Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- From: juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:42:48 +0000 (UTC)
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references.
****************************
see.URL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Martin Ouwehand) on 8 Aug 2005 19:03:11 +0000
(UTC) wrote:
the priority question would arise only if Poincaré's 1905 note, 1906 article,
or anything else he wrote, contained relativity theory or something
equivalent
to it. I don't think it does.
****************************
This is a bold statement. Many parts of standard relativity theory are due
to Poincaré, Lorentz, and others still it is publicised that Einstein
achieved alone. I am not claiming that Poincaré alone was the father of
SR.
However, Einstein obtained none physical formula, none new mathematical
insight, the first postulate is from Poincaré and the second one easily
derived from LT and posterior Poincaré work (Poincaré shows the invariance
of ds). Further insight like absence of absolute time, no aether,
contraction of bodies, maximum speed of c, the necessity of a new
mechanics because CED is not Galilean invariant (was Poincaré who showed
Lorentz covariance, etc. are not original from Einstein.
****************************
see.URL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Martin Ouwehand) on 8 Aug 2005 19:03:11 +0000
(UTC) wrote:
my point was that Poincaré's theory is not the same as Einstein's: in his
1905 article, Einstein explains how to synchronize clocks which are mutually
at rest, while in this 1909 Conférence Poincaré explains that it can't be
done ("il leur est absolument impossible de savoir si leurs chronomètres
marquent ou non la même heure") -- and from the context I understand that
it's because he believes that the speed of light in a moving frame is
not the same as its speed with respect to the aether (another difference
with Einstein.)
****************************
Einstein procedure of how to synchronize clocks which are mutually
at rest, is directly inspired in a previous one by Poincaré. The main
problem with Poincaré was his great mathematical mind which obligated to
him to doubt of some assumptions. This is often cited to be a symptom of
evidence that Poincare still failed to understand the situation, but as
Einstein himself later acknowledged, the two famous principles of
Einstein's 1905 paper are not sufficient to uniquely identify special
relativity, and Poincaré just speciulated on other alternatives,
additional hypotesis, etc. Do not forget that the own Einstein modify
after his SR, introducing aditinoal postulates. One must also stipulate,
at the very least, homogeneity, memorylessness, and isotropy. Perhaps
Poincaré was thought on the absence of the assumption of isotropy when did
doubt on relativity.
Poincaré was characterized by an excess of mathematical discernment and
philosophical sophistication, whereas Einstein was satisfied with his
?proofs? full of mathematical mistakes and implicit assumptions. I have
counted, at least, six sound mathematical errors in Einstein derivation of
LT.
****************************
see.URL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Martin Ouwehand) on 8 Aug 2005 19:03:11 +0000
(UTC) wrote:
it's for those people who say "Look ! a Lorentz transformation ! it's
the theory of relativity !" -- for Lorentz it was some kind of mathematical
trick ("a change of variable"), not the transformation rule for space-time
measurements between two inertial frames, for which he still used the
galilean transformation.
****************************
Curiously, Einstein derivation of the Lorentz transformation presented in
Einstein?s 1905 paper begins by applying a Galilean transformation to the
original coordinates to give an intermediate system of coordinates, just
like Lorentz did in one of his papers.
****************************
****************************
lnd@xxxxxxxxxx (Levin) on 13 Aug 2005 06:21:52 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
I do not remember seeing Poincare or Lorentz talking about any phenomena
other than electromagnetic interactions governed by Maxwell equations.
My impression was that the ether was supposed to be the medium just for
these interactions and Lorentz transformations were properties of Maxwell
equations. Of course, Galileo stated a much more general principle but
he used different transformation. Sorry if this is just my ignorance.
****************************
Poincaré established a more general principle of relativity, developed a
new mechanics based in the maximum speed of c, assumed the LT to be valid
to all phenomena. So early as 1905-1906 Poincaré was extending Lorentz
invariance to the gravitational force.
****************************
see_below_no_spam@xxxxxxxx on 15 Aug 2005 16:57:57 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
I think a key point in the PoR as stated by Einstein is:
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body". Does Poincaré make a similar statement
in his papers? Please, don't answer that it says something
implying that (which now _a posteriori_ could seem obvious
once Einstein formulated it)---what I would like to know
is if he said _that_ and when.
****************************
Your emphasis on find exactly the same phrase on Poincaré writings for
showing Einstein priority or non equivalence or Poincaré thought is not
accurate. It is so bold like if you claim ?is there in Callen
thermodynamics a similar statement on zero law of thermodynamics.? There
is not exactly that in the four postulates of MTE formulation, but MTE
formulation of thermodynamics is EQUIVALENT to CKC formulation since zero
law can be derived from MTE postulates (is implicit).
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body" is clearly implicit on the LT of Maxwell equations, but
moreover Poincaré obtained the invariant ds and worked with a 4D
formulation for the spacetime (ct, x) where c is a constant in 1905-1906.
He was claiming that c is invariant.
The most close that I find by now is this passage from 1905
?If we were to accept the relativity principle, then
we would find a common constant in the law of gravity
and in electromagnetic laws, the velocity of light.?
The relativity principle is Poincaré relativity principle I already cited
in previous posts.
****************************
see_below_no_spam@xxxxxxxx on 20 Aug 2005 11:10:23 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Let's think...
Maxwell did not discover the laws of EM. They are based in laws
which were well know before he wrote his equations. Further,
he introduced a displacement current in the ether which is
known to be false.
Newton did not discover the laws of Mechanics...
Then, why are they so famous? Because they were able to
make obvious what for many people was not, and to reduce
to basic principles what by then was a large amount
of unconnected laws. This was exactly what Einstein
did---now, we can understand the Lorentz and Poincaré ideas
in a consistent framework. If currenly could seem Lorentz
and Poincaré discovered the SR as we know it, is just
because Einstein (and Minkowski shortly after, taking ideas
from Poincaré) was able to synthetize and to put order in
all these laws so that we **a posteriori** could find them
obvious and consistent (thus, your "immediately follows" is
essentially a tribute to Einstein). This achievement cannot
be credited to neither Lorentz nor Poincaré.
****************************
Yes, Maxwell did not discover the laws of EM, but 1) nobody cite to him as
the only father of EM 2) nobody omit cite to the Faradays, Coulombs,
Amperes, etc. 3) Nobody claim that Coulomb force law was obtained by
Maxwelll because before Maxwell nobody knew interaction between charges.
On relativity history is completely different
1) almost all people and popular books cite to Einstein like the only
father of SR and GR 2) Poincaré, Lorentz, Hilbert, and others are ignored.
A decade ago, almost all physicists were thought that Einstein obtained GR
alone, which is false. I talked with some physicists and are surprised of
close collaboration Hilbert-Einstein that they unknown until my web
document. 3) Formulas as E=mc^2, field equations of GR, or mass variation
SR formula are incorrectly attributed to Einstein.
That is an injustice.
So far as I understand, you are supporting my thesis of that Einstein was
mainly an ?organized? of previous work of others. He was a kind of
Maxwell, but then Einstein was not the father of SR. At the best, he was
the father of ?modern SR? or, I prefer, ONE of fathers.
****************************
see_below_no_spam@xxxxxxxx on 22 Aug 2005 09:11:05 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
I only have a translation into Spanish and not the original, and
that's more or less what he said. However, it's not _all_ what
he said--he added his deduction was not fully satisfactory and
that Einstein has to be credited for showing that experiments
like those of Michelson, Rayleigh and Brace are not explained
as a fortuitous compensation of opposite effects but they are
the manifestation of a fundamental and general principle. It's
in his book The Theory of Electrons (1909, sec. 194, based on
a series of lectures given in 1906). Thus, Lorentz himself
says Einstein was the discoverer of the SR and emphasizes its
importance and novelty.
****************************
Really, Lorentz emphasizes the importance of Poincaré work more than that
of Einstein. Moreover, when the Nobel Committee decided to award Einstein
the price, Lorentz, who was a member, objected that Poincaré was who had
found special relativity -which was the thesis maintained by Whittaker and
sustained by several modern historians and physicists-, and it would be
unfair not to associate him. Nevertheless, as Poincaré passed away at that
time ?He got a cancer in 1909 and died in 1912?, Einstein was awarded the
Nobel price for his work on the photoelectric effect. It is important to
remark the diplomacy of the Nobel committee, which suggests to us that was
not clear then the priority of Einstein on the formulation of special
relativity. This explains why Einstein newer received the Nobel Prize for
his ?work? on relativity.
-------
Juan R. González-Álvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Next by Date: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Previous by thread: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Next by thread: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
