Einstein The Plagiarist

[Peron]

A electric universe theorist nagged me about Einstein's famous mass=energy equivalence equation, arguing that a Italian physicist was first to propose the equation.

 

Has anyone got any information about this topic?

[mooeypoo]

What mass=energy equivalence equation, Peron?

 

If you mean E=mc^2, that's not a mass=energy equivalency, seeing as energy is not equal to the mass (as 'equivalency' would require), but equals to the mass TIMES LIGHTSPEED SQUARED.

 

EDIT: It might be the use of = here that threw me off. In any case, most of Einstein's work was based on previous work, as is all of science really. Maxwell's equations, Lorentz' equations... that doesn't mean he plagiarized..

 

 

 

~moo

[swansont]

I do remember reading that someone else did propose the equation first, though I don't recall the name offhand. However there was no valid physical basis for the equation; similarly, Lorentz's equation was ad-hoc. Einstein derived the equations as part of relativity. Not plagiarism.

[timo]

You really could have said that sooner, Swansont. I already smashed some of my Einstein statues, now.

[ajb]

The idea of mass and energy being equivalent is older than Einstein's work. De Pretto [1] in 1903 published a paper that states "[math]E = mc^{2}[/math]". However, his reasoning for this relation was wrong.

 

Samuel Tolver Preston in his book "Physics of the Ether" (1875) also makes a similar equivalence.

 

I am sure there are others.

 

So definitely the idea that a body's inertia is proportional to it's energy pre-dates special relativity.

 

However, Einstein was the first to derive it from the correct stand point of special relativity.

 

 

 

----------

[1] De Pretto, Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Anno Accademico 1903-1904, vol. LXIII, parte II, pp.439-500

[Mr Skeptic]

Incidentally, there's a school of thought that says that great geniuses aren't really necessary to advance science, and that science will advance on its own after prerequisite discoveries. In this case, Maxwell's Equations is probably the prerequisite. In many cases there are various examples of people getting the same solution in several places all independent of each other. This goes for technology as well.

 

Obviously great geniuses will speed things up, but perhaps not by as much as people think.

[Sisyphus]

The idea of mass and energy being equivalent is older than Einstein's work. De Pretto [1] in 1903 published a paper that states "[math]E = mc^{2}[/math]". However, his reasoning for this relation was wrong.

 

What this tells me is that De Pretto was a time traveller. He'd heard of the equation, but didn't understand where it came from, and thought he could get credit for discovering it anyway.

[ajb]

In this case, Maxwell's Equations is probably the prerequisite.

 

I am sure that special relativity and then general would have been discovered without Einstein. The question is when.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What this tells me is that De Pretto was a time traveller. He'd heard of the equation, but didn't understand where it came from, and thought he could get credit for discovering it anyway.

 

 

My understanding is that De Pretto wrongly thought that the kinetic energy of a body is [math]KE = m v^{2}[/math]. Then putting [math]v=c[/math] and we have the equation in question.

 

We have seen it on this forum, people simply stating as [math]KE = \frac{1}{2}mv^{2}[/math] the value [math]v=c[/math] gives half of Einstein's result! So Einstein was wrong or they come up with some unneeded mechanism to fix this.

 

It did cross my mind years ago about simple dimensional analysis. The best we can do is see that

 

[math][Energy] = [mass] [velocity] [velocity][/math]

 

The proportionality at the speed of light is the question, and then of course what this really means. So, I am not surprised at all that the question of [math]E \propto m c^{2}[/math] pre-dates relativity. But to my knowledge pre-Einstein either produced wrong results or the reasoning is wrong and we simply have a coincidence.

Edited March 10, 2010 by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

If that's all it is, then it certainly doesn't count. The equation looks the same, but it's not saying remotely the same thing.

[Peron]

Thanks for all the information.

[michel123456]

The best we can do is see that

 

[math][Energy] = [mass] [velocity] [velocity][/math]

 

Or

Joules = Newton Meters

 

[math][Energy] = [mass] [acceleration] [distance][/math]

 

In which the accelerated distance is a constant.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the thread's question:

 

"Tensor calculus was developed around 1890 by Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro under the title absolute differential calculus, and originally presented by Ricci in 1892.[6] It was made accessible to many mathematicians by the publication of Ricci and Tullio Levi-Civita's 1900 classic text Méthodes de calcul différentiel absolu et leurs applications (Methods of absolute differential calculus and their applications) (Ricci & Levi-Civita 1900) (in French; translations followed).

 

In the 20th century, the subject came to be known as tensor analysis, and achieved broader acceptance with the introduction of Einstein's theory of general relativity, around 1915. General relativity is formulated completely in the language of tensors. Einstein had learned about them, with great difficulty, from the geometer Marcel Grossmann.[7] Levi-Civita then initiated a correspondence with Einstein to correct mistakes Einstein had made in his use of tensor analysis. The correspondence lasted 1915–17, and was characterized by mutual respect, with Einstein at one point writing:[8]

 

“ I admire the elegance of your method of computation; it must be nice to ride through these fields upon the horse of true mathematics while the like of us have to make our way laboriously on foot."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor#History

 

No plagiarism at my knowledge, only but help.

Edited March 13, 2010 by michel123456

[swansont]

mass-energy was a byproduct of special relativity, and was introduced in 1905. Not in GR, not using tensors.

[michel123456]

mass-energy was a byproduct of special relativity, and was introduced in 1905. Not in GR, not using tensors.

 

Right. But Ricci is the onlly Italian I knew that had a relation with Einstein's work. I didn't knew about De Pretto.

 

I found this paper http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm

Edited March 13, 2010 by michel123456

[Bob_for_short]

H. Poincaré also arrived at this relationship and A. Einstein mentions it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9 and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

 

"Although the merely formal considerations, which we will need for the proof, are already mostly contained in a work by H. Poincaré (1900), for the sake of clarity I will not rely on that work."