Talk:Spacetime/Archive 15

Discussion of Green-div

On a side note, it is clear that Minkowski way gritting his teeth, perhaps on part of all of the mathematical community. (It wasn't the first or last time such things happened.) From Space and time]:

With respect to this it is clear that the group ${\displaystyle \displaystyle G_{c}}$ in the limit for ${\displaystyle \displaystyle c=\infty }$, i.e. as group ${\displaystyle \displaystyle G_{\infty }}$, exactly becomes the full group belonging to Newtonian Mechanics. In this state of affairs, and since ${\displaystyle \displaystyle G_{c}}$ is mathematically more intelligible than ${\displaystyle \displaystyle G_{\infty }}$, a mathematician may, by a free play of imagination, hit upon the thought that natural phenomena actually possess an invariance, not for the group ${\displaystyle \displaystyle G_{\infty }}$, but rather for a group ${\displaystyle \displaystyle G_{c}}$, where c is definitely finite, and only exceedingly large using the ordinary measuring units. Such a preconception would have been an extraordinary triumph for pure mathematics. Now, although mathematics only shows irony at this place, still the satisfaction remains for it, that thanks to its fortunate antecedents by its senses sharpened in free remote-view, it is instantly able to grasp the deep consequences of such a modification of our view of nature. (Extra emphasis mine.)

(The group ${\displaystyle \displaystyle G_{\infty }}$ is the (homogeneous) Galilean group and the group ${\displaystyle \displaystyle G_{c}}$ the Lorentz group.) YohanN7 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Then the history of GR is, from a competitive perspective (who comes up with it first?), even more interesting. E. had more or less promised a new theory for a lecture, but with months, weeks, and then days remaining until the scheduled lecture, he had no theory. And — Hilbert was on the chase (tipped off by E himself a couple of years earlier in a letter). YohanN7 (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@YohanN7: I confess that I had only skimmed Minkowski's lecture, relying mostly on secondary sources, but that is a great quote! The bulk of it needs to go into a note, of course, but I will definitely find a place to reference it in the text. I haven't tested <math> \displaystyle on Microsoft Edge, only <math> but I may need to change it to HTML if MediaWiki goofs up in the small font. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

• Minkowski as reported by Sommerfeld (1910) mentioned this 1904 paper of Gustav Herglotz regarding the electrodynamic potential, noting that "the four-dimensional symmetry of electrodynamics is latently contained and mathematically applied" in Herglotz' paper.
• The geometry of Minkowski spacetime is closely connected to certain variants of sphere geometry (such as Lie sphere geometry or Conformal geometry) developed in the 19th century. For instance, the Lorentz transformation is a special case of spherical wave transformations. In particular, as pointed out by Poincaré (1912) and others, it is simply isomorphic to the Laguerre group which transforms spheres into spheres and planes into planes. The isomorphism between the Möbius group (which is isomorphic to the group of isometries in hyperbolic R3) and the Lorentz group is also well known. --D.H (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Regarding the relation Poincare-Minkowski, these papers by Damour (arXiv:0807.1300) and Walter (Minkowski, Mathematicians, etc.) might be of interest. --D.H (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I’ve got some ‘real life’ to attend to, but a speed-read of this seemed very nicely written and interesting… quite enjoyable. I’ll be back to this later this evening. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@D.H: Thanks for the references! I had the impression that something very strange was going on between Minkowski and Poincaré, but I didn't have a diverse enough selection of sources to feel comfortable about making any sort of summary statement. Some of the sources that I had available to me had a very opinionated point of view, far from neutral. And the relationships that you point out between the Lorentz transformation and spherical wave transformation, and with spherical geometry in general, are also quite interesting. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I must leave it up to you guys to ensure the material is factually correct, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. I think this section is world-class informative and very useful. I made three relatively minor edits (∆ here) for clarity.

There is only one sentence I find confusing or ambiguous: The spacetime of special relativity has since come to be known as Minkowski spacetime. Apparently, there are other types of spacetime whereby Minkowski's is but one type (the “spacetime of special relativity”). This seems to be an equivocation out of the blue. Perhaps the fine distinction is buttressing (prophylactic textus fineprintus) in anticipation of editorial drive-by shootings by proponents of other types of spacetime with different dimensions… I don’t know. But if the entire History section is discussing nothing but the spacetime of special relativity, then the distinction should be explained with either a preceding caveat (e.g. Whereas there are alternative theories where space has other than three dimensions…), or there should be a pithy parenthetical explaining the prophylactic textus fineprintus. Greg L (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, for starters there is the curved spacetime of general relativity. Hmmm... Do I want to discuss that in the Introduction??? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if other types of spacetime can be covered elsewhere, such as in the Introduction, important concepts on arcane technical matters can benefit from some repetition. I think such an abrupt hyperfine distinction at the end of the History section should have its foundation smoothly established; something like this(?): Though there are other types of spacetime, such as the curved spacetime of general relativity, the spacetime of special relativity is today known as Minkowski spacetime. I’ll add it up in the green-div as a straw man. Greg L (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The green-div receives two thumbs up from me. Whenever you guys are done with the factual stuff and citations, I think it’s ready for primetime. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break #1

@YohanN7: Please check my wording. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Minkowski's statement there doesn't make much rigorous sense. In order to frame it rigorously, I believe one has to resort to group contraction (see example two there). But this doesn't matter much. I also don't remember (and don't have the time to find out right now) whether M. there is including or excluding translations. Just strike out the parenthetical "homogeneous" and our naming of the groups is correct (by abuse of terminology) whether translations are included or not. It can always be made more precise later. YohanN7 (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@D.H: Added note to text. Haven't gotten to your references yet. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This history is pretty good, but it suffers from some unnecessary opinions. This article is on spacetime, so we do not need opinions on the credit for special relativity. For that, refer the reader to Relativity priority dispute.

"proposed that material bodies traveling through the fixed aether were physically affected" - more precisely, they proposed that the lengths of material bodies traveling through the fixed aether were affected.

"but with a fundamentally different interpretation" - I would strike this, as Einstein denied that he had a different interpretation.

"Lorentz considered local time to be only an auxiliary mathematical tool" - this is disputed, and is an unnecessary slam on Lorentz.

"continued to believe in the dynamical interpretation" - this is dubious, and should be omitted. You are documenting the history, not blaming people for beliefs.

Since the article is on spacetime, it is much more important to point out that Poincare was unequivocally the first to publish a description of spacetime as a 4D space, with metric and symmetry group. Furthermore, Minkowski's first paper references Poincare's spacetime paper. Those are facts. Maybe Minkowski got spacetime from Poincare or maybe figured it out for himself, he doesn't say. There is no need to speculate. Roger (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Roger I disagree with your disagreements with the following statements

• proposed that material bodies traveling through the fixed aether were physically affected
• but with a fundamentally different interpretation

Followers of Lorentz fully expected, in such experiments as the Trouton–Noble experiment, the Trouton–Rankine experiment, the Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace, and so forth, to be able to observe secondary effects due to compressive strains and so forth, whereas SR makes clear from the very start why such experiments would inevitably fail to achieve positive results.

While it is true that after such experiments as the above provided negative results, Lorentz was able revise his theory so as to explain the results as being logical consequences of his theory, he did not predict their negative results ahead of time.

• Lorentz considered local time to be only an auxiliary mathematical tool

We have Lorentz's own words on this point. "If I had to write the last chapter now, I should certainly have given a more prominent place to Einstein's theory of relativity by which the theory of electromagnetic phenomena in moving systems gains a simplicity that I had not been able to attain. The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time, and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity." Lorentz in a note that he added to the second edition of his "Theory of Electrons" (1916).

• continued to believe in the dynamical interpretation

It's late and I need to get to bed. I'll get to the matter of what Poincare believed later. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Your counterclaim goes strictly against the views of the great majority of historians of science. For instance, Scott Walter, in Poincaré on clocks in motion writes, "The concept of time deformation employed by Poincaré in Göttingen and thereafter was quite distinct from that of Einstein and Minkowski. For the latter theorists, time dilation and length contraction were kinematic effects or consequences of the four-dimensional (3+1) metric of spacetime, respectively. According to Poincaré, the velocity dependence of measured lengths and durations was best understood as a result of compensating deformations of meter sticks and timekeepers. In the wake of Minkowski spacetime, the absolute space and time of Newtonian mechanics took on a conventional nature for Poincaré, for whom the concept of Galilei spacetime had not lived out its utility for science, and would not do so for some time." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the 1916 paper cited by Stigmatella aurantiaca, there are additional occasions at which Lorentz described local time as an auxiliary variable. He did it in his 1914 paper on Poincaré ("auxiliary quantities whose introduction is only a mathematical artifice"), or in this 1928 paper ("heuristic working hypothesis"). Also Einstein remarked in this 1907 paper: "One had only to realize that an auxiliary quantity introduced by H. A. Lorentz and named by him "local time" could be defined as "time" in general. --D.H (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to say that followers of Lorentz had an expectation in 1900 that Einstein did not have in 1905, then that would be more accurate. But still not correct, as Poincare was a follower of Lorentz without that expectation. And this is of questionable relevance to a history of spacetime. If you are trying to make the point that later work had the benefit of knowledge gained by later experiments, isn't that obvious?

You could say that Lorentz credited Einstein with achieving a simplicity, but the explanation given is inaccurate, misleading, and inappropriate. The above text implies that Lorentz was just using a mathematical trick/transformation with no physical significance. That is not true, as Lorentz was using that transformation to explain Michelson-Morley. For a history of spacetime, it is better to just explain what Lorentz did, and not give dubious explanations for why he did not achieve the simplicity of later scholars.

You refer me to criticism of Poincare's conventionalist philosophy. That might be interesting in an article on the history of the philosophy of physics, but in an article on the history of spacetime, the pertinent fact is that Poincare was the first to publish a mathematically and physically correct account of spacetime. Roger (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is again a side note, not intended to reply to anything in particular.

One sharp point that is tacitly, but not explicitly there is that foundational physics was in a state of utter confusion until Einstein's publication, whether practiced by mathematicians or physicists. It is probably not true that partial physical results (and this includes physical interpretation of mathematical formulas) were obtained before E. It is rather true that correct formulas, and correct observations about e.g. the Maxwell equations were there, but based either on incorrect physical assumptions or no physical assumptions.

I have read the above very sharply (and reliably) formulated somewhere, just can't remember exactly where. I'll try to. The point is this: It doesn't matter much what Minkowski, Poincaré et. all. actually thought before Einstein, because what they thought was physically wrong, or physically void. (What they thought after E. needs to be backed up with references of course, see next paragraph. Not all saw the light right away.)

It is also true (by the same source, but surely others as well) that SR only enjoyed gradual acceptance. So, when referring to 1906-20 papers in turn referring to pre-1905 papers, though it is interesting that bits and pieces (without much physics) of SR was there before Einstein, some (most!) of these bits and pieces were purely coincidental. Interestingly, since Sommerfeld is involved, he himself had the corresponding piece of luck with his formula for the hydrogen energy spectrum.

In summary, a description of the historical emergence of SR should, in my opinion, not be including even the possibility that it emerged as a collaborative effort, even tough E would perhaps not have discovered SR without the efforts of his predecessors and competitors. Am I obscure?

An excellent summary. I had never really thought things through as well as you put them, but I agree (almost) completely! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "collaborative effort", here is an Einstein quote about Lorentz: "The enormous significance of his work consisted therein, that it forms the basis for the theory of atoms and for the general and special theories of relativity. The special theory was a more detailed exposé of those concepts which are found in Lorentz's research of 1895. (Pais, Subtle is the Lord, p. 169). --D.H (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an original Lorentz reference? According to Scientific publications of H.A. Lorentz, there are no published works from 1895. I am curious whether the 1895 results would stand up to modern day scrutiny. This, of course, I am probably not able to decide by myself, but I'd still like to read it. YohanN7 (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Check the complete bibliography, year "1895b". The English translation is available at

• Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies.

Here is another quote of Einstein (as quoted in Born (1955), Physics in my Generation, p. 101 and Keswani (1965), Origin and Concept of Relativity, p. 33, see also history of special relativity for sources): "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 – "La theorie electromagnetique de MAXWELL" and "Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern" – 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.". Note that the first paper cited by Einstein was actually published in 1892. Btw, also Poincaré clearly noted that the Lorentz transformations applies not only to Maxwell's equations. --D.H (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to reading. Your "btw" is definitely interesting: "Btw, also Poincaré clearly noted that the Lorentz transformations applies not only to Maxwell's equations.". SR is no less and not much more than Lorentz invariance. If "not only Maxwell's equations" were replaced by "all equations" (including those describing mechanics), then full SR emerges. YohanN7 (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's a big paper... YohanN7 (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

An Einstein quote: I do not recognize my theory since the mathematicians got hold of it. (Or something like that...) I'll try to locate a source. YohanN7 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Found it: Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore. Quoted in P A Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist (Evanston 1949). YohanN7 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

...and an excellent quote, as well. I had actually been debating whether to include it or not (in a slightly different translation). I guess I should. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I partially disagree with one opinion stated by Roger: This article is on spacetime, so we do not need opinions on the credit for special relativity. For that, refer the reader to Relativity priority dispute. Here's why:

1. Since Minkowski spacetime is irrevocably intertwined with the theory of special relativity, it would be impossible to have a useful History section here without touching factually—and in an interesting way—on SR and who was responsible for its development.
   
   
2. God does too play dice with the universe—at least when it comes to who gets notable public recognition for famous ideas. Turbo code vs. Gallager codes is just one example of the dust being blow off of long-forgotten papers written by damned smart people who only received recognition for their insights after they died.
   
   
3. As mere wikipedians, we can’t fix #2, above, by practicing the art of reading deeply into primary sources such as the physicists’ published papers. And we must be terribly cautious when we look up their famous quotes and start performing a rain dance looking for inspiration as to the significance and truthfulness of the quote. For the most part, we must look towards what the reliable sources are saying insofar as who deserves credit for what on special relativity.
   
   
4. Referring readers to Relativity priority dispute is no option at all for a fluid, interesting, and informative reading experience because A) doing so would merely be practicing Click to Learn & Return©™®, and B) that article sucks because it’s as interesting to read as the Warren Commission’s report on the assassination of president Kennedy.
   
   
5. To save time, we can merely refer to the Undisputed and well-known facts section of Relativity priority dispute as we craft our green-div here.
   
   
6. The lede of Relativity priority dispute states this: Subsequently, claims have been put forward about both theories, asserting that they were formulated, either wholly or in part, by others before Einstein. I note the operative word “Subsequently,” and submit that for the purposes of the History section here, it is beyond scope to be blowing the dust off of papers that failed to receive due recognition at the time.
   
   
7. We may fairly limit ourselves—to a large extent—to what was notable at the time (circa 1887–1916), and add a clause or parenthetical akin to while modern historians believe other individuals should be credited for the development of spacetime and special relativity-like formulas and theories. It’s not our concern to future-proof the History section of this article against the possibility that an archivist at Princeton might dig up some guy’s masters dissertation from 1882.

Greg L (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the above side note that says "foundational physics was in a state of utter confusion until Einstein's publication" and "SR only enjoyed gradual acceptance". This is an article about spacetime, not Einstein or SR. Historians mostly agree that Einstein's 1905 paper did not have a big impact at the time, but Minkowski's version of spacetime and SR enjoyed extremely rapid acceptance after Minkowski's famous 1908 paper. The latter point is worth making. Roger (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Roger. The article is about spacetime. But any proper treatment in a History section must necessarily discuss Einstein and a variety of other physicists and theories that impact the history of spacetime; ergo, my point #1, above. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine, mention Einstein and SR all you want, but please don't skip essential facts in the history of spacetime. The above history skips the generally-accepted facts that (1) spacetime was first published by Poincare, based only on Lorentz, and (2) Minkowski got the idea from Poincare, expanded on it, and then wrote the essay that sold everyone on it. However important Einstein was to SR, he really was not important to the development of spacetime. See for example this quote from the Galison paper cited above (and behind a paywall, unfortunately). Roger (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

In sum Minkowski still hoped for the completion of the Electromagnetic World Picture through relativity theory. Moreover, he saw his own work as completing the program of Lorentz, Einstein, Planck, and Poincare. Of these it was Poincare who most directly influenced the mathematics of Minkowski's space-time. As Minkowski acknowledges many times in "The Principle of Relativity," his concept of space-time owes a great deal to Poincare's work.35 [Galison,1979]

@Roger: I think all our objectives are aligned. The above green-div is the ultimate in collaborative writing tools whenever the going gets double-tough. Everyone can contribute to a green-div and tinker and fidget with much reduced pressure. Do you want Stigmatella aurantiaca to incorporate your suggested material into the green-div? Or do you see a fine place to shoehorn it into? Greg L (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not realize that the green box was open for editing. There was a call for comments, and I commented. So go ahead and let the editor do a revision. Roger (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! Greg L (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break #2

I think it is worth asking the question whether anyone of Minkowski, Poincaré and Lorentz published mathematically correct formulas with the correct (according to modern formulations of SR) physical premises and interpretations before 1905. I have been taught that this is not the case. But references where someone quotes someone (that sometimes again quote someone else), and the fact that all decent scientists are eager to pay their dues to their predecessors (sometimes perhaps too generously) suggests otherwise. YohanN7 (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That is, would these papers stand up to present day scrutiny by physicists and mathematicians as opposed to historians of science? Einsten's 1905 work does stand up to scrutiny (which is why SR has the status it has still today), though, perhaps, his and (many other physicists) mathematical presentations on occasion brings tears to the eyes of the mathematically inclined reader YohanN7 (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Schlafly: @Greg L: I'll do my best to come up with an appropriate addition that properly credits Poincare and his importance to Minkowski. I had thought it was obvious in the section as written that Einstein's role in the development of the spacetime of special relativity was minor at best. Give me a day or two. I've just finished purchasing Space and Time: Minkowski's papers on relativity ($5) so that I can read The Relativity Principle in translation, to supplement my use of secondary sources. My German is unfortunately very flaky. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Spacetime of special relativity is fixed by special relativity, which is fixed by Einstein. Development of various equivalent formalisms can be credited to others, but, please, don't say that "Einstein's role in the development of the spacetime of special relativity was minor at best". YohanN7 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll find a more accurate manner of expressing what I was trying to say. But first I need to do more research on Poincare. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@YohanN7: When it comes to part 2 of Einstein's 1905 paper (what Einstein considered to be the important part, otherwise why give his paper the title that he did?), I find myself much preferring Jackson. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Possibly you mean that old papers are almost invariably painstaking to read. I'd agree with that. Not uncommonly, some people take pride in reading only historical references, so that they can obtain a "superior view". Almost without exception, those who do get it all wrong, which has been a source for substantial disputes and frustration. YohanN7 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

painstaking to read - Yes, that is pretty much what I meant. Despite Wikipedia's wp:NOR policy, one does need to refer to primary sources to establish "ground truth".

off-topic side note - An amusing recent example of where I had to do a bit of primary source digging to resolve an issue where different secondary sources were copy-pasting each other was Talk:Fizeau–Foucault_apparatus#313000 or 315000?. The title of the Fizeau–Foucault_apparatus article, incidentally, was a neologism coined by an currently blocked Wikipedia editor who was ignorant of the difference. There are no references in the literature to this non-existent experimental mishmash prior to 2002 (i.e. the creation date of the Wikipedia article). Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Schlafly: @Greg L: I'll also need to visit the university library for some materials that are behind a paywall. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

For your research on Poincaré, you may find the list of secondary sources on Poincaré and relativity useful, which I compiled some years ago. --D.H (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a long list! I sorted through the available abstracts for the articles that you listed, and tonight or tomorrow, I'll be visiting the university library to follow up on the papers with interesting abstracts that are behind paywalls. It will depend on the state of my wife's health. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Quoting YohanN7: Spacetime of special relativity is fixed by special relativity, which is fixed by Einstein. I second that motion.

I think it’s obvious from the many (and extensive) biographies and documentaries on Einstein that he was an original thinker who had zero need to read every scientific paper in existence at the time.

Merely because modern historians can point to the existence of other papers where people were thinking along similar lines doesn’t diminish the fact that Einstein had intellectual prowess, nor the importance of his mental feat in connecting the dots between electrodynamics and the implications of the Michelson–Morley experiment, and it certainly doesn’t take away from the historical perception that “Einstein = special relativity.”

It’s clear (to me anyway), that Einstein had a big take-away with the Michelson–Morley experiment and gave much thought to what the universe would look like from the point of view of someone riding a light beam. It’s also beyond clear from his paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that he was merely trying to say that “moving a conductor through a stationary magnetic field” is the same as “moving a magnetic field over a stationary conductor.” Ergo, he mentions Maxwell prominently in his paper because electrodynamics viewed in a new light was the point of his paper.

To Einstein, the Michelson–Morley experiment was merely a historical experiment (Einstein was eight years old at the time) that established one simple fact: light has only one speed for all observers irrespective of the source’s relative motion. Though Michelson & Morley’s raw observations of light’s speed were exacting and correct, Einstein jettisoned Michelson & Morley’s presumed existence of an ether as a carrier for electromagnetic propagation. Einstein perceived no need to cite their work; they merely made a measurement.

Finally, Einstein mentioned only Planck and Lorentz in the footnote of his paper because those physicists’ principles and math were merely ‘cute mathematical window dressing’ attempting to explain the natural world. When one properly viewed electrodynamics in terms of the profound underlying principle of the constancy of the speed of light, these three fundamentally deep truths underlying the natural world became evident:

1. “The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference.”
2. There is no “luminiferous ether.”
3. There is no such thing as an “absolutely stationary space.”

From these universal truths sprang math—featuring the same transformations as those from Lorentz—describing still other truths such as how different observers will measure where and when events occur differently.

Einstein's insight was a classic case of the phenomenon the famous computer researcher Alan Kay spoke of: “A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points.” Einstein deserves full credit for special relativity. Efforts to diminish the implications of his insight, in my opinion, are just historical revisionism by authors and others who are anxious to make a name for themselves because they purport to be able to see truths that elude the mere masses. Greg L (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Schlafly: I've added a long paragraph on Poincaré to the history, but I find little justification for your attempts to claim that he had not only scooped Einstein on special relativity, but had also scooped Minkowski in developing four-dimensional spacetime. Technically speaking, yes, Poincaré was first to demonstrate the possibility of expressing physics in four-space, but he did not pursue the effort. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only hope that the balance you are striking here is in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, which starts out as follows: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. My takeaway from that principle, as it applies to the present debate, is that the extent to which we dwell on Poincaré should mirror the coverage that the best RSs have to say on the guy. Greg L (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Schlafly will agree to trimming the paragraph on Poincaré in view of what I have to say concerning his non-importance in the development of the spacetime concept. Spending several sentences on his non-role indeed involves a WP:WEIGHT issue. I only put as much up there as I did to show Schlafly what he was getting into. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@D.H: I came away from the library with lots of great material on Poincaré. He was an amazing figure. After I digest this stuff, I might see if I can contribute to his Wiki article. Thanks again for all of your research! I'm coming away from this with a new favorite scientist to stand on my shelf alongside a long list including, in no particular order, Feynman (I once stood beside him perched on top of the same umbrella table. Long story...), Max Delbrück (I once babysat his children), Barbara McClintock (great lady!), Einstein, Faraday, Lucy Shapiro, Dale Kaiser, Maxwell, etc. etc. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The sentences marked off in yellow are my attempt to accommodate Roger's insistence that we include mention of Poincaré's pioneering use of 4-dimensional spacetime a couple of years ahead of Minkowski's public lectures introducing the concept. It is my belief that, since Poincaré never really took the concept anywhere, that cramming this material in violates WP:WEIGHT. I propose that it be deleted. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

With regard to your suggestion that the crammed material violates WP:WEIGHT, I would say our weight should mirror how modern and particularly good RSs give weight (or not) to Poincaré. It is not the duty of mere wikipedians to pretend that we’re the cigar-chomping editor of the Washington Post and we’re going to decided whether to give Nixon a break or not. You’ve obviously read this stuff. I encourage you to be bold and abide by the weight of the good RSs. Damn the dissenting wikipedians; full RS ahead. Greg L (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Reading the paragraph on Poincaré—without any knowledge of the extent to which the RSs balance any discussion of him—it seems informative, balanced, topical, and (importantly) interesting and as if it belongs in a proper historical treatment of the subject. Having said that, it still seems to me to give the guy a tad too much credit. Here's why:

The history of special relativity and how Einstein and others like Poincaré were thinking along similar lines around the same time reminds me of history of atomic fission and the atomic bomb. Upon the late-1938 discovery of the true extent of the physics underlying nuclear fission (the release of 200 MeV of kinetic energy and the release of two free neutrons), pretty much every atomic physicist had the same epiphany at the same instant. The extent to which one executes on that epiphany is an altogether different matter.

Alas, it seems to me that Poincaré’s suggestion regarding the “inherent undetectability of the aether” comes miles short of Einstein’s conclusion that there is no ether because light’s speed is intertwined with the fundamental physical nature of the universe. I submit that this bit The logical consequences of these two propositions can be said to encompass the entirety of special relativity might be editorializing too much unless it is cited to good R.S. Since it’s only a green-div, I took the liberty of deleting that bit. Greg L (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, it seems, Poincaré still believed in the existence of the aether, while on Tuesdays, Thursday, and Saturdays he didn't. Who knows what he believed on Sundays? I'm still trying to figure out what "other reasons" to include as regards most science historians not crediting Poincaré with actually discovering special relativity. The aether issue was one of them. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

We had wikipedians out trying to change the world with the use of “16 gibibytes” of RAM because “gibibyte” was a suggested standard. Though virtually no one in the computer industry observed the practice, we had editors who shoehorned the terminology literally overnight into hundreds of articles. It’s not our role to champion change, right wrongs, or remedy historical injustice unless, on balance, the RSs do. As wikipedians, we follow, not lead. WP:WEIGHT is clear. I don’t know what the RSs are saying but I have every confidence you do. Greg L (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, this bit For these and other reasons, most historians of science argue that Poincaré did not invent what is now called special relativity, nor did he play any major role in the development of the spacetime concept, makes the paragraph look like a case of unadulterated wikipedian conflictus textitis. I’m going to go trim that paragraph. Stand back for a bit. Greg L (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. It now seems to place proper weight on Poincaré given how the RSs view his contributions. Greg L (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break #3

• Ummm. No. Will fix later. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Roger does need a chance to see what the paragraph looked like with reference to Poincare's work on four-dimensional spacetime, since that was Roger's big thing. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you guys are arguing about what Poincare believed about the aether, or what a great genius Einstein was, or who should get credit for special relativity. There are other WP pages for those topics. This article is on spacetime. It does not matter if Poincare was an astrologer or if he believed the Earth was flat. A history of spacetime should state the objective fact that Poincare first created the concept.

"since Poincaré never really took the concept anywhere" - Do you realize that Minkowski died soon after his famous paper, and so he never went any further with it either?

"Who knows what he believed on Sundays?" - Do you realize that many great scientists had peculiar religious beliefs, and thus believed odd things on Sundays? Many also have odd beliefs on philosophical and political matters. Why are you trying to pass judgment on his beliefs? Why do you care?

Some of Poincare's statements do seem contradictory if you do not understand his conventionalist philosophy. Same with Einstein, for that matter, as he sometimes said there was an aether and sometimes that there was not. And you might also be confused by what modern physicists say about the aether. But if this issue really interests you, then please move it over to one of the WP articles on the aether. This article is on spacetime, not the aether.

"I find little justification for your attempts to claim that he [Poincare] had not only scooped Einstein on special relativity, but had also scooped Minkowski in developing four-dimensional spacetime." - I am not really claiming that Poincare scooped anyone. Poincare wrote a paper on spacetime. Minkowski did some subsequent research that made use of Poincare's results and developed them further. There is some suggestion that Minkowski got some of the ideas independently, but neither Minkowski nor anyone else has made this claim with any specificity. From what we know, Minkowski developed his spacetime from Poincare, and Poincare developed his from Lorentz.

"nor did he [Poincare] play any major role in the development of the spacetime concept" - What historian says that? I just quoted Galison saying "Of these it was Poincare who most directly influenced the mathematics of Minkowski's space-time." Spacetime is clearly defined in Poincare's paper. Maybe not as clearly as Minkowski's paper, but it is there and no one can dispute that.

"Henri Poincaré was to come closer than any other of Einstein's predecessors to arriving at what is currently known as the special theory of relativity." - This is a very strange thing to say in an article on spacetime. What is currently known as special relativity (according to the textbooks I have) includes the spacetime concept, and Einstein never had that until he got it from Minkowski. It would be more accurate to say that Poincaré came closer than any other of Minkowski's predecessors to arriving at what is currently known as the special theory of relativity. Whether you agree with that or not, there is a separate article on History of special relativity. The concern is whether he published the spacetime concept.

You guys are getting way off-topic here. Just give the history of spacetime in the spacetime article. Roger (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Schlafly: You wrote, quote:

(1) spacetime was first published by Poincare, based only on Lorentz, and

Technically, yes, in "On the Dynamics of the Electron"

However, Poincare specifically stated that this line of research seemed to "entail great pain for limited profit", and his ultimate conclusion was "that three-dimensional language seems the best suited to the description of our world".

(2) Minkowski got the idea from Poincare, expanded on it, and then wrote the essay that sold everyone on it.

Minkowski's mathematical inspirations were primarily from Lorentz and Poincare. He took Poincare's abandoned idea of four-dimensional spacetime, expanded on it, and presented a sales pitch for spacetime that made him famous. Given Poincare's negative writings on the probable utility of the spacetime concept that he originated, I am very puzzled on why you insist on wishing to exaggerate Poincare's importance in its development.

(3) However important Einstein was to SR, he really was not important to the development of spacetime.

We all here are perfectly aware of your belief that Einstein ruined physics, thank you. I am doing my best to separate your statements of fact versus your statements of interpretation, and to assign proper weight to your views, accommodating as many of your factual observations as will fit with the rest of the section.

Now, let me correct the main green div area. As it stands, it does not reflect the consensus of reliable sources. I am quite sure that you do not want me to insert the statements marked yellow in the small green div area.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Schlafly: Your edit summary for your above post states that you object to the “spurious slams on Poincare”, which translates to “harsh criticisms of Poincaré that aren’t what they purport to be.” You see a prescient genius in what Poincaré accomplished in his time. However, the only thing that matters is what the historians are saying today.

Like User:YohanN7 wrote, Spacetime of special relativity is fixed by special relativity, which is fixed by Einstein. It's utterly impossible to have a proper historical treatment of spacetime without discussing special relativity; the RSs thoroughly cover the development of SR in a historical discussion of spacetime, and so too must we.

All Stigmatella, YohanN7, and I are trying to accomplish with our history section is to mirror, per WP:WEIGHT, how modern, good RSs give credit and weight to everyone’s contributions to the understanding of spacetime, Poincaré included. It would be very wrong for mere wikipedians vary from the RSs; anything else would be a major disservice to our readership.

IF what is currently in the small green-div is true, that most modern historians feel Poincaré had no major role in the development of spacetime, then I would argue that the amount of airtime given to Poincaré in the big green-div is appropriate as its general tone (though it is in need of some factual correction).

My take-away from our treatment of Poincaré is that he was a notable example of one of the many physicists standing at the party, wine glass in hand, talking about what was on a lot of others’ minds, but failed to go back to his study and do the hard work. If my take-away mirrors what the RSs are saying, then I’d say our current treatment in the big green-div strikes the proper gist and weight. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Stigmatella aurantiaca: We seem to have a general consensus as to how our History section should touch upon the contributions of Poincaré. I suggest you revise the big green-div in a way that best reflects the weight given by the RSs and we move on. After your edit, we should have a short pause for final comments to discern if we truly do have a general consensus. Greg L (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

These are spurious slams on Poincare: "Poincare's abandoned idea", "Poincare's negative writings on the probable utility of the spacetime concept", "most modern historians feel Poincaré had no major role in the development of spacetime", "failed to go back to his study and do the hard work".

If anyone, it was Einstein who was negative about the utility of spacetime. Poincare did predict that 3D language would be preferred for most purposes, and he was completely correct about that. As I thumb thru some physics journals today, most of the articles still use the 3D language. And I say that Poincare should be credited for his work regardless of whether his predictions about future utility were correct or not.

Can you show me even one modern historian who says "Poincaré had no major role in the development of spacetime"? I pointed out that Galison, in the article already cited in the green-div, says that Poincare did have a major role. The article text should accurately reflect its sources. Also, no one says that spacetime was "fixed by Einstein". Everyone agrees that the spacetime concept, spelled out by Poincare and Minkowski, was news to Einstein.

There are no historians that say that only Einstein did the hard work, or that Poincare abandoned spacetime, or any of that nonsense. I am the one here who is sticking to the facts that are generally accepted.

There are historians who credit Einstein for relativity, as explained in Relativity priority dispute. There reasons are somewhat peculiar and off-topic here, as they usual define special relativity to exclude 4D spacetime. You can refer the reader to that article for details, but this article is about spacetime. Roger (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm. Quoting you: no one says that spacetime was "fixed by Einstein". Indeed. No one here said that.

As regards this statement you made: And I say that Poincare should be credited for his work regardless of whether his predictions about future utility were correct or not, many here would like to play Perry White and make policy decisions on how history ought to be treating this individual or that. Alas, we place great weight on what the reliable secondary sources say.

It's clear to me that Stigmatella aurantiaca has no axe to grind here one way or another and is exceedingly well versed in both the primary and secondary sources. I propose that he do his best to adhere to the best interpretation of the truth (mostly secondary sources with a careful dash of his own interpretation of the primary sources), declare it ready and hoist it as a straw man to see if we have a consensus. “Consensus,” by the way, does not mean “unanimous” and it never did. Greg L (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

YohanN7 wrote "Spacetime of special relativity is fixed by special relativity, which is fixed by Einstein." No historian or reliable source says this. Let's get the facts right, and then discuss how "history ought to be treating this individual or that". Roger (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about historians, but mathematicians and physicists know, and write things like "despite many efforts of Lorentz, Poincaré and many others, the situation in theoretical physics was generally murky before Einstein in one blow clarified matters". (V. S. Varadarajan in Supersymmetry for mathematicians) In the same paragraph it is, if I recall correctly, also mention that the mathematical structure of spacetime was then fixed as well.

Regardless of what sources by historians say, it is a fairly easy (but non-trivial) matter to derive only from the fact that there is a universal velocity that the symmetry group of spacetime is a subgroup of the conformal group. (Ruling out purely conformal transformations (and landing at the Poincaré group) requires either, in addition, the second postulate, or the (weaker) observation that the Maxwell equations with sources aren't conformal invariant.) Saying that special relativity does not imply the mathematical structure of spacetime is, forgive me, no rudeness intended, pure nonsense. YohanN7 (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Schlafly: It appears to me that you were confused by Yohan's use of the term "fixed". He used "fixed" in the sense of "is uniquely determined by". You were apparently reading "fixed" in the sense of "was repaired by", which doesn't make too much sense. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

(Purgy's) Section break #4

I have no problem with pondering the diverging educated and sourced opinions about topics wrt their belongings to a spacetime article or not, nor with the weighing of contributions by Poincare to this or that, not even to him standing with wine glass in hand (per se a perfidious insinuation to this important scientist), and I too trust in Stigmatella aurantiaca being fair and open to contributions, even to those he currently opposes. However, I do have strong reservations against professional writers, firstly proclaiming consensus on just their own behalf about themata they are absolutely clueless, and secondly, transferring this usurped right to one editor of his selection; and all this before there was any substantial discussion at all. I do hope that the repeatedly obtruded dogmata, only rudimentarily founded in WP directives (I opposed already), and the fully causeless arrogated competence, will not detriment the development of this article. Purgy (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

(*Yoda accent*): ‘Brushing up on your wiki-insults have you?’

It appears you devoted much time to researching wiki-smack and leaning elegant new English words in a dictionary. But please desist with your highbrow name-calling and whining. I count a half-dozen multisyllabic words in your above rant that Koko, the sign-language gorilla could easily parse and translate into “Greg L stinky bad; Purgy nice smelling smart.” Yeah… we get your message; doesn’t impress.

You complained earlier (∆ edit) that you have problems with four editors here, which amounts to pretty much every single contributor who was active on this page! Tilting at four windmills makes it perfectly clear where the problem lies. Regrouping and coming back to single out an individual windmill and start tilting at that one doesn’t help your cause.

If you want to be constructive to the project, you can consider User:Stigmatella aurantiaca’s offer (∆ edit here): You've made some good suggestions in the past, but English does not appear to be your native language. So I've taken your suggested changes here where you and User:Greg L can work on them together. Hope you don't mind too much?.

OK. Maybe that sort of comment stings for someone who believes himself to possess exemplary English-language, encyclopedic technical writing skills. But consider what the famous astronomer, Neil deGrasse Tyson once wrote: “Imagine a world in which we are enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them.” Stigmatella aurantiaca’s offer was a perfectly reasonable and generous offer for us to devote extra amounts of our all-volunteer time to assist you in contributing. You clearly weren’t interested in taking him up on his offer.

You wrote earlier as follows: “Therefore, I walk away from the carcass of this discussion like from beating a dead horse.” But you didn’t. You came back again… twice… with protests that accomplish nothing. Curious.

Now, I invite you to improve this article with prose that is A) factual, B) is compliant with all of Wikipedia’s rules, C) is well crafted English prose with an encyclopedic tone, and which D) makes an already complex and abstruse article easier to understand. That would be a big improvement over your incessant harping and raging at those you blame for the slings and arrows of your outrageous misfortune. If the prospect of that isn’t your cup of tea, then try acting like an adult for once and do the right thing. Greg L (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed additions to green-div

The above history section contains entire passages on aether experiments and Lorentz, while Poincaré's contributions and even Einstein's are hardly mentioned. Therefore, I propose the following additions (there is certainly some room left for a short history of curved spacetime.) --D.H (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC):

@D.H: Excellent suggestions, as usual, many of your points being expressed better than what I could have come up with! I will put together a merge of your proposal with the rest of the history above. I do not foresee that I will need to make any changes, except in minor points of grammar. You will need to wait a few hours. My wife and I are celebrating our 34th anniversary, so this weekend has been busy. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, happy anniversary!! PS: The last hours I spent watching TV to see Federer win Wimbledon 2017 -;). Greetings, --D.H (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)