http://www.theregister.com/2004/11/15/einstein_relativity/

Excerpt:
"By Lucy Sherriff
Published Monday 15th November 2004 15:57 GMT

A theoretical physicist at the University of Nevada has published a paper alleging that Einstein did not derive the gravitational field equations at the heart of the General Theory of Relativity, and might in fact have copied key equations from fellow physicist David Hilbert. ..."

Interesting article.

It's well known that Albert's mathematics wasn't up to snuff and needed a 3rd party to make the numbers add up. I'm reminded of a Tom Lehrer song...

Who made me the genius I am today,
The mathematician that others all quote,
Who's the professor that made me that way?
The greatest that ever got chalk on his coat.

♪One man deserves the credit,
One man deserves the blame,
And Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name.♫

I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lobachevsky.
In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics:
Plagiarize

♪Plagiarize!
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize!♫
(Only be sure always to call it please research.)

♪And ever since I meet this man
My life is not the same,
And Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name.♫

I am never forget the day I am given first original paper
to write. It was on analytic and algebraic topology of locally Euclidean parameterization of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifold.
Bozhe moi!

This I know from nothing.
But I think of great Lobachevsky and get idea - ahah!

♪I have a friend in Minsk,
Who has a friend in Pinsk,
Whose friend in Omsk
Has friend in Tomsk
With friend in Akmolinsk.
His friend in Alexandrovsk
Has friend in Petropavlovsk,
Whose friend somehow
Is solving now
The problem in Dnepropetrovsk.♫

♪And when his work is done -
Ha ha! - begins the fun.
From Dnepropetrovsk
To Petropavlovsk,
By way of Iliysk,
And Novorossiysk,
To Alexandrovsk to Akmolinsk
To Tomsk to Omsk
To Pinsk to Minsk
To me the news will run,
Yes, to me the news will run!♬

♪And then I write
By morning, night,
And afternoon,
And pretty soon
My name in Dnepropetrovsk is cursed,
When he finds out I publish first!♫

♪And who made me a big success
And brought me wealth and fame?
Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name.♫

I am never forget the day my first book is published.
Every chapter I stole from somewhere else.
Index I copy from old Vladivostok telephone directory.
This book was sensational!
Pravda - well, Pravda said "It stinks".
But Izvestia!
Izvestia said "It stinks".

Metro-Goldwyn-Moskva buys movie rights for six million rubles,
Changing title to 'The Eternal Triangle',
With Ingrid Bergman playing role of hypotenuse.

♪And who deserves the credit?
And who deserves the blame?
Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name!♫

Found after what is posted below this one:

"David Hilbert, great mathematician

Hilbert was, with Poincaré, the leading mathematician of his day. All quantum physicists need Hilbert space. Hilbert also contributed to other areas of theoretical physics, for example, by suggesting an action principle from which Einstein's equations of general relativity could be derived. Recent research into the question of whether Einstein saw the proofs of Hilbert's paper before modifying his equations of motion to include the term 1/2 R g{mu,nu} have been resolved. John Stachel (Boston University, Center of Einstein Studies) has copies of documents that show the printer's proofs of Hilbert's article (published in March, 1916) were sent to Hilbert by the publishers on 6 Dec 1915, two weeks after Einstein had submitted his papers with the correct equations of GR. Moreover, the proofs of Hilbert's paper differ substantially from the published version, and do not contain the equations of Einstein, though they do propose a covariant action principle.

Go to my HOME PAGE for more links.

© by Ray Streater 8/8/00."


Einstein never kept secret that he required some help with the mathematical formulas. I've read that in several of his bios and at least one of his autobios. This I found on the web:

In 1903 Einstein married a former classmate, Maria Maric, though his parents disapproved. They'd had a daughter Liserl in 1902, but she was given up for adoption. They later had two sons.

1905 was a huge year for Einstein. He published five papers in the German Yearbook of Physics, three or them groundbreaking. The first was on the motion of particles suspended in liquid. He developed a mathematical formula to explain that the visible motion of the particles was due to the invisible motion of the molecules of the liquid.

In 1914, Einstein was in Berlin. War broke out, and his wife and two sons returned to Switzerland. The couple's relationship had grown increasingly distant, and after the war the two were never reunited. They officially divorced in 1919. Some historians now believe that Maria Maric was instrumental in Einstein's early work, especially the mathematical calculations. In his letters to her he mentioned "our papers," and in one even wrote, "How happy and proud I will be when both of us together will have brought our work on relative motion to a successful end." As he gained greater prestige and scientific positions, she gained greater household responsibilities and their collaboration ended.
When he received the Nobel Prize, however, Einstein gave the cash award to Maria Maric. Soon after they divorced.

---

http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=639&trans=off

It is very common in science. I would not call it plagia though.

Einstein realised that the "problem" with Mercure planet movement
was not corresponding to the Newton law of gravity because of Euclide
geometry was not appropriate. He realised that a "special" geometry was
needed to explain it. He found that these geometry were already existing.
Created by German mathematitians Gauss and Riemann who had created those
geometry just for the fun of "playing" with numbers. Gauss and Rienmann
had no idea that their non Euclidian geometry would one day be used to form
what is now known as the Einstein General relativity.

---

When Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg start to elaborate the new bases
for the atoms mecanics they realised that the appropriate mathematical
tools were missing. In fact, it has been "invented" by a mathematician
named Jordan a few years before and it was called Linear algebra.
Heisenberg has adapted these maths to the atoms and it became the bases
of the Quantum Mecanics theory.

---

What is really amazing to me is how mathematical tools, created just
for "fun" later describe the reality of our world with so much precision.
The two example I have describe are not the only one. String theory is
also based on mathematical tools that have been invented for nothing more
then pure "delirious" mathematitians.

This is how sciences evolves anyway. Todays discovery stands on earlier
discovery and I don't see anything wrong with that. It is necessary.

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=2384&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://img98.exs.cx/img98/1999/hamradio.gif"><img src="http://img54.exs.cx/img54/3872/cqkey.gif">

I remember once hearing a rumor that Einstein came up with his ideas by simply using his imagination. "What would happen if I were in a rocket moving at the speed of light?"

A few minutes later, after he'd gotten an intuitive "feel" for the physics, he went off to see if the numbers added up.

Whatta guy. :-)

> I remember once hearing a rumor that Einstein came up with his ideas by simply
> using his imagination. "What would happen if I were in a rocket moving at the
> speed of light?"
>
> A few minutes later, after he'd gotten an intuitive "feel" for the physics, he
> went off to see if the numbers added up.
>
> Whatta guy. :-)

I must admit, it's an intuitive feel that's beyond me. "Hmm, if I were in a rocket near the speed of light, I'd... hmm... aha! Be moving very slowly around the cabin."

"Ah, but would you? If I walked to the front of the rocket, I'd be moving at 3Km/h in addition to the 300Mm/s. But, I can't because I'm already moving at the speed of light and I can't be going faster..."

The transfinite cardinality of denumerable sets? Easy. Debugging a million lines of code? Piece 'o cake. But that kind of intuitive and paradoxical feel for physics is just a little too far for me.

> "Ah, but would you? If I walked to the front of the rocket, I'd be moving at
> 3Km/h in addition to the 300Mm/s. But, I can't because I'm
> already moving at the speed of light and I can't be going faster..."
>
> The transfinite cardinality of denumerable sets? Easy. Debugging a million
> lines of code? Piece 'o cake. But that kind of intuitive and paradoxical
> feel for physics is just a little too far for me.
>
If you went faster than the speed of light would you be warping for lack of a better word and in laymen dummie terms I can understand why can't you go faster than the speed of light?


Fast Timmy

---

> "Ah, but would you? If I walked to the front of the rocket, I'd be moving at
> 3Km/h in addition to the 300Mm/s. But, I can't because I'm
> already moving at the speed of light and I can't be going faster..."
>
> The transfinite cardinality of denumerable sets? Easy. Debugging a million
> lines of code? Piece 'o cake. But that kind of intuitive and paradoxical
> feel for physics is just a little too far for me.


Yea it's really mind puzzling. The speed of light is always fixed. What
I mean his if you travel at half the speed of light and turn on your
fog light, it won't travel at 1.5 times the speed of light, just
300000 KM per second.

If you went faster than the speed of light would you be warping for lack of a better word and in laymen dummie terms I can understand why can't you go faster than the speed of light?
I believe (although I'm probably incorrect) that is has to do with the fact that mass is involved. Anyone wanna do some correcting work?

What I mean his if you travel at half the speed of light and turn on your fog light, it won't travel at 1.5 times the speed of light, just 300000 KM per second.
Here's my favourite: Let's say I'm on the rocket and I'm flying at c m/s, and I have a really bright lamp that faces in the opposite direction from my path (ie: light come out of my rocket's tailpipe). When I turn on the lamp, do I create a standing wave of light at the position where I first turned it on?

> Here's my favourite: Let's say I'm on the rocket and I'm flying at c
> m/s, and I have a really bright lamp that faces in the opposite direction from
> my path (ie: light come out of my rocket's tailpipe). When I turn on the
> lamp, do I create a standing wave of light at the position where I first
> turned it on?




According to Einstein no. The light comming out of your tailpipe would
still be travelling at the speed of light, no matter the speed of its
source.

The Quasar that we can see located at 12 billion LY are "getting away"
from us at speed (relative to us) near the speed of light but the light
we receive from those Quasars (wich surely don't exist anymore now) is
travelling (and reach us) at the speed of light.

The speed of light is always 300000 KM/S no matter how fast you go.

If I am on the earth, looking at your light speed rocket, I would still
"receive" or see the light comming out of your tailpipe. It is puzzling
though. But since we can't go to the speed of light the "puzzle" itself
don't make sense.

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear or if you already answered the question, but here goes. Suppose I have the following situation: The rocket goes to the left at c m/s, a photon moves to the right at c m/s. That means that after a while...

                    __
             ______/ /       ∆t=0
            <___  __&#x2f;  1     1st photon released
                &#x5c;_&#x5c;
               __
        ______&#x2f; &#x2f;            &#x2206;t=1
       <___  __&#x2f;  2    1     2nd photon released
           &#x5c;_&#x5c;
          __
   ______&#x2f; &#x2f;                 &#x2206;t=2
  <___  __&#x2f;  3    2    1     3rd photon released
      &#x5c;_&#x5c;
                       ^
                       |
              Position of observer

Notice how the position of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd photons do not change in space, even though the distance between any one photon and the rocket (Which looks too much like a plane, I know) increases by c m/s.

Will the light exhibit a standing wave at the observer's position?

> If you went faster than the speed of light would you be warping for lack of
> a better word and in laymen dummie terms I can understand why can't you go
> faster than the speed of light?
> I believe (although I'm probably incorrect) that is has to do with the fact
> that mass is involved. Anyone wanna do some correcting work?

I am TERRIBLE at trying to comprehend, let alone explain, more than the very basics of relativity, so this may not be quite right.

First off, nothing with any mass at all ever, ever, ever reaches the speed of light.

The velocity of the ship and the person inside walking forward are not strictly additive in space/time from the point of view of someone outside the ship. From the point of view of the person walking, he sees himself traveling at, say, 2 m/s. There's the hitch. From the point of view of the person outside, he's traveling far slower due to time dilation, so from the outside neither the spaceship, astronaut, or any part of either ever appear to be traveling at or faster than the speed of light.

From the point of view of the astronaut, it's the rest of the the universe that is traveling at near the speed of light, and presumably at no point does the universe around him appear to be traveling faster than light from his reference either. That's the part that really bakes my noodle. Space, time, acceleration, and the time dilation effect are not absolute, and somehow this all resolves itself when the astronaut decelerates to the reference of the observer.

One of the more bizarre things I've read recently is experimental evidence appears to confirm that light doesn't travel at the speed of light even through a vacuum. Since energy and mass are related, even a photon has negligible mass, and therefore cannot travel the speed of light. Moreover, the more energetic the photon, the slower it goes. (This is where Murasaki's head goes *bang*)

> Will the light exhibit a standing wave at the observer's position?


Very nice plane !!!

I think I understand your idea, and I think it's not how it would be.
(Note that I am not Einstein and I could be wrong...)

The observer would see

Photon 1 at t=0
photon 2 at t=1
photon 3 at t=2
etc

No matter your "nice plane" speed.

That sound crazy isn't it ?
Anyway I want to re read a part of Hawking book about that.
Just to be sure I am not saying rubbish.

Don't worry - The point is that It's this kind of pondering that Einstein could imagine. All the "What if"s.

Anywhoo, I'm totally zonked out after setting up KBoincSpy. Goodnight!

> Don't worry - The point is that It's this kind of pondering that
> Einstein could imagine. All the "What if"s.
>
> Anywhoo, I'm totally zonked out after setting up KBoincSpy.
> Goodnight!


Whooooo !!! All this seems to be more difficult (to me) then general
relativity. Anyway I have read again "Space and time" the second chapter
of Stephen Hawking's "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME" before falling asleep
and what I was saying was not rubbish like I thought it could have been.

I recommend this book to everybody. It is very well written and easy to
understand. I won't quote all the chapter of course but it explains it
very well.

QUOTE FROM HAWKING

As we have seen, Maxwell's equations predicted that the speed of light
should be the same whatever the speed of the source, and this has been
confirmed by accurate measurements. It follows from this that if a pulse
of light is emitted at a particular time at a particular point in space,
then as time goes on it will spread out as a sphere of light whose size
and position are independent of the speed of the source. After one millionth
of a second the light will have spread out to form a sphere with a radius
of 300 meters......

UNQUOTE

Our friend Murasaki has explained it very well. In order to understand
the general relativity, one need to understand that there is no absolute
space and time, those are relative to the observer, as oppose to the light
wich is absolute.

As we have seen, Maxwell's equations predicted that the speed of light should be the same whatever the speed of the source, and this has been confirmed by accurate measurements.
I don't remember where I heard it, but for some reason I am under the impression that the speed of light could be variable, but a negligible one.

After one millionth of a second the light will have spread out to form a sphere with a radius of 300 meters...
Hopper used to carry around a foot-long ruler and say "This is the distance that light travels in a nanosecond." She was probably the best Geekette ever.

Philosophical Society of Washington
Retiring President's Lecture
14 January 2000

© Copyright 2000, John S. Garavelli
Comments welcomed.

[Slides are displayed in a single, separate window that will not return to this window. Slides 37, 51 and 54 were omitted.]

[Slide 1] When I knew two years ago that I was probably going to be giving the Retiring President's Address, I started asking people what aspect of my work in the Protein Sequence Database they would be most interested in hearing about. Their responses made me decide to talk about something else.

During the year 1900 various members of the Philosophical Society of Washington prepared reports on developments in the fields of science in which they had expertise. Most of these were rather dry reports on geology and geography, so I thought I would look at a very influential speech given in 1900 by [Slide 2] David Hilbert. Hilbert, born, educated and then teaching at Königsberg, first came to international prominence in 1888 when he produced a proof of the general form of Gordan's Theorem in the field of algebraic invariants. Hilbert's characteristic existence proof, a demonstration that a certain solution logically must exist without actually producing an explicit solution, established him as an innovative thinker who would rely on formal rules to obtain elegant results rather than laboriously search for complicated results embedded in elaborate calculations. Paul Gordan himself was so disappointed in this Alexandrian solution of the Gordian knot that he declared, "Das ist nicht Mathematik. Das ist Theologie!"

The complete lecture can be found here