Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived discussions, 11 March 2006 - 21 Sept 2006. Next discussion is from Jan 2007.

[edit] Poincaré's considerations of synchronisation procedures (continued)

Harald: You may be suffering from a case of denial (of reality). The c+v and c-v speeds of light in those equations are not closing velocities. They are the speeds of light in the rest frame of the lab (or any inertial frame), different in each direction like the assumptions of the MMX. If Poincare eventually took the pov that the Sol is the same on each leg of a round-trip path, then something is awry with the presentation in the article you cite. He must have finally come to the (defacto) view, like Einstein, that the ether doesn't exist. green 193.108.45.227 08:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That section was written by someone else (E4 probably) and it suffices to remark that "the SoL" in the rest frame of the lab depends on one's definition; I added the information from Poincare's 1898 paper. And contrary to your claims, Poincare continued to refer to the ether, and so did Lorentz; while they both adhered to the (symmetrical!) LT - it was even Poincare who wrote them down in that form, to stress observational symmetry. There is no problem as long as one realises that they understood that physics language is not about reality, but about pragmatic models of reality. Harald88 09:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to want to do your own thinking on this issue. The SoL in the rest frame is c - v or c + v, where c is the SoL in the frame of the ether, and v is the assumed velocity of the ether wind along the x axis. The clocks are assumed at rest wrt each other. I don't see how some esoteric velocity convention can save the ether if one assumes the SoL is the same on both legs, but I am open to hearing the argument. In the good ole days, I believe they used the normal meaning of velocity; distance divided by time using (assumed) synchronized clocks. Also, I never claimed, as you state above, that Poincare or Lorentz ceased to refer to the ether. I simply stated that Poincare's belief that the SoL is the same on both legs of a round-trip path is inherently contradictory to the ether's existence. Further, in the good ole days, physicists were not seduced with extreme positivism and had the common sense understanding that the laws of physics refer to the behavior of nature. I'd be grateful if you would define the velocity or SoL convention that is consistent with the ether's existence and the assumption that the SoL is the same on each leg of a round-trip path. green 193.108.45.150 12:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Green, your way of defining the SoL is incompatible with how those 19th century astronomers, as well as Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein and myself define it (see relativity of simultaneity). It should therefore not be a surprise that you make claims about contradictions where there is none: Poincare did not assume that such clocks are truly synchronized. Harald88 22:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And you speak in riddles. I asked you how you define the SoL. Please state your preferred definition and how it is consistent with the same SoL on each each leg and an ether in which the speeds differ as in the MMX. Btw, I gave one definition. I could probably think of others. Meantime I will look again at your link, but on my last scan it didn't answer these questions. green 193.108.45.132 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

One obvious problem with what you have been claiming is its implication that the result of the MMX (fringe shift or not; ether detection or not) depends on one’s definition of the SoL, not on the existence of a physical phenomena. green 193.108.45.147 09:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are Poincare’s words as quoted in your Wiki link: "[An astronomer begins] with admitting that light has a constant speed, and particularly that its speed is the same in all directions. Now that is a postulate without which no measurement of that speed could be attempted. [...] this furnishes us a new rule for establishing simultaneity". He seems to be assuming that one measures lightspeed using one clock and a round-trip path, which is Einstein’s method in his June 1905 paper. Afaict, there is nothing esoteric in this definition or its assumptions. But the core question remains: How is this consistent with the assumption that lightspeed is c-v and c+v in the MMX along the x-axis (the assumed direction of the lab frame’s motion wrt the ether)? How can Poincare’s (and Einstein’s) assumption about constant lightspeed in all directions (isotropy of space wrt lightspeed) fail to contradict the basic assumption underlying the MMX that lightspeed is a variable depending on the frame’s motion wrt the ether? Please address this directly. Meanwhile, I will continue to read your link for possible clues wrt your alleged solution to this problem. My conclusion has been, and remains, that Poincare’s and Einstein’s assumptions defacto deny the ether’s existence. green 193.108.45.154 11:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald: After reading your "proof by reference" -- that is the link to the Wiki article on simultaneity you cited above -- it offers nothing to resolve the simply contradiction I have described. Your reluctance to give an argument makes me think you know not of what you claim and are just blowing smoke. green 193.108.45.141 10:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is not for such discussions, and i have given up trying to explain that to you - and why should I explain it anyway. Maybe somebody else likes to do it, but it appears not to be the case. But against better judgment and wasting more time and memory bites: in MMX the lightspeeds are c+v and c-v in the solar frame; it's c+v and c-v in all frames, incl. the ether frame (v=0 in the frame in which the instrument is resting). The basic assumption in MMX is first about reality, and next about measurability; the convention is simply about measurability alone. No more. Harald88 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is c+v anc c-v in the solar frame because that frame is assumed to be in motion wrt the ether. It is surely not c + v and c - v in all frames. Maybe all the textbooks are wrong and you are right. I agree this page is not for this discussion but it is an issue that is worthwhile resolving for a understanding of where Poincare and Einstein stood on this issue. green 193.108.45.136 07:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meaning of the "c+v" term: both are defined relative to the chosen frame. Thus "in" the solar frame (any frame), light speed is c by definition, as v=0. And "all textbooks" don't disagree with these basics that also are contained in Einstein's 1905 paper ("relative velocity"). Only a few textbooks present it in an erroneous/misleading way.Harald88 08:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[Oops, I meant v_sun=0 ; but apparently that was not too confusing!] Harald88 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, the basic idea is that the ether is the assumed medium for light propagation and its speed is c in the unique frame at rest wrt the ether, just as sound has some fixed velocity wrt the air, and will increase or decrease when wind exists. In the MMX, the earth/laboratory/instrument are assumed to be dragged with the sun creating an ether wind of speed v that changes lightspeed by v or -v depending on the beam's direction, and this is the effect that MM tried to detect. Your interpretation seems at variance with what I have read in textbooks. green 193.108.45.138 08:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is about Poincare's and Einstein's ways of formulating the problem, not M&M's. Harald88 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that the SoL is c + v and c - v is all frames (say in a MM-type experiment) implies that every star and galaxy would be assumed by M&M as moving at speed v wrt the ether. They get "v" by assuming an ether wind in the solar frame only, not in any frame one can imagine. If instead of a MMX, you assume a mirror 10 miles distant from a light source and clock for measuring the SoL, and further assume that the SoL is the same in each direction, you necessarily assume v = 0, or no ether wind. I thought your "way out" of this dilemma would be to assume that the assumption of the same speed in either direction is not provable/measurable, and hence according to your perspective should be relegated/demoted to philosophy (not physics). But this is still inconsistent with your presumed desire (which I infer from private email) for an objective reality in the form of the ether, which is also not measureable and hence also "just" philosophy from your perspective. green 193.108.45.136 11:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See above; M&M did not use the relativistic vocabulary of Poincare and Einstein, and you are mistaken about their assumption; which is another subject.

But I'm happy to see that you understand Poincare's (astronomers) "assumption" (in fact, definition) of v=0. Thus I'll not add anymore to this section.

Note that I disagree that philosophy implies a demotion; also, you are mistaken if you think that an impossibility to measure an ether speed must be a problem for the stationary ether concept. From twin paradox you know that it wasn't a problem for Langevin, and the impossibility to measure our velocity relative to Newton's absolute space apparently wasn't a problem for Newton either. Harald88 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In the MMX it is assumed that the SoL is not the same on each leg in solar frame. The length of each leg, L, is divided by c + v and c + v -- the assumed lightspeeds in each direction in the lab or solar frame -- for calculating the total round-trip time. This flat-out contradicts Poincare's and Einstein's assumptions wrt the SoL for synchronizing clocks. Here the lab or solar frame is the same as any frame in relativity where one needs synched clocks for the theory to work. green 193.108.45.136 11:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald: I am well aware that M&M did not have relativity in mind when they designed their experiment. As should be clear in the context of this discussion, I have used the MMX not only to illustrate the implications of Einstein’s and Poincare’s assumption wrt lightspeed on a round-trip path when synching clocks (that it is the same on each leg; hence no ether), but also to point out your flawed methodology of selectively applying a principle or assumption. If you agree with E & P that lightspeed is the same on each leg of a round trip path when synching clocks, consistency requires that you make the same assumption for the MMX. If one does this, it is tantamount to assuming that v = 0 in the MMX, which is equivalent to either a denial of the ether’s existence, or if it exists, that it has no effect on lightspeed. You cannot consistently assume that lightspeed is the same on each leg of a round-trip path when synching clocks, and also claim that it is not when analyzing the MMX.

Further, it is immaterial in this discussion that P referred to the "necessary" assumption of astronomers when discussing lightspeed on a round-trip path. His pov on this issue is more general, and includes, like Einstein’s, what he considers the necessary assumption for synching clocks. Iow, to synch clocks that are at rest in a given frame, one must (according to E in June 1905) make the assumption of an invariant lightspeed on both legs. You claim he obtained this concept from P, and you further stated your concurrence as to its truth. But when you discuss the MMX, you take the opposite position. This is inconsistent and totally inadmissible.

In contrast to your claim above, the “v” in the MMX is hypothetically different for each solar system, star or galaxy. It is the assumed speed of the ether wind due to the object’s motion wrt the ether. Thus, in the MMX, the assumed speed of light in the lab/earth frame – aka, the “solar frame” – is c + v and c – v, and not “c” as you claim above. (Btw, one can identify the lab/earth frame with the solar frame if one assumes the earth’s rotation and orbital motion are insignificant compared to the sun’s motion in creating the ether wind.) This “c”, which is indeed the same in all frames as you state above, is the measured speed. That is, your statement does not clearly distinguish the measured speed of light, which is “c” in any frame using the round-trip, single clock method of measurement, from the assumed one-way speed, which for M&M is definitely c + v and c – v. They made this assumption to test the ether hypothesis. Please be clear: I am not claiming that the failure to detect a fringe shift implies that the ether is non-existent. As we know, there are ether-based theories to explain this. However, such theories assume that lightspeed is different on each leg of a round-trip path, and from this pov attempt to account for the null result via additional hypotheses (length contraction, time dilation, or whatever). But if one directly assumes that lightspeed is the same on each leg, one doesn’t need these additional assumptions to explain the null result. It follows directly from the implied assumption of no ether. This was all I was claiming; that E & P implicitly deny the ether in their clock synching assumption, and an analysis of the MMX makes this fact evident.

Finally, I believe that what we are discussing is an important issue that should be clarified by those who claim to be able to interpret E and P. It is therefore appropriate that we do so here.

green 193.108.45.131 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I added parenthetical comment above for clarification about identifying the lab/earth frame with the solar frame. green 193.108.45.225 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, very last comments from my side:

Lorentz and Poincare (and Langevin etc.) assumed that the speed relative to the ether has no effect on measurable lightspeed; so that any inertial reference frame may be pretended to be the ether frame for the purpose of measurements - which is what Poincare's Lorentz transformations describe. Thus for the MMX, light speed appears ("is" by operational definition) isotropically in all frames, even if it's truly so only in the assumedly stationary ether frame.

Note that relativity of simultaneity as well as length contraction and time dilation can't be separated from the LT, and the LT can't be separated from SRT. But you are right that the LT are not necessary for that: Poincare's PoR implied the null result, in fact it was explicitly based on such null results!

Also, Poincare had suggested that one day the ether might be abandoned but in the end he didn't do so.

At that time (and very differently from Poincare), Einstein appears to have believed that reality is that which is measurable.

I look forward to hear of others here who think to be able to interpret P and E; and I don't claim to fully understand E (as is famously common!)Harald88 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The anon is nitpicking and does not understand the MMX. The MMX was set on a rotating platform, so that an ether wind across the device would result in a fringe shift as it was rotated.

Who's doing the nitpicking now? This fact wasn't relevant to the discussion -- which you clearly haven't read with discrimination since you haven't addressed any of the key issues. Obviously, one doesn't know beforehand the exact direction of the ether wind (if it exists), so the apparatus must be rotated to align one axis (the axis wrt which the velocity of light is presumed to be c+v and c-v), in order to detect the presumed fringe shift. Unfortunately your comments have no value added. green 193.108.45.151 12:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The c+v, c-v business only applied along one leg of the device when it was in the "ideal" position. Indeed, it was meant to detect aninsotopy in the speed of light. As for c+v being different is different frame of reference, that is true. When no aether wind was found the first time around, M&M assumed that within 6 months it would be present as the Earth orbited the Sun. Of course, they still got a null result.

Fine. Now tell us something new that is specifically related to the discussion. If I made any interpretive errors wrt MMX or whatever, please point them out instead of blowing general supercilious smoke in my direction. green 193.108.45.151 12:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As for Poincare, it is interesting that he grasped that a constant c would have implications for simultaneity, but unlike Einstein he does not seem to have grasped the full implications of that, at least not before 1905. --EMS | Talk 06:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but that's transparantly biased statement. Unbiased, it becomes: "As for Poincare, it is interesting that he grasped that a constant c would have implications for simultaneity, and just as Lorentz and Einstein he does not seem to have grasped the full implications of that before 1905." (And I disagree.)Harald88 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

But now that we have exhausted the interpretation of Poincare around 1905, I'm really interested to see if a consensus can be reached on the interpretation of Einstein around 1905. I'll start a section on that below. Harald88 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of this article

I must express some concerns about this article, if only in that it does not express clearly what the mainstream views on this relevant topics are. (namely that Einstein is single-handedly responsible of the sysnthesis of concepts that forms special relativity, for understanding the true meaning of E=mc² first, and for the doing the vast majority of the work in the creation of general relativity including devising the Einstein field equations). In fact, some of the quotes supporting Einstein do a good job of expressing this and should be placed into an introductory section as such. (BTW - This is a call for a new section to be placed after the lead. The current lead is actually farly good IMO.)

As I see it, the views that are being contested need to be aired first, possibly with a quick statement of what about it is being contested by others. Then the article can launch into the descriptions of what is being contested with respect to them, and what the various POVs are. --EMS | Talk 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, with one "hic": I doubt that a straightforward current mainstream view exists on all these topics; instead nowadays it's all in mainstream review. It should however be pointed out that until recently a simplistic mainstream POV existed, as described in many textbooks of physics; and then such a textbook should be quoted as example (maybe some general one, such as from a physics book by Feynman). Of course, that fits for 100% with the above suggestion to first air what statements are contested. Harald88 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think Harold is correct that the mainstream view is in flux, and has changed over time (mostly more recognition of Poincaré's work?). So I agree that a description of the mainstream view, together with some description of its change over time, is a good idea. Paul August ☎ 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I now have the Dutch version of Alonso&Finn's physics textbook in my hands; has anyone of you the English version? For it contains one good example of an old but now disputed (even disproved) mainstream claim. Roughly translated they wrote:

[Ch.2] "[Einstein] formulated his relativity principle [...]

[ch.7] "The German phyicisist Albert Einstein went a step further and in 1905 he put forward the special principle of relativity, which states that all laws of nature must be equal for all inertial observers who move with constant speed relative to each other.

That's a good example for the intro of this article. Harald88 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wise words from Todorov

Todorov seems to have some suspicions that Einstein got the correct equation from Hilbert's postcards to Einstein, since he emphasizes that Einstein presents the equation with no proof. On the other hand, Einstein presented all the versions without proof didn't he? Einstein stayed with Hilbert, in his house (see Folsing and Todorov), during the week in June 1915 when Einstein (at Hilbert's invitation) gave 6 two hour lectures on relativity. Who knows who suggested what equation to whom in that case: I imagine that nearly every possibility was covered and each would be capable of forgetting who said what (in fact I think this is typical). I think Todorov's summary is worth bearing in mind

Einstein and Hilbert had the moral strength and wisdom-after a month of intense competition ... to avoid a lifelong priority dispute ... It would be a shame [if] subsequent generations ... try to undo their achievments.

Hilbert seems to go out of his way to praise Einstein and credit him, Einstein is a little more grudging in his references to Hilbert - we should leave it at that. E4mmacro 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that quote from Todorov is already in the article. Still worth remembering it here. E4mmacro 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, I agree with you; and such an attitude is probably compatible with articles on Einstein and Hilbert, (if it's not too much POV to refer to Todorov as "right"!); but I fear such is really incompatible with an article that has as purpose to describe disputes... Harald88 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, historians are that way. Even if Hilbert and Einstein made their peace in December 1915, they still want to know how things developed. Also, see the introduction to my WN Wiki article which you have read. The problem here is Einstein's November 18 letter to Hilbert, which makes it clear that Einstein had some information from Hilbert when he wrote his November 25 field equations paper. When this letter resurfaced in 1978, the peace between Hilbert and Einstein became untenable. Hilbert had left a time bomb: To permanently protect that peace between Einstein and himself, it would have been necessary to burn that Einstein letter and also the Max Born letter to Hilbert containing the information that Einstein had seen Walter Baade's notes of Hilbert's lecture. It is certainly not to be blamed upon modern historians that things developed the way they did. So the "shame" is not on subsequent generations. Shame on Hilbert for not falsifying the historical record by burning those two letters! --De kludde 19:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If Todorov is right Bjerknes is wrong

The following quote from Todorov appears in the article:

The polemics is getting rough. A new book, (Wuensch 05), is advertised with a question mark: “Ein Kriminalfall in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte?” (“A criminal case in the history of science?”). The author asserts - already in the abstract to the book - that a missing fragment (also discussed in (Sau 99) and in (Win 04)) of the text on pages 7 and 8 of Hilbert’s proof-sheets, used in (CRS 97), contained “in all probability ... the explicit form of the field equations...” She further argues that “the passage ... was not excised originally but rather ... it must have been deliberately removed in more recent times in order to falsify the historical truth.”

This quote may have a place to tell us how ugly the debate has become, but it should be deleted. It might be mistaken for Todorov lending support to Wuensch's and Wintergberg's claims of falsification of the historical record and claims that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert. While Todorov thinks CRS went too far in accusing Hilbert of plagiarizing Einstein he does not support Winterberg’s claim that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert, and that the correct field equation is on the missing bit of the proof. We know Todorov’s view because:

1. Todorov recommends Sauer (Arch. Hist. Exact. Sci, v53, 529-575, 1999) as a calm non-confrontationalist discussion, and Sauer (p525) tells us “any possibility that Einstein took the clue for the final step towards his field equations from Hilbert’s note is now definitely precluded”.
2. Todorov himself says directly what he thinks – that Hilbert did not have the field equations until after the date of Dec 6 on the printer’s proofs. Thus (on p. 13) Todorov writes

After formulating the generally covariant action principle [Hilbert] appeals, in his original text, to Einstein’s long-promoted “causality principle” and restricts the general covariance by a (non-covariant formulation of) the energy momentum conservation law. Only at the stage of proof reading does Hilbert suppress all extra conditions and recognize the unqualified physical relevance of the covariant equation.

One can see that if Hilbert wrote the wrong field equations in his proofs (a fact that should be easily verified) then Sauer is correct to say there is no possibility that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert, and Bjerknes’ claim of plagiarism can be dismissed. E4mmacro 06:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That is, on one account. Harald88 23:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I count two, Sauer and Todorov. And I would add Hilbert. E4mmacro 01:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that Einstein's explicit field equation in terms of the Ricci tensor and the Riemann curvature scalar is not in the proofs. It is Winternerg's opinion that it was in the missing 1/3 of a page. Everybody else that I have read agrees the missing equation is H = K + L where K is gravity part, L is electromagnetic part. A plagiarism charge based on Einstein copying the explicit form of the field equation cannot be sustained, in my view. The pladiarism charge has to be based on how easy it would have been for Einstein to derive his field equation from Hilbert's variational equation which was in the proofs. This is being wise after the event. It may seem easy now, but Hilbert actually got a slighlty different explicit equation, which was the same as Einstein's under some assumptions. Hilbert can only conclude it seems the same as Einstein's, but of course since Einstein has four papers in 4 weeks with a few different versions, he may have been uncertain as to exactly what Einstein's equation was. E4mmacro 11:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks like I have to retract Todorov and stick with Sauer. Despite what Todorv says above, because elsewhere in the same article he seems to say Einstein and Hilbert published the identical equations. So I guess I don't get it - it looks contradictory to me. E4mmacro 11:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert never wrote the wrong field equations in his article. Bjerknes reprinted the printer proofs, there is just some piece lacking, not the wrong field equations (i.e., field equations without a trace term). What he DID change in December 1915 was dropping some sort of gauge condition he had used in his treatment of the energy theorem. If you are not willing to give blind faith to Bjerknes, I agree with you but I nevertheless think Bjerknes' reprint of the printer proofs is correct. If Hilbert had given the wrong field equations in the printer proofs, CRS would have pointed this out in their response to Winterberg. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact that the explicit field equations are not in the EXTANT part of the proof. But the accusations of plagiarism against Einstein are not based upon his seeing the proof. They are based upon the fact that Einstein received a postcard or letter from Hilbert, probably on November 17, in which Hilbert explained his theory to Einstein. To exonerate Einstein of plagiarism, it is necessary to assume that this postcard either did not contain the field equations in explicit form, or that Hilbert miscalculated the explicit form of his field equations. I don't think that calculating the derivative of his action functional was difficult for Hilbert. As Hilbert probably wanted Einstein to be able to compare his earlier equations to Hilbert's, it was natural for Hilbert to send an explicit version of the field equations and not the principle of variation. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But even if it was true that neither the printer proofs nor the November 16 postcard contained the field equations in explicit form, Einstein would still have been well-adviced to mention Hilbert's letter in his November 25 paper. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the CRS paper is that their claim is not confirmed by contemporary witnesses. Hilbert talked about his theory in Göttingen on November 16, the day he presumably wrote his letter/postcard to Einstein, and notes were taken by Walter Baade, who, according to [Wue04, p. 74] sent them to Einstein's friend Freundlich. Max Born has seen these notes, and this is what he wrote to Hilbert:

Von Einstein und Freundlich hörte ich jetzt, daß Sie die Gravitation in Ordnung gebracht haben; ... Einstein selbst sagt, er habe das Problem ebenfalls gelöst, doch scheint mir seine Betrachtung ein Spezialfall der Ihrigen.

I have now learned from Einstein and Freundlich that you have tackled gravitation; ... Einstein himself told me that he has also solved the problem, however his consideration looks to me like a special case of yours.

This means that Born was able to make a comparison, so it is unlikely that the notes did not contain the explicit version of the field equations. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that the fact that Einstein has seen these notes is another base for plagiarism charges against Einstein. The printer proofs are only of indirect importance in this connection as Einstein has never seen them. It is the content of Hilbert's November 16 talk and his letter to Einstein which matters. --De kludde 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniela Wuensch (2005)

"According to her publisher, Wuensch concludes though that:

This comprehensive study concludes with a historical interpretation. It shows that while it is true that Hilbert must be seen as the one who first discovered the field equations, the general theory of relativity is indeed Einstein's achievement, whereas Hilbert developed a unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism.[12] "

This claim is patently false. Hilbert never unified gravity and EM. I suggest that it be deleted. (Btw, wrt section on Tilman Sauer, is his first name Tilman or (as the text states) "Tolman"?) green 193.108.45.232 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

His name is Tilman, and his paper cited is very interesting. It shows that Hilbert was trying to develop a unified theory, hence there was some initial difficulty in showing that Hilbert's "version of the field equation given as variational derivatives of an invariant was the same as Einstein's given in terms of the Ricci tensor and the Riemann curvature scaler" were the same. First a few assumption had to be made, about splitting the gravitational and electromagnetic parts, and it was not straightforward to identify a term in Hilbert's equation with the Riemann scalar. Hence Hilbert tentative comment added at the proof reading stage "The resulting differential equations of gravitation are, it seems to me, in agreement with the broad theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later papers". BTW, even if we did not have the proofs, this should have made it fairly clear that Hilbert revised his paper after seeing Einstein's paper of Nov 25. He was here talking of his equation

which is closest to the field equation in Einstein's last paper Nov 25, as far as I can see. E4mmacro 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

See comments below. green 193.108.45.234 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Otoh, maybe it is preferable to leave the false claim, but point out that it is false. This would tend to discredit Wuensch. I don't understand how an historian of Hilbert could be so far off on what he accomplished. green 193.108.45.251 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about whether the Wuensch book/claim is accurate or not (my German is in a sad shape, but the "big discovery" she seems to have made, if I understand correctly, is some small pencil notes on one of the proof pages, added who-knows-when by who-knows-who), but I thought it would make sense to have the "conclusion" section from the website pasted in here, so that it was clear what her "overall point" was, right or wrong. --Fastfission 02:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As a factual matter, her claim is surely false. Have you ever heard of a paper by Hilbert unifying gravity and EM? Certainly, if there were such a theory, it hasn't impressed anyone. If Hilbert was contemplating such a theory, would that qualify him as having "developed" such a theory? Her claim is nonsensical hyperbole imo. green 193.108.45.234 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I added an "Editor's note" to warn the reader about this nonsensical claim. green 193.108.45.139 19:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Green, I don't know if you realise that Hilbert's Nov 20, 1915-Mar 16, 1916 paper was an attempt at a unified field theory (trying to unify Einstein and Mie).

The substantial lasting innovation of Hilbert's first note on the foundation of physics was the foundation of Einstein's general theory of relativity on an invariant variational principle as an equivalent representation of the gravitational and electromagnetic field equations ... Other innovative features of his note have not stood the test of time. Among these are his ideas on a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and his energy vector. (T. Sauer, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci, v53, pp 529-575, at p. 569)

Perhaps, she is half right. He used the same methods for gravity and electromagnetism, and did think he had a unified field theory, which turned out to be wrong, which is why we have never heard much of it. E4mmacro 00:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I modified my comment. From an historical perspective her claim is hyperbole and the reader should be alerted. green 193.108.45.227 09:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a remark that was not in cursive, in cursive, assuming that the expressed opinion there is a note of the editor. If my assumption is wrong and in fact it can't be found in that article, then it must be deleted because it's a POV. Harald88 09:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption is wrong; the "editor" in this case is 193.108.45.231, and such "editor's comment"s are utterly and completely forbidden by WP POV and OR policies. -- Jibal 10:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What is 'cursive'? Italics? Hilbert didn't "develop" any theory unifying gravity and EM. If he had ideas that didn't work and which no one refers to, this doesn't qualify putting it on a par with Einstein's GR as one would infer from Wuensche's commment. It's not POV. It's a fact of history; no "developed" theory unifying gravity and EM! green 193.108.45.231 14:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Green, I changed your text to accuse only the publisher. I don't think you can much such a claim as you did against the author until you have read her book. It could be that she says no more than the truth, that Hilbert Nov 20, Mar 1916, and 1924 is a unified field theory that hasn't stood the test of time. The quote you object to was by the publisher who could easily be confused. In any case I don't see the quote as putting Hilbert's failed theory on the same footing as GR. E4mmacro 20:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

WP editors can't make claims at all, regardless of how many books they have read; it's a blatant violation of POV and OR policies. -- Jibal 10:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert developed his machinery and then applied it to Gustav Mies' nonlinear equations of electromagnetism, hoping that this might give him a unified field theory. Nothing wrong with the statement of Sommer or Wuensch. --De kludde 19:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The statement inferentially places Einstein's theory on the same footing as Hilbert's. What Einstein took 10+ years to develop successfully, can hardly be defacto equilibrated to Hilbert's much shorter and totally unsuccessful effort. green 193.108.45.228 14:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is your POV green and I am doubtful that wiki allows that as an editor's note. (I am sure my POV slips in here and there of course, removed by others as it should be.) E4mmacro 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Such a note is quite verboten, as it is explicitly POV and original research, and I've removed it. It's a fact that Wuensch made the claim, regardless of whether some editor thinks it is false. If someone of relevance (not a WP editor) has publicly stated that Wuensch's statement is false, then that can be included in the article. But WP articles must not present editor's views, beliefs, claims, arguments, etc. -- Jibal 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this quote from Hilbert's paper make any difference (as translated by Sauer 1999)?

Hence, Mie's electromagnetic energy tensor is nothing but that generally covariant tensor which is obtained by differentiation of the invariant L with respect to the gravitational potentiatl g^μν in the limiting case [of special relativity] ... a fact which pointed me in the first place to the necessary and close relation between Einstein's general theory of relativity and Mie's electrodynamics and which convinced me of the correctness of the theory developed here.

Also green, it is very possible (ISTM) that when Hilbert says "meiner theory" he is not trying to say Einstein's general relativity is his (Hilbert's) theory and he is not claiming priority for GR. He is claiming that both GR and Mie's electrodynamics can be derived mathematically from his invariant methods. He is not making a physics priority claim, just a mathemtically priority claim. I don't think anyone has said Hilbert has priority fro Mie's theory of electromagnetism (another non-stayer?). Of course if Mie's theory were Einstein's theory it might be a different matter .... E4mmacro 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC) E4mmacro 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is "meiner theory"? - Tilman Sauer

According to Tilman Sauer (and I believe most historians of science) the whole issue of a prority dispute is a "non-starter", or a "beat-up" as they say in the newspapers here. Thus

"The independence of Einstein's discovery was never a point of dispute between Einstein and Hilbert. Nor was the independence of Hilbert's derivation of the field equation ever disputed by Einstein. Hilbert claimed priority for the introduction of the Riemann scalar into the action principle and the derivation of the field equations from it, and Einstein admitted publicly that Hilbert (and Lorentz) had succeeded in giving the equations of general relativity a particularly lucid form by deriving them from a single variational principle." T Sauer, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci v53 (1999)

It seems likely that when Hilbert refers to his theory in a mathematical paper he is talking about his way of deriving it, his way of trying to deduce physical results from as few axioms as possible and the usual sort of things mathematicians do. And his is also refering to the fact that he (Hilbert) had a unified theory (gravity and electromagnetism). After listing some of Hilbert's lasting contributions Sauer notes that "other innovative features of [Hilbert's] note have not stood the test of time. Among these are his ideas on a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and his energy vector". So I would say it is perfactly possible for Hilbert to say "my theory" without claiming priority for general relativity.

Sauer also gives a plausible explanation of why Einstein initailly thought Hilbert had plagiarised him. Hilbert sent Einstein some sort of copy of his Nov 20 talk before Nov 25 (could he have had printer's proofs that early? Hilbert handed his stuff to the printer on Nov 19, according to Sauer). In the printer's proofs Hilbert introduces "quantities which characterise the processes in the world" namely "(1) the ten gravoitational potentials g_μν ..." without crediting Einstein at this point. According to Sauer, "Einstein had a clear understanding of the revolutionary and innovative conceptual implications of his general theory of relativituy which, at that time, had also made him an outsider in the field of gravitation theory". In the final verion, as published, Hilbert added the proper credit, saying that those ten gravitational potentials were first introduced by Einstein, and Sauer assume Hilbert had informed Einstein that he had made this change and hence Eisntein was molified.

[edit] Klaus Sommer (2005)

Well.... after a few times, I finally managed to get through to the link listed for Klaus Sommer. (The magic seems to be to click on the link, then go to the Wiley homepage, then go back, and reload).

I'm not quite sure what I read there - the abstract is in German, which I don't read too well, and the body of the article was only available to subscribers or those willing to pay USD 25. But I was able to capture the real publication data (journal, issue and date).

The funny thing is.... the abstract doesn't seem to describe a review of Wuensch's book, as the Wikipedia article claimed. So I modified the article a bit. But I'd REALLY like it if someone who's got access to the article and can read German can give an independent view of whether the article matches the description.

Yours for an accurate representation of sources on Wikipedia.... --Alvestrand 22:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

From the link to Wuensch's book it says Peter Sommer is the publisher, not Klaus Sommer. I have the full copy of Klaus Sommer's paper (in pdf) but cannot yet verify whether it says what is attributed to on wiki-dispute page. E4mmacro 02:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand: A German-speaking colleaguie has now read Sommer's article and agrees that the two paragraphs about Sommer's article are a fair description of what Sommer says. Sommer apparently has found a new letter by Born dated 23 Nov 1915 to Hilbert which says in part something like "Einstein ... tells me that you [Hilbert] have solved gravitation". "Von Einstein und Freundlich horte ich, dass Sie jetzt die Gravitation in Ordnung gebracht haben;" Quoted from K. Sommer Phys. Unserer Zeit 36 (2005) no. 5. p 234. Sommer does think Einstein probably got the field equations from Hilbert, but believes that general relativity is Einstein's theory, none the less. E4mmacro 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! Will you add info on the Born letter to the article?

One thing I can't believe is how fast the postal service was in those days - letters arriving in a day or so; these days it easily takes a week.... I wonder how the historians of 2106 will try to recover the conversations we're having now.... --Alvestrand 07:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't rely on my translation, but Born seems he has only heard about Einstein's result, so can't speak first hand. Anyway, the sentences that Sommer quotes from Born's letter are(with Sommer's additions in [ ], I assume)

Von Einstein und [dem Astronomen Erwin] Freundlich horte ich, dass Sie [also Hilbert!] jetzt die Gravitation in Ordnung gebracht haben; auch konnte ich einen kurzen Auszug Ihres Vortrages in der mathematischen Gesellschaft einsehen, den Dr. [Walter] Baade an Fruendlich gesandt hatte. Ich glaube[,] danach den Gedanken verstanden zu haben, da ich die Mieschhen Arbeiten gut kenne [...]. Einstein selber sagt, er habe das Problem ebenfalls gelöst, doch scheint mir Betrachtung (die ich nur aus Gesprächen kenne) ein Spezialfall der Ihrigen

Can someone translate this into English?? E4mmacro 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice that Born mentions the lecture to the Mathematical society (which was on Nov 16) - that Baade sent Freundlich a summary of lecture for the night Nov 16 at the Maths. Society. Hilbert did the same for Einstein - sent him a summary (or some information) of the Nov 16 lecture. Einstein wrote back to Hilbert on 18 Nov and Hilbert received the reply letter on Nov 19. It may be a small point, but note that the Nov 16 lecture, and summary sent to Einstein or exerpt seen by Born is not necessarily identical to the lecture on Nov 20 at the Gottingen Academy (manuscript handed in on Nov 19, for which we have proofs). Hilbert had 3 more days for any revisions after his Nov 16 lecture.

[edit] disputed facts/undisputed facts

IMO most of the "disputed facts" are undisputed (and quite undisputable!) facts, while possibly one "undisputed fact" (about E=mc2) happens to be disputed. For example, who published what and when is, when carefully formulated, pretty much undisputable. Typical subjects of dispute are claims that someone was "the first". Undisputed facts don't really belong here (except perhaps some of the most elementary ones); they belong in the corresponding articles. Harald88 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I reread, and think I disagree - most of the "disputed facts" under that heading involve states of mind (knowing about), which are very much not knowable. I also disagree with the way the attribution of E=MC2 to Einstein is phrased; I believe that Einstein was first to suggest that ALL mass is energy, not just the stuff that happened to be exchanged via radiation; the way it's phrased now is a more timid theory.

Hmm, and where when did Einstein publish that suggestion? In any case, you seem to agree with me about my disagreement with the selection of what is disputed and what not. BTW, "disputed facts" is literally selfcontradictory; "disputed claims" would be better. Harald88 12:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Where/when: [Ein05d] - "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energiegehalt abhängig?", Annalen der Physik 18(1905), 639-641. Agree about "disputed facts" - that term implies a value judgment that the disputers are wrong, and thus shoudln't be used in this Wikipedia article (even though that seems to fit perfectly with my opinion on some of the "disputers"...) --Alvestrand 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably you meanhis statement: "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". I agree, that is more general than the way it's phrased in the article. Harald88 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I meant. --Alvestrand 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WRT dates of submission/revision/publication, dates of letters that we do/don't have the content of and so forth, they are tedious to verify and document, and (most of the time) even more tedious to read; since they're mainly interesting as a background to the controversies, I think they are better put here than in the articles about the participants. But WP:BB - feel free to refactor, and see if you can sort it better! --Alvestrand 23:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have in mind to do so, at a later point in time, with an eye at comments and suggestions here. I'm currently fascinated by more interesting things (physics as opposed to history). Harald88 12:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In particular, the header "specific debates" misses the mark: there is little to debate about the summarized facts that are mentioned there, except for some word choicess here and there. Harald88 22:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened on November 20?

I realize this is continuing to harp on an unpopular subject, but.... what happened on that date? As far as I can tell, Hilbert wrote that date on top of an article before sending it to his printer. There's serious dispute about what was actually in that article on that date.

In contrast, Einstein's November 25 event was a lecture, with other people present and listening. I haven't heard anyone questioning what Einstein presented on that date.

Is there any evidence showing Hilbert doing something (like presenting his ideas in some forum) on November 20 that I've missed? --Alvestrand 23:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert did the same thing as Einstein, a public lecture was given on November 20 with loads of witnesses, the lecture immediately recorded in the university's records. -- Hilbert two days before had sent his work to Einstein and notified Einstein of the scheduled 20 November lecture. There is no question Einstein plagiarized Hilbert five days later. Licorne 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please give the reference you are citing. --Alvestrand 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Folsing, amoungst many others. Licorne 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand, can we continue this on the dispute talk page. Licorne is half right above, but the Hilbert page as Licorne left is very wrong. E4mmacro 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. Licorne 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifiaclly "any possibility that Einstein took the clue for the final step towrads the field equations from Hilbert's note is now definitely precluded" (Sauer 1999). Einstein did not plagiarise Hilbert, that is where you are wrong. The bit you are right on is that the papers followed from lectures, presentations, to the Institue in Gottingen and the Academy in Berlin, later published in the proceedings.

Sauer is there just ass kissing. Licorne 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the preceding part of the section from the Hilbert talk page to here. --Alvestrand 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand, you asked (on the Hilbert page) about the lecures/papers of Nov 1915. Einstein gave four lectures Nov 4, Nov 11, Nov 18, Nov 25 1915 to the Prussian Academy (four consecutive weeks). Each one was published - it seems the practice was to produce one's manuscript before the lecture and it was printed rather quickly (the days of cheap labor?). The Nov 25 lecture was in print and available by Dec 2 (Sauer, 1999, p565). Einstein sent the printer's copy of at least the first to Hilbert, telling him he was planning the four lectures. Einstein's second letter to Hilbert announced that he published generally covariant field equations using the Ricci tensor, but at the price of assuming that the trace of the energy-momentum tensor vanished, as it does for electro-magnetic energy-momentum tensor. He alluded to the fact that this meant gravity and electromagnetism were linked. Hilbert had been working on a unified field theory and seemed to panic at this news. He announced a lecture on the "fundamental equations of physics" at the Gottingen mathematical society, where he wanted to present his own recent investigations. Emmy Noether wrote in a letter "Hilbert wants to talk next week about his Einsteinian differential invariants, and so the Gottingers must get up to speed". Hilbert sent his manuscript to the printer on Nov 19 for his lecture on Nov 20. Sauer says there are only 8 times out of several hundred times at Gottingen that the manuscript went to the printer before the talk, implying I guess that Hilbert was in a hurry. On the same day he recived notice from Einstein that he had now got the correct perihelion advance for Mercury (the Nov 18 lecture). This is all from Sauer (1999). E4mmacro 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks E4! So Sauer(99) says that Emmy Noether said that Hilbert wanted to give a lecture on Nov 20, and it's reasonable to assume that he did so - but we don't have any eyewitness accounts of what was said there, so researchers can't check the Dec 6 proofs or the published article against that account. Right? --Alvestrand 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is little doubt he was scheduled to give a talk. Sauer has refered to the log-books or diaries for the Gottingen Institute of mathematics, where talks and dates are entered, and also recording when the manuscript of the lecture is given to the printers. I haven't heard of any accounts of the lecture, except the printer's proofs (maunscript handed to printer on Dec 19) E4mmacro 08:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion does not do justice to the issue. The paper associated with Einstein's 11/25/1915 lecture in which he announced the discovery of the Einstein field equations was published on 12/2/1915, promptly and apparently without significant alteration. OTOH, the paper associated with Hilbert's 11/20 lecture was not published until 3/31/1916, and was highly editted before being published. A study by Corry, Renn, and Stachel of the initial galley proofs of Hibert's article (dated 12/6/1915) shows that he had figured out the Einstein-Hilbert action but still lacked the field equations [1]. Furthermore, in its final form Hilbert's article credits Einstein with finding the field equations. Could Einstein have gleaned the need to use the Ricci trace to fix his own initially erroneous field equations from the Einstein-Hilbert action presented in Hilbert's notes (which he almost certainly did see before 11/25)? That much is possible. However, the allegation is that the field equations themselves were in the initial version that Einstein saw, and I am quite satisfied on the basis on the article linked to above that this was not the case. --EMS | Talk 19:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I confused the part talking about the final paper with the part talking about the intital version. Not even the Einstein-Hilbert action was present in the initial version. So there is no evidence that the intial version contained the correct field equations, other than a missing piece of the galley proof, but much evidence in the rest of the paper that Hilbert in this initial version was not using the Einstein field equations. See [2] --EMS | Talk 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

EMS, could you pelase go to the Hilbert page where Licorne is doing his usually butchering of the article, with repeated assertions that Hilbert published the Einstein field equations on Nov 20, 1915. If you mention the proofs, he will say "Who cares about the proofs. Winterberg destroyed the proofs". (Actually he will shout it, but you get the idea). Thanks E4mmacro 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have put a watch on that article, and will support you. This sounds to me like a case of POV pushing, and may need to be dealt with as such. --EMS | Talk 05:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne is blocked at the moment for 3RR, and there is a request for arbitration pending. On past form, it is likely he will be back during his ban, under a different IP, making all the same changes again. Thanks for keeping and eye on it. E4mmacro 08:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened from Nov 25 to Dec 6?

All the following is based on Sauer 1999, which seems to be a throughly researched and documented piece of work. My opinions are in [square brackets]:

1. Nov 19 Hilbert's maunscript of lecture Nov 20 sent to printer
2. Nov 20 Hilbert's lecture to the Gott. Math. soc.
3. Nov 25 Einstein's lecture to Prussian Academy
4. Nov 30, Hilbert and Caratheodory gave a talk to the Gottingen Math Soc on invariant theory.
5. Dec 2. Einstein's Nov 25 paper issued in print. [it seems likely that Einsstein would have sent the proofs to Hilbert even earlier, as he had done with at elast some of the three preceeding papers].
6. Dec 4 Hilbert presented a second communication on the "Foundations of Physics" to the Gottingen Math. Soc. [i.e. a second part of his Nov 20 lecture, at least the same title]. Nothing is known of that second communication since its publication was postponed¹,².
7. Dec 4, 1915, Hilbert wrote to the Prussian minister saying "... also the mathematical-physical developments (Einstein's theory of gravitation, theory of time and space) are presently moving towards an unforeseen point of culmination" (quoted in Cordula Tollmein, Zeitschrift fur Geschichte der naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin (NTM) 28 (1991), 13-32.)³
8. Dec 5, Hilbert, Klein, Voigt, Runge and Wiechert wrote a proposal to the Gott. Acad. suggesting that Einstein be elected as a corresponding member.
9. Dec 6 Hilbert had the proofs of his Nov 20 lecture and revised them, deriving an explicit form of the field equation to compare with Einstein's [Winterberg and Wuensch believe the explict form was in the missing bit of the proofs, Sauer and others believe not]. Hilbert also added more credit to Einstein (mentioning him by name for the introduction of the gravitational potentials g_μν, which expcit credit was not in the proofs - Sauer believes the omission was what Einstein was annoyed about, and this change was what molified him).
10. Dec 7 Hilbert and Cratheody continued their lecture on invariant theory at the Gott. Math. Soc.

It seems clear that Hilbert had plenty of time to think, and did think, about general relativity, and so coould improve on his first draft (the prrinter's proofs) after Dec 6. I have to agree with CRS on at least one thing: a lot of mis-conceptions might have been avoided if journals had then followed the present practice of giving the final revision date of everything they publish.

• ^{1The entry for the Dec 4, 1915 talk was No. 731 in the log-book. It says "wiederholt in No. 739" (repeated in entry 739). Entry 739 says "Hilbert, Grundlagen der Physik Zweite MItteilung", 26 Feb, 1916, and "zum druck" (to the printer?) 2 March 1916, but this was deleted, with a note saying =No.731,759. Entry 759 is Hilbert, "Grundlagen der Physik (Zweite Mittelung)", presnetd 23 Dec 1916, to printer 29 Jan 1917, and published as Nach. Gelleschaft d. Wissen. z. Gott. Math-Phys (1917), 53=76.}
• ^{2It seems to me, that someone with the necessary background and German language has an opportunity to determine exactly how much was added to the proofs and perhaps that way see what might have been in Hilbert's Dec 4 lecture, at a time when Hilbert thought the theory was not finished (see his letter to the minister, above).}
• ³[Hilbert was writing on behalf of Emmy Noether for her "habilitation" (appointment to a job? granting a Ph.D. ? whatever habiltation is?) and saying he needed Noether "in this matter Miss Noether is my most successful collaborator". There is the possibility of a slight exaggeration about the work he was doing, over-stating how much more work needed to be done on relativity, but I guess he didn't know what might need to be done.]

[edit] The case against Bjerknes (revisited)

I added a line indicating that Bjerknes is a Holocaust denier. I think this bears on his credibility and objectivity as an historian, and the reader should be informed. green 193.108.45.139 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I clarified it a little bit -- the article he wrote isn't straight Holocaust denial (he states at one point that he won't address that in the article; I suspect he is a straight Holocaust denier but he doesn't cover it there), but it does have all sorts of other wacky denial-like theses in it (that the Nazis were really Jews, that Jews pushed for the Holocaust, that the Nazis didn't plot genocide and Wannasee, and other strange and thoroughly fringe statements). I agree that it does put him into better perspective and does contribute to one's overall assessment of his status. --Fastfission 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Private correspondence?

Who wrote this, and to what does "private correspondence" refer (in the cory/Winterberg section)?

"... attempt to placate Dr. Winterberg, who continues to threaten a law suit" (private correspondence).

Private correspondence is usually meant to be private (i.e. not revealed) but this may be nit-piking. I guess the author meant "personal correspondence" - a letter from Stachel to the author (whoever it was who wrote this). But since we don't know to whom Satchel wrote, the reference is pretty useless as it stands. E4mmacro 00:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's me - and yes, it should be "personal correspondence" - I'll add the recipient. --Alvestrand 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should include the lawsuit info unless Stachel publishes it somewhere online. I don't think it matches up with WP:V. --Fastfission 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

After rereading WP:V, I agree. WP:V is actually stronger and more specific than WP:NOR. --Alvestrand 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't, by the way, doubt it at all that this is why they took it down. But we should stick with the "official" reason, for both ours and their sakes. If Stachel wants to make it public, he has the ability to, of course. ;-) --Fastfission 14:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Poincaré and Lorentz

Just a question: did Poincaré or Lorentz dispute Einstein's priority? Bubba73 (talk), 05:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Poincare always refered to it as Lorentz's theory of "The princople of relativity". Lorentz often credited Poincare and Einstein for correcting a mistake he had made. And I think Lorentz accepted that Einstein had a different view of the theory from his own. See the Lorentz and Poincare pages. E4mmacro 08:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

According to secondary literature, in the time of Lorentz the theory was known as that of Lorentz and Einstein. Since that acknowledged Lorentz (incl. his priority), while Poincare didn't value his own contributions, there was nothing to dispute. Harald88 09:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Several years ago I read a quote of Poincare where he was awfully close to special relativity. I don't think the quote is one of the ones given in WP articles, but I don't know where I read it. It said something like "in the future, we may have to regard ..." and then gave some SR results. But it seems that he didn't quite make the final step and accept the things as physically real. At least that is my impression, I'm not an expert on this. Bubba73 (talk), 00:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly it was in Poincare's 1904 paper; it may be worth to have another look at it, as Einstein's 1905 SRT paper looks like a reply to the challenges as outlined in one of his papers (that one, if I remember well). Note that what you call "the final step", concerning physical "reality", does not belong to modern physics but to philosophy. Harald88 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1913, in Berlin the first edition of "Das Relativitatprinzip" by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein and H. MInkowski with contributions by A. Sommerfeld and foreward by O. Blumenthal. In a footnote to his reprinted 1904 paper in that volume, Lorentz refers to "Einstein's Relativity Theory" ("Einsteinschen Relativatatstheorie"), acknowledging his co-author of the book, as correcting the mistake in the electric force equations that he (Lorentz) had made in 1904. "Es ist das Verdienst Einsteins, das Relativatatprinzip zuerst als allgemeines, streng und genau geltendes Gesetz ausgesprochen zu haben." This seems fairly close to what he later said about Poincare. E4mmacro 03:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's strange that he apparently had been unaware of some of Poincare's publications, and even not understood some of Poincare's letters. Harald88 08:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that in 1909, "The theory of electrons, a course of lectures delivered in Columbia University, New Yory in 1906", with revisions and footnotes, published in 1909, Lorentz speaks more about Einstein than about Poincare. And credits Einstein with getting the charge density equation correct, apparently forgetting that Poincare had told him pretty much the same thing in his letter to Lorentz, in May 1905. Perhaps Lorentz didn't read French so well?? E4mmacro 03:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So, who really cares anyway...

Gosh, such an extraodinary fuss over such a trivial matter of history. Shouldn't you all rather be working on the 95th epidode of Buffy the vampire slayer or King of the hill or something like that. After all, this IS the Populo-pedia where what really counts is fame and popularity.--Lacatosias 09:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some people need a place to vent. Much better here than polluting the Poincare, Hilbert and Einstein pages. E4mmacro 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

are you disparaging the value of us being able to rant about what's REALLY important to the future of the universe??????? I mean - what WOULD the world be coming to if there was even one shred of doubt about the exact date at which Einstein first put pen to paper to express the immortal symbols of his equation????? The apocalypse would be imminent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yours for the importance of having fun while doing something useful..... --Alvestrand 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wait until I start commenting on Buffy - I even have a poster of her! ;)) Harald88 21:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is a time factor in the law of gravity, it is very small. By some, it is less than 1 in 10 to the 11 per year. If it is linear, this is even less for the five days we have heard about. Those interested in the truth are not worried about Mighty Einstein's priority. Those actuated by egotistic considerations are very worried.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.59.71 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Lorentz 1904

Quote from article: "It is claimed that Lorentz' paper containing the transformations bearing his name appeared in 1904." Are we doubting the date of publication, surely not, since we know what paper it refers to. I guess it means "it is claimed that Lorentz's paper (1904) contains the transformations bearing his name".

Harald, I hate to start a discussion I thought we had finished, but I say it is a verifable fact, not just a claim, that Lorentz 1904 published the "Lorentz transformations". I assume this isn't a quibble about names, but I don't know what it is about. The following example argument is what I would call a quibble:

The form as written by Poincare was called the "Lorentz transformations" and hence that form IS, by definition, the Lorentz transformations. Thus if Lorentz had written A = C, where C = D + E, and Poincare had written A = D + E and Poincare called A = D + E the "Lorentz equation", then Lorentz did not write the "Lorentz equation".

So how can we say it in a way we both agree with? Can we say Lorentz (1904) found the transformations which make Maxwell's equation invariant (even though he didn't fully realise that they did so). E4mmacro 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

E4, you wrote yourself one of the "disputing" sources on this subject; thus on this subject you "wear two hats", so to say, and I will not go in a discusion with you about it on this Talk page - especially as this is about disputes (disagreements), and not about agreements. But I do agree with your last formulation, it's just that there appear to be different opinions of what goes under the label "Lorentz transformations";

and I changed that phrasing for two reasons: as formulated, the claim suggests that such transformations that make Maxwell's equations invariant appeared for the first time in 1904 - which is dead wrong, as you pointed out in one of your publications, but indeed claims that such appeared either in 1904 or 1905 for the first time can be found in literature, if I'm not mistaken (we need more quotations!).

You may have forgotten that this article is about comparing disputed claims by sources between each other and with collected facts from such sources. As soon as we replace those by undisputed facts, that information doesn't really belong there anymore but should go to the relevant "history of ..." page, if it's not already included (in this case, history of special relativity) - and there we immediately hit on a related problem: I now notice that some parts are double, and I had made corrections here but not there! Harald88 10:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with what is there now: "Lorentz' paper [Lor04] containing the transformations bearing his name appeared in 1904." I guess there may be some people who dispute that the equations are in the paper, and if so I suppose you better mention it. And go to the Poincare page and put a disputed tag, where I quote exactly what is in Lorentz 1904 (a slight change in notation though). I guess you could dispute that Lorentz meant by x what we now mean by x - vt. My paper has disappeared into a black hole, whether because no one disputes it, or more likely, no one knows or cares about it, I couldn't say. :) And, we have Poincare (1905) for confirmation that the equations Lorentz wrote are the same as the equations he (Poincare) wrote in 1905. Some people, like Ives, and me initially, were puzzled by what Poincare said there, once they looked at Lorentz 1904, because the change in meaning for x between Lor04 and Poi05 is confusing. You might consider removing the banal and trival statement that 'Poincare was the first to rearrange the equations into their modern form". I am pretty sure Poincare doesn't want credit for a little piece of algebra. E4mmacro 03:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

By definition, transformations are mathematical formulas; and it's undisputable that the formula x is not the same formula as x-vt, eventhough of course we all (or at least the two of us!) agree that in this application the physics is the same. However, it's not my priority to correct such details everywhere; and it's more to the point here where details are discussed, than in a general article where such oversimplifications may be forgiven. And I request you to put your paper here, as it alleges (if I remember well) that Lorentz produced his Maxwell invariant transformations before 1904 - which does have relevance for the discussion about how much Einstein may be assumed to have known; I personally have reason to believe that Einstein may have missed the 1904 paper (as he also claimed) but knew the older publications of Lorentz, as well as the commentaries by Poincare. Harald88 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I finally see what you mean. If one asked Lorentz what is the relation between x and x' as meant by Poincare he would go to his equations and substitute Poincare's x - vt where he wrote x_L and get the relationship, which you call the transformation. If you want to define "Lorentz's equations" and "Lorentz transformations" seperately, even thought they have the same physical content, you can. But in my view there is a danger of implying Lorentz wrote the wrong relationship between moving and stationary lengths and time. E4mmacro 20:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of the 1899 transformations, it gets into a longish explanation. In 1899 Lorentz had written the pre-multiplying factor \ell but specified only that is was a function of w, that \ell = 1 for w = 0, and \ell differed from unity only by terms of order w^2/c^2. Under thos conditions he was able to show invariance for many of Maxwell's equatiosn (I assume he made the same mistake about the electric forces as he did in 1904, haven't re-checked). YOu will notce that Voigt's transformation for which \ell is the inverse of Lorentz factor satidfies these conditions, and hence c is cosntant in Voigt's transformations and the other properties of Voigt's transformations follow (as noted by that Chinese author we discussed). I agree it is more unlikely that Einstein never saw 1899 than he never saw Lorentz 1899 (or indeed Larmor 1897 and 1900), but we have no evidence, do we? E4mmacro 20:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We have only indirect evidence, and I don't even know a publication that provides it.

Off the record: Einstein made a poor presentation on a point that Lorentz correctly treated in 1904 (on the point that the theory must also hold for neutral matter), which suggests to me that Einstein didn't have that paper under his eyes when he wrote his; and I read at the Einstein exposition in Bern that due to lack of good physics books, Einstein studied the publications of physicists, in particular Lorentz, instead - according to my pictures, his third school year was 1898/1899, so that he likely read that paper in his 4th year (or even his third year: which month of 1899?). Harald88 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't everybody assume from the name "Lorentz transformations" that the equatiosn were published before Einstein 1905? 130.102.128.60 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

When they see that, many readers (myself included) tend to have a feeling that something is funny about it, and then simply forget about it. Note also that the "Lorentz transformations" as we call them were written down and named as such by Poincare, in honour of Lorentz who implied them without literally writing them down. Harald88 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that once a fact goes from disputed (in the outside world; who cares about Wikipedia) to undisputed, that nethen eds to be reflected in this article - but not by the removal of the description of the dispute; rather one should make a note that "after the publication of XX, the consensus is that the dispute is settled, and the result is YY". Or something. --Alvestrand 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that it's not always easy for us to make out what "the consensus" is, if any... Contrary to what people may believe, consensus is not always changed by publications; instead, conclusive publications are sometimes conveniently ignored. Harald88 20:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing the references of this article

At the moment, this article has a great number of quotes - and these are important. However, the references section is rather messy, and the links to it even more so - with URLs in the text, multiple different references to the same article, and so on.

I'd like to suggest (and carry out) a plan in 3 steps:

1. Reformat the references section in [authYY] format, the way Einstein's works are marked now. Use {{cite book}} and {{cite article}} for the references themselves.
2. Insert a new "Notes" section immediately before the "references" section, containing the <references/> tag from Wikipedia:Footnotes
3. Change all references on the page to use <ref>[authYY], page NN</ref>

I think this should give a much more reasonable layout, and one we'll be able to maintain better. But rather than rushing in and starting right away, I'd like to check first:

Does this make sense to others? --Alvestrand 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I have been considering doing the same thing myself at some point. --EMS | Talk 16:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose steps 2 and 3, because it will make the text harder to follow. On this subject, it's useful to be able to tell at a glance while reading the article, which paper is being referred to. The [authYY] format is great for this. Converting to <ref> links obscures this, though, because one then has to click on the link to find out which paper is being referred to. This is fine for articles where the references merely support the text, but is not fine for an article like this, which is about who wrote what, when. What would work well here would be for [authYY] to appear in the article, but for it to be a link to the full reference. The <ref> tag does not allow you have informative links like this. There are Harvard reference templates that might able to do this, but I haven't used them myself so I can't say for sure. --Srleffler 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Started - reformatting in [authYY] format done. I also sorted them in just two sections - works by the physicists involved (primary sources) and works by people commenting on them (secondary sources), both sections sorted by author. Even a brief scan of the article shows that this was needed - there are lots of references in the text that aren't in the references list, and a lot of the references aren't really very clear. --Alvestrand 19:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

==Please note and fix: math software lost in last archiving.== TY, green 193.108.45.154 11:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

don't understand... --Alvestrand 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I did the archiving but I have not the slightest idea what you mean by "math software" being "lost". Please clarify!!--Lacatosias 15:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be OK now. I meant that the equations didn't appear when I initially accessed the archived file. green 193.108.45.228 15:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] change of subject

I see that the subject has been changed of that of priority (which is verifiable in parts) to that of "credit"- which is purely a matter of taste. At least the priority dispute (= the main subject!) must be emphasized in the intro. I now correct that; further improvement may be needed. Harald88 07:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to change the subject - what I was trying to do to the intro was to make it clear that there exists a majority opinion on priority, but that this majority opinion has been challenged. Thanks for doing it better! --Alvestrand 09:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate 1905 and 1915 sections or pages?

I know it would be a lot of work, but might it be a good idea to separate the 1905 (SR) priority dispute from the (1915) GR dispute. The organization of the page by authors, rather than subject (1905) and (1915) is messy in my view. There are some authors in one section only, and some in both. The case about priority in the two cases is vastly different in quality in the two cases, in my view. E4mmacro 20:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Offhand, the only author who's quoted in both groups of discussions seems to be Bjerknes. So if we go for the same format for both, we could simply make a clone of the current page and delete everything that doesn't fit. Would make the page shorter too - it's more than 60Kbytes long. --Alvestrand 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree: the two disputes are really separate subjects, and with very different conclusions. Harald88 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I more support creating appropriate sections and consolidating what is currently here. This article lacks a coherent style and there is way too much quoted text here. Instead each dispute needs to identified separately and discussed briefly and succinctly. --EMS | Talk 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article currently reads like a kind of sourcebook on the priority disputes - making long quotes with proper references, so that it's possible to see what people intend with what they say. I think that's a Good Thing. But it does make the article long. --Alvestrand 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up between the two independent priority disputes surely will help to identify them! Harald88 22:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We can and should be more selective with the quoting and use paraphrasing more liberally to reduce the size of this article. I also strongly oppose splitting this article at this time. We first need to get the current content into good order, with the disputes identified and dealt with in an orderly manner. Once that is done, we can decide if and how to split this page.

I am not at all convinced that the obvious split is the right one. For instance, discussion of the priority issues involving the Lorentz transformations and E=mc² may be best dealt with in detail on the current subject pages for each, or even in their own page (instead of an SR page). This page may also need to be kept as an overview of the disputes with a set of multiple main articles. OTOH, we may be able to compress this article to the point where a split is unnecessary. Until we reorganize and reconsider this page and its issues, the right course of action will not be obvious. --EMS | Talk 16:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spitting the article is not a good idea. It's useful to have all the information in one place, and if the article is properly structured this will be reflected in the table of contents and the quantity of information should not confuse any literate individual. green 193.108.45.244 21:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the issues doesn't need to imply splitting the article in two articles. Harald88 08:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I have no objection. In fact, a logical parsing of the issues is important for making the article intelligible. green 193.108.45.136 11:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidenote: Einstein's considerations of the synchronisation procedure

Above we discussed with elaboration the view of Poincare on simultaneity in regards of reality. For him (following Lorentz) it was just a convention, not to be confused with hidden reality.

If the "convention" for determining simultaneity is required for the construction of relativity theory, then like the other postulates of relativity it must refer to, or be intimately related to physical reality. You seem to relegate physics to the consequences of postulates, when the core of physics consists of the postulates themselves. I would take a different view of Poincare's relativity if he didn't need his simultaneity convention to construct his theory of relativity. Is Poincare's relativity complete, or does it need this convention as does Einstein's? green 193.108.45.151 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In short, you apparently disagree with Poincare; it's useful to be aware of that.

I already pointed out that the LT contain that convention, while it's entirely irrelevant for observations.

I don't understand. To measure the length of a moving rod, doesn't one need to observe the ends of the rod simultaneously? Can one construct a theory of relativity absent the concept of simultaneity? green 193.108.45.149 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thus it's not really required for the construction of relativity theory, even though it's a preferable (practical) result - as also Ives showed in some publications (Phil. Mag.7-36, 1945, p.392, "derivation of the LT", with ref. to J.O.S.A. 29, 1939, p.50):

"By Einstein they were derived after a discussion of the nature of simultaneity, and the adoption of a definition of simultaneity which violates the intuitive and common-sense meaning of that term. It is proposed here to show that these transformations can be derived by imposing the laws of conservation of energy and of momentum on radiation processes as developed by Maxwell's methods."

(I haven't fully studied it as yet). Harald88 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Istm that Einstein's definition of simultaneity (that is, his method of synching clocks) is highly intuitive and satisfies the common sense meaning of the concept. How else would you (or Ives) propose to synch clocks? In what way is Einstein's method anti-intuitive? green 193.108.45.149

Ives's method is to use a transported clock, moving with a self measured speed q to the distant location, then adjusting the distant clock to read the same as the transported clock. (An intuitive method often used, when we say "synchronise our watches, and then go out different ways to do something at a prearranged time!). Ives then drives a very complicated set of transformations which include the setting clock speed q. If q/c goes to zero, you recover the Lorentz transformations. E4mmacro 00:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly anti-intuitive that when you change your speed relative to something, that if next you measure its speed, it appears to have the same relative speed to you (but note: only after recalibration!). It's more intuitively plausible to do like Ives: start with the postulates of conservation of energy and momentum, and find that in case of recalibration in each inertial frame, we find the LT as well as c in each frame. If it's really as straightforward as he claimed, I expect that I will favour his derivation of SRT over that of all the others. Harald88 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's more of a riddle what Einstein's view was on simultaneity, in connection with the synchronization procedure. I changed my view on that considerably over the years, and now (from his 1905 and 1918 papers) I think that he likely understood that his view implied multiple (infinite) realities, so that he saw reality as God-given, and personal: - he obviously would have agreed that the speed of a ray of light in the solar frame can be c-v relative to a M-M interferometer (nowadays often called "closing speed");

The "closing speed" is defined for an observer moving wrt a source of light.

No, your're mistaken. Doubly, as he didn't even use that term. Harald88 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed "closing speed" before and I have defined it correctly. It is the speed that a beam of light is assumed to pass a moving observer if, say, the source is fixed in the observer's frame. How do you define "closing speed"? What do you think it is? Btw, I didn't claim that Einstein used that exact phrase. green 193.108.45.152 18:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's relative speed of two entities is the speed of one entity subtracted from the speed of the other entity, as measured in a single coordinate system - which is the standard physics definition (note that it's better not to use the often misleading jargon "observer"; this is not QM!). As he put it: "the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v". Harald88 21:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The MM apparatus has a source of light, but all components of the apparatus are at rest wrt the source. I don't think "closing speed" as used by Einstein in June 1905 applies to this situation. If it does, you need to carefully define your terms. Is the observer at the center of the solar system moving wrt the light source in the MMX? And if so, why do we care, since "v" in the MMX refers to the ether wind in the lab frame? green 193.108.45.151 12:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

- he also would have agreed that the speed of light relative to a M-M interferometer is c in the lab frame;

If so, then E trashes the ether hypothesis. green 193.108.45.151 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

- he held that all such views correspond to "reality".

Interestingly, "everyone has his personal truth" was attributed to Einstein when I was a kid. I'm interested to hear the opinion of other editors about Einstein's 1905 interpretation of synchronisation procedures. Harald88 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Green? E4? Anyone? Without it we have nothing relevant to compare Poincare's views with! Harald88 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does he present his "interpretation" of his synchronization (spelled with a "z" btw!) method? From his June 1905 paper, I get the impression that he believes it corresponds to physical reality; that is, that lightspeed is the same on each leg of a round-trip path. I am not sure of his view concerning the objectivity of observations from different frames. green 193.108.45.152 18:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald: Fyi, I have been studying Einstein’s June 1905 paper, Part 1 Section 3, where he uses what we have referred to as “closing speed”, c+v and c-v, and derives the LT’s. I find his notation very confusing and his treatment opaque. Not what I had expected. I can report for certain that he uses simultaneity to derive the LT’s. At the end of the section he discusses the issue of a moving clock losing synch with a stationary clock, and upon return being behind the stationary clock. He doesn't call it a paradox or claim that the result is peculiar. I shall persevere.

Btw, the "v" in the MMX is definitely (imo) the speed of the ether wind in the laboratory frame. It is "caused" by all motions of the earth, of whatever origins (orbital motion, motion of solar system around galaxy, motion of galaxy, motion of local group, etc.). If one gets a null result at some point in time, one might believe that by chance the earth happens to be in the rest frame of the ether at that time. Hence, one waits 6 months when the orbital velocity reverses direction, in the hope of getting a non-null result. I am not sure how rotation fits into this picture. green 193.108.45.149 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis is qualitatively correct (IMO), but in the MMX paper all speeds are relative to the ether (=the inverse of what you thought). In other papers, symbols have the meanings that the authors give them. Harald88 21:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I stated that the earth has various relative motions, and the assumption of the MMX is that there is a net “v” wrt the ether. What did I invert?

Your statement above: "v" in the MMX is definitely (imo) the speed of the ether wind in the laboratory frame. Let's say <earth velocity relative to ether frame> = +1E8 (= to the right). Then, <velocity of the ether wind in the laboratory frame> = -1E8 (to the left; v is vectorial, and thus rarely or never called "speed"). Harald88 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the ultimate splitting of hairs and really doesn't add much to the discussion. I am sure you knew what I meant. To reply in kind: "v" without an arrow above it, or not in bold, is a scalar, not a vector! LOL. green 193.108.45.238 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The more important issue is your claim at the top of file that “simultaneity” is a “convention” for Poincare, not to be confused with a “hidden reality” (aka, objective reality?). Since you refer to our earlier discussion, I assume you mean Poincare’s clock synchronization method. (Note: I make this point because I believe there is a technical distinction between a clock synching method and the definition of simultaneity.) Istm that one cannot develop a theory of relativity without a defacto postulate about how clocks are synched. Otherwise, there is no way to measure the length of a moving rod, or, I believe, derive the time dilation result. If so, then the clock synching “convention” has the same logical status in relativity as the two primary postulates. Either all three postulates, or none, relate to objective reality. You take the view that the postulates of physics are not really part of “physics” because they are not directly confirmable. Imo, this is positivism gone awry insofar as the postulates of physics are indirectly verified by what they imply, aka their “predictions”. It seems inadmissible to assume that the clock synching method is a mere convention when it is absolutely crucial to developing a bonafide theory of relativity.

You misunderstand me almost completely, as I already observed above; and for the rest, I've said it all at least twice. You have the right to disagree with Poincare and Ives, as long as you don't substitute their opinions by yours in an article. Harald88 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I can read English fairly well -- in fact very well -- and what I wrote above is what I understand your words to mean. At this exact juncture, instead of pointing me back to some indefinite place in your various expositions, it would be enlightening if you would rebut what I wrote, point for point. But you never do this, and so we go round in circles. green 193.108.45.238 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To modify an earlier analysis, the MMX tests the hypothesis of anisotropy of space wrt lightspeed. One can argue that the test fails in a manner (possibly) consistent with spatial isotropy by invoking the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis. In this view, all inertial frames are operationally indistinguishable even though lightspeed is c in only the preferred frame. The fatal flaw with this view is that the contraction is assumed to be an EM phenomenon only, whereas the modern view is that nuclear (and sub-nuclear) shrinkage occurs as well. If so, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis would seem insufficient to explain the MMX null result and its apparent consistency with isotropy of space under the LF hypothesis. green 193.108.45.232 14:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No such "fatal flaw" as you claim existed in the theory in 1904, since the contraction was then assumed not to be an EM phenomenon only, in view of M-M and the PoR; nevertheless, such a flaw may be attributed to Einstein's 1905 reasoning (as I explained above, it's the basis for my opinion that Einstein didn't know Lorentz 1904). Harald88 18:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was specifically referring above to the "fatal flaw" in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis. If Poincare came up with a theory of relativity in 1904 that circumvented this flaw, then I have to assume his theory was, in essence, identical to Einstein's (the claim made by many editors here), and quite distinct from the relativity theory of Lorentz. Are you saying Poincare completed Lorentz's theory of relativity, or anticipated a distinctly different theory -- that of Einstein's? (notwithstanding that at the time, people referred to the "Lorentz-Einstein theory of relativity").

I referred to Lorentz's 1904 theory which didn't have that flaw. If you like to discuss such allegations as you apparently found somewhere (where?), please start that subject under a new header, it may be interweting. But sorry, I won't repeat replies to other questions again on this page. For that there are discussion groups such as sci.physics.relativity and sci.physics.research. Harald88 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

YOU INVARIABLY RESORT TO THE ABOVE BS-TYPE EVASION WHEN ASKED A DIRECT QUESTION. I REFUSE TO WASTE MY TIME IN A DISCUSSION THAT CAN GO NOWWHERE WITH SOMEONE WHO IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST (OR SHALL WE SAY FEARFUL OF GIVING DIRECT, CANDID, CLEAR REPLIES?).

I leave it to others to waste their time with you, if they like. Harald88 07:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I also ask again; how could Poincare have come up with a bonafide theory of relativity without it being crucially dependent on his clock synching method (which most editors here claim is the same as Einstein's)? That is, how can a defacto added postulate (of invariant lightspeed on each leg of a round trip path) be relegated to a mere convention? Do we not require clock synching to derive length contraction and time dilation? With all due respect, I don't think you understand the profound difference between a convention -- say the negative charge of the electron -- and a postulate in physics that makes a claim about physical reality. green 193.108.45.238 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC

The answer to your last question may very well be replied by the below discussion of what happens to "reality" with Einstein's interpretation of the postulates. Harald88 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

DITTO.

As Green's interpolations above make my analysis hard to follow, here it is again:

It's more of a riddle what Einstein's view was on simultaneity, in connection with the synchronization procedure. I changed my view on that considerably over the years, and now (from his 1905 and 1918 papers) I think that he likely understood that his view implied multiple (infinite) realities, so that he saw reality as God-given, and personal:

- he obviously would have agreed that the speed of a ray of light in the solar frame can be c-v relative to a M-M interferometer (nowadays often called "closing speed");

- he also would have agreed that the speed of light relative to a M-M interferometer is c in the lab frame;

- he held that all such views correspond to "reality".

Consistent with that, "everyone has his personal truth" was attributed to Einstein when I was a kid.

I'm interested to hear the opinion of other editors about Einstein's 1905 interpretation of synchronisation procedures. Harald88 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From the Hilbert Page

This section from the David Hilbert section of Hilbert and Physics belongs somewhere in this article, I believe:

Hilbert had sent Einstein some summary of his theory which Einstein received on November 17 or 18, a week before Einstein submitted his field equations article. Hilbert published his results in a paper which appeared in March 1916, bearing the submission date of November 20, 1915 but which was extensively revised after Dec 6 1915 ⁴. In the published version, Hilbert gave Einstein credit for the introduction of the metric tensor² and said that his results seemed to agree with Einstein's "magnificient theory of general relativity".