|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Se...lden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed for all observers..." http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03...n03_index.html Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin, and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower than low-energy photons....A very exciting question we are now wrestling with is, How drastically shall we be forced to modify Einstein's special theory of relativity if the predicted effect is observed? The most severe possibility is that the principle of relativity simply fails....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity!" http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "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." Clearly, Lee Smolin is the most honest Einsteinian. The most dishonest Einsteinians are Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, Jong-Ping Hsu and Tom Roberts: http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886 Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics undergraduate. 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." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2 Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
On Sep 5, 5:23*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Se...lden_Spike.pdf "Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed for all observers..." http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03...n03_index.html Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin, and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower than low-energy photons....A very exciting question we are now wrestling with is, How drastically shall we be forced to modify Einstein's special theory of relativity if the predicted effect is observed? The most severe possibility is that the principle of relativity simply fails....But there is another possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of relativity!" http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "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." Clearly, Lee Smolin is the most honest Einsteinian. The most dishonest Einsteinians are Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, Jong-Ping Hsu and Tom Roberts: http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela...aches-Theoreti... Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics undergraduate. 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." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...g/dc1ebdf49c01... Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." Pentcho Valev Apparently, you still don't grasp all that business of the two straight lines having unchanging slope under hyperbolic rotations, do you? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
On Sep 5, 1:23*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip] How many hours a day do you spend looking up things that you do not understand to post in a newsgroup that does not like you? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
I agree. Pentcho Valöev is a neurotic. Why answer him ?
But one thing is true too: You are as wrong as him. Because you defend something not existing: Einteinian Black holes, Cuved spaces, gravity waves, and do not recgonize that the fundamentals of Relativity are wrong. But i say you SR is a good choice, uncompleted. GR is wrong with all **** around inclusive cosmology. Maybe the universe is not a mathematical construct. I think i showed one alternative but who can prove it ? The answer is nobody can. But what is a mess too: You do not even accept the cracks in Einsteins theory. As it looks Pentcho has its own fight. Partly he says right but most is wrong. Who shall filter out whats interesting you ? How much hours do you spent each day to keep something wrong alive ? Since you make down colleagues like Nimtz: You are not better than Valev: You defend a phantom. And you can say all we measuredis with Einstein. But many measured thing that withspek Einstein. There are some like you, Jewish probably that make all down not in agreement with Einstein. Einstein was no god. He was right and found many things that will survive. He does not need Gisse who makes down all withspeaking some of his findings. He has not necessary you. GR is wrong if you believe or not. "Eric Gisse" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Sep 5, 1:23 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: [snip] How many hours a day do you spend looking up things that you do not understand to post in a newsgroup that does not like you? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
"Eric Gisse" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
... Pentcho Valev wrote: [snip] "Eric Gisse" schrieb: PV, How many hours a day do you spend looking up things that you do not understand to post in a newsgroup that does not like you? hanson wrote: ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Eric, as long as you play the control-freak, and consider sci.physics to be your own Erictum you are no better than that kike Caccanova aka Barak#Democrat.org who posts here.... ahahaha... ** Let'em sing!... All of'em!... It's a beautiful choir! ** It'll give you a perspective like you can only very seldom enjoy in real life. Cherish it... Thanks for the laughs .... ahaha... ahahahahanson hanson wrote: Sepp, ahahaha... Hör mal. Wenn ich genügend Zeit und Interesse finde werde ich Dein Beitrag wieder- schreiben, so dass Du sehen kannst wie Dein Ton in Amiohren ankommt... ahahaha... Gruss... ahahahanson "Josef Matz" wrote in message ... I agree. Pentcho Valöev is a neurotic. Why answer him ? But one thing is true too: You are as wrong as him. Because you defend something not existing: Einteinian Black holes, Cuved spaces, gravity waves, and do not recgonize that the fundamentals of Relativity are wrong. But i say you SR is a good choice, uncompleted. GR is wrong with all **** around inclusive cosmology. Maybe the universe is not a mathematical construct. I think i showed one alternative but who can prove it ? The answer is nobody can. But what is a mess too: You do not even accept the cracks in Einsteins theory. As it looks Pentcho has its own fight. Partly he says right but most is wrong. Who shall filter out whats interesting you ? How much hours do you spent each day to keep something wrong alive ? Since you make down colleagues like Nimtz: You are not better than Valev: You defend a phantom. And you can say all we measuredis with Einstein. But many measured thing that withspek Einstein. There are some like you, Jewish probably that make all down not in agreement with Einstein. Einstein was no god. He was right and found many things that will survive. He does not need Gisse who makes down all withspeaking some of his findings. He has not necessary you. GR is wrong if you believe or not. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
On Sep 5, 7:03*pm, "Josef Matz" wrote:
I agree. Pentcho Valöev is a neurotic. Why answer him ? But one thing is true too: You are as wrong as him. Because you defend something not existing: Einteinian Black holes, Cuved spaces, gravity waves, and do not recgonize that the fundamentals of Relativity are wrong. But i say you SR is a good choice, uncompleted. GR is wrong with all **** around inclusive cosmology. Why? [snip] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
Lee Smolin again: "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." Why in 1907? What did Einstein realize in 1907 that convinced him that special relativity was wrong? John Norton gives the answer to this question: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD." And this is the problem that can be defined as "the Nightmare of relatively clever Einsteinians" and which is in fact the most camouflaged problem in Einsteiniana. If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), then, by applying Einstein's equivalence principle, one can prove that an accelerated observer, in the absence of a gravitational field, will measure the speed of light to be c'=c +v, where v is the speed of the light source (at the moment of emission) relative to the observer (at the moment of reception). That is what Einstein understood between 1907 and 1911 and then camouflaged so fiercely, but that is also the source of numerous hints at the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate made by Einstein and his relatively clever sycophants in moments of guilty conscience: http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...-radiation.php The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the continuum as a foundational element in physics..." Albert Einstein: "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." 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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
The incredible phrase "Einstein may have started the rot" was written
by a journalist obviously inspired by the most honest Einsteinian Lee Smolin: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...11/bosmo10.xml "The crisis lies at the intersection between the empirical and the epistemological. Attempts to explain the fundamentals of the universe by the dominant paradigm of so-called string theory remain untested - either, Smolin says, "because they make no clean predictions or because the predictions they do make are not testable with current technology". Einstein may have started the rot. When experiment dominated physics, his work was driven by aesthetic concerns. He sought beauty (notably symmetry) in mathematical haiku that capture something complex, transcendental and profound." Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
The most honest Einsteinan Lee Smolin:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279 Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein." These writings look beyond his struggles with the unified field theory to "the other possibility...." Unfortunately the less honest Einsteinian John Stachel, the discoverer of "the other Einstein", does not take his own discovery very seriously: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein: "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." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
LEE SMOLIN: THE MOST HONEST EINSTEINIAN
"Sam Wormley" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:aDpwk.330096$yE1.88221@attbi_s21... Josef Matz wrote: Ein[s]teinian Black holes, Cu[r]ved spaces, gravity waves, and do not recgonize [sic] that the fundamentals of Relativity are wrong. A theory is wrong when one or more of its predictions are contradicted by observations. What contradictions are you referring to? Nimtz, Wang among others. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Honest indignation | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | September 3rd 08 08:20 PM |
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 26 | August 17th 08 08:31 PM |
BRIAN GREENE: THE SILLIEST EINSTEINIAN | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | April 1st 08 12:10 PM |
BAEZ AND SMOLIN WILL DEFORM SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | December 5th 07 01:12 AM |
Looking for a honest opinion on TMB 152 | waterfront | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | May 1st 04 06:18 PM |