Who Invented the Z Transform
in [DSP]
|
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 2 Aug 2005 04:47 Robert E. Beaudoin wrote: (snip) > I suppose the OP was referring to Hilbert's action principle (for > gravitation as a consequence of space-time curvature). According > to Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (see section 21.2 of their book > _Gravitation_) I haven't seen a copy for many years. The story I used to hear was that only three people really understood the book. -- glen
From: Clay on 2 Aug 2005 11:36 Hello Robert, Thanks for the response. My interpretation of the OP's statement was Hilbert beat Einstein to the result and then Einstein stole all of the glory. Hilbert's approach is certainly notewothy since least action principles abound in physics and alternative mathematical methods often prove to be illuminating on their own[1]. However I suspect Hilbert was familiar with Einstein's result and therefore not only had the problem but also had the solution. This is quite different than working out a solution where the destination is unknown. But even if Hilbert found this solution without knowing the field equation (a great feat the principle of equivalence is bypassed yielding a theory without an obvious physical basis (The few references I've found so far give little to no detail). I don't have Wheeler handy. Einstein's approach is rooted in a physical basis. And today most who study his work celebrate his acheivements. Clay [1] Hamilton's modification to the LaGrangian method of classical mechanics turns out to be the usual approach in quantum mechanics.
From: Robert E. Beaudoin on 2 Aug 2005 12:33 Clay wrote: > Hello Robert, > > Thanks for the response. My interpretation of the OP's statement was > Hilbert beat Einstein to the result and then Einstein stole all of the > glory. Hilbert's approach is certainly notewothy since least action > principles abound in physics and alternative mathematical methods often > prove to be illuminating on their own[1]. However I suspect Hilbert was > familiar with Einstein's result and therefore not only had the problem > but also had the solution. This is quite different than working out a > solution where the destination is unknown. But even if Hilbert found > this solution without knowing the field equation (a great feat the > principle of equivalence is bypassed yielding a theory without an > obvious physical basis (The few references I've found so far give > little to no detail). I don't have Wheeler handy. Einstein's approach > is rooted in a physical basis. And today most who study his work > celebrate his acheivements. > > Clay > > [1] Hamilton's modification to the LaGrangian method of classical > mechanics turns out to be the usual approach in quantum mechanics. > Hi Clay, Just in case it wasn't clear: I agree with you on all of this. Bob Beaudoin
From: Everett M. Greene on 2 Aug 2005 05:27 "bhooshaniyer" <bhooshaniyer(a)gmail.com> writes: > ... > > > which is basically the principle of least action > > applied to a Lagrangian proportional to the Ricci > > curvature scalar. > > To just read that felt surreal! What's the problem? What he said is intuitively obvious to the least informed! :-)
From: Rick Lyons on 6 Aug 2005 14:19
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:19:42 GMT, Gordon Sande <g.sande(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > >Clay S. Turner wrote: >> <eunometic(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> news:1122873344.917693.210890(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >>>Hilbert Transforms were ofcourse developed by Hilbert and the Dirac >>>delta by Dirac. >> >> >> The "delta function" came before Dirac, but it was little known. He >> popularized the concept and showed how useful it can be to applications in >> quantum mechanics. >> Hi, I read somewhere that when Maxwell died, there were twenty "Maxwell's equations", and that it was Oliver Heaviside who reduced those down to the current-day four equations. See Ya', [-Rick-] |