No, says a physicist who won an award for pointing Einsteins mistake.
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
epepke wrote:We need a lolcat for "stupid, hackneyed drivel is stupid and hackneyed."
Einstein ofcourse was great but the idea of him being the biggest of 20th century physicists and that he alone figured out relativity from scratch is simply not true. Paul Dirac and Henry Poincare for example were mathematically beyond most humans and Einstein was human compared to them.
epepke wrote:
Wheee! It's not anybody's fault that your education was so poor that you think that Einstein discovered relativity and are therefore susceptible to all sorts of fashionable nonsense.Einstein ofcourse was great but the idea of him being the biggest of 20th century physicists and that he alone figured out relativity from scratch is simply not true. Paul Dirac and Henry Poincare for example were mathematically beyond most humans and Einstein was human compared to them.
Well,
1) The principle of relativity was discovered by Galileo. Heard of him? The guy with the telescope and the Catholics?
2) Relativity was implicit in Newtonian physics.
3) The wave theory of light, in conjunction with the supposed "luminiferous aether" put Galilean relativity into question.
4) Certain experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiments, gave the null hypothesis against an absolute universe and seemed to support relativity.
5) Lorentz came up with some math, which is simple high-school stuff, which made the Michelson-Morley experiment work with an absolute universe, based on the idea that matter was compressed by the aether when it traveled through it. So did Fitzgerald.
6) Lorentz later came up with some math, which is also simple high-school stuff, that incorporated time into his equations. These became the Lorentz transformations, though at this point they were purely ad hoc. Everybody, including Einstein, gives Lorentz credit. That is why they are called the "Lorentz transformations." Get it?
7) Poincaré made a much better statement of the principle of relativity than Galileo did. He is credited for this, too.
8) Einstein came up with a theory that showed how things would work without referring to the Luminiferous Aether at all. It's very simple high-school stuff, and you only need to understand what a right triangle is and the Pythagorean theorem to grasp it.
Apparently, your poor education did not include much of this.
That's not all that Einstein did. He also came up with General Relativity, which incorporates acceleration of all sorts of kinds and gravity into relativity. It is, on one side, an extremely simple theory. It's also very hard to solve and work out. He used the help of a lot of people, including Hilbert and Emmy Noether (who was probably not covered in your education either) on some of the details. That was truly amazing, especially as observations confirmed it's modeling of the precession of Mercury and gravitation lensing (which is off by a factor of 2 from Galilean/Newtonian concepts).
None of this is due to Einstein's math whiz skills. Unlike what you may have been taught, he was very good at math. Hilbert was better in some regards, though three of his conjectures were pretty easily dispatched by Gödel, Turing and Church.
What we respect Einstein for was not his math skills. It was his insights. Math skills are a dime a dozen. Penetrating insight is not, and that's what we remember him for.
I'm not going to go into other things your poor education hasn't prepared you for. There doesn't seem to be much point.
klazmon wrote:It's a good idea for the OP to read Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and compare how lucid Einstein's reasoning is. That's why a submission from an unknown patent clerk was accepted for publication in a prestigious physics journal. Here is an English translation:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Cranks need not apply.
The Plc wrote:He was an imaginative genius who mustered his deep knowledge of theoretical physics, work ethic, physical intuition, integrative vision, determination and courage to make several astounding insights and develop them into the remarkably brilliant and successful scientific theories that have gifted humanity. He never worked in a vacuum though, and this has never been a secret, even in his own time. Nor was he a god. The anecdote about him not understanding or having an answer to a particular problem in his day says little. Most Physics graduate students these days understand Relativity and Quantum theory far better than he ever did. Most Physics students studying Quantum theory would probably wipe the floor with even Dirac or Feynman.
Incidentally, some contemporary physicists even regard Einstein as something as a visionary when it came to his ambivalence towards the ultra-empiricist formulation of Quantum Mechanics; an attitude that is regarded, without reserve, as something of a tragedy or embarrassment. Physicists such as Leonard Susskind and Ed Witten, for example. While strict Newtonian determinism is probably (lol) gone forever, a more fundamental theory of Quantum Mechanics should be background-independent in the same way General Relativity is.
epepke wrote:
Wheee! It's not anybody's fault that your education was so poor that you think that Einstein discovered relativity and are therefore susceptible to all sorts of fashionable nonsense.
rEvolutionist wrote:epepke wrote:cavarka9 wrote:
sorry to inform you but this is for the people who can actually go and look, meaning: go find things for your self exercise!.
Wheee! It's not anybody's fault that your education was so poor that you think that Einstein discovered relativity and are therefore susceptible to all sorts of fashionable nonsense.
Ok, I have been taught that relativity was Einsteins creation(he discovered it), It turns out that I was wrong, it isnt all that naive, the formulae, were supposed to have been done before Einsteins paper. So it seems he was credited for the physical intuition of it, as far as general relativity and minkowshi-space are concerned, once again, it isnt all that clear as to what was the weight of contributions Einstein has made over others that it is related to him. Also Hibert too was there.
cavarka9 wrote:Before we go further on this as I am sure that many would go on, here is the bloody issue before some random guy or girl jumps down and blurts as they please. what the f+=*& is functional differential equations which mr ck raju is alluding to, and so he claims of also Poincare with regard to the same relativity, not to mention michael atiyah. How does that connect to Feynmans thesis. Is it possible that such a view could be true, if so what are their implications.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3176v1.pdf
twistor59 wrote:cavarka9 wrote:Before we go further on this as I am sure that many would go on, here is the bloody issue before some random guy or girl jumps down and blurts as they please. what the f+=*& is functional differential equations which mr ck raju is alluding to, and so he claims of also Poincare with regard to the same relativity, not to mention michael atiyah. How does that connect to Feynmans thesis. Is it possible that such a view could be true, if so what are their implications.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3176v1.pdf
It looks like the authors are just asking a speculative question - "can we get any mileage out of playing with retarded differential equations?", like their example where the time derivative of a physical quantitiy at time t doesn't depend on the value of some function at time t, as it would in most differential equations used in physics, but rather on the value of that function evaluated a bit earlier - i.e at t-r. He brings in the name "functional differential equations" for these, but for me, this term brings to mind something different - i.e. differential equations with functional derivatives in them like the Wheeler de Witt equation, so this is a bit confusing.
I don't see any really strong physical motivation described in the paper. Michael Atiyah is one of the best mathematicians of our age (I was lucky enough to sit in many of his seminars at the Mathematical Institute), but he's not and doesn't claim to be a physicist, although many of his ideas have been crucial in modern mathematical physics (the index theorem, instantons).
On the Einstein question, yes, the Lorentz transformations were around before him, but his genius was to tie it all together with a coherent physical explanation in special relativity. In contrast to Atiyah, Einstein's genius was in physics, not mathematics. He picked up and learned the mathematics as and when he needed it.
cavarka9 wrote:
This implies that we are making a statement of physics, we are making a statement of mathematics of physics, that we must do physics on the bsis of ODE's, where we are determining the state of system in future by its state in the present. i.e. we are doing it based on the immediate instantaneous preceding state and NOT ON THE STATE MILLION YEARS AGO.This being the critical point, for if we reject ether then we must claim that light stated a million years ago, for how do we say that light was present just ahead of our eye a hundredth of a second ago".
It is here that ck raju claims that "poincare understood what einstein supposedly did not. That were we to reject ether in this sense, then we cannot go by ODE, that is the state in the preceding state but also on much older states;the systems would satisfy the equations of finite difference.The aether was invented to escape the breaking down of laws of general mechanics. Or functional differential equations as the author claims or state depended delay equations as some others call them."
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests