Henri Poincaré: The Real Discoverer of Special Relativity

[EnumaElish]

In the past, Newton was the greatest scientist. He was many times more smart than Einstein. He was popularized, but he was not physicist. When passed away, physicists discovered that was not a physicist, he was alchemist

The problem is that until rather recently, to be a scientist at all, one had to be a philosopher, and a mathematician, and an alchemist, and could earn bonus points for medicine, law, religious studies, and proper socialization with the church and the ruling classes. Aristoteles was not a physicist, he was a philosopher. Galileo himself was professionally a philosopher (to the Medicis) and mathematician (he taught math at the University of Pisa). If alive today, he'd be an amateur astronomer. Similarly Copernicus earned a living mainly by practicing medicine for the church; he was in equal parts physician, theologian and lawyer as much, if not more than, astronomer.

 

[εllipse]

The problem is that until rather recently, to be a scientist at all, one had to be a philosopher, and a mathematician, and an alchemist, and could earn bonus points for medicine, law, religious studies, and proper socialization with the church and the ruling classes. Aristoteles was not a physicist, he was a philosopher. Galileo himself was professionally a philosopher (to the Medicis) and mathematician (he taught math at the University of Pisa). If alive today, he'd be an amateur astronomer. Similarly Copernicus earned a living mainly by practicing medicine for the church; he was in equal parts physician, theologian and lawyer as much, if not more than, astronomer.

In Newton's day, weren't physicists referred to as "Natural philosophers"?

 

[EnumaElish]

In Newton's day, weren't physicists referred to as "Natural philosophers"?

Apparently, even the 19^th century American schoolbooks referred to physics as Natural Philosophy or Natural and Experimental Philosophy. Distribution of topics covered in physics and chemistry textbooks of the period.

 

[Juan R.]

Not using the theory of gravity (general relativity) that is now thought to be the most accurate one, though...do other theories predict precisely the same amount of light deflection as general relativity? (edit: I just checked this, and general relativity does indeed predict a different amount of light deflection than Newtonian theory--this wikipedia page says 'According to the general theory of relativity, stars near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. This effect is noticeable only during an eclipse, since otherwise the Sun's brightness obscures the stars. Newtonian gravitation predicted half the shift of general relativity.' And the scientist you mention, Johann von Soldner, was calculating the Newtonian deflection according to this page.) And of course, general relativity can explain plenty of other things that aren't explained by other theories, like the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit and the expansion of the universe. Whatever questions there are about whether SR should be uniquely attributed to Einstein, are there any doubts that GR should? General relativity is usually considered his greatest achievement.

Yes, but I said that it was not generally said that light deflection is not a pure GR effect. In almost every book contributing to Einteinian myth is claimed that GR predicts light deflection, which is true, but it is also predicted by other theories. Moreover the typical “layman-like” figure of a beautiful Sun, a spatially curved grid around it and a curved light trajectory is false. Since Newtonian theory already predicts the half of total deflection using a flat spacetime (and that, of course, even ignoring that GR really says about light deflection).

See my post #26

The problem is that with standard Newtonian force one obtains half the experimental value.

But one is not forced to use original Newton potential as Soldner did. Now I don’t remember value obtained for Tisserand (18??) force, but I remember that Raguza force predicts the same value that GR for light deflection.

In a letter 18 November, 1915, Einstein wrote

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 difficulties 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
Einstein

As said in forum in gravitation those other things supposedly “explained” by GR can be obtained from other approaches. Tisserand already obtained around 3/8 of then known Mercury perihelion but full value can be obtained, for example, it was obtained by Levy in 1890.

That is, contrary to the MYTH, Einstein was not pioneer in much stuff.

I studied SR history with rather detail and was not his achievement. I do not studied GR history in detail still but I suspect (only suspect, cannot show it now) that GR is not completely from Einstein. For example, traditionally history (e.g. Pais book) claimed that neither Hilbert nor Einstein knew Bianchi identity and that was obtain by Weyl in 1917. Some recent work (L.Corry, J.Renn and J. Stachel. Belated Decision in the Hilbert–Einstein Priority Dispute. Science. 278, 1270 (1997).) even suggest that Einstein derived all of GR. But that article (by physicists, no conspiracy ones, of course, just those ignoring data, misinterpreting phrases, hidding papers, etc, etc, ) has been classified as nonsense by historians.

It has been recently shown that Hilbert derived Bianchi identity in a 1915 paper and Einstein did know it even in 1917. It appears clear now for historians that Hilbert derived first the gravitational field equations of GR without help or knowledge of Einstein.

No physicist before Einstein derived E=mc^2 as applying generally, any earlier appearances of the formula were only meant to apply to fairly specific situations, like the recoil from an incoming electromagnetic wave in Poincaré's derivation. And I wasn't aware that the equation had appeared anywhere in Lorentz's work, do you have a reference for that?

I am not completely sure. It appears that the use of E=mc^2 was already implicitly used 25 years before Einstein paper. Moreover in his 1905 paper, Einstein acknowledges that his deduction of E=mc^2 was explicitly based on "Maxwell's expression for the electromagnetic energy of space". That is, at the best, Einstein said,

“take this formula, its application is not only electromagnetic, it is more general”.

But, he did not discover it and the revolutionary idea of equivalence between mass and energy (as claimed by popular press) was already known. I now could claim (it is a example) that Schrödinger wave equation also apply to Solar system orbits (as a gigantic atom, it is just an example). But popular press could not say that Schrodinger equation is my invention and that duality wave-particle was revolutionary because now it is already known.

I said “at the best”, because it appears that recently it is thought that first suggesting general sense for E = mc^2 was H. Poincaré in 1900. Moreover, it is not clear that Einstein thought that E = mc^2 was general. His “proof” (a posteriori shown wrong by Ives in 1952) was applied to a specific case only. I waste many time searching references but I did an effort and I found derivation of mass variation formula was given by Lorentz on Amst. Proc. vi (1904) p. 809.

What was their basis for saying nothing could exceed the speed of light? I bet none of them realized that FTL could lead to the possibility of sending information backwards in time (causality violation), for example.

They derived the telegraphy equation for electromagnetic signals, which is signed hyperbolic (no parabolic). Moreover, they obtained initially that c_W was the maximum speed possible. That was not speed of light but as I said their work was improved after for c.

 

[Juan R.]

You are WAY off base. Einstein was never awarded a Nobel for his work on Relativity, so of course Lorentz could not possibly have shared it with him.

Einstein was given the 1921 physics award for his 1905 work on the photoelectric effect.

Slowly guy slowly! please read carefully post by others first, and after submit your traditional aggressive replies against me... if you can.

Of course, Einstein’s Nobel Prize was not for relativity. I already knew that. Did I say the contrary?

I did not know Wilhelm Wein proposal that the Nobel prize was awarded jointly to Lorentz and Einstein.

W. W. recommended to the Nobel committee that the Nobel prize of 1912 were awarded jointly to Lorentz and Einstein by the theory of relativity.

Since Nobel Prize is partially a political-driven prize. It is not difficult understand why Wein proposal was ignored.

Do you know the machinery of the Nobel committee and how prizes are awarded? It is well known -for people that know the rules - that Nobel Prize is partially a political-driven prize. With people doing excellent research newer awarded by pure political issues. There are well documented cases, for example Nobel Prize for nuclear fusion. It is not difficult understand why Wein proposal was ignored.

The Presentation Speech of 1922 offers to you a detail

There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known as that of Albert Einstein.

I wait that you can find the solution by yourself, but if you need help please no doubt.

 

[Juan R.]

The problem is that until rather recently, to be a scientist at all, one had to be a philosopher, and a mathematician, and an alchemist, and could earn bonus points for medicine, law, religious studies, and proper socialization with the church and the ruling classes.

That is not completely true. Galileo newer did alchemy, nor Euler, or D’Alembert, Hooke, etc. Moreover, the surprise of physicists when discovered that Newton was not a physicist is well documented from a historical point of view.

NEARLY A CENTURY LATER, DAVID BREWSTER, BRITISH PHYSICIST AND CHIEF BIOGRAPHER OF NEWTON IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, REACTED WITH OUTRIGHT HORROR WHEN HE DISCOVERED THE DARKER SIDE OF NEWTON'S LABORS

Posterior rewriting of Newton portrait is also well known and perfectly documented from a historical point of view. References on modern historical research on Newton will be found where I said.

 

[DrChinese]

There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known as that of Albert Einstein.

I wait that you can find the solution by yourself, but if you need help please no doubt.

LOL, help to the solution of the Einstein conspiracy? You have proven my point already: that Einstein was given his status by his peers and not subsequent historians. How did he just "happen" to get so famous in a few short years (1905 to 1922) were it not for his actual contributions? He didn't have a PR agent, he lacked any credentials whatsoever, he had no powerful friends, but plenty of skeptics, etc.

I do not expect to change your mind. I have come to realize that crackpot ideas are not easily dislodged. But it is not fair to the average PF reader to quote one side of the story. The Nobel speech trumps the innuendo of your quotes - as that is the official story.

 

[russ_watters]

Moreover, the surprise of physicists when discovered that Newton was not a physicist is well documented from a historical point of view.

Posterior rewriting of Newton portrait is also well known and perfectly documented from a historical point of view. References on modern historical research on Newton will be found where I said.

Could you elaborate on that and actually provide some references? Whether Newton started college as a physicist (he didn't - but is that all you're trying to say?) or not isn't really relevant to the fact that he became a successful physicist.

 

[Juan R.]

LOL, help to the solution of the Einstein conspiracy? You have proven my point already: that Einstein was given his status by his peers and not subsequent historians. How did he just "happen" to get so famous in a few short years (1905 to 1922) were it not for his actual contributions? He didn't have a PR agent, he lacked any credentials whatsoever, he had no powerful friends, but plenty of skeptics, etc.

I do not expect to change your mind. I have come to realize that crackpot ideas are not easily dislodged. But it is not fair to the average PF reader to quote one side of the story. The Nobel speech trumps the innuendo of your quotes - as that is the official story.

You would read with care as said.

Moreover a modified Presentation Speech of 1922 would offers to you the detail

There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known [especially for laymen] as that of Albert Einstein.

I have not spoken of conspiracy, just of historical rewriting, and certain misunderstandings as those of Science article that i cited.

Physicists can rewrite history in textbooks -there is dozen and dozens of well documented examples from a historian view-. Some of most modern examples are from string theory. Fortunately for us, they cannot convince to historians or other scientists when themes are studied seriously, from a historical perspective.

Newtonian real portrait was modified by physicists, and historians are now corricting error. Einstein-Hilbert dispute has been recently shown to be favourable to Hilbert (priority versus Einstein) and there is people here, in PF, which is surprised that Lorentz derived mass variation formula before Einstein.

In some years historians, rewrote Eintein "achievements". Then you cannot claim for "official" story (of course it is stupid to think that one "presentation speech" has some serious scientific value for a historian of science. historians of science follow the scientific method of history) unless you was one of those that prefer things remain quiet even if are shown to be wrong.

I'm sorry but I did not the myth.

You ask

How did he just "happen" to get so famous in a few short years (1905 to 1922) were it not for his actual contributions? He didn't have a PR agent, he lacked any credentials whatsoever, he had no powerful friends, but plenty of skeptics, etc.

Even ignoring that many of you are saying (he had no powerful friends, etc.) is rather incorrect, simply let to historians reply to you with rigor. But final reply will be not very different from the reply to why people like Brian Greene or S. Hawking are so popular in mass media.

Stephen Hawking has said that none of the works of Einstein were original. Hawking provides a list of names of scientists, all of whom are unknown to the general public today, but who had the ideas now associated with Einstein before Einstein had them.

The appearance of Dr. Silberstein's recent article on 'General Relativity without the Equivalence Hypothesis' encourages me to restate my own views on the subject. I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of General Relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent writers.

All this was maintained by Poincare and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him.

[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.

Of course Hawking or Max Born are well-known to be a "conspiracy-like people". Historians of science are also bad guys that are promoting idea of the conspiracy. :rofl:

The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. Albert Einstein

Probaly future students will learn that relativistic theory is mainly associated with Lorentz and Poincaré, and GR probably with Hilbert, Einstein, and some friends of Einstein.

On

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Einstein.html

one find

"In fact Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before Einstein completed his work, a paper which contains the correct field equations of general relativity."

Also conspiracy?

Still there is important detail that i do not know. Could you help me Dr. Chinese.

Why was Einstein ED paper of 1905 contained none reference to previous work still published in the Annalen der Physik, violating journal guidelines?

Of course there is no conspiracy on recent Science article claiming that Hilbert plaguirized Einstein GR.

Please, read

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/15/einstein_relativity/

and pdf article

http://www.physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/Hilbert-Einstein.pdf

 

[Juan R.]

Could you elaborate on that and actually provide some references? Whether Newton started college as a physicist (he didn't - but is that all you're trying to say?) or not isn't really relevant to the fact that he became a successful physicist.

All i said is standard stuff for historians of science. Dobs, Geymonat, Westfall, etc. I learned that Newton was a chemist in my book on chemistry when i was 18-years old.

Basic books

William H. Brock, 1998, Historia de la Química, Versión de Elena García Hernández, Álvaro del Valle, pilar Burgos e Inmaculada Medina. Alianza Editorial S.A. Madrid

Ludovico Geymonat, 1998, Historia de la Filosofía y de la Ciencia, CRITICA (Grijalbo Mondadori S. A.), Barcelona.

A modern conference on the topic was in 1991

Eloy Rada García, 1991, En torno a la Filosofía natural de Newton. Crisis de la Modernidad, III Encuentro, Noviembre 1987, Sociedad Castellano-Leonesa de Filosofía. Salamanca.


As said i will provide a detailed status of last portrait on the web, including recent references. His success on physics was an direct outcome of his previous work on chemistry.

 

[Juan R.]

If it has been historically proven that,

i)

relativistic theory was mainly an achievement of Lorentz, Poincare, and others. All ideas inclusing constancy of c and maximum velocoty of signals were known in literature.

ii)
That none of famous formulas of Einstein, including E = mc^2 was obtained from him. Even when he did attempts to derive formulas he failed. Already cited to Ives who showed in 1952 that Einstein proof was completely wrong.

Also famous mass variation formula was given by Lorentz on Amst. Proc. vi (1904) p. 809.

I am preparing a paper on SR and i revised original literature by Einstein. I already said that original Einstein "proof" of LT is completely wrong with 6 sound mathematical errors on 8 equations. It is difficult for me think that he was a genious.

iii)

He was an excelllent plagiarist, how even Max Born or Hawking already have recognized

iv)

Begin to appears serious historical studies that show that GR was not from him. See for example that says above recent (2004) pdf article and web page.

Witenberg (Z. Natursforsch 59a, 715-719, 2004) said that it is believed that Einstein copied to Hilbert and that recent Science (article cited above) attempt to prove that Hilbert copied to Eintein is incorrect.

Why those conspiracy physicists omited that "proofs" claimed were cut off by someone. Who (someone) was interested in that were not known that Einstein copied to Hilbert.

Witenberg claim that GR is for Einstein, Hilbert, and Grossmann.

Read last words by Witenberg on why Science rejected his article.

Of course there is no conspiracy! Noooooo

It appears by last studies i have got that finally Einstein copied to Hilbert the GR.

 

[DrChinese]

If it has been historically proven that,

i)

ii)
...

Of course there is no conspiracy! Noooooo

It appears by last studies i have got that finally Einstein copied to Hilbert the GR.

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.

 

[JesseM]

Begin to appears serious historical studies that show that GR was not from him. See for example that says above recent (2004) pdf article and web page.

Witenberg (Z. Natursforsch 59a, 715-719, 2004) said that it is believed that Einstein copied to Hilbert and that recent Science (article cited above) attempt to prove that Hilbert copied to Eintein is incorrect.

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

http://www.tau.ac.il/taunews/97winter/einstein.html

During the months of October and November, 1915, Hilbert, who was working toward his own solution of the theory, was in close correspondence with Einstein. On November 20, 1915, five days before Einstein presented his version of the equations, Hilbert lectured on his findings. However, the contents of Hilbert's lecture - with a derivation of the covariant equations - were not published until the following year in March 1916. In private correspondence Einstein complained that Hilbert had "borrowed" his equations, and relations between the two deteriorated for a while. The question of who had correctly formulated the equations first remained an open one until now. The documents discovered at Göttingen University by Corry are the original proofs of Hilbert's March 1916 article, with a printer's stamp marking the actual writing of the document as December 6, 1915, that is after the submission of Einstein's paper. Close examination of the document reveals conclusively that at this time Hilbert did not have the generally covariant equations which form the core of General Relativity Theory. These equations must have been inserted only later - after December 6 and before the published version appeared in 1916. "Hilbert was still deeply ingrained in wrong assumptions which Einstein had meanwhile arduously overcome. Einstein can therefore be cleared from any possible charge of plagiarism," state the researchers.

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:

Anyway, this person is no doubt referring to an unpleasant (but private) quarrel between Einstein and Hilbert over whom should get credit for the field equations of gtr. Briefly, both men found the correct equations within a few days of each other, and had collaborated intensively (by postcard!) in the preceeding weeks, informing each other about the details of their struggles toward the correct equations. Hilbert eventually discovered that by simply guessing the "correct" Lagrangian, he could very easily derive the correct field equations; Einstein took a much more roundabout (but better motivated) approach. These days most textbooks cover both approaches (or rather, Einstein's route and one or two modern formulations of Hilbert's Lagrangian approach). The history is covered in detail in many books, including the excellent biography of Einstein by Pais. Once you know more about the details, you'll see that neither man "stole" from the other, and that both approaches (Einstein's and Hilbert's) to "deriving" the field equations from more fundamental postulates remain valuable and even central to the subject.

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:

"It appears to me that the differential equations of gravitation arrived at in this way are in agreement with those of Einstein in his subsequent papers1) setting forth the broad theory of general relativity."

 

[εllipse]

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.

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

"In fact Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before Einstein completed his work, a paper which contains the correct field equations of general relativity."

Also conspiracy?

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."

 

[Nereid]

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

We're now in Skepticism & Debunking.

HPS (History and Philosophy of Science) is where this thread really belongs (the history of SR is not really *about* SR), but given the tenor of the posts here, I feel S&D is more appropriate (also, we don't have a 'history of science' section).

 

[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