>> = Wolfgang G. Gasser in news:f7dv76$g2g$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> = Juan R. in news:1185024495.899881.145790@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Einstein never denied to have read "La Science et l'hypothèse".
> However, the point is not if Einstein read Poincare during his
> life. The point is on if Einstein read Poincare before/during 1905.
Once again Einstein:
Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz' im****tant work of 1895
La théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell and Versuch einer Theorie
der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern
but not Lorentz later work, nor the consecutive work of Poincaré.
In this sense my work of 1905 was independent.
If one considers "La Science et l'hypothèse" as "consecutive work
of Poincaré" in the relativity domain, then Einstein actually
seems to be liar.
In a similar case, some have accused Einstein of having lied about
the Michelson-Morley experiment. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fd9633ad1115e3e7
I haven't seen until now one single example indicating that
Einstein wasn't honest when he replied to questions concerning
"prior knowledge". Only if one interprets his answers in a
tendentious way, superficial inconsistencies can be constructed.
Priority questions are rather irrelevant. However, the question
of scientific (dis)honesty is crucial.
> Contrary to a popular misunderstanding Einstein work was not
> revolutionary, but a continuation of previous research by other
> authors.
And contrary to a popular misunderstanding, special relativity
is refuted by simple experiments showing that electrostatic
attraction and repulsion are instantaneous actions-at-a-distance
(or at least propagate at v > c):
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=f7182t$kvd$1@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
at least from a philosophical point of view, there is a huge
difference between Lorentz-Poincaré, assuming that matter in
motion wrt the ether is "subject to a kind of exterior constant
pressure", and Einstein's space-time concept.
> Also the confusion arised because Einstein did not cite
> the work of others.
Should he have cited all the books and articles which over years
had helped him to write this article. A correct listing of all
references could have been more work than the article itself.
In any case, it is more honest to publish something without
references than with an incomplete listing of references.
> The Nobel laureate for physics Max Born excellently resumed
> the impression that one receives when read Einstein paper by
> the first time:
>
> [Einstein's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper' in
> Annalen der Physik [...] contains not a single reference to
> previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a
> new venture.
I think this comment is malicious for the following reasons.
Einstein was a regular contributor to the 'Annalen der Physik',
having published apart from articles also reviews of works of
others. And in the article he deals with the equations of
Maxwell/Hertz and with Lorentz' electrodynamics.
So the insinuation that by omitting references Einstein tried
to give the impression that he had written this article
independently from all others does not make a lot of sense.
And the Poincaré synchronization procedure is such a basic
thing that it simply is absurd to assume that Einstein could
not have created relativity without having learned this point
from Poincaré.
> Since physicists and historian found striking similarities
> between Einstein 1905 paper and previous works by other
> authors.
Could you cite these "striking similarities"? Where can we
find the claim that inertial frames are generally linked by the
Lorentz transformation? Where can we find the velocity addition
formulas?
Also the 'impossibility to detect the absolute motion' (called
'relativity principle' by Poincaré) was rather an empirical
fact suggested by the many unsuccessful attempts to detect
motion wrt the ether than an insight which must be attributed
specially to Poincaré.
Einstein's relativity principle is rather a further stage
of the same principle as advocated e.g. by Immanual Kant
('Neuer Lehrbegriff der Bewegung und Ruhe', 1758) than an
'impossibility to detect the absolute motion'.
The criticism of the lack of references often boils down to
this: In 1905 Einstein should have given credit to Poincaré's
work of 1905, published however only in 1906.
Cheers, Wolfgang
|
