![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://physics.about.com/b/a/007549.htm
From Andrew Zimmerman Jones, Happy Birthday, Relativity! "By assuming that the speed of light is a constant, he [Einstein] therefore eliminated any need for the aether description. His previous work (also in 1905) in explaining the photoelectric effect had already proposed the photon theory of light, which allowed light to move as a particle instead of a wave." Andrew Zimmerman Jones should have written: "By assuming that the speed of light is a constant, he [Einstein] therefore remained faithful to the aether description. His previous work (also in 1905) in explaining the photoelectric effect had already proposed the photon theory of light, which allowed light to move as a particle instead of a wave, with variable speed c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer." If Andrew Zimmerman Jones had written so, he would have been consistent with Banesh Hoffmann: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann: (I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French) Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112: "De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules, comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet! Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes, simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RT Aurigae versus Emission Theory | Jerry | Astronomy Misc | 21 | January 9th 07 11:45 PM |
What, precisely, is an Aether Theory? | JohnM | Misc | 0 | July 24th 05 07:24 AM |
Model Mechanics: A New Aether Theory | kenseto | Astronomy Misc | 13 | June 10th 05 08:05 PM |
Einstein "Theory of Relativity" | Lester Solnin | Solar | 7 | April 13th 05 08:17 AM |
Aether, the final frontier for Best Theory of Gravity | nightbat | Misc | 5 | April 10th 05 11:21 PM |