One of the objectives of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) is to divulge modern historical views about the development of science.
In some occasions the history of science has been distorted because political, sociological, or even economical issues. In others, the discovering of new historical material as print proofs, correspondence, and unknown manuscripts –stored during decades in some old library or recovered from familiar archives– has changed the accepted historical view.
In general, the role of physics has been usually overemphasized in history of science, and this program tries to balance the contributions done by other disciplines. The information here below is merely meant as a balanced overview to the complex subject of the history of science. Information is based in a number of formal publications on the subject appeared during last few years, and it may disagree from older publications or from recent authors with different views.
The example of Sir is especially important for the history of science. Considered the most important scientist of the history, has been traditionally presented as a physicist and a mathematician to public.
However, in 1960 historians discovered a collection of 'hidden' manuscripts and data that, when properly studied, have revealed us a completely new image of the scientist. The current understanding of the history of science says us that the charming 18th century revolution in physics and mathematics was done by an alchemist (chemist): Sir . But then how was history of science distorted?
First historians of physics already discovered the alchemical (chemical) side of . This surprising discovering was not good news for them because chemistry was then considered an inferior discipline –still today you can find physicists considering chemistry an inferior science than physics–. First historians decided to ignore Newtonian manuscripts on chemistry and alchemy, and labeled them as not fit to be printed
. Early biographers as even recommended to the family to burn those manuscripts!
As a result only the mathematics and physics' manuscripts were highlighted to public, to other scientists, and to rest of historians. Fortunately for us, the family did not burn original manuscripts, and were recovered on the last 60s for publication. Historians of science are still studying those manuscripts.
Modern historians have traced the origin of the physics of on his previous alchemical studies. The idea of a Sun being attracted by Earth was unpleasant for 17th century physicists, but it was not for . He had verified in his alchemical laboratory that two bodies attract one at each other. even qualitatively verified in experiments that the presence of a third body modifies stability of other two. Using the alchemical principle that Nature is unified and the laws of the very small and the laws of the very big may be similar, was able to apply with success his knowledge on chemical affinity (i.e. attraction) to celestial motion.
The detailed study of Newtonian chemical manuscripts has provided many surprising results. For instance, noticed that the chemical experiments were very useful because they allow to the experimentation with densities and amounts of matter, and next, they allowed to him the investigation of the motion of pendulums. These last investigations were very useful for determining gravitational magnitudes and the oscillations of Jupiter satellites, for example.
Today, historians estimate that dedicated more than 30 intense years to alchemical (chemical) activities in his own laboratory. Yes, the 'physicist', worked in his own chemical laboratory!
Historians also discovered that no more than two short years were devoted by to mathematical or physical research. Data proves that physics was not the main interest of . agreed in The Foundations of ’s Alchemy that interest of in alchemy was guided by the alchemical promise of discovering the secret of existence.
It is today well documented that an intense period of chemical research took place in the 12 years immediately prior to the publication of the Principia. Historians state that the Principia were a logical outcome of his previous rigorous chemical investigation.
After publication of the Principia, intensely returned to his main interest, revising the bibliography of more than 100 chemical authors on the previous 150 years; then he compiled the Index Chemicus, a voluminous 100-page manuscript with near 900 headings and notes.
|
, the alchemist, studying chemical attraction between substances before formulating the gravity theory (Illustration reproduced with permission by ). |
The discovering of the making of a fake Newtonian figure by earlier physicists and historians surprises us, but modern alterations of other figures are still more surprising. Take, for instance, the winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry 1977, the chemist .
In several general literature –such as some encyclopedias, web pages, articles, books, etc.–, the chemist is often presented as a physicist to the general public. For example, –former editor of journal Nature during 22 years– described to as a Belgian physicist
in his recent popular book What Remains to Be Discovered. However, clearly stated in several places his chemical career. wrote in his autobiography:
My father, Roman Prigogine, who died in 1974, was a chemical engineer from the Moscow Polytechnic. My brother Alexander, who was born four years before me, followed, as I did myself, the curriculum of chemistry at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.
But the rewritting of history of science can be still more bizarre. You can find both off and on-line resources saying you that won the Nobel Prize for physics! A sample is the next: Prigogine began to study 'dissipative' or nonequilibrium structures frequently found in biological and chemical reactions. Nobel Prize for Physics 1977.
. Another sample with incorrect information about the Nobel Prize follows from an exhibit of the Center for American History with: [...] Ilya Prigogine receives the Nobel Prize for Physics [...]
In a 2001 Nature article, explained how several outcomes of chemistry have been absorbed by physicists as being the outcome of physics. Adam explains in his article how recent advances provided by the chemical sciences –such as nanotechnology or medical IMR– are being publicized again as outcomes of physics or biophysics.
For general public the reply may be a sound yes
. It is popularly believed that was the only originator of both the special and the general theory of relativity. The names of important authors as , , , and remain unknown for the general public. Scientists pay homage to those authors –e.g. celebrating 's contributions to physics, Meetings, since 1975– but still latest views on the history of relativity are uncommon between public.
Recent research and the discovering of new historical data –for instance a print proof of a crucial paper on general relativity was discovered a few years ago on an old set of archives in a library– modifies traditional views about the development of the theories of relativity.
Special relativity was mainly an achievement from joining efforts of , , , , , and other authors. Historians have recollected a series of historical papers, talks, books, and other works proving the premise of a collective achievement.
Basic ideas of special relativity, including time-dilation, constancy of light speed on different inertial frames, the existence of a maximum velocity for the transmission of signals or the principle of relativity (laws of nature may be independent of the 'observer state'), were published in literature previous to 's 1905 papers.
also notices this when wrote in his 2004 article The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection:
Poincaré's relevant publications antedated Einstein's relativity paper of 1905 by at least five years, and his suggestions were radically new when they first appeared.
There is also a controversy regarding priority issues on the formulation of general relativity. General relativity is mainly the outcome of the efforts of , , and . The fields equations of general relativity –often called field equations– would be renamed to / equations.
Contrary to popular wisdom, was not the originator of main principles of relativity. In previously published –but largely ignored– works wrote that absolute time does not exist or that 'inertial' observers have not, and cannot possibly have, any means of discerning whether we are, or are not, carried along in such a motion. predicted that from all these revolutionary results there would arise an entirely new kind of dynamics
, which would be characterized above all by the rule, that no velocity can exceed the velocity of light.
When was proposed for the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity, members of the Nobel Committee objected that was who had found basis for special relativity and it would be unfair not to associate him. Nevertheless, as passed away at that time –he got a cancer in 1909 and died in 1912–, was finally awarded the Nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric effect. It is important to remark the diplomacy of the Nobel Committee. Now we understand why never received the Nobel Prize for the theory of relativity.
For example, the mass variation formula was obtained by in 1904. first predicted time dilation before, in 1900. In the same year considered that radiation verifies formula E = mc(\sup 2). A procedure for synchronizing of clocks via light signals is already available in another previous work by . obtained the gravitational trace term missing on early papers, etc.
We may agree here with :
All this was maintained by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him.
The first strange detail one finds when studying the history of relativity is that 's paper of 1905 was a unique piece because of the unusual of its style. Contrary to standard scientific practice, did not cite works on relativity from other authors.
That omission of references has perplexed many people during years. The impression that one receives when reading paper by the first time was excellently resumed by the Nobel prize for physics :
[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.
When historians, physicists, and mathematicians began to find similarities between 's 1905 paper and works previously published by other authors, was accused of plagiarism. defended by claiming no knowledge of previous work by others. At the end of his life, wrote in 1955 in a letter to :
There is no doubt, that the special theory of relativity, if we regard its development in retrospect, was ripe for discovery in 1905. Lorentz has already observed that for the analysis of Maxwell's equations the transformations which later were known by his name are essential, and Poincaré had even penetrated deeper into these connections. Concerning myself, I knew only Lorentz' important work of 1895 La théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell and Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern but not Lorentz later work, nor the consecutive work of Poincaré. In this sense my work of 1905 was independent.
It is now recognized that letter cannot be trusted. Take for instance the article Lost in Einstein's Shadow published in 2006 in Scientific American; here reports that we know from 's friend that the two pounced on 's book La Science et l'hypothèse and, indeed, that the book kept them breathless for weeks on end
. In 's book, one can read revolutionary material traditionally attributed to :
There is no absolute space, and we can only conceive of relative motion.
There is no absolute time. When we say that two periods are equal, the statement has no meaning.
Not only have we no direct intuition of the equality of two periods, but we have not even direct intuition of the simultaneity of two events occurring in two different places.
In December 2001, the historian of science stated in Physics Today that provided inspiration for , who read 's Science and Hypothesis (La Science et l'hypothèse, French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with his friends in Bern. also adds a note on current research by historians: Einstein would also have read Poincaré's 1898 article on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was discussed – a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent examiner.
. Future historical research will confirm or not this point.
We know now that defense letter of 1955 was untrue! Similar doubts arise on the development of the general theory of relativity. Correspondence archived proves that wrote to –On 7 November 1915 (before 's talks on Göttingen)– for soliciting assistance from , because the math involved in relativistic gravitation was too difficult for and even too difficult also for ’s mathematician colleague: .
After of some epistolary interchange sent to a copy of a manuscript containing derivation of the field equations of relativistic gravity.
On November 18 (1915), replied:
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 [...]
Which again cannot be trusted. The chronology of papers proves –as many recent historians have confirmed– that did not obtain the correct equations of gravitation in the last few weeks
. presented a paper to the Academia (Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin) the day 4 (Nov 1915) containing an incorrect version of the equations of general relativity (i.e. without the present trace term), and the day 11 submitted another paper containing again incorrect field equations.
It was only after of day 18 –when sent him a manuscript on gravitational field equations– that corrected his equations and submitted to the Academia the paper of the day 25; paper already containing the field equations you can find now in textbooks.
Moreover, has remarked in his 2005 work Einstein and Hilbert: the creation of general relativity that proposed without derivation –emphasis on the original– the correct field equations in his paper of 25 November 1915.
also adds about ,
He chooses not to mention Hilbert's name in the published paper.
Once again was spreading incorrect historical information about his own research achievements and omitting other authors on the subject. This oddity is characteristic of academic life but has remained unnoticed in most popular presentations!
As reported by historian of science (Director of the Center of Einstein Studies):
We do have a number of later historical remarks by Einstein himself, sometimes transmitted by others (Wertheimer, Reiser-Kayser, Shankland, Ishiwara, for example), which raise many problems of authenticity and accuracy; and some very late Einstein letters, answering questions such as whether he had prior knowledge of the Michelson-Morley experiment, what works by Lorentz he had read, the influence of Poincaré, Mach, Hume, etc., on his ideas; Einstein's replies are not always self-consistent, it must be noted.
In a 2006 invited talk titled Albert Einstein oder David Hilbert – wer entdeckte die Gravitationsgleichungen der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie?, at the annual meeting of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (German Physics Society) the historian of science said that may be credited by obtaining the field equations of general relativity first.
Another interesting point here is the polemic opened by , , and with their article Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute published in Science in November 1997. The article was based in missed page proofs recently found on Göttingen archive. They stated in the polemic paper:
nowhere in the whole page proofs the correct equations can be found. Thus they revert the opinion held thus far by historians, by insinuating Hilbert has copied from Einstein, and not Einstein from Hilbert, because Hilbert had added the explicit equations (5c) with the correct trace term only after Dec 6, appearing in his published version at Mar 31, 1916 only. Hilbert has made other considerable changes for his published version without altering the initial date Nov 20 of submission or adding a date of revision.
A number of posterior works refuted , , and accusation as unfounded and revealed further doubts on the quality of the methodology by the three authors. For instance, historians who examined the printed proofs noticed that about one third of a page in 's page proofs had been cut-off. It is incredible that , , and did not notice the cut-off when they wrote nowhere in the whole page proofs the correct equations can be found
. The printed proofs would contain the field equations had been cut-off!
In the 2006 talk cited above, Daniela Wuensch expressed her views on the polemic mutilation of 's printer proofs. She claims the cut-off was made in more recent times in order to falsify the historical truth. , , and never clarified why they did not mention the cut-off in their polemic Science article. They recognized the existence of a cut-off in a posterior communication and then suggest that was made by himself!
The polemic has continued with ad hominem attacks by , , and to Prof. because his article On 'Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute', published by L. Corry, J. Renn, and J. Stachel. 's article was published the year 2004 on Z. Naturforsch 59a, 715. The polemic reached a point where, as of September 2006, the Max Planck Institute of Berlin published a note saying that the society distances itself from statements published on this website by Prof. Jürgen Renn and two co-authors, Prof. Leo Corry and Prof. John Stachel, concerning Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg
.
(2005 – 2009) some rights reserved
