On Jul 21, 11:05 pm, "Wolfgang G. Gasser" <z...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> =3D Wolfgang G. Gasser innews:f7dv76$g2g$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > =3D Juan R.
innews:1185024495.899881.145790@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Einstein never denied to have read "La Science et l'hypoth=E8se".
> > 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 th=E9orie =E9lectromagn=E9tique de Maxwell and Versuch einer
Theorie
> der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten K=F6rpern
> but not Lorentz later work, nor the consecutive work of Poincar=E9.
> In this sense my work of 1905 was independent.
>
> If one considers "La Science et l'hypoth=E8se" as "consecutive work
> of Poincar=E9" in the relativity domain, then Einstein actually
> seems to be liar.
Also Poincar=E9's 1898 article on the measurement of time is on the
target together other works: Poincare 1900, Poincare 1904...
> In a similar case, some have accused Einstein of having lied about
> the Michelson-Morley experiment.
See:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p=
hysics.relativity/msg/fd9633ad111...
>
> 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.
Well, i wannot enter on personal attacks. Was Einstein a liar? Was
Einstein a plagiarist? The reply varies between two extremes. Bjkernes
will say "YES" and Stachel will say "NO".
I prefer to simply record the data. Einstein work is very close to
previous works, when asked, Einstein said "my work of 1905 was
independent" and said us he did not know Poincare works BEFORE 1905.
Historical record contradicts Einstein.
You are free to think if Einstein plagiarized or not a lot of SR.
> > 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=3Df7182t$kv...@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
>
> But at least from a philosophical point of view, there is a huge
> difference between Lorentz-Poincar=E9, assuming that matter in
> motion wrt the ether is "subject to a kind of exterior constant
> pressure", and Einstein's space-time concept.
Well, several modern authors argue that spacetime concept was
introduced by Poincare. You find some information in old authors. E.g.
Pauli discusses about Poincare being the first introducing the ict
four coordinate in physics.
> > 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.
Then current reviews articles published in journals and containing
often hundreds of references would contain none? Then the review is
rather useless.
And part of the art of writting an article is on selecting references
im****tant for the work. Einstein could perfectly cite a dozen of main
references in his 1905 paper, but decided to cite nobody.
Also if when Einstein was asked about other authors he had said
something like "i did not cited other papers but i knew Lorentz and
Poincare works" nobody had called he a liar and a plagiarist.
> In any case, it is more honest to publish something without
> references than with an incomplete listing of references.
No really. Often you add some "this literature survey is not complete"
for apologizing authors who you do not cite, including those you do
not know. Today it is very difficult to know everything is published
even in a very small field. In Einstein's epoque all was more easy.
> > 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.
Then one would conclude if Einstein says that his 1905 work was
independent and says never read Poincare before 1905, then that is not
malicious, but if Born states the obvious (Einstein paper was not
revolutionary but a continuation of previous research) then Bohr is
malicious. That is difficult to accept.
But if Einstein 1905 paper was not independent then whay Einstein said
the contrary to us "my work of 1905 was independent"
Born is not insinuating, He is simply saying something is true. If you
read Einstein paper (with zero references) you think everything is
novel. When you read previous works you see a continuation instead a
truly revolution.
> And the Poincar=E9 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 Poincar=E9.
Maybe it is trivial or maybe it is not, that is of no im****tance to
history which may record that Poincare did.
> > 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?
It is a very large list. Take a look to above references. The
similarities are so large that many physicists consider to Poincare co-
author of the SR theory. I already cited to Pauli and Penrose but
there is more who think that way. For instance, prof. Ivanenko in the
introductory chapter about history of relativity in his 2005 textbook
on gravitation.
> Also the 'impossibility to detect the absolute motion' (called
> 'relativity principle' by Poincar=E9) 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 Poincar=E9.
>
> 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'.
Poincare did not consider the relativity principle to be a 'trivial'
empirical fact. Poincare converted in a fundamental principle for, in
his own words, a new mechanics (which he developed with care, see some
ideas in his "Le mecanique nouvelle").
> The criticism of the lack of references often boils down to
> this: In 1905 Einstein should have given credit to Poincar=E9's
> work of 1905, published however only in 1906.
>
> Cheers, Wolfgang
Einstein would not know July 1905 Poincar=E9's paper while writing his
own paper, but the June 1905 Poincare Note to the Academy arrived in
Bern, in time, by June 12 or 13, and it was a part of Einstein's job
to read it.
|
