The Einstein-De Pretto case...

THE EINSTEIN-DE PRETTO CASE...

Following the publication of news about the "Einstein-De Pretto case", in journals both in Italy and in other countries [as an example: "On Thursday November 11, 1999, a news report in "The Guardian" by Rory Carroll in Rome was entitled "Einstein's E=mc2 was Italian's idea", and stated: "The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday. Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Professor Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian of the University of Perugia...""] I received many letters, asking more information about this story. Since I go on receiving questions, and unfortunately all relevant material is not available in other languages than Italian, I decided to "publish" thereafter some of the most instructive comments I exchanged with people during the last months. In what follows my answers are preceded by a sign > .

- - - - -

Subject: Re: [HM] Einstein's E=mc^2 was Italian's idea ...

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:15:22 -0200

From: Julio Gonzalez Cabillon <jgc@adinet.com.uy>

To: bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it

CC: historia-matematica@chasque.apc.org

Dear Prof. Bartocci,

I would be most grateful if you could give us a summary (or eventually a reference) about the substance of Pretto's work on this subject...

> Dear Professor Cabillon,

I exposed my researches on the affair Einstein-De Pretto in a book ("Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto - La vera storia della formula piu' famosa del mondo"), which was published some months ago by the following editor: andromeda@posta.alinet.it (this editor is in Bologna, Italy).

In this book I included all the original paper by De Pretto, which was published in in the Proceedings of the Reale Istituto... Since I presume that you can understand Italian, I send to you an excerpt from this book:

Il 23 novembre del 1903 veniva presentata al Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, da parte del Conte Almerico Da Schio, una memoria del Dott. Olinto De Pretto dal titolo "Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita dell'universo" (apparsa poi nel febbraio del 1904 negli Atti dello stesso Istituto, Tomo LXIII, Parte II, pp. 439-500).

About De Pretto's own comments of his "intuition", I wrote:

Nel terzo paragrafo di questo scritto, intitolato "Energia dell'etere ed energia latente nella materia" (vedi il successivo Capitolo IX), troviamo formulata non soltanto la stessa relazione ipotizzata da Einstein tra massa ed energia, ma anche la sua 'corretta' interpretazione fisica, che viene espressa attraverso le seguenti parole:

[...]

Che questa conclusione dovesse sembrare all'epoca incredibile, e completamente al di fuori delle conoscenze fisiche del tempo, appare all'autore subito chiaro, visto che questi aggiunge subito al calcolo precedente il seguente commento:

"A quale risultato spaventoso ci ha mai condotto il nostro ragionamento? Nessuno vorrà facilmente ammettere che immagazzinata ed allo stato latente, in un chilogrammo di materia qualunque, completamente nascosta a tutte le nostre investigazioni, si celi una tale somma di energia, equivalente alla quantità che si può svolgere da milioni e milioni di chilogrammi di carbone; l'idea sarà senz'altro giudicata da pazzi" (p. 459).

Unfortunately, I did never translate in English my work, thus I hope that this will be enough for you, and I am sorry I cannot send to you much more information. In any case, if you wish to submit to me some single question, I shall be happy to help you...

Best wishes, and thanks for your attention

Umberto Bartocci

Subject: Einstein, Hilbert

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:21:54 -0000

From: Roland Pease <roland.pease@bbc.co.uk>

To: "'bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it'" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>

Subject: RE: Einstein-De Pretto

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:55:42 -0000

From: Dan Rivers <dan.rivers@bbc.co.uk>

To: "'umberto bartocci'" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>

Dear Dr Bartocci

I just read about your work on the precedent to Einstein's E=mc^2, and wonder if you have anything published in English on this. But I also see on your web page that your course covers Hilbert's Paris lecture of 1900. I am planning to do a radio programme on the completeness theorem, and wonder if this lecture is one of your key research areas. ...

... we would like to do an interview at 15.00 gmt today. It will be on tape - so it doesn't matter if you ask to repeat a question or you don't understand something. Here are the questions we are going to ask...

1) Tell us about the man De Pretto? Who was he? What happened when he

discovered E=mc2?

2) Does this damage Einstein's reputation?

3) Should De Pretto be recognised as an important mathematician then?

4) Did Einstein copy other formulae?

5) What does E=mc2 actually mean?

Subject: De Pretto

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 00:08:37 +0100

From: Frank van Kolfschooten Journalistieke Producties <kolfschooten@wxs.nl>

To: bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it

Dear Mr. Bartocci,

In 'The Guardian' of 14 November 1999 there's a story about your claim

that Olinto de Pretto published the equation E=mc2 in 1903, two years

before Einstein. You are quoted in this article. On Internet I see you

wrote a book about this subject in 1998, so I wonder why 'The Guardian'

publishes this story a year later. Did you give a lecture somewhere on

this topic in November? Or is there any news compared to 1998? Could you

please tell me if the details of your study are available in English?

Unfortunately I can't read your beautiful language.

I am not sure if this information is new to readers in The Netherlands,

the country where I am active as a science journalist.

Best regards from Amsterdam,

Frank van Kolfschooten, Journalist

Beethovenstraat 116 A, 1077 JP Amsterdam

Tel./Fax: 020 6735274

E-mail: kolfschooten@wxs.nl

-- ...I have one more question about Einstein/De Pretto. I would be very pleased

if you could answer it today, so I can finish my article. I wonder how you know Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research of De Pretto. Is it mentioned in the correspondence between Einstein and Besso? Or do you have another source for it.

> ...Even if the correspondence between Einstein and Besso lasted for all their life (it has been published by Pierre Speziali, in a book, Ed. Hermann, Paris) there is no correspondence between the two men in the years which are of our interest, since they worked in the same office, and lived nearby! I just make a conjecture, which is founded on some "coincidences", which make very difficult to believe that Besso did not know of the De Pretto's ideas. If Besso knew these ideas, it is then highly implausible that he would have not communicated them to Einstein (which after all knew Italian, since studied in Italy when his father worked in Italy - they had an house in Pavia), since they discussed of everything ... As I told you by telephone, apart other minor "coincidences", the brother of Olinto De Pretto, who's name was Augusto De Pretto, was a colleague of an uncle of Michele Besso, who's name was Beniamino Besso. These two men worked both as high "managers" of the Italian Royal Railways, and it is obvious that Beniamino should have known something of the "foolish ideas" of Augusto's younger brother. This uncle was always very close to Michele, who lived even in his uncle's house during his studies in Rome. It is rather surprising that two different men have written the same equation (it would perhaps better to say: would have conceived the same idea, that each mass, even at rest, holds a so great quantity of energy!), by completely different theoretical approaches, and that they are so easily "connectable"! ... Unfortunately, I did never translate in English my work, thus I hope that this will be enough for you, and I am sorry for I cannot send to you much more information. In any case, if you wish to submit to me some single questions, I shall be happy to help you ... feel free to use the information I have sent to you as you wish...

-- ...If you allow me to annoy you with one more question ... On Internet I read that Einstein ends his article on the special theory of relativity with one acknowledgement, in which he thanks Michele Besso for his loyal assistance and valuable suggestions. I suppose this is the long article in the Annals of Physik and not the short one with the E=MC2 footnote. Is that correct?

> ...Yes, it is correct. The other short paper, three pages, containing the famous

equation, does not contain bibliographical references, thanks, anything...

Where can I buy your book on Olinto De Pretto? How much does it cost in USA dollars? Will you accept a cashier's check? Can you also tell me more about the life story (biography) of De Pretto? Based on YOUR research, Professore, there is little doubt that Michele Besso, the Jewish-Italian-Swiss who was a friend of Einstein's, almost certainly showed Einstein the article by De Pretto. The closeness in time (1903 and 1904) when De Pretto was published as well as the proximity in location (the Veneto region is close to Switzerland) makes this clear. ... Some years ago Jeremy Bernstein published an article on Michele Besso (I think it was in the New Yorker magazine). In that article he says that Besso lived until the 1960's and spent a great deal of time in Mathematics libraries in Switzerland (further proof that Besso probably stumbled on to the De Pretto article and showed it to Einstein). ... I must tell you that you will have a GREAT DEAL OF TROUBLE publicizing your findings here in the United States. There is a great deal of invidious prejudice toward Italians in the USA ... Hence, De Pretto runs counter to the stereotype of Italians as criminals and/or clowns.

> I have no spare copies of the book, which has been published after many attempts by a small, but courageous, editor in Bologna. His e-mail address is: andromeda@posta.alinet.it; it will take some time before you will receive the book, but at last I hope you will!

In this book I included all the original paper by De Pretto, which was published in in the Proceedings of the Reale Istituto Veneto... Since I see that you can understand rather well Italian, I send to you an excerpt from the book:

About De Pretto's own comments about his "intuition", I wrote thereafter:

[...]

Unfortunately, I did never translate in English neither my work, nor part of it, thus I hope that for the moment you will be satisfied all the same by this small amount of information.

I say in the book even how I had news of De Pretto's paper. During my studies about the foundations of modern physics, I usually frequented people which was as me interested in old ether theories, and I received by two of these [Omero Speri and Piero Zorzi] (which were, at least to my knowledge, the first in the world to use the word "fusione fredda", and to patent their ideas, receiving from the academicians the same attention that De Pretto met!), unfortunately now dead, this information. The years after, I tried to study in detail De Pretto's figure, his cultural and family environment, and I found a trace which led me to Besso. As you understood pretty well, it is almost impossible that Besso did not knew De Pretto's ideas, and that Einstein did insert the famous formula in his conceptual relativistic frame-work, which was quite antipodal with respect to the ether's conceptions of De Pretto, after Besso's suggestions. But let me say that, while there is not a satisfactory relativistic "explanation" of the "equivalence" between matter and energy, which is a mathematical consequence of relativistic kinematics, in De Pretto you can find at least a "reason" why in any matter is included so great an amount of energy (with the difference that there cannot exist any energy without a matter, even an ethereal one!, supporting it). ... Thanks for your information about the stereotype of Italians in USA, the troubles that you point out just add to the others purely scientific which I always find in discussing relativistic issues! ...

Subject: intervista

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:37:53 +0100

From: "Alessandra Zumthor" <azumthor@gdp.ch>

To: <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>

Egregio professor Bartocci,

sono una giornalista svizzera (sono attiva a Lugano, in Ticino, per il "Giornale dell'Università") e le scrivo dopo aver sentito parlare del suo interessante libro su Einstein e De Pretto ... Avrei invece riservato uno spazio per un suo intervento, visto che mi sembra utile per i nostri lettori sentire sempre due opinioni distinte in merito alle varie questioni affrontate. Le chiederei così, se le fosse possibile, di rispondere alle seguenti domande:

1. Su quali elementi si basa la contestazione della teoria della relatività?

2. Mi ha accennato, per telefono, a resoconti falsati di esperimenti statunitensi (tipo orologi gemelli) per non informare l'opinione pubblica di incongruenze nella teoria. Può essere più preciso, fornire alcune prove concrete?

... la pregherei di mantenere nelle risposte (magari non troppo estese) un tono piuttosto divulgativo anche se rigoroso, dato che non tutti i lettori hanno potuto seguire studi propriamente scientifici. Capisco comunque che la richiesta possa sembrarle superflua, data la sua nota abilità di divulgatore.

La ringrazio ancora per la preziosa collaborazione e attendo con interesse una risposta, se possibile entro lunedì (chiedo troppo?).

Cordiali saluti

Alessandra Zumthor

> Caro xxx, le invio come promesso alcune riflessioni da me inviate a una giornalista svizzera sul tema relativita', che e' peraltro esemplare della moderna filosofia della fisica (questa ha enormi ricadute dappertutto, anche quindi, come le dicevo, sulla filosofia e la didattica della matematica!). Le invio in attachment copia di mie recentemente pubblicate "riflessioni sui fondamenti della matematica" (le ho trasferite di corsa in .doc, usavo un altro sistema, sono venute un po' male, ma spero comprensibili lo stesso, se qualcosa in particolare le interessa e non si capisce mi scriva!), che ancorche' sintetiche potrebbero aiutarla a comprendere tante cose, soprattutto l'influenza del darwinismo sullo sviluppo della scienza contemporanea.

Mi viene voglia di aggiungere che, la questione se alle nostre origini ci sia piuttosto "puzza di stalle, che non profumo di stelle", riveste ovviamente un ruolo essenziale nella formazione di qualunque moderna Weltanschauung, e che gli esiti ai quali conduce l'attuale concezione scientifica del mondo sono stati cosi' brillantemente descritti dal Geminello Alvi di cui le dicevo (ho raramente letto qualcosa di piu' chiaro e di piu' importante):

"Darwin fu moderno perche' dicendo d'Adamo che era una scimmia specializzata, fece cosi' divergere da lui, separo', smise di specchiare in lui, la cosmicita' divina. Fu ripudiata qualunque sapienza, nella quale microcosmo e macrocosmo convergessero in un Adamo divino. E il ripudio di un magico Urmensch fu inoltre deciso economicamente: Darwin volle Adamo evoluto per effetto d'una malthusiana, e quindi economica, lotta animale. Altri poi spiegarono che il Cosmo divergeva; si disuniva in infinita' innumeri di stelle e pianeti, tra i quali la Terra veniva spiegata insignificante evento statistico prima o poi rovinato dalla certa morte per entropia del sole. L'umano moderno si nutre di questi due modi di pensiero: un Adamo regredito a scimmia, e una Terra dannata a morire nel buio e nel gelo".

Come ultima curiosita', il saggio di De Pretto da me riproposto, conteneva, oltre alla famosa equazione "di Einstein", anche una visione cosmologica nettamente contrastante quella dianzi descritta, il che e' un altro dei motivi che possono spiegare l'assoluto ostracismo da cui la sua proposta e' stata accolta...

Subject: Re: intervista

From: umberto bartocci <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>

To: Alessandra Zumthor <azumthor@gdp.ch>

References: 1

Carissima,

eccole il promesso messaggio di risposta, sono lieto di poter giocare a fare l'avvocato del diavolo. Comincio ad inviarle un paio di citazioni da miei libri che potrebbero cominciare a farle capire meglio la questione. Se e' troppa roba, legga solo il "manifesto" della fisica moderna redatto dal premio Nobel Feynman, che puo' da solo farle capire perche' e' tempo che qualcuno cominci a REAGIRE di fronte a un drammatico stato di cose.

Allegato 1:

L'opinione comune riguardo al valore della teoria di Einstein è oggi

arrivata addirittura al punto che si possono esprimere correntemente

opinioni di questo genere (corsivi aggiunti): "La possibilità che un

dubbio sulla teoria della relatività possa essere accolto è la stessa

che avrebbe un dubbio sul sistema copernicano" (Tullio Regge, Cronache

dell'Universo, Ed. Boringhieri, Torino, 1981); "Nessun fisico, a meno

che sia folle, può mettere in dubbio la teoria della relatività" (Isaac

Asimov, The two masses, Mercury Press, 1984); "Special relativity:

Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt " (Clifford Will, Was Einstein right?, Oxford

University Press, 1988); e così via, le quali hanno l'ovvia conseguenza

che, chi invece qualche dubbio in cuor suo lo avverta, si faccia forza e

lo taccia, appunto per la vergogna di poter essere considerato un

"folle", oppure - e chissà cos'è sentita come peggiore - una persona

corta d'intelletto, che nutre dei dubbi soltanto perché non ce la fa a

capire quello che invece tutti gli altri capiscono benissimo .

É abbastanza comico peraltro osservare che in siffatti termini di

'sicurezza' si esprimevano anche i fisici della fine del secolo scorso

quando difendevano invece la teoria dell'etere - che è, come vedremo nel

prossimo Capitolo III, la principale rivale della teoria della

relatività - la quale era allora ben viva e vegeta: "L'unica nube nel

cielo limpido della teoria dell'etere è il risultato dell'esperimento di

Michelson-Morley" (di cui pure presto diremo), Lord Kelvin, 1900; "La

probabilità dell'ipotesi dell'etere sfiora la certezza", Chwolson, 1902;

mentre è per contro abbastanza drammatico che le condizioni nelle quali

versa attualmente la fisica teorica del nostro secolo diano origine a

difficoltà intellettuali quali quelle in cui mostra di dibattersi un

certo G. Della Casa . Questo autore presta evidentemente troppa

attenzione alle speculazioni degli scienziati, e troppa fede nella

superiorità delle loro argomentazioni, probabilmente perché, al

contrario di quelle dei 'filosofi', basate sui 'fatti', e quindi più

certe. Scrive di conseguenza: "Bisogna ammettere che non si riesce a

farsi un'immagine mentale soddisfacente di certe astrazioni della fisica

moderna, ma tali difficoltà non possono essere considerate come

argomenti validi contro una visione del mondo che ha dalla sua parte

l'esperienza e la logica. La causa di queste difficoltà deve pertanto

ricercarsi nella nostra struttura o nell'inerzia a modificare abiti

mentali di lungo uso [...] [la teoria della relatività] non si addice

troppo al modo di funzionare del nostro povero cervello di mammiferi

primati"!

Allegato 2:

Per comprendere bene quello che successe all'inizio del presente

secolo, bisogna riflettere sulla circostanza che la fisica si trovava

allora in una situazione assai curiosa: da un canto lo spazio era tutto

vuoto per la meccanica, madre fondatrice della fisica, ed era invece

tutto pieno per i teorici dell'ottica e dell'elettromagnetismo, che

vedevano nelle proprietà fisiche dell'etere la migliore delle

spiegazioni possibili per i fenomeni di loro competenza, attraverso

l'uso del criterio di analogia. Una situazione altamente contraddittoria

quindi, anche se relativa a due campi di indagine differenti, per una

fisica ancora incapace di escogitare gli artifici dialettici

post-relativisti, quando a un intelletto ormai ridotto a quello di un

"povero mammifero primate", manifestamente insufficiente per intuire i

profondi misteri della struttura dell'universo, poté parlarsi del

dualismo onda-corpuscolo, vale a dire elaborare una teoria secondo la

quale la luce talvolta si manifesta per noi come un'onda, e talvolta

come una particella, ma che in realtà non è nessuna delle due. Siamo

soltanto noi umani ad essere incapaci di concepire cosa essa realmente

sia, al di fuori delle nostre formule matematiche, per la limitatezza

dei nostri concetti mentali basati su una assolutamente scarsa

esperienza. Riuscire a prevedere di tanto in tanto con le nostre formule

gli effetti quantitativi di certi fenomeni ci deve bastare, come

ammonisce l'illustre fisico Richard P. Feynman, Premio Nobel per questa

disciplina nel 1965: "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach

our physics students [...] and you think I'm going to explain it to you

so you can understand it? No, you are not going to be able to understand

it. [...] It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you

don't understand it. You see, my physics students don't understand it

either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does. [...] It's a

problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They've larned to

realized that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is

not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory

gives predictions that agree with experiment. [...] The theory of

quantum Electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of

view of commn sense. And it agrees full with experiment. So I hope you

can accept Nature as She is - absurd" (QED - The strange theory of light

and matter, Princeton University Press, 1985, pp. 9-10 - corsivi nel

testo).

Questo tipo di argomenti - che Feynman ribadisce all'inizio delle sue

celebrate lezioni di Meccanica Quantistica (The Feynman Lectures on

Physics, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., 1965): "We choose to examine a

phenomen which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any

classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In

reality, it contains the only mystery" - mostra chiaramente che nasce

con la teoria della relatività una fisica che dovrà rinunciare d'ora in

poi e per sempre a ogni tentativo di spiegazione per analogie, e quindi

a una fisica qualitativa che si accompagni a una fisica quantitativa.

Einstein con abilità retorica assai apprezzabile riuscì prima o poi a

convincere tutti, o quasi, utilizzando per alcuni il sacrosanto

principio di relatività, per altri l'altrettanto sacrosanto principio

dell'invarianza della velocità di propagazione di una perturbazione

dalla velocità della sorgente perturbatrice relativamente al mezzo in

cui la perturbazione si propaga (ed ecco spiegata la ragione del

fenomeno prima descritto per cui alcuni trovano accettabile e intuitivo

un principio della relatività e non l'altro, o viceversa!). Peccato

appunto che le due teorie da cui detti principi provenivano fossero tra

loro assolutamente antitetiche, e che in realtà l'opzione di Einstein,

come abbiamo visto nei discorsi qualitativi di riconduzione del secondo

principio relativistico al primo, sia tutta a favore della concezione

dello spazio vuoto, omogeneo e isotropo, comune ai padri fondatori della

meccanica, ma non a quelli dell'elettromagnetismo. Una concezione dello

spazio fisico che si confonde con quella dello spazio matematico, il

primo una categoria della realtà, il secondo una categoria

dell'intelletto; il primo suscettibile solo di indagini a posteriori,

per mezzo di esperienze, l'altro analizzabile invece a priori, per mezzo

di assiomi e ragionamenti deduttivi. Un approccio come si dice

"riduzionista" che confonde terribilmente non solo lo spazio e il tempo,

ma addirittura i due ambiti del "reale" e del "pensato", entro i quali

si svolge tutta l'esperienza umana. Lo spazio veramente vuoto non ha

alcun senso fisico, e si trova come tale, ovvero come idealità astratta,

soltanto nello studio della geometria, così come lucidamente osservava

Ettore Majorana : "E poi veniamo ad Einstein e qui io debbo tacere

perché Einstein è diventato un idolo intrasgredibile, un tabù. Eppure

proprio Einstein ci ha messo undici anni, dal 1905 al 1916, a capire che

la Relatività Ristretta era una mera e insignificante geometrizzazione

euclidea di un impossibile movimento rettilineo in un inesistente spazio

supposto vuoto, del tutto uniforme, omogeneo, isotropo [...] "

Nello spazio veramente vuoto non dovrebbe neppure concepirsi la

possibilità di fenomeni fisici come quello della luce, sicché gli

osservatori immaginari di cui alle nostre discussioni del capitolo

precedente non avrebbero alcuna possibilità, neanche teorica, di

scambiarsi segnali luminosi, sincronizzare orologi, etc., secondo le

convenzioni einsteiniane, perché non avrebbero a disposizione né la luce

né tanto meno un principio di costanza per la sua velocità!

Una nuova concezione quella di Einstein, che mostra come si possano

conciliare matematicamente quei due principi provenienti da teorie

opposte, anche se in modo irrimediabilmente controintuitivo , e che fa

felici per questo ruolo fondante della matematica i cultori di questa

disciplina, che non aspettavano altro che vedere la loro teoria

indispensabile per l'enunciazione di qualsiasi concetto fisico.

... invio qui di seguito alcune riflessioni, che fanno seguito alle altre che le ho gia' spedito. Le scrivo soprattutto per lei, perche' possa capire un po' di piu' da sola, senza essere sopraffatta dagli "esperti", veda poi lei l'uso che vorra' (potra') farne.

Nel discutere le cause del favore (oggi grande) e dell'ostilita' (oggi quasi zero) nei confronti della teoria della relativita', bisogna essere capaci di andare oltre il piano puramente sperimentale, cosa la relativita' riesce a spiegare (o a spiegare meglio), e cosa le "altre" teorie non riescono a spiegare, etc.. La questione e' prima di tutto FILOSOFICA. Da sempre l'essere umano ha indirizzato i suoi sforzi nel campo della conoscenza nella convinzione che:

Ordo et connectio idearum idem est ac ordo et connectio rerum

(Spinoza, Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata, Parte II, Prop. 7),

comunque tale convinzione la si volesse poi metafisicamente fondare (per esempio, attraverso l'idea che le "idee" e le "cose" riflettono lo stesso "ordine" di un creatore), fino a quando l'avvento del darwinismo, dal 1859 in poi, non comincio' a far vacillare la fiducia nella posizione privilegiata dell'essere umano nel cosmo (anche il darwinismo stesso, in verita', non e' che il risultato di un lungo cammino, che prende le mosse dalla rivoluzione copernicana, nel 1543 - una "deantropocentrizzazione" che guida tutto lo sviluppo del pensiero scientifico moderno).

La teoria della relativita', pretendendo di dimostrare su una base obiettivamente sperimentale, che le categorie ordinarie dell'intelletto, spazio e tempo, non sono adeguate alla comprensione della piu' intima struttura dell'universo, assesta un colpo definitivo alla predetta convinzione, tanto che un fisico italiano, Fabio Cardone, ha recentemente scritto che:

Ordo et connectio idearum idem NON est ac ordo et connectio rerum.

Da qui, al "manifesto" del premio Nobel Feynman che le ho gia' inviato, il passo e' breve, e si impone nella scienza della natura quella che un altro fisico italiano, Franco Selleri, chiama con definizione molto pertinente: "l'epistemologia della rassegnazione".

Precisata la fondamentale natura filosofica della questione, ecco che la parola passa necessariamente al piano sperimentale, per vedere se sono "giustificate" le pretese di Einstein e dei relativisti, o no. Oggi si dice che c'e' un'infinita' di "prove" della relativita', io sostengo che invece non e' cosi', e che spesso i risultati degli esperimenti sono interpretati attraverso dei presupposti concettuali impliciti che potrebbero essere erronei. Ecco che la questione si fa dunque piu' complicata. Per capire come si possa discutere la relativita' sul piano sperimentale, bisognerebbe intanto cominciare con il conoscere la principale teoria rivale della relativita', quella che fu sconfitta da Einstein, e che e' precisamente la teoria dell'etere alla quale faceva riferimento De Pretto con le sue azzardate speculazioni. L'etere sarebbe una "sostanza" comunque materiale, sebbene di una materia molto piu' fine di quella che conosciamo, e che pervade tutto lo spazio; in essa si propagherebbero per esempio i vari tipi di "onde" elettromagnetiche (la luce), e questa fu la convinzione di molti fisici fino al successo di Einstein e della sua impostazione. Se c'e' l'etere, si dice, la Terra muovendosi attraverso di esso, questo movimento si dovrebbe poter rilevare (chi dubita oggi che la Terra si "muova", dopo l'"Eppur si muove" di Galileo?!), e tutti propagandano il fatto che questa velocita' non si e' mai rilevata. Ma se non fosse vero che la Terra si muove attraverso l'etere?, che proprio il nostro pianeta (tutti) e' in questo senso privilegiato?

Per concludere in poche parole questa prima parte, io penso che ci sia ancora largo spazio di reinterpretazione delle cosiddette "prove" a favore della relativita', e che qualche verifica diretta delle assunzioni di Einstein, finora mai effettuate (perche' difficili, d'accordo, ma mai effettuate!), per esempio del fatto che i fenomeni elettromagnetici soddisfino veramente al suo "principio di relativita'", potrebbe riservare qualche sorpresa, e costringere a rivedere le convinzioni comuni sull'inesistenza dell'etere.

Chiudo davvero con una citazione che mi piace, da un altro fisico, un certo Dennis McCarthy:

"Some people think it's silly to argue that it's just a big conspiracy of coincidences that electromagnetism should exhibit so many properties that are unique to media--including interference, Doppler, Lorentzian retardations, Sagnac effect, aberration, refraction, diffraction, amplitude, frequency, etc. If you don't believe electromagnetism is a media process, then it must seem as if this allegedly intangible force of the universe was deliberately endowed with a plethora of media characteristics just to fool people like Maxwell, Huygens, Lorentz, Bradley, Young, Fizeau, and Sagnac...".

Per quanto riguarda la sua seconda domanda, quanto le dissi si riferiva a un altro esperimento oggi molto propagandato come un risultato a favore della relativita': si trasportavano su un aereo degli orologi, e si constatava (almeno cosi' si dice comunemente) come il "tempo" (la misura del tempo) si modificasse in accordo alle previsioni di Einstein. Orbene, risulta da un rapporto interno della Marina degli Stati Uniti (USNO, Hafele, 1971 - Hafele fu uno dei due sperimentatori coinvolti nell'esperimento che si dice appunto di Hafele e Keating), finalmente disponibile al pubblico, che secondo lo stesso Hafele:

"Most people (including myself) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything".

Hafele aggiungeva inoltre che:

"The difference between theory and measurement is disturbing".

Queste notizie non le troverebbe facilmente in giro.

Concludo definitivamente facendole notare che oggi i fisici sono cosi' sicuri della relativita' da poter asserire

"Special relativity: Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt"

(Clifford Will, Was Einstein right?, Oxford University Press, 1988),

e che si esprimevano in corrispondenti termini di "certezza" anche alla fine del secolo scorso, quando difendevano la teoria dell'etere appena prima che essa scomparisse dalla scena!

"L'unica nube nel cielo limpido della teoria dell'etere è il risultato dell'esperimento di Michelson-Morley", Lord Kelvin, 1900;

"La probabilità dell'ipotesi dell'etere sfiora la certezza", Chwolson, 1902.

Arrivederci, spero che si sara' divertita ...

Subject: E = mc^2

Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 16:57:51 +0000

From: "Taylor J. Smith" <tjs11@mail.pc.centuryinter.net>

To: bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it

CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Hello Professor Bartocci,

I would appreciate it very much if you would send me (email or hardcopy), the derivation of E = mc^2 by Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, who published the equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903. ... Perhaps Professor Bartocci would explain in English the basis for De Pretto's "intuition".

Jack Smith

> Dear Smith,

it would not easy for me to give a satisfactory account of De Pretto's argument, one has to read his paper. In any case, I can say that his intuition comes from a conception of the matter as made up of "aether", and of the energy of the matter as the energy of the aether which is "trapped" inside (besides the fact that this is not a "mathematical" deduction, this would explain why Einstein, if knew De Pretto's paper, did not possibly quote it!). Which is difficult even for me to understand is why De Pretto used the formula for the so-called "forza viva" (from Leibniz), mv^2, instead of the kinetic energy, mv^2/2 ; this missing coefficient ½ gave to me a lot to think about, without arriving at any conclusion...

Subject: Olinto De Pretto

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:38:53 -0400

From: Frank Rega <frega1@home.com>

Reply-To: regaf@aya.yale.edu

Organization: @Home Network

To: bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it

Caro Professore Bartocci,

Scusi, ma io sono Americano, e non parlo molto Italiano. Vorrei

ottenere il libretto sul Olinto De Pretto che Lei ha scritto. Non l'ho

trovato sul Internet. Un gruppo di Italo-Americani nel New York s'interesse da questo giallo di E=MC2. Anche, ho messo qualche informazione nel mio web pagina inglese, http://www.frankrega.com

E' possible mandarmi una copia dal tuo opuscolo? Quanta costa sarebbe?

Mille grazie - sinceremente,

Frank Rega

8377 Montgomery Run Road, Apt. E

Ellicott City, Maryland, 21043 USA

Dear Rega,

andromeda@posta.alinet.it

(the editor lives in Bologna). The book costs something about 18 dollars, plus I believe postal charges. In this book I included all the original paper by De Pretto, which was published in the Proceedings (Atti) of the Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti ("Ipotesi dell'etere nella vita dell'universo", accepted in november 1903, printed in february 1904, Tomo LXIII, Parte II, pp. 439-500).

You can find some more information about this story in my website indicated below (in the point N. 9 of the page dedicated to the History of Science there is a short paper written in Italian in which you can find a synthesis)...

> Dear Dr Scafetta,

thank you very much even for your kind thought of sending to me your second paper, concernig this time the friendship Einstein-Besso. I have found that this too has been written in a most agreeable way, but that there are, as far as I can remember the facts, some relevant mistakes. I do not to want to bother anybody with the pedantic attitude of an academician, who is moreover a mathematics professor (during my lifetime, this peculiarity only got to me a lot of dislike, even from my own wifes, and sons!). Anyway, if you wish, I could try to check more carefully my reminiscences, and then let you know which are in my opinion the points which would more need a correction (for instance, it was NOT the 1905 relativity paper which "won for him the Nobel Prize"; Besso was 6 years older than Einstein, and the two did NOT attend together the studies in Zurich; for the same reason they did not graduate "both" in 1898, Besso was already graduated in 1895).

Subject: Re: Einstein and Besso...

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:57:05 -0400

From: "Joseph Scafetta, Jr." <scafetta.law@erols.com>

To: "umberto bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>

Dear Prof. Bartocci:

It is my understanding that Einstein's first 1905 relativity paper, in which he explained the photoelectric effect, won for him the Nobel Prize in 1921.

I will mail to you tomorrow copies of my two sources about Einstein attending together studies in Zurich and graduating together in 1898. If I am wrong, then my two sources are also wrong.

Any other factual corrections would be appreciated.

Joseph Scafetta. Jr.

Fra Noi Correspondent

Subject: Michele Angelo Besso

Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 20:54:14 -0400

From: "Joseph Scafetta, Jr." <scafetta.law@erols.com>

To: "Umberto Bartocci" <bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it>

Dear Professor:

In addition to your DePretto article discussing Besso, I have found two others about Besso himself. One of them states that Besso studied mechanical engineering from 1896 to 1899 at ETH in Zurich. However, ETH is not further identified. Please excuse my ignorance, but would please tell me what the letters ETH stand for? Perhaps everyone in Switzerland knows, but probably not too many people here know.

Joseph Scafetta, Jr.

Fra Noi Correspondent

> Dear Scafetta,

ETH are German initials, which stand for Eidgenossische (but this vowel "o" must be written with the two points on the top, which is an abbreviation for "oe"!) Technische Hochschule (this translates roughly as Federal High School in Technology), as you can see in their website: http://www.ethz.ch .

Besso studied at the ETH exactly in the same years in which Einstein studied at the same place (1896-1900). Pais gives some information about that period, but with some imprecision. He claims (p. 45) that 5 students tried the final examination in August 1900, that 4 passed, but not the fifth, which was Mileva Maric. As a matter of fact, the students were 7, Einsteins was sixth, with very low marks, and Mileva seventh, the only one of the 7 which did not pass (and she did not pass even one year later, in 1901)…

> Dear Scafetta,

I received just yesterday the material you have sent to me about the Einstein-Besso biographies, and I try to answer to you almost immediately.

First of all let me say that I AM DEEPLY SORRY because even I was a source for misunderstanding! When I wrote that:

> Besso studied at the ETH exactly in the same years in which Einstein studied at the same place (1896-1900)...

I wrote "by heart" (a memoria), and so I was too "generic", making a great mistake, please do excuse me.

As a matter of fact the full TRUTH (source: Pierre Speziali, Einstein-Besso correspondence) is that:

1 - Besso went to Zurich to study Engineering in October 1891, and he studied there till his diploma, which he got in 1895. We have the final document dated 16^th March 1895.

2 - He then started working at Winterthur, but he went often to Zurich, where he met Einstein in 1896 (at that time Einstein too lived only near Zurich, in Aarau).

3 - Einstein went to Zurich for BEGINNING his studies in October 1895 (source: Pais, p. 40): in that month he tried the examination for admission, but he failed. Then he got another diploma, which entitled him "to enroll at the ETH", which happened only on October of NEXT YEAR, 1896. Einstein then finished his studies in August 1900, as I already told you.

4 - In conclusion, they both, Einstein and Besso, studied in Zurich, but surely NOT in the same years. After all, I doubt moreover that they attended the same course of studies, since Einstein became a Fachlehrer, namely "a specialized teacher in mathematics and physics", and NOT an Engineer as Besso.

5 - From what is stated above, we can conclude that your source BIOGRAPHIES is surely WRONG about the years of Besso's studies at ETH: it is NOT 1896-1899, furthermore the source is wrong even about the studies in Rome, which lasted ONLY ONE academical year, 1890-1891 (we have a final document dated 29^th July 1891), and not four years, 1891-1895!! After all, this version accounts even for the fact that Besso and Einstein were NOT of the same age. Your source about Einstein's life seems instead to me to be correct, as far as it does concern the sections that I have checked...

Now I come to the other major point I raised in my mail.

6 - You are only partially right when you say to me in your last mail that:

> It is my understanding that Einstein's first 1905 relativity paper, in which he explained the photoelectric effect, won for him the Nobel Prize in 1921.

As a matter of fact, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, for which he indeed got later on the N.P., in the same famous year 1905, but NOT in the first paper about relativity, and not even in the second (the last relativity paper for that year), which was the small one about the equation E = mc^2. He did it in another PREVIOUS paper, March 1905, see Pais for all details.

Remark, personal: It is important to notice that for me, because it shows that in the Nobel Prize the theory of relativity was not mentioned at all, as it had yet too many "enemies" even between first level physicists. One should even notice that for this same reason the Prize was awarded to Einstein ONLY IN NOVEMBER 1922, due to the too many polemics about the connection between his name and relativity - see Pais, p. 526. ...

> Dear Isaacs,

thank you very much for your kind thought of sending to me your opinions about the Einstein-De Pretto case. For a curious coincidence, after some time of "silence", in the very same days I received a six pages article about the same argument, of next publication in the USA (in the journal, intended for the Italian community, if I understand correctly, entitled "Fra Noi Monthly", Illinois), and a whole page article in the Italian widely diffused newspaper "Il Giornale". If you wish I can send to you a copy of the first one, which is written in English, and if you ask me to do so, even a copy of the second.

As far as your remarks is concerning, I agree that the "interpretations" of Einstein's and De Pretto's formula are NOT the same. As a matter of fact, I just believe that De Pretto's wild speculation roused Einstein's curiosity, and that the famous physicist was "inspired" by the Italian about the possibility to deduce exactly tha same quantitative expression in the framework of his Special Relativity, nothing more.

I do not agree about the meaning of the "silence" of Schiaparelli, Michele Angelo Besso, the Reale Istituto Veneto, and, why not, of De Pretto himself. One should not forget in fact that Einstein's fame grew up internationally only after Eddington confirmed Einstein's previsions in 1919 (it is a pity that we have different languages! - about this Eddington's role you should read the point N. 10 of the page History of Science in my web site: Eddington's claims was quite a good example of TRIMMING, namely "manipulating data so as to make them look better, in order to fit the researcher's hypothesis best", from: A. Kohn, "False Prophets", Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1986, p. 3), which led the German to the Nobel Prize of 1921/1922. At that time RELATIVITY WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the motivation for the prize, since the theory was not so widely accepted, and known, and it had many opponents (and particularly in Italy, where only a few physicists and mathematicians of Jewish origin tried to publicize it). But, most important, the Einsteinian formula about the equivalence of mass and energy did not become famous until the Thirties, when Joliot-Curie, Fermi and others started the experimental researches which led to the practical handling of the nuclear energy (exactly in 1931 De Pretto's brother, Silvio, tried to give some tribute to the memoir of Olinto, but then he received answers as: "Today, physicists believe that the aether does not exist…"). In front of these facts, Schiaparelli was dead in 1910, De Pretto was dead in 1921. Moreover, I believe that no one in the Reale Istituto, who in 1903 was implied in the publication of De Prettos' paper, remembered any more in 1921 that eccentric personnage, and his paper. As a matter of fact, De Pretto's paper was ignored even by the Italian community of the physicists, very likely because the author was a not a "full scientist", or a university professor, and his work was not an academical "normal" physics paper: I do not know of any single quotation of this essay in other scientific articles of the time. One should not even forget that between 1914 and 1918 North-Eastern Italy was particularly upset by the first Great World War, which destroyed many recordings even of this story (for instance, Besso's Italian home and library were destroyed during the war, while the owner was in Suisse). As far as the same Besso is concerning, it is obvious that he would have never dared to do something which could have been interpreted "against" his closest friend Einstein (and not only because they were both Jewish, and the foundation of the "Einstein's myth" was receiving increasing attention from the Zionist cause: as I admitted before, the two men had indeed their good "scientific" reasons, relying in the undeniable fact that the deduction and the interpretation of the formula in the relativistic framework were indeed quite "original"). For the same reason, one should not even give too much importance for to another curious silence, namely that of Mileva Maric, Einstein's first wife, who was very likely involved in all the "relativity affair" since the beginning (see, again in my web site, the short communication by Michael Falotico about this woman, in the page dedicated to "Episteme", N. 4), and got the whole amount of the Nobel prize won by Einstein.

In general, I would not agree even about the "generic" remarks asserting that the equivalence we are speaking about was known to many other people. If it is true that the change of mass into energy could come to the mind just looking at a burning wood, it is even true that one would not have expected that ANY mass contains exactly the SAME amount of energy. Moreover, the energy's amount given by a burning wood is NOT mc^2, and we are facing a question which is eminently quantitative, and not just roughly qualitative. I could even add that the inverse transformation (namely, of energy in mass) was not at all conjecturable, and conjectured, by all the "forerunners" you quote (Spinoza, Newton, and so on). Even in Poincare's case, who gave the right formula, but only as the recoil of an object stroken by a light's beam, in function of the electyromagnetic energy of the light, I would not say that his deduction had NOTHING TO DO with Einstein's, or De Pretto's, statement, of the full possible convertion of all mass into energy, and vice versa. But this discussion would take a great amount of time, and "energy", to be carried on with the sufficient scientific care*...

The last thing I wished to comment about your brief essay, is that I was NOT interested in this story because of "wishful, chauvinistic aspirations"! I was not interested in De Pretto as an Italian, but just as a believer in the ether, since it is a very funny coincidence that:

1 - relativity denies the existence of the ether (roughly speaking);

2 - in order to prove that relativity is TRUE, one often quote the "truth" of the formula we are talking about, conceived to be eminently relativistic (a consequence of relativity, and of relativity alone);

3 - the same formula was indeed conceived by a man who believed in the ether, and so could as well been used, with the same purpose as before, in order to prove that the ether does exist!

I am convinced that Einstein is responsible for the disappearance of the most important concept of aether (namely, that the real physical space is not empty, and it is a medium, carrier for instance of the electromagnetic waves, endowed with measurable physical properties), which is quite essential in any attempt to give a rational description of natural phenomena (otherwise, you have "paradoxes", as the famous duality between the wave theoretical and the corpuscular essence of light). It was indeed Relativity's success the gateway for the beginning of a whole irrationalistic Physics, against which the same Einstein fought in the last years of his life: but he was undoubtely the man which started the whole affair, the one who opened the Pandora's box...

* The same would happen if we wished to discuss in detail the Michelson-Morley experiment, whose outcome was not exactly ZERO, and in any case is obviously MEANINGLESS towards theories which suppose the relative velocity Earth-ether equal to zero (Stokes's theory, or better Descartes-Leibniz theories, which are usually dismissed on the ground of other arguments, ALL objectable in their turn - see for instance, once again in my web site, the point N. 7 of the page in the Foundations of Physics - I do not treat in that paper the argument of the stellar annual aberration, but I would be able to do it, I am just waiting to have some free time in order to write a paper about it). Furthermore, upon this experiment have been cast serious doubts by D.C. Miller in the Twenties, but the general aptitude of physicists (better, of their "leaders") did not change, showing once more that Physics is not only a scientific enterprise, but that even ideological and political motivations play an important role in the choice between antagonist theories...

> Dear Isaacs,

thank you very much even for your last letter.

1 - I did send to you by ordinary mail the two articles I told you. As far as the one written in English is concerning, I had to express the same kind of comments I expressed to you, and the editor will publish them aside of that paper. Here they are:

- As far as your article is concerning, I would say in the whole that you have treated the affair in a very good manner, that you have given all relevant information, and so on*. I agree with your main conclusion that De Pretto's proposal has been forgotten, because it was connected with the ether, a concept which, after Einstein, disappeared from the scene of XX century physics. But of course there is one, most fundamental, point, in which I DO NOT AGREE with you, namely when you say " … Einstein would not have read it … "!

Apart the fact that it is quite plausible that IT WAS BESSO who did read it (and that very likely he knew De Pretto's "foolish idea" since many years BEFORE it was published - by means of the connection between Besso's uncle and De Prettos' brother: the documented acquaintance between these two men would just be a curious "coincidence", with no meaning at all in this story?!), I would instead have concluded that Einstein would have read that paper EXACTLY FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT YOU QUOTE IN ORDER TO ASSERT THE CONTRARY**. If he was ready to abandon the concept of the ether, he should have read before ALL papers talking about it, in order to dismiss all possible arguments in favour of the ether, otherwise he would not have been an "honest" scientist. As a matter of fact, what if De Pretto would have succeeded to "prove" the existence of the ether in his paper? Einstein had to be convinced that he was not working along a wrong way…

* There are minor points which are perhaps useful to remark: Einstein got the Nobel prize in 1921 [one could even say 1922, but this is a long story!], and not in 1920; Urania (Society) is very different from Uranus. I would not even let the reader believe that Poincare' was a true "forerunner" of the famous formula, since he meant only to describe the recoil of an object stroken by a light's beam, in function of the electromagnetic energy of the light: so I would not say that this achievement has ANYTHING TO DO with Einstein's, or De Pretto's, statement, concerning the full possible convertion of all mass (any mass) into energy, and vice versa. But this discussion would take a great amount of time, and "energy", to be carried on with the sufficient scientific care…

** This does not mean that I believe in these reasons: I rather think, as you do, that EINSTEIN DID NOT POSSIBLY READ DE PRETTO'S PAPER, but that all the same he was "inspired" by De Pretto! As a matter of fact, once he was called by his teacher Minkowski a "LAZY DOG", and very likely all he did in this circumstance was TO HEAR from Besso's voice. Einstein found the idea acceptable, but it was not quite sure about its "truth", and this explains why a second paper (with the title in the interrogative form!), shortly following the long first 1905 relativistic article. He tried to find an undoubtely original deduction of the same formula (in all its generality, not only in Poncare's sense, for instance) in his relativistic framework, and he succeeded in doing that. When he said that he was "not familiar with other relevant theoretical papers", he was not a liar, since, strictly speaking, De Pretto's work was not in his opinion a "relevant theoretical paper". As a matter of fact, De Pretto's paper was ignored even by the Italian community of the physicists, very likely because the author was not a "full scientist", or a university professor, and his essay was not an ordinary academical physics paper: I do not know of any single quotation of that paper in other scientific articles of the time.

2 - You are very kind in frankly communicating to me your thoughts, and it is a pity that I cannot do entirely the same, since to write in English is rather difficult for me. For instance I could point out that your assertion "Einstein derived his E = mc^2 from this" seems to me WRONG. If you take his 1905 paper, then you will find no trace of this series expansion, which is indeed the rather common ACTUAL presentation of the famous equation. Furthermore, one could add that it is very well known that energy is always defined up to an additive constant (as a matter of fact, Einstein in its 1905 primitive deduction computed only the VARIATION of energy), and this implies that it is not at all clear a priori that the constant term E = moc^2, which appears in that expansion, has a physical meaning! Only this is important, and I AM SINCERELY PERSUADED that Einstein got the idea of its possible physical significance from the De Pretto, via Besso!

3 - I could even say that I know very well the role of "other" people like Freundlich in the making of General Relativity, and that one could even conjecture that some relevant experimental results were KNOWN to Einstein and others before 1919, but HIDDEN to the scientific community in the whole (and it was this that inspired Eddington in choosing his data from many others which would have led any other "independent" scientist to different conclusions!). In my web site there is a special point (N. 10, in the page about History of Science) about this argument (including copy of a letter between Einstein and Schwartzschild, which was at the time the German leading astronomer in Potsdam), but unfortunately it is written in Italian. In any case, I know very well, from the experience of many years, that most people is "psychologically" unable to accept the idea that science could be as many other man's activities, full of political and economical interests, "intrigues", "conspiracies"...

Dear Castaing,

...Needless to say, I quite agree with your general point of view: unfortunately there are not too many academicians which can stand the plain truth which you describe, and they usually dismiss all discussions with disdain.

As far as the De Pretto's affair is concerned, I do not know enough the original Hasenöhrl work, but of course I know that there are many people which quote this physicist as one of the forerunners of the famous "Einstein's" equation. Anyway, I know of many others scientists which discussed something in some sense "similar" to this equation, but I do not know of anybody which wrote it EXACTLY as it is today, with no numerical coefficients in front of mc² , and with the correct interpretation, that ALL mass can become energy, and conversely (I would even say that this perception of a possible complete equivalence was not in the first Einstein's paper too). Moreover, I know that many of these attempts (including Poincaré's) did concern the problem of the so called "electromagnetic mass", and not the simple De Pretto's idea that there was energy in each mass just because of the kinetic energy of the ether "included" in that mass (this is a causal explanation for the origin of this energy according to ether's theory, while the theory of relativity is unable to give any causal explanation for it).

Unfortunately, there are no papers discussing this argument in other languages than Italian: I would be happy for any help, suggestion, you could give to me concerning possible translations (now I am old and tired, so I cannot think to do it by myself). I could add that the first, rather short, paper which I wrote about this story, with a younger collaborator, was always refused publication, exactly for what you say: the "establishment" tries to hide "inconvenient truths". The only publication of this paper is in my web site, at:

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/depre.html .

Again in my web site, there is even a short account of the troubles I met trying to publish something about De Pretto:

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/depr.html .

At last a small editor in Italy decided to publish, as a personal friend, this story in the form of a book, including all original De Pretto's essay, and this is the book you are actually asking for. Unfortunately I have no copies of it, but you could address your request to:

Paolo Brunetti

Società Editrice Andromeda

via Salvador Allende 1

40139 Bologna

e-mail: andromeda@posta.alinet.it . ...

Subject: hello sir

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:14:18 EST

From: LOHENGRIN13@aol.com

To: bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it

Im very interested in your work regarding olinto de pretto, but in america, you never hear about it, and the only reference i read said

de pretto didnt first write down e=mc2. I'd greatly appreciate your help in this matter, as well as information regarding an english

translation of your book one day. God bless.

Sincerely,

Anthony Scala

> Dear Scala,

thank you for your kind mail.

I must say at once that, unfortunately, there are no essays discussing this argument in languages different from Italian. If you can remember and understand this language, you could find the first, rather short, paper which I wrote about this story, in my web site, at:

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/depre.html .

Again in my web site, there is even a short account (but once again written in Italian) of the troubles I met trying to publish something about this case (the "establishment" always tries to hide "inconvenient truths", but at last a small editor in Bologna, a personal friend, accepted to publish this story in the form of a book, including all original De Pretto's paper):

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/depr.html .

I do not know where you have read news about this affair, but there are some fixed points, which are surely true:

1 - De Pretto was indeed the first to publish E = mc2, and he published it in 1903, two years before Einstein;

2 - so, if there were people asserting E = mc2 before than De Pretto, then these people would asserted it even before Einstein;

3 - the usual claims concerning "forerunners" of the famous equation are usually correct, but they should inform precisely that either the formula was not exactly the same, either the interpretation was quite different. That is to say, the idea that ANY mass contains that exact amount of energy is only in De Pretto, as far as I know, while other physicists (as the well known Poincare') studied for instance the recoil that the light impressed on some body, thus showing in some sense for instance that even light, namely "electromagnetic energy", had "mass". But this is of course quite a different thing from the EQUIVALENCE of mass and energy, which means that ALL MASS can become ENERGY, and conversely (I would even say that this perception of a possible complete equivalence was not in the first 1905 Einstein's paper too);

4 - in De Pretto's original idea the energy was "stored" in each mass just because of the kinetic energy of the ether "included" in that mass, and this is a causal explanation for the origin of this energy according to ether's theory, while the theory of relativity is unable to give any CAUSAL explanation for it, just a "mathematical" one;

5 - there is undoubtable evidence of direct connection between Einstein's father, who worked in North-Eastern Italy, or Einstein's closest friend Michelangelo Besso, and De Pretto's family. Since De Pretto discussed with people his conjecture well before it was published in 1903 (he says that all people considered him a fool!), it is almost sure that all people acquainted with him, and with his brothers, knew of his "foolish idea".

Of course, the previous truths are not enough in order to assert that Einstein himself knew De Pretto's work, but it is reasonable to conjecture that he did, mostly by means of his friend Besso (the only one whom he thanked at the end of his 1905 paper), and so that he was "inspired" by De Pretto's idea when he decided to include the by now very famous formula in its theory of relativity. Of course, in doing that he gave a quite different "explanation" for this formula being possibly true (at that time there was absolutely no kind of experimental evidence, neither for De Pretto nor for Einstein). But one should always remark that he DID NOT include this formula in its great 1905 relativity paper, but only in a rather short (3 pages) addendum, which was published a few months afterwards, and with a title given in an INTERROGATIVE form. This is enough for me to advance the conjecture that he was not so "sure" about the correctness of that equivalence, and that he did not want to involve its new general physical theory with an uncertain argument. All the same, he did not want to renounce to the possibility that this formula was true, and this fully explains his "strategy".

Many people ask to me, if this was so, why he did not quote De Pretto? But the answer is very easy: for many possible reasons, first of all the fact that De Pretto was not an academician, not even a physicist, but only an "amateur". Second, because De Pretto's original idea (as a matter of fact, his whole rather long essay) was grounded on the ETHER'S THEORY, a theory which Einstein was exactly criticizing with the theory of relativity (as a matter of fact, after Einstein's success, the ether disappeared from the 20^th Century Physics).

So, as you see, there are truths, and there are conjectures, some of them most reasonable than others, and one should always be very clear and sincere in distinguishing the first from the second, trying to give to the readers ALL RELEVANT information, not hiding anything...

Subject: hello again

Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 13:14:41 EST

From: LOHENGRIN13@aol.com

To: bartocci@dipmat.unipg.it

Ciao,

Thank you so much for responding, and merry christmas to you and your family. The person whos article i read said this, "Oddly enough, De Pretto seems to have been under the impression that mv2 was the kinetic energy of macroscopic bodies moving at the speed v. On this (erroneous) basis, and despite the fact that De Pretto did not regard the speed of light as a physically limiting speed, he noted that LeSage's ether particles were thought to move at approximately the speed of light, and so (he reasoned) the particles comprising a stationary aggregate of matter may also be vibrating internally at the speed of light ... And so he says that de pretto shouldnt be credited, because of erroneous deduction even though he stated the equation!

I dont evenknow if thats what he said, so i would like to hear your thoughts on it.

Sincerely, Anthony Scala

> Dear Scala,

thank you very much even for this second mail. I must say at once that it is rather unusual for me to read good comments about this "Einstein-De Pretto" case (most people try to avoid the possibility that Einstein was really inspired by De Pretto with very weak arguments: it must be that this idea is quite unpleasant to them, I cannot understand why!).

For instance, I recently received, again from the USA, and from a man having an Italian name as you, Scafetta, the following assertion (which has been published in "Fra Noi", Chicagoland's Italian American Voice, Sep. 2001, 40, 09, p. 15):

> Thus, even if he knew about De Pretto's publication, Einstein would not have read it, because of his conviction that the aether expoused by De Pretto did not exist.

To which I replied:

> I would instead have concluded that Einstein would have read that paper EXACTLY FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT YOU QUOTE IN ORDER TO ASSERT THE CONTRARY. If he was ready to abandon the concept of the ether, he should have read before ALL papers talking about it, in order to dismiss all possible arguments in favour of the ether ... [All the same] I rather think, as you do, that Einstein did not possibly read De Pretto's paper, but that all the same he was "inspired" by De Pretto! As a matter of fact, once he was called by his teacher Minkowski a "lazy dog", and very likely all he did in this circumstance was TO HEAR from Besso's voice...

Well, having said that, I must admit that the observation you send to me is instead quite CORRECT. I would not just agree with the remark that De Pretto was thinking about the energy on an "erroneous basis": of course he knew very well - even if not a physicist, he was anyway an "educated man" - that the kinetic energy is the HALF of the expression mv^2, but for some reason, known only to him, he decided to take into consideration the so called "forza viva", introduced first, I believe, by Leibniz. [see even the previous point 5].

May I ask you: WHO DID WRITE THIS COMMENT, AND WHERE HAS IT BEEN PUBLISHED, IF IT EVER WAS?

But let me even remark that this observation is NOT IN CONTRADICTION with anyone of the points 1/5 which I wrote to you before! As a matter of fact, De Pretto did assert that there was energy in any "inert" matter well BEFORE than Einstein, and conjectured that it was so in the exact quantitative amount which we believe correct today. He used exactly the correct value of the speed of light in his first computations, but of course he gave to his speculations just the value of a conjecture: after all, as I already remarked, there were no "experimental proves" at that time, neither for him, nor for Einstein. Only when he realized that the foreseen amount of energy was unbelievably enormous, he said that perhaps one could have introduced a smaller speed, but that anyway the energy "at rest" would have always been very big. If you can read Italian, here they are his precise words:

"La materia di un corpo qualunque, contiene in se stessa una somma di energia rappresentata dall'intera massa del corpo, che si muovesse tutta unita ed in blocco nello spazio, colla medesima velocità delle singole particelle. [...] La formula mv² ci dà la forza viva e la formula mv²/8338 ci dà, espressa in calorie, tale energia. Dato adunque m=1 e v uguale a 300 milioni di metri [al secondo], che sarebbe la velocità della luce, ammessa anche per l'etere, ciascuno potrà vedere che si ottiene una quantità di calorie rappresentata da 10794 seguito da 9 zeri e cioè oltre dieci milioni di milioni (pp. 458-459). [...] A quale risultato spaventoso ci ha mai condotto il nostro ragionamento? Nessuno vorrà facilmente ammettere che immagazzinata ed allo stato latente, in un chilogrammo di materia qualunque, completamente nascosta a tutte le nostre investigazioni, si celi una tale somma di energia, equivalente alla quantità che si può svolgere da milioni e milioni di chilogrammi di carbone; l'idea sarà senz'altro giudicata da pazzi [...] Sia comunque, si riduca quanto si vuole il risultato a cui fummo condotti dal nostro calcolo, è pur forza ammettere che nell'interno della materia, deve trovarsi immagazzinata tale somma di energia da colpire qualunque immaginazione (p. 459)."

So the whole point reduces to the last assertion of the comment you have sent to me: "de pretto shouldnt be credited, because of erroneous deduction even though he stated the equation!".

In any case, it is well possible that an "erroneous deduction" inspired Einstein, through Besso, as I claim, and so one should agree at least that De Pretto should be credited in the history of science because of this effect of his work. I would even add that in Physics it is always very difficult to distinguish between "right" or "erroneous deductions". What of the Einstein's deduction itself if the Theory of Relativity would ever shown to be incorrect, and the ether found again to "exist" (as I personally presume)?! The energy inside any matter would obviously remain untouched, even if men would change their "theories"...