Lorentz and Poincare

[Perpetual Student]

Have the contributions of Poincare and Lorentz been slighted by historians of science and physics? I have read some material recently about the development of SR that have made me wonder about this. Any opinions?

 

[sol invictus]

I really don't know - I almost never read anything written by historians of science, nor do I know the history itself particularly well.

I can tell you that Lorentz and Poincare get lots of credit in the sense that many very important formulas, effects, etc. are named after them.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

Have the contributions of Poincare and Lorentz been slighted by historians of science and physics? I have read some material recently about the development of SR that have made me wonder about this. Any opinions?

Einstein does seem to get credit for some things that more properly belong to Lorentz or Poincaré. But as Sol points out, the latter get credit in plenty of formulas/forces/etc., and Lorentz managed to snag a Nobel prize for his work elsewhere. So I don't think they've been slighted so much as been overshadowed. They'll continue to be remembered among the greats of science.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[Singularitarian]

Have the contributions of Poincare and Lorentz been slighted by historians of science and physics? I have read some material recently about the development of SR that have made me wonder about this. Any opinions?

Einstein was quite aware of the work by Poncare and Lorentz. In fact, special relativity was truely worked on and theorized on heavily by Ponacre especially. In the event of Poncare publishing the equation [latex]M= E/c^2[/latex], Einstein also appeared with it not long after in the form [latex]E=Mc^2[/latex].

Einstein was also speculative about the equation. At first, he wasn't even convinced someone could harnest the energy of atom, and yet, he is documented in physics to have made his biggest blunder concerning the cosmological constant, but that is debatable. What Einstein did do however, was give us a new generalized and specialzed model where the invariance of time can distort. He didn't steal this from anyone, as far as i can tell, but i do know he also had considerable help from his wife at the time, who was a brilliant mathematician.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Einstein does seem to get credit for some things that more properly belong to Lorentz or Poincaré. But as Sol points out, the latter get credit in plenty of formulas/forces/etc., and Lorentz managed to snag a Nobel prize for his work elsewhere. So I don't think they've been slighted so much as been overshadowed. They'll continue to be remembered among the greats of science.

- Dr. Trintignant

Yes, those are good points; however, based on some accounts that I have recently read, so much of Einstein's work on SR was synergistic with that of Lorentz and Poincare, that it appears to be unfair that SR is associated only with Einstein. (It would be similar to giving credit for the law of the conservation of energy only to Clausius.)
In contrast, there appears to be no doubt that GR was exclusively Einstein's brainchild.
Some years ago I remember Richard Feynman saying something like "the ideas of SR were in the air." and Einstein completed the puzzle. This is in contrast to his development of GR, of which Feynman said something like "one wonders, how did he ever think of that?" After my recent reading of the history of SR, I now better understand Feynman's comment.
The relationship E = mc² and the gamma function are key elements of Einstein's theories that were not developed by him. Even the mathematical structure underlying SR was later developed by Minkowski, not Einstein. It appears his great contribution to SR was the elimination of the concept of the ether, which was still an important element underlying both Poincare's and Lorentz's work.
Now, I am basing all this on some historical accounts I have recently read. Usually, in cases like this contradictory accounts exist. One only needs to read about Leibniz and Newton to get a feel for how stuff like nationalistic bias gets in the way of accuracy when it comes to crediting scientific discoveries.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

Some years ago I remember Richard Feynman saying something like "the ideas of SR were in the air." and Einstein completed the puzzle.

Indeed--most of the key pieces were already there, as you noted.

Wikipedia has a nice article on the history of SR.

I found this bit interesting:
However, although in his philosophical writing Poincaré rejected the ideas of absolute space and time, in his physical papers he continued to refer to an (undetectable) aether and to distinguish between "apparent" and "real" coordinates. So with a few exceptions, most historians of science argue that Poincaré failed to invent what is now called special relativity, although it is admitted that Poincaré anticipated much of Einstein's methods and vocabulary.[51][52][53][54][55][56]

So it seems Poincaré came within inches of inventing SR, failing only to reject absolute space and time in his scientific papers. Einstein make that tiny but absolutely crucial step and hence gets the credit in explaining all those effects (length contraction, time dilation, etc.) which were known but not understood. He also made several additional predictions of his own, which is always important when constructing a new theory.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[Reality Check]

Einstein was quite aware of the work by Poncare and Lorentz.
...snip....

He was aware of the work by Poncare and Lorentz as of 1895.
History of special relativity

Eventually, in 1953 Einstein described the advances of his theory (although Poincaré already stated in 1905 that Lorentz invariance is a general condition for any physical theory):[64]
"There is no doubt, that the special theory of relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905. Lorentz had already recognized that the transformations named after him are essential for the analysis of Maxwell’s equations, and Poincaré deepened this insight still further. Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz's important work of 1895 [...] but not Lorentz's later work, nor the consecutive investigations by Poincaré. In this sense my work of 1905 was independent. [..] The new feature of it was the realization of the fact that the bearing of the Lorentz transformation transcended its connection with Maxwell's equations and was concerned with the nature of space and time in general. A further new result was that the "Lorentz invariance" is a general condition for any physical theory. This was for me of particular importance because I had already previously found that Maxwell's theory did not account for the micro-structure of radiation and could therefore have no general validity."

“There is no doubt, that the special theory of relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905. Lorentz had already recognized that the transformations named after him are essential for the analysis of Maxwell’s equations, and Poincaré deepened this insight still further. Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz's important work of 1895 [...] but not Lorentz's later work, nor the consecutive investigations by Poincaré. In this sense my work of 1905 was independent. [..] The new feature of it was the realization of the fact that the bearing of the Lorentz transformation transcended its connection with Maxwell's equations and was concerned with the nature of space and time in general. A further new result was that the "Lorentz invariance" is a general condition for any physical theory. This was for me of particular importance because I had already previously found that Maxwell's theory did not account for the micro-structure of radiation and could therefore have no general validity.
“There is no doubt, that the special theory of relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905. Lorentz had already recognized that the transformations named after him are essential for the analysis of Maxwell’s equations, and Poincaré deepened this insight still further. Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz's important work of 1895 [...] but not Lorentz's later work, nor the consecutive investigations by Poincaré. In this sense my work of 1905 was independent. [..] The new feature of it was the realization of the fact that the bearing of the Lorentz transformation transcended its connection with Maxwell's equations and was concerned with the nature of space and time in general. A further new result was that the "Lorentz invariance" is a general condition for any physical theory. This was for me of particular importance because I had already previously found that Maxwell's theory did not account for the micro-structure of radiation and could therefore have no general validity.

 

[Raze]

I believe Einstein gets credit because he derived the Lorentz transformation, etc, from first principles (and as a consequence greatly simplified theory), and generalized it to all of physics rather than only electromagnetic phenomena.

However, I also believe that originally the theory was popularly called the "Einstein-Lorentz theory of special relativity," although I could be mistaken on that part.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I believe Einstein gets credit because he derived the Lorentz transformation, etc, from first principles (and as a consequence greatly simplified theory), and generalized it to all of physics rather than only electromagnetic phenomena.

However, I also believe that originally the theory was popularly called the "Einstein-Lorentz theory of special relativity," although I could be mistaken on that part.

Actually, for a time it seems it was called the "Lorentz-Einstein theory," among other labels, sometimes using the word relativity.
I am not certain, but it seems that GR theory and its dramatic confirmation during a solar eclipse in 1919 (that received worldwide headlines) catapulted Einstein into the limelight, thereby overshadowing the other participants. Einstein became a kind of physics folk-hero. Consequently, today the popular media never mentions (or appears to know about) people like Minkowski, Poincare, Lorentz, etc.) Even the participants in the development of quantum theory remain obscure in the popular media. Einstein remains the only universally recognized twentieth century physicist.

 

[Raze]

Actually, for a time it seems it was called the "Lorentz-Einstein theory," among other labels, sometimes using the word relativity.
I am not certain, but it seems that GR theory and its dramatic confirmation during a solar eclipse in 1919 (that received worldwide headlines) catapulted Einstein into the limelight, thereby overshadowing the other participants. Einstein became a kind of physics folk-hero. Consequently, today the popular media never mentions (or appears to know about) people like Minkowski, Poincare, Lorentz, etc.) Even the participants in the development of quantum theory remain obscure in the popular media. Einstein remains the only universally recognized twentieth century physicist.

Ah, but he also had the look

 

[Perpetual Student]

Ah, but he also had the look

[qimg]http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2815/alberteinsteinhead.jpg[/qimg]

Indeed!

 

[Raze]

I will say, however, that Einstein deserves all the credit he gets in a general sense. Not specifically for SR, but he made so many contributions to physics, way beyond SR and GR.

 

[Eggs Ackley]

Have the contributions of Poincare and Lorentz been slighted by historians of science and physics? I have read some material recently about the development of SR that have made me wonder about this. Any opinions?

C. K. Raju argues that Einstein practically stole SR from Poincare and GR from David Hilbert. The allegation about getting SR from Poincare was put forward earlier by Sir Edmund Whittaker, I think.

http://ckraju.net/

http://ckraju.net/misc/Einstein.html

He also argues that the west got calculus from India

http://ckraju.net/IndianCalculus/

and that English mathematician Michael Atiyah plagiarized Raju's ideas about quantum behavior being the result of propagation delay.

http://ckraju.net/atiyah/atiyahcase.html

It is because of my interest in the latter that I came across these other items which are at least food for thought.

 

[sol invictus]

C. K. Raju argues that Einstein practically stole SR from Poincare and GR from David Hilbert. The allegation about getting SR from Poincare was put forward earlier by Sir Edmund Whittaker, I think.

That sounds like a wild exaggeration. Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician and he helped Einstein understand the necessary mathematics... but I doubt very strongly he had the physical intuition necessary to construct GR.

Regardless, even if you believe that and give Einstein no credit at all for relativity, his other work - Brownian motion, photo electric effect, many fundamental contributions to statistical mechanics, etc. etc. would still make him one of the greatest physicists in history.

He also argues that the west got calculus from India

One can effectively argue that Archimedes invented calculus, and certainly much of Greek mathematics was transmitted to Europe through Arabic.

and that English mathematician Michael Atiyah plagiarized Raju's ideas about quantum behavior being the result of propagation delay.

The idea sounds like pure crack-pottery, let alone that it was stolen. I'd like to see what Atiyah actually wrote - do you have a reference?

 

[Eggs Ackley]

That sounds like a wild exaggeration. Hilbert was a brilliant mathematician and he helped Einstein understand the necessary mathematics... but I doubt very strongly he had the physical intuition necessary to construct GR.

Regardless, even if you believe that and give Einstein no credit at all for relativity, his other work - Brownian motion, photo electric effect, many fundamental contributions to statistical mechanics, etc. etc. would still make him one of the greatest physicists in history.

You can read what Raju says for yourself at the links I provided. I read it one time and found it interesting. I am reserving judgement and it doesn't matter particularly to me who came up with relativity compared to the fact of its existence.

I agree that Einstein was a great physicist in any case. I have read his analysis of Brownian motion and was impressed at the time by its brilliance. Have you ever heard of Nelsonian mechanics? This is the context in which I found myself reading Einstein's treatment of Brownian motion.

One can effectively argue that Archimedes invented calculus, and certainly much of Greek mathematics was transmitted to Europe through Arabic.

Again feel free to get Raju's argument firsthand through his website rather than second hand from me. Again to me it is an interesting thing to think about and about which I don't see a need to cast a judgement on either way, in the absence of an obvious way to rule either case out.

The idea sounds like pure crack-pottery, let alone that it was stolen. I'd like to see what Atiyah actually wrote - do you have a reference?

It sounds like something you didn't learn in school. It has seen considerable print in the mainstream peer-reviewed literature. I think Raju provides links and quotes to what Atiyah wrote. I looked at the Atiyah article on wikipedia some time ago, which is quite long, and I don't recall if it is mentioned or not.

Raju has at least one and possibly two papers that were published about it by Foundations of Physics, that are both on arxiv. I realize that probably doesn't cut much with you about ruling out crackpottery but more to the point a physicist named Jayme De Luca has published several papers reporting significant progress in Physical Review E. This one was in Phys Rev E in January 2006 and astounded me when I first saw it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0511179

De Luca does there what you said was "impossible" in another thread, that is, he obtains energy levels involving Planck's constant (albeit to within only a few percent - it is only a first order perturbation approach) without putting it in by hand. (Edit: or by getting it as I do in my paper by taking it from the magnitude of the spin. In De Luca's paper, both the spin and Planck's constant (approximately) arise from the electrodynamics. The resonances that make the system stable and nonradiative at discrete energy levels were predicted by David Hestenes, seems to me. (This will take a while to find a link to but I will do it on request.))

This most recent De Luca paper will appear in the Journal of Mathematical Physics

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1077

Also, De Luca is leading a workshop this fall on state-dependent delay equations at the Max Planck institute. I don't think many crackpots are doing that. C. K. Raju is listed as a speaker.

I am not sure but I think it might be fair to say that there is more involved in De Luca's approach than just properly accounting for delay. There is also the self-force and resulting run-aways (as studied by Lorentz, Abraham, Dirac and others, and discussed by Jackson in his final chapter) and perhaps the need to work in a time-symmetric version of electrodynamics, to wit, the Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics. This need was also recognized by A. Schild, who is generally not regarded as a crackpot I believe. See his paper on the electromagnetic two-body problem.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Hmm, based on those links, it seems that C. K. Raju is some kind of science/mathematics history -- India/ethnocentric crackpot.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Does Raju take this into account?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest


http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/Archimedes/calculus.htm

 

[sol invictus]

I realize that probably doesn't cut much with you about ruling out crackpottery but more to the point a physicist named Jayme De Luca has published several papers reporting significant progress in Physical Review E. This one was in Phys Rev E in January 2006 and astounded me when I first saw it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0511179

De Luca does there what you said was "impossible" in another thread, that is, he obtains energy levels involving Planck's constant (albeit to within only a few percent - it is only a first order perturbation approach) without putting it in by hand. (Edit: or by getting it as I do in my paper by taking it from the magnitude of the spin. In De Luca's paper, both the spin and Planck's constant (approximately) arise from the electrodynamics.

Nope - they're put in by hand. According to the introduction of that paper, what he claims to show is that there exists a particular orbital solution to the classical equations which doesn't radiate. But that alone means nothing - the solution must be stable under perturbations and must be a global minimum of the energy and free energy. But it obviously isn't, because there's a lower energy, higher entropy configuration available, where the electron spirals in to the proton and emits all its energy as radiation. And anyway the solution doesn't match data - it just comes kind of close. Given that we now have a theory that works precisely, it's 100 years too late.

More generally, any approach where one relies either on angular momentum or electrodynamics to somehow magically produce a new constant of nature cannot possibly succeed, because even if it works in some cases, it must also work in cases with no angular momentum and no EM fields. And when you add to that the fact that QED is the most precisely tested theory in the history of science, the best you could possibly hope for is to reproduce it by some different approach to quantization.

The resonances that make the system stable and nonradiative at discrete energy levels

They don't make it stable - at best they make it non-radiative. But in fact I'm very skeptical of that claim as well. He uses linear perturbation theory around the circular orbit, and then uses those perturbations to cancel the leading order radiation from the unperturbed orbit. But that's very suspicious, because he's canceling an effect which is large in the unperturbed case with an effect that is non-zero only at next order.

 

[Eggs Ackley]

Nope - they're put in by hand.

I don't think so, but certainly I could have missed it. Is your reference to the introduction supposed to support this claim? I don't see how it does.

I'll look the paper over again later to see if I can see where Planck's constant is put in by hand but I don't have time to now. In the meantime, perhaps if you claim it's put in by hand perhaps you could point out where.

 

[sol invictus]

I don't think so, but certainly I could have missed it. Is your reference to the introduction supposed to support this claim? I don't see how it does.

It does, unless I'm completely misunderstanding it.

Look - one solution to the classical equations is an electron orbiting in a would-be perfect circle, radiating, and therefore spiraling in. There are also elliptical orbits (or rather orbits that would be ellipses if it weren't for the radiation). This guy claims that there are two modes of perturbations to the circular orbit where the electron oscillates or wiggles back and forth around the circular trajectory by exchanging radiation with the proton, that those two modes have slightly different frequencies, and that when you put everything together, you can find one particular solution where the radiation all cancels (a claim I suspect isn't even correct, for the reasons above, but let's go on).

This solution obviously isn't general, because it works (according to him) only because the two modes beat against each other (which he says they happen to do at just the correct frequency) - which means each mode must have to have precisely the correct amplitude to cancel the radiation from the circular acceleration (because for example if the amplitude is zero, there's no cancellation).

So at best there's ONE solution (or perhaps a one-parameter family), and you have to require - by hand - that you only consider those (a la Bohr). What happens when you perturb that solution? The system radiates. And it can lower its energy arbitrarily by the electron spiraling in closer to the proton - and so it will do so.