# Examples Of Theories That Were Modified Without Consent Of Their Original Authors

16 replies to this topic

### #1 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 11:13 AM

Examples of Theories that were modified without consent of their original authors,

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

I have three examples to show: Maxwell's, Schwartzchild's and Schrodinger's theories.

1) Maxwells equations:

Original Maxwell's equations, published by 1865, creating the science of electromagnetism, were based on Hamilton's quaternions and a group of 20 four-dimensional equations (i,j,k,t) wich had Hamilton vectors (i,j,k) plus time. The equations had scalar and vectorial terms.

After Maxwell death, Heaviside, Hertz and Lorentz accepted to "assasinate" original Maxwell's equations and, by using vectorial algebra, they were reduced to four vectorial equations, losing the scalar terms.

Nobody can tell what would happen if the original Maxwell's work was preserved and the scalar components were respected. Maybe we would have a much more comprehensive theory of electromagnetism.

2) Schwartzchild's equation:

The original Schwartzchild's equation, solving a particular proposal made by Einstein to find an exact solution to gravitational field around a POINT-LIKE mass was (from his original published paper in March 1916, just before he died):

ds2 = (1-a/R) dt2 - (1-a/R)-1 dR2 - R2(dT2 + sin2 T dP2)    [a: Alpha symbol; T: Theta symbol; P: Psi symbol)

with R = (r3+a3)1/3,    0 <= r   and a an integration constant related to the mass at 0,0,0.

r was the radial distance in spherical coordinates, and had only one singularity at r=0.

In 1917, Hilbert rescued Schwartzchild from oblivion, and modified his frame of reference, creating a new equation which he

named "the Schwartzchild's solution"),

ds2 = (1-2m/r) dt2 - (1-2m/r)-1 dr2 - r2(dT2 + sin2 T dP2)    [a: Alpha symbol; T: Theta symbol; P: Psi symbol)

By doing so, Hilbert introduced a second singularity at r = 2m (G and c were adopted as having "1" value).

In 1956, Wolfgang Rindler rescued Hilbert's solution from oblivion (again) and speculated about a Black Hole having a definite

radius what he called "event horizon" and strange properties within its surface, like trapping light. He coined the term "black hole" and a whole new theory was born.

3) Schrodinger's equation:

In 1926, Schrodinger introduced an equation for the waveform of electrons around atoms, which didn't include time and

was not compliant with restricted relativity.

The solutions he found had an spatial value which he related to the energy distribution of the electron at a given orbital.

Against his explicit desire, and in spite of furious discussions, Max Born CHANGED the original Schrodinger's concept of energy

distribution in space around the atom's nucleus to a PROBABILITY FUNCTION of finding the electron within the volumes that resulted from different solutions.

Schrodinger never forget this change and, by 1933, he stated that he "regretted to develop such formula", as he wasn't convinced

at all about the changes and the impact it had in Quantum Mechanics.

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

There are many examples documented since Kepler's time about these re-writings or conceptual changes.

The consequences are that next generations after a given development, are misguided about the original proposal.

As physics differs from history of physics, there is a controversy within educational boards and institutions about the need to teach

history of physics along with physics. The prevailing argument is that, by doing so, students can be confused and prevented to

understand the topic that is being taught. So, better that they learn what the teacher tells them and that's it!

I don't agree with this point of view at all as consequences are fatal to get the true knowledge.

One popular example is how SR is taught, and how concepts like relativistic mass were introduced to generations

of students. Once they embraced the deformed theory, it is very difficult that they can UNLEARN that relativistic

mass is an historical post-Einstenian concept.

Edited by rhertz, 24 April 2019 - 07:27 PM.

### #2 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 02:42 PM

Fourth effort to motivate some answers:

4) Lorentz's transforms:

At his 1904 paper "Electromagnetic phenomena at system moving with any speed less than

that of light" Lorentz introduced, without any proof or reference, a change of variable as:

c2/(c2-v2) = B2               [I'm using B as the greek symbol Beta]

Voigt introduced this in 1887 as q2, and also the local time wrongly used by Lorentz.

x' = l.B.x

y' = l.y

z' = l.z

t' = l.t/B - B.l.v.c-2.x     [which is completely wrong, failing to follow 1887 Voigt's work]

It was Poincarè, in a 1905 lecture, but published in 1906 as "Sur la dynamique de l'électron",

who gave t' the correct form:

t' = B.(t - v.c-2.x)

but credited to Lorentz his finding.

They should have been called Poincarè Transforms or Voigt's Transforms.

### #3 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1032 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 04:24 PM

I am baffled by your use of the word "deformed" in the title. Surely it is normal for scientific theories to evolve over time?

### #4 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 06:21 PM

I am baffled by your use of the word "deformed" in the title. Surely it is normal for scientific theories to evolve over time?

My fault!

English is not my first language and, when I posted it, I noticed the mistake bur

I couldnt change the subject. I'm new here. Sorry for the inconveniences.

What I tried to show is how, very close to the death of a scientist (Maxwell, Schwartzchild) or without caring about

their opinion (Schrodinger, Lorentz), other scientists working in things related to the target theory, modified it, and

in historical perspective, these actions keep being ignored.

We should respect the original work or, at least, not associate the name of the creator to the current version, which

is disrespectful and not a tribute (specially in cases like Lorentz, Schwartzchild and Schrodinger).

• LaurieAG likes this

### #5 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1478 posts

Posted 24 April 2019 - 09:56 PM

If we can no longer work from first principles to reach the same conclusions as we get today should we disregard the history or question the modern usage to determine which particular caveats have been omitted.

To just disregard the history and ignore the caveats is not science.

All I know is that I know nothing.

• Members
• 1085 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 12:01 AM

My fault!

English is not my first language and, when I posted it, I noticed the mistake bur

I couldnt change the subject. I'm new here. Sorry for the inconveniences.

I believe only an administrator has permission to edit a title.

### #7 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1032 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 12:39 AM

I can edit it; I am just not sure what he wants it edited to. I'll change it and see if he approves.

### #8 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1032 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 12:48 AM

My fault!

English is not my first language and, when I posted it, I noticed the mistake bur

I couldnt change the subject. I'm new here. Sorry for the inconveniences.

What I tried to show is how, very close to the death of a scientist (Maxwell, Schwartzchild) or without caring about

their opinion (Schrodinger, Lorentz), other scientists working in things related to the target theory, modified it, and

in historical perspective, these actions keep being ignored.

We should respect the original work or, at least, not associate the name of the creator to the current version, which

is disrespectful and not a tribute (specially in cases like Lorentz, Schwartzchild and Schrodinger).

No problem about the title. Welcome to Hypography!

I am not sure I understand your objection to other scientists refining the work of the "original" theorists.

I doubt that anything is truly original and is always based on the work of those who came before.

Science is not so much about giving credit, in my opinion; it is much more concerned in trying to reach a correct understanding of how the universe works. Again, just my opinion, and not meant as a criticism of your post.

• exchemist likes this

### #9 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 07:09 AM

I can edit it; I am just not sure what he wants it edited to. I'll change it and see if he approves.

As a sugerence, I wrote at the beginning of my first post (large font in red color) what I consider

could be a better title.

Thanks,

Richard

### #10 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 07:56 AM

No problem about the title. Welcome to Hypography!

I am not sure I understand your objection to other scientists refining the work of the "original" theorists.

I doubt that anything is truly original and is always based on the work of those who came before.

Science is not so much about giving credit, in my opinion; it is much more concerned in trying to reach a correct understanding of how the universe works. Again, just my opinion, and not meant as a criticism of your post.

My objection is that, in the examples, the changes are not a refinement. These changes modified entirely

the original theory, in two cases only a couple of years after the author's death (Maxwell, Schwartzchild).

The changes at their theory caused the loss of the original spirit, which was the correct one.

Maxwell was convinced that total derivatives and quaternions were a perfect solution for his "vision" of

the subject which, IMHO, was far greater than those of his peers, Heaviside, Lorentz and Hertz had 29,

26 and 22 years when Maxwell died and felt entitled to introduce their own agenda and gain control

over Maxwell's theory (Heaviside with vector algebra, Lorentz with his search of simmetry and Hertz with

his experimental proof of Maxwell's theory). I criticize the human factor involved here. They wanted to

gain fame in spite of Maxwell, without knowing the consequences of what they did, as no one of them

envisioned practical uses like radio communications, etc.

Lorentz appears again with Poincarè, trying to do something that he clearly was not qualified to do: to prove

Fitzgerald's proposal of length contraction, to save the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. He had a

cordial relationship with Poincarè who, for me, is the real father of SRelativity (even when I don't agree with it).

Schwartzchild was aware of the second singularity, which he avoided by selecting a new coordinate. Hilbert

UNDO Schwartzchild's work one year after his death, without mercy. I think that he wanted to show a failure

at Einstein's GR, and used Schwartzchild name to disguise his purpose.

Schrodinger fighted fiercely against Born and Bohr for their interpretation of HIS CONCEPTS as a probability

density function, instead of a deterministic energy distribution function. And this happened on his face, specially

at the 1927 "Electrons and Photons" Solvay's conference. Schrodinger had only Einstein's and de Broglie's support, being

the only three scientists that supported a deterministic view of the quantum world by 1927.

By then, Einstein had lost respect with the new generation of "quantum physicists" and the young de Broglie was tempted

with a future Nobel Prize if he dropped his deterministic theory about the undulatory electron (the second Pilot Wave function,

which was rescued by Bohm in the '50s),

So, I think that community consensus or indoctrination doesn't make a theory more valid.

Look at what happens today with the big bang theory or the Standard Model of Elementary Particle.

If you try to rise a dissident voice, you are done and called a "crackpot", being menaced to lose academic

position, barred from scientific journals, laboratories, etc.

I have some examples like: Bryan G. Wallace (lost everything due to his affirmations that bodies' motion were

aditive to the speed of light) or Halton Arp (by proving many times that Hubble's constant wasn't the real deal).

At any case, I just wanted to complain about these things at this forum, as nothing I can say will modify an stablished

modus operandi in the history of science; Influence and power are more important than the truth.

### #11 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2488 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 08:24 AM

My objection is that, in the examples, the changes are not a refinement. These changes modified entirely

the original theory, in two cases only a couple of years after the author's death (Maxwell, Schwartzchild).

The changes at their theory caused the loss of the original spirit, which was the correct one.

Maxwell was convinced that total derivatives and quaternions were a perfect solution for his "vision" of

the subject which, IMHO, was far greater than those of his peers, Heaviside, Lorentz and Hertz had 29,

26 and 22 years when Maxwell died and felt entitled to introduce their own agenda and gain control

over Maxwell's theory (Heaviside with vector algebra, Lorentz with his search of simmetry and Hertz with

his experimental proof of Maxwell's theory). I criticize the human factor involved here. They wanted to

gain fame in spite of Maxwell, without knowing the consequences of what they did, as no one of them

envisioned practical uses like radio communications, etc.

Lorentz appears again with Poincarè, trying to do something that he clearly was not qualified to do: to prove

Fitzgerald's proposal of length contraction, to save the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. He had a

cordial relationship with Poincarè who, for me, is the real father of SRelativity (even when I don't agree with it).

Schwartzchild was aware of the second singularity, which he avoided by selecting a new coordinate. Hilbert

UNDO Schwartzchild's work one year after his death, without mercy. I think that he wanted to show a failure

at Einstein's GR, and used Schwartzchild name to disguise his purpose.

Schrodinger fighted fiercely against Born and Bohr for their interpretation of HIS CONCEPTS as a probability

density function, instead of a deterministic energy distribution function. And this happened on his face, specially

at the 1927 "Electrons and Photons" Solvay's conference. Schrodinger had only Einstein's and de Broglie's support, being

the only three scientists that supported a deterministic view of the quantum world by 1927.

By then, Einstein had lost respect with the new generation of "quantum physicists" and the young de Broglie was tempted

with a future Nobel Prize if he dropped his deterministic theory about the undulatory electron (the second Pilot Wave function,

which was rescued by Bohm in the '50s),

So, I think that community consensus or indoctrination doesn't make a theory more valid.

Look at what happens today with the big bang theory or the Standard Model of Elementary Particle.

If you try to rise a dissident voice, you are done and called a "crackpot", being menaced to lose academic

position, barred from scientific journals, laboratories, etc.

I have some examples like: Bryan G. Wallace (lost everything due to his affirmations that bodies' motion were

aditive to the speed of light) or Halton Arp (by proving many times that Hubble's constant wasn't the real deal).

At any case, I just wanted to complain about these things at this forum, as nothing I can say will modify an stablished

modus operandi in the history of science; Influence and power are more important than the truth.

Unevidenced nonsense. The ideas that fail are those that do not account for observations as well as their competitors. This has been shown over and over again throughout the course of natural science. Of course, as science is a human enterprise, personal motivations, power struggles etc certainly occur. But science is generally fairly quick at filtering out the ideas with weaker explanatory power.

Arp's opposition to the Big Bang seems to have lost traction because the Big Bang model accounts for more things that a steady state model does, but he was always respected as an astronomer and he was never censored, so far as I can tell.

You'll have to help me with who Bryan G Wallace was, though. I've never heard of him and can't find anything about him on the internet, not even on the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

### #12 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 09:01 AM

You'll have to help me with who Bryan G Wallace was, though. I've never heard of him and can't find anything about him on the internet, not even on the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

Dr. Bryan G. Wallace was an astronomer working for the military in the '60s, doing experimental research about the exact position of the Sun through indirect measurements of the actual values of Mars and Venus. The project was based on "radar ranging", using powerful equipment to "ping" their positions. The work

was classified because it had an important strategical value to calculate orbital path of deep space sondes, and the USSR was doing the same thing. He found that the speed of light was aditive (+/- values of v) to the relative Venus-Earth speed, and he published his finding. This cost him his job and lose any privilege to publish at "serious" journals, so he started a bitter battle to get his data plus aditional data of colleagues, in vain.

Here is one link that I found, just googling his complete name:

http://bourabai.kz/wallace/farce05.htm

If you make a deeper search, you'll find the entire ebook on pdf.

Edited by rhertz, 25 April 2019 - 09:03 AM.

### #13 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1032 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 09:07 AM

Unevidenced nonsense. The ideas that fail are those that do not account for observations as well as their competitors. This has been shown over and over again throughout the course of natural science. Of course, as science is a human enterprise, personal motivations, power struggles etc certainly occur. But science is generally fairly quick at filtering out the ideas with weaker explanatory power.

Arp's opposition to the Big Bang seems to have lost traction because the Big Bang model accounts for more things that a steady state model does, but he was always respected as an astronomer and he was never censored, so far as I can tell.

You'll have to help me with who Bryan G Wallace was, though. I've never heard of him and can't find anything about him on the internet, not even on the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

I was able to find something on this Bryan G. Wallace. Apparently, he was into physics conspiracy nonsense, about the speed of light, among other things.

I thought this thread was going to be about the history of physics and how theories evolve and are refined over time.

Sadly, I was wrong. This is just going to be more conspiracy theory technobabble; as if we have a shortage of that!

### #14 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 09:54 AM

I was able to find something on this Bryan G. Wallace. Apparently, he was into physics conspiracy nonsense, about the speed of light, among other things.

I thought this thread was going to be about the history of physics and how theories evolve and are refined over time.

Sadly, I was wrong. This is just going to be more conspiracy theory technobabble; as if we have a shortage of that!

I'm sorry that this thread went off topic, I want to preserve its original value.

You are correct, There is a mix between historical facts about changes on original theories (at least 70 years ago) and

some facts about what happens with critics to the currently stablished theories.

Dropping the "critics" issue, I invite to post any example that you may have about the original topic.

Thanks and  greetings,

Richard

### #15 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2488 posts

Posted 25 April 2019 - 11:09 AM

Dr. Bryan G. Wallace was an astronomer working for the military in the '60s, doing experimental research about the exact position of the Sun through indirect measurements of the actual values of Mars and Venus. The project was based on "radar ranging", using powerful equipment to "ping" their positions. The work

was classified because it had an important strategical value to calculate orbital path of deep space sondes, and the USSR was doing the same thing. He found that the speed of light was aditive (+/- values of v) to the relative Venus-Earth speed, and he published his finding. This cost him his job and lose any privilege to publish at "serious" journals, so he started a bitter battle to get his data plus aditional data of colleagues, in vain.

Here is one link that I found, just googling his complete name:

http://bourabai.kz/wallace/farce05.htm

If you make a deeper search, you'll find the entire ebook on pdf.

But clearly he "found" no such thing.

The independence of the speed of light from the relative motion of source and receiver is one of the best-validated things in physics, and provides the whole foundation for relativity, which is found by extensive checking to be very accurate in its predictions.

So the guy was deluding himself, quite obviously. And then, it would appear, he got all bitter and twisted, went the victim route and self-published a silly book.

Are you serious?

Edited by exchemist, 25 April 2019 - 11:10 AM.

### #16 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 180 posts

Posted 01 May 2019 - 09:21 AM

I've found another example: A sweeden scientist called Celsius.

Apparently, there was an international consensus to design a proper scale of temperature

between the freezing and boiling points of water, as it was easy to reproduce at labs.

When the danish scientist Farenheit developed his scale in 1714, it was a hit and was rapidly adopted. He also

invented the mercury thermometer, based on a sealed glass pipe.

The swedish astronomer Celsius came along with another scale, a couple of decades later.

It has 100 partitions between both states, instead of the 180 parts of the Farenheit  (ºF-32).5/9 )=ºC,

But he adopted 0ºC as the boiling point of water and 100ºC as the freezing point.

This was reversed after his death, and was adopted slowly by most countries until today.

It seems that the search for the absolute zero temperature and, later, the theory from Lord

Kelvin, by 1840, with his absolute temperature K = 273º + ºC what settled wich scale was used,

at least in science and in continental Europe and Spain, France and Portugal colonies.

### #17 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2443 posts

Posted 01 May 2019 - 09:24 AM

There is no rule in scientific research which disallows someone to modify an equation without consent, what is required though is you cite a particular author or an equation to the correct source, where it is deserved.