Henri Poincaré: The Real Discoverer of Special Relativity

[Perspicacious]

Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincaré acknowledged as the true discoverer of special relativity?

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077

 

[robphy]

This is an interesting question. (I have also wondered if the mathematician Felix Klein (with his Erlangen program) could have discovered / formulated the mathematics of special relativity.)

Clearly, others (Lorentz, Larmor, Poincare, etc...) had pieces of the puzzle, so to speak. However, it could probably be argued (as in http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm ) that the others didn't put it all together physically, appreciate what they had, and believed it,... and it was Einstein who did.

 

[EnumaElish]

robphy: While looking at the link you posted, it suddenly occurred to me that the pseudo metric (d\tau)² = (dt)² - (dx)² - (dy)² - (dz)² can be < 0 in principle. Is this why it is "pseudo"?

Mine is a math. perspective only -- although I am guessing that \tau stands for "true time," I know neither that it does, nor what it means.

 

[robphy]

robphy: While looking at the link you posted, it suddenly occurred to me that the pseudo metric (d\tau)² = (dt)² - (dx)² - (dy)² - (dz)² can be < 0 in principle. Is this why it is "pseudo"?

Yes, that is the reason. The "signature" of this metric is not ++++.

Related to your question and my question about Klein, I found this discussion of Felix Klein (and briefly Poincare) in the comments of this blog entry http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000140.html#comment-2153 (start with the comment by Lunsford).

 

[JesseM]

From the first link:

At last but not at least, In 1900,* he noticed that the recoil of a radiation, of energy E, is m = E/c^2 [ ref oeuvres de Poincaré ,op.cit.t IX p 471] which is nothing else that the famous E = mc^2.

But this isn't the same thing as what Einstein did, because Poincaré was only calculating an answer for a very specific situation involving recoil from incoming radiation, which is very different from the general relation between mass and energy that Einstein found. http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma3.htm describes a little more about the problem Poincaré was looking at:

Poincaré in 1900 [3,4] put forth an expression for what he called the "momentum of radiation" M_R. It is M_R = S/c^2, where S represents the flux of radiation and c is the usual velocity of light. Poincaré applied the calculation in a recoil process and reached at the conclusion in the form mv = (E/c^2)c. From the viewpoint of unit analysis, E/c^2 takes on the role of a "mass" number associated with radiation. It yields E =mc^2.

The link from the first post also says:

He points out that the “form” of the Lorentz formulae can be demonstrated from the Relativity principle alone, ( see annex 1) and therefore are implied by this principle alone ( with a parameter to specify, related to “c” for the Special relativity), only one hypothesis is required, instead of the local time and the associated three new hypothesis of the article of Lorentz ( 1904).

Without more detail it's hard to know what this means...did Poincaré ever explain how the coordinate systems used in the Lorentz transformation would be related to measurements made on actual physical rulers and clocks, for example? I would guess the answer is no, since this was really the central insight of Einstein's 1905 paper.

 

[Perspicacious]

...did Poincaré ever explain how the coordinate systems used in the Lorentz transformation would be related to measurements made on actual physical rulers and clocks, for example? I would guess the answer is no, since this was really the central insight of Einstein's 1905 paper.

Perhaps you've missed this poignant allegation from both links: "The Relativity principle as well as the method for synchronizing clocks are borrowed [by Einstein] from Poincaré published papers (1898-1902)."

If the non-mathematician Einstein could understand Poincaré's clock synchronization procedure---Albert having appropriated it without acknowledging the source---then it's relatively certain that Poincaré communicated his thoughts with sufficient simplicity and clarity to deserve full credit for being the true originator of Einstein's famous clock synchronization method.

That answers the issue about clocks. What about the meaning of measuring space? Recall that the http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm discusses Poincaré's very modern derivation of the Lorentz transformation. Notice this step (I assume it's an accurate translation):

"Let O'x' be one inertial frame sliding on Ox"

That's remarkably vivid and physical to me. Clear, modern, present-day explanations of special relativity use language that's virtually identical to that. See <S> for one example. Sure, there's no doubt that physicists need a more physical explanation, such as Einstein's explanation that inertial frames are composed of physical measuring rods. Do you really think that mathematicians need that degree of physicality? That degree of literalism is irrelevant to mathematicians. Only they can see all too easily that those niceties are devoid of mathematical structure.

Remember that Poincaré was a genius mathematician and geometer, who taught physics, not math. In his book “La science et l’hypothèse” (1902), Poincaré devoted a full chapter to the relativity principle. How could Poincaré not know what an inertial frame is?

Read this link on Poincaré's accomplishments, note that Poincaré enjoyed writing popular scientific articles, and then try to prove that Poincaré was incoherent in what he wrote about physics, which is what you actually allege.

 

[gurkhawarhorse]

the actual einstein equation was m=L/c^2. later he changed his equation into L=mc^2
and then e=mc^2. (he took energy as L)

 

[Juan R.]

Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincaré acknowledged as the true discoverer of special relativity?

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077

And why Newton chemical work was ignored?

And why first prediction of neutron ignored?

And why Lewis' first formulation of superposition principle ignored?

And why...

there is a constant rewriting of the history of science that privileges physics.

On www.canonicalscience.com there is a scientific program exclusively devoted to last historic research that rewrites many outcomes of physics as "fraud" or manipulation of mass media (somewhat in the spirit of recent string theory scandal).

Probably the most surprising historical manipulation was done in Newtonian epoque when chemical work by Newton was hidden and partially burn and Newton presented like physicist when he was not. Fortunately, it has been discovered recently by historians and history begins to be rewriten.

There are well documented recent examples of van Brakel statement.

Reference
Van Brakel, J. Foundations of Chemistry 1999, 1, 111–174.


P.S:

The key to appear original is hidding your sources.

 

[russ_watters]

So would it be fair to say one of Einstein's main contributions to Relativity is that he made people believe it?

I'm a mechanical engineer. When people ask me what the most important skill I use in my job is, I say communication.

 

[JesseM]

Perhaps you've missed this poignant allegation from both links: "The Relativity principle as well as the method for synchronizing clocks are borrowed [by Einstein] from Poincaré published papers (1898-1902)."

You may be right, but I'd like to see exactly what Poincaré actually wrote.

If the non-mathematician Einstein could understand Poincaré's clock synchronization procedure---Albert having appropriated it without acknowledging the source

Is there evidence that Einstein had read this paper?

Read this link on Poincaré's accomplishments, note that Poincaré enjoyed writing popular scientific articles, and then try to prove that Poincaré was incoherent in what he wrote about physics, which is what you actually allege.

I'm not saying he was "incoherent", any more than Lorentz was--after all, Lorentz came up with the equations of the Lorentz transform without apparently realizing the complete physical significance of the different coordinate systems, so it's not inconceivable that Poincaré also failed to realize the full physical significance. After all, you have to acknowledge there were plenty of physical consequences of special relativity Poincaré never came up with, like the detailed kinematics or the general application of E=mc^2 (or E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2).

 

[selfAdjoint]

You may be right, but I'd like to see exactly what Poincaré actually wrote. Is there evidence that Einstein had read this paper? I'm not saying he was "incoherent", any more than Lorentz was--after all, Lorentz came up with the equations of the Lorentz transform without apparently realizing the complete physical significance of the different coordinate systems, so it's not inconceivable that Poincaré also failed to realize the full physical significance. After all, you have to acknowledge there were plenty of physical consequences of special relativity Poincaré never came up with, like the detailed kinematics or the general application of E=mc^2 (or E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2).

In 1905, yes Eintein's annus mirablis, Poincare published a careful definition of what is now called the Poincare group in the Comptes Rendus. I can't be sure had was in possession of the key quadratic form -c^2t^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 but it boggles the mind that somebody who truly understood those group symmetries could miss it. But I agree that he didn't fully understand the physical consequences until he read Einstein's paper.

 

[εllipse]

So would it be fair to say one of Einstein's main contributions to Relativity is that he made people believe it?

I'm a mechanical engineer. When people ask me what the most important skill I use in my job is, I say communication.

Or maybe Einstein's main contribution to special relativity was that he believed it himself. Most accounts say Lorentz, Poincare, and Larmor weren't willing to accept time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity as the way the world actually is.

Of course, whether or not Einstein should be given as much credit as he is for special relativity, he undoubtedly deserved the credit he got for general relativity. Although Hilbert beat Einstein to a complete form of general relativity, Einstein's role in the discovery severely overshadowed Hilbert's contribution.

 

[DrChinese]

Why isn't the mathematician Henri Poincaré acknowledged as the true discoverer of special relativity?

Attribution always has a subjective element. Everyone is influenced by others. So the true question is: who's contribution made the difference to acceptance of SR?

Objectively, that would have to be Einstein. Please recall that at the beginning of 1905, he was an unpublished nobody who didn't even teach/work at a university. Poincare was already established and had published his relevant papers several years earlier. Yet it was Einstein's ideas that were debated, not Poincare's. Einstein was crowned by his contemporaries as the father of SR. That was solely on the merit of his ideas, as he had no reputation to trade upon! So clearly it was Einstein's efforts that ushered in SR, and no one else's.

Aussi, Poincare est Francais et chacun sait que les Francais sont les victimes d'une conspiracy.

 

[Perspicacious]

The true question is: who's contribution made the difference to acceptance of SR?

I suspect that an accurate response is probably the media with at least one super-salesman, as hinted at in the following exchange:

The answer to your question is partly "Eddington". By that, I mean that Einstein became a superstar to the general public, whereas this never happened to Poincare. When the war was over in 1918, Eddington generated a lot of hype around Einstein's relativity, which was largely unknown at the time. In this post-war atmosphere he claimed that there were theological consequences to this theory, much to Einstein's consternation. Anyway, Eddington was probably acting with self-interests in mind, as he was already planning to test the light bending prediction. Once this was verified in 1919, Einstein's fame was catapulted to super-stardom. Well guess what, people then learned about SR, and do you think Poincare really had to be mentioned in the media?

That being said, I can buy Einstein's claim that he was unaware of Poincare's work; but it's hard to imagine that the editor of Annalen der Physik wasn't: this person was none other than Max Planck.

Chris

Eddington generated a lot of hype around Einstein's relativity, which was largely unknown at the time. … he claimed that there were theological consequences to this theory

Chris,

Your answer makes a lot of sense to me. The public demands superstars and physicists do seem to accommodate and feed the public what they crave. I see no other way to explain the abundant exaggerations on the physics of time travel, for instance. We should all wonder what the true essence of physics really distills to if all the hype were removed.

 

[robphy]

Just to quote from the URL I posted in #2 (the highlighting of Poincare-specific sentences is mine)

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm][/PLAIN]
...
In his later years Einstein observed "there is no doubt that the Special Theory of Relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905". The person (along with Lorentz) who most nearly anticipated Einstein's special relativity was undoubtedly Poincare, who had already in 1900 proposed an explicitly operational definition of clock synchronization and in 1904 suggested that the ether was in principle undetectable to all orders of v/c. Those two propositions and their consequences essentially embody the whole of special relativity. Nevertheless, as late as 1909 Poincare was not prepared to say that the equivalence of all inertial frames combined with the invariance of (two-way) light speed were sufficient to infer Einstein's model. He maintained that one must also stipulate a particular contraction of physical objects in their direction of motion. This is sometimes cited as evidence that Poincare still failed to understand the situation, but there's a sense in which he was actually correct. The two famous principles of Einstein's 1905 paper are not sufficient to uniquely identify special relativity, as Einstein himself later acknowledged. One must also stipulate, at the very least, homogeneity, memorylessness, and isotropy. Of these, the first two are rather innocuous, and one could be forgiven for failing to explicitly mention them, but not so the assumption of isotropy, which serves precisely to single out Einstein's simultaneity convention from all the other - equally viable - interpretations. (See Section 4.5). This is also precisely the aspect that is fixed by Poincare's postulate of contraction as a function of velocity.

In a sense, the failure of Poincare to found the modern theory of relativity was not due to a lack of discernment on his part (he clearly recognized the Lorentz group of space and time transformations), but rather to an excess of discernment and philosophical sophistication, preventing him from subscribing to the young patent examiner's inspired but perhaps slightly naive enthusiasm for the symmetrical interpretation, which is, after all, only one of infinitely many possibilities. Poincare recognized too well the extent to which our physical models are both conventional and provisional. In retrospect, Poincare's scruples have the appearance of someone arguing that we could just as well regard the Earth rather than the Sun as the center of the solar system, i.e., his reservations were (and are) technically valid, but in some sense misguided.

The details provide look specific enough that it could be checked in the published literature. (In addition, it might be useful to check references made in the URLs posted in the first post)

It seems to me that further discussion is constructive
if references to the literature, especially the original sources [or translations] and peer-reviewed papers, are quoted and cited.

My $0.02.

 

[brunardot]

I agree with you (and with thanks to Elliot)

Attribution always has a subjective element. Everyone is influenced by others. So the true question is: who's contribution made the difference to acceptance of SR?

Objectively, that would have to be Einstein. Please recall that at the beginning of 1905, he was an unpublished nobody who didn't even teach/work at a university. Poincare was already established and had published his relevant papers several years earlier. Yet it was Einstein's ideas that were debated, not Poincare's. Einstein was crowned by his contemporaries as the father of SR. That was solely on the merit of his ideas, as he had no reputation to trade upon! So clearly it was Einstein's efforts that ushered in SR, and no one else's.

Aussi, Poincare est Francais et chacun sait que les Francais sont les victimes d'une conspiracy.

I completely agree with your assessment, which you have stated well.

I was en route to meet Einstein when I heard of his death earlier that morning.

You do his memory proud.

Love your signature; but your thoughts first caught my attention. The signature was a pleasant cigar, Einstein the aperitif; and your thoughts the meal.

Korzybski's, "Science and Sanity, third edition" 1948, which I read in 1951, and still peruse, probably influenced my life more than any other book that I have read. (Even, the Fountainhead and ‘Round the Bend.)

Today few are even aware of the importance of General Semantics to all the disciplines of academia.

Other giants in my day were Tarski, Carnap, and Gödel; I suspect they all could have learned a bit from Korzybski.

Thanks for bringing back memories of life before the Pomo elitists, led by Oppenheimer, took charge shortly after Einstein's death.

 

[brunardot]

Einstein

Or maybe Einstein's main contribution to special relativity was that he believed it himself. Most accounts say Lorentz, Poincare, and Larmor weren't willing to accept time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity as the way the world actually is.

Of course, whether or not Einstein should be given as much credit as he is for special relativity, he undoubtedly deserved the credit he got for general relativity. Although Hilbert beat Einstein to a complete form of general relativity, Einstein's role in the discovery severely overshadowed Hilbert's contribution.

Love your epsilon ellipse.

Einstein's main contribution to SR and GR is that to his death he was well aware that neither were correct.

Unfortionately this has been lost on the Pomo elitists, beginning with Oppenheimer, that now set policy.

 

[εllipse]

Love your epsilon ellipse.

Thanks.

Einstein's main contribution to SR and GR is that to his death he was well aware that neither were correct.

Source?

 

[Juan R.]

So would it be fair to say one of Einstein's main contributions to Relativity is that he made people believe it?

I'm a mechanical engineer. When people ask me what the most important skill I use in my job is, I say communication.

Even the idea of c is a limit for physical velocities is not original from him. Decades before Einstein's work, physicist Weber showed that there was a maximum velocity for transmision of signals in electrodynamics. The problem with Weber formula is that is approximate one and maximum velocity c_W = sqrt(2) c. But idea of maximum velocity was not new to Einstein. From Phipps generalization of Weber one obtains correct maximum velocity c_P = c.

It is surprising the relevance of Einstein when almost all of his special theory receives names by others: Lorentz transformation, length contraction, Minkowski diagrams, constancy of c, etc.

Equivalence of frames is not a original idea of Einstein, in fact the idea of laws of nature may be equal in each frame of reference is already present in Galilean-Newtonian theory, where equations are invariant on Galilean transformation.

In fact, Newtonian physics is relativistic, because verify Galileo relativity, but are not exact because does not very Lorentz relativity. The idea of Eintein physics is relativistic and Newtonian are not is an abbuse of language, i.e. of communication



In many aspects Einstein is like string theorists. One heard of them and think that are heroes, but when one take original literature from Witten, Grenee, Vafa, etc one remains very deceptionated.

Initially Eintein was a heroes for me. I heard that his domain of math was so great that when visited Spain he was received by mathematicians because physicists could not understand him.

Those days i am preparing a critical work on special relativity, due to a recent failure on the description of mu-mesons. I was forced to revised Einstein original literature and the mith disappeared. Einstein math capabilities are not good, in fact, i have found at least 6 sound mathematical errors on his original proof of Lorentz transformation.

Now i understand why Einstein considered that Dirac formulation of QM was too difficult...

 

[Perspicacious]

Here is another important reference:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

 

[brunardot]

Einstein's concerns with relativity

Source?

As to source: private discussions concerning alternative theory with Hans Bethe and Philip Morrison while Einstein was still alive.

However, it is also well documented that Einstein spent most of his adult life trying to reconcile SR and GR, which always remained a great disappointment for him.

It is difficult to conclude that with such effort that he was not well aware of the limitations of each. He was well aware that GR was not universal in its scope and required much interpolation for multiple "bodies."

He was unaware of observed Cosmic inertia (accelerating galactic recession); but, well aware that a cosmological constant was required for Cosmic structure, which GR did not provide; but, he acknowleged that his constant was in error because observation required the offsetting structural force to have "negative" acceleration.

Einstein never believed the Big Bang; thus its acceptance was stalled until well after his death (about 8 years).

In any case, he knew a single "bang" could not provide the "negative" acceleration that GR requires for structural stability. This remains a major problem to this day. Ever since the HST verified said accelerating, galactic recession. the Big Bang has been essentially dead as a viable theory. It remains because no alternative has been accepted to provide, with gravity, centripetal force.

Einstein knew that speed limitations impossed by SR inversely impacted observed GR "clockwork"; as well as providing the EPR enigma.

Einstein ran many "gedunkens" without successfully resolving the failures of SR and GR.

 

[Juan R.]

Falling heroe!

Here is another important reference:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Interesting link.

I did learn today that famous SR formula for mass variation is not from Einstein like I did learn when student. It appears that formula was obtained from Lorentz and appears in an article published before "fatidic?" 1905.

 

[brunardot]

Einstein's Limitations

Einstein math capabilities are not good, in fact, i have found at least 6 sound mathematical errors on his original proof of Lorentz transformation.

Now i understand why Einstein considered that Dirac formulation of QM was too difficult...

Einstein was well aware of his math limitations; and, complained often to Planck, in letters, of his difficulties.

 

[Perspicacious]

There are people who think that there are many books, articles and science programs (Nova, PBS), which are devoted to instilling a sense of worship for characters like Einstein and Steven Hawking, and are not explaining modern physics.

Do you understand what they mean?

Insights on the physics community's shameful exaggeration of Einstein's abilities and originality, and the creation of Einstein's superhero status, are mentioned in my previous http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html. Can anyone here positively refute the assertions presented there?

 

[Juan R.]

Einstein was well aware of his math limitations; and, complained often to Planck, in letters, of his difficulties.

Ok. But i said nothing about this.

I said is that Einstein portrait was incorrectly popularized. Almost any guy knows that Einstein is presented to laymen like the "prototipe" of mathematical mind.

I see that ridiculous after of revising original Einstein publications and one thing is make one or two errors in a very difficult topic, for example spectral decomposition in L-space with non Lie-algebra and other different is to find half a dozen of serious mathematical errors in his proof of Lorentz invariance.

Note the proof contains 8 equations!

 

[Juan R.]

There are people who think that there are many books, articles and science programs (Nova, PBS), which are devoted to instilling a sense of worship for characters like Einstein and Steven Hawking, and are not explaining modern physics.

Do you understand what they mean?

Insights on the physics community's shameful exaggeration of Einstein's abilities and originality, and the creation of Einstein's superhero status, are mentioned in my previous http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html. Can anyone here positively refute the assertions presented there?

Hawking is an prototytical example of scientist has done nothing for science, just some ruminations on things newer observed, like Hawking radiation. Yes, it is very debil, but i say continue to be correct. Hawking contributions to science are E

when E tend to zero

Best definition of Hawking i know is that by J. Horgan (The End if Science) that call to Hawing not a scientist but "cosmic joke"


Ah! and other note.

Light deflection was not computed by first time by Einstein. Light deflection was already know to Newton, who computed it. The problem is that with standard Newtonian force one obtains half the experimental value.

With a modified Newtonian potential on flat spacetime one obtains the correct experimental value. doing spacetime curvature a mathematical technique with no real support. In fact none experiment shows that spacetime is really curved and last theoretical work in "affine" gravity suggests that spacetime curvature is a mith.

 

[DrChinese]

I completely agree with your assessment, which you have stated well.

I was en route to meet Einstein when I heard of his death earlier that morning.

You do his memory proud.

Love your signature; but your thoughts first caught my attention. The signature was a pleasant cigar, Einstein the aperitif; and your thoughts the meal.

Korzybski's, "Science and Sanity, third edition" 1948, which I read in 1951, and still peruse, probably influenced my life more than any other book that I have read. (Even, the Fountainhead and ‘Round the Bend.)

Today few are even aware of the importance of General Semantics to all the disciplines of academia.

Other giants in my day were Tarski, Carnap, and Gödel; I suspect they all could have learned a bit from Korzybski.

Thanks! So had you met AE previously? Or was that to be your first time?

"Science and Sanity" has been a big influence on me as well. I am not familiar with "Round the Bend", so I guess I have some work to do.

 

[russ_watters]

Here is another important reference:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Conspiracy theory websites are not credible sources.

However, it is also well documented that Einstein spent most of his adult life trying to reconcile SR and GR, which always remained a great disappointment for him.

You mean reconcile them with each other? You are aware that SR is a subset of GR, right? Heck, that's where their names come from!

 

[Juan R.]

Conspiracy theory websites are not credible sources.

Perhaps. I always loved scientific rigor of official webpages such as that of M. Kaku.

Finally then did aliens use string theory to travel to a parallel universe and this is the reason we can observe aliens on our universe?

 

[Perspicacious]

Conspiracy theory websites are not credible sources.

So by default, there are no conspiracies, even when detailed facts are confirmed by experts?

 

[Juan R.]

So by default, there are no conspiracies, even when detailed facts are confirmed by experts?

Well Perspicacious Einstein is a myth of physics. He is the prototype of genius of physics. Any young student want be an Einstein.

Any work refuting common stablishment is considered and direct attack to the comunity. Therefore, don't worry if you receive hard attacks or stupid irrelevant comments from.

In the past, Newton was the greatest scientist. He was many times more smart than Einstein. He was popularized, but he was not physicist. When passed away, physicists discovered that was not a physicist, he was alchemist (in fact one of most known alchemist of the epoque!), and did all possible for erasing that "bad" image and build a myth.

This is not another conspiracy theory. All has been perfectly detailed by some of most prestigious historians of science.

Some historical data was burned! and other was recomended for burn. But family did not and original papers and notes were recovered around 1960. They are being studied by historians today. There is many official conferences on that and even an official project devoted to catalogue and study his unknown work.

Today, it is recognized on specialized literature that Newton was not a physicist. It is estimated on serious literature (that is not encyclopedias or similar) that whereas he devoted a year to physics and math, 30 years were devoted to chemical and alchemical research.

For last historian research work and recent references and conferences you can will see material sited on www.canonicalscience.com.

I suspect that Einstein myth will be disproved by historians in some years. It is very interesting that he omited quote to people on his works, some of his original articles have ZERO references, but were published in the journal violating stablished scientific rules of attribution.

Historians are doing pressure for obtaining original Einstein notes from family for detailed study.

There is rumours that notes are very very clean.

Do you understand?

*******************************************

I did not know Wilhelm Wein proposal that the Nobel prize was awarded jointly to Lorentz and Einstein.

Since Nobel Prize is partially a political-driven prize. It is not difficult understand why Wein proposal was ignored.

 

[Juan R.]

References for papers? No thanks!

Einstein's own ideas expressed in his 1907 paper

It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I am entitled to leave out a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature..."

pedantic survey?

is to recognize that light deflection was computed decades before him (Soldner, 1803). That E=mcc was not new for phisicists, that mass formula was by Lorentz or that constancy of light and his role as maximum speed signal was already stablished by Weber (theoretician) and Kirchoff (who measured it)

pedantic survey?

 

[JesseM]

is to recognize that light deflection was computed decades before him (Soldner, 1803).

Not using the theory of gravity (general relativity) that is now thought to be the most accurate one, though...do other theories predict precisely the same amount of light deflection as general relativity? (edit: I just checked this, and general relativity does indeed predict a different amount of light deflection than Newtonian theory--this wikipedia page says 'According to the general theory of relativity, stars near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. This effect is noticeable only during an eclipse, since otherwise the Sun's brightness obscures the stars. Newtonian gravitation predicted half the shift of general relativity.' And the scientist you mention, Johann von Soldner, was calculating the Newtonian deflection according to this page.) And of course, general relativity can explain plenty of other things that aren't explained by other theories, like the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit and the expansion of the universe. Whatever questions there are about whether SR should be uniquely attributed to Einstein, are there any doubts that GR should? General relativity is usually considered his greatest achievement.

That E=mcc was not new for phisicists, that mass formula was by Lorentz

No physicist before Einstein derived E=mc^2 as applying generally, any earlier appearances of the formula were only meant to apply to fairly specific situations, like the recoil from an incoming electromagnetic wave in Poincaré's derivation. And I wasn't aware that the equation had appeared anywhere in Lorentz's work, do you have a reference for that?

or that constancy of light and his role as maximum speed signal was already stablished by Weber (theoretician) and Kirchoff (who measured it)

What was their basis for saying nothing could exceed the speed of light? I bet none of them realized that FTL could lead to the possibility of sending information backwards in time (causality violation), for example.

 

[DrChinese]

I did not know Wilhelm Wein proposal that the Nobel prize was awarded jointly to Lorentz and Einstein.

Since Nobel Prize is partially a political-driven prize. It is not difficult understand why Wein proposal was ignored.

You are WAY off base. Einstein was never awarded a Nobel for his work on Relativity, so of course Lorentz could not possibly have shared it with him.

Einstein was given the 1921 physics award for his 1905 work on the photoelectric effect. (He thought an award was overdue, by the way, so he would probably be surprised to find folks accusing him of benefitting from a conspiracy.) And he never received a second Nobel for General Relativity although by today's standards, that would be a slam dunk. From the Nobel web site:

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921
Presentation Speech by Professor S. Arrhenius, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, on December 10, 1922*

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.

There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known as that of Albert Einstein. Most discussion centres on his theory of relativity. This pertains essentially to epistemology and has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles. It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly. The theory in question also has astrophysical implications which are being rigorously examined at the present time.

Throughout the first decade of this century the so-called Brownian movement stimulated the keenest interest. In 1905 Einstein founded a kinetic theory to account for this movement by means of which he derived the chief properties of suspensions, i.e. liquids with solid particles suspended in them. This theory, based on classical mechanics, helps to explain the behaviour of what are known as colloidal solutions, a behaviour which has been studied by Svedberg, Perrin, Zsigmondy and countless other scientists within the context of what has grown into a large branch of science, colloid chemistry.

A third group of studies, for which in particular Einstein has received the Nobel Prize, falls within the domain of the quantum theory founded by Planck in 1900. This theory asserts that radiant energy consists of individual particles, termed "quanta", approximately in the same way as matter is made up of particles, i.e. atoms. This remarkable theory, for which Planck received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918, suffered from a variety of drawbacks and about the middle of the first decade of this century it reached a kind of impasse. Then Einstein came forward with his work on specific heat and the photoelectric effect. This latter had been discovered by the famous physicist Hertz in 1887. He found that an electrical spark passing between two spheres does so more readily if its path is illuminated with the light from another electrical discharge. A more exhaustive study of this interesting phenomenon was carried out by Hallwachs who showed that under certain conditions a negatively charged body, e.g. a metal plate, illuminated with light of a particular colour - ultraviolet has the strongest effect - loses its negative charge and ultimately assumes a positive charge. In 1899 Lenard demonstrated the cause to be the emission of electrons at a certain velocity from the negatively charged body. The most extraordinary aspect of this effect was that the electron emission velocity is independent of the intensity of the illuminating light, which is proportional only to the number of electrons, whereas the velocity increases with the frequency of the light. Lenard stressed that this phenomenon was not in good agreement with the then prevailing concepts.

An associated phenomenon is photo-luminescence, i.e.phosphorescence and fluorescence. When light impinges on a substance the latter will occasionally become luminous as a result of phosphorescence or fluorescence. Since the energy of the light quantum increases with the frequency, it will be obvious that a light quantum with a certain frequency can only give rise to the formation of a light quantum of lower or, at most, equal frequency. Otherwise energy would be created. The phosphorescent or fluorescent light hence has a lower frequency than the light inducing the photo-luminescence. This is Stokes' rule which was explained in this way by Einstein by means of the quantum theory.

Similarly, when a quantum of light falls on a metal plate it can at most yield the whole of its energy to an electron there. A part of this energy is consumed in carrying the electron out into the air, the remainder stays with the electron as kinetic energy. This applies to an electron in the surface layer of the metal. From this can be calculated the positive potential to which the metal can be charged by irradiation. Only if the quantum contains sufficient energy for the electron to perform the work of detaching itself from the metal does the electron move out into the air. Consequently, only light having a frequency greater than a certain limit is capable of inducing a photo-electric effect, however high the intensity of the irradiating light. If this limit is exceeded the effect is proportional to the light intensity at constant frequency. Similar behaviour occurs in the ionisation of gas molecules and the so-called ionisation potential may be calculated, provided that the frequency of the light capable of ionising the gas is known.

Einstein's law of the photo-electrical effect has been extremely rigorously tested by the American Millikan and his pupils and passed the test brilliantly. Owing to these studies by Einstein the quantum theory has been perfected to a high degree and an extensive literature grew up in this field whereby the extraordinary value of this theory was proved. Einstein's law has become the basis of quantitative photo-chemistry in the same way as Faraday's law is the basis of electro-chemistry

 

[εllipse]

In Black Holes and Time Warps, Thorne writes:

The controversy was still so strong in 1922 [over whether relativity was correct] that, when the secretary of the Swedish Academy of Sciences informed Einstein by telegram that he had won the Nobel Prize, the telegram stated explicitly that relativity was not among the works on which the award was based.

The controversy finally died in the 1930s, as technology became sufficiently advanced to produce accurate experimental verifications of special relativity's predictions.

 

[EnumaElish]

In the past, Newton was the greatest scientist. He was many times more smart than Einstein. He was popularized, but he was not physicist. When passed away, physicists discovered that was not a physicist, he was alchemist

The problem is that until rather recently, to be a scientist at all, one had to be a philosopher, and a mathematician, and an alchemist, and could earn bonus points for medicine, law, religious studies, and proper socialization with the church and the ruling classes. Aristoteles was not a physicist, he was a philosopher. Galileo himself was professionally a philosopher (to the Medicis) and mathematician (he taught math at the University of Pisa). If alive today, he'd be an amateur astronomer. Similarly Copernicus earned a living mainly by practicing medicine for the church; he was in equal parts physician, theologian and lawyer as much, if not more than, astronomer.

 

[εllipse]

The problem is that until rather recently, to be a scientist at all, one had to be a philosopher, and a mathematician, and an alchemist, and could earn bonus points for medicine, law, religious studies, and proper socialization with the church and the ruling classes. Aristoteles was not a physicist, he was a philosopher. Galileo himself was professionally a philosopher (to the Medicis) and mathematician (he taught math at the University of Pisa). If alive today, he'd be an amateur astronomer. Similarly Copernicus earned a living mainly by practicing medicine for the church; he was in equal parts physician, theologian and lawyer as much, if not more than, astronomer.

In Newton's day, weren't physicists referred to as "Natural philosophers"?

 

[EnumaElish]

In Newton's day, weren't physicists referred to as "Natural philosophers"?

Apparently, even the 19^th century American schoolbooks referred to physics as Natural Philosophy or Natural and Experimental Philosophy. Distribution of topics covered in physics and chemistry textbooks of the period.

 

[Juan R.]

Not using the theory of gravity (general relativity) that is now thought to be the most accurate one, though...do other theories predict precisely the same amount of light deflection as general relativity? (edit: I just checked this, and general relativity does indeed predict a different amount of light deflection than Newtonian theory--this wikipedia page says 'According to the general theory of relativity, stars near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. This effect is noticeable only during an eclipse, since otherwise the Sun's brightness obscures the stars. Newtonian gravitation predicted half the shift of general relativity.' And the scientist you mention, Johann von Soldner, was calculating the Newtonian deflection according to this page.) And of course, general relativity can explain plenty of other things that aren't explained by other theories, like the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit and the expansion of the universe. Whatever questions there are about whether SR should be uniquely attributed to Einstein, are there any doubts that GR should? General relativity is usually considered his greatest achievement.

Yes, but I said that it was not generally said that light deflection is not a pure GR effect. In almost every book contributing to Einteinian myth is claimed that GR predicts light deflection, which is true, but it is also predicted by other theories. Moreover the typical “layman-like” figure of a beautiful Sun, a spatially curved grid around it and a curved light trajectory is false. Since Newtonian theory already predicts the half of total deflection using a flat spacetime (and that, of course, even ignoring that GR really says about light deflection).

See my post #26

The problem is that with standard Newtonian force one obtains half the experimental value.

But one is not forced to use original Newton potential as Soldner did. Now I don’t remember value obtained for Tisserand (18??) force, but I remember that Raguza force predicts the same value that GR for light deflection.

In a letter 18 November, 1915, Einstein wrote

Dear Colleague,
The system you furnish agrees — as far as I can see — exactly with
what I found in the last few weeks and have presented to the Academy. The difficulty was not in finding generally covariant equations for the gµν ’s; for this is easily achieved with the aid of Riemann’s tensor. Rather, it was hard to recognize that these equations are a generalization, that is, simple and natural generalization of Newton’s law. It has just been in the last few weeks that I succeeded in this (I sent you my communications), whereas 3 years ago with my friend Grossmann I had already taken into consideration the only possible generally covariant equations, which have now been shown to be the correct ones. We had only heavy-heartedly distanced ourselves from it, because it seemed to me that the physical discussion yielded an incongruency with Newton’s law. The important thing is that the difficulties have now been overcome. Today I am presenting to the Academy a paper in which I derive quantitatively out of general relativity, without any guiding hypothesis, the perihelion motion of Mercury discovered by Le Verrier. No gravitation theory had achieved this until now.
yours
Einstein

As said in forum in gravitation those other things supposedly “explained” by GR can be obtained from other approaches. Tisserand already obtained around 3/8 of then known Mercury perihelion but full value can be obtained, for example, it was obtained by Levy in 1890.

That is, contrary to the MYTH, Einstein was not pioneer in much stuff.

I studied SR history with rather detail and was not his achievement. I do not studied GR history in detail still but I suspect (only suspect, cannot show it now) that GR is not completely from Einstein. For example, traditionally history (e.g. Pais book) claimed that neither Hilbert nor Einstein knew Bianchi identity and that was obtain by Weyl in 1917. Some recent work (L.Corry, J.Renn and J. Stachel. Belated Decision in the Hilbert–Einstein Priority Dispute. Science. 278, 1270 (1997).) even suggest that Einstein derived all of GR. But that article (by physicists, no conspiracy ones, of course, just those ignoring data, misinterpreting phrases, hidding papers, etc, etc, ) has been classified as nonsense by historians.

It has been recently shown that Hilbert derived Bianchi identity in a 1915 paper and Einstein did know it even in 1917. It appears clear now for historians that Hilbert derived first the gravitational field equations of GR without help or knowledge of Einstein.

No physicist before Einstein derived E=mc^2 as applying generally, any earlier appearances of the formula were only meant to apply to fairly specific situations, like the recoil from an incoming electromagnetic wave in Poincaré's derivation. And I wasn't aware that the equation had appeared anywhere in Lorentz's work, do you have a reference for that?

I am not completely sure. It appears that the use of E=mc^2 was already implicitly used 25 years before Einstein paper. Moreover in his 1905 paper, Einstein acknowledges that his deduction of E=mc^2 was explicitly based on "Maxwell's expression for the electromagnetic energy of space". That is, at the best, Einstein said,

“take this formula, its application is not only electromagnetic, it is more general”.

But, he did not discover it and the revolutionary idea of equivalence between mass and energy (as claimed by popular press) was already known. I now could claim (it is a example) that Schrödinger wave equation also apply to Solar system orbits (as a gigantic atom, it is just an example). But popular press could not say that Schrodinger equation is my invention and that duality wave-particle was revolutionary because now it is already known.

I said “at the best”, because it appears that recently it is thought that first suggesting general sense for E = mc^2 was H. Poincaré in 1900. Moreover, it is not clear that Einstein thought that E = mc^2 was general. His “proof” (a posteriori shown wrong by Ives in 1952) was applied to a specific case only. I waste many time searching references but I did an effort and I found derivation of mass variation formula was given by Lorentz on Amst. Proc. vi (1904) p. 809.

What was their basis for saying nothing could exceed the speed of light? I bet none of them realized that FTL could lead to the possibility of sending information backwards in time (causality violation), for example.

They derived the telegraphy equation for electromagnetic signals, which is signed hyperbolic (no parabolic). Moreover, they obtained initially that c_W was the maximum speed possible. That was not speed of light but as I said their work was improved after for c.

 

[Juan R.]

You are WAY off base. Einstein was never awarded a Nobel for his work on Relativity, so of course Lorentz could not possibly have shared it with him.

Einstein was given the 1921 physics award for his 1905 work on the photoelectric effect.

Slowly guy slowly! please read carefully post by others first, and after submit your traditional aggressive replies against me... if you can.

Of course, Einstein’s Nobel Prize was not for relativity. I already knew that. Did I say the contrary?

I did not know Wilhelm Wein proposal that the Nobel prize was awarded jointly to Lorentz and Einstein.

W. W. recommended to the Nobel committee that the Nobel prize of 1912 were awarded jointly to Lorentz and Einstein by the theory of relativity.

Since Nobel Prize is partially a political-driven prize. It is not difficult understand why Wein proposal was ignored.

Do you know the machinery of the Nobel committee and how prizes are awarded? It is well known -for people that know the rules - that Nobel Prize is partially a political-driven prize. With people doing excellent research newer awarded by pure political issues. There are well documented cases, for example Nobel Prize for nuclear fusion. It is not difficult understand why Wein proposal was ignored.

The Presentation Speech of 1922 offers to you a detail

There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known as that of Albert Einstein.

I wait that you can find the solution by yourself, but if you need help please no doubt.

 

[Juan R.]

The problem is that until rather recently, to be a scientist at all, one had to be a philosopher, and a mathematician, and an alchemist, and could earn bonus points for medicine, law, religious studies, and proper socialization with the church and the ruling classes.

That is not completely true. Galileo newer did alchemy, nor Euler, or D’Alembert, Hooke, etc. Moreover, the surprise of physicists when discovered that Newton was not a physicist is well documented from a historical point of view.

NEARLY A CENTURY LATER, DAVID BREWSTER, BRITISH PHYSICIST AND CHIEF BIOGRAPHER OF NEWTON IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, REACTED WITH OUTRIGHT HORROR WHEN HE DISCOVERED THE DARKER SIDE OF NEWTON'S LABORS

Posterior rewriting of Newton portrait is also well known and perfectly documented from a historical point of view. References on modern historical research on Newton will be found where I said.

 

[DrChinese]

There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known as that of Albert Einstein.

I wait that you can find the solution by yourself, but if you need help please no doubt.

LOL, help to the solution of the Einstein conspiracy? You have proven my point already: that Einstein was given his status by his peers and not subsequent historians. How did he just "happen" to get so famous in a few short years (1905 to 1922) were it not for his actual contributions? He didn't have a PR agent, he lacked any credentials whatsoever, he had no powerful friends, but plenty of skeptics, etc.

I do not expect to change your mind. I have come to realize that crackpot ideas are not easily dislodged. But it is not fair to the average PF reader to quote one side of the story. The Nobel speech trumps the innuendo of your quotes - as that is the official story.

 

[russ_watters]

Moreover, the surprise of physicists when discovered that Newton was not a physicist is well documented from a historical point of view.

Posterior rewriting of Newton portrait is also well known and perfectly documented from a historical point of view. References on modern historical research on Newton will be found where I said.

Could you elaborate on that and actually provide some references? Whether Newton started college as a physicist (he didn't - but is that all you're trying to say?) or not isn't really relevant to the fact that he became a successful physicist.

 

[Juan R.]

LOL, help to the solution of the Einstein conspiracy? You have proven my point already: that Einstein was given his status by his peers and not subsequent historians. How did he just "happen" to get so famous in a few short years (1905 to 1922) were it not for his actual contributions? He didn't have a PR agent, he lacked any credentials whatsoever, he had no powerful friends, but plenty of skeptics, etc.

I do not expect to change your mind. I have come to realize that crackpot ideas are not easily dislodged. But it is not fair to the average PF reader to quote one side of the story. The Nobel speech trumps the innuendo of your quotes - as that is the official story.

You would read with care as said.

Moreover a modified Presentation Speech of 1922 would offers to you the detail

There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known [especially for laymen] as that of Albert Einstein.

I have not spoken of conspiracy, just of historical rewriting, and certain misunderstandings as those of Science article that i cited.

Physicists can rewrite history in textbooks -there is dozen and dozens of well documented examples from a historian view-. Some of most modern examples are from string theory. Fortunately for us, they cannot convince to historians or other scientists when themes are studied seriously, from a historical perspective.

Newtonian real portrait was modified by physicists, and historians are now corricting error. Einstein-Hilbert dispute has been recently shown to be favourable to Hilbert (priority versus Einstein) and there is people here, in PF, which is surprised that Lorentz derived mass variation formula before Einstein.

In some years historians, rewrote Eintein "achievements". Then you cannot claim for "official" story (of course it is stupid to think that one "presentation speech" has some serious scientific value for a historian of science. historians of science follow the scientific method of history) unless you was one of those that prefer things remain quiet even if are shown to be wrong.

I'm sorry but I did not the myth.

You ask

How did he just "happen" to get so famous in a few short years (1905 to 1922) were it not for his actual contributions? He didn't have a PR agent, he lacked any credentials whatsoever, he had no powerful friends, but plenty of skeptics, etc.

Even ignoring that many of you are saying (he had no powerful friends, etc.) is rather incorrect, simply let to historians reply to you with rigor. But final reply will be not very different from the reply to why people like Brian Greene or S. Hawking are so popular in mass media.

Stephen Hawking has said that none of the works of Einstein were original. Hawking provides a list of names of scientists, all of whom are unknown to the general public today, but who had the ideas now associated with Einstein before Einstein had them.

The appearance of Dr. Silberstein's recent article on 'General Relativity without the Equivalence Hypothesis' encourages me to restate my own views on the subject. I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of General Relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent writers.

All this was maintained by Poincare and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him.

[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. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true.

Of course Hawking or Max Born are well-known to be a "conspiracy-like people". Historians of science are also bad guys that are promoting idea of the conspiracy.

The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. Albert Einstein

Probaly future students will learn that relativistic theory is mainly associated with Lorentz and Poincaré, and GR probably with Hilbert, Einstein, and some friends of Einstein.

On

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Einstein.html

one find

"In fact Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before Einstein completed his work, a paper which contains the correct field equations of general relativity."

Also conspiracy?

Still there is important detail that i do not know. Could you help me Dr. Chinese.

Why was Einstein ED paper of 1905 contained none reference to previous work still published in the Annalen der Physik, violating journal guidelines?

Of course there is no conspiracy on recent Science article claiming that Hilbert plaguirized Einstein GR.

Please, read

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/15/einstein_relativity/

and pdf article

http://www.physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/Hilbert-Einstein.pdf

 

[Juan R.]

Could you elaborate on that and actually provide some references? Whether Newton started college as a physicist (he didn't - but is that all you're trying to say?) or not isn't really relevant to the fact that he became a successful physicist.

All i said is standard stuff for historians of science. Dobs, Geymonat, Westfall, etc. I learned that Newton was a chemist in my book on chemistry when i was 18-years old.

Basic books

William H. Brock, 1998, Historia de la Química, Versión de Elena García Hernández, Álvaro del Valle, pilar Burgos e Inmaculada Medina. Alianza Editorial S.A. Madrid

Ludovico Geymonat, 1998, Historia de la Filosofía y de la Ciencia, CRITICA (Grijalbo Mondadori S. A.), Barcelona.

A modern conference on the topic was in 1991

Eloy Rada García, 1991, En torno a la Filosofía natural de Newton. Crisis de la Modernidad, III Encuentro, Noviembre 1987, Sociedad Castellano-Leonesa de Filosofía. Salamanca.


As said i will provide a detailed status of last portrait on the web, including recent references. His success on physics was an direct outcome of his previous work on chemistry.

 

[Juan R.]

If it has been historically proven that,

i)

relativistic theory was mainly an achievement of Lorentz, Poincare, and others. All ideas inclusing constancy of c and maximum velocoty of signals were known in literature.

ii)
That none of famous formulas of Einstein, including E = mc^2 was obtained from him. Even when he did attempts to derive formulas he failed. Already cited to Ives who showed in 1952 that Einstein proof was completely wrong.

Also famous mass variation formula was given by Lorentz on Amst. Proc. vi (1904) p. 809.

I am preparing a paper on SR and i revised original literature by Einstein. I already said that original Einstein "proof" of LT is completely wrong with 6 sound mathematical errors on 8 equations. It is difficult for me think that he was a genious.

iii)

He was an excelllent plagiarist, how even Max Born or Hawking already have recognized

iv)

Begin to appears serious historical studies that show that GR was not from him. See for example that says above recent (2004) pdf article and web page.

Witenberg (Z. Natursforsch 59a, 715-719, 2004) said that it is believed that Einstein copied to Hilbert and that recent Science (article cited above) attempt to prove that Hilbert copied to Eintein is incorrect.

Why those conspiracy physicists omited that "proofs" claimed were cut off by someone. Who (someone) was interested in that were not known that Einstein copied to Hilbert.

Witenberg claim that GR is for Einstein, Hilbert, and Grossmann.

Read last words by Witenberg on why Science rejected his article.

Of course there is no conspiracy! Noooooo

It appears by last studies i have got that finally Einstein copied to Hilbert the GR.

 

[DrChinese]

If it has been historically proven that,

i)

ii)
...

Of course there is no conspiracy! Noooooo

It appears by last studies i have got that finally Einstein copied to Hilbert the GR.

This has really turned into Theory Development, and probably should be shifted there. Presumably, the same posting rules apply to the history of SR as to SR itself. Little of what is being quoted here is mainstream scientific history. Even the title of this thread presupposes that Poincare is the actual discoverer of SR, a theory that I reject.

 

[JesseM]

Begin to appears serious historical studies that show that GR was not from him. See for example that says above recent (2004) pdf article and web page.

Witenberg (Z. Natursforsch 59a, 715-719, 2004) said that it is believed that Einstein copied to Hilbert and that recent Science (article cited above) attempt to prove that Hilbert copied to Eintein is incorrect.

Is the article you're talking about discussing the same evidence that's discussed here?

http://www.tau.ac.il/taunews/97winter/einstein.html

During the months of October and November, 1915, Hilbert, who was working toward his own solution of the theory, was in close correspondence with Einstein. On November 20, 1915, five days before Einstein presented his version of the equations, Hilbert lectured on his findings. However, the contents of Hilbert's lecture - with a derivation of the covariant equations - were not published until the following year in March 1916. In private correspondence Einstein complained that Hilbert had "borrowed" his equations, and relations between the two deteriorated for a while. The question of who had correctly formulated the equations first remained an open one until now. The documents discovered at Göttingen University by Corry are the original proofs of Hilbert's March 1916 article, with a printer's stamp marking the actual writing of the document as December 6, 1915, that is after the submission of Einstein's paper. Close examination of the document reveals conclusively that at this time Hilbert did not have the generally covariant equations which form the core of General Relativity Theory. These equations must have been inserted only later - after December 6 and before the published version appeared in 1916. "Hilbert was still deeply ingrained in wrong assumptions which Einstein had meanwhile arduously overcome. Einstein can therefore be cleared from any possible charge of plagiarism," state the researchers.

Another story on this here:

http://augustachronicle.com/stories/111997/tech_einstein.html

Also, I don't think Hilbert ever claimed that Einstein plagiarized from him, maybe just that he had derived the equations independently. In this thread on sci.math, a poster writes:

Anyway, this person is no doubt referring to an unpleasant (but private) quarrel between Einstein and Hilbert over whom should get credit for the field equations of gtr. Briefly, both men found the correct equations within a few days of each other, and had collaborated intensively (by postcard!) in the preceeding weeks, informing each other about the details of their struggles toward the correct equations. Hilbert eventually discovered that by simply guessing the "correct" Lagrangian, he could very easily derive the correct field equations; Einstein took a much more roundabout (but better motivated) approach. These days most textbooks cover both approaches (or rather, Einstein's route and one or two modern formulations of Hilbert's Lagrangian approach). The history is covered in detail in many books, including the excellent biography of Einstein by Pais. Once you know more about the details, you'll see that neither man "stole" from the other, and that both approaches (Einstein's and Hilbert's) to "deriving" the field equations from more fundamental postulates remain valuable and even central to the subject.

And in this sci.physics thread, someone quotes a paper by Hilbert showing clearly that he did not claim Einstein plagiarized the theory of general relativity from him:

"It appears to me that the differential equations of gravitation arrived at in this way are in agreement with those of Einstein in his subsequent papers1) setting forth the broad theory of general relativity."

 

[εllipse]

This has really turned into Theory Development, and probably should be shifted there. Presumably, the same posting rules apply to the history of SR as to SR itself. Little of what is being quoted here is mainstream scientific history. Even the title of this thread presupposes that Poincare is the actual discoverer of SR, a theory that I reject.

I agree. I don't think this is the correct forum for this.

"In fact Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before Einstein completed his work, a paper which contains the correct field equations of general relativity."

Also conspiracy?

You must be joking. Are you trying to claim that Einstein doesn't deserve credit for general relativity. Saying that Einstein doesn't deserve credit for special relativity is one thing, since so many people had similar ideas around the same time, but no one was close to being on the same page as Einstein when it came to general relativity. It is true that Hilbert published a complete form of general relativity before Einstein, but that was in 1915. Einstein had been struggling since 1907 toward the general theory of relativity, and found all of the key elements alone (well, with the help of Grossman, but Grossman just assisted Einstein; Einstein was undoubtedly the one who made the discoveries). It was Einstein who realized the equivalence of acceleration and gravitation; it was Einstein who realized that bodies in free fall can be considered inertial, but moving along curved spacetime; it was Einstein who realized that the special principle of relativity would have to be replaced with a more general one, and it was Einstein who intuitively realized that Euclidean geometry had to be replaced by the new geometries Grossman told him about. In 1914 and 1915 (7 years after Einstein realized the equivalence principle.. 2 years after Einstein began solely working on the problem of gravitation), Hilbert read the papers Einstein was publishing and became fascinated. In June of 1915, Hilbert invited Einstein to Gottingen, where Einstein lectured Hilbert and his colleagues on his recent discoveries. And in November of that same year, Hilbert presented a complete form of the general relativity laws, just five days before Einstein. Saying that Hilbert should be recognized as the father of general relativity is quite cruel. Einstein made the intuitive discoveries and took the theory to the next to last step; Hilbert just filled in the last piece of the puzzle. As Kip Thorne writes, "Quite naturally, and in accord with Hilbert's own view of things, the resulting law of warpage was quickly given the name Einstein field equation, rather than being named after Hilbert."

 

[Nereid]

I agree. I don't think this is the correct forum for this.

We're now in Skepticism & Debunking.

HPS (History and Philosophy of Science) is where this thread really belongs (the history of SR is not really *about* SR), but given the tenor of the posts here, I feel S&D is more appropriate (also, we don't have a 'history of science' section).