That definitely seems to be part of what is going on. Poincare and Hilbert were both working in very similar directions to Einstein when he came up with Special Relativity. On the other hand, in both those cases, Poincare and Hilbert were both extremely smart.
On the other how much does this end up mattering? Maybe Jonah’s comment is still essentially correct because the 10 or 15 people a few years behind are still people of unusually high intelligence just not as high as the very top people?
As for Poincare, I say that he published a full theory of special relativity in 1905. We only give Einstein credit because he used it to get general relativity. He used it, but otherwise it was pretty much as ignored as Poincare’s.
I don’t have any knowledge of the history here, but my friend Laurens Gunnarsen (PhD in mathematical physics from University of Chicago) wrote in his (very favorable) review of Poincare’s The Value of Science:
A final brief caveat: although Poincare was clearly the greatest mathematician of his time, he was not the greatest physicist. A curious wrong-headedness kept him from beating Albert Einstein to the creation of special relativity, and general relativity eventually proved Poincare wrong in some of his opinions on the relation between physics and geometry. So when Poincare speaks of physics, bear in mind that some of his positions no longer seem really tenable.
I know that you may have similar background (I still don’t know who you are IRL), but thought I’d point that out (though it’s completely tangential to the main thread of conversation).
What is that a response to? my claim that Poincaré beat Einstein? That’s not a relevant credential, and even if it were, I would not be moved by the claim unless it were a lot more precise. He might simply mean that Poincare took several papers over several years, while Einstein got it right in one try.
For Joshua’s purpose, priority disputes are not important. Most people who reject Poincaré′s 1905 paper as a complete theory accept his 1906 paper as a complete theory not influenced by Einstein.
In fact, I think that the whole concept of priority disputes is idiotic. Time is a crude proxy for influence. Columbus discovered America because it remained discovered. He changed history. Which leads to my last sentence: neither Einstein nor Poincaré′s papers on special relativity had any appreciable effect. They were considered minor commentary on Maxwell’s equations. The English considered them a cleaner version of FitzGerald’s theory of the aether. France was not interested in special relativity until after WW2. The Germans were more enthusiastic, but that might have been some kind of (extended) nationalism, not really a different comprehension.
I suppose that LG might mean that Poincaré′s theory was mathematically equivalent, but philosophically off, like the English theory I mentioned above. But that English theory claimed to be Einstein’s theory. Philosophical influences are difficult to follow, let alone predict.
What is that a response to? my claim that Poincaré beat Einstein?
Yes
That’s not a relevant credential,
Not only does he have very deep subject matter knowledge, he’s also studied the history in detail (as comes across to some degree in his Amazon review).
He might simply mean that Poincare took several papers over several years, while Einstein got it right in one try.
I don’t know what he had in mind, it’s possible that you and he are on the same page, I just thought I’d point you to the review because it seemed to be in some tension with your claim.
As for the rest of it, I don’t have comments right now –I was responding specifically to the Einstein / Poincare thing.
That definitely seems to be part of what is going on. Poincare and Hilbert were both working in very similar directions to Einstein when he came up with Special Relativity. On the other hand, in both those cases, Poincare and Hilbert were both extremely smart.
On the other how much does this end up mattering? Maybe Jonah’s comment is still essentially correct because the 10 or 15 people a few years behind are still people of unusually high intelligence just not as high as the very top people?
What about Hilbert and special relativity?
As for Poincare, I say that he published a full theory of special relativity in 1905. We only give Einstein credit because he used it to get general relativity. He used it, but otherwise it was pretty much as ignored as Poincare’s.
I don’t have any knowledge of the history here, but my friend Laurens Gunnarsen (PhD in mathematical physics from University of Chicago) wrote in his (very favorable) review of Poincare’s The Value of Science:
I know that you may have similar background (I still don’t know who you are IRL), but thought I’d point that out (though it’s completely tangential to the main thread of conversation).
What is that a response to? my claim that Poincaré beat Einstein? That’s not a relevant credential, and even if it were, I would not be moved by the claim unless it were a lot more precise. He might simply mean that Poincare took several papers over several years, while Einstein got it right in one try.
For Joshua’s purpose, priority disputes are not important. Most people who reject Poincaré′s 1905 paper as a complete theory accept his 1906 paper as a complete theory not influenced by Einstein.
In fact, I think that the whole concept of priority disputes is idiotic. Time is a crude proxy for influence. Columbus discovered America because it remained discovered. He changed history. Which leads to my last sentence: neither Einstein nor Poincaré′s papers on special relativity had any appreciable effect. They were considered minor commentary on Maxwell’s equations. The English considered them a cleaner version of FitzGerald’s theory of the aether. France was not interested in special relativity until after WW2. The Germans were more enthusiastic, but that might have been some kind of (extended) nationalism, not really a different comprehension.
I suppose that LG might mean that Poincaré′s theory was mathematically equivalent, but philosophically off, like the English theory I mentioned above. But that English theory claimed to be Einstein’s theory. Philosophical influences are difficult to follow, let alone predict.
Yes
Not only does he have very deep subject matter knowledge, he’s also studied the history in detail (as comes across to some degree in his Amazon review).
I don’t know what he had in mind, it’s possible that you and he are on the same page, I just thought I’d point you to the review because it seemed to be in some tension with your claim.
As for the rest of it, I don’t have comments right now –I was responding specifically to the Einstein / Poincare thing.