M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

M840 Dissertation in Mathematics

Poincar and Hilberts geometrical ideas and their significance in the first decade of the twentieth century

Leslie Pedrick Student ID T3137721

Submitted for the MSc in Mathematics Open University Milton Keynes, UK 14th September 2011

Page 1 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Statement of Originality
This dissertation has been prepared solely by me, Leslie Pedrick, and no part of it has previously been submitted to any institution for any qualification.

Page 2 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Contents
1. Introduction 2. Poincars geometrical ideas 2.1. Geometry as Group theory 2.2. On Non-Euclidian Geometry 2.3. The Law of Relativity 2.4. Poincar and the ether 3. Hilberts geometrical ideas 3.1. Axiomatic geometry 3.2. Grundlagen der Geometrie 1899 3.3. Invariant Theory 3.4. Importance of Problems Speech 1900 3.5. Functional Analysis 4. Significance of Poincars ideas 1900-1910 4.1. Poincar and the Dynamics of the Electron 4.1.1. The Background 4.2. Lorentz Ether theory 4.3. Electron mass 4.4. Gravity 4.5. Minkowski Space and Time 5. Significance of Hilberts ideas 1900-1910 5.1. Minkowski Space and Time 5.2. Hilbert and the route to Spectrum Theory 5.3. Hilberts 23 problems 6. Conclusions 7. References and Bibliography 34 38 39 9 9 11 11 13 15 15 16 18 18 18 19 22 23 24 29 29 29 4 5 5 8

Page 3 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

1.

Introduction

Both Hilbert and Poincar were extremely prolific in the publication of their ideas in geometry and there was so much to choose from. We shall see that for Poincar, the foundations of his ideas are contained within his publications of The Foundations of Science. For Hilbert I have selected his work on axiomatic geometry, invariant theory and integral equations. On the significance of these ideas in the first decade of the 20th Century. For Poincar, I have chosen to look at relativity. Until recent times Poincars role in the evolution of relativity appears to have been neglected. For Hilbert, I investigate problems of 1900. his role in Minkowskis space-time, the development of spectral theory then his role in his 23

Page 4 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

2.
2.1

Poincars geometrical ideas

Geometry as Group theory What we call geometry is nothing but the study of formal properties of a certain continuous group; so that we may say, space is a group. The notion of this continuous group exists in our mind prior to all experience [1]

But by his philosophy of convention; we may choose continuous groups from many to suit our perception of physical space and time; the choice is a matter of convention. Our perception of physical space and time comes from the senses: Our sensations cannot give us the notion of space. That notion is built up by the mind from elements which pre-exist in it, and external experience is simply the occasion for its exercising this power, or at most a means of determining the best mode of exercising it. [1a] Back in 1880 Poincar entered the competition for the grand prize in mathematical sciences organized by the French Academy of Sciences. His submission did not win the prize, even though the three supplements to his prize essay established a new class of automorphic functions that Poincar called Fuchsian functions. Fuchsian functions, Poincar discovered, are invariant under a certain class of linear transformations that form a group. The Fuchsian function is to the geometry of Lobachevski what the doubly periodic function is to that of Euclid. [2] This group reduces to that of the translation group of hyperbolic geometry. Poincar observed: In fact, what is a geometry? It is the study of the group of operations formed by the displacements to which one can subject a body without deforming it. In Euclidean geometry the group reduces to the rotations and translations. In the pseudogeometry of Lobachevski it is more complicated. [2] In 1887 Poincar published his first essay on the foundations of geometry [3] in this he is strongly influenced by Sophus Lies methods. Poincar displays his conventionalism in the philosophy of science: one may say that the truth of the geometry of Euclid is not incompatible with the truth of the geometry of Lobachevski, for the existence of a group is not incompatible with that of another group.

Page 5 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Among all possible groups we have chosen one in particular, in order to refer to it all physical phenomena, just as we choose three coordinate axes in order to refer to them a geometrical figure there exist in nature some remarkable bodies which are called solids, and experience tells us that the different possible movements of these bodies are related to one another much in the same way as the different operations of the chosen group [3] That is; we choose the particular group that is most convenient. Poincar does not hide his ideas; he publishes everything: In The Foundations of Science, Space and Geometry Poincar starts by distinguishing between the continuous group that exists in our mind and the space that we experience; that is Geometrical Space and Representative Space (sometimes Perceptual Space or Sensible Space). [4] Poincar states the properties of Geometrical Space: What, first of all, are the properties of space, properly so called? I mean of that space which is the object of geometry and which I shall call geometric space. The following are some of the most essential for geometric space: 1. It is continuous. 2. It is infinite (boundless). 3. It has three dimensions. 4. It is homogeneous, that is to say, all its points are identical one with another. 5. It is isotropic, that is to say, all the straight lines which pass through the same point are identical one with another. [4] Poincar argues that perceptual space, under its triple form, visual, tactile and motor, is essentially different from geometric space. [perceptual space] It is neither homogeneous, nor isotropic; one can not even say that it has three dimensions. Seeing that our representations are simply the reproductions of our sensations, therefore we cannot image geometrical space. We cannot represent to ourselves objects in geometrical space, but can merely reason upon them as if they existed in that space.

Page 6 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Geometrical space, therefore, cannot serve as a category for our representations. It is not a form of our sensibility. It can serve us only in our reasonings. It is a form of our understanding. [4] In order to develop the notion of a group, Poincar needs to define displacement as a group operation. He defines displacement thus: We observe next that in certain cases when an external change has modified our impressions, we can, by voluntarily provoking an internal change, reestablish our primitive impressions. The external change, accordingly, can be corrected by an internal change. Changes which are susceptible of being corrected by an internal change. These are displacements. Changes that can not be corrected by an internal change Poincar calls alterations, These are alterations. An immovable being would be incapable of making this distinction. Such a being, therefore, could never create geometry, even if his sensations were variable, and even if the objects surrounding him were movable. [1] In the Introduction to Notion of a Group [1] Poincar considers an ensemble of displacements A+B: Mathematicians express this by saying that the ensemble, or aggregate, of displacements is a group. If such were not the case there would be no geometry, but how do we know that the ensemble of displacements is a group? Is it by reasoning a priori? Is it by experience? One is tempted to reason a priori and to say: if the external change A is corrected by the internal change A', and the external change B by the internal change B', the resulting external change A+ B will be corrected by the resulting internal change B' +A'. Hence this resulting change is by definition a displacement, which is to say that the ensemble of displacements forms a group: Once we accept that space is a group, we observe the consequences of the existence of the group; that are the properties Geometrical Space listed 1-5 above. Poincar recognises the importance of the invariant sub-group.

Page 7 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Poincar gives credit for the source of his ideas on the foundations of geometry: We owe the theory which I have just sketched to Helmholtz and Lie. I differ from them in one point only, but probably the difference is in the mode of expression only and at bottom we are completely in accord. For Helmholtz and Lie the matter of the group existed previously to the form, and in geometry the matter is a Zalilenmannigfaltigkeit (number manifold) of three dimensions. The number of dimensions is therefore posited prior to the group. For me, on the contrary, the form exists before the matter. [1] 2.2 On Non Euclidian Geometry

Beltrami and Poincars models of Lobachevskis hyperbolic geometry are very similar circle models. Poincar does not refer to Beltrami, but Poincars model (being later) probably was derived from Beltramis. Poincar does not consider geometry to be an experimental science; he believed that the rules of geometry pre-exist within us. The measurements that we make and our experience gives us occasion to reflect on our pre-existing concepts of groups. On the other hand he regards axioms as conventions; The axioms of geometry are therefore are neither synthetic a priori judgments nor experimental facts. They are conventions; our choice among all possible conventions is guided by experimental facts; but it remains free and is limited only by the necessity of avoiding all contradiction. [5] Poincar is emphatic on his famous conventionist stance on the relationship between the geometries: To ask whether the geometry of Euclid is true and that of Lobachevski is false, is as absurd as to ask whether the metric system is true and that of the yard, foot, and inch, is false. Transported to another world we might undoubtedly have a different geometry, not because our geometry would have ceased to be true, but because it would have become less convenient than another. Let it not be said that the reason why we deem the group of Euclid the simplest is because it conforms best to some pre-existing ideal which has already a geometrical character; it is simpler because certain of its displacements are interchangeable with one another, which is not true of the corresponding Page 8 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

displacements of the group of Lobachevski. Translated into analytical language, this means that there are fewer terms in the equations, and it is clear that an algebraist who did not know what space or a straight line was would nevertheless look upon this as a condition of simplicity [5] 2.3 The Law of Relativity

Poincars view on law of relativity is not constant; we can see how he changes from one viewpoint another to satisfy the Michelson Experiment and Maxwells equations. In Foundations of Science (Experience and Geometry) Poincar frames the law in terms of covariance of state of bodies with respect to the absolute position and velocity. The state of bodies and their mutual distances at any instant, as well as the velocities with which these distances vary at this same instant, will depend only on the state of those bodies and their mutual distances at the initial instant, and the velocities with which these distances vary at this initial instant, but they will not depend either upon the absolute initial position of the system, or upon its absolute orientation, or upon the velocities with which this absolute position and orientation varied at the initial instant.[6] In this essay he is clearly not happy with this law, since it is not in accord with his interpretation of the results of the experiments of Hertz and Michelson. But this is quite different from the principle of relativity proposed by Poincar in St. Louis 1904[7]; now the experiments are viewed by the observer, fixed or in uniform motion and the principle of relativity is satisfied; The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion.[7] 2.4 Poincar and the ether The ether it is, the unknown, which explains matter, the known; matter is incapable of explaining the ether. [8] In The Theories of Modern Physics [9] Poincar had speculated that primitive matter was a form of condensed ether, and others had gone further; theories such as this were popular at the time. Page 9 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Neither Poincar nor Lorentz abandoned the concept of the ether. It troubled Poincar, but there was no better concept to explain action-at-a-distance, absolute rotation and at one time the existence of matter (which had been replaced by another hypothesis). It was part of Poincars philosophy of conventionalism; a convenient hypothesis that could be discarded when a better hypothesis came along: It matters to us little whether the ether really exists; it is the matter of metaphysicians; what is essential for us is that everything happens as if it existed and that this hypothesis is convenient for the explanation of phenomena. After all, have we any other reason for believing in the existence of material objects? That too is only a convenient hypothesis; only it will never cease to be so, while a day will come no doubt in which the ether will be rejected as useless. [10]

Page 10 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

3.
3.1

Hilberts geometrical ideas

Axiomatic geometry

Hilbert lectured on projective geometry in 1891. In the introduction to these lectures, Hilbert would state his concept of geometry. Compare the following with that of Poincar in 2.1: Geometry is the science that deals with the properties of space. It differs essentially from pure mathematical domains such as the theory of numbers, algebra, or the theory of functions. The results of the latter are obtained through pure thinking... The situation is completely different in the case of geometry. I can never penetrate the properties of space by pure reflection, much as I can never recognize the basic laws of mechanics, the law of gravitation or any other physical law in this way. Space is not a product of my reflections. Rather, it is given to me through the senses. I thus need my senses in order to fathom its properties. I need intuition and experiment, just as I need them in order to figure out physical laws, where also matter is added as given through the senses. [11] [12] Both Poincar and Hilbert make the distinction between the mind and the senses. For Poincar however, all geometry exists in the mind and our senses help us choose the best way of to us it. For Hilbert no geometry is a priori, but is given by the senses. The concept of Anschauung, played an important role in Hilberts attitude toward geometry. The prefix to his introduction of Grundlagen der Geometrie (1899) Hilbert quotes from Kant, All human knowledge begins with intuitions, thence passes to concepts and ends with ideas. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Elementariehre, Part 2, Sec. 2. At this time (1891) Hilberts course on projective geometry was not at all axiomatic; it was based on texts on projective geometry by von Staudt and Theodor Reye. Also in 1891 Hilbert attended a lecture by Wiener on the foundations of geometry at the Deutsche Mathematiker Vereinigung meeting in Halle, where Wiener proposed that, starting solely with the theorems of Desargues and Pappus, it would possible to prove the fundamental theorem of projective geometry.

Page 11 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Hilbert was so impressed by this treatment of continuity in the foundations of geometry, that after he is reported to have declared that it must be possible to replace point, line, and plane with table, chair, and beer mug without changing the validity of the theorems of geometry. From his study of sets, Hilbert probably already knew of the idea of changing names of the central elements whilst leaving the deductive structure intact, from the Systems of Elements in Dedekinds 1888 What are numbers and what should they be: In what follows I understand by thing every object of our thought. In order to be able easily to speak of things, we designate them by symbols, e.g., by letters, and we venture to speak briefly of the thing a of a simply, when we mean the thing denoted by a and not at all the letter a itself. A thing is completely determined by all that can be affirmed or thought concerning it. A thing a is the same as b (identical with b), and b the same as a, when all that can be thought concerning a can also be thought concerning b, and when all that is true of b can also be thought of a. [13] In 1893 Hilbert was to conduct a course in non-Euclidian geometry at Knigsberg. The original manuscript that Hilbert prepared shows that he adopted an axiomatic approach, largely based on Paschs model. However Hilbert soon realised that there were redundancies in Paschs treatment. In particular, Paschs Archimedean axiom could be derived from his other axioms. Hilbert was determined that his axiomatic geometry would have the minimum explicit set of presuppositions from which the whole of geometry could be deduced. The course of 1893 did not take place, as only one student registered. However, Hilbert reconfigured the course with a more empiricist approach, including the work of Hermann Grassmann. Hilbert in the revision also referred to Hertz and his theory of images in the mind: Nevertheless the origin [of geometrical knowledge] is in experience. The axioms are, as Hertz would say, images or symbols in our mind, such that consequents of the images are again images of the consequences, what we can logically deduce from the images is itself valid in nature. [14][15] So in 1894 Hilbert presented a course Foundations of Geometry. This time it did go ahead.

Page 12 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

In 1899 Hilbert lectured on the elements of Euclidean geometry in Gttingen. These lectures were based on what was to become the Grundlagen der Geometrie 1899.[18] 3.2 Grundlagen der Geometrie 1899

Hilberts Grundlagen der Geometrie was published in June 1899 as part of a Festschrift issued in Gttingen in honour of the unveiling of the Gauss-Weber monument. His described aim is outlined in the short introduction: The following investigation is a new attempt to choose for geometry a simple and complete set of independent axioms and to deduce from these the most important geometrical theorems in such a manner as to bring out as clearly as possible the significance of the different groups of axioms and the scope of the conclusions to be derived from the individual axioms.[17] Simple, according to Hertz, means that an axiom is no more than a single idea, but this is not defined by Hilbert in Grundlagen der Geometrie. Much of Hilberts formulation of the axiomatic method was derived from Hertzs Principles of Mechanics. [17] Complete, the axioms of Grundlagen der Geometrie were complete, so that all the theorems could be derived from them. Independent, so that the removal of anyone axiom from the set would make it impossible to prove at least some of the theorems. They were also consistent, so that no contradictory theorems could be derived. In Grundlagen der Geometrie, concerning the analysis of our intuition of space, Hilbert commences his discussion by considering three systems of things (elements) which he calls points, straight lines, and planes, and sets up a system of axioms connecting these elements in their mutual relations. We think of these points, straight lines, and planes as having certain mutual relations, which we indicate by means of such words as are situated, between, parallel, congruent, continuous, etc. The complete and exact description of these relations follows as a consequence of the axioms of geometry. These axioms may be arranged in five groups. Each of these groups expresses, by itself, certain related fundamental facts of our intuition.

Page 13 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

We will name these groups as follows: I, Axioms of connection. II, Axioms of order. III, Axioms of parallels (Euclids axiom). IV, Axioms of congruence. V, Axioms of continuity (Archimedess axiom). As Hilbert develops the theorems, he shows clearly which axioms are required and demonstrated that they are mutually independent and consistent. For example; he demonstrates that the whole of the Euclidean geometry may be developed without the use of the axiom of continuity, and that Pappuss theorem is independent of Desarguess theorem. Hilbert writes: Our investigation will show that in this respect Pascals theorem is very different from Desarguess theorem; for, in the demonstration of Pascals theorem, the admission or exclusion of the axiom of Archimedes is of decided influence.[18] He concludes: Every proposition relative to points of intersection in the geometry in question must always, by the aid of suitably constructed auxiliary points and straight lines, turn out to be a combination of the theorems of Pascal and Desargues. Hence for the proof of the validity of a theorem relating to points of intersection, we need not have resource to the theorems of congruence.[18] Hilbert also introduces axioms of congruence making them the basis of a definition of geometric displacement. [18] In the second edition of Grundlagen der Geometrie, published in 1903, Hilbert added the axiom of completeness (Vollstndigkeitsaxiom). This was a statement about the nature of the system. It meant that if there exists a system of elements obeying the axioms, then this system is not susceptible of extension.

Page 14 of 41

M840 3.3

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Invariant Theory

In 1897 Hilbert conducted a course in invariant theory. Invariant theory is the bridge between algebra and geometry. [19] His Finiteness Theorem had initially been proved and published in 1890, the finiteness of the full invariant system in 1893. Theorem (Finiteness of the Full Invariant System): Every binary form possesses a finite full invariant system such that each invariant of the form is a polynomial function of the invariants in the full invariant system. [20] In 1890 Hilbert had been introduced to Gordans Problem; the question concerned the totality of invariants. Was there a basis, a finite system of invariants in terms of which all other invariants, although infinite in number, could be expressed rationally and integrally? [21] Hilbert realised that to prove the finiteness of the basis of the invariant system, one did not have to construct it. Hilbert always insisted that if one can prove that the attributes assigned to a concept will never lead to a contradiction, the mathematical existence of the concept is thereby established. All one had to do was to prove that a finite basis, of logical necessity, must exist, because any other conclusion would result in a contradiction. [22] To those that declared that existence statements are meaningless unless they actually specify the object asserted to exist, Hilbert was to reply: The value of pure existence proofs consists precisely in that the individual construction is eliminated by them, and that many different constructions are subsumed under one fundamental idea so that only what is essential to the proof stands out clearly; brevity and economy of thought are the raison d'tre of existence proofs ... To prohibit existence statements ... is tantamount to relinquishing the science of mathematics altogether. [23] 3.4 Importance of Problems Speech 1900

In 1900 Hilbert gave his famous address on Importance of Problems to the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris. [24] Hilbert must always be regarded as a working mathematician, his stated motivation for this speech was: As long as a branch of science offers an abundance of problems, so long is it alive: a lack of problems foreshadows extinction or the cessation of

Page 15 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

independent development. Just as every human undertaking pursues certain objectives, so also mathematical research requires its problems. But in 1880 Bois-Reymond made a speech to the Berlin Academy of Sciences outlining seven world riddles, three of which, he declared, neither science nor philosophy could ever explain. Ignoramus et ignorabimus - we are ignorant and we shall remain ignorant. To both Hilbert and his friend Minkowski such a concession was thoroughly abhorrent. As Hilbert put it in his speech: every definite mathematical problem must necessarily be susceptible of an exact settlement, either in the form of an actual answer to the question asked, or by the proof of the impossibility of its solution and therefore the necessary failure of all attempts... in mathematics there is no ignorabimus.[24] Hilbert describes his philosophy on the method of solution of problems: If we do not succeed in solving a mathematical problem, the reason frequently consists in our failure to recognize the more general standpoint from which the problem before us appears only as a single link in a chain of related problems. In dealing with mathematical problems, specialization plays, as I believe, a still more important part than generalization. Perhaps in most cases where we seek in vain the answer to a question, the cause of the failure lies in the fact that problems simpler and easier than the one in hand have been either not at all or incompletely solved. All depends, then, on finding out these easier problems, and on solving them by means of devices as perfect as possible and of concepts capable of generalization. This rule is one of the most important levers for overcoming mathematical difficulties and it seems to me that it is used almost always, though perhaps unconsciously.[24]

Page 16 of 41

M840 3.5

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Functional Analysis

Probably the first integral equation appeared in The Analytic Theory of Heat, 1822[39], by Fourier inverting the equation: f ( x ) = eitx g ( t ) dt to g ( x ) =

1 2

e itx f ( t ) dt

Fredholm developed a theory of determinants for integral equations and published a series of papers in the years from 1900 to 1903 on the general theory of integral equations. Hilbert became interested in theory of integral equations and published series of six papers between 1904 to 1910, which contained Hilberts own words: the systematic building of a general theory of integral equations for the whole of analysis, especially for the theory of the definite integral and the theory of the development of arbitrary functions in an infinite series, besides for the theory of linear differential equations and analytic functions, as well as for potential theory and calculus of variations, is of the greatest importance.[25]

Page 17 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

4.
4.1

Significance of Poincars ideas 1900-1910

Poincar and the Dynamics of the Electron

On 23rd July 1905 the editor for Rendiconti de Circolo Mathematico di Palermo received a paper by Poincar titled Sur la dynamique de lelectron. [28] In On the Dynamics of the Electron Poincar examines the effects of his new relativistic physics on kinematics, dynamics, electrodynamics, and gravitation. The only three premises that he assumes are his principle of relativity (that all physical laws in moving and stationary frames of reference are identical), principle of least action and Maxwells equations; all other characteristics, including the constancy of the speed of light, follow from them. 4.1.1 The Background

Franois Arago in 1810 reasoned that the velocity of light could be calculated by measuring variations in the refractive index of a substance. He measured the refraction of light from distant stars with a glass prism at the front of his telescope. He expected a range of different angles of refraction the motion of the earth at different times of the day and year. Contrary to expectation he found no difference in refraction with at different times of the day and year. To explain this negative result the Aether drag hypothesis was proposed by Augustin Fresnel in 1818, using the wave theory of light to consider Aragos findings. He suggested that ...the aether is in excess inside the prism because the glass prism carried some of the aether with it. [26] In 1888 Poincar lectured at the Sorbonne on Maxwells theory and electromagnetic effects in the ether. These lectures were published in 1890 as Part I of his lectricit et optique. It was at this time that Hertz was conducting his electromagnetic research at Karlsruhe. Poincar wrote in the Introduction to lectricit et optique: Science has advanced with rapidity that nothing allowed one to foresee at the moment I began this course. Since that time the theory of Maxwell has received, in the most dazzling way, the experimental confirmation it had lacked. [27]

Page 18 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

This work was taken further by Lorentz, Heaviside and other mathematicians; Poincar not only kept up with the developments, and the issues arising out of the experiments, but also entered into positive and supportive discussions about these issues. 4.2 Lorentz Ether theory

Between 1892 and 1906 Lorentz and Poincar developed a Lorentz Ether theory (LET) of electromagnetic phenomena in moving bodies. The theory was based mainly on the Aether drag hypothesis proposed by Fresnel and Maxwell's equations. Fresnel's Aether drag hypothesis predicted positive results to experiments which are sensitive to second order velocity effects. However, the 1887 Michelson experiment gave negative results, therefore refuted Fresnel's Aether drag hypothesis. In LET, Lorentz introduces stationary electromagnetic ether that mediates between the electrons. Changes in this electromagnetic can not propagate faster than the speed of light. Included in the 1895 LET was the theorem of corresponding states, which states: that a moving observer makes the same observations as an observer in the stationary system. Back in 1889 Oliver Heaviside had used Maxwell's equations to derive that magnetic vector potential field around a moving electron is altered by a factor of ( 1 v 2 c 2 )
1 2

. In

order to explain the result of the Michelson experiment, Lorentz assumed that in motion through the elastic immobile ether the dimension of a body in the direction of
2 2 motion is contracted by a factor ( 1 2 v c ) . His calculations were done to the first

order in v/c. In his subsequent paper in 1895 the contraction factor was changed to

( 1 v

c2 )

2 Lorentzs notion of Local Time t = ( t vx c ) where t is the time coordinate for an

observer resting in the ether, and t' is the time coordinate for an observer moving in the ether, formed an essential part of the theorem of corresponding states.

Page 19 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Local Time enabled Lorentz to account for the aberration of light, the Doppler Effect and the Fizeau experiment. Lorentz considered Local Time only as a technique for problem solving and a mathematical stipulation to simplify the calculation. Poincar on the other hand saw more than a mathematical trick in the definition of local time, which he called Lorentz's most ingenious idea. [29] In the Poincars lecture given at Leyden in 1900 celebrating the 25th anniversary of the thesis of Lorentz, Poincar states his interpretation of the physical meaning of Lorentz local time. He defines, for the first time, the principle of synchronization of distant clocks at rest in moving bodies: For the compensation to work, we must relate the phenomena not to the true time t, but to a certain local time t' defined in the following fashion. Let us suppose that there are some observers placed at various points, and they synchronize their clocks using light signals. They attempt to adjust the measured transmission time of the signals, but they are not aware of their common motion, and consequently believe that the signals travel equally fast in both directions. They perform observations of crossing signals, one travelling from A to B, followed by another travelling from B to A. The local time t is the time indicated by the clocks which are so adjusted. If V = 1 K 0 is the speed of light, and v is the speed of the Earth which we

suppose is parallel to the x axis, and in the positive direction, and then we have: t = t vx V 2 . [30] In On the Dynamics of the Electron, Poincar wrote: It appears that this impossibility to detect the absolute motion of the Earth by experiment may be a general law of nature; we are naturally inclined to admit this law, which we will call the Postulate of Relativity and admit without restriction. An explanation was proposed by Lorentz and FitzGerald, who introduced the hypothesis of a contraction of all bodies in the direction of the Earths motion and proportional to the square of the aberration. This contraction, which we will call the Lorentzian contraction, would explain Michelsons experiment and all

Page 20 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

others performed up to now. The hypothesis would become insufficient, however, if we were to admit the postulate of relativity in full generality. Lorentz then sought to extend his hypothesis and to modify it in order to obtain perfect agreement with this postulate. This is what he succeeded in doing in his article entitled Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light. [29] In 1904 Lorentz had extended his theory to be compatible with experimental results, not Poincars principle of relativity. For Poincar, the principle of relativity had to be preserved; the Lorentz transformation was not just a mathematical transformation, but was to be regarded as an actual physical transformation. Poincar wrote to Lorentz with the necessary correction that satisfied the principle of relativity. With this correction, Poincar felt able to present Lorentzs new theory at his lecture in St. Louis in 1904. [33] Poincar had realised how essential the constant speed of light is to the principle of relativity. He asked: What would happen if one could communicate by non-luminous signals whose velocity of propagation differed from that of light? If, after having adjusted the watches by the optical procedure, one wished to verify the adjustment by the aid of these new signals, then would appear divergences which would render evident the common translation of the two stations. [31] This question was important. In 1805 Laplace had conclude that the speed of gravitational interactions were at least 7106 times the speed of light. Poincar realised that his interpretation of the principle of relativity required a new theory of gravity and that gravitational force should transform like electromagnetic forces, propagating at the speed of light. A new theory of gravity was needed, this was set out in On the Dynamics of the Electron 9. Hypotheses on gravitation. In the Introduction to On the Dynamics of the Electron, Poincar sums up Lorentzs idea: if we are able to impress a translation upon an entire system without modifying any observable phenomena, it is because the equations of an electromagnetic medium are unaltered by certain transformations, which we

Page 21 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

will call Lorentz transformations. Two systems, one of which is at rest, the other in translation, become thereby exact images of each other. Poincars analysis developed from Principle of Least Action and the Lorentz Group; 3&4. Any transformation of the Lorentz group may be regarded as a transformation of the form: x = kl ( x + t ) , Where l is a function of , and k = 1 1 2 . y = ly, z = lz , t = kl ( t + x )

Poincar showed that the transformation does not change the quadratic form x 2 + y 2 + z 2 t 2 on condition that l ( ) = 1 Later in: 7. Quasi-stationary motion: The analysis of Lorentz is therefore fully confirmed, but we can better give us an account of the true reason of the fact which occupies us; and this reason must be sought in the considerations of 4. The transformations that do not alter the equations of motion must form a group, and this can take place only if l = 1. 4.3 Electron mass

In the early 20th century there were a number of competing models for an elementary charged particle. Of these, the three models of Lorentz, Bucherer-Langevin and Abraham were probably the best known. Each of these models predicted an increase of electromagnetic mass with speed, and that a force would be needed to hold the electron together. Mass varied with speed had already been confirmed by Kaufmann in his experiments with high-speed electrons between 1901 and 1903. In his Introduction to Dynamics of the Electron Poincar writes: The advantage of Langevins theory is that it requires only electromagnetic forces, and bonds; it is, however, incompatible with the postulate of relativity. This is what Lorentz showed, and this is what I found in turn using a different method, which calls on principles of group theory. We must return therefore to Lorentzs theory, but if we want to do this and avoid intolerable contradictions, we must posit the existence of a special force

Page 22 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

that explains both the contraction, and the constancy of two of the axes. I sought to determine this force, and found that it may be assimilated to a constant external pressure on the deformable and compressible electron, whose work is proportional to the electrons change in volume. So if the inertia of matter is exclusively of electromagnetic origin, as it is generally admitted since the experiment of Kaufmann, and besides that constant pressure from which I come to speak, all forces are of electromagnetic origin, the postulate of relativity can be established in any rigour. It is what I show by a very simple calculation founded on the principle of least action. Poincar introduced some sort of pressure of non-electrical nature, which contributes a
2 negative amount ( E 3c ) to the energy of the bodies, and therefore explains the 4/3-

factor in the Lorentzs expression for the electromagnetic mass-energy relation. 4.3 Gravity

Poincar examined the hypothesis that Lorentz invariance and the principle of relativity are valid for all forces including gravitational. Accordingly, Poincar constructed a gravitational theory that was compatible with the principle of relativity. 9. Hypotheses on gravitation But there are forces which we can not assign an electromagnetic origin, as for example gravitation. It could happen, indeed, that two systems of bodies produce equivalent electromagnetic fields, that is to say, exerting the same action on the electrified bodies and on the currents, and yet these two systems do not exercise the same gravitational action on the Newtonian mass. The gravitational field is thus distinct from the electromagnetic field. Lorentz was thus forced to complete his hypothesis by assuming that forces of any origin, and in particular gravitation, are affected by translation (or, if preferred, by the Lorentz transformation) the same way as electromagnetic forces. It is now convenient to enter into details and look more closely at this hypothesis.. Although the Poincar-Lorentz theory of gravity provided an inaccurate indication of the perihelion advance of Mercury and was quickly superseded, it did attract followers, and produced the idea of 4-dimensional space-time with coordinates x, y, z, ict.

Page 23 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Between 1908 and 1910 both Minkowski and Summerfield had tried to establish a Lorentz-invariant gravitational law, but that was superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity. There appears to be a hint of Poincar in Einsteins initial approach to his equivalence principle and the rotating disc. In1909 Einstein wrote to Summerfield to say that he had looked at the case of the geometry on a rotating disc: The situation is very similar to the cooled sphere that Poincar had described (and Einstein had studied Poincars popular essays with great care). If the disc is such that its outer edge is rotating at the speed of light, Einstein showed (not in the extract below, alas) that the observer at the centre will indeed think that the geometry on it is a non-Euclidean geometry (but not, note, the nonEuclidean geometry of Bolyai and Lobachevski, simply a geometry different from Euclids). [32] 4.5 Minkowskis Space and Time

Poincar realised that the Lorentz transformation can be regarded as a rotation in a four-dimensional Euclidean space with imaginary time ct-1 as the fourth dimension. But it was Minkowski who reconstructed the geometrical space-time theories of Lorentz, Poincar and Einstein and produced their modern interpretation. He restated the Maxwell equations in four dimensions and demonstrated that they are invariant under the Lorentz transformation. Minkowski presented these ideas at the lecture Raum und Zeit, held at the 80th Nature Researchers Meeting in Cologne 21st September 1908. [34] In many respects this lecture was considered an intrusion by mathematicians into the domain of theoretical physics. Minkowski begins with announcement that he is about to radically alter perception of space and time: Gentlemen! The conceptions of space and time which I would like to develop before you arise from the soil of experimental physics. Therein lies their strength. Their tendency is radical. From this hour on, space by itself and time by itself are to sink fully into the shadows and only a kind of union of the two should yet preserve autonomy. First of all I would like to indicate how,

Page 24 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

[starting] from the mechanics accepted at present, one could arrive through purely mathematical considerations at changed ideas about space and time Minkowski goes on to demonstrate the difference between the old view of space and time the new, with two transformation groups that are covariant with respect to the laws of mechanics: I would like to show you at first, how we can arrive, from mechanics as currently accepted, at the changed concepts about time and space, by purely mathematical considerations. The first group: We wish to picture to ourselves the whole relation graphically. Let x, y, z be the rectangular coordinates of space, and t denote the time. Subjects of our perception are always places and times connected. .for the sake of simplicity, we keep the null-point of time and space fixed, then the first mentioned group of mechanics signifies that at t = 0 we can give the x, y, z-axes an arbitrary rotation about the null-point, corresponding to the homogeneous linear transformation of the expression x 2 + y 2 + z 2 in itself. For the second Group we: substitute x = x + t , y = y + t , z = z + t , t = t with any constants ,

, . According to this we can give the time-axis any possible direction in the upper half of the world t > 0. Let us take a positive parameter c, and let us consider the figure: c 2t 2 x 2 y 2 z 2 = 1 According to the analogy of the hyperboloid of two sheets, this consists of two sheets separated by t = 0. Let us consider the sheet in the region of t > 0, and let us now conceive the transformation of x, y, z, t into four new variables x', y', z', t'.. We can already have a complete idea of the transformations, when we look upon one of them, in which y and z remain unaltered. Let us draw the cross section of that sheet with the plane of the x-and t-axes, i.e., the upper branch of the hyperbola c 2t 2 x 2 = 1 , with its asymptotes

Page 25 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Minkowski constructs the to the parallelogram O A B C on figure 1 and lets O C = 1 let us draw an arbitrary radius vector OA' of that hyperbola branch from the origin O, the tangent in A' at the hyperbola to the cutting B' with the asymptote given at the right, and completing OA'B' to the parallelogram OA'B'C'; at last for what follows, B'C' is drawn to meet the x-axis at D'. Let us now take OC' and OA' as axes for the parallel coordinates x',t' with measuring rods OC' = 1, OA' = 1 / c; then that hyperbola branch is again expressed in the form c2t'2 x'2 = 1,t' > 0 and the transition from x, y, z, t to x' y z t' is one of the transitions in question. The transition from x, y, z, t to x' y z t' form the group of Lorentz translations which Minkowski denotes Gc : Now let us increase c to infinity, giving the instantaneous transmission of Newtonian Mechanics thus 1 / c converges to zero, and it appears from the figure described, that the hyperbola branch is gradually nestled into the x-axis, the asymptotic angle extends to a straight one, that special transformation in the limit changes in such one, and the t-axis can have any direction upwards, and x' more and more approximates to x. With respect to this it is clear that the group Gc in the limit for c = , i.e. as group G , exactly becomes the full group belonging to Newtonian Mechanics.

Page 26 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Minkowski continues to develop the four vector formulas of relativistic electromechanics, but why no mention of Poincar? Previously Minkowski had referred to Poincar as one of the four principal authors of the principle of relativity. Minkowskis formulation of relativity was taken up by the Gttingen scientific community, including professors David Hilbert, Felix Klein, Emil Weichert, and former professors Gustav Herglotz and Karl Schwarzschild. The ultimate success of Minkowskis space-time theory was considered a major triumph for the Gttingen mathematical community, but most scientists regarded it as a mathematical development of Einsteins theory of Special Relativity. Minkowski succeeded in formulating a geometrical interpretation of the Lorentz transformation. He also: completed the concept of four vectors. created the Minkowski diagram for the depiction of space-time. Introduced the concept of proper time. completed Lorentz invariance/covariance. created four-dimensional formulation of electrodynamics. was the first to use expressions like world line.

In 1909, Kline, in a review of Minkowskis reformulated of Einstein's 1905 paper wrote [35]: A key point of the paper is the difference in approach to physical problems taken by mathematical physicists as opposed to theoretical physicists. In a paper published in 1908 Minkowski reformulated Einstein's 1905 paper by introducing the four-dimensional (space-time) non-Euclidean geometry, a step which Einstein did not think much of at the time. But more important is the attitude or philosophy that Minkowski, Hilbert - with whom Minkowski worked for a few years - Felix Klein and Hermann Weyl pursued, namely, that purely mathematical considerations, including harmony and elegance of ideas, should dominate in embracing new physical facts. Mathematics so to speak was to be master and physical theory could be made to bow to the master. Put otherwise, Page 27 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

theoretical physics was a subdomain of mathematical physics, which in turn was a subdiscipline of pure mathematics. In this view Minkowski followed Poincar whose philosophy was that mathematical physics, as opposed to theoretical physics, can furnish new physical principles. This philosophy would seem to be a carry-over (modified of course) from the Eighteenth Century view that the world is designed mathematically and hence that the world must obey principles and laws which mathematicians uncover, such as the principle of least action of Maupertuis, Lagrange and Hamilton. Einstein was a theoretical physicist and for him mathematics must be suited to the physics. Kline distinguished between mathematical physicists and theoretical physicists and discussed which should lead, maths or physics. It is interesting that he portrays Poincar as leading Minkowski in the mathematical physicists viewpoint.

Page 28 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

5.
5.1

Significance of Hilberts ideas 1900-1910

Minkowskis Space and Time

Now we discuss the influence that Hilbert had on Minkowski Space and Time. Hilberts sixth problem in his 1900 address was the mathematical treatment of the axioms of physics. The investigations on the foundations of geometry suggest the problem, to treat in the same manner, by means of axioms, those physical sciences in which mathematics plays an important part; in the first rank are the theories of probabilities and mechanics. In 1905, Hilbert lectured in Gttingen, and in these courses gave a quite detailed overview of how such an axiomatic analysis would proceed in the case of several specific theories, including mechanics, thermodynamics, and the kinetic theory of gases, electrodynamics, probabilities, insurance mathematics and psychophysics. [36] Over the following three years he also worked in partnership with Minkowski on electrodynamics and other physical sciences. According to Corry the ideas manifest in Hilberts treatment of physical theories are also part of the scientific and mathematical background that informed Minkowskis work on electrodynamics and the principle of relativity. [36] However there appears to be no tangible evidence that Hilbert had any direct influence on Minkowskis axiomatic analysis of the principles of relativity. It is more that Minkowski axiomatic approach had already been formed during his work at Bonn with Hertz, whom he much admired. 5.2 Hilbert and the route to Spectrum Theory

At the beginning of the twentieth century the Principal axis Theorem of analytical geometry was the only theorem that could in some way be regarded as a root of spectral theory. An early form of the Principal axis Theorem may be found in the works of the founders of analytical geometry, Fermat and Descartes. Between 1827 and 1830 the principal axis of various quadratic surfaces had been investigated both by Jacobi and Cauchy, they showed that the coefficients i of the normal form of a symmetric quadratic form must be real. [37] Between 1852 and 1858, Sylvester, together with Cayley, used matrix notation to produce the general form of the principal axis theorem for n dimensional space and

Page 29 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

showed that that the coefficients i in the normal form of ( Ax, x ) are the roots of the characteristic polynomial det ( I A ) = 0 . Cayley, in A memoir on the theory of matrices, produced the diagonalization procedure for the matrix A and the diagonal D = T 1 AT for some orthogonal matrixT , and showed that the diagonal entries i of matrix D are eigenvalues of A ; they are in fact roots of the polynomial equation det ( I A ) = 0 .[38] We must also look at a second root of spectral theory, which is the evolution from finite dimensional theory to infinite dimensional theory; this occurred first in algebra, then later in geometry. Fourier produced the first significant investigation of infinite systems of equations in 1822, when demonstrating that any function may be written as an infinite linear combination of trigonometric terms. [39] Next, in 1877, American astronomer William Hill, established an infinite dimensional theory of determinants from the finite dimensional case. [40] Later in 1886 Poincar elucidated Hills work, providing a more precise definition of the infinite determinant. [41] This work was continued by Koch in Stockholm. Poincar wrote regarding Hills results that: The solution adopted by M. Hill is as original as it is bold ... Did one have the right to set the determinant of these equations equal to zero? M. Hill ventured to do so and it was a very daring thing to do; until then an infinite number of linear equations had never been considered [sic!]; determinants of infinite order had never been studied; no one even knew how to define them, and it was not certain that it was possible to give a precise meaning to this notion. I must add, however, for sake of completeness, that M. Kteritzsch had touched on the subject ... But his paper was hardly known in the scientific world and in any case was not known to M. Hill. ... But it is not enough to be daring; dating must be justified by success. M. Hill successfully avoided all the traps that surrounded him; and let no one say that in proceeding this way he exposed himself to the most glaring errors; no, if the method had not been legitimate, he would have been immediately warned, because he would have arrived at a numerical result completely different from that given by observations.[42]

Page 30 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

The work that Poincar had began in Paris, was continued in Stockholm by von Koch, who developed between 1890 and 1910 a comprehensive theory of infinite determinants. It was in 1900 that the Fredholm theory of integral equations came into the story of spectral theory; Fredholm was a friend of von Koch. It was then that Fredholm applied von Kochs theory of infinite matrices and determinants to integral equations. Note that integral equations usually refer to back Abel and Fourier. In 1826 Able solved the tautochrone problem using integral equations; that is problem about the bead which slides down a curved frictionless wire under the influence of gravity. [43] Probably first integral equation appeared in The Analytic Theory of Heat, 1822 by Fourier. [39] Fredholm copied von Koch's method of expanding infinite determinants to produce the famous Fredholm alternative theorem for the solutions of the integral equation of the type:

( x ) = ( x ) + K ( x, y ) ( y ) dy
0

( 0 x 1)

(1)

Fredholm considered the integral equation (1) to be the limiting case of the corresponding linear system
n

( xi ) = ( xi ) + K ( xi , y j ) ( y j )
j =1

( 1 i n)

(2)

He defined the DK for the integral equation (1) which is the continuous representation of the conventional determinant of the n n system (2) developed by Bernoulli to solve the wave equation by superposition of n simple vibratory modes. Fredholm showed that the integral equation (1) has a unique solution and; (a) if DK 0 then the solution may be expressed as the quotient of two determinants. (b) if
1

DK = 0 ,

then

the

transposed

homogeneous

equation

( x ) + K ( x, y ) ( y ) dy =0 has nontrivial solutions and is solvable if and only if is 0

orthogonal to each of these solutions. [44] In the winter of 1900-1901, one of Hilberts Swedish students brought to him the paper on integral equations produced by Fredholm. Hilbert quickly realised that Fredholms

Page 31 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

work was approaching Hilberts goal of a unifying methodological approach to analysis faster than his own work on calculus of variations. Immediately Hilbert devoted himself and his resources almost exclusively to integral equations. Hilbert published a series of five papers in the years from 1904 to 1906. [45a-e] His breakthrough came in 1906, when abandoned the connection with integral equations, and discovered the coordinatized function space by means of an orthonormal basis of continuous functions, maybe inspired by the work of Hill some years earlier. In Hilberts 1906 papers, probably some of his best work, he; defined the spectrum of the quadratic form K . distinguished the point spectrum from the continuous spectrum. defined the concept of complete continuity which served to separate those forms that had pure point spectra from those with more complicated spectra. formulated and proved the spectral theorem not only for continuous forms but also for bounded forms. Schmidt obtained his doctorate from the University of Gttingen in 1905 for his work on integral equations under Hilbert's supervision. After obtaining his doctorate Schmidt went to work on his habilitation in Bonn. In 1907 Schmidt published two papers [46] on integral equations in which he reproved Hilbert's results in a simpler manner with fewer restrictions. In these papers he gave what is now called the Gram-Schmidt orthonormalisation process for constructing an orthonormal set of functions from a linearly independent set. He then went on to consider the case where the kernel is not symmetrical and showed that in that case, the eigenfunctions associated with a given eigenvalue occurred in adjoint pairs. [47] Schmidt's conceptual simplifications were immediately incorporated by Hellinger and Weyl in their 1907 and 1908 dissertations under Hilbert. In 1908 Schmidt published what must be the definitive theory of Hilbert Space, the space of square summable sequences, which included norms || ||, linearity, subspaces and orthogonal projections. In 1909 Hellinger, under Hilbert, published his paper justifying the new theory of quadratic forms of infinitely many variables. [48] At this time Weyl also published his study of bounded quadratic forms whose differential is completely continuous. [49] By

Page 32 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

the end of the first decade of the twentieth century Hilbert, his students and ex-students had published the substance of spectral theory for bounded linear transformation on Hilbert Space. As Hilbert was developing his spectral theory, Lebesgue was at work on the Lebesgue integral. [50] In three brief papers [51a-c] in 1907, both Riesz and Fischer joined together the works of Hilbert and Lebesgue by showing that Hilbert Space l 2 is isomorphic to the space L2 of functions the square of which are Lebesgue integrable. In 1910 in a subsequent paper [52] (in which he introduced the more general Lp spaces), Riesz derived a spectral theory for L2 entirely analogous to that developed for l 2 by Hilbert and Schmidt. [53]

Figure 2 . Above, figure 2, is an interesting flow chart taken from Highlights in the History of Spectral Theory by Lynn Steen [54] showing the flow of mathematical work towards Spectral Theory. No single person can claim the credit for the theory, but it does take a remarkable person with determination and mathematical ability to combine all these ideas together and form the theory.

Page 33 of 41

M840 5.3

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Hilberts 23 problems

In 1900 Hilbert presented 23 problems to the Paris conference of the International Congress of Mathematicians. Of these 23 problems we consider those which were solved in the first decade of the 20th century. It is important to ask whether or not these problems would have been solved when they were, without Hilberts intervention. The problems solved in the first decade of the 20th century were: Problem 3, the definition of Euclidian volume (The equality of the volumes of two tetrahedra of equal bases and equal altitudes). Problem 19, the Dirichlet problem (Are the solutions of regular problems in the calculus of variations always necessarily analytic?) Problem 22, the Uniformisation theorem (Uniformisation of Analytic Relations by Means of Automorphic Functions). Problem 3. Consider a triangle in plain two dimensional Euclidian geometry. It is fairly simple to make a congruent copy of the triangle, and by cut and paste methods produce a rectangle equal in area to the two triangles; demonstrating that the area of the original triangle is equal to half its base x its perpendicular height. Although a number of mathematicians have tried to extend this method to three dimensions none have been successful. Hilbert continues: Nevertheless, it seems to me probable that a general proof of this kind for the theorem of Euclid just mentioned is impossible, and it should be our task to give a rigorous proof of its impossibility. This would be obtained, as soon as we succeeded in specifying two tetrahedra of equal bases and equal altitudes which can in no way be split up into congruent tetrahedra, and which cannot be combined with congruent tetrahedra to form two polyhedra which themselves could be split up into congruent tetrahedra. [55] In 1902 Denn, a student of Hilbert discovered a geometric property of a polyhedron, in addition to volume, that does not change under a solid cut and paste operation. In other words the Dehn invariant (as it is called today) is a number given to any polyhedron which does not change under scissor-equivalence.

Page 34 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

One multiplies each edge length by the dihedral angle i , multiplies this by a number one chooses carefully, and adds these numbers together. Now, the dihedral angles of the regular tetrahedron are all = arccos ( 1 3) while those of the cube are plainly 2 . It is possible to define a Dehn invariant which takes the value zero for the cube but a non-zero value for the tetrahedron. The result is that no sequence of cut and stick operations can cut a cube into pieces and reassemble it as a regular tetrahedron. [56] According to Gray, [56] unknown to Hilbert, but known to Dehn, the problem had almost been solved by Bricard in 1896. In this case it would be fair to conclude that this problem would have been solved by 1902 without Hilberts intervention. Problem 19. Hilberts presentation of the nineteenth problem begins with the observation that there is a class of partial differential equations whose integrals are all of necessity, analytic functions of the independent variables; for example the potential equation and minimal surface equation. He pointed out that most of these are Lagrangian equations for the regular variation problem. At this time, physics and mechanics were rapidly developing and posing more and more complex boundary conditions. Dirichlet boundary conditions could be continuous and not analytic. Hilbert asked the question: does every lagrangian partial differential equation of a regular variation problem have the property of admitting analytic integrals exclusively?[56] The affirmative answer came in 1904 from Bernstein, an ex-student of Hilbert, and was contained in Bernsteins doctoral dissertation. [57] Picard, Poincar and Hadamard had examined the dissertation. As chairman of the examiners, Picard, wrote the report. The thesis was a fine piece of work solving Hilberts Nineteenth Problem. [58] Nine years earlier Picard had shown that if the potential equation has some simple terms involving only the first derivatives added to it, all the solutions remain analytic. [59][60] Bernstein showed that solutions of nonlinear elliptic analytic equations of two variables are continuous in the third derivative. In his dissertation Bernstein thanked Picard for creating the appropriate mathematical methods, and for having personally recommended this interesting subject to me. Page 35 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

[49] In this respect it would be fair to conclude that this problem would have been partially solved in 1904 without Hilberts intervention. Problem 22. Hilbert introduced the twenty second problem with the observation that Poincar was the first to prove, then generalise to any analytic non-algebraic relationship that: If any algebraic equation in two variables be given, there can always be found for these variables two such single valued automorphic functions of a single variable that their substitution renders the given algebraic equation an identity. [55] This was one of the problems that Hilbert was actively at working on at the time. Poincar and Klein, working independently, had discovered this relationship, the uniformisation theorem, in 1882. [61][62] This asserts that every algebraic curve of genus greater than one can be obtained as the quotient of the unit disc by the action of a suitable Fuchsian group, and therefore that there is a map from the unit disc to the algebraic curve that parameterises the curve. The parameterising functions are Fuchsian functions automorphic with respect to the group.[61] In 1883 Poincar generalised the theory extending it to arbitrary multivalued analytic functions. [62] Hilbert pointed out that Poincars proof was incomplete. In particular; he noted that the points where the modular function is not holomorphic are singular. They spawn an infinite number of points on the boundary of the Riemann surface, S.[61] In view of the fundamental importance of Poincars formulation of the question it seems to me that an elucidation and resolution of this difficulty is extremely desirable [63] Poincar was not unaware of flaw; he had noted it in his 1883 paper. Poincar accepted and rigorously corrected the flaw in his 1907 paper [61][64].The problem, he said in French, is none other than the Dirichlet problem applied to a surface with infinitely many leaves. Problems 19, 21 and 22 re-established Dirichlet's Principle, the Riemann mapping theorem and the uniformisation theorem. This was an extremely good result for Hilbert.

Page 36 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

6.

Conclusions

When considering the significance of the geometrical ideas of Poincar and Hilbert in the first decade of the twentieth century it is important to ask the question, Would the development of the idea have taken place then, or at all, if it were not for the existence of Poincar and Hilbert? In history, very few mathematicians have been capable of the spontaneous generation of new ideas. Newton was one of the few. The development of an idea depends much on the underlying structure from many generations, demonstrated by figure 2. As with Lobachevski and Bolyai, the structure was in place to construct the hyperbolic geometry; if they had not constructed it, then Gauss or someone similar would have. If Poincar had not influenced Lorentz and Hilbert influenced Minkowski, then Minkowskis Space and Time would still have been produced. The date and content may have differed slightly, but in that period the momentum of progress in science and mathematics was so great, that no one person could divert its course significantly. Newton in a letter to Robert Hooke modestly wrote If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants. But on the shoulders of Giants you can miss seeing whats at your feet. Hilbert and Poincar could see further but also the basic substance of a problem. Poincar was capable of developing Lorentzs work, but also in On the Foundations of Geometry he goes back to basic perception. Hilbert developed Fredholms integral equations for his Spectral Theory, and then went back to the root of the axioms in his axiomatic geometry. In Constance Reids book Hilbert-Courant, Hilbert appears to be a very human character. He valued friendships, especially with Minkowski and the discussions on his daily walks taken with colleagues and students. This method of exchange of ideas contributed a greatly to Hilberts success as a professor of mathematics. A member of the Hilbert family said years afterwards, when she was an old lady, All I know of Uncle David is that his whole family considered him a bit off his head. His mother wrote his school essays for him. On the other hand, he could explain mathematics problems to his teachers. Nobody really understood him at home.

Page 37 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

7.

References and Bibliography

[1]Beyond Geometry, Peter Pesic, Dover Pub 2007;On the Foundations of Geometry (1898) p145 [1a]Beyond Geometry, Peter Pesic, Dover Pub 2007;On the Foundations of Geometry (1898) p117 [2] Introduction to Poincars Three Supplements, Jeremy J. Gray and Scott A. Walter,p9 [3] Poincar, H., 1887. Sur les hipothses fondamentales de la gomtrie, Bulletin de la Socit mathmatique de France, 15: 203216. [4] (19021908) The foundations of science, Science and hypothesis, The value of science, Science and method by H. Poincare, Published 1913 by The Science Press in New York, Garrison, N.Y pp66-81. [5] (19021908) The foundations of science, Science and hypothesis, The value of science, Science and method by H. Poincare, Published 1913 by The Science Press in New York, Garrison, N.Y pp55-65. [6] (19021908) The foundations of science, Science and hypothesis, The value of science, Science and method by H. Poincare, Published 1913 by The Science Press in New York, Garrison, N.Y pp81-91. [7] The Principles of Mathematical Physics, Congress of arts and science, universal exposition, St. Louis 1904, (1905), vol. 1, pp. 604-622, [8](19021908) The foundations of science, Science and hypothesis, The value of science, Science and method by H. Poincare, Published 1913 by The Science Press in New York, Garrison, N.Y p7 [9](19021908) The foundations of science, Science and hypothesis, The value of science, Science and method by H. Poincare, Published 1913 by The Science Press in New York, Garrison, N.Y p145 [10] Poincar, H. (1889) Lecons sur la thorie mathmatique de la lumire, professes pendant le premier semestre 1887-1888 (Paris: Carr et Naud) edited by Jules Blondin, Cours de la Facult des sciences de Paris, Cours de physique mathmatique. pp. I-II [11] {The German original is quoted in Toepell, Michael M. 1986. ber die Entstehung von David Hilberts Grundlagen der Geometrie. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht., 21..} [12] http://www.tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/pdf/Hilbert%20Kluwer.pdf 21/08/2011 p139 [13] 1888 Project Gutenbergs Essays on the Theory of Numbers, by Richard Dedekind, Translator: Wooster Woodruff Beman, Release Date: April 8, 2007 [EBook #21016] p20 [14] {The German original is quoted in Toepell, Michael M. 1986. ber die Entstehung von David Hilberts Grundlagen der Geometrie. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht., 51..} [15] http://www.tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/pdf/Hilbert%20Kluwer.pdf 21/08/2011 p142 [16] 1899 Grundlagen der Geometrie (Festschrift zur Feier der Enth?llung des Gauss-Weber-Denkmals in Gttingen), Leipzig, Teubner [17] The German original is quoted in Toepell, Michael M. 1986. ber die Entstehung von David Hilberts Grundlagen der Geometrie. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht., 204..}

Page 38 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

[18]The Foundations of Geometry by David Hilbert. Translation by E. J. Townsend Open Court Publishing Co.1950 [19] Theory of Algebraic Invariants by David Hilbert translated by Reinhard C. Laubenbacher Cambridge University Press 1993 p viii [20] Theory of Algebraic Invariants by David Hilbert translated by Reinhard C. Laubenbacher Cambridge University Press 1993 p132 [21] Hilbert-Courant by Constance Reid -1986 Springer-Verlag New York Inc p30 [22] Hilbert-Courant by Constance Reid -1986 Springer-Verlag New York Inc p33 [23] Hilbert-Courant by Constance Reid -1986 Springer-Verlag New York Inc p37 [24] Lecture delivered before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900. By Professor David Hilbert http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1902-08-10/S00029904-1902-00923-3/S0002-9904-1902-00923-3.pdf 22/08/2011 [25] A Brief History of Functional Analysis Neal L. Carothers, BGSU Colloquium, October 15, 1993 http://www.mai.liu.se/~betur/kurser/TATM85/FA-history.pdf 22/08/2011 [26] Fresnel, A. (1818), "Lettre dAugustin Fresnel Franois Arago sur linfluence du mouvement terrestre dans quelques phnomnes doptique", Annales de chimie et de physique 9: 5766 [27] http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/stein-strange-case-poincare.pdf 22/08/2011 p4 [28] On The Dynamics of the Electron (Excerpts). by Henri Poincar Originally published as Sur la dynamique de llectron in Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo 21 (1906), pp. 129175. Authors date: Paris, July 1905 [29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#cite_note-future-7 23/08/11 [30] The Theory of Lorentz And The Principle of Reaction,by H. Poincar, Work of welcome offered by the authors to H.A. Lorentz, Professor of Physics at the University of Leiden, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his doctorate, the 11 Dec. 1900. Archives neerlandaises des Sciences exactes et naturelles, series 2, volume 5, pp 252278 (1900). [31] Poincar, Principles of Mathematical Physics (ref. 35), p. 612; 289; Valeur (ref. 22), p.134; Value (ref. 22), p. 308. [32]Worlds Out of Nothing: A Course in the History of Geometry in the 19th Century (Springer Undergraduate Mathematics Series) 2nd Edition p318 [33] The Principles of Mathematical Physics, Congress of arts and science, universal exposition, St. Louis 1904, (1905), vol. 1, pp. 604-622, [34]German Original: Raum und Zeit (1909), Jahresberichte der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 1-14, B.G. Teubner A Lecture delivered before the Naturforscher Versammlung (Congress of Natural Philosophers) at Cologne (21st September, 1908).Saha's translation: The Principle of Relativity (1920), Calcutta: University Press, pp. 70-88 Source http://ia700409.us.archive.org/18/items/principleofrelat00eins/principleofrelat00eins.pd f 22/08/11 [35]L Pyenson, Hermann Minkowski and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity : With an appendix of Minkowski's 'Funktiontheorie' manuscript, Arch. History Exact Sci. 17 (1) (1977), 71-95. http://www.gapsystem.org/~history/Biographies/Minkowski.html 22/08/11 [36] Hermann Minkowski and the Postulate of Relativity by Leo Corry p45-53 http://www.tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/pdf/mink.pdf 23/08/11 [37] Carl G. J. Jacobi, Ober die Hauptaxen der Fliichen der Zweiten Ordnung, J. Reine Angew. Math., 2 (1827) 227-233, (Werke, III, 45-53).

Page 39 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Sur 'equation a I' aide de laquelle on determine les inegalites seculaires des mouvements des planetes, Exercices de Mathematiques, Paris, 1829, (Oeuvres (2), IX, Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Memoire sur !'equation qui a pour racines les moments d'inertie principaux d'un corps solide et sur diverses equations du meme genre, Mem. Acad. Sci. Inst. France, 9(1830) 111-113, (Oeuvres, (1), II, 79-81). Highlights in the History of Spectral Theory L. A. STEEN, Saint Olaf College p376 The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 80, 1973, http://www.stolaf.edu/people/steen/Papers/highlights.pdf pp. 361 [38] James Joseph Sylvester, A demonstration of the theorem that every homogeneous quadratic polynomial is reducible by real orthogonal substitution to the form of a sum of positive and negative squares, Phil. Mag., 4(1852) 138-142, (Math. Papers, I, 378381). Arthur Cayley, A memoir on the theory of matrices, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 148 (1858) 17-37, (Math. Papers, II, 475-496). http://www.stolaf.edu/people/steen/Papers/highlights.pdf pp. 361 [39] Joseph B. J. Fourier, Theorie analytique de Ia chaleur, Paris, 1822. [40] George William Hill, On the Part of the Motion of the Lunar Perigee which is a Function of the Mean Motions of the Sun and Moon, John Wilson, Cambridge, Mass., 1877. [41] Henri Poincar, Surles determinants d'ordre infini, Bull. Soc. Math. France, 14 (1886) 77-90, (Oeuvres, V, 95-107). [42] On the origin and early history of functional analysis, by Jens Lindstrm http://www2.math.uu.se/research/pub/Lindstrom1.pdf p19 [43] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautochrone_curve#Abel.27s_solution 12/08/11 [44] Ivar Fredholm, Sur une classe d'equations fonctionnelles, Acta Mathematica, 27 (1903) 365-390.---http://www.stolaf.edu/people/steen/Papers/highlights.pdf pp. 363 [45a] David Hilbert, Grundziige einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen lntegralgleichungen, Erste Mitteilung, Gottingen Nachrichten, (1904) 49-91. [45b] David Hilbert, Grundziige einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen, Zweite Mitteilung, Gottingen Nachrichten, (1904) 213-259. [45c] David Hilbert, Grundziige einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen, Dritte Mitteilung, Gottingen Nachrichten, (1905) 307-338. [45d] David Hilbert, Grundziige einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen, Vierte Mitteilung, Gottingen Nachrichten, (1906) 157-227. [45e] David Hilbert, Grundziige einer allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen, Fiinfte Mitteilung, Gottingen Nachrichten, (1906) 439-480. [46] Erhard Schmidt, Zur Theorie der linearen und nichtlinearen lntegralgleichungen, I, Math. Annalen, 63 (1907) 433-476. Erhard Schmidt, Zur Theorie der linearen und nichtlinearen Integralgleichungen, II, Math. Annalen, 64 (1907) 161-174. [47] http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Schmidt.html 13/08/2011

Page 40 of 41

M840

TMA03

Leslie Pedrick

T3137721

[48] Ernst Hellinger Neue Begrundung der Theorie quadratischer Formen von unendlichvielen Vernderlichen, J. Reine Angew. Math., 136 (1909) 210-271. [49] Hermann Weyl, ber beschrnkte quadratische Formen deren Differenz vollstetig ist, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, 27 (1909) 373-392. [50] Lebesgue, Henri Lon,, Leons sur l'intgration et la recherche des fonctions primitives, professes au Collge de France par Henri Lebesgue, ,Paris: GauthierVillars, 1904. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/ACM0062.0001.001?view=toc 23/08/2011 [51a] Riesz, Frigyes (1907), "Sur les systmes orthogonaux de fonctions", Comptes rendus de l'Acadmie des sciences 144: 615619. [51b] Friedrich Riesz, ber orthogonale Funktionensysteme, Nachrichten von der Konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse, 1907, 116-122; uvres [C5], pp. 389-395) [51c] Ernst Fischer, E. Fischer, Sur la convergence en moyenne,. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 144 (1907) 1022-1024. [52]Friedrich Riesz, "Untersuchungen tiber Systeme integrierbare Funktionen," Math. Annalen,. Vol. 69 (1910), pp. 449-497. [53] Highlights in the History of Spectral Theory L. A. STEEN, Saint Olaf College p367 The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 80, 1973, pp. 359-381 [54] Highlights in the History of Spectral Theory L. A. STEEN, Saint Olaf College p376 The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 80, 1973, http://www.stolaf.edu/people/steen/Papers/highlights.pdf pp. 359-381 [55]Lecture delivered before the International Congress of Mathematicians at Paris in 1900. By Professor David Hilbert http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/hilbert/problems.html 23/08/11 [56] The Hilbert challenge: A perspective on twentieth century mathematics, Jeremy Gray, (2000) Oxford University Press,ISBN: 0198506511 p97 [57] Bernstein, S. (1904), "Sur la nature analytique des solutions des quations aux drives partielles du second ordre", Mathematische Annalen (Springer Berlin / Heidelberg) 59: 2076, [58] http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Bernstein_Sergi.html18/09/2011 [59] The Hilbert challenge: A perspective on twentieth century mathematics, Jeremy Gray, (2000) Oxford University Press,ISBN: 0198506511 p121-122 [60] Picard, E. (1895) Sur une classe tendue des quations linaires aux drives partielles dont tous les intgrales sont analytiques, Comptes rendus 121, 12-14. [61] Gray, Jeremy On the history of the Riemann mapping theorem. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) Suppl. No. 34 (1994), 4794 [62]Poincar, H., 1882, Sur les fonctions Fuchsiennes, Acta Mathematica, 1, 193-294 Oeuvres, 2, 169-257. [63] Poincare, H., 1883, Sur un theorcme de la Theorie generale des fonctions, Bulletin Societe Mathematique de France, ll, 112-125 = Oeuvres, 4, 57-69. [64] Poincare, H. (1907), Sur I'uniformisation des fonctions analytiques, Acta Mathematica 31, 1-63. Reprinted in Oeuvres 4, 70-146. [65] Hilbert-Courant by Constance Reid -1986 Springer-Verlag New York Inc p6.

Page 41 of 41