Uncovering the Truth Behind the Founders of Relativity: A Comprehensive Analysis

[harrylin]

Well, there were a number of other physicists that were working in similar directions, since the later 1800s. Indeed, Einstein did not give them any credit in his 1905 OEMB. Yet Einstein developed his theory on a unique foundation, never before done. He obtained Lorentz's transformations and the Fitzgerald's contraction without any need of their own formulations whatsoever. In essense, Einstein's paper validated their formulae, except with a new meaning altogether. It's the meaning that made Einstein's work special, and accepted. Einstein formulated his theory from the relation between 2 arbitrary inertial POVs, whereas everyone else began with an aether frame and then considered POVs that move thru it.

That said, I don't figure Einstein needed to give credit to anyone else. Also, my understanding was that Einstein was unaware of Lorentz's similar 1904 paper, when he published his 1905 OEMB.

GrayGhost

Einstein may very well have seen Poincare's 1905 paper before he submitted his paper. And Einstein's Lorentz transformations have the same operational meaning as those of Poincare.

 

[schonovic]

would the crew of a lightspeed approaching spacecraft "see" the universe's gamma factor increasing and what is to stop that interpretation from being real? if the crew saw the universe as slowing down wouldn't they have violated einstein's rule of nothing exceeding the lightspeed barrier? if the crew saw the the distance to their destination contracting due to its movement relative to lightspeed wouldn't they again be violating the lightspeed restriction? if we see it in the crews point of view the ship is not moving the universe is. what stops that from happening?

 

[Histspec]

Reading this, I tend to agree with the suggestion in this article that if there had ever been a Nobel Prize awarded for special relativity, it should have gone jointly to Lorentz and Einstein.

We shall also look what Lorentz had to say about Poincaré:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Two_Papers_of_Henri_Poincar%C3%A9_on_Mathematical_Physics

On the other hand, in many other papers after 1905, Lorentz didn't mention Poincaré's contribution to relativity, but only referred to Einstein as the founder of the "principle of relativity".

• So we have Lorentz, who attributed relativity to Einstein (and a single time to Poincaré).
• Poincaré, who attributed relativity to Lorentz (while ignoring Einstein).
• Einstein, who attributed relativity to himself and sometimes to Lorentz (while ignoring Poincaré).
• Planck, who attributed relativity to Lorentz and Einstein (while ignoring Poincaré).
• Minkowski, who (on different occasions) attributed relativity to Lorentz, Einstein, Poincaré, Planck - and mostly himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Portal:Relativity

Regards,

 

[harrylin]

We shall also look what Lorentz had to say about Poincaré:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Two_Papers_of_Henri_Poincar%C3%A9_on_Mathematical_Physics

On the other hand, in many other papers after 1905, Lorentz didn't mention Poincaré's contribution to relativity, but only referred to Einstein as the founder of the "principle of relativity".

And as we know, that was not true. His memory problems must have started early.

• So we have Lorentz, who attributed relativity to Einstein (and a single time to Poincaré).
• Poincaré, who attributed relativity to Lorentz (while ignoring Einstein).
• Einstein, who attributed relativity to himself and sometimes to Lorentz (while ignoring Poincaré).
• Planck, who attributed relativity to Lorentz and Einstein (while ignoring Poincaré).
• Minkowski, who (on different occasions) attributed relativity to Lorentz, Einstein, Poincaré, Planck - and mostly himself.

Yes, that sums it up nicely. It's really like a detective...
I have been thinking for some time that someone should make a movie out of it!

 

[JesseM]

*[edit:] Note that Poincare already said in 1900, in the paper cited by Lorentz(1904): "I must explain why I do not believe, in spite of Lorentz, that more exact observations will ever make evident anything else but the relative displacements of material bodies."
That shows that only a few years before Einstein published his paper, Poincare whole-heartedly advocated the relativity principle.
And from Pais we know that Einstein was inspired by Poincare, reading all (or most of) his papers.

But Poincare never wrote down the transformation equation that he expected the laws of physics to be invariant under prior to Lorentz, right? It seems like both Poincare and Einstein were taking Lorentz's work and drawing out certain physical implications that Lorentz himself didn't fully understand or realize the central importance of...I suppose Einstein's approach of starting with the two postulates and deriving everything from that was more clear and compelling to the audience of physicists reading these papers at the time.

 

[harrylin]

But Poincare never wrote down the transformation equation that he expected the laws of physics to be invariant under prior to Lorentz, right? It seems like both Poincare and Einstein were taking Lorentz's work and drawing out certain physical implications that Lorentz himself didn't fully understand or realize the central importance of...I suppose Einstein's approach of starting with the two postulates and deriving everything from that was more clear and compelling to the audience of physicists reading these papers at the time.

I think so too. Poincare was an overly modest mathematician who already died in 1912. There also appears to have been some manipulation against Poincare, for political aims. And Einstein's 1905 paper gives a full overview, it reads a bit like a textbook with a good introduction.

Nevertheless, relativity before GR was regarded as the theory of Einstein and Lorentz. If I understand it correctly, it changed when Eddington's mission brought Einstein fame. From then on people started to talk about "relativity" as meaning GR, and SR was simply perceived as part of Einstein's GR. And Lorentz died in 1928.

 

[PAllen]

I think so too. Poincare was an overly modest mathematician who already died in 1912. There also appears to have been some manipulation against Poincare, for political aims. And Einstein's 1905 paper gives a full overview, it reads a bit like a textbook with a good introduction.

Nevertheless, relativity before GR was regarded as the theory of Einstein and Lorentz. If I understand it correctly, it changed when Eddington's mission brought Einstein fame. From then on people started to talk about "relativity" as meaning GR, and SR was simply perceived as part of Einstein's GR. And Lorentz died in 1928.

An abiding mystery for me is that Poincare was, by 1900, a long established world famous mathemetician and mathematical physicist, with groundbreaking physical contributions (e.g. his approach to orbital computations are, I believe, still used today for spacecraft ). He was nominated numerous times for the Nobel (however, in the early 1900s, the Nobel committee had a strong experimental bias; the very delayed prize for Max Planck was the beginning of the end of this excessive bias. I believe Poincare has the record for nominations without receiving the prize.). Einstein was a nobody in 1905.

I don't have a fully satisfying explanation, but a few parts seem to be:

Poincare published his ideas in fragmentary form, in journals not read by most physicists. Some key ideas were in letters, not formally published. Einstein published in the leading physics journal of the day, with very physical motivations (rather than mathematical). Finally, he was noticed by Planck, who was top of the field.

One thing I've also noticed is that the complexity of credit has never been a mystery among those really expert. For example, I've noticed in papers by Professor Carlip, he scrupulously credits Poincare for any result achieved before Einstein.