Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- From: juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:20:19 +0000 (UTC)
See
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
for additional details and references. I am preparing a new extended
corrected version with more references and further data. This interesting
debate -and people that has corrected and improved to me- will be properly
acknowledged therein.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 30 Aug 2005 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
3196.217.124.88.226.1124969375.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
The epitome of the difference between mathematics and physics. Physics need
not to be mathematically correct, it only need to be descriptive and
predictive. Mathematics is void of any reference to reality, it is an
hermetically closed system. Poincaré was unknowingly prisoner of his own
physical intuition, while Einstein was seeking his hidden physical
assumption. Poincaré was living in an imaginary world. Einstein had his
feet solidly stuck in earth.
****************************
I mean that an incorrect derivation of LT such as hat given by Einstein
cannot be found in Poincaré writings. Therefore, one cannot say that
Poincaré failed to understand the situation, because it was the inverse.
Einstein failed and, in posterior years, acknowledged that LT does not
follow from "his" two basic postulates. Precisely, Poincaré understood the
situation and was more careful in his studies.
That you say regarding math-physics is incorrect. It is standard that
Lorentz, the physicist, played a more mathematical role, whereas Poincaré
the "mathematician" did the role of physics regarding SR.
Your "Physics need not to be mathematically correct, it only need to be
descriptive and predictive" is completely wrong. I think that you are
confounding science with pure empirics or "enginnering".
your "Poincaré was living in an imaginary world." May be based in a
misreading of own Poincaré writings. It was Poincaré who developed almost
all of PHYSICS of relativity, including basic concepts about simultaneity,
absence of absolute motion, etc. so early as 1906 Poincaré was computing
perihelion of Mercury from his own relativistic mechanics (which is today
called SR). Poincaré:
"Thus, the new mechanics is still on unsteady soil.
So we are to wished it new confirmations. Let us see
what astronomical observations give us in this connection... The only
effect, with respect to which one could expect it to be
noticeable is the one we actually see: I mean the perturbations
of the fastest of all planets - Mercury. It
indeed shows such anomalies in its motion that can
still not be explained by celestial mechanics. The shift
of its perihelion is much more significant than calculated
on the basis of classical theory. Much effort has
been applied with the aim of explaining these deviations... The new
mechanics somewhat corrects the error in the theory of Mercury's motion
lowering it to 32'', but does not achieve total accordance between
the observation and calculation. This result, is, thus,
not in favour of the new mechanics, but at any rate, it also is not
against it. The new doctrine does not contradict astronomical observations
directly."
Impossible to sustain that Poincaré was doing only mathematics :-)
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 30 Aug 2005 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
Finally, this debate aims at showing the superiority of the mathematicians.
Alas, a reasoning without any mathematical flaw is not a criterion in
physics. Physics is about finding the axioms, whatever the method used.
Mathematics is about working out the consequences of these axioms, in a
perfect rigorous way. Poincaré did it very well in classical mechanics
were the axioms are definitively set, but failed in a field where they were
to be discovered. Einstein used more his imagination than his mathematical
knowledge, and created something new. They are two very different trades.
****************************
Incorrect definition of both math and physics. Moreover, last words about
supposed superiority of Einstein on physical questions are pure prose
without historical basis.
It is really difficult for us to understand the use of imagination by
means of the direct copy of the work of others.
Your claim of that Einstein theory is some new is incorrect as many
specialists claimed during decades. For example, Pauli in 1955 claimed
that both Poincaré and Einstein theories were equivalent.
I think that you are misuderstanding the role of constancy of c on SR on
your claims that Einstein theory is new. You believe that postulate
DEFINES SR. But that is FALSE since one can develop a SR without the
postulate of constancy of c.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 30 Aug 2005 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> Yes, Maxwell did not discover the laws of EM, but 1) nobody cite to him as
> the only father of EM
That's not the debate.
****************************
It IS the debate!! "Someone" cited to Maxwell for supporting his ideas of
that Maxwell reorganized work of others without being called plagiarist
and I said that by that reason Maxwell was not the only father of
classical EM, and Ampere, Coulomb, etc, laws do not renamed to Maxwell
laws.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 30 Aug 2005 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
> 2) nobody omit cite to the Faradays, Coulombs,
> Amperes, etc.
Nobody omit cite to the Lorentz transformation, the Poincaré group, the
Maxwell equations etc.
****************************
But, Lorentz obtained the formula for "local time", the formula for
relativistic mass, the contraction of bodies, etc. Poincaré obtained the
PoR, the constancy of c, the mechanical equations, the four velocity and
momenta, E=mc^2, the invariant ds, the 4D representation (spacetime), the
relativistic force, the procedure for synchronizing clocks, etc.
Einstein obtained nothing new. Simply clarified a bit was obtained by
others and without acknowledged them.
Similar questions arise on GR. GR is not achievement of Einstein. His only
important contribution was the postulate of 10-component tensor. The rest
is not from him.
Moreover, people think that Einstein alone did ALL of relativity. People
does not know to Lorentz, Poincaré, or Hilbert. Popular portraits of
Einstein are very wrong. See for example my reference [1] cited in above
link.
Why are physicists are satisfied with this distortion of laymen
understanding? This supports my thesis that Einstein is one of best
marketing devices of physics.
****************************
toto@xxxxxxx on 30 Aug 2005 20:08:18 +0000 (UTC) wrote:
<juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
3202.217.124.88.226.1124969543.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "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."
(Poincaré? from?)
I make you notice that I don't use the term "constant" but "independent."
That c is a constant doesn't make the velocity of light independent on the
frame of reference. It only says that some measurement process gives the
same value in any frame. You make that conclusion by using a hidden
assumption, namely that the measure of the light speed *is* the real light
speed, that is, the light speed defined in the first principles.
Notice further that Poincaré made only a general comment, as didn't define
the meaning of c, nor the measurement process. Obviously, the relativity
principle imposes that the *measured* light speed is the same in any frame,
if not, we could sense the absolute motion of the frame. Here, we lacks a
physical theory whose consequence is a constant *measured* light speed.
Now, Poincaré stuck to the principle that a body is contracted through its
absolute motion, which is definitely different from Einsteins relativity.
Notice finally that he only said that c is common to gravity, without
saying that c doesn't depend on the frame, and because he postulated that
the Lorentz transformation applies also to the gravitational force. Notice,
to the force, not to space. The important word is *common*, as would show
the context.
That phrase is merely (wrongly) reinterpreted in the light of Einsteins
relativity.
Cf:
"On a ainsi l'explication de l'impossibilité de montrer le mouvement absolu
et de la *contraction de tous les corps* dans le sens du mouvement
terrestre." (Poincaré, _Sur la Dynamique de l'Electron_, june 1905, emphasis
is mine)
[So we have the explanation of the impossibility to demonstrate the absolute
motion, and of the *contraction of every body* in the direction of the
terrestrial motion.]
****************************
Above quote is from Poincaré 1905.
Perhaps I am wrong but you appear a bit interested in distorted things
with your claims.
"I make you notice that I don't use the term "constant" but "independent."
That c is a constant doesn't make the velocity of light independent on the
frame of reference. It only says that some measurement process gives the
same value in any frame. You make that conclusion by using a hidden
assumption, namely that the measure of the light speed *is* the real light
speed, that is, the light speed defined in the first principles."
How can c be independent being no a constant?
How can c be constant being dependent?
The no constancy of c follows from an ultra-simple algebraic
(multiplication by 1/ t) manipulation on Galilean transformation.
c' = c + v
with v the source velocity. In Galilean physics light velocity is not
independent of frame and is not constant, c' = c'(v)
Now, Poincaré neglects the transformation and defines a new simultaneity
based in LT.
Again from two trivial algebraic manipulations one obtains
c' = c
Now, c is independent of v. Therefore, c is constant and independent of
source. c cannot be constant being dependent of the source, because then
is not constant!!!!
It is unnecessary to consider it a new postulate because follows from the
LT which is a "postulate" on Poincaré relativity.
Einstein took the contrary way, assuming c' = c as a postulate derived the
Lt. But the derivation is incorrect, since LT does not follow from Einste
two postulates. Even Einstein recognized this years after and add at least
three new postulates. From both a mathematical and physical view Poincaré
approach is more solid: define new simultaneity, procedure for sincornize
clocks, shows covariance and obtain formulas.
You say
"Notice finally that he only said that c is common to gravity, without
saying that c doesn't depend on the frame, and because he postulated that
the Lorentz transformation applies also to the gravitational force. Notice,
to the force, not to space. The important word is *common*, as would show
the context."
He says a "common constant". The important words are *common constant*. If
c is constant then it cannot depend on frame, because then is not a
constant, it is a function of frame.
"Notice, to the force, not to space."
?
Ah, and the contraction of bodies is one of basis in Einstein relativity.
****************************
-------
Juan R. González-Álvarez
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Next by Date: Re: The time it takes to emit one photon
- Previous by thread: Re: What is the history of relativity theory? (continuation of Poincare thread)
- Next by thread: Nonlocality of Gravity Energy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
