|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S REVOLUTION: IRONY OR TRAGEDY?
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Relat.../dp/0199275831 Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective Harvey R. Brown "It is the ultimate irony that the paper which would spell the demise of the luminiferous ether had as one of its central postulates what Wolfgang Pauli aptly called the 'true essence of the old aether point of view'. (...) The most remarkable feature of Einstein's light postulate is the fact that it seems at first sight antithetical to his own revolutionary notion of the light quantum. In 1905 it was far from clear to Einstein what sort of thing the light quantum precisely is, but it must have seemed closer in nature to a bullet than a wave. The fact that nonetheless Einstein adopted the LP over an emission theory of light is testimony to the sureness of his physical intuition in the midst of blooming, buzzing confusion." In 1954 Einstein realized that the "ultimate irony" had turned into ultimate tragedy: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." If there is doubt as to whether the statement: "physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" is equivalent to the statement: "physics cannot be based on the assumption that the speed of photons, unlike the speed of bullets, is independent of the speed of the light source" here are a few clues: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf "The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "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." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf New varying speed of light theories Joao Magueijo "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm The Farce of Physics Bryan Wallace "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v." [Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!] Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Oh, the wonderful irony! | Chris.B[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 16th 09 04:35 PM |
Oh the irony! | Rich | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | January 2nd 07 12:21 AM |
OT...Oh! The Irony! | Pat Flannery | History | 19 | October 6th 06 11:28 PM |
Irony: | Kevin | Space Shuttle | 1 | July 13th 05 11:33 PM |
What Irony! | Mick | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | September 15th 03 01:03 AM |