That is the new book by Lee Smolin. It is a fascinating take on theories of physics which have not worked out, including but not only string theory. The author explains why progress in particle physics is tough, opposes the anthropic principle and multiverses, explains string theory better than its popular science proponents, and sees a future in "loop quantum gravity." He stresses how differing views on "frame of reference dependence" underlie differences in fundamental approaches. Highly recommended, and yes it does go beyond other popular science books on similar topics. Excerpt:
As I reflect on the scientific careers of the people I have known these last thirty years, it seems to me more and more that these career decisions hinge on character. Some people will happily jump on the next big thing, give it all they’ve got, and in this way make important contributions to fast-moving fields. Others just don’t have the temperament to do this. Some people need to think through everything very carefully, and this takes time, as they get easily confused. It’s not hard to feel superior to such people, until you remember that Einstein was one of them. In my experience, the truly shocking new ideas and innovations tend to come from such people.
It seems that the critics of string theory have been
out and about a lot recently. While still flying pretty
high, some air seems to be leaking from its balloon…
This is a very good book. His underlying views seem to be very theistic though; that’s not a bad thing as it shows the humilty to not presume away the unknown too easily, but I wonder how many other readers will recognize it for what it is.
Featured in current Forbes (p.48, September, 18, 2006):
…”Science is like climbing a mountain through a fog that prevents us from knowing how to reach the summit. To get there, we need both hill climbers, who can quickly scale the highest peaks, and valley crossers, who possess intuition, an appreciation for serendipity and the ability to find new terrain. The more foundational and risky a problem, the more the balance needs to be shifted toward valley crossers…”
For a criticism of the criticism, check out the long Amazon review by a Harvard string theorist.
This guy, apparently a Harvard string theorist, thinks Smolin is a crank.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1ZDPQA6FLY8XM/ref=cm_cr_auth/104-3899503-0537540?ie=UTF8
I think these “theoretical” guys are just treading water until the next Einstein comes along…and comes up with something of actual value for humanity.
Yes, definitely. I’d prefer reasonably practical stellar flight, such that human transportation is ok but bulk trade is not. Then we can establish colonies with different types of government, economy etc. and finally have controlled experiment settings.
This is all well and good but why aren’t these scientists working on any thing useful. Like the personal flying space-cars we were promised in the sixties…
It is true that string theory is supposed to replace
quantum field theory. But that qft holds up does not
disprove string theory. The problem with qft is its
inability to encompass general relativity. This has
been the big question all along. There have been some
vague opportunities for string theory to show something
empirically, nothing definitive, but it has not come
through anywhere for any of those so far.
There are several other alternatives besides quantum
loop, some of which look more appealing to me. For
example, check out the work of Rafael Sorkin.
EINSTEIN: THE GENIUS AMONG GENIUSES WHO KILLED PHYSICS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
“Genius Among Geniuses” by Thomas Levenson
“And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein’s March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice’s Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that’s tough.”
The genius among geniuses at the end of his career:
“I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.”
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
SUBTLETY AND BEAUTY IN EINSTEIN’S CRIMINAL CULT
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 “Special Relativity Reconsidered”:
“Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might be subtly – and perhaps beautifully – wrong.”
Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come from:
Einstein: “If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false.”
Einstein again: “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.”
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND EINSTEIN’S CRIMINAL CULT
The Royal Society: Science is dying!
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=5215
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/discussion.asp?id=2645
Einstein’s criminal cult: Divine Einstein!
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://video.google.it/videoplay?docid=-3937213533481268060
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEINIANS WILL UNDERSTAND EINSTEIN’S THEORIES
http://universe.nasa.gov/
“Astonishingly, all of these wild ideas are now known to be true. But now we must work toward the next step in our understanding. Einstein’s legacy is incomplete – we do not understand the underlying physics of the very phenomena that came out of his theories.”
Einsteinians will try to understand Einstein’s theories by interpreting them in terms of Newton’s particle model of light (that is, in terms of discontinuous structures confirmed by Einstein himself). Einstein has hinted at the final result:
Einstein: “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.”
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
THE BEAUTY OF EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/ :
“The gold standard for beauty in physics is Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. What makes it beautiful?”
The fact that it is an artefact based on the concept of light as a continuous field. If Einstein had used the concept of light as discontinuous particles (photons), the theory would be uglier. However the beauty is fatal: at the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts the death of physics:
“I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.”
The choice Einstein had to make between the concept of light as a continuous field and the concept of light as discontinuous particles (photons) is rarely mentioned in the literature but still there are eloquent quotations:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ :
“Genius Among Geniuses” by Thomas Levenson
“And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein’s March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice’s Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that’s tough.”
It is the fatality of Einstein’s wrong choice that prevents relativity hypnotists from declaring the end of Einstein’s era – they would all lose everything. So hypnotists will continue to worship Einstein’s beauty and camouflage Einstein’s idiocies forever.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEIN’S ZOMBIES WRITE TEXTBOOKS
Sometimes relativity textbooks are written by Einstein’s zombies, not by Einstein’s hypnotists, and in such cases one can find unforgettable texts. For instance, Einstein’s hypnotists often confuse the reader by introducing a light source that emits flashes at time intervals T and then calling the quantity 1/T “frequency”, in the hope that the reader will confuse this frequency with the wave frequency (in Einstein’s zombie world the reader always confuses the two frequencies). However hypnotists never go so far as to call the distance between the flashes “wavelength” – see, for instance:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
Zombies’ reasoning is bolder – they somehow know that there can be no frequency without wavelength:
Murat Boratav, Ryszard Kerner
Professeurs a l’Universite Pierre-et-Marie Curie, Paris VI
“RELATIVITE”, 1991, p. 74:
“La source O emet deux signaux successifs separes dans l’espace par une distance lambda_0 et dans le temps par un temps T_0, qu’on peut appeler “longueur d’onde propre” ou “periode propre” en ce sens que ces grandeurs sont caracteristiques du referentiel ou la source emettrice est au repos.”
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
INEVITABILITY IN EINSTEIN’S ZOMBIE WORLD
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/12/physics_protest/ :
“Reading University’s department is unlikely to be the only one in the UK that has “dropped below the level of viability”. The trouble is, departments can’t advertise their vulnerability for fear of losing talented research staff and scaring off prospective students.
“This is why we don’t hear about it until it is too late,” says Diamond.”
Pentcho Valev
EINSTEIN MAKES FUN OF THE ZOMBIE WORLD
Einstein knew all along that the speed of light in a gravitational field is variable and obeys the formula c’=c(1+V/c^2), and that the gravitational redshift f’=f(1+V/c^2) is a direct consequence of this variability. However Einstein was looking for fun and performed an experiment. He offered two questions and two answers to the zombie world:
Question 1: Is there any relation between the variable speed of light c’=c(1+V/c^2) and the gravitational redshift f’=f(1+V/c^2)?
Question 2: The gravitational redshift f’=f(1+V/c^2) is a direct consequence of what?
Answer 1: Who cares.
Answer 2: Gravitational time dilation.
The zombie world had to find an answer for either question. It did it successfully and Einstein had a lot of fun.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEIN’S ZOMBIE WORLD: BIOLOGISTS WILL TEACH PHYSICS
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1881487,00.html
“[We will look at] whether we should be training biology teachers, so that they can become specialist teachers in chemistry and physics.”
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
RELATIVITY AND SELF-DESTRUCTION
Photons move in a gravitational field and either undergo acceleration (e.g. their speed becomes c’>c=300000km/s) or do not undergo acceleration (that is, their speed remains c=300000km/s). If they undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is due to the variable speed of light, in accordance with the formula c’=Lf’, where L is wavelength and f is frequency. If the photons do not undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is due to gravitational time dilation and variable wavelength, in accordance with the formula c=L’f’. It is easy to see that c’=Lf’ and c=L’f’ are the only possibilities. Roughly speaking, either variable speed of light and no gravitational time dilation, or gravitational time dilation and constant speed of light.
Initially Einstein chose c’=Lf’:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm :
“So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
“On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,” Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book “The Principle of Relativity.” You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein’s derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c’ = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured.”
However later Einstein had to camouflage the fact that the frequency shift is due to variable speed of light and introduced gravitational time dilation – a concept extremely dangerous for human rationality. Two identical clocks in identical conditions (identical gravitational fields) allegedly have different rates. Rationality is immediately destroyed and the victim starts worshipping both the miracle and its creator.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEINIANS WILL UNMASK EINSTEIN
In Appendix 3 in his “Relativity” Einstein starts from the time dilation factor
1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)
and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor
1+V/c^2
where V is the gravitational potential. In the process Einstein replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor approximation
1-v^2/2c^2
and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely sure that this replacement can only be due to Einstein’s genial intuition and sense of harmony. However lately Einsteinians with powerful intellects have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the approximation 1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma? The inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency shift factor 1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of variability of the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves no suspicious approximations at all:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm :
“So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
“On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,” Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book “The Principle of Relativity.” You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein’s derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c’ = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured.”
Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other hand, their honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as they manage to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct deduction
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT -> FREQUENCY SHIFT
and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction
TIME DILATION -> FREQUENCY SHIFT
they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.
Pentcho Valev
LORDS: BAD TEACHING OF SCIENCE IN EINSTEIN’S WORLD
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1940024,00.html
“Science teaching is in a dangerous decline that is putting Britain’s technological future at risk. Only a complete overhaul of education policy can rescue the situation, a high-powered House of Lords committee warns today.”
I suspect some Lord bumped into the wisdom “I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours but if you go and return you will find mine to be faster than yours” that freshmen should learn by rote very diligently.
Another Lord found a famous textbook where freshmen are taught how to see through opaque bodies:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
Problem 7, “Seeing behind the stick”, p. 47 (solution on p. 54).
Then the Lords asked: “What remains of students’ rationality after such teaching?” and immediately answered: “Nothing”. Hence the conclusion that teaching of science in Einstein’s world is bad.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
THE MOST DANGEROUS QUESTIONS IN PHYSICS
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228411,00.html :
“So was Newton right? Light is a particle, not a wave? The answer is yes and no. Light acts like a wave when you do an experiment looking for a wave property (like scattering through a pinhole). It behaves like a particle if you test for a particle property (like colliding with electrons).”
Light acts like what in a gravitational field when it accelerates and its speed becomes greater than c=300000km/s? Light acts like what when you apply the equivalence principle and find that, if it accelerates in a gravitational field, its speed in the absence of a gravitational field is c’=c+v, where c is the initial speed of the photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer? Light acts like what when c’=c+v satisfies the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment whereas c’=c (Einstein’s postulate of constancy of the speed of light) can only be satisfactory if you additionally introduce miracles (time dilation, length contration etc.)?
These have been the most dangerous questions in physics for the last 100 years.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
DO EINSTEINIANS DELIBERATELY DESTROY THEIR CRIMINAL CULT?
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Note when we say “lifetime of a muon” we mean the DECAY lifetime. That
> is, for muons that don’t interact. The omitted discussion is confusing
> the issue by noting that muons interact with air and some “live” much
> shorter times because of those interactions — while true, that is NOT
> what we mean by “lifetime”. Note also that the major interaction of
> muons with air is energy loss (via EM processes), and the muons are not
> being annihilated or changed by the air, they are merely being SLOWED
> DOWN (which changes the value of gamma and therefore the duration of
> their existence measured in the earth frame).
Is this some mental aberration or does the Einsteinian really want to destroy his criminal cult for some reason? Strange things happen in Einstein’s world.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
BIG BROTHER’S WORLD AND EINSTEIN’S WORLD
In Big Brother’s world truth is replaced by falsity but the identification and rejection of false statements remain essential: if 2+2=5 is declared true, 2+2=4 automatically becomes false and is rejected.
In Einstein’s world true and false statements coexist in “theories”. So in Einstein’s theory the speed of light is both invariable and variable. “Invariable” is false, “variable” is true but this distinction does not matter. What matters is the fact that Einstein’s theory “works” in the sense that millions of people make their living by teaching it, developing it, confirming it experimentally etc. It is unthinkable to disturb the integrity of the theory and threaten all those people by identifying, let alone rejecting, false statements.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
THE PRINCIPLE OF VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT
Einstein’s 1911 equation c’=c(1+V/c^2), where c’ is the speed of light as measured by an observer, c=300000km/s is the initial speed of light relative to the light source and V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where light is emitted, proves the validity of the following principle:
Since the probability that V=0 is virtually zero, light NEVER travels in space with speed c=300000km/s; its speed is either higher or lower than that value (V>0 or V<0).
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
NOBEL PRIZES IN THE ERA OF POSTSCIENTISM
For a closed system doing reversible work of expansion the first law of thermodynamics takes the form
dU = dQ – PdV /1/
where dU is the internal energy change, dQ is the heat absorbed, P is pressure and V is volume. Since the system is CLOSED and undergoes reversible changes the entropy change is, by definition, dS=dQ/T and /1/ becomes:
dU = TdS – PdV /2/
J. Gibbs managed to convince the world that, if the system is OPEN (substances are added to it), /2/ should be replaced by
dU = TdS – PdV + SUM mu_i dn_i /3/
where mu_i is the chemical potential and n_i is the amount of the ith component. However Gibbs failed to explain the meaning of the entropy change, dS, for an OPEN system. Was dS again equal to dQ/T, as for a closed system, or was dS equal to something else when substances were added to the system?
The fact that dS was not defined for open systems made the equation /3/ so fashionable (scientists adore equations with undefined terms) that in the end /3/ was called “the fundamental equation of thermodynamics”. Yet scientists somehow felt that a new definition of dS would bring even more money. The quickest among them, Ilya Prigogine, simply combined /1/ and /3/ and obtained
dS = dQ/T – (1/T)SUM mu_i dn_i /4/
The Nobel Committee immediately gave him the money in the form of a Nobel Prize.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
BEYOND EINSTEIN: NEWTON
Einstein’s theory is an inconsistency: the set of its axioms involves, explicitly, the principle of INVARIABILITY of the speed of light and, implicitly, the principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light. Any development, improvement etc. should obviously be preceded by a removal of the false principle of invariability of the speed of light and the miracles it has generated (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski’s spacetime etc.). “Relativity without Einstein’s second postulate” has been a recurrent dream of initiated Einsteinians who have known about the falsehood from the very beginning:
http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html :
“They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers.”
The problem is that “Relativity without Einstein’s second postulate” or, in other terms, “Relativity without c”, is equivalent to “Back to Newton”. Curiously, the proof of this equivalency can be found in perhaps the most famous textbook on relativity:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
p.35: “Relativity without c….it is easy to imagine a universe where the speed of light depends on the frame of reference. Light could behave like a baseball, for example. So let’s drop the speed of light postulate and see what we can say about the coordinate transformations between frames, using only the relativity postulate.”
p.38: “There is only one decision to be made when constructing the spacetime structure of an (empty) universe. You just have to say whether V is finite or infinite, that is, whether the universe is Lorentzian or Galilean.”
Note that “Light could behave like a baseball” amounts to an implicit introduction of Newton’s particle model of light (confirmed by Einstein himself in 1905) valid in a Galilean universe where the speed of light is VARIABLE.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY: VIOLATIONS AND AXIOMS
Any Einsteinian would tell you violations of the theory entail reconsideration of the axioms: since Einstein’s deductions are rigorous, false conclusions would imply false axioms. On the other hand, any breathtaking development of Einstein’s relativity can only be triggered by violations and Einsteinians do wish to see that development – the present stalemate is disturbing even for them. The dilemma has an elegant solution: there are numerous violations indeed so the breathtaking development is imminent but those violations are tiny, so tiny that reconsideration of the axioms is not necessary:
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/4519.html :
“Alan Kostelecky, Distinguished Professor of Physics at Indiana University Bloomington, has been elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science “for seminal contributions to relativity and spacetime symmetries, and for the development of a profound and comprehensive theoretical framework for relativity violations,” according to a statement from AAAS….he realized that tiny violations of Einstein’s relativity could be an experimental signal of the long-sought underlying theory unifying all known forces and particles….Kostelecky’s theory has inspired many searches for relativity violations around the world, and more are being performed….. “The ongoing search for relativity violations is an impressive interdisciplinary effort,” Kostelecky said.”
Einsteinians reassure themselves in the following way. Since the violations are tiny, axioms are just a little false and therefore virtually true. The reassurance is quite explicit sometimes:
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-04/features/testing-the-limits/?page=1
“Testing the Limit of Einstein’s Theories….IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT CONSTANT?….If you compare a lot of high-energy photons with a lot of relatively low-energy ones, you should find that on average, after a billion-year race, the high-energy ones reach GLAST’s detector sooner—by about a millisecond. He and other quantum gravity theorists are pretty excited by that possibility, which just goes to show what they’re up against.”
Einsteinians know Einstein would disagree about “little falsehood”. Once he said: “If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false.” However the solution Einsteinians have found is both elegant and all-embracing: Violations are tiny, axioms are just a little false, Einstein is just a little wrong.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
WHERE EXACTLY THE PHYSICS CRISIS IS
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4812 :
Lee Smolin: “The crisis is not in physics overall but in that part of physics whose goal is to deepen our understanding of the laws of nature. Since the middle 1970s, there has been no definitive progress, no match between a new experimental result and a new theoretical prediction. That’s worrying…..String theory is not a theory in the sense that Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics is. It’s not defined by the statement of two or three principles that are expressed in the basic equations of the theory—which are then solved to yield examples and predictions.”
Note that a year ago the paradigm for something “defined by the statement of two or three principles that are expressed in the basic equations of the theory—which are then solved to yield examples and predictions” would inevitably have been Einsteinian mechanics. Now Smolin believes it is Newtonian mechanics again whereas Einstein’s name is not even mentioned. And Smolin was an admirer of Einstein, to say the least.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
BRINGING EINSTEIN’S SECOND POSTULATE TO PERFECTION
In 1905 Einstein postulates that “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body” but fails to explain whether this “definite velocity c” would remain “definite velocity c” when the observer and the place of emission are at different gravitational potentials. Einstein’s explanation comes later, in 1911, and in 2007 it is time to bring the original 1905 postulate to perfection:
If the relative speed of the observer and the emitting body is zero, light is always propagated in empty space with a variable speed c’=c(1+V/c^2) where c is the initial speed of photons relaive to the emitting body and V is the gravitational potential relative to the place of emission. Equivalently, if the observer and the place of emission are at the same gravitational potential, light is always propagated in empty space with a variable speed c’=c+v where v is the relative speed of the observer and the emitting body.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
TIME DILATION AND EINSTEIN’S FREEDOM TO CHOOSE
The miraculous corollary of Einstein’s false principle of constancy of the speed of light – time dilation – implies that, if a single clock belonging to the inertial system K consecutively meets clocks belonging to the inertial system K’, and if at every meeting the two readings are compared, the single clock in K turns out to run SLOWER than clocks in K’. That is, the difference in reading between clocks in K’ and the single clock in K gradually increases with the number of meetings. Yet in Chapter 23 in his “Relativity” Einstein says the opposite: the clock in the system at rest K runs FASTER than clocks placed on the periphery of the rotating disc K’. True, the periphery of the rotating disc K’ is not an inertial system but does that justify the transition from SLOWER to FASTER? Moreover, by increasing the diameter of the disc and keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant one can convert the periphery of the disc into an INERTIAL system: clocks on the periphery would experience no gravitational field while meeting consecutively the single clock from K. For such cases all textbooks say Einstein’s false principle of constancy of the speed of light predicts that the difference in reading between clocks in K’ and the single clock in K must gradually INCREASE with the number of meetings. Then why does Einstein say the opposite in Chapter 23 in his “Relativity”?
The radical solution to the problem involves abandoning Einstein’s false principle of constancy of the speed of light. This solution is too dangerous. Einstein once said: “If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false.”
There is also a partial solution: The single clock in the system at rest K runs both SLOWER and FASTER than clocks in the system K’ and Einstein was free to choose. He chose FASTER.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
VERY SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND VERY LITTLE FALSEHOOD
Relativists have always claimed Divine Albert rigorously deduced his special relativity from two postulates and countless experimental confirmations of the theory are in fact confirmations of the truth of the postulates. Yet lately relativists seem to have discovered countless violations of the theory but somehow forget to relate them to the problem of the truth or falsehood of the postulates. So Nobel prizewinners have found some Lorentz violation and have dared (those that are not Nobel prizewinners would never dare) to challenge Divine Albert and “rewrite the rules of Einstein’s special theory of relativity”:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325871.400
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvL..97b1601C
Perhaps in Very Special Relativity Einstein’s false second postulate will prove Very Little False. Perhaps not. Who knows.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
DOUBLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY (EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS)
In order to camouflage the falsehood of Einstein’s principle of constancy of the speed of light
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : “…light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body”
Einsteinians would do anything. They have already created Very Special Relativity, Doubly Special Relativity etc.:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0406/0406104.pdf
“The constancy, or otherwise, of the speed of light” Daniel J. Farrell & J. Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, England. “Since the Special Theory of Relativity was expounded and accepted, it has seemed almost tantamount to sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper of 1911 [1] that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential.”
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
HYPOCRISY OR WHY THEORETICAL SCIENCE DIED
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
“A Crisis in Fundamental Physics†¦Then, about 30 years ago, something changed. The last time there was a definitive advance in our knowledge of fundamental physics was the construction ofthe theory we call the standard model of particle physics in 1973. The last time a fundamental theory was proposed that has since gotten any support from experiment was a theory about the very early universe called inflation, which was proposed in 1981.†
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
“Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein’s insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it.†
Has the author of the two texts (Lee Smolin) ever seen the close relation between them? Surely he has.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
THE DEATH OF SCIENCE AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY
Twelve years ago (still just shocking the public and making money):
http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_astronomy_nasa/ftltravl.html : “ASTRONOMERS PREDICT FASTER THAN LIGHT SPACE TRAVEL. It is boldly going where no reputable scientific body has gone before. Contradicting Einstein, the normally conservative Royal Astronomical Society is about to publish a report predicting that mankind will be able to travel faster than the speed of light. The breakthrough means that Star Trek fantasies of interstellar civilisations and voyages powered by warp drive are now no longer the exclusive domain of science fiction writers…Crawford argues that modern physics may allow two possible ways around Einstein’s theory….The theories will boost growing interest among scientists in the possibility of travelling faster than light. The IPS, whose members include several NASA engineers, starts its first conference shortly in Halifax, Nova Scotia.”
Six years ago (concern is growing):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts : “A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist…..AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS EINSTEIN’S BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME – 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum…..Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists.”
What is going on NOW? Why is the silence? Perhaps Rees, Hawking and others have realised that the death of science is irreversible anyway:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23384875-details/Science+and+maths+degrees+in+'irreversible+decline'/article.do “SCIENCE AND MATH DEGREES IN IRREVERSIBLE DECLINE”
So one should just concentrate on his/her private happiness and forget about anything else.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Comments on this entry are closed.