Talk:Henri Poincaré/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Last universalist?

I believe I read somewhere that Henri Poincaré was the last person to know all mathematics known at the time. Is there any truth to this statement? -- Dissident 16:17, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He was a universalist, as was David Hilbert. If you go to the next generation, you find that the breadth of someone like Hermann Weyl is perhaps not quite the same thing (though very impressive, actually). John von Neumann too, in a different way. It comes down to defining know, of course. One definition would be 'able to read a mathematical journal like a newspaper'. Charles Matthews 16:22, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I doubt this statement about Poincare being the last such person. There are some Fields Medal winners that definitely have a profound and broad knowledge of current mathematics. --Chan-Ho Suh 15:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

PLEASE WRITE DOWN HOW TO PRONOUNCE HIS NAME!!!!

Its poin car ray see the wav file at bartleby.com [1]
Lumos3 19:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armand Prudhomme is Sully Prudhomme?

Dear Wiki's, is Henri's precessor "Armand Prudhomme" the same guy as Sully Prudhomme ? I will make a redirection from Armand Prudhomme to Sully Prudhomme to fix the link. --vvim I believe the French page states he is: Sully Prudhomme, I base it on the mention of the "élu à l'Académie française en 1881 au fauteuil 24" --Vvim 08:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Translation?

Although I'm not good at French, I suppose "maître de conférences d'analyse" translates to "associate professor of analysis" and not to "professor in charge of analysis conferences", as it is written in the article. You can check at the Grand dictionnaire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Srn (talk • contribs) 00:49, November 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] debate about Poincaré <--> Einstein

We cannot say that Poincaré's relativity is preliminary. In 1898, he states that simultaneity is relative. In 1904 he stated the principle of relativity for electromagnetism during his speech in Saint Louis. His 5 june 1905 paper "Sur la dynamique de l'électron" contains the proof that the Lorentz transformations are a group (in the math sense). So, the theory of special relativity is mature here.

In fact, we know for sure (from the Einstein-Solovine letters) that in 1902 Einstein has read "La science et l'hypothese" (Science and Hypothesis) in which relative time and space are discussed. We have good reason the believe that Einstein has also read Poincaré's 5 june 1905 article: Einstein used to make summaries and translations of articles from other magazines for the "Annalen", one of the journals he got his sources from is the "Comptes rendus" in which Poincaré published.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.141.197.3 (talk • contribs) 15:07, February 3, 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree, very recently a number of papers have appeared that prove that Poincare is undervalued in most physics textbooks. Some state that Poincare is the true inventor of SRT, and this is open for debate. However, we can bring a NPOV by acknowledging the contribution of Poincare on their own right without making many claims on Einstein's behalf or allegations against him, and you gave the correct paper title instead of the nonsense on the main page... so why didn't you make the appropriate corrections, as Wikipedia encourages you to do?!
There is a lot to improve as well as expand, and I'll contribute as I understand some of his way of thinking. Harald88 19:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

One or two days ago, Lumos added the following phrase about Einstein in addition to a phrase that already pointed out that Einstein made a significant contribution to special relativity: "It was therefore Einstein who produced the successful new Relativity model." The motivation was: "Einstein's credit restored". However, as Anonymous above already sketched, and also the main page hints at, such is disputed. One may just as well go to the Einstein page and paste after a mention about Poincaré, that "It was therefore Poincaré who produced the successful new Relativity model." Nevertheless, we may expand on this issue, as it is worth adding more details of the dispute (there was already a paragraph started on that issue). Lumos, if you have a good paper about that that is worth citing, please go ahead and do so; you can count on me to balance it with a counter weight to keep a NPOV. But empty claims about a heavily debated, even disputed subject matter are useless - especially as this one is subjective. Harald88 19:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added a clause which puts Einstein back in the place to which he is generally acknowledged in the history of Science, but acknowledges there may be dissent. The article is not the place to argue this point. This debate must take place outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles only report what is taking place elsewhere in society. Not to mention Einstein here is to mislead the general reader, who is the main user of an encyclopaedia. Lumos3 20:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
First of all I remark that you didn't produce a reliable reference that claims that Einstein, excluding Poincare, is generally acknowledged with regards to SR in the history of science, and I don't buy that (one may write instead that some physics textbooks claim that). Apart of that, although this article is about Poincaré and not about Einstein, Einstein was already mentioned in a paragraph on the relationship between the two, as well as by stating exactly what his contribution was. This was about the facts and not about opinions of people. For sure, it's not for Wikipedia to make a judgment about the relative value of the contribution of each!
The main point for an encyclopedia is to provide the facts. Thus, either we delete all mention of such opinions, or we report on the debate and the different arguments that different articles and books provide, keeping it compact. Most physics students have not heard about Poincare's undeniable contributions to SR, misleading them into thinking that he did not play a crucial role. To mention that "there may be dissent" against your claim is misleading to say the least, for there happens to be a debate among scientists and historians of science about that opinion that needs mentioning (see NPOV rules) - if we mention such at all.
Also, due to your argument I now checked the page about Einstein where Poincaré isn't mentioned at all! Indeed, that is misleading. If you wrote the truth about your motivation, for sure you are also going to correct that - we will see! Until now you give instead the impression that your god is Einstein, while it is well known that both Poincare and Einstein made important contributions. Anyway, I'll continue to correct changes where needed (but not always immediately, my free time is limited) and add comments where appropriate. It's good in an encyclopdia to counter empty claims by presentation of facts, reducing such claims to a farce.
For information about this debate, some references that are publicly accessible were recently provided in discussions on sci.physics.research, for example:
Some info about Poincare's contributions to relativity theory (from ca. p.90):
Note: Suggestions for improvement of the Poincare article can be drawn from:
Harald88 17:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for these links, they are a useful addition to the development of this article. You are making many unfounded conclusions about my place in this debate, such as that I worship Einstein. I have added mention of the debate and 2 links to substantiate it to the article. Lumos3 19:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the precision, perhaps we just base ourselves on different information. Sorry if I had a wrong opinion about you (but to be frank, I will only be convinced if you mention Poincaré on the Einstein page).
One question about a detail: you describe the new opinions as coming from "mathematicians", while I think that it's mainly coming from physicists and historians of science. Thus, either we figure it out, or we must scrap such a precision. I think that Lorentz and Pauli (physicists) as well as nowadays Janssen (science historian) can be counted among those who gave him more credit than most textbooks. The others are to be checked for their background; I myself am a physicist and I now also give him much more credit than textbooks do. Also, I change some phrasing: "acknowledging" something suggests an implied correctness of something but very specifically Wikipedia does not make claims about truth - and certainly not about things that depend on opinion.
Regards, Harald88 21:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Harald88, Could you give citations for the the Lorentz and Einstein quotations on Poincare's contribution to Relativity? This would add to the articles robustness. Lumos3 23:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Lumos3, I'm not sure what you ask for; I added the citation of Lorentz plus the reference for it, which is as robust as it can get (note that I simply added it lower on the page together with the other references; likely it's better to number them so that we can put a referral to each in the text but I didn't have the time yet and I don't know yet "how to" in Wikipedia). But I have nothing to do with the Einstein citation, you'd have to search the page history to see who put that one in. Harald88 12:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
PS by chance I stumbled just now on this interesting link:
Harald88 16:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Whole Story of the Origin of Relativity is fully researched at http://www.xtxinc.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 16:08, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who put that one here, but it should be understood that Bjerkness has very much an anti-Einstein bias. His book is nevertheless useful for the wealth of references. Harald88 17:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The textbook Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems (Ch.14) states that much of the mathematical formalism for special relativity had been established before Einstein by Lorentz and Poincaré. What Einstein did was take the theory to its logical physical consequences, uniquely formulating the theory in two simple postulates. His colleaques would point out that he "thought much, read little." Note that the book states that Einstein did originally formulate the general theory of relativity. "Einstein did know about the Michelson-Morley experiment null result, but was not familiar with Lorentz's work after 1895, so he reinvented the Lorentz transformation for himself (Pais 1982, p. 133)." [2] This article [3] refutes Bjerknes' "evidence" that Einstein is an "incorrigible plagiarist." --24.253.120.206 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It should be equally understood that Einstein's claims of his own "innocence" can hardly be considered to be evidence. Also, as evident from that article, Stachel is very much pro-Einstein biased, and he uses similar rhetoric tricks (logical fallacies) as Bjerkness. But together those articles give a good idea of the controversy. Harald88 12:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.xtxinc.com It says it all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 15:58, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

To Referees: It is a fact that Poincare corrected Lorentz' Transformations, correctly deriving them from only two assumptions, before Einstein, and Lorentz thanked Poincare for this, as I interjected into the text. Please leave it there. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 22:16, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please supply a reliable source for this "fact". Paul August ☎ 19:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I have not seen him "correctly derive the LT from only two assumptions" , although I think to have read all relevant papers by Poincare... Thus I'd highly appreciate such a find! Harald88 17:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
To Harald88, your answer I put in the section below, Did Poincare always credit Lorentz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 23:00, January 7, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] annoying first paragraph

It says, in partly for me unreadable characters: "Poincaré (pronounced (IPA) BrE: [ˈpwæŋ kæ reɪ]; AmE: [ˌpwɑːŋ kɑː ˈreɪ] [1]; Fr: [pwæ̃ ka ʁe]) " This is rather disturbing, what is a good way to eliminate this mess from the first paragraph? Maybe a linked footnote? I have not much experience with such details; perhaps someone else here has a good idea. Harald88 17:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I now simply reduced it, until someone comes along who knows how to do it properly. Meanwhile, here is the old version (much too long an with characters that don't show up in my browser):

Poincaré (pronounced (IPA) BrE: [ˈpwæŋ kæ reɪ]; AmE: [ˌpwɑːŋ kɑː ˈreɪ] [4]; Fr: [pwæ̃ ka ʁe])

Harald88 11:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems

The current article says in the introduction:

Poincaré anticipated Albert Einstein's work and sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity.

I am not an expert on Poincaré but my understanding of it is that Poincaré was certainly working on similar problems, and did publish a piece on the relativity of simultaneity, which is quite interesting and quite important, but this is far from "anticipating Einstein's work" (Einstein is famous for a lot of work which has nothing to do with Poincaré's work) and this is also far from being a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity. It is a preliminary version of the principle of relativity, which is part of the overall theory of special relativity but is not the "special theory of relativity" by itself at all. Other similar lines in the article include:

He published the main features of special relativity before Einstein, and even introduced the 4-space notation that Hermann Minkowski became known for.

I have no idea what this author considers the "main features" and this should be elaborated in detail if it is to be included here. There are far too many anti-Einstein quacks in the world for us to just throw out pithy statements of this sort which say nothing scientifically but make very lage priority claims. I do not know about Poincaré's work on Minkowski's spacetime geometry but I'd be pretty suspicious of that statement too -- if we are going to say someone came up with something, we need to be precise, not general. Poincaré was doing something quite different from Einstein but you'd never know it reading this. Additionally:

There is a growing minority opinion that Poincaré deserves more credit for the development of Special Relativity than he has been given to date.

The pages linked to support this claim are [5] and [6]. The former says nothing which supports this -- it gives actually a good account of things and describes the ways in which Poincaré's work was related to and probably contributed to SR but also the ways in which he and Lorentz really did differ from Einsteni. The latter is harder to assess but is typical of some of the modern French work on the subject (the French approach to this is, as I understand it, rather peculiar and is viewed with suspicion by other historians). There are many other problematic lines in this piece which are heavily biased, intentionally vague, and given undue credence to what is really a pretty minor historical opinion on this matter. The goal of Wikipedia is to present the mainstream opinion first and the minority opinion second (see WP:NPOV), and this article has it pretty much backwards even though it is not as far along in these things as the anti-Einsteinian nuts would hold it. --Fastfission 21:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fastfission, thanks for pointing out the easy-to-misunderstand sentence (would you also be able to help with the prononciation mess?) I see some room for further improvement, but your opinion about "heavy bias" is apparently not substantiated and you just show that you are not aware of the facts. Of course this article could include some common misconceptions and urban legends ("mainstream") and then contrast them with factual information -- perhaps that is a good idea.
As I understand it, the main difference between the French and those "others" is that they can read French! Please read Poincare's papers related to SRT: I can provide you with some articles, and you may find some useful citations on sci.physics.research as well as on some docs that are linked higher up on this discussion page. Take care not to expose yourself as an "anti-Poincare quack" (as you put it) or as an "Einstein worshipper" (as some others put it). Good luck! Harald88 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Historians in the U.S. read French too, you know. In fact most programs in the history of science require a reading knowledge of French, German, and English at the bare minimum. What is necessary here is citation, especially of a number of things, and I think I've described my discontents with some specificity: the article makes very large and vague without citing them or explaining them, and the few citations it does provide for some of its claims are wholly inadequate if not inaccurate. And what I meant in regards to the French: as I understand it, there is a strong pro-Poincaré flank amongst some French researchers, and there is in reaction a strong anti-Poincaré flank amongst others; the issue is heavily polarized there, apparently for political purposes, in any event neither approach is adequate. If we are going to point one way or another in a priority dispute, it needs to be clearly cited as to why. --Fastfission 18:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And just in the interest of disclosure: I don't care either way about who is first or last or whatever. What matters to me is that I am aware there are a small number of people out there who for various reasons like to give Poincaré credit for things that mainstream historians do not give such credit for, or want to make Einstein out to be some sort of loon and things along those lines. I am suspicious of this not because I have any great affection for Einstein, but because I want Wikipedia to properly reflect the scholarly consensus on things (not because I think it is correct, but because it is against that standard that we are judged externally in terms of our "accuracy"). Such POV-pushing has taken place in a number of other Einstein-related articles on just this very issue which is why I am highly suspicious of anything that looks like it here, since this article seems to be less highly watched as is the Einstein one. --Fastfission 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
As a starter: The main features of SRT can be found in the article special relativity, at the start. Will a referral to those points do? Harald88 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Apart of that, "4-space notation" sounds wrong to me; a quick look shows that before it said "4-vector". Harald88 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Didn't Poincare (1906) introduce the \sqrt{-1}ct axis ???? Is that relevant? E4mmacro 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
E4mmacro I'm not sure how much some people scrutinize each sentence with a magnifying glass, trying to find fault with it. Anyway, I see that the passages that were contested as being either POV or too vague have been fixed, mainly thanks to you.
But why did you (if it was you) leave out the passage on Poincare's relationship with Einstein? It's an interesting subject that is much discussed in literature. Harald88 15:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I now added more precisions and references. Harald88 17:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading the article's lead again, it strikes me that it has become biased to the other side, for now it reads: "Poincaré anticipated Albert Einstein's work on relativity". Anticipation, dictionary.com, first meanings: To feel or realize beforehand; foresee; To look forward to.

Instead, and contrary to the Fastfissions unfounded claim above, "sketched a preliminary version of the special theory of relativity" is correct or, in view of the presented facts, arguably it even doesn't give Poincaré enough credit. I will correct that, basing myself on my old university mechanics textbook for what constitutes SRT. Harald88 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[OOPS, I see that exactly now a kind of edit war is going on, and such phrases are changing... Thus I'll wait a while and later edit out unfounded statements that either don't do him enough credit or that give him too much credit. Harald88 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)]

As a typical textbook is perhaps not prominent enough for the article, I'll refer to it here: I base myself on Alonso&Finn's Fundamental Physics, 1.Mechanics, Dutch edition (1983). After mis-crediting Einstein with the Special PoR, they present how from the PoR the LT follow including the constant SoL, and they go on to show the "consequences of the LT" for relativistic mechanics. IOW, it is generally known and accepted that from the PoR and the LT all of SR physics follows.

-Note: That approach is in agreement with Einstein's 1905 papers, which also base the physical descriptions of the new mechanics on the LT, and Einstein also remarked that "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations". Harald88 22:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The correct, exact LT were first written down when?

In the form as a presentation of observational symmetry, I think there can be no doubt that that was first done by Poincare; but I remember that Poincare also had corrected an error of Lorentz and I forgot if that error was in the LT or elsewhere. And would that perhaps be worth of mention? I plan to look up the papers, but perhaps one of you can already give a precision. Harald88 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

E4mmacro 04:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Harald, I claim to know the answer about the error, see "A note on relativity before Einstein" (1986), link on the main page and many others. - the story of the error in the LT, comes from Lorentz (see the quote on the page about Poincare). But Lorentz was wrong as far as I can see. At a strecth you might think he was just saying he didn't see the symmetry. You might find some other error: I doubt it since I claim Lorentz had the exact LT, with sysmmetry, whether he could see it or not. Larmor had the same blindness on this point, it seems to me.

Poincare wrote the equations in 1905 in a more convenient but algebraically equivelent form, which emphasized the group propery. I think Lorentz himself did not notice that they were equivalent (but Poincare did and rightly named the new, but algebraically equivalent, equations as the Lorentz transformation). You are right about the form showing the symmetry, Poincare first wrote that (the modern form). As you know, Poincare gathered together all the primed quantities on the LHS and all the un-primed quantities on the RHS side. Larmor and Lorentz, wrote a mixture of primed, double-primed and un-primed quantities on the RHS and, for one or more of these quantities, you had to go back to a previous equation. Larmor and Lorentz's way of writing it reflects their thinking (contractions relative to the ether) and can make it easier to see the time dilation and length contraction directly (have you ever noticed how many people see these as around the wrong way, moving lengths longer, moving clocks slower, when they first see the modern form of the LT?) I think even you Harald, were confused by the different ways of writing the transformation (Lorentz/Larmor as opposed to Poincare/Einstein) in an exchange we had on another page about Voigt's local time and Lorentz's local time. Write Voigt's equation in Lorentz's form and the time dilation is obvious; write it in Poincare's form and the time dilation is not obvious at all. E4mmacro 04:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting comments, this is something to verify for sure - funny to see how such mathematically simple matters even confused, at times, Lorentz. But such confusions even happen when transforming meters into inches :-)
And (although this is off-topic here) indeed I had forgotten the details about Voigt's transformation, now that I looked it up again (it turns out that I have a copy of Ernst on my home computer) I found it to be:
x’= x-vt, y’= y/γ, z’= z/γ, t’= t – vx/c2 (Voigt)
Indeed it was his x unit that was unaltered, his transformed time unit differs from true time by a factor gamma^2. Sorry for that blooper! Harald88 13:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If by "correct" you mean "in the modern form", then Poicare (by definition only) wrote them first (I assume we won't argue about different notations, change of sign of velocity and setting the speed of light to 1 in the way POincare wrote them, see below). However, Poincare never said he was the first to write the correct Lorentz transfiormations. In 1905 he wrote ( English translation from Keswani and Kilmister 1983, see Macrossan 1086)
"The essential point, established by Lorentz, is that the equations of the electromagnetic field are not altered by a certain transformation (which I will call by the anme of the Lorentz) of the form:"
x^\prime = k\ell\left(x + \epsilon t\right),), k = 1/\sqrt{1-\epsilon^2}
y^\prime = \ell y, z^\prime = \ell z
t^\prime = k\ell\left(t + \epsilon x\right)
Lorentz had written (with a change in meaning for x, same as modern x - vt)
k^2 =c^2/\left(c^2-w^2\right),\ x^\prime = k\ell x
y^\prime =\ell y, \ z^\prime = \ell z, \ t^\prime = \ell t/k - k\ell wx/c^2
where \ell is an arbitrary funcion of w. This function was left undetermined by Lorentz in 1899 but in 1904, by considering the transformation of mass, Lorentz showed that \ell =1, for all w. Poincare (1905) said without explanation (trival for him?) that \ell must be unity because, if the transformations are to be "in agreement with the impissibility of measuring absolute motion", they must form a group. Lorentz's equations are algebraically equivalent to Poincare's (note, again, that x for Lorentz is the separation between two points on a moving body, measured or “as seen” in the rest frame, a constant independent of t). Poincare considers that he was `merely' drawing consequence from them. E4mmacro 00:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) The point is Poincare was right when he credited the transformation to Lorentz - he knew some algebra I guess. E4mmacro 07:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The error that Lorentz refers to more than once, (terms that should have disappeared) which Poincare corrected is NOT IN THE TRANSFORMATION (see above) but in an application of the transformation that Lorentz made in 1904. Lorentz got the wrong equation for electric charge density in the moving system. He got it wrong because he did not appreciate the relativistic velocity addition law, whereas Poincare (1905) got it right (again with little explanation) but it appears he did know the right velocity addition law (Keswani and Kilmister). I guess I should publish the full explanation. Let's not be too hard on Lorentz for making an error in an application of the equations, when he was the first to do it: didn't Einstein infer the wrong transformation for lateral inertia in 1905, which Lorentz got right in 1904? E4mmacro 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Note also Harald that the above shows why Macrossan (1983) claimed "Viogt's transformation" was a form of the Lorentz transformation, a from which did not satisfy the principle of relativity. Easy to detect absolute motion. E4mmacro 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the clarification! I guess it depends what one means with "correct" transformations. Harald88 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


To elaborate on the above: indeed as I verified, Lorentz's transformations correspond to Poincare's "Lorentz transformations" after performing a "Galilean transformation" on them. IOW, technically they are not the same transformations, but as you pointed out, they do agree. I have read such explanations before, but I had never taken the time to check it. Thanks again! Harald88 01:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Now anon. wrote, under another subject header below:

To help you out, Harald, perfect invariance means, that Poincare imposed the principle of relativity to derive transformations that preserve the form of Physical laws under coordinate transformation. That means to a layman like you, that Poincare derived the CORRECT transformations. GOT IT NOW ?

Anon perhaps means that some laymen(?) can't understand that two different ways of presentation can be both mathematically correct... Harald88 13:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Who is this anon person, who can't accept that if one rearranges an equation by algebra and introduces a new term which is a combination of the old terms, that the new equation is the same as the old one? It is not correct where the old one was incorrect. It may be more pleasing, or symmetrical or easier to understand, but it is no more correct. And Harald, what do you mean "technically" they are not the same? Poincare determined that l = 1 by using the principle of relativity, as did Einstein in 1905. Lorentz 1904 determined l = 1, by a different method. So what? He wrote the correct transformations. [the above apparently by E4mmacro]
I have to differ with your phrasing "is the same"; instead they imply the same. As you pointed out so clearly, the 1904 transformations of Lorentz use a different reference frame than those of Poincare, and they are related to each other by a Galilean transformation. Two transformations that are related to each other by a third transformation are technically not the the same transformations, instead they are in agreement.
Interesting: the original transformations of Lorentz are most suitable for highlighting the physical effects, while Poincare's "Lorentz transformations" are most suitable for highlighting the observational symmetry. Thanks for directing my attention to it! Harald88 11:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] did Poincare always credit Lorentz?

I don't think so, that looks exaggerated to me. For example, as far as I remember, he wrote to Lorentz about the group properties of the LT, and I don't recall seeing him crediting Lorentz for that essential discovery. Harald88 01:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

E4mmacro 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC) You are right, he did not credit Lorentz with that, and I am not denying that was a great thing. I was emphasizing the generosity of Poincare and his admiration for Lorentz. I was talking about the physics as opposed to the maths, and Poincare probably saw a difference. I should have said "generously credited" rather than "always credited". Thanks for the reminder. On the other, I could also correct it by saying "In all his publications, Poincare always credited Lorentz", but I don't know all his publications, as opposed to letters. E4mmacro 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Lorentz credited Poincare, for correcting the Lorentz Transformations. Poincare corrected Lorentz' equations by insisting that the equations 1) Satisfy the Principle of Relativity and 2) Satisfy the Speed of Light requirement. In this way Poincare was the first to derive the correct equations of Relativity, from just two assumptions, before Einstein.

No-name, please sign when commenting, and be specific, according to you:
- in which publication, and on which page did he correct the equations?
- in which publication, and on which pages, did he derive them from two assumptions? Harald88 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: On the Poincare Page is given a precise quote of Lorentz, where Lorentz is crediting Poincare with obtaining perfect invariance, in other words Lorentz is here thanking Poincare for correcting the Lorentz Transformations which had been defective. In obtaining perfect invariance Poincare is applying the Principle of Relativity, and of course using the postulate of the Speed of Light. Thusly, Poincare correctly derived the correct equations of Relativity from just those two assumptions. This is implicite in Lorentz' quote. This is what Lorentz is saying.

To Harald, As to where and when, Poincare did this in St. Louis at the World's Fair in 1904, and also in his famous paper of 1905, just prior to Einstein's 1905 paper.

To ???: I know that quote, as I put it in there, if I remember well! According to another editor Lorentz was confused or inaccurate when he wrote that; however, I now found a more precise quote by Ives that supports Lorentz, and which better explains the matter - or so I hope, I must read it in detail!

( proc. Am. phil. soc. Vol.95, p.125, 1951)

I have read those papers: no such derivation in them. This supports my idea that Poincare didn't actually publish such a derivation before Einstein. Harald88 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: What does it mean to you that Poincare corrected the Lorentz Transformations by requiring perfect invariance ? Once you understand that, you will have it.

I can't quote myself until it's published... Anyway, I understood it as reworking Lorentz's equations to a set of symmetrical equations, either by correcting a real error, or by changing their presentation (which is a point to verify). Harald88 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: There were terms missing in Lorentz' equations. Poincare derived these terms by imposing the condition that the transformations satisfy his Principle of Relativity, which equivalently means obtaining perfect invariance.

To anon, talking to Harald: ther were no terms missing from Lorentz transformation (see above under "when where they frist written down"). Lorentz made an error in one application of the transformation to a specific problem (electron charge density). Poincare 1905 showed that LOrentz's equation implied perfect invariance.

My Response: Lorentz' equations by his own admission were incorrect as he had written them (see Lorentz' quote in the text). Poincare made corrections to the so called Lorentz' transformations, for which Lorentz thanked Poincare. Poincare was therefore the first to correctly write down the transformations.

OK I think it's clear now. I'll modify the text a little to specify in what way Poincare improved the transformations. Harald88 09:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: I inserted it into the text for you, but someone knocked it out !

To ??? : I had already inserted it... Harald88 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did you insert it that Poincare corrected Lorentz' transformations ?

The article says they were algebraically equivalent, which is not true. Poincare's contained necessary corrections to Lorentz' transformations you need put that.

I put it back in again for you.

NO, that is your personal POV that is not sustained by the available information. Your options:
show an error in the above derivation, or
cite a good source text that claims what you like to cite, and include that too, or
just propose another way to state it in agreement with all the cited references.
Harald88 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I JUST DID THAT.

Now, I'd like to know why someone knocked out something that was originally in the article, even before I came along, namely that Poincare possessed all the essential features of relativity before einstein. I shall reinsert that now, exactly where it had been.

The reason for that you find in the POV debate: it was criticized as too vague, on its own. Thus it should only be reinserted in combination with substantiation of its meaning. Harald88 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll do that right now.

No Harald, correct math and incorrect math are not compatible ! - One is correct, one is simply wrong.

Anon, you claim a lot but that you are mistaken is demonstratd by the fact that you can't back up your claims, contrary to E4mmacro above in the "POV problems" paragraph. Harald88 07:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: What are you specifically referring to ? Be specific.

To Harald: Poincare's and Lorentz's work were NOT compatible. -I see you have no background in Physics or Mathematics. Lorentz's equations were mathematically WRONG. Poincare's were CORRECT.

Anon: Your observation about me is erroneous as well. I now see that what I referred to is in the paragraph "The correct, exact LT were first written down when", a little higher on this page. There it's all detailed by E4mmacro, and I verified his analysis. Now please specify what you deem to be the error in Lorentz's equations [7]or keep your unsustained opinion to yourself. Harald88 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There were several versions of Lorentz' work----which version are you referring to ? ---- none of them was covariant --- do you know what covariant means ? --- go look it up.

Who wrote the above? That person can look it up in the link that I provided in the line above that remark... Harald88 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: I can't see where you're talking of, but can't you read English ? Read Lorentz' quote that you yourself put into the article ! For Christ's sake, Lorentz says as clearly as he can that his equations were incorrect - can't you read English ? Lorentz continues on and says Poincare presented the CORRECT equations that preserve perfect invariance, don't you know what perfect invariance means ? Is that your problem ?

Hmm, wp:flaming won't help you: I can only suggest you to take a deep breath, and look in the mirror. Next look again and try to spot the word "correct" in your citation... Harald88 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

To help you out, Harald, perfect invariance means, that Poincare imposed the principle of relativity to derive transformations that preserve the form of Physical laws under coordinate transformation. That means to a layman like you, that Poincare derived the CORRECT transformations. GOT IT NOW ?

I reply in the appropriate paragaph about this subject here above. Harald88 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, do this, Harald, since you're struggling with these concepts, print out that Lorentz quote and take it to any university closest to where you're at, and show it to ANY physics professor, and he will tell you exactly what I am telling you.

PS. Get that word compatible out of there, it looks ridiculous.

Anon, please follow your own advice if you are unable to follow the logical conclusion of the paragraph above that handles this issue. Harald88 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK Harald, I would at this time be satisfied with the article if you could just do one small thing and replace the word compatible. - How about refinement ? He actually corrected Lorentz' work, is the proper word.

That is mostly a disagreement between you and E4mmacro as well as TestPilot... And note that that discussion takes place in the paragraph above, not here. Harald88 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: For a non-scientist and hack writer who can't spell, I can't expect an article any better than the one you have done. A Physicist reading through your article spots many logical problems and inconsistencies, but there is no way to get through to someone like you.

69.22.98.162, one more such baseless (and erroneous) flaming comment by you, and I'll report you. Contrary to newsgroups, correct behaviour is imposed in Wikipedia. Harald88 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
To other readers: Anon. is very gifted in flaming, while apparently he/she thinks that I am "the author" of this article, and he/she has not been able to find the applicable sections son this page such as "The correct, exact LT were first written down when?"; see also below...

To Harald: What is the difference between a feature and an element ? Confused ? Just a little ?

That really does it: "feature" was written by 69.22.98.162. :)) Apparently you are actually critizing yourself. And then you ask me if I am confused? Harald88 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Try this, look at Wikipedia's article on Special Relativity, so you will know what you're talking of. You will see there, that Special Relativity is defined by 1) Poincare's Principle of Relativity, and 2) the Postulate of the Speed of Light, and 3) the corrected Lorentz Transformations. -- That is what you are talking of, and Poincare had all three, before Einstein, before Lorentz, before Jesus Christ. DO YOU GET IT NOW ? Now go rewrite the article please.

I already did exactly that, indeed based on that article that I contributed to in a significant way. Go ahead and make improvements as you see fit, taking into account the consensus on this Talk page. If you are lucky, some of it will remain (as already happened before). Harald88 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Note; please first read the paragraph above "The correct, exact LT were first written down when?" ... Harald88 23:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

When ? Simple. In Poincare's famous 1905 paper, a few months before Einstein's first paper on relativity.

There, at your invitation I corrected the text, at least it is correct now.

NO Harald. Lorentz error was in the transformations themselves ! And NOT in a deduction from them. You are wrong ! Also, Poincare NEVER credited Lorentz with achieving a theory that satisfied the Principle of Relativity ! Poincare did that !

Harald you don't know what you're talking about -- PUT IT BACK.

Again, whoever you are, please put your comments at the bottom of that paragraph, and refer to the appropriate people. Apparently you confuse me with someone else, just as you even confused me with yourself. Harald88 11:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Lorentz completely missed the so called Lorentz Velocity Transformations. It took Poincare to present them correctly.

[edit] Did they collaborate, in the usual sense?

Poincare and Lorentz never wrote a joint paper - how can anyone say they collaborated? It sure seems to me that Poincare, in all published accounts fo Lorentz's theory, saw himself as an interpreter, not an origniator, as a mathematician and philospher, rather than a scientist. E4mmacro 05:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Scrap the "rather than a scientist", and I agree. He even wrote a book on physics. Cheers, Harald88 13:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To Referees: Why do you put a giant sign that says The Neutrality of this is Disputed ? - Why don't you put such a sign on Wikipedia's article that claims Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual ? - Why don't you put such a sign on Wikipedia's articles that pretend that the ancient Greeks and Romans were a bunch of homosexuals ? - Why does Wikipedia pick and choose ?

[edit] Poincare and time dilation

Somebody is trying too hard to give Poincare credit over Lorentz. I guess they really mean credit over Einstein. The letter from Poincare to Lorentz, refering to Lorentz 1904, was apparently written before Poincare wrote his 1905 publication. It does not show what is implied for it in the article:

"in preceeding letters to Lorentz he showed to be aware of time dilation [8]"

I guess this is meant to suggest that Poincare was ahead of Einstein on time dilation. What it shows is that Lorentz was ahead of Poincare. Poincare was aware of the time dilation (he did not introduce it). He had read Lorentz (1904), time running slow by the factor \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}), and he was also aware of the time dilation of Langevin, time running slow a factor \left(1-v^2/c^2\right)^{2/3}, as shown in the letter. The letter also shows that Poincare was at first doubting the time dilation, in that he first tried to conserve the unit of time, (by putting the k\ell = 1) but found contradictions. The letter also shows Poincare though Langevin's (wrong) value was correct. In the letter he said that only Langevin's factor (not the Lorentz factor) was free of contradictions. It could be Poincare was confused, when he wrote the letter, about Lorentz's notation (the different use of the symbol x to mean two different things by Lorentz 1904 and Poincare 1905). I say this, although it seems extraordinary, because Poincare is wrong if, by 'conserve the unit of time', he meant 'no time dilation'. By putting k\ell = 1, Poincare would get t = t − vx / c2 which at first glance appears to have no time dilation, until you realise that x = vt, and the time dilation factor is actually 1 − v2 / c2. If he had looked closely at the time transformation in Lorentz 1904, and put k\ell = 1, and if he understood the notation, he would see instantly that no time dilation corresponds to k = l. As Lorentz 1904 says, if you put k=1, \ell=1 you get his (Lorentz's) previous version of local time, which had no time dilation, just relativity of simultaneity.

Poincare had not relaised when he wrote the letter that he could use the group property and the relativity principle to establish that Lorentz had got the correct value for \ell = 1, from which time dilation of Lorentz's factor follows. Poincare could, but never did, use the same reasoning on Lorentz's transformation in 1899 when Lorentz published the same Lorentz transformation with \ell undetermined, and hence the time dilation factor undetermined. Poincare in fact waited until Lorentz had proposed time dilation before he considered it.

The "Poincare-was-first" faction would probably blow a fuse if we added the fact that Larmor had written the correct Lorentz transformations and predicted time dilation in 1897. Poincare knew of Larmor, and considered Larmor's approach inferior to Lorentz's, because Larmor assumed a rigid aether and therefore, according to Poincare, violated the principle of conservation of momentum for light-matter interactions (see Science and Hypothesis, 1902). E4mmacro 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

E4mmacro, you stated: "Somebody is trying too hard to give Poincare credit over Lorentz. I guess they really mean credit over Einstein. "
I missed that. According to whom, on this page or in the article, and where exactly? And there are as many opinions as people, it would not be useful to create "factions" except on the issue of defending Poincare against fables concerning his understanding of relativity, by what you would call the "Einstein faction".
That fact about time dilation is useful, as there have been unsustained claims (from the "Einstein faction"?) that nobody had thought of time dilation before Einstein and in particular, that Poincaré did not understand it. Thus this fact prevents the proliferation of such misinformation.
BTW, indeed there is good reason to think that also Lorentz was no stranger to the idea of time dilation, see the article on Lorentz. The tricky point that you seem to overlook, is that Poincaré understood that the t in the lorentz transformations stands for physical clock time, while Lorentz admitted to not have realised that. Thus the case for Poincare's understanding of this aspect is stronger than that for Lorentz.
Also BTW (for this should be about Poincare): What kind of ether do you think that Lorentz had in mind, if not a "rigid" one, insofar as he had such considerations? And do you have any indications that Larmor understood time dilation to be a universal phenomen, applicable to all clocks?
Harald88 14:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Here is your answer, someone wrote it into the article, the complete Lorentz Transformations are 1) Spatial , and 2) Velocity. Lorentz completely missed these velocity transformations, it took Poincare to correctly present them.

[edit] Too much on Poincaré about Lorentz?

Now the article contains a lot of Poincaré's opinions about Lorentz's contributions to relativity theory. However, IMO such extended elaboration is more appropriate for the article on Lorentz. This article is supposed to be about Poincaré... Harald88 13:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be OK except that Lorentz's opinion of Poinacre is quoted to show Poincare seemed to discover relativity, whereas Poincare's stated opinion that Lorentz deserves the greater credit would then be ignored. How can you accept Lorentz's opinion but not Poincare's? Only by a subjective judgment, IMO. And how can one claim that Poincare was gracious and modest without claiming that Lorentz was equally modest and gracious? And if you do not state the facts, that Poincare 1905 never claims to be doing much but explaining Lorentz 1904, and if one doesn't know that Lorentz 1904 actually contains the transformation (written in an inferior (POV) way) then you give the wrong impression about what Poincare thought he was doing, and you can't understand why Poincare thinks it was a paper of momumental importance. (On that point, Poincare was better situated to judge its importance - it was NEW to him and everyone else then. To us, it appears old and we judge it as "not going far enough" and containing a mistake.)E4mmacro 21:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The Poincare page has degenerated into some sort of fight over opinions (Whitaker's for instance) as to who was greater: Lorentz, Poincare or Einstein. State the facts and let the reader decide. BTW I think that although Poincare addressed the meeting of the academy before Einstein submitted, it would have been published later, after Einstein's submission? We need to check that. E4mmacro 21:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that you removed the double, I think it's rather balanced. I also removed all POV judgment words that I spotted. And we agree both on the importance of Lorentz's article, as well as on "State the facts and let the reader decide", which I wrote to you in a recent email.
About Einstein's submission date relative to Poincare's publication date: I stressed that what matters most is the actual publication dates (they are not patent applications and can be improved until shortly before!). Anyway, all articles I read that discuss that detail assert that it was published a few days after the conference, for example according to http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm the publication date was 11 June -- of course often journals appear a few days early, sometimes even late. Harald88 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I notice that now again material about Lorentz is added, that demonstrates how much his contributions were acknowledged at a certain point in time, but without anything about Poincaré, if I'm not mistaken. Again: the appropriate place for such homage to Lorentz is the article about Lorentz, this article should focus on Poincaré. Again: Wikipedai is not a soapbox! Harald88 09:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange claims

"and had shown that they expressed the essential content of the special theory of relativity. Thusly, Poincare was the first to correctly formulate and publish the Theory of Special Relativity"

- Could Poincare then "have shown" to express the essential content of a later label? I don't think so! Of course, he has shown that they are conform to the POR, but that was alread said.

- Also, according to him, already Lorentz had correctly formulated it; in this article we provide details on Poincare that show that he had the full toolbox; but many others are of the opinion that Einstein's derivation is essential for the full formulation of the theory. Thus such a flat-out statement does not look appropriate to me.

Thus I propose to simply delete that whole passage. Harald88 15:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I corrected that now. Harald88 19:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
PS also see, on "no soapbox": [9] Harald88 20:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Poincare was the first to publish the Special Theory of Relativity, COMPLETE, with both the Spatial Lorentz Transformations and ALSO the necessary Lorentz Velocity Transformations. Lorentz failed to produce them.

It's you and E4mmacro whose POV's differ most on the subject of the transformations. What Poincare did was to combine the standard ones that everyone knows with those of Lorentz. Obviously you still did not read the discussion about the transformations, as all this has already been explained higher up on this page, but you never commented... Harald88 20:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
To harald, Now I am even more confused - I can't make sense of 'combining' the standard transfromation we all know with those of Lorentz. As you know and dispute, I say Poincare re-arranged Lorentz's transformations (by algebra and nothing more) to get the modern form we all know. I also claim that is what Poincare thinks he did. After that trivial step Poincare saw deeper into the meaning of Lorentz's transformation (both versions are the same for me and I think Poincare). I don't get this combined business? Do you think Lorentz's x', t' frame is a different frame of reference from Poincare's x',t' frame? That Poincare has transformed from Lorentz's x',t' to Poincare's x',t', to a different reference frame? If so then we have at least clarified the issue. I say they are the same frame - the moving frame - in both versions, and x,t is the rest frame in both versions (the aether for Lorentz of course). E4mmacro 22:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
E4mmacro, we have discussed this, above and also by email. In the transformation by x-vt, the set of moving points transform to constant co-ordinates x' which may next be written as x. That does not affect the Lorentz transformed x'; instead the new x can not be equal to the x in the stationary frame, they correspond to points that are moving along with the x'.
Anyway, we agree that that is trivial; but only you claim that trivial equals nothing at all, while anon claims that it is the difference between "erroneous" and "correct". I don't dispute but agree with you that Poincare rearranged Lorentz's transformations to a new combined transformation (except if Larmor already published it), and I explained that to you by email as well. I will comment on this no more. Harald88 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Harald, I agree we should discuss it no more, and I didn't want to. I do understand the start of what you are saying. I agree with your second sentence (it was waht I told you). Your third sentence is correct, as far as I can see, and I never disputed it. But I still don't agree with you, when you claim Poincare's tramsformation is something different from Lorentz's. so there is no point continuing, as you say. I only did so because it was just that you used a new expression `combining', which you hadn't used before, and every time you write about it I think you are saying something different. I assume it is a language problem. Your use of the phrase 'new combined transformation' makes no sense to me in reference to the equation Poncare wrote (the word combined, for example, I see no combination fo any two things). That was all I asked about, and I can't see any answer in what you wrote. Sorry. E4mmacro 04:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

'

Also, this is your opinion, but Wikipedia must be neutral. We already have:

"For these reasons there are many, such as the historian of science Sir Edmund Whittaker, who hold that Poincaré is the true discoverer of Relativity " Harald88 20:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: It says right in the article that Lorentz missed the addition of velocities rule. --That is known in textbooks as the Lorentz Veocity Transformations, which is the other HALF of the Lorentz Transformations. --- What does that mean to you ?

I have read quite some textbooks as well as many papers by Lorentz and Poincare, but I never heard of "Lorentz Velocity Transformations". Please give a reference. Harald88 21:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I claim the velocity addition rule is a deduction from the Lorentz transformation, not the Lorentz transformation. Einstein deduced the relativistic Doppler shift from the transformations, but the correct Doppler shift is not the LT we are talking about is it? Lorentz could have got the velocity addition rule correctly from his transformation (of course, since his transformation is correct), but he didn't, probably because he never really trusted the offset term -k vx*/c^2 in his time transformation (he dropped that term when deducing the velocity of an electron relative to the moving frame). Or maybe Lorentz just didn't think it through. I put x* to reminded us that x* is something different form what you might think from the modern POV (see above). Harald, I agree that Lorentz never saw it the same way as Poincare did, as a relativity problem; he was "just" trying to show that we can use Maxwell's equations here on earth without worrying about the earth's motion thru the aether (its absolute motion to him) - approximating any point of earth as moving in a straight line thru space (or the aether) at any instant. He was not really interested in the relation between a reference frame on Earth and one on Jupiter for example. Or indeed between the reference frame on Earth and one attached to the electron moving relative to earth, which we now think he should have been interested in. As Einstein said "Poincare deepened the insight". E4mmacro 22:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald and E4: Yes the Lorentz velocity transformations are deduced from the Lorentz spatial transformations. BUT, look at any standard college textbook of Modern Physics such as the classic Weidner and Sells. -- In their textbook presentation of Special Relativity Weidner and Sells shows on the left hand page Lorentz Space Transformations and there on the right hand page Lorentz Velocity Transformations. BOTH together, are the collective Lorentz Trabsformations as presented in the textbook. -- Lorentz only had the spatial ones -- he missed the other half, the velocity ones, even though they are indeed derivable from each other, Lorentz missed half of them. --- Poincare's 1905 paper did not miss anything, he had them BOTH. - for this reason Poincare was indeed the FIRST to correctly publish the textbook version of the Theory of Special Relativity, and this SHOULD BE NOTED in the article !

anon, such a description is almost certainly not notable but just the phrasing of that particular textbook; it is in any case not contained in the works of Lorentz or Poincare. But to make sure: please give those Lorentz Velocity Transformations here, so that we can know what you are talking about. Harald88 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not notable ? You're kidding ! --It is this particular Lorentz Transformation, the Lorentz Velocity Transformation, that expresses the constancy of the speed of light ! -- And it certainly is contained in Poincare's work ! - but not in Lorentz' work ! From Poincare's famous 1905 paper the Lorentz Velocity Transformation formula is, where c = unity, u'=(u+e)/(1+eu). Thereby, when u=1, u'=1, and the speed of light is then a constant for both inertial observers. --- In a remarkable coincidence, Einstein's 1905 paper contained the same identical equation. This equation is given in ALL college textbook descriptions of Special Relativity. It is this Lorentz Velocity Transformation that Lorentz missed. This formula completes the group.

The equations of Special Relativity precisely as you see them in modern textbooks, are straight out of Poincare's 1905 paper.

YES Poincare DID include the addition of velocities equation in his June 1905 paper.

Apparently I have problems with my eyes... on which page? Harald88 13:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course Poincare never walked around publicly saying THIS IS MY THEORY ! . Who would stoop to that level? Certainly not Poincare. So you need rephrase that ridiculous passage.

[edit] I think I see anon's problem (mistake) E4mmacro 05:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The velocity addition formula is NOT (check for yourself) in the 1905 paper [10] read to the academy on 5 june 1905 (published in Comptes Rendus v 140 p1504-1508), but I think it is implicit in the paper (as I wrote on the Poincare page). I would certainly be interested in anon's opinion of where it was was used in that paper. In fact the 1905 paper, is quite short, and does not explain the group buusiness (as Poincare explained it in his letter to Lorentz), it merely states it as obvious (obvious to Poincare no doubt). By the way, Einstein's function phi(v) is the same as Lorentz's \ell, and Einstein's sets it to 1, by the same group argument as Poincare gave in his letter to Lorentz (but which Poincare did not spell out in his 1905 paper).

I think, but have not checked that the velocity addition rule is in Poincare's much longer paper of the same name of 1906 [11]. This paper may well be a more complete exposition or relativityu than Einstein of 1905 (I think it gives many more results) but it was published after Einstein submitted his paper. So I think anon is confused. I agree we need more than one text book calling it the Lorentz veliocity addition rule, to adopt that name.

We need to check the publication date of v140 of Comptes Rendus 1905. It is possible it was published after the date of 5 June 1905, which appears to be the day of Poincare's talk in front of the academy. E4mmacro 05:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

E4, Obviously you overlooked the above :
"BTW I think that although Poincare addressed the meeting of the academy before Einstein submitted, it would have been published later, after Einstein's submission? We need to check that. E4mmacro 21:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[...]
About Einstein's submission date relative to Poincare's publication date: I stressed that what matters most is the actual publication dates (they are not patent applications and can be improved until shortly before!). Anyway, all articles I read that discuss that detail assert that it was published a few days after the conference, for example according to http://www.soso.ch/wissen/hist/SRT/srt.htm the publication date was 11 June -- of course often journals appear a few days early, sometimes even late. Harald88 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)"

It was published June 9, and it included the addition of velocities rule. Also, Weidner and Sells wrote the classic Modern Physics textbook in which this equation is called the Lorentz Velocity Transformations. They are the EXPERTS on the subject. Finally, why does it matter to you so much about that one equation ? It changes NOTHING in what I wrote into the article.

Accuracy is what matters to me, anon. I notice you haven't said where the velocity addition rule appears in the paper. I have read the paper in an English translation and in French in the link above and I can't see it, so I am asking for guidance. If you have another copy of it you could email me the copy or the reference. I am particularly interested in your opinion as to where Poincare used it implicitly, if that is what you mean, since I do have an opinion on that. It was you who claimed the complete theory of special relativity = Lorentz transformation + velocity addition rule, not me, so the question is why do you think one equation is so important. And I am very pleased to know the paper was published on 9 June, but want to know how we know this. I don't doubt you, I just want the reference for a future publication. If you tell me who you are I will even suggest you as a referee when I submit it. E4mmacro 08:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of Lorentz's quote about Poincare correcting him, on which you place so much reliance, I guess you haven't read my stuff above. I will say it again, all based on the the text of Lorentz 1904 and Poincare 1905, and the two letters from Poincare ot Lorentz. The error Lorentz made was NOT in his transformation and Poincare was correct to attribute the tranformations he wrote to Lorentz (they differ ONLY in notation and algebra).

To E4: Have you seen Poincare's complete (part of it handwritten) Note a l'Academie des Sciences of June 5. ----That is where the addition of velocity rule appears.

To E4: Lorentz' transformations were corrected by Poincare in the sense that they were clumsy and made it too difficult for Lorentz to prove the Invariance of Maxwell's equations. Poincare corrected Lorentz' transformations in the sense that he put them into their convenient modern textbook form, which allowed Poincare to then obtain perfect invariance of Maxwell's equations. This is why Lorentz' quote says that his transformations were not the best suited, in contrast to the formulation of the transformations presented by Poincare. ----This is not to mention the Lorentz Velocity Transformations which Lorentz missed entirely.

To E4: Finally, it definitely merits being noted in the Poincare article that Poincare is the one who put the transformations into their classic modern form as is used in all college textbooks today. ---This is true even with or without the addition of velocities formula, but you will find that formula as well in Poincare's handwritten Note specified above.

PS to E4: Who originally wrote that, into the Poincare Article, that in 1905 Poincare gave Lorentz the addition of velocities rule ? ---It was not me. ---He is correct however in writing that.

PS to E4: Poincare's Note in question is in the Compte Rendu of the Monday Session 5 June 1905 of the l'Academie des Sciences de Paris. It was then printed on Thursday the 8 June and distributed the 9 June.

To E4: Even easier for you, the Lorentz Velocity Transformation that Lorentz missed is already right there in the article, in Poincare's 1905 letter to Lorentz, link number 6.

To anon: Thanks for confirming the velocity addition was not in the 1905 paper as published in v140 (link above). I thought I was going blind. I have no doubt Poincare knew it (it is in the previous letter to Lorentz). I have not seen the hand-written note you mention, but would love to. Where can I get it? BTW, I was the one who wrote Poincare gave Lorentz the correct velocity addition rule, but I knew that a letter to Lorentz does not count as publication before Einstein's paper, if that is what you were trying to prove. To whom was the hand-written note (version of the paper? notes from which he spoke?) distributed? Members of the Academy? E4mmacro 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Very good, you can obtain a photostatic copy of Poincare's 5 June 1905 Note from La Direction des Archives de l'Academie des Sciences. I don't have their address offhand. I have seen excerpt repros in French language books from the 5 June Note, and they say with permission of... said reference. PS. Are you intending to write a book ? I know even more goodies on all this, if you are.

Anon, evidently E4 has that already, just as I also copied it years ago from my library. But I also linked it in the article and now here once more for you : "Sur la dynamique de l'electron". Harald88 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, anon is talking about a handwritten note, which he says was published. It sounds to me like Poincare deposited the hand note from which he spoke at the Academy. It seems very odd that these hand written notes would be published, when the printed version was piblished in v140, but who knows? As you can see French text books rely on the note, they could also rely on the letter to Lorentz, to show Poincare knew the velocity addition law before Einstein published it. The idea that Einstein read this hand-written note and took his relativity from it seems far-fetched 130.102.0.178 21:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Note was published separately. I told you exactly where to get it. -- It was submitted just before the paper on the Dynamique de l'Electron, and published by the Academie, as I specified above.

To Harald: Poincare was a modest polite man who would not ever have walked around saying IT IS MY THEORY ! ---He just was not like that. Poincare would simply allow the publication record show his theory. ----So, you need rephrase that sentence at the end of the article, it is misleading.

Hold on gentlemen, that is the Note. To prove invariance Poincare necessarily had the addition of velocities formula, it is thus built in to that Note.

No one doubts Poincare knew the velocity addition rule in 1905. The point is when did he publish it, and how widely was it known. The information anon has given is not easily checkable and we are relying on the word of an anonomous person that a partly hand-written version of the paper was distributed or published. When I asked for a copy it turns out I have to write to the academy to get it. If it were published in the normal sense I would have to go a library, wouldn't I?

Response: False on all points. Yes it was submitted handwritten, but it was published in entirety by the Academie, and NO you did not have to write away for it, you yourself already had it in published format. Furthermore the same content is also in the full article Sur la Dynamique de l'Electron, which everyone has. So stop making excuses. Why do you hate Poincare ? Because he messed it up for your lifelong idol Einstein ? Is that why ? Well, too bad for your Einstein, because Poincare published the complete Special Theory in detail before Einstein, which I have proved in detail. So get over it cry-babies. Also, talk with any theoretical physicist, the addition of velocities equation is ESSENTIAL to prove invariance, it is implicit to the Note, as theoretical physicists of the time when reading the article understood. Poincare wrote what I am telling you, to Lorentz in the letter, (number 6).

And about "modest", we can't rely on an anonymous person's (psychic?) opinion that Poincare didn't really mean it when he credited Lorentz with the theory iof relativity. We just write what Poincare said and form our own psychic long-range mind-reading opinions of what he really meant.

Reponse: Do you really expect Poincare to state THIS IS MY THEORY ? Come on get real. Furthermore Poincare's quote does NOT attribute the theory to Lorentz, as you attempt to imply. Poincare's quote listed elements of the theory, but Lorentz could not tie them all together with a necessary proof of invariance. Poincare achieved that, as Lorentz' quote makes clear.

Forget about the Note, because the same contents are in Poincare's complete 1905 article as well. Now, can either one of you guys read French ? Read Poincare's letter to Lorentz (number 6). Clearly as can possibly be, Poincare shows the proof implicite in his 1905 Sur la Dynamique de l'Electron. It is the proof of the correct form of the theory and relies directly on the addition of velocities, absolutely implicite to the 1905 paper. (and of course to the Note as well)

Anon, the only relevant references of that time that we have are given and linked in the article, I provided those links. Obviously, even after we pointed it out to you twice, you continue to confuse Poincaré's 1905 June note with his 1906 paper with the same title that he handed in in July 1905. All that info is in the article! Good luck, maybe you like to discuss with us , but I definitely lost my appetite. Harald88 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, back to square one: we started with the question of when the velocity addition rule was WRITTEN explicitly in a published paper (at least that is where I started). In Sur la Dynamique de l'Electron Comptes Rendus v140 (link above) he merely states that the equations form a group; he does not give the longer explanation he gave in the second letter to Lorentz . He did not write the velocity addition law but, I agree (as I always did, please read above) he knew it and it is implicit in the little he wrote. Poincare probably explained it all at his talk, and he could have and should have, but DIDN'T publish a more complete paper in 1905. Your guess as to my motives and opinion of Poincare and Einstein is wrong. My guess (just a guess) as to your motives is that you want to prove Einstein stole it from Poincare. Now Einstein was perfectly capable of reading Lorentz 1904 and coming to the same conclusions as Poincare did (Einstein denies this and we have to accept that) but it is highly unlikely Einstein could have seen the unpublished letters to Lorentz or this hand-written note you talk of. If you want to take another guess at my motives (always unwise) you could read my paper A note on relativity before Einstein E4mmacro 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

With the letter to Lorentz, Poincare made perfectly clear as to how invariance was proven, if anyone couldn't grasp it from his 1905 article there it was, essentially for all to know. In telling Lorentz he was telling Jesus Christ himself how it is done, and yes, no doubt in conferences before the Academie as well this was shown.

As for Einstein, he published AFTER Poincare, that is certain. Yes perhaps he could have figured it out on his own. It is safe to assume he did however follow Poincare's well published work as everyone did. No doubt Einstein through the grapevine could have easily known how Poincare proved Invariance. Poincare made no secret of it.

I saw your note on Larmor. Too bad he could not prove Invariance, he might have become the new Poincare.

FACT: Poincare correctly published the Theory of Special Relativity in detail, and proving it mathematically, before Einstein.

[edit] Poincaré's scientific caution

I have been reading up on the history of the origins of special relativity. My source is Kevin Brown, the author of the articles on mathpages.com Judging from his articles, Kevin Brown is very meticulous indeed, and very perceptive. I rate his articles among the best that are available on the internet. However, his articles are his personal views, they're not part of a peer reviewed system.

Kevin Brown has studied Poincaré's 1905 paper, and has written a historical article, and I quote from his comment:

We should also point out that the second half of the Palermo paper concerns relativistic gravitation, and we now know that the simple concept of relativity that both Poincare and Einstein envisaged in 1905 was not consistent with the phenomena of gravitation. This realization came to Einstein only in 1907, but we can see that Poincare was already concerned about it (and rightly so) in 1905. Poincare’s quickness and depth prevented him from unambiguously embracing (special) relativity as a principle, rather than just a postulate.

Einstein was confident, in his article 'on the electrodynamics of moving bodies' he expresses no doubts about the road ahead. On the other hand, Poincaré judged that the case for full-blown relativity was at best hanging in the balance. Worth the effort to be explored, but embracing it would be unscientific.

In the opening sentences of his article, Einstein pointed out the example of the magnet and the conductor, and he states a commitment to the following research programme: developing a from scratch an integrated theory of motion (dynamics and electrodynamics), starting with the primary assumption that in the case of the conductor and the magnet there is in fact just a single mechanism at work, not two different mechanisms that yield exactly the same outcome. That, is my understanding, is what Einstein displayed confidence about, where Poincaré was cautious and tentative. --Cleonis | Talk 14:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; eventhough Einstein's lucky strike had great results, Poincaré had a more scientific attitude. Anyway, thanks for reminding us that a remark about gravitation is missing in the article. Harald88 21:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Since Poincare's version of the relativity of gravity (tried by many others I beleive) came to nothing or little, I deliberately did not mention the gravity part of his 1905 paper. Let's not start an argument about precedence for GR - Einstein is surely miles ahead of anyone on that. 130.102.0.177 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that both Einstein's attitude and Poincaré's attitude can be characterized as eminently scientific. Scientists make judgement calls. A healthy, vibrant scientific community will harbour different assessments as to what the promising avenues are. Thus, multiple avenues are explored.

Poincaré was right in his premonition that physics might be on the brink of a revolution as profound as the Copernican revolution. For Poincaré it was unclear exactly what the nature of that revolution would have to be. Judging from the available quote, in 1913 Poincaré was aware that the twenty physicists at the Solvay conference assessed that the shift from Lorentzian theory to Einstein's special relativity was as profound in nature as the Copernican revolution, that an 'old mechanics' was replaced by a 'new mechanics', but it seems Poincaré did not follow that prevailing opinion. --Cleonis | Talk 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue why you claim that "For Poincaré it was unclear exactly what the nature of that revolution would have to be": he sketched it very clearly, and later it was himself who gave the decisive push just before Einstein.
Also, it's transparent why he disagreed -- in fact in the cited passage he exposes that the prevailing opinion was incoherent with the facts. It was perhaps a little sarcastic, since he had introduced that term "the new mechanics" himself, and emphasized that Lorentz's theory was a crucial part of it. Harald88 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More biased statements

The number of biased POV statements is increasing instead of decreasing.

For example I already explained above why such sentences as "anticipated Einstein" is no good, and the following "published the Theory of Special Relativity in its classic modern form" doesn't make sense to me, so I changed it to a neutral phrase.

Also, the article now says that some of his (and Lorentz's?) work was "re-discovered in special relativity" -- which we then could also state of Newton's work in Classical mechanics and Maxwell's work in Electrodynamics. Certainly no "re-discovery" took place, instead SRT was established around 1905.

Also, "Such a view gives no weight to Poincare’s published opinions of 1905 and 1913, which give the credit to Lorentz. " I already exposed above editors confusion between different words; IOW it's simply editor POV.

What does IOW mean?
Sorry if that newsnet abbreviation is not known -- IOW= in other words. Also, POV = point of view. Harald88 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please help eliminating POV statements, thanks!

Harald88 10:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

PS see also NPOV tutorial Harald88 10:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the effort of Harald88. Repeating what Harald wrote: the no-rediscovery situation was described by Niels Bohr as the 'Correspondence principle' If a new theory replaces a theory (which from then on is referred to as 'the old theory') then the new theory must predict the same as the old theory did in contexts where the old theory applies well. Example: at non-relativistic velocities the relativistic formulas simplify into the newtonian ones. --Cleonis | Talk 10:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Cleonis, please specify since you lost me here. Where two or three people propose the same theory at appriximately the same time, there is commonly a debate about priority of parts and/or the whole, but not about "re-discovery". For example, I never saw an article (let alone a peer reviewed paper) that claimed that Poincaré's 1905 perfection of Lorentz's 1904 theory was "re-discovered" by Einstein a few months later. And that's not surprising, such a claim wouldn't make much sense. Harald88 11:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

- To Harald: For you to see a multitude of such articles, right in the mainstream press, see the list of references given at http://www.xtxinc.com

Good try, but again erroneous: On that page is exactly one referral to a theory that was "anticipated", and it was not about special relativity -- and neither is it "mainstream press" I'd say... What matters is to cite an opinion (but not in the lead, please do that in the body of the article).
Harald88 15:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald you are looking in the wrong place, see the ARTICLES, they are from the UK Register, etc LOOK AGAIN A BIT MORE CAREFULLY.

Anon, the word "anticipated" wasn't on that page either. And BTW, I doubt very much that all meanings of that word correspond with what you intend to say, but obviously you STILL have not checked the dictionary definition above to know it. But it doesn't really matter: opiniated claims that are not supported by a precise reference should be removed from Wikipedia. Thus, please don't ask me to search for a reference for your claim. Harald88 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Please use basic proper grammar when writing your posts. Anon, I agree, the same to you! Note however that grammar has little relevance on this page. Harald88 11:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: If you were a Physicist you would immediately understand that Poincare absolutely DID anticipate Einstein, and that Poincare DID publish the Theory of Special Relativity completely and correctly, before Einstein. This is a fact, made perfectly clear by the historical publication record. Stop denying reality, Harald. What is more important, truth, or your biased ways ?

Anon continues to place here erroneous remarks that are against Wikipedia policy and he/she still didn't get it, probably because he/she again didn't read either the comments above on this page nor the manual.

Anon, please stop wasting our time by continue to make uninformed comments here, instead add them at the appropriate place above and cite your dictionary if you disagree with the one I quoted. And please read WP:NPOV as well as the NPOV manual, we have no right to impose a judgment that we consider to be the truth. Harald88 11:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, you have not the background to make changes to the text. Please allow E4 to make any changes.

Anon, AFAIK nobody here is a professional historian of science with a specialism of Poincare. But also that doesn't matter as personal opinions should be published outside of Wikipedia first. Please abstain from stating your personal opinions in the article, and stop your personal attacks. ... Harald88 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Thank you for leaving the text as it is, I think the article is not bad, and I thank E4 for being objective and including all pertinent facts, he did a good job writing up the facts. -- But I see no reason for the Neutrality sign. The mainstream articles from the UK Register, the Times of India, the Nouvel Observateur, etc, are far harsher, using the word Plagiarism in reference to Einstein, which Wikipedia has refrained from doing. I therefore believe the Neutrality sign should be removed, as the article sticks to facts and does not call Einstein any such names, as did those major media sources. I'm certain E4 would also like to see the Neutrality sign removed from what he has written.

Anon, you keep on confusing me and E4, half of the recent changes were by me. Now I simply wait until the edit war between you two settles down, before I go for another clean-up round to remove any remaining editor's views that are presented as facts; I can't afford to waste my time like I did. BTW, please read the Wikipedia information that I requested you to read: Wikipedia imposes to be neutral. Harald88 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I too am all for neutrality, I want only facts.

PS. The word anticipate is far gentler than the word plagiarism used in those mainstream sources. We are being very nice here actually. --And anyone at all can see that the word anticipate is fully justified here.

Then oppose the dictionary definition that I quoted and which implies that "anticipate" downgrades Poincaré's work. I will not comment anymore to new comments of you that show that you didn't bother to read mine. Harald88 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I read your message. I think anticipate is passable, it means to foresee. And yes I personally would rather be even stronger in the wording, because I agree with the UK Register.

Poincare published Special Relativity COMPLETE.

Unless someone can name something Poincare missed, he published Special Relativity COMPLETE.

PS. Just for the record, I have a PhD in Physics from UCLA, and I would be glad to communicate with you fellows off the internet as well, if you wish to.

To E4: Yes Lorentz made the essential point, but he could not prove it, this Poincare did, as you are well aware, so you need insert this qualifying fact into the article to be correct and neutral.

If you must say it, move it to the last paragraph. Let Poincare finish saying what he thinks then add your opinion as to why Poincare is wrong, after my opinion as to why Poincare is regarded more highly now (because of the group stuff). Maybe, the great arbitrator will allow one tiny last paragraph of opinion. I think Poincare's published opinion is as relevant as Whitakker's and assume it will not be deleted. E4mmacro 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll move it there if you prefer, and BTW it is not an opinion it is a fact that Lorentz could not prove the essential point, as you are well aware that is where Poincare came in, to prove Invariance, said proof a necessity.

To E4: the speculative comments you add regarding E=mc2, are superfluous and I believe untrue, I would certainly think that Poincare realized the energy was carried off from somewhere !

Hang in there Harald, E4 and I are, it appears, just about done. I personally think the article is not bad as is.

[edit] what poincare missed and E=mc^2

Also anon: Things Poincare missed

  1. Did Poincare establish E = mc^2 in the sense Einstein meant? Answer no, despite your deletion of the fact that he didn't. There is nothing POV in my factual statement that HP and AL (circ 1900) did not say that the energy of radiation came from a decrease in the mass of the object. Poincare would assume the energy came from somewhere, of course -- the electrical potential energy stored in the arrangement of the "electrons". People use conservation of energy all the time in classic physics without assuming the energy came from mass. And Poincare said the radiation had momentum (not mass), the momentum came from an equal and opposite momentum gained by the recoling object.
  2. Did Poincare publish the relativistic Doppler shift before Einstein did?
  3. Did Poincare or Lorentz draw the conclusion now known as the twin papradox?
  4. Did Poincare predict mass changes with velocity? No, Lorentz did in 1899.
  5. Did Poicare show that mass or inertia depends on the direction of the force w.r.t. the velocity? No. Lorentz 1904 did.

You can say all this was contained in what Poincare wrote, and I have no dispute with that. But if someone said to you, it was all contained in Lorentz transformations Larmor wrote, you would then say, "But Larmor didnot prove it! - he did not show his transformations formed a group, and had all these consequences" (but he did show invariance of Maxwell's equations under the transformation). Well neither did Poincare show the conclusions that Einstein did. Poincare can't have ALL the credit and certainly didn't want it. Please don't make the page a vehicile for monomania on the subject of Poincare v Einstein. I guess I will wait till Harald fixes it all up, and see what he thinks. E4mmacro 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks E4 for your vote of confidence, only I had hoped that you would fix it up, at least roughly... BTW, if I get to it, I hope that it will not be visible what I think! as a matter of fact some anon recently (with another article) got a little frustrated in trying to figure out my opinion because my opinion was not clear at all from my edits. ;-) And of course, that is how it should be. Cheers, Harald88 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: Poincare's 1905 paper contains the necessary and sufficient conditions for the Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein's 26 September 1905 paper, hailed as the Theory of Special Relativity, contained the identical content, with no new interpretations, apart from simply the Doppler-Fizeau effect. Credit for the 1905 discovery of the theory belongs therefore incontestably to Poincare.

Truly amazing! Your answer was anticipated and rebutted in the question raised, but you go ahead and give it anyway, with nothing new. 203.101.230.213 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir: You are certainly a top notch Logician, but nobody can follow what you are saying. Please speak English.

Regarding the separate question of E=mc2, Poincare's formula E=mc2, as pertaining to effective mass of light is still used today, such as in the well known Pound and Rebke experiment, it is still correct usage of E=mc2 today.

Nobody said it wasn't true. It is just that E = mc^2 is not Poincare's formula. You keep deleting the factual sentence explaining this, but deleting doesn't prove anything. 203.101.230.213 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir: You are contradicting yourself. Poincare published E-mc2 in 1900. So it is his formula. Read Whittaker (1951).

I will repeat a part of my last remark that you evidently missed, in other words:
Some opinions are shared by nearly everyone; for obvious practical reasons, they can be presented as a matter-of-fact. But other opinions are not agreed on by nearly everyone, and surely you know very well which ones: The very ones that you are arguing about. Not everyone has done your personal research, and it is not allowed to force other editors to verify your judgment based on subtle weighing the evidence from different sources together with your opinion of the meaning of terms WP:OR. Of course, all this I should not have to explain to you, as you supposedly read all that yourself before arguing.\
In a nutshell: if in wikipedia your personal conclusion becomes clear from the article, it means that you failed as Wikipedia editor and the article is no good. Now please correct the parts where such opinions are visible. Thanks. Harald88 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be able to say these are my observations, but in fact they are taken from many published papers by various Physicists, such as Keswani (Brit.J.Phil.Sci.1965-6), Sir Edmund Whittaker, Jean-Paul Auffray Espace-Temps, Jules Leveugle Poincare et la Relativite, Bernard D'Espagnat, etc etc who have all published this fact of Poincare's anteriority. I reviewed the article, there is nothing original to myself.

[edit] Speculations as to why Poincaré didn't contest priority

I copy and paste from above:

Cleonis, please specify since you lost me here. Where two or three people propose the same theory at appriximately the same time, there is commonly a debate about priority of parts and/or the whole, but not about "re-discovery". Harald88 11:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, then you and I had something different in mind.
About priority: as is stated in the article, Poincaré did not contest priority.
As to the why, my personal impression (given the information available to me, and I don't have all the information) my personal impression is that Poincaré judged that Einstein was prematurely confident.
I figure that as seen from a 1905 perspective: if it would turn out that it would be impossible to formulate a Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation, then the approach of uncompromising implementation of the principle of relativity of inertial motion would prove to be a dead end.
My understanding is that in the years after 1905 (and to this day), the scientific community judged that Einstein's choice of avenue to follow was the best one. That would explain why Poincaré didn't contest priority. If he judged Einstein's uncompromising attitude as a premature commitment, he wouldn't have wanted to be associated with it.
Anyway, these considerations of mine are too speculative to be of value to the article. I fear that what I'm doing is not of good help to you, so I will try hard to keep a low profile. My intention is to support you. --Cleonis | Talk 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleonis, I never thought of that, but I think that your hypothesis is correct for it is consistent with the letter of recommandation of Poincare about Einstein, if I remember well (I read the whole letter). Oh I now see E4's remark, I continue there. Harald88 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So, Poincare was prepared to let Lorentz be associated with a wrong theory, and kept saying "it was all Lorentz's fault :) BTW, does anyone know a source for Poincare writing a reference for Einstein to get a University position? My memeory may be faulty here, but I think he did, and in it Poincare mentioned Einstein's quantum stuff but did not mention relativity? E4mmacro 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed he avoided mentioning relativity: apparently he didn't want to give any credit to Einstein for it... But I don't remember where I read it, sorry. I surely read it on internet. Harald88 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding that Lorentz ether theory is by nature pragmatically oriented. To some extent, one can say that Lorentz ether theory was adjusted and readjusted time and again as new experimental results ruled out this or that possibility. By virtue of not being rigidly committed to a particular scheme, Lorentz ether theory can neither be proved wrong, nor be confirmed by experiment.
Einstein's uncompromising approach leaves no room for adjustments. Given the approach in the article 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies', it's an all or nothing affair. (Which is what Einstein aimed for: a scheme of postulates so unadjustable that the validity of the entire scheme can be disproved by experiment.)
I speculate that that is related to why Poincaré credited Lorentz and not Einstein. Of course the equations and formulas of Lorentz ether theory and special relativity can be seen to be mathematically equivalent. But there is more to the story than that! There is also the dimension of what the scheme is by design committed to. --Cleonis | Talk 08:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The "hic" is that Poincaré did not propose a "Lorentz Ether Theory", and in fact, neither did Lorentz -- just as Maxwell did not propose a "Maxwell ether theory". Instead, Lorentz proposed a theory of electrons, which bit by bit yielded to Poincaré's demand for a theory that is conform to the modern PoR; and Poincaré congratulated Lorentz to have finally come with an electrodynamics theory that fullfilled his relativity theory requirement. As a true scientist he was not dogmatic about it, while Einstein insisted from 1905 to 1918 on a more extreme theory (and if I remember well, also originating from Poincaré!): the erroneous theory that only relative motion of objects matters. Obviously, Poincaré regarded his own insight as well as Einstein's few additions to the status quo as of little importance compared to all the achievements of Lorentz, while Lorentz deemed the insight of Poincaré and Einstein as more important. Lorentz was a bit negligient about Poincaré, he sometimes simply forgot to mention him (perhaps because Einstein did a better job in explaining relativity than Poincaré). Today Poincare's PoR and Lorentz symmetry are seen as more essential, but they continue to be falsely attributed to Einstein.
Harald88 09:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
On second thought: it probably had to do with the difference in age, for much later Einstein wrote: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." Harald88 17:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of brevity statements usually just refer to 'Lorentz ether theory', but you are right of course; since Lorentz ether theory is a body of practices evolving over time, one should actually specify year and physicist, and maybe even the specific paper, when referring to LET.
The paper 'on the electrodynamics of moving bodies' introduces a scheme in the form of starting from scratch. It is presented as wiping the slate clean and starting anew. After 1905 the Einstein relativity research programme (as adopted by members of the scientific community of the time) evolved on its own, but the 1905 commitments of Einstein have that clear starting point in time. --Cleonis | Talk 10:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poincare considered "no time dilation" NOT as "an alternative" in 1905

I see that an earlier claim that in 1905 he considered no time dilation a possible option, has been reinserted. Instead, he wrote that he tried "to preserve the unit of time, but that led [him] to inadmissible consequences".

I had already corrected the error, but I see that the error came back (not the only one)... Harald88 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

PS I'll be too busy the coming days... Harald88 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are so busy Harald. Poincare did consider no time dilation "as an alternative" - he considered it and rejected it. The sentence was supposed to counter someone's absurd suggestion that Poincare originated time dilation. On the contrary, it looks like he was surprised by it, and went to some trouble at first to show Lorentz was wrong in choosing \ell = 1 (which gave time dilation), later admitting Lorentz was right (though I would guess Poincare thought his reasoning for \ell=1, was better than Lorentz's). E4mmacro 23:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poincaré's scientific caution (2)

I would like to point out the following: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/PrintHT/Special_relativity.html

When Poincaré lectured in Göttingen in 1909 on relativity he did not mention Einstein at all. He presented relativity with three postulates, the third being the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction. It is impossible to believe that someone as brilliant as Poincaré had failed to understand Einstein's paper.

This is consistent with Poincaré disagreeing with Einstein on a fundamental issue. If Poincaré's concept of how best to integrate a principle of relativity into a theory of physics had been the same as Einstein's, then the content of his lecture would have been the same as the content of Einstein's paper. But it appears that Poincaré's thinking had evolved since 1905, and that by 1909 he was more confident about fundamental issues, and he publicly disagreed with Einstein. --Cleonis | Talk 09:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir: There are only two postulates to the Theory of Special Relativity, as everyone knows, and as Poincare published in 1905.

Just an idea, not sure if it matters: Poincare had the opinion that instead of Lorentz contraction, light speed anisotropy could explain the phenomena. That option leads IMO to the possiblity to break the PoR in special circumstances; perhaps he had not discovered its flaw. If that is what was behind it, then his disagreement was not fundamental. Harald88 13:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald, I think it's time to remove the Neutrality sign, E4 apparently has no further disagreement.

I certainly disagree, and so does E4. Most issues such as mine above and his above have not been dealt with, and the text is not "neutral" but instead still gives editor's opinions. I won't have time to change it now, at least not carefully. Harald88 14:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What has not been dealt with ? State explicitely WHAT, please. And what editor's opinions ? I have supplied only well published sources. --Please be Specific.--- And Where is E4 ? Has he nothing SPECIFIC to say ?

What a farce - beyong a joke. He/she seems to sincerely believe that if I stop repeating myself, stop restoring balancing statements, I agree with him/her. E4mmacro 20:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The text of Poincaré's 6 lectures (PDF-file, 382 KB) is available from the Gutenberg project repository. The first 5 lectures are about advanced mathematics subjects, the sixth is about the 'nouvelle mechanique'. The lecture about the new mechanics is in french.
Poincaré does not mention Einstein, which is a statement in itself, and the postulates that Poincaré describes as the axioms of the new mechanics are different from Einsteins choice in his 1905 article.
Of course Poincaré was quite aware that the choice of axioms matters. Not mathematically - generally the axioms of an axiomatic system can be formulated in a number of mathematically equivalent ways. But in axiomatic physics, the choice of axioms is a statement in itself.
I think the evidence is consistent with Poincaré wishing to distance himself from some of the aspects of Einstein's 1905 paper. --Cleonis | Talk 14:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The subject is the 1905 discovery of relativity. Poincare's 1905 axioms and equations are identical to Einstein's and predate Einstein. Why should Poincare address Einstein - Would you ? This is dictionary definition of plagiarism.

Where is E4, Michael Macrossan, he is normally very agressive, but seems to be very quiet now.

Why not cite the mainstream sources such as the UK Register, etc, that call Einstein a Plagiarist, should we not include that in the article ? How about it ?

Sorry no time, but insofar as notable and about Poincare and coherent with the article, perhaps interesting to cite pro and contra opinions with their arguments. But won't the article get too long? Harald88 17:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Very good I think we have made much progress. Let me know if there are any SPECIFIC questions remaining in your mind, please simply ask, being SPECIFIC of course. Personally I would rather not call Einstein a Plagiarist in the article, there is no need to do so. The article reads quite well enough as is. All I would recommend at this point is for you to add a half dozen major publisher sources that document Poincare's discovery of the Theory of Special Relativity in his 1905 paper, such as Sir Edmund Whittaker(1951), Keswani (1965), etc. --I'll get them altogether for you now.

The article is not about Einstein the plagarist - write a new page if you must. E4mmacro 20:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah Michael, good to finally hear from you, yes I agree, let's leave out the plagiarism stuff. We agree, you see !

To Harald: A must source is G.H. Keswani Origin and Concept of Relativity Brit.J.Phil.Sci. (1965-66). ---- I have some more good ones, hold on....

To Harald: Another must source is Jean-Paul Auffray L'Espace-Temps Flammarion (1996) ---- Jean-Paul Auffray has been interviewed a number of times on Radio France Internationale. I have met him. His book spells it out that Poincare discovered Special Relativity in 1905, before Einstein.

To Harald: An excellent article by Jules Leveugle Poincare et la Relativite Revue de l'Ecole Polytechnique (April 1994)

more coming, hold on....

Another fine book whose title says it all, is Prof. Jean Hladik Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprie la Relativite Restreinte de Poincare Ellipses (2004).

To Harald: Jules Leveugle from the famous Ecole Polytechnique has also written a couple of books on Poincare's 1905 discovery of Special Relativity, but I think you have enough, just cite his article from the Revue de l'Ecole Polytechnique, that is a top notch source.

I think to have read Leveugle, but I won't have time for that now, sorry. As already suggested, it might be good for an interesting related article that can be referred to from the Poincaré page -- why don't you start writing it? The question is only about the appropriate encyclopedia article tite name. And who knows, perhaps already someone started an article like that. Harald88 21:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: This is all of utmost pertinence to the Poincare article. That is where all of this belongs. If you want to leave out Leveugle's article, that is fine, because we have already Whittaker, Keswani etc. which is already more than enough to support the facts.

To Harald: Whittaker is actually enough, you don't really need to add all the other sources at all.

[edit] Poincaré's Göttingen lecture

Quote from Poincaré's 1909 Göttingen lecture:

Le principe de relativite n’admet aucune restriction dans la nouvelle mecanique; il a, si j’ose ainsi dire, une valeur absolue. (In the new mechanics, the principle of relativity does not allow any restriction; it has, if I may say so, an absolute validity)

It appears that in 1909 Poincaré was confident. It seems that Poincaré's approach is such in nature that he decides to present Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction as a third, completing assumption, that gives the mathematical physicist a set of axioms that allows him to generate all theorems of the new mechanics.
As I said earlier, I think the evidence is consistent with Poincaré being keen to distance himself from certain aspects of Einstein's 1905 paper.

To Cleonis: certain aspects, Which ? BE SPECIFIC. Also, the subject is the 1905 discovery. Period. Don't confuse issues.. Also, no third assumption, just two.

That is, I think the evidence is consistent with Poincaré embracing a change away from newtonian mechanics, and rejecting on technical grounds Einstein's treatment of that change. --Cleonis | Talk 19:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To Cleonin: technical grounds, Here Once Again, Which ? -- Poincare didn't need Einstein at all in fact.

Yes I agree for the abovementioned reason. Harald88 22:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: agree, How can you agree, he didn't really say anything.

Harald88 and E4 have pledged themselves to strive for NPOV, and to include only information with solid backing and no speculation. My intention is to assist, if need be, to revert to versions by Harald88 and E4. So at some point I would need to know from you, Harald, what version is the one to preserve and, if need be, revert to. --Cleonis | Talk 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is quite good as is. If you still don't understand any SPECIFIC point, just please ask me before reverting anything. I can answer any of your specific questions, with full references. Ask me please first. I'm right here. THANKS.

[edit] More on E=mc^2

Regarding the passage on E=mc2, I inserted that it is described by Whittaker (p. 51). Perhaps that will stop people from tampering with that passage thinking we just made it up. I fear this is going to be a problem, with people who have never read Whittaker or who know very little of physics at all, who will keep tampering with the article -- like we are writing on sand -- what good is it if this is the case. Can't Wikipedia impose some sort of controls to prevent this ? I at least post something here in the discussion section to explain any changes I make.


Anon, I went too far before, relying too much on Poincare 1902, and my bad memeory of Poincare 1900. Sorry. We will see now if I am writing on sand; whether you will accept that Poincare may have shown radiation had momentum and hence an equivalent mass, but he never showed the general interchangeability of mass and radiation energy (much less all energy) in the 1900 paper. In fact he considered and rejected it. E4mmacro 06:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you know that Planck REJECTED quanta ? --- these were just intelligent men being cautious. Where is this quote where Poincare supposedly rejected e=mc2 ? I find it hard to believe -- even Newton saw the equivalence as obvious way back then. PS some pea brain banned me please lift that immediately.

To Anon. It doesn't say he rejected E = mc^2; it says he never went the next step; he never said the fictitious mass of the radiation came from the emitter's mass, or would be changed into the receiver's mass. In other words he did NOT "anticipate" Einstein or Planck in the idea of the general equivalence of mass-energy and their convertibilty; he got perhaps 1/3 of the way but stopped. He had no idea in the 1900 paper where the mass came from (which I guess is why he called it fictitious). In "Value of Science 1904", on the same topic, he was ready to reject action=reaction and did not repeat his argument of 1900, but talked about the reaction on the aether and possible momentum of the aether, but he seems to be saying the whole idea was unclear and Maxwell-Lorentz may be wrong. In hindsight we regret that he didn't come up with an answer about where the mass came from. It was only after Lorentz had showed that mass (or inertia) was a function of velocity and direction of force, that Poincare could have found the answer before Einstein (or Planck), but he didn't. This doesn't mean he wasn't great, just that, as a matter of fact, he didn't do something now very famous. One last time, anon, no one is saying that Poincare did not know a lot (indeed almost all) of relativity before Einstein. To say he knew everything is an exaggeration. E4mmacro 02:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: Your sentence in the article does say he rejected..conversion. I don't believe Poincare ever said that. 69.22.98.162 05:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


Also: Poincare would I'm sure tell you it is obvious where the radiation came from. You wouldn't have to look very far. 69.22.98.162 05:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC

"Poincare properly chose not to speculate on all possible future implications of his still correct formula E = mc2." I like this one, such a powerful general rule. e.g. Newton properly chose not to speculate on all the possible future implications of his laws of mechanics. That means he was the discover of Lagrange's equations, d'Alembert's principle, Hamilton's equations and indeed Poincare beautiful recurrence theorem. Likewise Voigt discovered relativity because he very properly refused to speculate whether his transformations had some other meaning, which can be derived from them if you just make a few simple steps. Likewise Larmor, and Lorentz also discovered all of relativity becasue they wrote the correct Lorentz transformations and we know everthing can be derived from those ... and of course Maxwell discovered E = mc^2, because the Maxwell pressure of radiation force is F = dE/cdt, and force is obviously dp/dt (p is momentum) and p for radiation is obviously mc, and hence d(mc)/dt = dE/c/dt, and hence mc = E/c or E = mc^2, and Maxwell very properly refused to speculate whether this meant mass could be converted to energy, or whether a hot body had greater inertia than a similar cold body, so Einstein really didn't say anything that Maxwell didn't and ... but you get the idea. E4mmacro 01:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: I had meant this in the sense that a theoretician often cannot affirm that his newly discovered equations are real, until experimentally verified. Planck would not speculate as to the correctness of E=hv, he properly awaited experimental results (and had them in the photoelectric effect). --- Same with Poincare's E=mc2. 69.22.98.162 05:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In "The value of science" Chapter VIII, subsection "Newton's principle" Poincare discusses the same situation as in the 1900 paper. Here he does explicitly say the radiation does not have mass "the apparatus recoils ... and that is contrary to the principle of Newton since our projectile here has no mass, it is not matter, it is energy". He does not accept that the radiation has momentum, because he doesn't know where its mass came from (we all know where the radiation and its energy coem from, that is not the issue). In that chapter he shows
  1. action-reaction (momentum law) is violated by the recoiling emitter
  2. conservation of mass is violated, by Kaufmann's experiments which show that Lorentz was correct to say mass is a function of velocity
  3. conservation of energy is violated by Curie's radium experiments.
He finishes with an admission that he doesn't understand it at all "Our doubts remain". If he had believed (or even remembered?) that he had derived Einstein (or Planck's) E = mc2, with all its modern meaning, he could not possibly have written that chapter in "The value of Science" E4mmacro 07:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No doubt it was a shocker for Poincare to discover that massless radiation still has momentum, but that is what Poincare found, and it is still correct current usage in Modern Physics today. People are still a bit shocked by this, because as Poincare noted it does appear at first glance to violate Newton's laws, but it really doesn't, and today we just accept it. 69.22.98.162 14:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request for full original of Poincare 1900

Has anyone got an electronic copy of the complete paper of Poincare (1900) , Archives Neerlandies V, pp253-78. I cannot find my hard copy (obtained in 1983).

I find that two pro-Poincare authors, Ives (about 1953), and Gianetto [] (conference presentation), say that Poincare spoke of the momentum density of the emitted radiation, and do not say he referred to the mass density. Ives had to go through a couple of steps to show that Poincare had implied that the equivalent mass of the radiation was mR = E / c2.

To quote Gianetto, referring to Poincare (1900): “Here he gave also a momentum density for the electromagnetic density [energy?] which implicitly involved a mass density which was equal to 1 / c2 times the energy density, recovering a first relation between mass and energy of a ‘relativistic’ kind, but it was only when he recognized the mass as variable with velocity … that he obtained a relation like E = mc^2.”

Gianetto bends over backwards to give credit to Poincare (note he writes “when [Poincare] recognized the mass as a variable of velocity” leaving a false impression, rather than “when Lorentz 1899, 1904 showed that mass varied with velocity” and gives no date for Poincare’s discovery of E = mc2). Yet neither Gianetto nor Ives make the claim that Whittaker does: that Poincare had stated that the mass density was 1 / c2 times the energy density, which might imply that Poincare in 1900 was thinking about the relation between energy and mass in the modern sense.

[edit] Whittaker 1953, History ... The modern theories 1900-1926

Quote: In 1900 (Arch Neerl, V, p 252) Poincare, refering to the fact that in the free aether the electrodmamgnetic momentum is (1/c^2) times the the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that the electromagnetic energy might posses mass density equal to (1/c^2) times the energy density : that is to say, E = mc^2 where E is the energy and m is the mass : and he remarked that if this were so, then a Hertz oscillatorm which sends out electromagnetic energy preponderantly in one direction should recoil as a gun when it is fired. end quote, Whittaker, p 51.

Ives JOSA v42(9), 1952, p540, gives the following quote (his translation I assume) from Poincare (1900)

Electromagnetic energy, from the point of view with which we are occupied, behaving like a fluid endowed with inertia, one must conclude that if in any apparatus whatever, after having produced electromagnetic energy, sends it by radiation in a certain direction, the apparatrus must recoil like a cannon which has launched a projectile.

Ives says later (p. 541)

Poincare stated that we may regard electromagnetic energy as a "fluid fictif" of density E/c^2 .. Poincare discussed and rejected the idea that this fictitious mass was "indestructible", that is, that it was transferred entire in emission or absorption of energy. He decided it must appear as energy in otehr guises, and said "it is this which prevents us from likening completely this fictitious fluid to a real fluid". In our terminology Poincare rejected the idea that [mass of radiation] could become [mass of matter].

Ives needs to quote Poincare here in more detail. He does not. --- Ives writes that Poincare thought the radiation was not indestructible, and could be transformed. Ives does not give us enough direct quotes of Poincare here. He is very possibly just putting words in Poincare's mouth.69.22.98.162 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found a copy of the original

I have found my copy of the original. The quality is probably too bad to make a decent pdf image of it, but I can try in a day or two. The first section of the introduction, and the first sentence of the first section make me think my memory of it was not so bad. My rough translation of these sentences is

One will undoubtedly find it strange that in a monument erected to the glory of Lorentz, that I consider again an objection to his theory that I have presented before. I could say that the pages that follow are likely to attenuate, rather than worsen, this objection.

and

First let us quickly point out the calculation by which one establishes that, in Lorentz's theory, the principle that action and reaction are equal is no longer true, at least when one wants to apply it to the material [macroscopic] scale.

which makes me think he is taking the same view that he takes in "The value of Science" described above. He is criticising Lorentz's theory, suggesting it is wrong, because it violates the principle of reaction - i.e. he does NOT believe radiation can have mass. E4mmacro 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has direct quotes of Poincare, with page numbers, on this subject would be appreciated. The most direct translation of Poincare's words we have at this time is from Whittaker. -- It is interesting to note that Poincare's usage of E=mc2 for effective or apparent mass of radiation is still in common current Modern Physics usage today, in computing gravitational redshift gravitational time dilation, as in the famous Pound and Rebke Havard experiment. 69.22.98.162 13:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker does not give a quote; he writes it in his own words. Ives gives a translation. Anyway some actual words are below 203.101.225.67 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
And can you please stop telling us that radiation today is considered to have an effective mass? Thanks, but we know that already 203.101.225.67 14:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC) E4mmacro 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I just stated that for new readers, who might not have known. 69.22.98.162 14:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Some crucial passages en Francaise (Sorry no accents) p 256

Nous pouvons regarder l’energie electromagnetic comme une fluide fictive dont la density J/c^2 et qui se deplace dans l’espace conformement aux lois de Poynting. Seulement il faut admettre que ce fluide n’est pas indestructible et que dans l’element de volume dτ il s’en detruit pendant l’unite de temps une quantity \left(4\pi/c^2\right)\rho d\tau\sum f\xi; c'est ce qui empeche que nous puissions assimiler tout a fait dans nos raisonnements notre fluide a un fluide reel

203.101.225.67 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC) E4mmacro 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there Poincare is saying that radiation can be transformed. True. 69.22.98.162 14:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


P258 Suppose maintenant qu’il y ait en certains points destruction de l’energie electromagnetique qui s’y transforme en energie non electrique. Il faudra alors considerer le system forme non-seulement par la matiere et l’energie electromagnetique, mais par l’energie non electrique provenant de la transmission de la l’energie electromagnetique Pour define cette inertie du fluide fictive, il faut convenir que le fluide qui est cree en un point quelconque par transmission de l’energie, nait d’abord sans vitesse et qu’il emprunte sa vitesse au fluide deja existant; si donc la quantite de fluide augmente, mais que la vitesse reste constante, on aura neanmoins une certaine inertie a vaincre parce que le fluide nouveau empruntant de la vitesse au fluide ancien, la vitesse de l'ensemble diminuerait si une cause quelconque n'intervenait pour la maintenir constante E4mmacro 15:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, more on how radiation can be transformed. Need more quotes. 69.22.98.162 15:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No one ever said energy could not be transformed to other energy. The point is, does Poincare think here that electromagnetique energy can be transformed into ordinaray matter, or vice versa. More tomorrow perhaps. E4mmacro 15:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes his comments on that would be most interesting. Need more quotes. 69.22.98.162 15:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a side note: Einstein also didn't say that energy can be transformed into mass. Such sloppy language was not used by him. Similarly, it's inaccurate to state that energy is transformed into anything else but energy: energy is always conserved. What you are looking for, is a claim that radiation can/can't be transformed into matter.Harald88 16:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poincaré's 1909 Göttingen lecture (2)

Poincaré's 1909 Göttingen lecture:
What Poincaré states in his lecture is summerized by the following renderings, that are my words, not verbatim quotes. Three axioms are specified, that together are sufficient for Poincaré to generate all the theorems of the 'nouvelle mecanique': these three axioms are presented as starting points, not as consequences. (Poincaré states them qualitatively, in a paper he would of course present the quantative formula)
1) The inertia of a body increases with its velocity relative to the ether, in such a way that the speed of light is an upper limit of velocity.
2) Any measurement setup or procedure will not ever observe its own velocity with respect to the ether. The class of reference frames for which the principle of relativity of inertial motion holds good forms a mathematical group that is the Lorentz group.
3) Objects with a velocity relative to the ether will undergo Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.

Further on in his lecture, Poincaré discusses at considerable length his view that with increasing velocity of an electron, its interaction with the ether changes in such a way that the energy of the ether around the electron increases, as a consequence of which it becomes harder to increase the velocity of the electron.

Poincaré's message to his audience is that the difference between newtonian mechanics and the 'nouvelle mecanique' is the following: in newtonian mechanics all properties, all three of Newton's laws of motion, are independent of velocity with respect to absolute space. Not so in the 'nouvelle mecanique'. In the 'nouvelle mecanique', physical properties of an object are a function of the object's velocity with respect to the ether.

By contrast: Einstein, in his 1905 treatment of the theory of special relativity, opens with a matter of principle:

The view here to be developed will not [...] assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

The concept of an object having a particular velocity with respect to the space it exists in does not enter into Einstein's treatment of special relativity.

It seems to me that the view that is presented by Poincaré is that of a complete rejection of the manner that Einstein treats the Lorentz transformations.

The scientific community had within years adopted the manner that was introduced by Einstein.

Poincaré's 1909 view and Einstein's 1905 view are probably unique in the history of physics in that they represent mutually exclusive theories of physics, and at the same time the respective bodies of formulas and equations of the two theories are mathematically equivalent. --Cleonis | Talk 19:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleonis, in modern physics they are the same theory, and Lorentz and Einstein indeed presented it as such. Modern physics is supposedly concerned with predicting measurement outcomes only, eventhough many scientists tend to forget that. And the use of mutually exclusive models for the same theory of physics is not unique either, it happens more often. Harald88 10:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't irony ironic? Poincare, more than once I think, criticised Lorentz for making too many hypotheses. I think that Lorentz thought that the only hypothesis he had made was to assume that all forces are effected by motion (transform) in the same way as electromagnetic forces; i.e. in the way that he (and Heaviside, and Larmor) claim they had already derived from Maxwell's equations. E4mmacro 20:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To Cleonis: The subject here is the 1905 discovery of Relativity. Einstein's paper of 1905 is identical in equations and interpretation to Poincare's 1905 paper. Can't you get that into your head ? 69.22.98.162 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably another topic, but don't you think it is because Einstein gives no physical explanation of why the effects occur (like Poincare's showing or saying that the aether round the body has gained energy, hence acceleration because more and more difficult) that so much which is written about SR seems unclear about what is a real, what is apparent, what is a convention and so on (as if the authors don't know, and may claim that these questions are not important or unanswerable, of course). I am surprised that Poincare takes the Lorentzian view so strongly in that lecture. By Lorentzian view I mean: motion relative to the aether, the rest frame (say "space" nowadays, or "comoving frame of reference'), is the cause of the effects. In a moving frame, like the Earth, all these effects together prevent us detecting our motion. Poincare then noticed the group property: that exactly the same relations held between our moving frame and any other moving frame, so that we can take our frame as the rest frame, just as easily as the aether (and much more conveniently), so as Einstein said (approximately) "we have no need of the hypothesis of the aether" (unless of course you feel that some explanation is needed and that the aether might provide it). By the way, have you read Einstein's lecture at Leiden circa 1920 called Relativity and Aether. Much more inclined, after GR, to give physical properties to empty space. E4mmacro 21:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4, It is interesting that in modern Astronomy textbooks, the absolute velocity of the Earth is now measured with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Poincare once wrote that this could one day happen, and it changes nothing in Poincare's equations. Also, Dirac once said, I think in the 1930's, that one can always keep a concept of an ether. (Perhaps as attached to the CMB).69.22.98.162 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E= mc^2: part 3

To E4, I think that if you consider the whole passage, that Poincare was saying that it seems to violate Newton's Laws.69.22.98.162 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4, inserting this about contrary to Newton is taken a bit out of context, and doesn't come across as he intended, and it is confusing to first-comers.69.22.98.162 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4, It is good to write all this so that an average person can quickly grasp the importance, but of course at the same time technically correct. We are writing for everyone to understand, hopefully.69.22.98.162 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The average person, seeing E=mc^2 will think of the atom bomb (I assume everybody would agree with that bit of mind-reading); and this energy source is something that Poincare had no idea of when he showed that Lorentz's theory implied an equivalent (or ficititious ) mass of radiation. You can see Poincare had no idea of the modern meaning in Chapter VIII of "Value of Science", where he remains puzzled by 1) the violation of the conservation of mass because Lorentz (1899) predicted mass was a function of velocity 2) the violation of the conservation of momentum (the recoiling emitter) and 3) the violation of the conservation of energy in Madam Curie's radium experiments (the radium emittied radiation giving a seemingly endless source of energy which came from "nowhere"). This is not to criticise Poincare, he can't discover everything, but no one who understood E=mc^2 in its modern meaning could write that Chapter VIII. E4mmacro 22:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I doubt anyone including Einstein could foresee the atom bomb in 1905. I think that paragraph is looking pretty good now. I inserted the physics term special case. Also we should probably stick to equivalent mass or effective mass, again the usual usage of Physics terms, unless you can cite a page where Poincare stated fictitious mass a term I don't believe he ever used.69.22.98.162 23:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein 1906 when deriving m = E/c^2 was saying that the inertia (mass) of a body depended on its energy content, form which, although he couldn't see it then, the atom bomb follows. This result of Einstein's is not contained in Poincare's 1900 result. You need the variation of mass with velocity (Lorentz 1899), or according to Ives, from Poincare's result + the principle of relativity one can derive Lorentz's variation of mass with velocity. This equivalence or interchangeability of mass and energy, which everyone thinks of when they see E = mc^2, is not derived or implied by Poincare. In Poincare's equation, which he didn't actually write, the symbol m would represent a different thing from the symbol m in Einstein's equation (see Ives for a clear explanation). Poincare (1900) said the radiation is like a ficitious fluid of density e/c^2. He never used the term "ficitious mass" or "apparent mass" or "equivalent mass", but "ficititious mass" is obviously closer to what he said (fictitious fluid) than either of the modern alternatives. We don't want misunderstandings, and therefore we don't want to imply that Poincare derived the equation E = mc^2 associated with Einstein, even though he did derive, and reject, the equivalent mass of radiation. Although according to a certain line of reasoning, it was Maxwell or Lorentz who really derived that without forseeing it, Poincare "merely" showed what their equations implied. 203.101.230.174 01:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Einstein's 1905 paper was called the discovery of the Theory of Special Relativity. As you know, Poincare's 1905 paper had the identical content as Einstein's 1905 paper. Therefore, in fairness to Poincare, the word discovery should be in the article. Where would you place it ? 69.22.98.162 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "discoverers" is already in it, complete with disussion. Harald88 10:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A scientist's rule of thumb: don't get bogged down

I copy and paste from above:

[...] don't you think it is because Einstein gives no physical explanation of why the effects occur (like Poincare's showing or saying that the aether round the body has gained energy, hence acceleration because more and more difficult) that so much which is written about SR seems unclear about what is a real, what is apparent, what is a convention and so on [...] E4mmacro 21:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my assessment is that you are here pointing out the very enigma.

In the history of science, the achievement of scientific progress sometimes requires that the scientist avoids getting bogged down by unanswerable questions. The quintessential example is Newton's law of gravity, that is a law of instantaneous action at a distance. This law of gravity defied all common sense. No mechanism could possibly be conceived to explain it. Newton did the scientific thing: he did not bother to try and come up with a plausible mechanism, he confined himself to showing that the inverse square law of gravity, together with his three laws of motion, were sufficient to account for all the celestial motions (including the precession of the equinox, which I think is an astonishing achievement). The resounding success of the Newton scientific programme is proof that he made the right choices.

Einstein does not give a physical explanation in his 1905 paper, for given what he has at his disposal there is no prospect of identifying a mechanism. The Einstein approach to relativity defied common sense. No mechanism could possibly be conceived to explain it.

To this day, there is no prospect of identifying a physical mechanism. Maybe someday a successor to relativity will be found, and maybe that theory will shed light on the enigma.

If you read Einstein 1905 favorably, he says that in the view to be developed asigning a velocity with respect to any ether does not enter into the theory, which does not exclude that relativistic physics will need to rely some or other etherial properties. As you point out, relativistic physics needs space-time to be a structural background, which in general relativity is usually referred to as 'the metric of space-time'. --Cleonis | Talk 22:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I think Poincaré's attitude was eminently scientific too. A healthy, vibrant scientific community will harbour a multitude of views. Scientists make judgement calls as to what appears to them the most promising avenue to take. Given the knowledge available at the time, Poincaré's point of view is quite justifiable. --Cleonis | Talk 23:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cleonis, about Newton you gave the wrong example: he postulated Absolute space, just as Lorentz used the stationary ether (which, as Einstein later also realised, is basically the same). And I don't understand your sentences "given what he has at his disposal there is no prospect of identifying a mechanism. The Einstein approach to relativity defied common sense. No mechanism could possibly be conceived to explain it", while such had already been done by Lorentz, expanding on Newton and Maxwell. Harald88 10:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the gap between us about special relativity cannot be bridged. To me it is certain that any Lorentz-type theory, and the Einstein approach to special relativity, are incompatible. Any ether-theory mechanism does not apply in Einstein's approach. Which theory to follow is, as always in science, every man's personal choice. That sums up my views. --Cleonis | Talk 12:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
We fully agree that their physical interpretations are incompatible; and I think (from their writings) that even Minkowski's time=length concept is again incompatible with their physical interpretations, and indeed everyone is free to choose his/her preferred model. Those models are commonly not considered to be part of the theory called SRT: it was cleverly designed as a Principle Theory. Principle theories avoid such issues. Harald88 19:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess I will have to read Minkowski's 1908 paper, or a transcript of his lecture. My information is second hand, all from textbooks. I do not support a time=length concept, I do support the concept of Minkowski spacetime in the form I find it described in textbooks. (Designed as a principle theory)
I take it that with 'Principle theory' you mean that the theoreticist confines himself to providing a mathematical formalism, without going into physical interpretation.
Of course, examples of that are plenty in physics: Faraday developed the concept of a Field. Theoretical physicists have worked on for example a field theory of the electrostatic attraction, without going into the issue of whether this field consists of a gas or a fluid (Words as 'fluid' and 'flux' are used metaphorically). The theory lists properties of the field in the form of a mathematical formalism, without telling what the field really is. --Cleonis | Talk 22:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly, such theories as you mention are still suggestive of models. Quantum mechanics is perhaps the best known principle theory, but also for example conservation of energy. Such theories make no other assumptions than that observables should obey certain principles. A physical explanation isn't implied. I find the comment of E4mmacro on 21:23, 21 January 2006 (Gottinger lecture 2) also very appropriate in this context: such theories are very elegant, but in the end, for many scientists they are intellectually unsatisfying. Harald88 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bold face in long quotations?

I now followed the trend of this article (who started it?) to make the parts of citations bold for a specific argument; but citing is itself already an emphasis, and such bold face is not what I expect to see in any encyclopedia. In particular, it looks inappropriate to me in view of WP:NPOV : Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in.

Anyone with other ideas? Is there perhaps already a guideline about it? Harald88 11:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] he "disliked logic"?

The article now reads:

He did not care about being rigorous and disliked logic. He believed that logic was not a way to invent but a way to structure ideas and that logic limits ideas.

I don't see a source mentioned but apparently it's supposed to be by Darboux; I find it rather strange. Who of you provided it? Please provide a precise reference. Harald88 11:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interpretation of last credit of Poincare to Lorentz

It is arguable that Poincare consistenly called it (and what is "it"?) Lorentz's theory, as he wrote: "Lorentz has tried to modify his hypothesis so as to make it in accord with the the hypothesis of complete impossibility of measuring absolute motion" -- which modern POR, as we know from Lorentz, stems from Poincare.

However, what E4 apparently tries to make the article point out is IMO contained in the following passage:

"... at every moment [the twenty physicists from different countries] could be heard talking of the new mechanics which they contrasted with the old mechanics. Now what was the old mechanics? Was it that of Newton, the one which still reigned uncontested at the close of the nineteenth century? No, it was the mechanics of Lorentz, the one dealing with the principle of relativity; the one which, hardly five years ago, seemed to be the height of boldness ... the mechanics of Lorentz endures ... no body in motion will ever be able to exceed the speed of light ... the mass of a body is not constant ... no experiment will ever be able [to detect] motion either in relation to absolute space or even in relation to the aether."

I tended to think that the citation is more at its place in the article about Lorentz, where indeed it is cited; but I had not reflected much on the important conclusion that we can draw from it.

I infer from this that Poincare did not regard the New Mechanics according to Einstein (=SRT) to be notably different from what he himself called the New Mechanics: Lorentz's mechanics. And thus, that in the end he gave most credit for special relativity to Lorentz instead of to himself (since he commented Einstein's contributions with a loud silence, I think we may safely say that he definitely didn't credit Einstein for it).

IMO we can put such an inference in the article without falling into WP:OR, as long as we all agree that the phrasing is not speculative or reasonably debatable. Harald88 22:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

PS as a sidenote: does anyone know what conceptual difference he made between absolute space and the ether?Harald88 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald, yes, I'm not afraid to say it. One can still today keep a concept of ether, as attached to absolute space, the marker of which are the remote fixed stars or equivalently the Cosmic microwave background, with respect to which astronomers today commonly measure the absolute velocity of the Earth.69.22.98.162 22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Would the following phrase be factual:
"Thus, Poincare regarded special relativity to be the mechanics of Lorentz." Harald88 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
But this absolute space is then what? I don't see any other role for absolute space separate from the ether concept than as a desciptor for immobility of the proposed ether (which of course might be not correct). Harald88 00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. These uppity relativists laugh at anything absolute but they are mistaken. One can still today keep a notion of ether, as the fabric of space if nothing else. And no one can deny space. And Newton's concept of absolute space is still today perfectly defendable.69.22.98.162 00:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keswani (1965) wrote that the general theory of relativity is in no sense a general theory of relativity, it is only a theory of gravity. --- IT IS A SHAME that this quote of Keswani cannot be fitted into the article somewhere -- it shows that the Special Theory of Relativity is actually the one and unique Theory of Relativity. 69.22.98.162 05:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact GRT has been abandoned, but almost miraculously, its conclusions for gravitation could be salvaged. See talk:principle of relativity , top. Harald88 00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he, Poincare, was very very impressed with Lorentz's local time, what we would now call the relativity of simultaneity. Over and over again he refers to it, explains, it calls it names like "ingenious", "wonderful invention". (I think that is very impressive the first time one sees it, can you remember, probably in Einstein?) Both Lorentz and Poincare, at almost the same time (Poincare first), in their earlest publications on optics used the "retarded" pontential idea, the idea familar to every astronomer, that the image one sees is not happening now. Lorentz went a step futher with local time, it implicitly involves clock synchronisation (as Poicare delights in saying, so many different times) though I dodn't know if Lorentz said this (where can we get full text of his 1895 Book "Versuch ..." so we can see what he actually said about it). The first version (pre-1899) did not include time dilation, butit was enough to show first-order invariance - and it was this that (I think) impressed Poincare so much, since he had dicussed but not solved the simultaneity problem in his 1898 "Measure of Time". 220.237.80.193 09:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) E4mmacro 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He was also impressed IMO about how so many of Lorentz's ideas, which Poincare wouldn't 100% accept at first ("too many hypotheses", length contraction, mass increase with velocity, time dilation, all forces transform like electro-magnetoc forces) all turned out to be correct. Of course he was also impressed with Maxwell-Lorentz theory itself, Zeeman effect, light dispersion, refraction and so on. I think it is the natural awe of a theoretican for a practical physcist, and Lorentz's natural awe of practical physcist for a great mathematician and philospher. 220.237.80.193 09:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) E4mmacro 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. Still, Poincare refused to show any appreciation for Einstein's contributions to the popularisation and further development of SRT (incl. the elegant derivation which everyone else incl. Lorentz appreciated). I know of no other explanation for that lack of public appreciation than that Poincare deeply felt plagiarised by Einstein, IOW, that his silence was his way to express his discontent about Einstein's behaviour. Harald88 19:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I can think of anotehr explanation. Poincare sincerely believed that it would be bad form for a "Johnny-come-lately" like him, to correct a mistake in a theory Lorentz had been working on for 10 years, and claim it as his own. He knew the normal rules of precedent and etiquette. If he was discontented with Einstein, it could just be that he thought (quite rightly) that Einstein SHOULD have made a similar introduction in his paper, as Poincare had. Poincare thought that Einstein should have said something like "I agree on all essential points, show a new feature of the transformations and draw some new conclusions". In fact, Einstein could not even say "I have corrected him on one small point" because Einstein considered only the Maxwell equation for free space, div E = 0, he did not consider the equation for charged filled space div E = rho, the transformation of which Lorentz had got wrong. (Although perhaps Einstein could say he didn't need to consider it, who cares what's going on inside the electron where the RHS is not zero; he needed only the transformed force-on-a-moving-charge equation). And it is possible that Poincare couldn't discuss Einstein 1905 paper without pointing out the bad form/inadequate referencing of earlier work/inadequate researching of earlier work by Einstein which he didn't want to do. He didn't seem to hold any animosity to Einstein (see the reference for the University position). In 1909 lecture he again says he is talking about Lorentz's theory. So Occam's razor tells me that Poincare means exactly what he said. E4mmacro 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a fundamental difference between your explanation and mine; as far as I can see, I just formulated it a bit sharper. If Poincare believed that Einstein had developed this all independently (as Einstein suggested), or even if he thought it quite possible, then I don't see why he would not at least have given him his due for the contributions that were really new.
On other points: your argument about not at all mentioning Einstein because of deficiencies in Einstein's paper doesn't make sense to me, and the reference for the university position corresponds well with my expectation from someone with a worn-off grunt about Einstein's actions who is asked to give such a reference -- he again completely omitted Einstein's prestations on relativity. BTW, thanks for telling the interesting detail about div E that had escaped me. Harald88 12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Harald, the differce I think is this. Your explanation is Poincare is annoyed that Einstein plagarised Poincare. My explanation is that Poincare (if annoyed) is annoyed that Einstein plagarised Lorentz. The big difference is that the first explanation enlists Poincare on the side of "Poincare desreves the credit"; the second explanation enlists Poincare on the side of the "Lorentz deserves credit". A clear difference, as I see it. E4mmacro 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: The paragraph on the discovery of E=mc2 sort of pooh-poohs Poincare's marvelous discovery of E=mc2 for the special case of radiation. The paragraph's wording reads: Obviously...But... --- Isn't there a nicer way to rephrase that please ? Also, shouldn't Keswani's quote be inserted in the article to put all into perspective ? 69.22.98.162 15:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Keswani have information about Poincare that we don't have, or did he have an appropriate citable opinion about Poincare's achievements? If so, what exacty? Harald88 19:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll insert his exact quote right now, you'll see how it fits nicely, putting all into perspective.69.22.98.162 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That one we already discussed above, it's not at all about Poincare. You could try to add it to another article, maybe in "history of special relativity". Harald88 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But it would greatly interest people interested in Poincare. Couldn't it be inserted somewhere on the Poincare page ? 69.22.98.162 21:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Keswani added those remarks at the very end of a lengthly discussion on Poincare, to put Poincare into perspective. So, would you mind if I put it back up there ? 69.22.98.162 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me think of a way to condense Keswani and somehow put it there somewhere. 69.22.98.162 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

IF someone wants to insert the name Einstein, then please insert at the same time the word later, for correctness. 69.22.98.162 03:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wrote all this up condensed in French on Wikipedia Francais. I have a friend who will soon put in on Wikipedia in German as well. 69.22.98.162 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] superfluous last phrase, unsourced

The relativity section now has the following phrase added as last phrase:

"thus the growing opinion mentioned above generally sees the issue not in terms of Lorentz's priority, but only in terms of priority for Poincaré as opposed to Einstein and Minkowski."

That additional phrase is a whole new claim about a certain opinion that, if useful at all, needs sourcing. But it looks superfluous to me, and I personally like the ending without that addition better: it neatly concludes the section without adding new, debatable claims (since nearly all textbooks emphasize this):

"The modern view sees the group property and the invariance as the essential points."

The readers can from that draw their own conclusions about the importance of Poincare's contributions, incl. priority issues. Harald88 11:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Invariance was always regarded as the essential point, that is why Einstein's 1905 paper was hailed as the discovery -- but the point of the article is that Poincare first showed Invariance, before Einstein, So, the last paragraph is OK, but without Einstein in it.69.22.98.162 15:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Please, specifically, what was Einstein's contribution ? Why do you mention him at all in the last paragraph ? Please explain yourself, or remove his name from that final paragraph. 69.22.98.162 12:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. To Harald: Poincare made the final step in the discovery of Special Relativity on June 5. Einstein's first paper was three months later. So remove his name from that final paragraph. 69.22.98.162 13:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon, you apprently fully agree with me but (as so often) you don't know it... It is me who suggests to remove that last additional phrase about Einstein.
BTW (but not relevant here), Einstein's most valued contribution was his direct derivation of the LT from the PoR. Harald88 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it is easy when you already know the right answer (LT). 69.22.98.162 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein incorrectly derived another right answer in 1905, Poincare's formula E=mc2. 69.22.98.162 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: There are contradictions in article of the sort of Cognitive Dissonance if not outright Schizophrenia. On one hand the article correctly says that Poincare made the final step in the discovery of the theory, but the article elsewhere says things like Poincare deserves more credit for the development of the theory, or some go much further. --- Don't forget the article itself says Poincare made the final step in the discovery, so those schizophrenic passages need be removed for consistency, although you could I guess leave it as is. 69.22.98.162 15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You could remove the statement that Poincare deserves more credit for the developemt, since he made only the final step. I think though the article says some people think Poincare deserves more credit, but I think they means more credit than Einstein.
OK I see you already removed it. IMO opinion that ending is even more forceful, highlighting the importance of Poincare's contribution despite his modesty about it. Harald88 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
More irony. Don't you think that the modern view (invariance is what matters) was settled upon when it was learned that all the physical effects had been discovered by Lorentz, not Einstein (i.e. it was slightly pro-Einstein biased view)? Here you are turning that veiw against Einstein in favor of Poincare, when it seems to me a pretty clear case of simultaneous discovery - not very unusual when the issue has been "floating in the aether" for 10 years. Just to clarify, even if Einstein had read everything that Lorentz and Poincare had written on the subject, it is clear that Poincare had read all that before Einstein, yet only "beat him" by less than 1 month. If I were to define the essential point as "abolishing the aether", then I could think Poincare is eliminated, since Poincare continues to mention the aether. E4mmacro 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Who is putting Poincare vs Einstein ? For what ? I'm just writing facts about Poincare, that's all. Einstein doesn't really interest me. 69.22.98.162 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Why are you so worried about ether ? What difference does it make ? Dirac said that one can still always keep a concept of ether. It is superfluous. Can't you get that into your head ? 69.22.98.162 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was meant to suggest that some people have been claiming that whatever Poincare did is the essencce of relativity and hence Poincare gets all the credit (by definition). I think there are even statements above in upper case letters shouting that "Poincare discovered relativity, end of story" which are based on a view of what relativity is, which seems like it was specifically designed to credit Poincare and exclude others. One can define the essence of relativity in any way you like if you want to give the credit to a particular person (and I have heard people try the aether argument, which I gvae as an example, to give all the credit to Einstein). I would not do that. In my opinion, for what it is worth, Larmor-Lorentz-Poincare-Einstein-Minkowski all deserve some credit.

Or think of it this way - if the theory is a mathematical theory, rather than a physical theory as the modern view seems to imply, why was it Lorentz, the physcist, rather than Poincare the mathematician, who first (of those two) correctly wrote the LT (x',t') = f(x,t) of coordinates? E4mmacro 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Because Lorentz was an experimentalist. He noticed that certain new equations were needed, but could not prove them. Poincare was a theoretician, and that is what theoreticians are for. 69.22.98.162 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't someone once say "it is easy if you know the answer?" It surely has to be easier to write the Lorentz transformations and prove their group property, when Lorentz has already given them to you, than it would be to start from scratch, wouldn't you think? E4mmacro 13:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilbert and GR not relevant

I see the Einstein-the-plagarist view had to creep in again. This is a page about Poincare. It is OK I guess to mention that Poincare tried to develop a theory of gravity consistent with Lorentz's theory of relativity ("The new mechanics"), and in the "late career" is an OK place to put it. Shouldn't you say also that nothing came of it, (not as far as I know).

To E4: Read Langevin's glowing description of Poincare's relativistic theory of gravity, a remarkable first step in GR, completed by Hilbert. Poincare led the way, and Hilbert's equation was a further refinement. 69.22.98.162 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Read also Keswani(1966) who also describes Poincare's work on GR. 69.22.98.162 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But David Hilbert and general relativity and that debate has NOTHING to do with Poincare. Is anyone suggesting Einstein stole GR from Poincare? Or the Hilbert stole GR from Poincare? E4mmacro 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so sensitive. Poincare made a remarkable first step in GR, followed by Hilbert. That is the historical record. I didn't even mention Einstein, it has nothing to do with him. 69.22.98.162 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed have everything to do with Hilbert --- Hilbert and Poincare were friends and Hilbert built directly on Poincare's efforts towards GR. It is important as it ties Poincare to GR in a very intimate fashion. 69.22.98.162 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep fighting me Michael Macrossan ? I have been proved correct on all points. You should thank me, if anything. 69.22.98.162 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone tried to insert a giant heading CREDIT FOR THE THEORY, but they inserted it in the wrong place,after the paragraph that states that Poincare made the final step in the discovery of the theory. In science, he who completes and publishes first gets the credit, always. 69.22.98.162 03:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] additional section name?

I disagree with a section name that suggests that there is a focussed discussion about "who discovered" SRT. The article discusses is how much Poincare contributed to the development of relativity, and the "discovery" is just an aspect of that, and depending on anyone's personal judgment. I also see no use for an additional section name like "Poincare's contributions to SRT", as that's what that whole chapter is about already. Apparently, 69.22.98.162 agrees with me on that. Harald88 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not sure what it should be called. But after the statement that Einstein's paper was submitted ... (only relevant to a priority argument?) there are lots of different opinions by Poincare, Lorentz, and Einstein, and a mention of three papers (including Whittaker) who are talking about priority, which is said to be a growing opinion. Then there is an opinion about what the modern view on the essence of relativity is. Whatever all this is, it is not about Poincare's work on relativity as far as I can see, the description of that stopped in the first half. What is it about? "How much credit does Poincare deserve?" perhaps? E4mmacro 12:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that's what I would expect from an opiniated journal article about relativity, but not from an encyclopdia article about Poincare. Of course, this is a matter of feeling/taste, but I expect an encyclopdia article about Poincare to not care much about such debates. Instead I have been working all along to assist with providing a fair, accurate and neutral account of his most notable contributions to the development of relativity. Of course, contributions of him that were published "too late" are of little relevance, except for showing how far he had developed the theory independently, and it appears by itself , from the presentation of facts, that his discovery of the group properties was an important milestone, if not the decisive one, in the development of the theory. I don't think that it's indicated to discuss the debate about when SRT saw the day, and thus who had "priority" over the launching of SRT: depending on one's POV, one may claim Lorentz 1904, Poincare 1905, or Einstein 1905. I now think Poincare 1905 is most correct. But such a discussion would fit better in special relativity than a triplication on the pages of Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein. Harald88 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Stop clouding the water. The definition of the discovery is the content of Einstein's 1905 paper, which is identical to Poincare's earlier 1905 paper. And you already know that I'm sure. 69.22.98.162 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The discovery of the theory is already buried in the article, which correctly states that Poincare made the final (actually three) steps in the discovery of the theory. He found the correct form, found the missing transformations, and demonstrated perfect invariance. That should be mentioned in the Introduction. It is already in the Introduction of the Poincare page in Wikipedia in French, and belongs in English also. I had put it in the Intro but someone deliberately tried to mask it as group properties so as to hide it from the average person. 69.22.98.162 13:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It was me, as it was not Poincare but Einstein'who first published the velocity sum equations, and I even explained that in the comment. I'll correct it agian if I see that it's again wrong. Harald88 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in the Introduction, it is precisely what Einstein is known for by his later 1905 paper. Good for the goose good for the gander. 69.22.98.162 13:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also a problem in the article regarding E=mc2. It says this is not what he meaned here. Are you a mind reader ? How do you know what was going through his mind ? I personally think it is obvious he did know the formula had broader applications. At any rate, E4 should not play psychologist and that sentence needs to be removed. 69.22.98.162 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How many mind reader's are writing this page? Does Poincare in 1900 claim that mass of a material body depends on its energy content? ----Who wrote this ? Poincare corrected derived E=mc2 for radiation, still a current usage today.

I removed that pschoanalysis sentence of E4 regarding E=mc2. Also, E4's sentence about Poincare denying Newton's Laws is out of context. Poincare only pointed out that is seems at first to contradict Newton. So that misleading sentence needs to be removed. There is also a lot of other junk that E4 interjected into the article which I'll just let pass. 69.22.98.162 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


No, I am not a mind-reader. I am a reader of the published paper (1900) and I stand by my claim that Poincare nowhere in the paper makes any suugestion that about ponderable matter being converted to radiation. I am also a reader of his discussions on the topic in two later books. E4mmacro 13:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker presented Poincare's E=mc2 as the first discovery of the equation, Whittaker calls it Poincare's E=mc2. We should present it as did Whittaker, without adding your psycho-babble qualifiers. 69.22.98.162 13:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess Whittaker has not read the same Poincare 1900 that I have. I will read it more closely and if I am wrong I will get back to you; if Whittaker says Poincare got half of the meaning of E = mc^2 then he is not too far wrong. We already know Whittaker doesn't put on weight on Poinacre's opions of his own work, so why would he accept what Poincare says about what he emant by the equation. But if he implies Poincare derived e-mc^2 in the einstein sense, thaen I would guess Whittaker is mistaken. E4mmacro

Whittaker did not pooh-pooh Poincare's E=mc2, he calls it Poincare's E=mc2, So we should do the same. 69.22.98.162 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are putting too much into one paragraph and mixing things, so I separated it to another paragraph where you can have your little playpen and write whatever you want. 69.22.98.162 14:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There have been ample papers that debunked that conclusion by Whittaker. If you insist, it's just a matter of time and we'll add that, why not. Harald88 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No such papers exist, Harald. 69.22.98.162 21:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I read them, several years ago. Wait and see. Harald88 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Who just put that group properties imply the velocity addition ? That is absurd. 69.22.98.162 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To Michael Macrossan: Wipe your nose. I have been proved right on all points, it is time for you to apologize. 69.22.98.162 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Einstein's first mention of the velocity addition rule (transformations) was his 1905 paper AFTER Poincare's 1905 paper. So please leave the Introduction alone. Thanks.69.22.98.162 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We have explained to you several times that (if we're not blind) Poincare did not publish that in 1905, and apparently nobody can prove that Poincare derived those before Einstein. If you think that we're blind, then cite the passage with page number, and we'll verify your claim Harald88 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We went through this before. E4 can re-explain it to you also, that in order to achieve invariance (Poincare 1905) he necessarily had the velocity addition rule. See the letter to Lorentz, where Poincare shows Lorentz the demonstration of invariance, it is based on the velocity addition rule. Can't you see that in the letter? That is the ONLY way to show invariance is through the velocity addition rule. (Poincare no doubt also demonstrated this in conference to the Académie, when he submitted the note of 5 June, or they would not have recognized the note). Read carefully the Introduction that is what it says. E4 knows this. Einstein did the same thing, later. 69.22.98.162 22:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

PS to Harald: please make a copy of that, or better yet tatoo it to your arm, because I'm not going to keep re-typing it to you. 69.22.98.162 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald have you not noticed that the Introduction is directly word for word out of the article. LOOK AT THE ARTICLE -- about half way down, just under the equations. 69.22.98.162 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

PS to Harald, if you want to take that out of the Introduction, you FIRST need to try to take it out of the article itself ! 69.22.98.162 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

Someone keeps trying to put Poincare's M=e/c2. ---Whittaker always called it Poincare's E=mc2 so let's stay with that please. 69.22.98.162 04:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


To anon: Please stop quoting me as supporting your views about the velocity addition. Read above to see what I said (summary: HP could have but did NOT publish the vel.addition law in 1905. A letter to Lorentz doesn not count as publication), and what I said about Whittaker (summary: Whitattaker is outrageously wrong to call E = mc^2 Poincare's equation. I would not be surprised if Whittaker never read Poinacre 1900 but based it all second hand on Ives. But even Whittaker says Poincare gave virtually no proof of this famous equation, a weasel-word way of sying that Poincare meant nothing like what Einstein/Planck meant. Even Ives said correctly, that Poincare ONLY derived m_r = E/c^2 -- equivalent mass of radiation; Ives credited Planck (not Poincare) with the meaning that Einstein is famous for in the equattion E = mc^2, that the mass (inertia) of matter (m) depends on its energy content, its temperature for example. This is a similar but different equation. It has two meanings. Note that Ives is anti-Einstein but he backs up his claims. You and Whittaker have no evidence for your extrapolation of credit to Poincare. I do not know of any method of deriving the Einstein/Planck's meaning from Poicare's result m_r = E/c^2 which does not use the variation of mass with velocity m = \gamma m_0. If you can find one, please tell us. Although Lorentz had published a first version of this in 1899, POINCARE in 1900 did not use in his paper and NEVER wriote in that paper E = mc^2. That's enough debate for me. The talk page about is full of refutations of just about all you say. Regards, E4mmacro 09:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

E4, thanks for the confirmation of what I suspected. Harald88 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

WHAT confirmmation ? of WHAT ? --- DON'T TAG THE ARTICLE UNLESS YOU HAVE SOURCES, I HAVE PRODUCED SOURCES.69.22.98.162 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4 (Michael Macrossan, Engineer): My such sour grapes ! Sir Edmund Whittaker is just a little bit more of an expert than you. 69.22.98.162 13:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Poincare correctly derived E=mc2 for radiation, Max Planck correctly derived E=mc2 for massive particles. Einstein did not derive E=mc2 at all, as both Planck and Ives pointed out. Also, the velocity addition rule is necessarily built in to Poincare's paper, necessary in his proof of invariance, as the letter to Lorentz proves. Also, please stop vandalizing Wikipedia, and cite sources. 69.22.98.162 13:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: How do you justify cutting up the article ? You have produced NO sources to contradict my sources. Were you threatened by someone ? What happened to you ? 69.22.98.162 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

DID THEY threaten to cut off Wikipedia's money ? 69.22.98.162 21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, is that you cutting up the article ? You suddenly cut it up, without producing any sources to contradict my sources ? 69.22.98.162 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald ? Answer me. 69.22.98.162 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the article sections, in a logical manner. Nothing was removed. The section on work now comes last, so people can read in general about Poincare befiore getting in the disputsed sections on realativity. By the way, is it Wikipedia correctness to removed a POV or disputed tag put there by someone else? E4mmacro 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose whole new page

I suggest we start a whole new page "Poincare and the theory of relativuity" so that we can remove this unseemly debate from the main Poincare page. Transfer the entire discussion page, because we wouldn't want to lose all the evidence on which Harald and I base our edits. Speaking of which, is it Wikipedia correctness to delete entire sections of the talk page? E4mmacro 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is doing this ? ---CENSORSHIP ! --- I think it is Michael Macrossan who is censoring Wikipedia, because he can supply no sources for his arguments, just like the Inquisition ! 69.22.98.162 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, if someone is deleting sections of any talk page, that is vandalism. 69.22.98.162, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility and cool down a bit. --DanielCD 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
An edit of 15:15, 27 Jan 2006, by 69.22.98.162 removed about 3 screens full of discussions between someone with that IP address and me and Harald. That looks like censorship to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E4mmacro (talk • contribs) .
YO Who put in all the neutrality and POV tags? I just want to know for my info. And sign your edits or I will strike them. --DanielCD 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel, we have spent several weeks constructing the Poincare page, I have provided SOURCES from top scientific journals, and Michael Macrossan can not produce any sources to contradict mine. So he has suddenly cut up the entire aticle. It is CENSORSHIP just like the Inquisition. 69.22.98.162 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: please reinstate the Poincare page just as it was this morning. Someone has suddenly and with no prior warning or explanation, cut up the entire article. 69.22.98.162

I removed NOTHING from the Poincare page or discussion. -- I want everything reinstated just as it was this morning. 69.22.98.162 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


I looked and didn't see any removal of material. Unfortunately I have to go and don't have time to look further at the moment. I'm sure no one is censoring you. At best it's probably a bit of miscommunication, which you could help by chilling out. You guys try to shake hands and discuss the matter in a civil manner. Then you are much more likely to reach a consensus you all can live with. I will check back later to see what has come of it, but if there's a bunch of slash and burn editing, I'm just going to put it up for RfC and get some outside comments. Just chill out; no one is here to censor anyone else. Try to cooperate.
Ok, sorry I don't see that the bit is missing now. It seemed to me when I compared edits at that time that a whole section of this discussion page was missing. Sorry once again. E4mmacro 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't just revert it like that without reading more, and I've been caught at a bad time. It will be tended to though. Ya'll go get a soda or somethng and take a break; perhaps come back after you've rested a bit. --DanielCD 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm now occupied with other things, so just a few comments:
  • I think that, after deleting all speculation as well as all disputed and erroneous comments, the total article size remains short enough to make a separate page unnecessary. But I don't mind either option. Let's see what the other Wikipedia editors of Poincare think about it.
  • 69, if you're not the victim of a technical failure: please don't vandalise this Talk page, it's definitely against Wikipedia rules. If you want to archive, go ahead but do it properly!
  • 69, as far as I can see, all your recent words apply more to yourself than to any other editor here. Sorry, but you leave no other option for others than to clean up after you.
  • Daniel, for your info: this article has been recently POV'd by Fastfission because he had the impression that it made biased Poincare propaganda without proper sourcing. I think we have since done a good job of including proper sources while eliminating unsourced editor POV's, but mostly "thanks" to 69, at this moment the article states possibly more disputed pro-Poincare opinions as matter-of-fact than at the time... Harald88 22:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I want everything reinstated exactly as it was this morning --- It is CENSORSHIP to suddenly and without any discussion, cut up the entire article just like that ! 69.22.98.162 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I spent three weeks constructing the article, point by point, argument by argument, supplying SOURCES (top sources) at each step, and then someone just steps in and with no discussion just cuts up the entire article. 69.22.98.162 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one like that: Some of us (mainly M4 and me) spent more than a month on adding sources and refining the text, making it as neutral and objective as possible, but now and then some anonymous editor comes in and messes up the article, reintroducing disproved claims with all kinds of erroneous arguments... Harald88 23:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So please put it back as it was. Thank you. 69.22.98.162 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: Put it back, I am waiting... 69.22.98.162 23:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It was I who put in the disputed and pov tags, I thhought that was clear in the edit history. Sorry if I wasn't logged in. I changed nothing of what 69 wrote, I merely added the subsection title to show which section i was disputing. I re-arranged the section order, putting "work of relativity" into the otehr section "work", where it needed to go. I did not remove anything. I promise I won't delete anyting 69 writes; I will just put in a disputed and pov tag. E4mmacro 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was you Michael Macrossan. -- CENSORSHIP is live and well in Amerika. You have NO justification to change the article in any way unless you provide SOURCES, which you cannot. -- So put the article back as it was this morning or I will raise holy hell with Senior Editors --- NO CENSORSHIP OR INTELLECTUAL DISCRIMINATION ! 69.22.98.162 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU DO THAT WITH NO DISCUSSION ! 69.22.98.162 23:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Put it all back, Michael Macrossan, I am waiting.... 69.22.98.162 23:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To Michael Macrossan: the article is not in proper order, put the sections back into order. 69.22.98.162 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. You are right. I have no source to prove that the present contents order looks coorect to me. This is what it is, nothing has been deleted. Contents

   * 1 Life
         o 1.1 Education
         o 1.2 Early career
         o 1.3 Late career
   * 2 Character
         o 2.1 Toulouse' characterization
   * 3 Honors
   * 4 Publications
   * 5 Philosophy
   * 6 Work
         o 6.1 The three-body problem
         o 6.2 Work on relativity
         o 6.3 Poincare and E = mc2
   * 7 References
         o 7.1 References on work on relativity
   * 8 External links

The only thing wrong with it is that E=mc^2 should be a subsection of relativity and the other sub-section of relativity heading Poincare on gravitation has been removed. But I promised not to undo anything 69 changes, so I will levae it as it is, even though I thought that my subheading made sense (and indentified the bits I disputed). E4mmacro 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you guys go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and put a request for comment there (RfC). It's likely an administrator with more knowledge of this subject will come and help you sort it out. I simply don't know enough to know how to help. Please at least go to that page and read the material. There are ways set up to deal with these sorts of squabbles; believe me, they happen all the time. --DanielCD 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

All I am asking for now is that the Three Body Problem and Relativity be moved back into the body of the text, and not way down under the references. 69.22.98.162 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected the page until we can decide on a way to decide this dispute in a civil manner. It is only temporary. --DanielCD 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

What's wrong with having it where it is? It seems logical that the life material comes first, then details of his ideas and such. --DanielCD 00:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the relativity references? --DanielCD 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Poincare page -- inbetween EARLY CAREER and LATE CAREER there is nothing. -- That is where Relativity belongs, obviously. 69.22.98.162 00:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, why does it say TEMPLATE POV in the Introduction ? 69.22.98.162 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is there to stop people from messing the article up again in the future ? 69.22.98.162 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, as I don't see a problem. Why are you so adimant to have that info in that particular spot? --DanielCD 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That is where it always was, and obviously LATE CAREER should be afterwards. -- Also why are there disputed signs ? -- Macrossan cannot produce any sources that contradict the article, and I have provided sources for each point in the article. 69.22.98.162 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, Why are there suddenly DISPUTED Signs everywhere ? 69.22.98.162 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why DISPUTED signs ? Macrossan and I have constructed the article slowly, point by point, with sources at each step, and now that it is all finished, Macrossan suddenly slaps DISPUTED signs everywhere? Why ? 69.22.98.162 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All I did is fix the template syntax. E4mmacro why the POV signs? I'm going to remove them for now. Anyway, we certainly don't need three.
On the other issue: that's a stylistic change. How does it change the communication of the information in such a way to make you so zealous? What does that have to do with censorship? Please help me understand. --DanielCD 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, don't you agree that his active career activities (relativity) belongs inbetween his 'EARLY CAREER and LATE CAREER ? -- ISN'T THAT OBVIOUS ?? 69.22.98.162 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is the story of his life, it should be EARLY CAREER - ACTIVE CAREER - LATE CAREER. 69.22.98.162And WHY all the DISPUTED signs all of a sudden ???? 69.22.98.162 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, the DISPUTED signs are gone. --Now, his life should be in temporal chronology. LATE CAREER belongs after relativity. 69.22.98.162 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What can be done to prevent Macrossan from someday again just slapping DISPUTED signs everywhere ?? 69.22.98.162 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it can be either way, but it is not obvious. As a writer, I can say this. Let me get E4mmacro's reasoning. Perhaps he'll agree to put it there. I did move the works section up a bit.
Just let me know about the POV signs and I'll ask him to give a valid reason. --DanielCD 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and un-protect it. I don't see it needed now. But don't go to town on it, please. With some proper mediation/communication I don't see why this can't be solved peacefully. --DanielCD 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel I don't want a word of it changed --- I am just saying that in any normal encyclopedia it is in chronological order. Someone reading the article will get to LATE CAREER and it appears to be the end of the article. Relativity belongs inbetween EARLY and LATE CAREER. 69.22.98.162 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What is there to prevent Macrossan from doing all this again ??? 69.22.98.162 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ALL encyclopedias are in chronological order. Please put Relativity in chronological order, before the LATE CAREER. 69.22.98.162 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll check on it and ask about. And I'll also expect a reply from E4mmacro or the other guy as to their reasoning. If the other parties don't reply, we'll just arrange it so. Just be patient, please.
The solution we decide on here will be the one that sticks, and this discussion will serve as the reasoning behind whatever is decided. If we reach a consensus and someone backs out, that'll be tough for them. The burden of proof will then be on their shoulders and their changes won't stick until they can give firm reasons why. I don't think he's online now, and I'm going to do some other things. It'll hold for now. --DanielCD 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan didn't personally like it so he just slapped it at the end, deliberately out of chronological order, and slapped DISPUTED signs everywhere. It belongs back in chronological order. 69.22.98.162 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan created a giant mess --- what is there from preventing him from deliberately doing this again in the future ??? 69.22.98.162 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

DANIEL can you explain to Macrossan not to just slap DISPUTED signs everywhere, unless he can produce SOURCES that contradict anything in the article ?? Please do this. 69.22.98.162 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't do anything if he's not online for me to interact with. I don't see any need whatsoever for POV signs and he'll need to tell me why or I'll take them out. It's on my watchlist and I'll see it first thing when I get back online. --DanielCD 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK Daniel, I'm going out for awhile, but everything from THREE BODY PROBLEM -RELATIVITY- AND E=MC2 --- it all correctly belongs immediately after EARLY CAREER. That is where it belongs chronologically, and it always was there until Macrossan did all this.69.22.98.162 01:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, if possible, remove Macrossan from this page altogether. thank you. 69.22.98.162 01:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, just look at the Poincare page, WHERE is his MIDDLE CAREER ? --Macrossan deliberately put it at the end to hide it and slapped DISPUTED signs everywhere. Terrible! 69.22.98.162 01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I have a printout of the CONTENTS as it was before the page was vandalized. The Work on Relativity was indeed in between the EARLY CAREER and the LATE CAREER, where it belongs. Please put it back there to be chronological, because Relativity is his MIDDLE CAREER. Macrossan should just go back to the original Table of Contents before the page was vandalized, that would satisfy me. 69.22.98.162 03:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Michael Macrossan: You vandalized this page, now Go back to the original Table of Contents how it was. 69.22.98.162 05:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four reasons for my POV tags

To Daniel. I thought I had listed my reasons in an email to you. Here they are: E4mmacro 05:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. it is highly misleading to claim in the introduction that Poincare discovered the equation E = mc^2. Poincare and Einstein discovered two different aspects of the equation m = E/c^2. Poincare’s result was that radiation had an equivalent mass (he said it was like a fictitious fluid with a certain mass density and momentum). Einstein’s result m = E/c^2 was that energy in general had an equivalent mass – that matter and energy were interchangeable – something that Poincare had no idea of in the 1900 paper and makes clear he still has no idea of in his books published in 1902 and 1904 . 69 has a good discussion the two different meanings of m = E/c^2 in Ives, who he quotes. As a technical point, Poincare (1900) discovered m = E/c^2, but 69 changes it to the form above which everybody will associate with Einstein. Thus the mistaken impression that Einstein somehow took this from poincare is re-inforced. E4mmacro 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. in the body of the page, where m = E/c^2 is explained, 69 has added the gratuitous insult to Einstein that his derivation of m = E/c^2 was flawed (according to Ives) and the false statement that Planck also thought Einstein was wrong. Planck thought Einstein’s derivation was an approximation only and derived it by another method. There is not need to insult Einstein. And even if Ives is right, it does not follow that Poincare discovered m = E/c^2. It means that Poincare and Planck discovered m = E/c^2, which is what Ives claims; there is no way to say Poincare discovered all of m = E/c^2 (even though Whittaker asserts this without a shred of proof). E4mmacro 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. there is the highly misleading and contentious claim that General relativity also depends ‘’essentially’’ on Poincare’s work on gravity. The page implies that Hilbert discovered general relativity (a gratuitous insult to Einstein). Hilbert/Einstein happened after Poincare’s death, and the argument over the priority for general relativity has no place here (and the argument has never been about anyone building on Poincare’s work on gravity). It is also irrelevant on the Poincare page to tell us that “general relativity is nothing but a theory of gravity”. E4mmacro 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. an issue that Harlad88 has been fighting is 69’s claim that Poincare discovered EVERYTHING there is to know about relativity and published it first. I agree with Harald88 that Einstein deserves some credit, but have left Harald88 to fight that fight.

E4mmacro 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing. The following quote from the article is just exaggeration:
"Poincaré pointed out that new modern interpretations in Physics were clearly necessary. Poincaré's prophetic remarks led to the present Modern Physics view of light, as being massless yet possessing momentum, as in the case of photons." E4mmacro 09:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That is not an exaggeration, it is precise. 69.22.98.162 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


To E4: Sir Edmund Whittaker is my source here --He calls it Poincare's E=mc2. He is the top British Historian of science of the 20th century. 69.22.98.162 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Planck criticized Einstein's derivation of E=mc2, and Ives proved in published journal that Einstein did not derive E=mc2 at all. --It is not an insult of Einstein, it is a fact in published journal by Ives. 69.22.98.162 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I could change that one word essential, if you like. That is no reason for you to put giant Disputed signs. 69.22.98.162 05:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: It is a fact that Hilbert published the Field Equation before Einstein, and it is a fact the Field Equations are the cornerstone of General Relativity, which is all I said! -- Also it is a fact that Hilbert's Field Equations followed in the path of Poincare's field equations before him, to find a covariant equation that is consistent with the principle of Relativity that could better explain the Perihelion of Mercury. Poincare did it first , then Hilbert's equation was a further refinement, that is a fact. Poincare had the design first, and Hilbert's approach was absolutely in the same sequence. That is all I wrote there! --You are reading things in that are not there. 69.22.98.162 06:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: You are well aware that Poincare's 1905 paper was identical in content to Einstein's 1905 paper. That is why Sir Edmund Whittaker calls it Poincare's Special Relativity. My source is Sir Whittaker. 69.22.98.162 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: To say that General Relativity is only a theory of gravity is absolutely correct and it puts Special Relativity in a different light, which is educational and totally relevent to assess Poincare's work. 69.22.98.162 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: That refutes all of your overly sensitive comments here enumerated. Now, why did you change the Table of Contents around, to hide Poincare's Work. ---Change it back. 69.22.98.162 06:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: I wrote all of this up on WIKIPEDIA Francais, on the Poincare page all in French, and nobody criticized it at all, no one. -- So what is wrong with E4 ? --You'd think I'm pulling out his teeth ! 69.22.98.162 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: All I want at this point, is that E4 change the Table of Contents back to how it always was. 69.22.98.162 06:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: As you can see the sections "early career" and "late career" relate his life, the jobs he had. I took all the scattered references to his work and put them in one place, under the title work, with sub-titles. I don't car where that section goes in the article. I merely gathered all things together under the one heading. There is one piece of his work left in late career - the Poincare conjecture which should go as a subsection of work. In fact the sections early career and late career should just be one section "Career". I think what I did was a logical arrangement, but of course that is a matter of opinion. I put three disputed signs because I thought I had to indicate which three bits I disagreed with, sorry about that. One is enough, if you say so. But the page is not NPOV according to me. I have learnt it is futile to modify anything 69 writes. He has already told me he is always right (see above) and he always undoes any changes I make. So the best I can do is put the POV warning. E4mmacro 09:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: I use only published facts from scientific journals. -- E4 has no justification for changing the Table of Contents around -- He only did that to hide Poincare's Work on Relativity. It is absurd that there is nothing inbetween Early Career and Late Career, Relativity belongs there like it was before he vandalized the article. --He must go back to the original Table of Contents as it was before he vandalized the article, that is all I am asking at this time. 69.22.98.162 12:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with 69 on the problem about how to order the article: it's difficult to group the article in a correct way with both career and works, since they partially overlap. I think hte advantage of chronological sequence is that it's simpler, but some little commented important facts of his life could then be difficult to locate; while splitting it up like E4 now did, demands some summaries at places about stuff elsewhere on the same page, and that's at the moment not accomplished to satisfaction I'd say.
I fully agree on the esential points with E4: with his commnets on 05:37, 28 January 2006 he gave a good summary of the situation about the presentation of facts.
As long as 69 doesn't understand Wikipedia policies (and we referred to it exhaustively!), this and other pages will remain troubled. For example, he still doesn't understand that it's no good to have Wikipedia state, as a matter-of-fact :
"Poincaré's prophetic remarks led to the present Modern Physics view of light" ...Harald88 13:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the Einstein page it is chronological. -- Poincare's page WAS chronological before E4 vandalized it to hide Poincare's Work on Relativity. --It proves his prejudice, therefore E4 should recuse himself from the article altogether. 69.22.98.162 14:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't checked my email. I don't know about relativity stuff; I thought this was about moving the works section. I agree with Harald88's last statement there. I'll have to read the rest.
"Poincaré's prophetic remarks led to the present Modern Physics view of light" Even knowing as little as I, this statement isn't right. --DanielCD 14:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
"Poincaré pointed out that new modern interpretations in Physics were clearly necessary. Poincaré's prophetic remarks led to the present Modern Physics view of light, as being massless yet possessing momentum, as in the case of photons." You are going to need some very solid refereces to claim any of this. True as it may be, the currency here is not truth, it is verifiability.
Perhaps "led to" could be changed to "contributed to".
"Poincaré pointed out that new modern interpretations in Physics were clearly necessary." - This should be easy to cite. --DanielCD 14:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK Daniel, remove it if it bothers you, it changes nothing really. I was simply pointing out that Poincare's concept of light as massless yet possessing momentum is a description of the Photon in Modern Physics, but if that bothers you, remove it, it changes nothing to do so. 69.22.98.162 14:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he said that before anyone else, it probably should be noted. You might just phrase it a bit differently. --DanielCD 14:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There, I deleted that one sentence from the article, it changes nothing, it's done.69.22.98.162 14:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There I took out the word essential that E4 didn't like, it changes nothing, it's done. 69.22.98.162 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The important thing now is to get the article chronological again, like it always was. -- Just needs go back to the original Table of Contents, that's all, please do. 69.22.98.162 14:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

There is still a lack of references: for example I would very much like to read "Langevin 1914". 69, if it was you who cited it, please add the necessary info to references - Thanks in advance! Harald88 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: It is a beautiful description by Langevin, I'll cite it precisely for you in a moment. I have it in original French 1914. -- I'm sure E4 has it too. --It is a description of the first general relativity, the forerunner to Hilbert's Field Equation. 69.22.98.162 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

PS to HARALD: Can you please put the article back into proper chronological order please. Relativity belongs where it was, inbetween Early Career and Late Career, that's where it was. Thanks. 69.22.98.162 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald here is the reference. Article called Le Physicien by Paul Langevin in book Henri Poincare Librairie Felix Alcan (1914). The page of interest is at the very end of chapter Vll of the article. 69.22.98.162 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: If it would please you I can change the word flawed to inexact. As for Ives' paper it is published in correct scientific journal and was never refuted, it stays. 69.22.98.162 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Who flagged the article and specifically why ? If you cannot say, then don't do it. 69.22.98.162 20:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I flagged the article (the reasons are above). At least we are advancing on one issue: the proof of e = mc^2, and we may get it right eventually. According to Ives, Plank said Einstein's proof was approximate, not inexact and there is a nuamce. Can we get Plank's paper? E4mmacro 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll change it to approximate if that pleases you. I'll do it right now. I have a description of Planck's paper in French from the Ecole Polytechnique, it says that Planck criticized Einstein's derivation. 69.22.98.162 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Could you please go back to the original Table of Contents to have chronological logic in the article please, as in any encyclopedia. Thanks. 69.22.98.162 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I added for massive bodies to distinguish it from Poincare's for radiation. Anything else bother you in the article ? Let's fix whatever, right now. 69.22.98.162 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

E4, please put the CONTENTS in chronological order, like in any encyclopedia. Relativity and Three Body Problem go inbetween Early Career and Late Career, by chronological logic. 69.22.98.162 21:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity theories

Getting the direction of the advance of Mercury's perihelion advance is not such a big deal, is it? In Science and Method 1908 Poincare describes Lorentz's relativistic theory of gravity, for which "the principle of relativity will not be violated". (the "one of which I shall speak is that of Lorentz" but it is just possible that is is Poincare's own construction). The theory includes the radiation of energy by the orbiting body (gravity waves I guess you might call that, though he says "acceleration waves" - it is an electromagnetic-style theory of gravity, and I think the radiation is the same as the Larmor radiation of an accelerated electron). He says Lorentz's theory predicts 7" advance (compared to 38" experiment). He also says Tisserand assumed Weber's law of electrodynamics applied to gravity and predicted 14". I think others managed to predict an advance, but not the correct one. Is Langevin perhaps decsribing Poincare's description of Lorentz's theory? E4mmacro 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Langevin's very beautiful full page on this does not mention Lorentz at all. 69.22.98.162 21:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting the direction of the perihelion is PRAISED in no uncertain terms by Langevin. Read his glowing page (1914). 69.22.98.162 21:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything else ? Let's settle anything else right here right now. I don't want any more Disputed signs. And why have you not re-established chronological order ? 69.22.98.162 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

E4 is that you flagging the article again ? -- Why ? -- What else would you like me to change ? 69.22.98.162 21:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

E4 is that you who flagged the article ? Why ? Explain yourself. 69.22.98.162 21:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you E4, the chronology looks fine. If there is anything else you would like me to change just ask me right here, thanks. 69.22.98.162 21:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I see you would like Einstein's name next to Hilbert, that is fine if you put proper scientific credit with it -- Hilbert published the field equations first and as Kip Thorne said Credit Must go to Hilbert. So I will remove Einstein and you may please try re-inserting his name in a more correct fashion. Thanks. 69.22.98.162 21:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Credit MUST go to Hilbert. - Kip Thorne. 69.22.98.162 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is important, to put Poincare's Special Relativity into perspective, to add the words of Keswani, that General Relativity is really only a theory of gravity. Only then can Poincare be understood in perspective. -- HARALD long ago approved this -- there is no reason to change that now. It is vandalism to change it now at this late date. 69.22.98.162 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we please check publication dates, rather than rely on second-hand opinions. There are far more opinions that Einstein deserves credit for GR. If GR must be mentioend, which I doubt, then I guess both names have to be mentioned. Just to repeat one of my reasons for disputing the article is NPOV. It appears to be on a mission to put down Einstein and deprive him of any credit for anything. E4mmacro 22:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so sensitive. 69.22.98.162 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Look closely I am not talking about GR, I am talking about the Field Equation. Hilbert was on 20 Nov 1915. The Field Equation follows in the path of Poincare's earlier efforts. 69.22.98.162 22:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Poincare page in French Language reads this way, why not English. 69.22.98.162 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel for being there watching, it helps. thanks. 69.22.98.162 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: I am happy with the article as it is, if only vandals can be kept off of it in the future.69.22.98.162 22:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question already states that GR is a theory of gravity, adding "is really only a theory of gravity" reads poorly and adds no new information. There is no question that GR is a theory of gravity, so there is no need for a source quotation characterizing it as such. This addition harms the clarity of the writing without clarifying or specifying. Please edit to improve style. Ben Kidwell 22:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Ben: No Sir, I disagree. The field equation is a gravitational equation, yes, But then, most people don't understand that so is also the so called Theory of General Relativity only a theory of gravity. 69.22.98.162 22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: I am happy with the article. E4 appears to have no more objections. So I trust there will be no more Disputed signs. Thank you. 69.22.98.162 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My concern is the style, not the content. This sentence does not read well in English. If you think the NAME "Theory of General Relativity" is misleading in this context, why not remove it entirely? Just end the sentence after it mentions Einstein's field equation, no need to say GR specifically and follow with this quote. I am just trying to help the readability of the text and remove something that seems awkward to me as a native english speaker. I think all the content is very good. Ben Kidwell 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Ben: I am a native English speaker born in the USA. I think the sentence is fine. Apparently you are new and don't know from previous discussion, that the reason General Relativity is mentioned here, is to put Special Relativity in the greater context of Relativity overall, so average people can put Poincare into proper perspective in the greater context. --That is one reason why we keep theory of general relativity mentioned there, it is important to not cover it up. -- It is I think a dynamite ending to a great article. 69.22.98.162 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I think the section should be expanded somewhat. You are absolutely correct that I am new to the article and don't know the history. I think other people who use this article as a reference will also be new to it and may have the same difficulty understanding as I do. How about adding a few more sentences or another paragraph to provide this context? Also, is there a specialized article on Poincare and relativity? The subject seems to deserve one, and the main article is already quite long. Ben Kidwell 23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To Ben: Yes, if someone wanted to add to the last paragraph that is fine as long as they don't vandalize it by striking anything. A good thing to add would be Langevin's 1914 glowing description of Poincare's forerunner theory of gravity. 69.22.98.162 23:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone else removes my pov flag doesn't mean I have no more objectiions. I have no time to engage in a delete war, but that is different. My objections are all on this discussion page. E4mmacro 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know which Paper/paeprs of Poincare's that were cited by Langevin, containing his field equation? E4mmacro 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with Ben (as I suggested before) a seperate page on Poincare and rel;ativity would be a good idea. E4mmacro 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And Ben is absoultely correct that the redundant mention of "really only a theory of gravity" is very silly and jarring. It suggests that the writer is concerned about something else, other than Poinacre. E4mmacro 01:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And of course the whole last section about Einstein/Hilbert is completly irrelevant to Poinacre; this is the first suggestion I have seen that Hilbert got it from Poincare, or Einstein got it from Poincare. Why is the section there? The controversy about Einstein/Hilbert is covered on the history of general relativity page.

To E4: Can't you find something else to do rather than denature this Poincare page ? --I explained to Ben why the quote from Keswani is relevent to Poincare. -- Didn't you read it ? Look at my answer to Ben for your answer -- Do not remove Keswani's quote -- you would be vandalizing this page to remove Keswani's quote -- Do not touch it.-- 69.22.98.162 04:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: Can you please REMOVE Macrossan from this page before he does any more damage ? -He is a madman. 69.22.98.162 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently anyone else but 69 are madmen... I think quite the contrary, but usually I would abstain from articulting such personal opinions on talk pages. And sorry, currently I'm occupied with other subjects. Harald88 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New mechanics and astronomy

I still think the gravity section is a bit of a dead-end as far as Poincare is concerned. But can someone else read "The new mechanics and Astronomy" from "Science and Method", Parts I and II and IV (omitting the "clearly wrong theories" in section III), about 7 pages. Is Poincare there describing only one theory of gravity due to Lorentz? or is he perhaps building a new theory himself by modifying Lorentz? Thanks. E4mmacro 12:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan in the article you misquoted Poincare. -- Poincare pointed out that there are MANY such solutions of gravity, ONE of which was given by Lorentz. Langevin pointed out in the memoire (1914) that Poincare possessed himself numerous solutions for gravity. 69.22.98.162 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey 69, I already asked you to send me a copy of Langevin 1914. my email: harrylin at gmx dot net. Thanks in advance!

I have it in the original crumbling 1914 book, too fragile to email it. ha ha. 69.22.98.162 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know the problem, I have that with Ives' articles: I have them all but only on paper. Then please now finally give the reference on the article page: that helps me to get it, and also it's necessary to have any comments about it verifiable. Thanks in advance! Harald88 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
What papers did Langevin quote showing that Poincare had many theories of gravity (which I do not doubt; theories of gravities at the time were a big issue.)? Did Langevin quote the exact equation of Poincare's that he admired? E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Langevin and Poincare were best friends, they went together to St. Louis for the 1904 International Expo. 69.22.98.162 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was parphrasing a particular book (see above request for someone else to read it) I was not talking of these other papers that Langevin may know of, but I don't know of. I gave the exact reference of what I was paraphrasing in the page, but my paraphrase has been changed by 69.22.98.162. That's ok, but I am asking if anyone else has read the few pages I was paraphrasing. I agree it is not 100% clear whose theory Poincare is talking about - I think it is about 90% clear that he is talking of Lorentz only. E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You obviously are not fluent in French. I stated precisely what he stated. 69.22.98.162 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not fluent in French. I was paraphrasing an English edition of the book, under the assumption that the translator was fluent in French. If someone else can read the original and answer my question above I am more than happy to hear from them. E4mmacro 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: Sir Edmund Whittaker called it Poincare's E=mc2. -- Do not try to cover it up and hide it as M=e/c2. -- Whittaker is the top British Historian of science of the 20th century. I don't want to have to repeat this again, understood, Macrossan ? 69.22.98.162 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: Please recuse Macrossan from this page. 69.22.98.162 13:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for clearing up the mystery of what you have been trying to prove: that Special relativity (as discovered by Poincare?) is the "one and Unique" theory of relativity. I still think you should start a different page on that topic and leave Poincare out of it. E4mmacro 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Keswani (1966) said it -- I quote sources, unlike yourself 69.22.98.162 21:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One reason why I placed the POV tag E4mmacro 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave the relevant quote from Poincare 1900 previously in this talk page:

Nous pouvons regarder l’energie electromagnetic comme une fluide fictive dont la density J/c^2 et qui se deplace dans l’espace conformement aux lois de Poynting.

J is the magnitude of the Poynting vector (energy/unit volume). This is the only place in the paper where Poincare writes the equivalent of m_R = E/c^2. (I am using Ives's notation, the subscript R refers to radiation, equivalent mass of radiation). Poincare never writes E = mc^2 and he does not mean by it what Einstein meant, which is m_I = E/c^2. (The subscript I means inertia of ponderable matter, see Ives). Poincare does NOT say that the emitter has lost mass when the radiation was emiited (read his repeated discussions of this in Science and Hypothesis 1902 and Value of Science 1904 if you don't have the original of Poincare 1900). He could not possibly derive the Einstein meaning without Lorentz's variation of mass with velocity (γm); and in 1900 he did not know it. Sir Edmund Whittaker at least says that Poincare gave "practically no proof of E = mc^2" (in fact Poincare gave NO proof at all in the EINSTEIN sense m_I = E/c^2). Sir Edmund Whittaker repeats a few derivations of m_I = E/c^2, none by Poincare, all of which rely on γm which comes from Lorentz 1904. Sir Edmund Whittaker is mistaken and must not have read Poincare 1904 (The Value of Science, CH VIII). Look there for Poincare's three problems (mass conservation, momentum conservation, energy conservation). No one who understood m_I = E/c^2 in the Einstein sense could write that Chapter without mentioning E = mc^2 which solves all those problems. I hope Harald will find those papers where Sir Edmund Whittaker's book has been heavily criticised. The claim in the page that Poincare in 1900 published E = mc^2, is POV, Whittaker's POV, which is easily shown to be wrong. I will replace my tag, and hope that Wikipedia ettiquette will stop anyone else removing it. E4mmacro 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Quote your sources -- Whittaker is the top British Historian of the 20th century. Who are YOU to say he is wrong. 69.22.98.162 21:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Don't you tag or delete anything, until you quote your sources. 69.22.98.162 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

69, I didn't look, but almost certainly the NPOV tags were placed because you continued the forbidden practice of having Wikipedia state what instead the special opinion was of one person... Right? Such claims are to be either DELETED or ATTRIBUTED, as you know very well by now. Harald88 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald I use only published sources. What passage are you referring to ? 69.22.98.162 22:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok Harald, I will make the attribution for him in the page. E4mmacro 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
But as we see (check history and comment below), the correct attribution can only survive on the page for approximately one minute. E4mmacro 00:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For whom, what page ? what is this ? 69.22.98.162 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Detailed referencing like that does not belong in any Introduction section. 69.22.98.162 00:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ives was talking about as applies to massive bodies, Whittaker was talking radiation. There is nothing new in Ives' paper. It changes nothing.69.22.98.162 00:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will make it clear Whittaker was talking only about radiation, if you like. I was under the mistaken impression that "only radiation" was what you didn't want to say. E4mmacro 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it myself into the text a long time ago for radiation, where have you been ? 69.22.98.162 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read Whittaker, it is very clear that although he knows Poincare 1900 was referring to radiation only, he jumps a page or so later to the assertion that Poincare meant the same as Einstein, i.e. ponderable matter. Anyone can make this mistake, which you have not made, so it helps to state in the Introduction that Poincare 1900 was referring to radiation only. Something we all agree on. E4mmacro 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at Whittaker's book, he repeatedly calls it simply Poincare's E=mc2, WITHOUT ADDING ANY QUALIFIERS. -- We should do as Whittaker. 69.22.98.162 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker did not go around stating it like that. -- Also, detailed qualifiers do not belong in any Introduction, they belong in the text where I put it myself long ago. 69.22.98.162 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Look in Bjerknes' books he says Poincare had E=mc2 before Einstein, it's everywhere, get used to it. 69.22.98.162 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You will find no one to contradict Whittaker. -- Oh they can bitch about him, but they don't contradict him. 69.22.98.162 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I thought we just agreed that Poincare mean radiation only. Have you switched back to “Poincare meant ponderable matter”? There is no reason why we have to follow Whittaker's confusing way of expressing himself. If he meant radiation only, why should we not make that clear (especially when it is true that Poincare meant radiation only, as we all agreed a minute ago). E4mmacro 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is crystal clear in the text, I wrote it there myself. STICK TO WHITTAKER. 69.22.98.162 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing average people with your upside down formulas. Make it recognizable. --Stop clouding the water. 69.22.98.162 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

E4, I thought you were supposed to be a teacher somewhere ? -- how is it you have been 24 hours a day on the internet for three straight weeks now ? 69.22.98.162 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker : POINCARE'S E=MC2. 69.22.98.162 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We all agree that Poincare was talking only of radiation, not ponderable matter. So can we have quick recap of exactly why you replaced the unambiguous and correct statement

Poincare first published the formula for the equivalent mass of radiation m = E / c2, or E = mc2 in 1900.

With the ambiguous statement

Poincare first published E = mc2 in 1900.

Just to clarify, what your objection to the first sentence is, and to have it all in one place. Thanks E4mmacro 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections at all to clarifications, but not when it is deliberately confusing in a concise Introduction. -- OUT OF PLACE THERE. 69.22.98.162 00:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker calls it REPEATEDLY Poincare's E=mc2. -- Stick to the expert.-- And YOU are NOT the expert here.69.22.98.162 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

More than happy to stick to the expert. So why did you delete, from the introduction, the attribution to Whittaker of this statement? E4mmacro 01:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Because references don't belong in an Introduction. 69.22.98.162 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean citations I guess. And there is a Wikipedia policy page or something else that establishes the "citations-do-not-belong-in-introduction" rule is where?? E4mmacro 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 1905/1906 issue again!

The publication date was 5 June 1905. Went to printer 8 June, distributed 9 June. 69.22.98.162 01:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And just the record can you clarify what was your objection to the sentence in the introduction

Poincaré discovered the remaining velocity transformations in 1905 and published them in 1906, to obtain perfect invariance, the final step in the discovery of Special Relativity.

which you replaced by

Poincaré discovered the remaining velocity transformations to obtain perfect invariance, the final step in the discovery of Special Relativity.

Why delete the reference to when he published it?

I thought, see the endless circular discussion above between you me and Harald, that you finally aggreeed that a paper in a journal dated 1905 (short version of paper "Sur l'dynamique ..." links given everywhere) does not explicitly contain the velocity addition formula, and that a private letter to Lorentz does not count as a publication. Thanks once again for the clarification. E4mmacro 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The 5 June note is identical in contents. 69.22.98.162 01:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a shame that in the article you talk of short paper, then long paper, it's all in the note of 5 June, the only paper that matters. Read Whittaker. 69.22.98.162 02:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You scroll back to where I asked Harald to tatoo it to his arm -- the same goes for you. Scroll back and read and don't forget it ever again. I can't repeat myself endlessly to people with 5 min memory span. -- And re-read Whittaker, and tatoo it to your arm so you don't forget again. 69.22.98.162 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

5 June, tatoo that date to you forehead then every time you look in the mirror you won't have to ask me. 69.22.98.162 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The way to find out what is in the 1905 paper is to read it - not rely on what Whittaker says. Even someone with a cursory knowledge of French, can see that the velocity addition equation is not in the 1905 paper; nor is it in the translation of the 1905 paper into English by Keswami and Kilmister. And it is very difficult for someone not fluent in French (or anyone I would have thought) to see how a paper a few pages long (1905 short paper, link and Journal reference given) contains everything published in 1906 in a paper of 50 pages or more (second paper, long version, link and Journal reference given). But there is no reason to repeat yourself. We now know why you deleted the clarification dates of 1905 and 1906 - because Whittaker says a paper 5 pages long published in 1905 is the same as a paper 50 pages long published in 1906. Thanks. E4mmacro 02:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In Physics, if you were a physicist, you would know that it is common for a short note to be submitted, followed by a longer paper expounding on equivalent material, as in Hilbert's 20 Nov 1915 note on his discovery of the field equations, followed by its longer publication in full article form in 1916, but it is recognized as 20 Nov the discovery. Get used to it. 69.22.98.162 03:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To E4: No more 1905 1906 issue again crap. -- You scroll back to where I told Harald to tatoo it to his arm, and you do the same. If you don't want to scroll back to it then just ask Harald to read it off his arm and email it to you. 69.22.98.162 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: There is no debate in recorded scientific publications about 1906 vs 1905, nowhere, so do NOT add it to the article -- it is something just in YOUR little mind. 69.22.98.162 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Francais

This article on Poincare should have been very easy to write up, but you two guys are both MISERABLE. -- I wrote this all up for Wikipédia Francais in just a few minutes time, with no fuss, no muss. 69.22.98.162 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As you know I am not fluent in French. But where exactly does it say in the following introduction to the Poincare page in Wkipedia Francais, the extravagent and disputed claims that Poincare discovered E = mc^2 in 1900, and everything about relativity; claims you keep re-inserting in the English introduction, and insist that no one can clarify? The French claim is fairly extravegant, but at least it mentions Lorentz in the introduction in connection with special relativty, which might give a clue that Poincare did not do everything.

Henri Poincaré, né le 29 avril 1854 à Nancy et décédé à Paris le 17 juillet 1912, fut un mathématicien et physicien français. Artisan de génie, il est l'homme de l'ombre de la relativité générale. En relation avec un physicien expérimental, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, il mit en équation la théorie de la relativité restreinte, sur les observations de son collègue.
Arrière petit fils d'Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, il est le cousin de l'homme politique et président de la France Raymond Poincaré et de Lucien Poincaré, directeur de l'Enseignement secondaire au Ministère de l'Instruction publique et des Beaux-Arts. Brillant élève, il passe successivement par Polytechnique puis l'École des Mines; en 1879 il obtient un doctorat de mathématiques sous la direction de Charles Hermite, puis est détaché à la Faculté des Sciences de Caen. Deux ans plus tard, il obtient ses premiers résultats marquants en mathématiques (sur la représentation des courbes et sur les équations différentielles linéaires à coefficients algébriques), et rapidement, il s'intéresse à l'application de ses connaissances mathématiques en physique et plus particulièrement en Mécanique. Il occupera notamment la chaire de Physique Mathématique et de Calcul des probabilités de la Faculté des Sciences de Paris en 1886, succèdant à Gabriel Lippmann, puis la chaire d'Astronomie mathématique, succédant à Félix Tisserand, c'est Joseph Boussinesq qui le remplace à la chaire de physique mathématique. Il est en 1901 le premier lauréat de la Médaille Sylvester de la Royal Society. Il a été président de la Société mathématique de France en 1886 et en 1900 et président de la Société française de physique en 1902.

I am aware that you have slipped your disputed claims (disputed because they are misleading) into the body of the French page, and I was the one who dated them (but maybe the dates are gone by now). Maybe if you insert your misleading claims in the French introduction, someone might notice them. Thanks in advance for the French lesson. Does any one know if the Russian wiki page claims a Russian discovered everything in relativity? E4mmacro 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: Whittaker wrote it, Poincare's E=mc2, and he is NOT disputed on this point anywhere in published scientific litterature, it is ONLY disputed in YOUR little mind, so do NOT insert it into wikipedia. QUOTE YOUR SOURCES ALWAYS. -- WHO are YOU to dispute Whittaker. -- Stop vandalizing Wikipedia.69.22.98.162 13:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: you better need to learn German and Italian etc as well, because in Europe it is well known the Poincare discovered relativity before Einstein. 69.22.98.162 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: NEVER AGAIN insert YOUR debate of 1906 vs 1905 into wikipedia French or English, because NO such debate exists in the published scientific litterature. --QUOTE YOUR SOURCES ALWAYS. 69.22.98.162 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

PS to Macrossan, all this detail you added about Einstein belongs either on the einstein page or the e=mc2 page. 69.22.98.162 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Whittaker called it POINCARE's E=mc2 -- Tatoo it to your forehead Macrossan. 69.22.98.162 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E = mc^2 again

I know this has been discussed here before, and I am newly arrived, but isn't the following paragraph misleading if Poincare's formula applied only to radiation but not to non-zero rest mass particles? If so, the paragraph should be modified to accurately reflect Poincare's achievement.

"Poincaré first derived E = mc2 in his paper of 1900 where Poincaré discussed the recoil of a physical object when it emits a burst of radiation in one direction. He showed that according to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory the stream of radiation could be considered as a "fictitious fluid" with a mass per unit volume of e/c2, where e is the energy density; in other words, the equivalent mass of the radiation is m = E / c2, or E = mc2. Max Planck (1907) derived E = mc2 for massive bodies and Planck criticized Einstein's 1905 derivation as only approximate. H. E. Ives (1952) wrote that Einstein's derivation was a tautology ( 0 = 0 ), due to Einstein's incorrect use of approximations." green 64.136.26.226 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone commented earlier that the text should follow Whittaker, who allegedly wrote "Poincare's E= mc^2". Given the purpose of Wikipedia, additional clarification is called-for. Otherwise the reader, unless very sophisticated, will surely get the impression that Poincare's derivation is equivalent to, and preceded Einstein's. green 64.136.26.226 23:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph clearly said for radiation, and Planck's for massive bodies, How much clearer could that be ?? Explain yourself. 69.22.98.162 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Poincare's usage of the formula for radiation, and Planck's usage for massive bodies, are CORRECT usages. --That is why Whittaker credits Poincare first. -- What is wrong with that ?? Explain yourself. 69.22.98.162 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I already explained it. Unless the reader is fairly sophisticated, he/she will not understand the fine distinction. The article should make the distinction clear so there is no possibility of confusion. Why would you object to that? green 64.136.26.226 23:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely Green. No one should object to clarification. E4mmacro 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose more ? -- the distinction was quite clear if you can read english. 69.22.98.162 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no mystery to what we propose. We propose that you stop deleting the clarification sentences. Since you have deleted them many times, I guess you know what we mean. E4mmacro 00:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: user Green cannot answer my questions, so please revert it back immediately. thank you. 69.22.98.162 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To 69; when you wrote this, you hadn't given me time to respond. Look at the time tags. That's not nice!

Daniel are you there ?? 69.22.98.162 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel please revert the page back. 69.22.98.162 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan WHERE is there any debate in science journals over 1905 vs 1906 ? -- You are a liar if you cannot produce any such debate in the litterature, which there is none. --Don't post something with ZERO sources. 69.22.98.162 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the itroduction? Do you think there is no debate over priority for Poincare vs Einstein? And we have agreed never to discuss again the fact that you think a paper of 5 pages long in 1905 contains all the information contained in a paper of 50 pages llong published in 1906. E4mmacro 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are violating the rules of Wikipedia. YOUR opinion does not matter, what matters are SOURCES and you have NONE. 69.22.98.162 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not my opinion that the paper in 1905 was 5 or so page long and the paper in 1906 was more than 50 pages long. It is not my opinion that the second paper contains many more things than the 1905 paper. We have the two papers. We can read. Anyone can check these simple statements. We do not need to read someone else's published opinion to state these simple facts.

And please start a separate page "Poincare discovered everything that Einstein is famous for" and express youself there as much as you like. Include your theory that because Hilbert was a Friend of Poincare, that Poincare is also responsible for General relativity. E4mmacro 00:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein was a FRAUD and YOU know it. 69.22.98.162 00:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Einstein derive the mass-energy formula in his 1905 paper? I can't find it. In any event, even if Poincare's work on relativity is not sufficiently recognized, it is still necessary to clearly distinguish his formula's applicability from Einstein's. I see there is a new paragraph that replaces the one I copied above, and it just as deficient on this issue. green 64.136.26.226

Mavrossan all the long winded junk you wrote into article on Einstein belongs on the Einstein page, NOT here. 69.22.98.162 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To Green. I re-inserted the clarification: readers will now not be confused into thinking Poimcare discovered Einstein's meaning of E = mc^2. At least they won't be confused while the clarification reamins; but past history suggests it will remain no more than two minutes. I suggest you add a {{pov}} tag, when the clarification is removed. Though, I have tried this, and that doesn't work either. A pov tag has a half-life of about one minute. E4mmacro 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. The article is much improved, but I still have an issue with the following paragraph:
"Poincaré derived the equivalent mass of radiation, a consequence of Maxwell-Lorentz theory, as a criticism of that theory. He repeated this criticism in "Science and Hypothesis" (1902) and "The value of Science" (1904). In the latter he discussed the problem of three violations of classical conservation laws: (1) non-conservation of mass implied by Lorentz's variable mass γm (2) non-conservation of momentum implied by the recoil of an energy emiitng device and (3) the non-conseravtion of energy in the radium experiments of Madame Curie. Poincaré pointed out that new interpretations in Physics were necessary. It was the insight that the body emiting radiation was losing mass of amount m = E / c2, which resolved these problems."
The inference is that since Poincaré had the insight in 1904, he, not Einstein, is the true discoverer of the formula that Einstein is usually given credit for. This is OK with me, if it is true. Is it? green 65.88.65.217 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree Green. I originally wrote "Einstein's insight". I thought the sentence "Poincare pointed out that new interpretations ..etc" was so obviously devoid of any content that no one could take it seriously, and not worth deleting. (That is, everybody in 1904 knew that "new interpretations in Physics were necessary" - Lorentz's work made that obvious). However, I see that with the sentence placed where it is, it does suggest the false idea that Poincare might have suggested that the emitting object was losing mass. All the preceding sentences were supposed to make it clear he had no idea of that, that is why he had such a problem with the three violations of conservation laws that he discussed. I have said this above, more than once, I think. E4mmacro 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To all: I think the article should be expanded to delineate what aspects of relativity Poincaré discovered, that have been defacto historically credited to Einstein. One that comes to mind is the Principle of Relativity. It might also be worthwhile to distinguish the differences between Einstein's and Poincaré's version of relativity. green 65.88.65.217 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is general relativity relevant on this page

Does any agree with me that the last section on general relativity is irrelevent to a page on Poincare? It seems to be nothing more than a statement that Einstein was wrong to call his theory of gravity, the General Theory of Relativity. So what? What possible relevance does that have to Poincare? Did Poincare ever say there was "one and Unique Theory of relativity". Not as fas as I know. Did Poincare discover General Relativity? No. Was Poincare dead in 1915/16? Yes. Shouldn't it be on the Einstein page or the General Relativity page?

Poincare had a GR before anyone, and GR is NOT relativity. -- Poincare is rightfully the creator of relativity therefore, yes, very important here. -- Keswani stressed this point. 69.22.98.162 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice you still have not told us where Poincare published general relativity. Nor have you told us a reference to any work of Poincare's that Langevin gave in his "glowing memoire". You have the original. Can you answer some questions about the Langenvin "glowing memoire"?
  1. Does that memoire give any references at all?
  2. Does that memoire quote Poincare's gravity equation?
  3. does that memoire have any equations?
Thanks. This would be important information. E4mmacro 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling Langevin a liar ? -- Langevin is specific, I quoted him. He described what indeed we call today GR. 69.22.98.162 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not calling Langevin a liar. I am asking which papers of Poincare's he was talking about. Three very simple questions, that you can answer, since you have a copy, and I do not. E4mmacro 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan, old friend, you do have it, Science et Methode, the chapter you yourself had cited. Get it translated, it is very similar to Langevin, and will suffice. --Published by Poincare himself, GR. 69.22.98.162 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Langevin is a published source of top qualifications, one of the top scientists of the period. 69.22.98.162 00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also you yourself gave Poincare's own pages where he describes solutions of what we call today GR. -- If you could read French you would know that. -- Try to get translated for yourself Poincare's Science et Methode, the chapter you yourself cited. -- Langevin corroborates it. -- it is GR-- 69.22.98.162 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is GR?
  1. And gives an advance of the perihelion of Mecury of 7" rather than the correct 35". I thought GR gave something like 34".
  2. Does it predict bending of light by gravity? That is not mentioned in the chapter of the book I cited.
  3. Is Langevin refering to the theory that Poincare describes in the book I cited and then credits to Lorentz?
These are simple questions, that you can answer by reading Langevin, YOu have a copy, we don't. E4mmacro 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
OK if you think the theory of gravity described in "Science et Methods" is GR, I will leave it that. E4mmacro 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Keswani stressed this point, yes, it is important here. 69.22.98.162 00:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

GEE believe it or not, it is a miracle, I think the article looks pretty fair right now. Shall we shake on it ? 69.22.98.162 00:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the page is OK now. I think it is emmbarassing for Whittaker to have his opinion quoted so prominently - it will make him look biased. I think the GR section is irrelevant, but it doesn't worry me. E4mmacro 01:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good I accept. 69.22.98.162 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because we are now old friends, I'll answer some questions you were interested in. Poincare wrote of curved space, so perhaps also light bending is somewhere there too. He was very interested in Mercury. -- I quoted Langevin on that. -- Langevin no doubt had Science et Methode in mind when he wrote that memoire, and other writings of Poincare too I'm sure. --Also, very importantly, Poincare wrote in Science et Methode that Lorentz had ONE such solution while Poincare says that he himself had MANY such solutions, please understand that, and Langevin corroborates, he also says in the memoire that Poincare had multiple such solutions. 69.22.98.162 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)69.22.98.162 01:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it from this, that Langevin (1914) did not specifically state what he was thinking of. Gave no citation of any specific paper of Poincare's? E4mmacro 01:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Science et Methode. 69.22.98.162 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The memoire Le Physicien is 86 pages long, he cites many of Poincare's writings. Much of Langevin's words which I quoted into the article he no doubt took straight from Science et Methode. Get a good translation, you'll find what you want there.69.22.98.162 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4, Don't worry I'm not asking for any changes in the article, we have both agreed on that. I just was curious to ask you a question. You know who I credit with E=mc2. Who do you credit with E=mc2 ? 69.22.98.162 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I credit Einstein with the insight that the mass of a body decreased when it emitted radiation, or heat, though as Ives notes, there were plenety of indications of this floating around (Hasenohtrl, for example and Whittaker meantions a few as well). I don't know of any specific paper where someone else talked of the momentum of radiation before Poincare in 1900, but it would not surprise me if someone did, since Maxwell's radiation pressure was well known, and that is all Poincare was talking about in 1900. So I accept Ives credit to Poincare for half of the meaning of m = E/c^2. E4mmacro 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you contradict yourself ? you credit Einstein for a concept, that plenty of others had as well ? how can you credit then Einstein for that concept if others held it also ? 69.22.98.162 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your answer is not clear. Let me ask again, whom do you credit for the formula E=mc2 ?? 69.22.98.162 01:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS I'll certainly not change the article now, but I personally see E=mc2 as Poincare's because in science when one correctly derives an equation even for a special case, and said formula be later generalized, the first publication for the special case does get the first credit for discovery. Whittaker is right. But as promised I won't touch the article. -- Please do answer more precisely, because you didn't really answer the question, Whom do you credit for E=mc2 ?? 69.22.98.162 03:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have given my answer. You think I am wrong. Let's leave it that. Thanks E4mmacro 06:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, I see what may be the trouble. You ask who I credit the equation to. I answer a different quiestion: who do I credit with predicting the physical effect associated with the equation. i.e. the physical meaning of the equations. Which is all that interests me. Since there are two physical meanings I follow Ives in assigning credit to each meaning seperately. E4mmacro 07:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The one and unique theory of relativity

The following paragraph must have been written by our nameless, resident Einstein-hater, "69". It claims that Hilbert published the field equations before Einstein. I am aware of a claim alleging Einstein's plagiarism of Hilbert's work, but whatever the case, I believe the order of publishing stated in this paragraph is factually incorrect. Let's get it right and resist the temptation to indulge Einstein bashing.

"After the death of Poincaré, David Hilbert first, followed later by Albert Einstein, each published the same covariant equation of gravity, the famous Field Equation, which is the cornerstone of what is today called the General Theory of Relativity and which completed the theory. The significance of Poincare's work is fully understood by realizing that the so called general theory of relativity is a misnomer; it is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966). The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore the one and unique Theory of Relativity."

Wrt the above paragraph, I also don't like the hair splitting as to whether Einstein's GTR is a theory of relativity or just a theory about gravity. The GTR is a covariant theory that is based on, and satisfies the General Principle of Relativity. Hence, the usual name it goes under is reasonably descriptive. I agree that we must explain the significance of Poincaré's work, but this can be done by explaining what priority his work has wrt relativity theory as of 1905.

green 65.88.65.217 03:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Green, for your answer see David Hilbert and read Einstein-Hilbert action. -- Hilbert published the famous field equations first -- Einstein could not do it. I see you are not a Physicist: there is NO SUCH THING as a Principle of General Relativity, it does not exist. The word covariance is used very differently in the context of GR. Also, you need read Keswani he states that GR is IN NO SENSE a general theory of relativity. - And now you know why, Mr. Green, - Hair splitting it is not. -- And this is why Keswani adds immediately that GR is really only a theory of gravity. Anything else, Mr. Green? 69.22.98.162 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anything else? Yes. Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you would cease being snotty. I know you're French and I have nothing against France. But there is no need to be supercilious. Secondly, as to physics, is it not the case that Einstein's field equations are covariant; i.e., they have the same mathematical form in all frames of reference? Is this not the Principle of Relativity in the context of the GTR? (I should not have written "general principle of relativity" when I meant the principle of relativity as it appears in the GTR.) I will check the Hilbert link, but I am suspect of your interpretations because you clearly have an anti-Einstein ax to grind. I just want the facts. green 64.136.26.226 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Green, do yourself a favor, read Keswani so you'll know what you're talking about. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Hilbert links don't reference where he published the field equations, so I am still not sure if he published them before Einstein. However, the text states that Einstein first had the idea that mass-energy warps spacetime, and consulted with Hilbert to derive the equations. So I would have to assume that it was Einstein's physical intuition that stimulated Hilbert to derive the equations first, if that's what in fact occurred. green 64.136.26.226 05:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Green do yourself a favor, read Folsing for the dates. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some further research on your statement above that "Einstein could not do it [derive the field equations]." According to my source -- http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html -- he derived them a few days after Hilbert, sometime in late November 1915, when his paper was accepted for publication. You are losing credibility. green 64.136.26.226 06:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. The Russian physicist Volk said that Einstein's calling it general relativity, proved that Einstein never understood the theory. 69.22.98.162 04:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I am sure Einstein had some idea what it was about, having worked on it for about 10 years. green 64.136.26.226 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have said many times that in my opinion that last paragraph is irrelevant to this article on Poincare, and should be deleted. Why get involved ina Hilbert/Einstein priority issue at all. All 69 wants to prove is that Poincare has copyriight on the term "relativity". Others, think special relativity is "owned" in various degrees by (alphabetical order only) Einstein/Larmor/Lorentz/Planck/Poincare. There is no need to mention Hilbert/Einstein and I don't want to get into that argument. First we should delete the HIlbert/Einstein controversy, which is actually irrelevant to what 69 (via Keswani) is trying to assert. E4mmacro 06:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To: E4: NO CENSORSHIP , IT IS VERY PERTINENT and Green agrees it remain. E4 you agreed to the article, don't betray your word.. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the place of Poincare in the history of physics, and specifically relativity, is an interesting and important subject that should not be ignored. I am therefore against deleting the paragraph. I just want the history presented objectively. green 65.88.65.217 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How about if the last bit reads:
The one and unique Theory of Relativity
The significance of Poincare's work is fully understood by realizing that the so called general theory of relativity is a misnomer. Although many assume it is the complete theory of relativity, it is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966). The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore the one and unique Theory of Relativity.
I think this focuses on what 69 is trying to assert. Concentrate on that - Hilbert/Einstein is a distraction. E4mmacro 07:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

NO CENSORSHIP, KEEP YOUR WORD. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


I would like to point out that that the claim about 'one and unique' theory of relativity, and that GR is only a theory of gravitation is in direct contradiction to the wikipedia article on general relativity itself (see heading "Fundamental Principles". Also, while never finishing a doctorate in physics, I completed graduate level work in GR and have read a several of the classic full mathematical treatments of it. Yet it comes as a complete surprise to me that it isn't a theory of relativity as well as gravity. Trivially, it says the manifold mapping group is a symmetry group for any admissable physical law - not in any way restricted to gravitation. This is exactly analogous to the Lorentz group being a symmetry group for Special Relativity. Further, quite a number of experiments have been done to probe whether all physical phemonemena respond to gravitation and accelaration as predicted by this principle (independent of specific field equations). I would argue that this whole section be removed. 209.6.255.15 07:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

READ KESWANI. 69.22.98.146 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That is partly right, as you can see from the inconsistency of that same article: in the introduction, general relativity is claimed to be a "theory of gravitation". I objected to that on the talk page, but probably they didn't understand the problem. It is a fact that it started out as a theory of general relativity, but this fails for changing acceleration. You may try to improve the intro of that article. -> See also twin paradox.
Thus, about this one (I still haven't read the last version): if not removed, for sure the phrasing needs to be improved, just as the intro to the GRT article needs to be improved. Harald88 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How exactly does it fail? (Changing acceleration? Do you mean a frame whose acceleration is not constant? Does GR fail in this case, and if so how?) green 65.88.65.217 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed: in the Twin paradox article, Builder is cited about the "how", and Cleonis also explained it on its Talk page. I suppose that around that time (due to Builder?) GRT was starting to be called a theory of Gravitation, abut it may in fact have happened earlier, I really don't know. The GRT article doesn't give a clue, instead it simly wipes the whole issue under the rug. Maybe we should tag it with a warning banner. Maybe 209 is willing to take care of that? Harald88 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Your use of the word 'failure' is not correct. Afaik, and cmiiaw, no argument that the theory fails have been presented, since failure, by definition, means an incorrect prediction. What has been argued, and with which I agree to the extent I understand it, is that Einstein's use of the Equivalence Principle to solve the Twin Paradox is not plausible. Do you see the difference? green 65.88.65.217 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "the famous Field Equation, which is the cornerstone of what is today called the General Theory of Relativity and which completed the theory." (emphasis added) What is the theory that GR completed? It can't be SRT, since that would make GR a relativity theory, which the next senetences claims it is not. Is this trying to suggest that GR is the completeion of Poincare's unknown theory of gravity, the one for which we have no journal reference. I think that is what it was originally meant to say - now it just looks like a contradiction of the next sentence. E4mmacro 13:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: It is in very plain English, it says clearly that Hilbert completed GR, which is not even relativity, just gravity. No contradiction whatsoever. 69.22.98.146 16:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I want the article to give a clear statement of which theory was completed, that's all, so people don't have to read the discussion page to try to find out. So it seems you mean to say "the famous field equation ... completed the theory of gravity". Is that correct? And if so, I was just pointing out that you could clear up any misunderstanding by saying so explicitly, ie add the words "of gravity". And if you mean "completed the theory of gravity started by Poincare" then say so explicitly, because this will at least show why the sentence is there on the Poincare page. It also makes it easier for people to know if they agree with you. E4mmacro 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare fits prominately right into the development of the theory of gravity which Einstein incorrectly called general relativity. Read Langevin for this. Hilbert's completion of the theory of gravity follows through directly from Poincare's efforts and therefore is perfectly relevent to Poincare, Hilbert was the very next step which should definitely be pointed out. Especially considering that Hilbert's theory of gravity (misnomered GR) is very very important to Poincare's place in history because as the article points out, GR is only a theory of gravity, therefore Poincare's Special Relativity is the unique theory of relativity. VERY VERY important for Poincare's place in history -- So the paragraph stays. Macrosan had agreed to this and should not go back on his word. 69.22.98.146 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: You still have not read Science et Methode so you still don't know what you're talking about do you. 69.22.98.146 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. To E4: please answer, Whom do you credit for E=mc2 ? 69.22.98.146 16:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My answer is above, in the previous section. E4mmacro 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. To Green, Stop your LOL. -- Hilbert sent the field equations in a letter to Einstein, only then did Einstein publish them himself. Read Folsing. 69.22.98.146 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For once, here 69 appears to have his facts right, I also read that. But all that is not about Poincare... wrong article! Harald88 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find the title of Keswani's book or anything about him on the web. How about the title and some links? The link I provided says that Einstein and Hilbert had been working on deriving the field equations starting in the summer of 1915. I never heard that Hilbert sent the equations to Einstein. Is this firm or just someone's hypothesis or suspicion? Does Folsing offer proof? Since Einstein brought the problem to Hilbert, it would seem appropriate that Hilbert would have done that if he found the solutions before Einstein. And that sequence wouldn't be surprising since Hilbert was consulted precisely because of his immense mathematical talents. So it is foolish to denigrate Einstein if this is how it transpired. Whatever the case, you completely ignore the key fact that it was Einstein who brought the problem to Hilbert based on his physical intuition that matter-energy warps spacetime. In any event, I do believe that without bashing Einstein -- your obvious agenda that is counterproductive for an objective history -- it would be very useful to provide in the article an objective assessment of Poincare's contribution to relativity. Also, the article on General Relativity should reflect objective history about the field equations, etc. green 65.88.65.217 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani made it clear, GR is not relativity just gravity. -- Poincare's is the unique. 69.22.98.146 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"just gravity". LOL! LOL! LOL! ... Now if you don't mind, please define what a "relativity" theory must contain to be bonafide relativity. green 65.88.65.217 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, you are indeed Green, you are new here and have not followed the pages and pages of discussion.

I only appear green from the pov of your snottiness. I don't know how far to look back or where. If you know so much, you can surely state in a few sentences, maybe by cutting and pasting from your previous Talk comments, what a theory would have to contain to be considered "relativistic", and what the GTR lacks in this regard. It can't be so hard for a brilliant Frenchman as yourself. You remind me a little of Harald who claims the GTR "fails" for "changing accelerations", but when I ask him to explain himself, he is silent. Please desist from your supercilious posturing and give me a concise answer. As for Einstein getting the field equations from Hilbert, what is the biographer's specific source? green 65.88.65.217 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, Go read Keswani Brit.J.Phil.Sci. 1965-6, and Folsing. I'm not paid to educate you. 69.22.98.146 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a cop-out, and in your usual snotty style. green 65.88.65.217 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Go back and read it you will find answers to all what you are now asking, I am certainly not going to repeat everything just for you. Also, Go to any bookstore and ask for Folsing's biography on Einstein, many of your answers are there too. 69.22.98.146 20:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To MICHAEL MACROSSAN: The last paragraph of the article (on so called GR), with the paragraph on GR just preceding it, follow in perfectly logical chronological sequence, each sentence. -- Don't you even think about going back on your word. -- Do not delete a thing it would be CENSORSHIP. 69.22.98.146 20:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggested, I did not change or censor anything. I thought I had expressed your claim exactly. But it now seems there may be two claims 1) Poincare-Hilbert derived the correct theory of gravity 2) Einstein, as usual, got it all wrong. I have just been criticizing the writing style, trying to clarify what exactly you mean to say. E4mmacro 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

to E4, see below i answer. 69.22.98.146 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Since you think Langevin was a liar, put this in your pipe: Poincare presented his solutions of gravity in conference in Goettingen in April of 1909 and in Lille in July, Recueil Gabay.

I never said Langevin was a liar; I asked what papers Langevin referred to. But I now have an answer to a supplementary question: where did Poincare publish his theory of gravity? Thanks. (Now could 69 confirm that this 1909 paper is one of the papers Langevin refers to, just in case there are some others). Has anyone got a copy of Poincare's 1909 paper? Thanks. E4mmacro
What's your claim -- that Poincare had the field equations in 1909 and it's been forgotten, or he discovered some other theory of gravity that has been forgotten? This makes no sense. How could someone of Poincare's prominence solve such a deep problem (gravity) and no one knows about it but you and presumably a few other Poincare devotees? green 65.88.65.217 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Green, if you read more, you would know about it too. 69.22.98.146 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

More posturing! I read plenty, but there is plenty I don't know, and most important I am open to changing my positions. All I am requesting is a decent substantive window into your position. You can't keep making claims that are outside the mainstream without providing some facts, unless you care not a whit about credibility. green 65.88.65.217 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, Keswani is perfectly mainstream. I quote top sources. 69.22.98.146 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He's not well-known in the physics community. If he were, we wouldn't still be referring to Einstein's General Theory of RELATIVITY. Let's stop the BS and cut to the chase. Say something substantive about Poincare's theory of gravity, why it is relativistic and Einstein's gravity theory is not relativistic. Everyone here is very, very interested if there is a factual basis underlying your claims. If you don't want to do it, I have to conclude you're blowing smoke up our collective butts. green 65.88.65.217 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green: You know nothing of the topic, and I am not here to babysit you. Get up off your rear end and go to the library. I told you where to look.69.22.98.146 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't given enough substantive information to convince me it's worth my time. You come off as an Einstein hater and a French ultra-nationalist. Iow, I see a lot of emotion but no substance -- the hallmark of crank analysis. green 65.88.65.217 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green: Snotty ? -You just look back at the pages and pages and pages of discussion where Michael Macrossan threw up every single possible obstacle to truth that he could possibly think of, even writing his own opinions into the article without any source referencing, something I forced him to drop several times. He made me prove ten times over each word, but I overcame his obstacles and I like the article. - Snotty ? - You bet I am angry. 69.22.98.146 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I just now noticed your message, suggesting completed the theory of gravity. The sentence is about general relativity already, so wouldn't people know that the theory refers to GR ? I think it is clear already. 69.22.98.146 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I think it is clear as it is: Poincare was forerunner to GR. Hilbert completed GR. Which is only gravity. --- I think the sequence is clear. 69.22.98.146 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I just read the last paragraph again. I think it is clear that completed the theory refers to GR, because that whole section is about GR. -- Only in the last sentence does it revert back to STR. I think it's OK. 69.22.98.146 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that I was unsure, I think it follows that the sentence is unclear. I saw two possible meanings. I will add the words "of gravity" since that is what you mean. Just trying to be helpful. E4mmacro 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Green. Somewhere back in the history of the Poincare page, when Langevin's memoire on Poincare's theory of gravity was first introduced, it said Poincare's theory gave the correct direction of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. There was a clear inference that it did not get the magnitude correct. I notice that this has now gone, and a casual reader might conclude Poincare 1909 had the right value. Like you, I doubt very much a correct theory of gravity by Poincare could today be unknown, but until we get the papers who knows? Getting the direction of the advance of the preihelion correct is not big deal, Poincare mentions two theories one of Lorentz and one of Weber which at least get the direction correct but the magnitude very much smaller. When Einstein (1911? perhaps earlier?) got a value very close to the correct value, from his early versions of GR (equivalence principle only) this was not considered such a big deal since the physical effect was already known - it was a "post-diction" not a prediction. The predictions in Einstein 1911, perhaps even 1908, were "gravitational red-shift" (gravitational time dilation) and bending of light. The bending of light turned out to be half the final value, but they wer brave predictions. E4mmacro 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am open to any possibility, but since 69 refuses to say anything substantive about Poincare's alleged theory of gravity, or why GR is not a relativistic theory, or what a relativistic theory must contain to be considered such, my skepticism grows and my interest wanes. Given the defacto non-existent status of Poincare's gravity theory in the history of physics, he has the burden to show that his claims are not wishful thinking. It is clear that he has not met that burden. green 65.88.65.217 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Poincare's 1909 conferences in Goettingen and Lille are permanently archived, I have seen extensive quotes from them. No doubt Langevin had them in mind as well as others. 69.22.98.146 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: OK you're right it does look better with of gravity. Very good. thanks. And it ties well to the following sentence about Keswani. 69.22.98.146 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What was Poincare's theory of gravity? E4mmacro 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The only references that has been suggested for Poincare's theory of gravity are

  1. H. Poincare, La mecanique nouvelle, Congres de Lille 1909, published in a book collection of same title, Gauthier-Villares, paris 1924. Enrico Giannetto, in a conference paper "The rise of Special Relativity: Henri Poincare's works before Einstein" (google will find it), says a new versuion of this conference paper was reprinted as Chapters X, XI and XII in "Science et Method" 1908 which doesn't make a lot of sense; the conference paper in 1909 may have been a new version of the 1908 book chapters.
  2. H. Poincare Die neue Mechanik, conference paper, Wissenschaften Vereins zu Berlin, 13 Oct 1910.

"The new mechanics" is of course, the term Poincare always uses to refer to Lorentz's theory, or what we now call Special Relativity (see the quotes already on the page, or any number of mentions throughout Poincare's work).

Anon69, who has the original of the Langevin memoire has not specifically told us what papers Langevin is referring to in that memoire, when he speaks of Poincare's gravity theory, but has suggested I read "Science et Method" since it is "all there". I have read an english translation of Science et Method, which contains a preface by Poincare in which Poincare says "I am exceedingly grateful to Dr. Halsted, who has been so good as to present my book to American readers in a translation, clear and faithful". In that book, we find

Gravitation ... “upon this subject we can only make hypotheses, but we are naturally led to investigate which of these hypotheses would be compatible with the principle of relativity. There are a great number of them; the only one of which I shall here speak is that of Lorentz, which I shall briefly expound”. This is followed by 1 1/4 pages explaining Lorentz's electromagnetic theory of gravity. Then
“Such is the hypothesis of Lorentz , which reduces to Franklin’s hypothesis for slight velocities; it will therefore explain, for these small velocities, Newton’s law. Moreover, as gravitation goes back to forces of electrodynamic origin, the general theory of Lorentz [here he means the Lorentz transformations] will apply, and consequently the principle of relativity will not be violated.”

Since Lorentz's theory is an electromagnetic one, an orbiting body will emit a very small amount of energy in the form of electromagnetic waves (Poincare calls it the "wave of acceleration" - the radiation from an accelerated electric charge). I wonder though if this radiation is what many have seized upon as Poincare's gravity waves? If so, they are Lorentz's gravity waves.

KESWANI 1966 wrote that Poincare even spoke of gravity waves.69.22.98.146 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And what evidence did Keswani quote? E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask Keswani, he is still active. I just cite him as a proper source. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see Poincare does not discuss any theory of his own in this chapter - as is so often the case, Poinacre is expounding Lorentz.

LANGEVIN 1914 wrote it was Poincare, no mention of Lorentz by Langevin. 69.22.98.146 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So I guess Langevin was not talking about Science and Method afterall. But that doesn't tell us what he was talking about. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Science et Methode, and no doubt also the Goettingen conferences of April 1909, and Lille in July that summer. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So what is the Poincare theory of gravity?

Can anyone with the French text of "Science et Method" confirm that the above is a translation of that book? Can anyone give any French text from that book where Poincare says he is describing his own theory of gravity?

Many thanks, in advance. E4mmacro 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There in Science et Methode where Poincare says there are a great number of them Poincare certainly means his own solutions. -- Langevin's memoire confirms, saying Poincare had many solutions. 69.22.98.146 13:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it then my English translation is a faithful rendition. Now I know the sentence where you think Poincare is talking about his own theory. You assume Poincare meant his own solutions (which he doesn't bother to describe). Even so, I assume Poincare presents the best solution he knows of, in this case Lorentz. E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You assume way too much there 69.22.98.146 20:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Langevin's memoire (1914) states clearly that it was Poincare: il a trouvé plusieurs solutions..., it follows then exactly the quote of Langevin which I put in the article. -- Langvin did not mention Lorentz there at all. -- It was Poincare, Langevin is clear. 69.22.98.146 13:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Even Langevin can make a mistake. If Langevin gives no reference for the many solutions Poincare found, then his testimony is hearsay. We have no evidence from this what the solutions are. Langevin may have thought Poincare's description of Lorentz's theory was a description of Poincare's own theory. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

see Goettingen conferences April 1909, also Lille that summer. -- Langevin was not stupid, and he knew Poincare's work very closely. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume il a trouve plusieurs solutions is what Halsted translates as "there are a great many of them" which is immediately followed by "The only one of which I will speak is " Lorentz's. E4mmacro 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Langevin corroborates, that Poincare had his own plusieurs solutions. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice this "overlooking of Lorentz" happens a lot with Poincare fans. A good example is the St Louis 1904 lecture, which so often gets praised (rightly). But notice in Poincare's letter to Lorentz May 1905, Poincare says "I spoke of your 1904 paper in St Louis" or words to that effect. As usual Poincare is describing Lorentz; if French authors get confused or ignore Lorentz's work, that might be understandable. But shoudn't Poincare's own statements about what he did, count more that Langevin's second-hand statements? E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Who needs Lorentz ? 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare in recorded lecture in Goettingen of April 1909 presented covariant solutions which gave proper direction of the precession of Mercury. -- No doubt this is one such place which Langevin was referring to. 69.22.98.146 13:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, but what is the covariant solution? Again, you say "No doubt" when "probably" or "possibly" might be more appropriate. If Langevin does not say to what he is referring, then we have to guess, or deduce. We do not know beyond doubt. And thanks for confirming that it got the direction (but not the magnitude?) correct. Does he give the magnitude? If the magnitude conincides with that given by Lorentz's theory described in "Science and Method", that would be interesting. E4mmacro 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Get the transcripts of Goettingen, I know that Poincare presented it there. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation concerning Poincare's theory of gravity is as I expected. No confirmed documentation; rather, just self-serving inferences by Poincare devotees (groupies?). If Poincare really had discovered something fundamentally new about gravity that has been inexplicably forgotten, anyone who knew about it would be shouting from the rooftops and giving previews. The fact that 69 refused to be explicit on some basic points was telling. I've seen this sort of thing before. I would surmise that his various references are interesting. However, I am convinced they will not establish his excessive claims. green 65.88.65.217 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

see Goettingen April 1909, and Lille in July that summer. Langevin and Poincare are not liars. 69.22.98.146 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The standard process when one obtains revolutionary results, important results, or even modestly interesting results, is to publish the finding in a peer reviewed journal. Public lectures don't cut it. Are the lectures you cite available on the Internet? If so, please provide the links, and if you are feeling generous, the specific sections that allegedly support your claims. green 65.88.65.217 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green, you go get them. 69.22.98.146 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've concluded that it's not a productive use of my time. Presumably you have read them, yet show no willingness whatsoever to seriously preview the alleged revolutionary findings. And you use the usual repertoire of evasive tactics to avoid discussing the issue substantively. As a result, from my pov your claims have zero credibility. green 65.88.65.217 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Look again at the quote from Science et Methode you posted. It says Lorentz had only ONE such solution, out of many. 69.22.98.146 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So why didn't Lorentz publish his solution? Has history also conspired against Lorentz? This gets more and more implausible. green 65.88.65.217 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They were recorded in conferences. 69.22.98.146 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Recorded, but the results were not published and presumably not available on the Internet. And those that know the contents are what -- sworn to secrecy? LOL. green 65.88.65.217 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Permanent records. You can order them. 69.22.98.146 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And when I order them, they are likely to be in French. If they're so important, I wonder why they are unavailable online. Anyway, as I said, given your extreme reluctance to discuss the substantive content, I can only conclude that you have misinterpreted what you have read. green 65.88.65.217 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/n/Talk%7EHenri_Poincar%C3%A9_Archive_1_17cb.html"