."

People here called last historical research: Conspiracy. What is surprising!

Imagine that all you say is correct. I see a problem here: double criterion. Einstein copying all formulas and principles of others is considered father of SR, but Hilbert copying (is a supposition see below) work of Einstein and obtaining correct field equations is not the father of GR!

But again Einstein was not original.

I am only saying what is the last status of history of science in relativity. You would be no hungry by that. No, i am not joking, and people pro Einstein is not joking, this is the reason that Hilbert proof has been mutilated and equations cut off. Historians have shown that cut off was done "with the intent to erase the long held view that Hilbert had the correct final forms of the field equations before Einstein."

It is very cruel that if Hilbert had the correct field equations, was claimed not only that were obtained by Einstein if not also that Hilbert copied to him. That is really very, very cruel: from pionner to plagiarist.

I said not that Einstein doesn't deserve SOME credit for general relativity.

You claim that Einstein found all the elements of GR. The only important contribution to GR that I know from real history (not textbooks written by physicists) is his proposal of that gravitational "field" may be repesented by a 10 component tensor on a curved spacetime.

The equivalence of acceleration and gravitation is not original of Einstein. Einstein copied from an early memorie by Planck (Berl. Sitz. 13 June 1907) interpreting Eötvös experiment.

The idea of geodesic motion was copied from an early paper by Harry Bateman of 1909. Posteriorly Einstein and Grossmann substituted the lorentian element of line used by Bateman by the full 10-components metric (g). That was the great contribution of Einstein (assisted by Grossmann) as said above.

The idea of gravity as diferent of a force was also known. Decades ago FiztGerald had said that gravity was not a standard force, just change of structure of aether in presence of matter. Einstein changed "aether" by spacetime and "structure" by curvature.

The idea of motion in a curved spacetime is from Einstein, Laue, and Whittaker. I don't know priorities here.

Yes, Hilbert become interested in the problem after of Einstein talks, but that is not priority. I was interested in the problem of arrow of time after of read Prigogine work but my research is not based in his work.

Hilbert obtained GR field equations from a unified theory (contained electromagnetism) based in Mie axioms (who Einstein newer cited).

Hilbert wrote in his paper

In the following I want . . . to establish . . . a
new system of fundamental equations of physics.
. . .my fundamental equations . . .my theory. . .

The first def. of energy momentum tensor is also from Hilbert.

Pais book (official bible of old Einstein biography) has been shown to be wrong in a number of crucial aspects. for example that Hilbert knew the bianchi dentity (derived in 1915) before Einstein and even before Weyl. Pais book is wrong.

You also appear to forget the paper of Einstein in his initial theory of gravitation of 1912, which is based in aceleration of particle is minus the gradient of c!

Curiosly a controversy with Abraham followed then with Abraham who had a similar theory.

As explained Hilbert agree the prioriti of Einstein because Einstein said not the true to Hilbert in his letter of Nov 18, and hilbert thought that Einstein had obtained correct equations prior to him. When it has been shown that was false that weeks ago Einstein had the correct equation because there is a paper of few days ago with the incorrect equations.

Note that i am citing very recent research articles (2004) on history with novel material.

 

[Juan R.]

Some correspondence Einstein-Hilbert

From Einstein to Hilbert. Berlin, 7 November 1915 (Before Einstein Talks on Göttingen)

Highly esteemed Colleague,

With return post I am sending you the correction to a paper in which I
changed the gravitational equations, after having myself noticed about 4 weeks ago that my method of proof was a fallacious one. My colleague Sommerfeld wrote that you also have found a hair in my soup that has spoiled it entirely for you. I am curious whether you will take kindly to this new solution.

With cordial greetings, yours

When may I expect the mechanics and history week to take place in
Göttingen? I am looking forward to it very much.

From Hilbert to Einstein. Göttingen, 13 November 1915

Dear Collegue,

Actually, I first wanted to think of a very palpable application for physicists,
namely reliable relations between the physical constants, before obliging
with my axiomatic solution to your great problem. But since you are so interested, I would like to lay out my theory in very complete detail on the coming Tuesday, that is, the day after the day after tomorrow (the 16th of this mo.).

I find it ideally handsome mathematically and absolutely compelling according
to axiomatic method, even to the extent that not quite transparent calculations do not occur at all and therefore rely on its factuality. As a result
of gen. math. law, the (generalized Maxwellian) electrody. eqs. as a math.
consequence of the gravitation eqs., such that gravitation and electrodynamics are actually nothing different at all. Furthermore, my energy concept forms the basis: E = [equation], which is likewise a general invariant, and from this then also follow from a very simple axiom the 4 missing “space-time equations” [equation] = 0. I derived most pleasure in the discovery already duscussed with Sommerfeld that normal electrical energy results when a specific absolute invariant is differentiated from the gravitation potentials and then g is set = 0.1.

My request is thus to come for Tuesday. You can arrive at 3 or 1/2 past 5. The Math. Soc. meets at 6 o’clock in the auditorium building.My wife and I would be very pleased if you stayed with us. It would be better still if you came already on Monday, since we have the phys. colloquium on Monday, 6 o’clock, at the phys. institute. With all good wishes and in the hope of soon meeting again, yours,

Hilbert

As far as I understand your new paper, the solution given by you is entirely
different from mine, especially since my [equation] must also necessarily contain the electrical potential.

From Einstein to Hilbert. Berlin, Monday, 15 November 1915

Highly esteemed Colleague,

Your analysis interests me tremendously, especially since I often racked
my brains to construct a bridge between gravitation and electromagnetics.
The hints your give in your postcards awaken the greatest of expectations.
Nevertheless, I must refrain from traveling to Göttingen for the moment
and rather must wait patiently until I can study your system from the printed
article; for I am tired out and plagued with stomach pains besides. If possible,
please send me a correction proof of your study to mitigate my impatience.

With best regards and cordial thanks, also to Mrs. Hilbert, yours

16 November Hilbert presented his formulation of GR of the paper Grundgleichungen der Physik on at the Göttingen Mathematical Society. It was also sent a copy to Einstein. Paper was print on Nov 20.

Einstein to Hilbert. Berlin, 18 November, 1915

Dear Colleague,

The system you furnish agrees — as far as I can see — exactly with
what I found in the last few weeks and have presented to the Academy. The difficulty was not in finding generally covariant equations for the gµν ’s; for this is easily achieved with the aid of Riemann’s tensor. Rather, it was hard to recognize that these equations are a generalization, that is, simple and natural generalization of Newton’s law. It has just been in the last few weeks that I succeeded in this (I sent you my communications), whereas 3 years ago with my friend Grossmann I had already taken into consideration the only possible generally covariant equations, which have now been shown to be the correct ones. We had only heavy-heartedly distanced ourselves from it, because it seemed to me that the physical discussion yielded an incongruency with Newton’s law. The important thing is that the diculties have now been overcome. Today I am presenting to the Academy a paper in which I derive quantitatively out of general relativity, without any guiding hypothesis, the perihelion motion of Mercury discovered by Le Verrier. No gravitation theory had achieved this until now.

yours

However, the bold text in Einstein letter is false because the Nov 4 of 1915 Einstein submited a paper containing the wrong GR equations and after on Nov 11 Einstein submitted again another paper with the incorrect equations to the Prussian Academy. Only after of receiving Hilbert INDEPENDENT paper, Einstein was able to find the correct GR equations and submitted the famous paper of Nov 25.

Each one can interpret this and multiple controversies of Einstein (with other colleagues) in his/her own responsability. I have already presented current status of history of science.

Who want learn history can, who want maintain the myth also can (always that he/she claim that is a "personal" option without historical basis).

 

[Paulanddiw]

Juan R.
I enjoy your stimulating exchange. You mentioned the name "Raguza" in regard to bending of star light. I believe the reference was: "S. Found. Phy. Lett. 1992, 5, 585". I'm having trouble finding it. The abreviation: S. Found. Phy. What does it stand for? I'd appreciate any help you could provide.

Paul D