Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on January 18th, 2020, 5:41 am 

bangstrom » December 1st, 2018, 2:52 pm wrote:Einstein did away the ether theory with his special relativity but some say he restored the ether with general relativity by replacing the ether with spacetime and gravitational frame dragging. So what is the difference between the ether and spacetime?

This claim above has been circulated too many times on this forum and it is time to set the record straight on the history. This article is not an attempt to re-adjudicate Special Relativity or General Relativity as physics theoruis, but an attempt to get the history correct on the man, Albert Einstein, in relation to the development of S-R and G-R.

We will find that the above quote is woefully wrong both historically and scientifically. Some facts here may surprise the reader, and many of them I just learned myself only recently. For many (especially bangstrom) the big take-away lesson is that history is very complicated and involves a cast of colorful characters both prior and after the years where a theory was normally said to be 'established'.


History of Science
PBS Nova, other TV series and wikipedia are short synopsis histories that grossly simplify history. History is extremely complex in reality. Short sound bites are easier for people to remember and get spread very quickly because of their simplicity and punctuality. For example,

"Isaac Newton invented calculus."

"Elvis Presley invented rock-and-roll."

"Einstein invented special relativity."

"Gregor Mendel invented genetics."

All of such rough-hewn statements mask a much deeper and more complex topic. In the case of Elvis-and-rock-&-roll , the arguments can get quite heated. The development of landmark theories of physics and science are always as complicated as the thorny as the issue about "Who invented rock-&-roll?" Even relativity is. Even quantum mechanics was.

Arguments made both pro- and con- for Elvis being the inventor are both equally valid and both have "good points" to make. con- people point out that Elvis stole most or all of his music from black artists, and that rockabilly preceded him in terms of the raw stylistic sound of the music. Those are valid points. pro- people point out that Elvis was a charismatic front man gyrating and swinging a microphone stand around. That basic template of public performance would form the basis of the next 70 years of popular music. (also a good point). A room of historians will never agree about who invented rock-&-roll and the debate rages on. The point is, the question is complex and contentious.

( Newton and calculus. ) Multiple youtube videos featuring Niels deGrasse-Tyson have him just blatantly stating that Newton "invented differential and integral calculus" in what apparently seemed to be one weekend. And there are these anecdotes about how the foundational papers were later found in a desk by a maid or something. Anyways, Isaac Newton did not invent calculus. The brutally honest history is that Newton was the first person known to use calculus-based-reasoning in his mathematics. His notebooks are unreadable by modern eyes, because the notation that was beat into us in high school was only invented in the middle of the 19th century, some 170 years after Principia. The claim that calculus did not exist in 1660, and that by 1670 , presto change-o , a fully-formed mathematical discipline suddenly existed. That's absolutely wrong. Isaac Newton never referred to what he was doing as "calculus" -- and that is something the reader should keep in mind when I get to Einstein later.

( Gregor Mendel is the father of genetics. ) It turns out that Mendel's notebooks containing his data were only re-discovered in 1900 by Austrian geneticists. Mendel's scientific work only referred to various ''Principles of Independent Assortment'' that are not taught today. Mendel was the first person to have been seriously considering the expression and suppression of genes in scientific experiment. Mendel never described them as "genes", and never referred to his own work as "doing genetics".

Okay so Elvis did not invent rock-&-roll, and Newton did not invent calculus, and Mendel didn't really invent genetics. These men contributed some landmark ideas and approaches that constituted the foundational pillars of what later became rock-&-roll, calculus, and genetics. But certainly these complex and bizarre historical twists do not apply to Albert Einstein, physics genius extra-ordinaire. Right? I mean, we "all know" that Einstein invented Special Relativity in 1905, and I heard it on TV and that's that. Right?


Wrong.


Let's begin . . .


Minkowski Spacetime

4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime is central to the mathematical foundation of Special Relativity. It is, bar none, how S-R is taught in universities today in the 21st century. But Minkowski spacetime with its lightcones and all that jazz was not coined by Albert Einstein, nor did its mathematics appear in anything Einstein ever wrote.

When 4D Minkowski spacetime was shown to Einstein , he described it as quote , "superfluous erudition."

Spacetime curvature

So clearly Einstein said that space and time are curved and distorted in the presence of mass, right? I mean clearly he- ... stop right there. He did not. He didn't write it. He didn't say it.

More accurate to the complex history of G-R, it was Herman Weyl that founded the idea of spacetime curvature being the basis of gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Weyl

The second loud proponent of spacetime curvature was Tullio Levi-Civita. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullio_Levi-Civita

While I am not a professional biographer on Albert Einstein, the possibility exists that he actually rejected the idea that space was curved. Instead Einstein interpreted these curvature tensors as representing some aspect of the gravitational field itself.

It is true that Einstein derived what we now call the Field Equations. This is a differential equation containing various tensors. At the time of its derivation, Einstein did not know what the equation was saying or depicting. Only mathematicians recognized that one term in the Field Equation was something called a Riemann metric tensor. Einstein himself didn't know what "Riemann metric tensor" was, having never been trained in that mathematics. A metric tensor is the way in which distances are defined in non-euclidean geometries. Instead of using the word "distance" in those non-euclidean manifolds, they use the word "metric". This is the basis of the historical anecdote that goes :

"Only six people in Europe understand General Relativity."

{ edit : Arthur Eddington? research }

Those six people were the mathematicians trained in non-euclidean geometry. There may very well have been a whole 6 of them at some time in the early 1900s.

Relativity itself?
Wherefore Einstein went into a cave as a hermit, where he fasted and meditated daily for hours. When he emerged from the cave weeks later, he carried a large stone tablet, upon which was carved E = mc2 He returned to the assembly and held the tablet above his head :
I am Albertus Einsteinius Maximus. I do declare that energy and mass are but one of the same substance!

The members of the assembly fell upon their faces before him. And they did anoint him.

Anyways..

A music critic-journalist wrote about "heavy metal falling" when trying to describe the sound of Jimi Hendrix playing a distorted guitar. Thus was coined the genre : heavy metal. Hendrix did not describe what he was doing as heavy metal. Mendel never said he was doing "genetics". Newton, while reasoning about infinitesimal quantities, did not call what he was doing "calculus".

But certainly, we can rest assured that Einstein called what he was doing in 1905 the theory of Special Relativity .. right?

Sorry. No.

Albert Einstein, the man himself, only ever referred to something he called "the principle of relativity". If we had Albert in the room with us, and we asked him what he meant by this principle, he would likely say something along the lines of "space coordinates and time coordinates are covariant". We can be sure he would say something nearly like this, as we can tell from his writing in a long article in 1950.

Unanimously, modern textbooks delineate and frame this topic as the theory of Special Relativity. Physics and engineering students in universities are not shown a "principle of relativity". Students are instead exposed to momentum 4-vectors. The tails of the vectors are on the here-and-now event, and the heads point somewhere else in Minkowski spacetime. The same Minkowski spacetime that Albert E referred to as superfluous erudition.

So what did Einstein really even contribute to physics after all this? The answer is that he contributed some key foundational ideas and insights... which later formed the foundations of a modern theory we call Special Relativity. In 1905, Albert Einstein believed he was submitting papers to the Annalen der Physik on the topic of electrodynamics (what we now call electromagnetism). Very much like the historical foundations of quantum mechanics, the very men who we popularly associate with these theories sometimes even rejected their more mainstream interpretations. Or rejected them at first, and later changed their minds, (or possibly more complex events.)

Paul Dirac's work was the key catalyst for the discovery of anti-matter. However Dirac himself couldn't see it. He may have even initially rejected the idea that positively-charged holes in a "sea of charge" could be a particle. It was in fact one of Dirac's Phd students who was the loudest proponent of the positron. That student's name : Robert Oppenheimer.

So yeah. History is a complicated and often dramatic and surprising. People change their minds, insights and ideas are formed by single people, but then groups of others seize control of them and develop them in new and unforseen directions. On the way, the personal opinions and prejudices and nuances of those people infect the theory and modify it reception within the scientific community. Sometimes even ideas are outright stolen. It's a big loud mess. Colorful characters, drama, intrigue.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
SerpentTheVatdavidm liked this post


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby davidm on January 18th, 2020, 10:30 am 

Alan Freed coined the term “rock and roll” in the early 50s, so arguably he was the genre’s inventor, but as he said: "Rock and roll is a river of music which has absorbed many streams: rhythm and blues, jazz, ragtime, cowboy songs, country songs, folk songs. All have contributed greatly to the big beat.”

Interestingly, Einstein regretted his theory being called the “theory of relativity,” and wished that it were called the theory of invariance. Here is an amusing article on Einstein, Minkowski and others that reinforces your point: Pay Attention, Albert Einstein!

Newton and Leibniz are generally regarded as having invented/discovered calculus independently, though they did not call it that and apparently went at it from different angles.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 747
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Faradave liked this post


Re: c-ing the value

Postby Faradave on January 18th, 2020, 1:22 pm 

Yes, Einstein managed to put his finger on the foundation of physical reality, invariance: that upon which all observers agree. All the rest follows from his attribution of this property to limit c.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on January 18th, 2020, 6:48 pm 

davidm » January 18th, 2020, 6:30 pm wrote:Alan Freed coined the term “rock and roll” in the early 50s, so arguably he was the genre’s inventor, but as he said: "Rock and roll is a river of music which has absorbed many streams: rhythm and blues, jazz, ragtime, cowboy songs, country songs, folk songs. All have contributed greatly to the big beat.”

Even the guy that coined the term already knew r&r was a difficult topic.


Here is an amusing article on Einstein, Minkowski and others that reinforces your point: Pay Attention, Albert Einstein!


from article
Convention has it that if he had not come up with the special theory in 1905, someone else would have done so within a year or two.

So you can't nose around a textbook without seeing these "Lorentz factors". When grad students are outside in the hall at a symposium they always talk about whether some fashionable theory in quantum mechanics can be shown to be "Lorentz invariant". (That's their secret in-group language for "it obeys relativity").

One wonders why this name, Lorentz, keeps coming up everywhere...

Newton and Leibniz are generally regarded as having invented/discovered calculus independently, though they did not call it that and apparently went at it from different angles.

Newton would write out the calculation he was doing in laborious latin prose. He lacked all the fancy modern notation we have for expressing something quickly on a few inches of paper using math symbols. He would often write an infinitesimal variable by placing a dot over it. Even the formal definition of a function didn't exist yet. The notation y = f(x), invented by Euler, was some 50 years in the future from Newton's time.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby davidm on January 18th, 2020, 7:18 pm 

What I like about Freed’s “river absorbing many steams” metaphor for R&R, is that really it is equivalent to the science-discovery metaphor about “standing on the shoulders of giants.” Nothing is truly original, it is all “streams feeding rivers” or “standing on shoulders.”

But! As Gribbin notes, “When Einstein [that lazy dog!] developed the special theory, he did so in blithe ignorance of all this 19th-century mathematical work on the geometry of multidimensional and curved spaces.”

And:

Einstein’s unique genius consisted of ignoring all the work that had gone before and stubbornly solving the problem his way, even if that meant 10 years’ more work.


So, there ya go. As you say, “It's a big loud mess. Colorful characters, drama, intrigue.” Like fiction and history!

And, yeah, invariance. The relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, and length contraction, are not the main points. They are inevitable consequences of invariance.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 747
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on January 18th, 2020, 7:38 pm 

And, yeah, invariance. The relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, and length contraction, are not the main points. They are inevitable consequences of invariance.

There are some things that we need to get right. We can't have people contending that time dilation was inserted ad-hoc by someone who thought the idea to be neat-o.

Apparently some things we can let slide depending on time allotted to a situation, and other things like the intended audience.

I appreciate that most people have a fast-food version of history. But I really don't blame them. History is so complicated that the only people that would want or need to know the level of detail would be history geeks.

"Einstein said that space and time were warped by the presence of mass." Well that statement is false on several counts, one of them being that spacetime curvature is a prediction of the theory, not something tacked onto it from the beginning. The second problem is that it's not historically true. I think in some time-limited contexts, we can let a statement like that slide since the person saying it likely is trying to make some other more important observation. The possibility of being 100% correct in every uttered sentence is not reasonable.

What would be the point of saying "Well no, actually Hermann Weyl was the guy that said that."? The point would be like trying to win at a game of Jeopardy. None of us lived during those times, and nobody has ever heard of this Hermann Weyl. I mean if you want to flex on people because you have all these minute details of the interpersonal biographies of great scientists.

While its sort of a waste of time, it might never be harmful to know the history of science at the level of detail. You might encounter a debator who is using a wrong history in order to make a point.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby Faradave on January 18th, 2020, 11:20 pm 

While we're on it. I really enjoyed this National Geographic biography on Einstein. Science is acceptably good but that wasn't the point. The human, relating struggling among other humans, was captured. Credibly done & quite moving at times. Consistent with my other biographies.
Image
Ron Howard directed and produced (with Brian Grazer) - top quality
Currently about $10 (US), used on Amazon. Not bad at all for over 8 hour series on DVD. Can't wait to view again!
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: c-ing the value

Postby bangstrom on January 19th, 2020, 6:38 am 

Faradave » January 18th, 2020, 12:22 pm wrote:Yes, Einstein managed to put his finger on the foundation of physical reality, invariance: that upon which all observers agree. All the rest follows from his attribution of this property to limit c.


Which Einstein? Mr. or Mrs.?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: All's fair

Postby Faradave on January 19th, 2020, 12:26 pm 

Fair question!

Mileva's talent and plight are well illustrated in the bio. The foundational question of SR "What would we observe of light if traveling at c?" and the GR realization that: a worker in freefall will experience weightlessness, were his.

Mileva's burden was trying to enter physics, while Albert relentlessly ploted to advance the field.

"There have been claims that Marić collaborated with Einstein on his 1905 papers, known as the Annus Mirabilis papers, but historians of physics who have studied the issue find no evidence that she made any substantive contributions." - Wikipedia
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on January 20th, 2020, 1:10 pm 

Because the theory of General Relativity was so complex and abstruse (even today it is popularly considered the pinnacle of scientific thinking; in the early years it was even more so), it was rumored that only three people in the world understood it. There was an illuminating, though probably apocryphal, anecdote about this. As related by Ludwik Silberstein, during one of Eddington's lectures he asked "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity." Eddington paused, unable to answer. Silberstein continued "Don't be modest, Eddington!" Finally, Eddington replied "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby BurtJordaan on January 21st, 2020, 12:08 am 

Somewhat related to the fact that Karl Schwarzschild, who derived the black hole solution of Einsteins equations within a year after Einstein published, was probably the second person who understood general relativity. Sadly, he died on the Russian front in 1916. Eddington's work came after that, so it is probably a mystery who the 3rd person was - Mileva?
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on January 30th, 2020, 12:49 pm 

The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the existence of aether, a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of light waves. The experiment was performed between April and July 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in November of the same year.


M-M interferometer did not detect differences in direction of the device against distant stars. Thereafter, every respected physicist understood that the luminiferous aether was being dragged along with the earth like honey or molasses. Ground-based labs would not detect a difference. Arguably a lab launched into orbit would detect a difference, but planes weren't even invented yet.

Aether drag was canonical physics for 90 years or more.

In his analysis of double refraction, Augustin-Jean Fresnel supposed that the different refractive indices in different directions within the same medium were due to a directional variation in elasticity, not density (because the concept of mass per unit volume is not directional). But in his treatment of partial reflection, he supposed that the different refractive indices of different media were due to different aether densities, not different elasticities. The latter decision is puzzling in the context of double refraction, but makes sense in the earlier context of aether drag.


Fresnel died in 1827.

Einstein's contribution was a theory of electromagnetic radiation with no aether at all. You pay a price for dumping the aether, though. Observers in relative motion to each other will progress through the passage of time at different rates.

The claim that goes, "Einstein said there was no aether." That seems to be holding true against the history.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby bangstrom on January 30th, 2020, 11:45 pm 

hyksos » January 30th, 2020, 11:49 am wrote:
The claim that goes, "Einstein said there was no aether." That seems to be holding true against the history.


Another claim goes, “Einstein replaced the aether with spacetime in his General Relativity.” The difference between the aether and spacetime is that spacetime has no effect on the motion of photons so there is no aether drag to alter the speed of light and therefore no interference.

The M-M experiment was designed to detect the effect of aether drag on photons and the null result has two likely explanations. One is that there is no aether and the other is that there is an aether but there are no photons. Take your pick of weirdness.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Try Trichotomy

Postby Faradave on January 30th, 2020, 11:54 pm 

bangstrom wrote: MM... null result has two likely explanations. One is that there is no aether and the other is that there is an aether but there are no photons. Take your pick of weirdness.


Or neither! But light quanta do communicate from emitter to future absorber.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Try Trichotomy

Postby bangstrom on January 31st, 2020, 2:15 am 

Faradave » January 30th, 2020, 10:54 pm wrote:
Or neither! But light quanta do communicate from emitter to future absorber.

I prefer to think of "spacetime" as just another word for aether.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Try Trichotomy

Postby BurtJordaan on January 31st, 2020, 4:16 am 

bangstrom » 31 Jan 2020, 08:15 wrote:
Faradave » January 30th, 2020, 10:54 pm wrote:
Or neither! But light quanta do communicate from emitter to future absorber.

I prefer to think of "spacetime" as just another word for aether.

I prefer to think of it as the gravitational field defined by Einstein's GR, what he once termed "the new aether".
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)
Faradave liked this post


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on February 1st, 2020, 1:35 pm 

bangstrom » January 31st, 2020, 7:45 am wrote:
hyksos » January 30th, 2020, 11:49 am wrote:
The claim that goes, "Einstein said there was no aether." That seems to be holding true against the history.


Another claim goes, “Einstein replaced the aether with spacetime in his General Relativity.” The difference between the aether and spacetime is that spacetime has no effect on the motion of photons so there is no aether drag to alter the speed of light and therefore no interference.

The M-M experiment was designed to detect the effect of aether drag on photons and the null result has two likely explanations. One is that there is no aether and the other is that there is an aether but there are no photons. Take your pick of weirdness.

This situation is breathtaking in its audacity. I think about the amount of time I spent writing a very long and elaborate thread about this exact topic, only to have a person show up having read exactly zero words of it , then repeating exactly the points that were systematically debunked 15 ways from Wednesday.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby bangstrom on February 1st, 2020, 6:05 pm 

hyksos » February 1st, 2020, 12:35 pm wrote:
This situation is breathtaking in its audacity. I think about the amount of time I spent writing a very long and elaborate thread about this exact topic, only to have a person show up having read exactly zero words of it , then repeating exactly the points that were systematically debunked 15 ways from Wednesday.


My excuse for never reading a word of your lengthy debunking of my statement is that you never wrote it. I wrote,”Einstein did away the ether theory with his special relativity but some say he restored the ether with general relativity by replacing the ether with spacetime and gravitational frame dragging. So what is the difference between the ether and spacetime? “

Your claim is that historically and scientifically the person who gets the credit for a discovery may not necessarily the first to have done so. Einstein, like many others, may have been given more credit than due for his work. That is not my claim and no one is disputing the possibility that Einstein may not have been the as original as claimed but he is the one who put it all together. I fail to see the connection between what I wrote and your claimed “debunking” of what I said so I have yet to read it. I will read it if you write it.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on February 2nd, 2020, 1:02 am 

That is not my claim and no one is disputing the possibility that Einstein may not have been the as original as claimed but he is the one who put it all together. I fail to see the connection between what I wrote and your claimed “debunking” of what I said so I have yet to read it. I will read it if you write it.



"... he was the one who put it all together..."

I'm sorry. That's just not true.

Image

History geeks would find this diagram to be 'overly simplistic' since it leaves out some drama surrounding David Hilbert. Some history geeks claim that Hilbert got to general covariance before Einstein did, or that they raced each other to it. I don't know enough detail to fill that out myself.

I have not found anything in history that implies that Einstein sought to "replace" a missing aether with a new kind of aether. Nor have I found anyone else was thinking anything in the ballpark of that kind of reasoning.

Near the beginning of the history, the reasoning that went on had something to do with applying covariance principles to accelerated inertial frames.

(In my humble opinion, ) the people who put it all together were likely Arnowitt, Desner, and Misner.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby bangstrom on February 2nd, 2020, 4:21 am 

The diagram also leaves out some of the major contributers to GR including:
Riemann- Higher dimensional geometry
Lorentz and Fitzgerald- Contraction
Minkowski- Spacetime and the constant c

Einstein’s original motivation was to answer Ernst Mach’s criticism of SR for his use of Newton’s idea of absolute space, which Mach called a “metaphysical,” and to replace it with something observable and less speculative. Einstein replaced Newton’s (Euclidean) absolute space with Minkowski’s spacetime which was only a slight improvement.

Long before Arnowitt, Desner, and Misner there was Eddington who popularized relativity theory and provided its first experimental support with his solar eclipse observations and Kaluza and Klein who added the concept of a curled up fifth dimension to Newton’s equations and out dropped Einstein’s equations for gravity. I suspect there are still more pieces to be put together but Einstein was the first to put GR together in a publication as a single coherent theory.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on February 3rd, 2020, 12:26 am 

Okay bangstrom, you basically have now screens and screens of text showing that most of what you just posted is historically false.

It is like you haven't even read the very thread you are posting in.

( Edit : I would also add here that you are apparently confusing S-R with G-R)
Last edited by hyksos on February 3rd, 2020, 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on February 3rd, 2020, 12:29 am 

(For the rest of the participants on this forum passing through.)

bangstrom has claimed that the diagram above "leaves out Riemann". Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Bernard Riemann died in 1866, 13 years before Albert Einstein was born. The claim that that Bernard Riemann contributed to Generally Relativity is ...
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby bangstrom on February 3rd, 2020, 6:57 am 

hyksos » February 2nd, 2020, 11:29 pm wrote: Bernard Riemann died in 1866, 13 years before Albert Einstein was born.The claim that that Bernard Riemann contributed to Generally Relativity is ...

"Bernard Riemann died in 1866, 13 years before Albert Einstein was born. The claim that Bernard Riemann contributed to Generally Relativity is ..." therefore a posthumous contribution.

hyksos » February 2nd, 2020, 11:26 pm wrote:Okay bangstrom, you basically have now screens and screens of text showing that most of what you just posted is historically false.

It is like you haven't even read the very thread you are posting in.

( Edit : I would also add here that you are apparently confusing S-R with G-R)


This is your generic type of response to everything I write but it can't all be wrong so could you be more specific some time about what is false? Like where I have confused S-R and G-R for example.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Albert Einstein : getting him right.

Postby hyksos on February 4th, 2020, 11:05 am 

Like where I have confused S-R and G-R for example.

Lorentz and Minkowski were neither founders nor contributors to G-R. However, in a diagram like the one above, where the central circle was instead (SPECIAL RELATIVITY), you would be required to include them. Both men are crucial to the theory as it is understood today.


This is your generic type of response to everything I write but it can't all be wrong so could you be more specific some time about what is false?

I understand you are a lover of physics and like to talk about it. So am I. Unfortunately, this thread is not about sharing our little personal thoughts about physics that we have while standing in the shower. This is a thread about the minutiae of the history of these theories. In this context, the rules of the conversation are very different than in most threads.


We are doing an exercise in history geekism. I don't expect anyone, not even the mods of this forum, to know about the history of these men and their biographies to this level of detail. Ya know, like who sent which letter to who which year and what did they say? Who changed their mind and in which year? I don't expect you to know it, and I'm not holding it against you.

It is perfectly fine in most surface-level conversations to state that Albert Einstein discovered Special Relativity. I mean, the claim is not entirely baldly false. In terms of geek-level history it is not entirely true.

There is a problem where 1-hour TV documentaries on S-R will leave out all these men and their contributions, and pretend as if Einstein somehow created these ideas of thin air. There is also the issue of how the theories are taught to undergraduates. They get a "modern formalism" that is heavily divorced from the founding papers.

If it is your contention that spacetime was somehow a "replacement" of classical aether with a spacetime aether, that's fine. However, I would strongly suggest that you read the biography and work of Hermann Weyl. Weyl is really the guy who coined curved space. It was not Einstein.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1828
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: listen lessons

Postby Faradave on February 4th, 2020, 2:09 pm 

Image
For US$20 this 24-lesson, streaming-audio biography from The Great Courses is well worth the investment (pay once, listen forever). I found historian Don Howard worth listening to 4 times now (every 18 months or so).
Also available on DVD but not visuals are unnecessary (better to get the theatrical "Genius" documentary noted above).
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Try Trichotomy

Postby socrat44 on May 6th, 2020, 6:12 am 

bangstrom » January 31st, 2020, 2:15 am wrote:
Faradave » January 30th, 2020, 10:54 pm wrote:
Or neither! But light quanta do communicate from emitter to future absorber.

I prefer to think of "spacetime" as just another word for aether.


Light quanta have abilities to travel through aether
(vacuum / spacetime 4-D) with constant speed (c=1)
without to disturb its structure.
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 458
Joined: 12 Dec 2015



Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests