Physics Discussion Thread

[Amber G.]

Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for his theory of relativity. He got it for his work on the photoelectric effect.

IMHO (and I am sure most physicists would agree with me) Einstein could have gotten a Nobel (or three Nobels) for each of these:
- Relativity - (Actually Special and General both are important in their own right)
- Brownian Motion
- Photo Electric Effect.
(His citation was Photo Electric Effect)
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his work on the Photoelectric Effect. This groundbreaking research demonstrated that light can behave as both particles (photons) and waves, fundamentally advancing our understanding of quantum mechanics. Einstein's explanation of the Photoelectric Effect had profound implications for the development of quantum theory and the understanding of the nature of light.

While his work on the theory of relativity and his explanation of Brownian motion were also groundbreaking, the Nobel Committee focused on the Photoelectric Effect because it had immediate experimental confirmation and had significant practical applications, such as in the development of modern electronics and quantum physics.

[Amber G.]

I haven't read the other stuff on the photoelectric effect, I'll do so when I get the time (although I suspect it would be on similar lines to the above).

Einstein's fundamental work is not really a mystery or even *remotely* a controversial /sigh/..I did that experiment as a part of Physics graduate lab in IITK in late 60's ...(My son did similar experiment in MIT's junior physics lab)... We routinely teach the theory in physics courses.

Here is this effect: As typically taught - I am simplifying for aam junta without much mathematics.

The photoelectric effect, as explained by Albert Einstein, is a phenomenon where light - photons, strikes a material surface and ejects electrons from it. Einstein's theory, which earned him a Nobel Prize, posited that light is quantized into discrete packets of energy (photons). When these photons strike a material, they transfer their energy to electrons in the material, causing them to be emitted. This effect depends on the frequency of light (color of light source), not its intensity, illustrating the particle-like nature of light. A typical physics undergraduate study this to understand the fundamental concept of quantization and the particle-wave duality of light, which forms the basis of quantum mechanics.
---
A typical setup - a monochromatic light source (in my days, a gas tube with nice color filters, now a laser/LED), a vacuum chamber, a metal plate, a collector electrode, a variable voltage source, and a current detector. By adjusting light intensity and wavelength, and varying the voltage, students measure the emitted electron current. This experiment confirms Einstein's theory that the photoelectric effect depends on the frequency of light, not its intensity. It underscores the quantization of light energy, demonstrating that light behaves as discrete particles (photons). This hands-on approach offers a tangible grasp of the particle-wave duality of light and quantum principles.

[bala]

I read the first three articles. All of them say that Hasenoehrl came up with an equivalence between mass and energy, but that the proportionality constant was incorrect. They all say that Hasenoehrl made some errors in his analysis.

The error is not that great since it depends on the reference frame. The constant happens to be 1 for our universe.

The articles say that Einstein did not prove his (correct) equivalence relation, and that he wasn't even trying to prove it. Einstein later wrote more papers to try and make up for this shortcoming.
It was acceptable in those times not to cite every previous work. Einstein came up with his equivalence relation in a somewhat different way from his predecessors, and also had the right proportionality relation. His work was original in that sense. Replicating somebody else's work is acceptable as an innovation, if the replication happens in a novel way and provides new insight into the problem. On top of that, fixing an error in the previous work - that certainly has value, and is certainly worthy of publication.

You are entitled to your opinions. But the facts are opposite to your opinion. However this is clearly plagiarism of the highest kind. There is nothing original from Einstein, it is a rehash of what others created. The Nobel committee perpetuates such fraud even today. It is deep state controlled nonsense. E C G Sudarshan was denied TWO not ONE Nobel prize in physics.

That does not take away from the fact that Einstein developed that equivalence from a different perspective, and fixed an obvious error in that original equivalence. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Einstein was poor in math. It was Grossman who aided him in his math.

I haven't read the other stuff on the photoelectric effect, I'll do so when I get the time (although I suspect it would be on similar lines to the above).

Again, you are entitled to your opinions. But the facts are opposite to your opinion. Max Planck came up with quanta stuff much prior to Einstein. I am positive that Einstein was an outright fraud of the highest kind, propped up by the Western media goons.

[sudarshan]

The Nobel committee perpetuates such fraud even today. It is deep state controlled nonsense. E C G Sudarshan was denied TWO not ONE Nobel prize in physics.

This I agree with.

Max Planck came up with quanta stuff much prior to Einstein.

Of course Planck came up with quanta stuff before Einstein - qualitatively. Einstein quantified it, saying the energy of a photon (a term which was coined later) was proportional to the frequency. The proportionality constant was later named the "Planck's constant," not the "Einstein constant." So everybody is aware that Planck came up with the notion of quantization (qualitatively) before Einstein. Your statement is true, but in the context of Einstein's contribution to the understanding of the photoelectric effect, your statement is meaningless.

Anyway, agree to disagree.

[Vayutuvan]

(...) Agree with all of that.

P.S.: Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for his theory of relativity. He got it for his work on the photoelectric effect.

I thought it is partly for his Brownian mition as well. Maybe I am misremebering.

[bala]

Brownian motion, the subject of Einstein's 1905 papers: Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.

The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.

[Vayutuvan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor

Tensor calculus was developed around 1890 by Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro under the title absolute differential calculus, and originally presented by Ricci-Curbastro in 1892.[18] It was made accessible to many mathematicians by the publication of Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita's 1900 classic text Méthodes de calcul différentiel absolu et leurs applications (Methods of absolute differential calculus and their applications).[19] In Ricci's notation, he refers to "systems" with covariant and contravariant components, which are known as tensor fields in the modern sense. [16]

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.[20] 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:

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.

— Albert Einstein[21]

[Vayutuvan]

The error is not that great since it depends on the reference frame. The constant happens to be 1 for our universe.

Interesting. Lot of numerical simulations, especially in FEM, are modeled as "unitless" equations.

[Vayutuvan]

Einstein was poor in math. It was Grossman who aided him in his math.

Wikipedia page I quoted says "he learned about them from Grossman" "he learned them from Grossman"

That said, i also know lots of folks who think that there are many more who are lot more important in Scinces than Einstein. He is one of the important scientists but not Primus interpares. That title should go to Gauss.

[Amber G.]

I thought it is partly for his Brownian mition as well. Maybe I am misremebering.

His citation was:

...his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.

See my post earlier:

IMHO (and I am sure most physicists would agree with me) Einstein could have gotten a Nobel (or three Nobels) for each of these:
- Relativity - (Actually Special and General both are important in their own right)
- Brownian Motion
- Photo Electric Effect.
(His citation was Photo Electric Effect)
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his work on the Photoelectric Effect. This groundbreaking research demonstrated that light can behave as both particles (photons) and waves, fundamentally advancing our understanding of quantum mechanics. Einstein's explanation of the Photoelectric Effect had profound implications for the development of quantum theory and the understanding of the nature of light.

While his work on the theory of relativity and his explanation of Brownian motion were also groundbreaking, the Nobel Committee focused on the Photoelectric Effect because it had immediate experimental confirmation and had significant practical applications, such as in the development of modern electronics and quantum physics.

[Amber G.]

Einstein was poor in math. ...

Have heard that before -- perhaps this kind of thing started by some people claiming his math grades were "poor" - by those who did not understand or were ignorant of the Swiss / German grading system.. (Hint: It was as if some body claiming that one who got AIR rank 2 in JEE was "poor" compared to someone who got AIR 99..)

He was as good as they came ... among best of the best. NO serious physicist/mathematician remotely familiar with his work doubts it.

I never met him but have studied his work -- a LOT. There are quite a few who were Einstein's students whom I personally know/ leaned from/ worked with. All had tremendous respect for him - especially in his intuition in finding mathematical formulation where others - struggled.
Not wikipedia but people with whom I interacted over years. Few examples fro whom I leaned his math/physics.

Freeman Dyson - As good a mathematician as any -- best Ramanujan expert I interacted with but also a top notch physicist.

Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize winner) - Very intuitive - counter part of Dyson with less rigor of math -- but again top notch mathematician too. (Quantum Electrodynamics would not have been possible without Einstein's work)

Paul Dirac (Nobel Prize winner) - Bridged the gap between relativity and quantum mechanics, unifying these two fundamental theories and providing a theoretical framework to describe the behavior of relativistic electrons, thus advancing our understanding of the fundamental forces that govern the universe. He taught a UG course in Quantum Mechanics which I audited and enjoyed.

C.N Yang (Nobel Prize Winner) - I took courses in Group Theory (Mathematics used in Quantum Mechanics), and General Theory of Relativity.

Of course, lot of George Sudarshan's work is based on Einstein's work.

IMO, it is silly to to pick some random references, pick some lines out of context without any understanding and make some nonsensical remarks/claims..

---
Nobody says Nobel prizes are 100% objective... Also true many - and most physicists would agree - deserving people did not get it (Born, SN Bose, Saha, Bhabha, Sudarshan, come to my mind, if you ask me) but *nobody* including Prof Sudarshan has claimed that it is a fraud -- or Einstein's work was a fraud... /sigh/

[sudarshan]

Nobody says Nobel prizes are 100% objective... Also true many - and most physicists would agree - deserving people did not get it (Born, SN Bose, Saha, Bhabha, Sudarshan, come to my mind, if you ask me) but *nobody* including Prof Sudarshan has claimed that it is a fraud -- or Einstein's work was a fraud... /sigh/

Nobel Physics/ Chemistry are relatively meritorious and free of politicking (note - I said *relatively*). Other Nobels, such as peace or literature, are practically garbage.

I would say the Nobel committee built up their credibility by awarding Nobels to Einstein, Feynmann, etc. - not the other way round. Likewise, the peace Nobel destroyed its credibility by awarding it to Obama and other unworthies.

[Amber G.]

Zero interest in debate - so ignore if you think you know the facts -- but if you are open and interested in learning - read the response.
(Again I will ignore, if the debate is for debates sake -- but will answer genuine question)

Brownian motion, the subject of Einstein's 1905 papers: Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.

The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.

Albert Einstein's work on Brownian motion ( despite not earning him a Nobel Prize) was groundbreaking and highly significant. While it's true that earlier scientists like Josiah Gibbs and Ludwig Boltzmann made significant contributions to the Kinetic Theory of Matter, it was Einstein who provided a pivotal theoretical framework in 1905. He introduced a precise mathematical description that connected the observed random motion of particles suspended in a fluid to the molecular nature of matter, establishing a direct link between the macroscopic and microscopic worlds.

Einstein's work extended our understanding of statistical mechanics and played a crucial role in confirming the existence of atoms and molecules, which were still a subject of debate at the time. Although he wasn't awarded a Nobel Prize for this specific contribution, his work on Brownian motion laid the foundation for later research in statistical physics and had far-reaching implications in various scientific disciplines, earning him his place as one of the most influential physicists of the 20th century.

You don't have to take my word ... you can read the original paper here:
http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern ... 49-560.pdf

Seriously - Wiki entry (just checked) is not bad.
If someone is genuinely interested: I will recommend George Gamow's 1 2 3 infinity (has a chapter of Brownian motion along with special and general theory of relativity ... not to mention many other subjects including math, atomic physic, nuclear physics etc...

Also if you're looking for a popular science book to understand Brownian motion, I recommend "Brownian Motion" by Peter Mörters and Yuval Peres.

Another excellent option is "Einstein's Masterwork: 1915 and the General Theory of Relativity" by John Gribbin. While this book primarily focuses on Einstein's work on relativity, it also provides valuable insights into his earlier contributions, including the explanation of Brownian motion.

[sudarshan]

You don't have to take my word ... you can read the original paper here:
http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern ... 49-560.pdf

Interesting - in the abstract, he actually writes in the first person. Nowadays one is expected to write in a more passive way, not so personally.

He only has 2 references, both in the footnotes; one reference is to his own previous paper (1903), the other one is to Kirchhoff. Not a very extensive bibliography. Maybe that was acceptable in the times, and there wasn't such a large body of prior work as today?

So yes, he doesn't cite Gibbs or Boltzmann (assuming they had published earlier).

That would also explain why he didn't cite the rabbit-eared* guy on E=mC^2.

No figures in the paper, I guess they were much more difficult to typeset in those times. I kind of remember - figures were supplied separately as plates?

* Hasenoehrl: Hase=hare/ rabbit; Ohr=ear.

[Amber G.]

^^^ Glad you enjoyed the paper! Here is the fist ever written thesis on 'Quantum Mechanics' by none other than Great Dirac!


No LaTex, or Word ... (Even in my days we used a typewriter..)..

[bala]

Even though the Brownian movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827, Brown did not provide a theory to explain the motion. Dutchman Jan Ingenhousz already had reported a similar effect using charcoal particles, in German and French publications of 1784 and 1785, the phenomenon is now known as Brownian motion. In 1785, Ingenhousz described the irregular movement of coal dust on the surface of alcohol and therefore has a claim as discoverer of what came to be known as Brownian motion. Ingenhousz was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1779.

Coming back to Einstein, In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school, the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School (now known as the Eidge nösiche Technische Hochschule, or ETH) hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school. Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant that he was not competent to hold a higher qualified position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of 1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a second class standing. He was reviewing technical documents for patents of every day things; yet he was barely qualified. Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905. Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is the only logical explanation of how Einstein created the paper.

Einstein married his first wife Serbian Mathematician Mileva Maric (older than him by 4 years). There is substantial evidence that Albert Einstein did not write the 1905 paper on the "principle of relativity" alone. Mileva Einstein-Marity, all suspect, that she alone was the author, of the work. Mysteriously, the letters of Mileva's letters to her husband Albert were destroyed.

Johann Georg von Soldner has written in 1801 AD that the gravitational field of the sun should curve the path of light from the stars. There is a Ramanujan–Soldner mathematical constant defined as the unique positive zero of the logarithmic integral function. Albert Einstein calculated and published a value for the amount of gravitational light-bending in light skimming the Sun in 1911, but the scientific community knew that he had lifted from Johann Georg von Soldner.

Einstein's gravitational theory proved in terms of the recently developed Calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity. This became the General Theory of Relativity, which he would publish in 1915. The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity to the cosmos. This was basically about the gravitational pull of planets and the general principle that light rays bend as they pass by a massive object. Einstein published an initial draft paper in 1913 based upon the work of Marcel Grossmann (his math guy) adapting the math of Bernhard Riemann to Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the conclusions were incorrect. Einstein published his correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915. But, but, the correct paper was from David Hilbert, a brilliant mathematician. Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before Einstein completed his work, a paper which contained the correct field equations, of general relativity. Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th.

Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems with assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics. General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory. In the following years, Einstein's earlier 1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator of all the ideas he had stolen.

[sudarshan]

Coming back to Einstein, In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam.

Ji, I don't know what your aim is here. A simple Google search reveals how wrong the above statement is.

See this one.

It seems he took an exam in 1895 for which he was two years too young, did fine on math and physics, but failed in language and history. So he wasn't admitted.

Einstein picked up his pencil in October 1895—and failed. He did fine on the mathematics and natural sciences sections but was deemed "insufficient" on language and history.

Then in the next year 1896, it seems he took the exam again, and got admission to ETH, scoring perfectly in algebra, geometry, descriptive geometry and physics, almost perfectly in chemistry, and not so good in language or geography. (He'd still have been a year too young for the exam).

See this one.

The site even shows his actual score card (I guess one can always argue that it is forged...by evil Einstein).

Seems like a whole demonization campaign going on with half-baked facts. Carry on, I'm out.

[bala]

Sudarshan ji, your first link has this:

In Einstein's department, there were five students (above). Of the four who passed the final exams, Einstein had the lowest mark and was the only one who wasn't offered a job as an assistant teacher at ETH Zurich.

How do you explain that?

[Amber G.]

<snip>
It seems he took an exam in 1895 for which he was two years too young, did fine on math and physics, but failed in language and history. So he wasn't admitted.

Also, I believe, the exam was in French -and he hadn’t had a lot of French , the language in which the exam was given!
(Also in the essay which had 'lot of errors' He did write about his future interest ... : ”I see myself becoming a teacher of these branches of natural science, choosing the theoretical part of these sciences.”

BTW, thanks for link you have given..

Some other 'facts' about his poor math skills:

Einstein left the Luitpold Gymnasium and entered the Aargau Cantonal School, where he finished high school — despite continuing trouble with French — and was then automatically admitted in 1896 to the Zurich Polytechnic, from where he graduated...
( He entered the Luitpold Gymnasium, a competitive school at the age 9½,. He liked some subjects better than others but earning earning high marks. By age 11, he was reading college physics books..

All is well known...

[Amber G.]

This is a Gem!!!

Johann Georg von Soldner has written in 1901 AD that the gravitational field of the sun should curve the path of light from the stars. Soldner worked with the Indian Math genius Srinivasa Ramanujan. There is a Ramanujan–Soldner mathematical constant defined as the unique positive zero of the logarithmic integral function. Albert Einstein calculated and published a value for the amount of gravitational light-bending in light skimming the Sun in 1911, but the scientific community knew that he had lifted from Johann Georg von Soldner.

Johann Georg von Soldner died in 1833 decades before Ramanujan was born. Quite difficult to work with Ramanujan. and very very difficult to write anything in 1901.

Seriously is there *any* resemblance of even the most basic physics or even commonsense before endlessly coming out with nonsense after nonsense.

( True, Johann Georg von Soldner was a physicist, he did work with bending of light due to gravity (wrote in 1801 -- but *different* with Einstein's General relativity... Newton's theory could be used (and was used by Soldner) to calculate the bending..it was not consistent with actual bending observed. Einstein calculations fit perfectly - proving the theory)
(Also, though the "constant' is named after Ramanujan-Soldner constant -- there is no relationship as people may tend to assume - they did not work together .. the math comes both in number theory and certain integrals)

Seriously it is beyond silly to just pick some random nonsense and writeup these pieces.

[sudarshan]

Sudarshan ji, your first link has this:

In Einstein's department, there were five students (above). Of the four who passed the final exams, Einstein had the lowest mark and was the only one who wasn't offered a job as an assistant teacher at ETH Zurich.

How do you explain that?

The site explains that. He was lazy and strong-headed, preferring to only attend classes which he liked (he liked theoretical physics), preferred to read papers on his own in his home rather than go to class, and got the worst grade possible in practical physics.

The site also says that the fifth (and only) student who failed, was his future wife Mileva Maric (the one whom you said was the genius who actually wrote his papers which he plagiarized).

Did you read those bits?

In Einstein's department, there were five students (above). Of the four who passed the final exams, Einstein had the lowest mark and was the only one who wasn't offered a job as an assistant teacher at ETH Zurich. The fifth student, and only woman, was his girlfriend (later wife) Mileva Maric, who failed.

[bala]

Johann Georg von Soldner died in 1833 decades before Ramanujan was born. Quite difficult to work with Ramanujan. and very very difficult to write anything in 1901.

Seriously is there *any* resemblance of even the most basic physics or even commonsense before endlessly coming out with nonsense after nonsense.

( True, Johann Georg von Soldner was a physicist, he did work with bending of light due to gravity (wrote in 1801 -- but *different* with Einstein's General relativity... Newton's theory could be used (and was used by Soldner) to calculate the bending..it was not consistent with actual bending observed. Einstein calculations fit perfectly - proving the theory)
(Also, though the "constant' is named after Ramanujan-Soldner constant -- there is no relationship as people may tend to assume - they did not work together .. the math comes both in number theory and certain integrals)

Seriously it is beyond silly to just pick some random nonsense and writeup these pieces.

Dude, I checked my notes and have 1801 not 1901 (copied wrongly here) as the date for soldner as the date for bending light. He could not have worked with Ramanujam, I acknowledge. But the math constant holds. Bending of light due to gravitation was well known concept, nothing earth shattering from Einstein, that is the point. how much it bent is irrelevant.

[bala]

The site also says that the fifth (and only) student who failed, was his future wife Mileva Maric (the one whom you said was the genius who actually wrote his papers which he plagiarized).

In Einstein's department, there were five students (above). Of the four who passed the final exams, Einstein had the lowest mark and was the only one who wasn't offered a job as an assistant teacher at ETH Zurich. The fifth student, and only woman, was his girlfriend (later wife) Mileva Maric, who failed.

One got the lowest marks, the other failed, yet they have a genius paper - how come?
Plagiarization by Einstein is galore. Did you read the part of David Hilbert. Mileva Maric was involved in his papers, is well known, why would the letters to her husband disappear?

[sudarshan]

To lurkers on the thread:

The classical theory of physics was Newtonian gravity.

But Maxwell's principle was, that the laws of physics have to be perceived the same way by any inertial-frame observer. This conflicts with the Newtonian view of absolute space-time.

Einstein sided with Maxwell, and used mathematical tools which were already available to put together a different theory (relativity).

In science, whenever a new theory comes up, it is incumbent upon the new theory to explain the same experimental observations and phenomena as the old theory, and then show that it can explain further observations which the old theory cannot explain. Otherwise, there is no point in having a new theory.

So the earlier predictions of bending of light due to gravity, which came from the Newtonian world-view, and which were quantified by Soldner, had to be shown to be consistent with the new theory as well. Which is what Einstein did - he showed that relativity could make the same predictions as to bending of light due to gravity, as the old Newtonian theory. Actually - relativity does better at predicting bending of light than Newtonian theory, and this was verified during a solar eclipse.

Ditto with E=mC^2.

This is the basis on which relativity was accepted as being a better theory than Newtonian gravity. That is why, when relativity came up, there was this rehashing of ideas which had already been derived a hundred years earlier.

That is simply how science works - any new theory has to show that it is just as good (or better) at predicting experimental observations and phenomena as the old theory. And that is not plagiarism.

EDIT: As a very rough analogy:

Adi Sankara came up with a new theory "advaita" which says that the paramatma and jivatma are one and the same (non-duality).

So if somebody were to be jumping up and down yelling that "The concepts of paramatma and jivatma both existed thousands of years before Sankara! He did not come up with anything new! He is a plagiarist!" - how would that sound?

Sankara was simply proposing a new relationship between the two concepts, working off of concepts which were already in existence for thousands of years.

[bala]

That is simply how science works - any new theory has to show that it is just as good (or better) at predicting experimental observations and phenomena as the old theory. And that is not plagiarism.

But Einstein plagiarised Poincare, Hilbert and others. His entire thesis was borrowed from others.

EDIT: As a very rough analogy:
Adi Sankara came up with a new theory "advaita" which says that the paramatma and jivatma are one and the same (non-duality).

So if somebody were to be jumping up and down yelling that "The concepts of paramatma and jivatma both existed thousands of years before Sankara! He did not come up with anything new! He is a plagiarist!" - how would that sound?

Sankara was simply proposing a new relationship between the two concepts, working off of concepts which were already in existence for thousands of years.

You are completely off your rocker dragging Adi Sankara into this thread. The Vedas are in complete consonance with all proposed theories like advaita, dwaita, vishista dwaita and so on. Those who read and commented upon the BrahmaSutra (written by Ved Vyasa of Mahabharata/Bhagawad Gita/Srimad Bhaagavatam fame) were called acharyas. Adi Sankara Acharya (510 BC) came up with a brilliant logical deduction to claim we are paramatma itself. Nothing incongruent. I quote Vedas:

The Muṇḍakopaniṣhad states:
द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते ।
तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति ॥ १ ॥ (3.1.1)
dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā samānaṁ vṛikṣhaṁ pariṣhasvajāte
tayoranyaḥ pippalaṁ svādvattya-naśhnannanyo abhichākaśhīti
समाने वृक्षे पुरुषो निमग्नोऽनिशया शोचति मुह्यमानः ।
जुष्टं यदा पश्यत्यन्यमीशमस्य महिमानमिति वीतशोकः ॥ २ ॥
samāne vṛikṣhe puruṣho nimagno-’nīśhayā śhochati muhyamānaḥ
juṣhtaṁ yadā paśhyatyanyamīśha-masya mahimānamiti vītaśhokaḥ (3.1.2)

Two birds are seated in the nest (heart) of the tree (the body) of the living form. They are the jīvātmā (individual atma) and Paramātmā (Supreme Atma). The jīvātmā has its back toward the Paramātmā, and is busy enjoying the fruits of the tree (the results of the karmas it receives while residing in the body). The Paramātmā is a friend of the jīvātmā, but He does not interfere; He simply sits and watches. The jīvātmā has been bestowed with free will.

The individual atma jīvātmā is the knower of the individual body while the Supreme Atma Paramātmā is the knower of all the infinite bodies. In Vedantic thought, Paramātmā is truly unknown. NirgunaBrahman being anantam (no limits i.e. infinite) in scope has lent a piece of itself as the main driver of all sentient beings and thereby becomes the distributed intelligence and the perceiver of all the senses of the sentient beings of the Universe.

[Amber G.]

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the 2023 NobelPrize in Physics to Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier “for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter.”


Press release:
Popular information:
Advanced information

[Amber G.]

^^^ Summary:
2023 physics laureate Pierre Agostini succeeded in producing and investigating a series of consecutive light pulses, in which each pulse lasted just 250 attoseconds. At the same time, his 2023 co-laureate Ferenc Krausz was working with another type of experiment, one that made it possible to isolate a single light pulse that lasted 650 attoseconds.

[sudarshan]

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the 2023 NobelPrize in Physics to Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier “for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter.”

Seems like the actual achievement happened in 2001? In general, it seems there's usually a 15 to 20 year delay between achievement and recognition in physics Nobels.

An attosecond is very cool, since there are roughly as many attoseconds in a second, as there are seconds in about 32 billion years.

A mahayuga cycle is 4,32,000 years. One such cycle is defined as daytime for Brahma, and another such cycle is defined as his night. So a day in the life of Brahma is 8,64,000 years.

The life span of Brahma is defined as 100 years, with each day being as above. So in terms of human years: 8,64,000 * 365 * 100 ~ 32 billion years.

So there are roughly as many attoseconds in a second, as there are seconds in the life of Brahma.

[Amber G.]

To lurkers on the thread:

<snip>

Thanks. Hope sanity prevails here...
वादे वादे जायते तत्त्वबोधः - (Rough translation for those whose Sanskrit is rusty - "In every good debate, the truth is revealed.")

Balaji:

पण्डितो वादे न हियते (Rough Translation: " a learned person does not resort to personal insults during a debate. Instead - they engage in a civil and reasoned discussion... Calling other "dude" or "he was poor in Math" type ad hominem attacks or insults does nothing more than showing one's sanskar..

To be clear, here is a prime example:

Johann Georg von Soldner died in 1833 decades before Ramanujan was born. Quite difficult to work with Ramanujan. and very very difficult to write anything in 1901.

Seriously is there *any* resemblance of even the most basic physics or even commonsense before endlessly coming out with nonsense after nonsense.

( True, Johann Georg von Soldner was a physicist, he did work with bending of light due to gravity (wrote in 1801 -- but *different* with Einstein's General relativity... Newton's theory could be used (and was used by Soldner) to calculate the bending..it was not consistent with actual bending observed. Einstein calculations fit perfectly - proving the theory)
(Also, though the "constant' is named after Ramanujan-Soldner constant -- there is no relationship as people may tend to assume - they did not work together .. the math comes both in number theory and certain integrals)

Seriously it is beyond silly to just pick some random nonsense and writeup these pieces.

Dude, I checked my notes and have 1801 not 1901 (copied wrongly here) as the date for soldner as the date for bending light. He could not have worked with Ramanujam, I acknowledge. But the math constant holds. Bending of light due to gravitation was well known concept, nothing earth shattering from Einstein, that is the point. how much it bent is irrelevant.

To show obvious points:
1 - Obvious that you don't know the difference between 1801 and 1901 (Or think it does not matter)
2 - Do not know how to copy/paste rightly.
3 - Do not know simple fact that a person who died in 1833 could not have worked with Ramanujan who was born decades later:
4 - "He could *not* have worked with Ramanujan " you concede, yet carry out idiotic concept that mere naming of a constant ( and definition cut and pasted from wiki will some how make you less foolish.
5 - Keep on well known and much ridiculed old pieces of "proving how Einstein plagerized/ poor in math/ whatever
6 - When all else seemingly falls apart you start addressing others as "dude'

With all due respect, my advice to you, if you are willing to take it is: if you are unwilling or incapable of absorbing even the basic concepts of physics or math, take this nonsense somewhere else -- there are plenty of threads in BRF (or you can start a new one) -- no need to derail/trash this.

Hopefully my last on this topic.. will ignore this subject ..Back to Physics related topics.

[Amber G.]

Interesting tid bit(s) about Nobel this year

- Pierre Agostini of Ohio State Physics has won the Nobel Prize! Thanks the nation of France for imposing a mandatory retirement age, thereby causing all its best scientists to flee to the US in their early 60s.
- Given the way many institutions are going, there will be more cases where individuals do groundbreaking research not because of but in spite of institutions.. Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman were on Penn’s historic mRNA vaccine research team, but Penn is embraced
( Karikó was demoted by Penn in 1995. She left Penn for BioNTech in 2013 after Penn refused to reinstate her to tenure track following the publications that would lead to the Nobel Prize, deeming her “not of faculty quality”)

- Anne L'Huillier is the fourth women to win Physics. After Madam Curie, Maria Goeppert Mayer was the second women (in 1963).. and it wasn't till 2018 almost 70 years later Donna Strickland, received the same honor.

- Maria Goeppert Mayer's Nobel prize work was done at John Hopkins where she was 'allowed to work' (because her husband was a prof there) and had no paid position)... In late 60;s she got a teaching position at UCSD (and after she got nobel she got better position).
She was a visiting faculty at IIT Kanpur (when I was there) - her health was poor then after a stroke - other faculty and her husband (a brilliant physicist/chemist on his own right) helped in presentation in her lectures at IITK - very much interested in inspiring women to go in the field of STEM.

[bala]

To show obvious points:
1 - Obvious that you don't know the difference between 1801 and 1901 (Or think it does not matter)
2 - Do not know how to copy/paste rightly.
3 - Do not know simple fact that a person who died in 1833 could not have worked with Ramanujan who was born decades later:
4 - "He could *not* have worked with Ramanujan " you concede, yet carry out idiotic concept that mere naming of a constant ( and definition cut and pasted from wiki will some how make you less foolish.
5 - Keep on well known and much ridiculed old pieces of "proving how Einstein plagerized/ poor in math/ whatever
6 - When all else seemingly falls apart you start addressing others as "dude'

With all due respect, my advice to you, if you are willing to take it is: if you are unwilling or incapable of absorbing even the basic concepts of physics or math, take this nonsense somewhere else -- there are plenty of threads in BRF (or you can start a new one) -- no need to derail/trash this.

Hopefully my last on this topic.. will ignore this subject ..Back to Physics related topics.

Sorry, you are so hung up on dates and other side issues. I really don't give a damn on such stuff. The obvious point is "bending of light" is not a new concept of Einstein. You continue to ignore that central point and you are hung up on other peripheral issues. That is not becoming of a physics person like you. I really respect your experience and contribution to this thread and the chandrayaan thread.

Einstein was bottom of his class yet he is deemed some super-duper genius on so many topics. Tis not believable one bit. He was clearly propped up by the Deep State Media which suppressed other worthy physics/math/science luminaries - many of them German in origin.

[sudarshan]

I remember when femtosecond lasers used to be a big thing, now it's down to attoseconds. Light in vacuum would travel 0.3 nanometers in an attosecond.

Is there any kind of limit/ discretization to time resolution?

[hgupta]

Seems like the actual achievement happened in 2001? In general, it seems there's usually a 15 to 20 year delay between achievement and recognition in physics Nobels.

An attosecond is very cool, since there are roughly as many attoseconds in a second, as there are seconds in about 32 billion years.

A mahayuga cycle is 4,32,000 years. One such cycle is defined as daytime for Brahma, and another such cycle is defined as his night. So a day in the life of Brahma is 8,64,000 years.

The life span of Brahma is defined as 100 years, with each day being as above. So in terms of human years: 8,64,000 * 365 * 100 ~ 32 billion years.

So there are roughly as many attoseconds in a second, as there are seconds in the life of Brahma.

What about planck second? Does that kind of concept come up in any of our ancient texts?

[Vayutuvan]

I remember when femtosecond lasers used to be a big thing, now it's down to attoseconds. Light in vacuum would travel 0.3 nanometers in an attosecond.

Is there any kind of limit/ discretization to time resolution?

ECG Sudarshan has a theory for quantized time.

[Amber G.]

FWIW: About Planck's Units: (Any good text book or may be even Wiki will help):

Planck units are a set of natural units derived from fundamental constants in physics. They some times , represent the smallest meaningful units of measurement within the framework of our current understanding of the universe. These units are:

Planck Length (l_P): ... shortest meaningful length scale ... approximately 1.616 × 10^-35 meters.

Planck Time (t_P):e smallest meaningful unit of time ... approximately 5.391 × 10^-44 seconds.

Planck Mass (m_P): mass scale in the context of fundamental physics. .. approximately 2.176 × 10^-8 kilograms. (Mass of Electron is *much* smaller than 1 m_P) (edited the typo)

Planck Temperature (T_P): highest theoretically possible temperature in the universe, at which quantum effects and gravitational effects become comparable. approximately 1.416808(33) x 10^32 K

Planck Charge (q_P): The Planck charge is the elementary charge, which is the charge of a proton or electron, expressed in Planck units. It is approximately 1.

These Planck units are used in theoretical physics, particularly in the study of quantum gravity and the search for a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity.

[Amber G.]

ECG Sudarshan did proposed a theory involving quantized time, suggesting that time, like other physical quantities, might also exhibit discrete, quantized behavior at extremely small scales. Sudarshan's work delves into the intersection of quantum mechanics and the nature of time, AFAIK - such theories are still subject to ongoing research and debate, they offer intriguing insights into some theories.

AFAIK, this and other similar theories have not been experimentally validated. The concept of quantized time remains largely theoretical and speculative, and there hasn't been empirical evidence to support the idea that time itself is fundamentally quantized or discrete in the way that some quantum properties are.

[Amber G.]

For anyone interested in physics (and perhaps a little about history of physics).. Please keep reading...

Bending of light due to gravitation was well known concept, nothing earth shattering from Einstein, that is the point. how much it bent is irrelevant.

Bending of light due to gravitation in classical mechanics (read using Newton gravitation theory is quite old. Soldner did some good work but he was not alone..
Just top of my head - (and easy to google to fill in the details)
-English scientist/mathematician John Michell published a paper (1783) -- ( massive object, such as a star, were to bend the path of light etc)

John Michell and later Soldner are a little more well known for the paper, but *many* other some *very* famous mathematician post Newton did that .. The Great Pierre-Simon Laplace:( also late 18th century), and another great Carl Friedrich Gauss proposed the similar idea and worked Arago (French physicist - Laplace's student), did some detail calculations .. (From what I know no one related it to measure it at the time of an eclipse .. as the calculated bending was too small to be measured by equipments at that time)

Point is concept that light bends is/was nothing earth shattering .. far from being "irrelevant' the whole point which made Einstein famous was to find HOW MUCH --- and did it fit the measured results (it did).

[bala]

General Theory, as postulated by David Hilbert first (Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20, 1915 in Göttingen) and in plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory. This evidence supported the General Theory of Relativity. On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of which proclaimed, "Revolution in science — New theory of the Universe — Newtonian ideas overthrown." Newton of course is another plagiarizer.

See this https://web.mit.edu/6.055/old/S2009/not ... -light.pdf
Theta angle = ( (Gm) / (rC^2) ) * factor
Factor = 2 for newtonian, 4 for General Theory where time,space are treated alike.

BTW see this YT on how to derive Gravitational bending of light without General Relativity:



These are the comments for YT:

The formula and the value for the bending angle of light ways by the sun were independently derived based on the effective mass obtained from Special Relativity and Newton's Universal Gravitational Law. It is of special interest that one can derive the formula without using Einstein's General Relativity.
Before searching for the related references, it would appear that this is an important argument against the idea that physical interaction can be described in terms of geometry, as both Plato and Aristotle believed over two thousands years ago.

Nevertheless, it is revealed that the story isn't that simple. In fact, the same formulae had been derived using different methods by serveral people, including Einstein:

1. Soldner (1804)
2. Cavendish (1819, unpublished)
3. Einstein (1911)

In 1915, after worked out his General Relativity, Einstein published a modified formula which gives the bending angle twice as large as that derived before and then verified by Eddington in 1919.

[sudarshan]

ECG Sudarshan has a theory for quantized time.

Thanks, will look it up.

Planck Mass (m_P): mass scale in the context of fundamental physics. .. approximately 2.176 × 10^-8 kilograms. (Mass of Electrons are much higher than 1 m_P)

Mass of electron = 9.109×10⁻³¹ kilograms?

[Vayutuvan]

I didn't know this. EC George Sudarshan passed away in 2018. From Wikipedia, this.

Died 13 May 2018 (aged 86)[1]
Austin, Texas, United States