LARGE HADRON COLLIDER AND EINSTEIN 1954 CONFESSION

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 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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

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://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."

The question is: If Einstein 1954 suggestion was correct, that is, if,
as far as the speed of light is concerned, light behaves as
discontinuous particles, not as continuous field, which part of
"contemporary physics" will the Large Hadron Collider be able to
confirm? Will contemporary physicists find a way to give the many
billions wasted back to taxpayers?

Pentcho Valev

The Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox explains Einstein's
understanding of time to Einstein's zombie world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 8, 10:22 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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 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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

One of the reasons why Einsteinians do not take Einstein's 1954
confession seriously:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/...d.celebrities/
"The business magazine has been compiling its annual list of departed
celebrities' earnings since 2001. Since 2003, the feature has
coincided with Halloween.....Physicist Albert Einstein, best known for
his theory of relativity, is fourth on the list. It is his third
consecutive year making the Forbes rankings. Though he died in 1955, a
franchise bearing his name -- Baby Einstein -- made big bucks last
year selling educational books, DVDs, CDs, toys and other products. It
plans to expand into the young-adult market this year."

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 9, 4:34 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox explains Einstein's
understanding of time to Einstein's zombie world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY

Now the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox shows the effects
of time dilation to Einstein zombie world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1

Einstein zombie world is so excited that, if Brian Cox wants to waste
a few more billions, taxpayers would readily give him the money.

Pentcho Valev

Where the optimism of LHC money wasters comes from:

http://www.nouse.co.uk/2008/10/30/st...e-god-machine/
"What if the worst were to happen, and the LHC, after it gets going
again, doesn’t find anything at all? Tom Whyntie, who works on the CMS
detector at CERN on behalf of Imperial College, doesn’t see this as an
option. “The physics we’ve got at the moment basically says there has
to be something we can see with the LHC, so physicists are pretty
optimistic that something will be found”. Optimism aside though, what
if the project really discovers nothing? “A null result from the LHC
would present irrefutable evidence that we really need to go back to
the drawing board and fundamentally change the way we do physics and
think about the universe we’re in – which one could argue would be the
most exciting result of all.” The LHC seems to become more astonishing
with every revelation. The most exciting result would be… nothing?
Whyntie explains that this has happened before in the history of
physics, and it simply forces us to rethink our theories until we get
them right. “At the turn of the last century, people believed that
light had to be transmitted through a medium, but an experiment put
together famously found nothing at all. Fortunately, a little-known
German physicist called Albert Einstein had an idea that explained the
result… a fundamental change in the way we look at the universe”."

Obviously LHC money wasters have not seen this:

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

The fundamental question about the Large Hadron Collider:

http://io9.com/5091007/will-the-glob...adron-collider
""Is the LHC really worth it?"

Assume Einstein's 1954 prediction (see below) is correct whereas John
Stachel's laughter is hysterical and stupid. Would then the LHC really
be worth it?

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 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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Pentcho Valev