Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:40:09 +0200
Pmb wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:g40sm902rmt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEinstein was not familiar with Riemannian geometry. He was not familiar
with the coordinate-free formulation of physics.
That's quite far from the truth.
No. While Daryl's first sentence is questionable (how "familiar" was he? -- by TODAY'S standards not very, but by the more relevant standards of 1915 he was an expert). Daryl's second sentence is historically accurate.
I don't believe that Einstein was aware of the coordinate-free
way to define vectors and tensors.
The very fact that they are tensors means that they are coordinate indepenant, i.e. their definition does not depend on a particular cooridinate system.
You prove Daryl's point -- TODAY we know this, but in 1954 when Einstein died, only a handful of mathematicians understood this (in a geometrical context, not a physical one), and AFAIK no physicists had yet studied it; the physics literature before 1954 does not have coordinate-free formulations.
Tom Roberts
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- References:
- New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: harry
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Juan R.
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Juan R.
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Juan R.
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- From: Pmb
- New version of a relativity FAQ
- Prev by Date: Big Picture of GR
- Next by Date: Relativity predicts itself false !!!
- Previous by thread: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Next by thread: Re: New version of a relativity FAQ
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|