Has science lost its way? What is the nature of the universe, and more importantly, how do we go about discovering it? In the past 30 years, one theory to answer this question has dominated the physics community. String theory, while starting off as a fringe concept in science, has taken over the field. Virtually all work on theoretical physics now centers around it.
But is string theory deserving of all this attention? And even if ultimately found to be correct, is examining only one theory at a time the right way to approach science? Does science need competition to have progress? These questions are discussed in The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin.
The Trouble with Physics is split into four parts, each of which offers an excellent look into science through different prisms. Part I concentrates on the history of physics, and specifically the concept of unification, as well as the questions that string theory tries to answer. Unification is the idea that two disparate concepts in science are actually related somehow. Gravity and acceleration were unified by Einstein, electricity and magnetism were unified by Maxwell. Some attempts at unification have failed, such as the unification of light and sound using ether.
In fact, there have been just as many failed attempts at unification as there have been successful ones. As different theories were put forth, experiments would be devised in due course to test them. Over time, evidence would mount that would allow the scientific community to conclude whether the theory was valid or not, usually in the span of about 10 years. This idea repeats many times throughout the book, as string theory is examined, since there is no experimental evidence that string theory is correct, even after 30 years.
Part II looks specifically at the history of string theory. Here Smolin writes a fairly easy-to-read history, and tells the tale with great suspense. He goes to great lengths not to fault string theory at every turn in it's history. Quite the contrary, there are many times when reading the chapters in this part where you'll be convinced that string theory is right, only to find out later that something new was discovered to dash the hopes of scientists everywhere. As each new problem is discovered, some new idea is tacked on in what ends up being a desperate attempt to save the theory, until we're finally left with something that is nothing like an Elegant Universe.
This is far from a hatchet job on string theory though. Smolin spends considerable time describing what string theory does well at explaining, but at the same time explains why this is not enough to conclude that string theory is proven science as so many have.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Pentcho Valev
"Has science lost its way?.....Could Einstein have been wrong about General Relativity? Is it possible that the speed of light is not constant....?"
Einsteinians have known the answer is yes for decades. But they also know old lies are unprofitable and even dangerous now. So they will repeat the questions in panic until some new Einstein devise a new money-spinner.
Pentcho Valev
2 - Pentcho Valev
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
3 - Pentcho Valev
TESTS FATAL FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Recently a relativist explained the triumph of special relativity over all tests
Tom Roberts: Experimental Tests of Special Relativity" but failed to refer to the principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light brilliantly discussed by him on the forum sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev asked on sci.physics.relativity: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? Tom Roberts answered: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."
The variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field and, equivalently, for an accelerated observer, was introduced by Albert Einstein and then tested and confirmed by his disciples, although in a somewhat subdued manner:
"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]... 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."
The question is: The variable speed of light that the accelerated observer measures obeys an equation equivalent to c'=c(1+V/c^2) and this equivalent equation is......??? Relativists know the equivalent equation is c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. They also know Einstein's prophecy: "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."
Relativists used to rely on the fact that the observer is refered to as ACCELERATED; this gave them the opportunity to raise arguments of the sort: Since the observer is accelerated, this has nothing to do with special relativity. Now relativists know those arguments were totally irrelevant. It is time to remember another prophecy of Einstein's: "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
4 - Pentcho Valev
REFRACTION: NEWTON WAS RIGHT
According to Newton's model of discontinuous (corpuscular) light structure, in the vicinity of water light particles receive more attraction than in air. Therefore, BEFORE the particles reach the surface of the water, their trajectory starts curving; the refraction is due to this curvature. According to the model of continuous light structure (electromagnetic field), AFTER entering the water waves move slower and this delay explains the refraction.
Clearly the curvature predicted by Newton makes the "continuous" explanation at least redundant: since the change in direction starts BEFORE the photons reaching the water surface, at the moment of penetration the refraction is already determined and subsequent events, including the change of the speed of light in water, are not very important.
Paradoxically, it is this change of the speed of light in water that definitively converted 19th century physicists to the "continuous" concept. Leon Foucault, 1850: "Ces resultats accusent une vitesse de la lumiere moindre dans l'eau que dans l'air, et confirment pleinement, selon les vues de M. Arago, les indications de la theorie des ondulations."
Einstein confirmed both the discontinuous nature of light and the curvature in the vicinity of bodies but never abandoned the model of continuous light structure which proved too profitable. Still at the end of his life he said: "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
5 - Pentcho Valev
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":
New Scientist
Harvard
Perhaps in Very Special Relativity Einstein's false second postulate will prove Very Little False. Perhaps not. Who knows.
Pentcho Valev
6 - Pentcho Valev
DIFFRACTION: NEWTON WAS RIGHT
In explaining diffraction textbooks recognize "a slight bending of the wave front at the edges". However "at the edges" could mean either "near the edges" or "as it grazes the edges". "Near the edges" implies that bodies can attract photons; in fact, that was the essence of Newton's explanation of diffraction. In Opticks he wrote: "Do not bodies act upon light at a distance, and by their action bend its rays; and is not this action strongest at a least distance?".
If said attraction is really the cause of diffraction, as Newton believed, the theory describing light in terms of a continuous field is false. Ironically, compelled by observations, the famous defender of the wave theory of light Fresnel abandoned "as it grazes the edges" and adopted "near the edges", thereby virtually confirming Newton's idea. He wrote: "....quelques reflexions et observations nouvelles m'ont fait douter de l'exactitude d'une hypothese dont j'etais parti pour calculer mes formules: que le centre d'ondulation de la lumiere reflechie etait toujours au bord meme du corps, ou, ce qui revient au meme, que la lumiere inflechie ne pouvait provenir que des rayons qui ont touche sa surface.....la lumiere inflechie ne provient pas seulement de celle qui a rase les biseaux, mais encore des rayons qui en sont passes a des distances sensibles."
Pentcho Valev
7 - Pentcho Valev
GRAVITY AT SMALL DISTANCES
When a falsehood or an absurdity is allowed to stay too long in science things get irreversible: no Hercules can clean a stable uncleaned for centuries (Augean stable had not been cleaned for 30 years). So the absurdity "Entropy always increases" can only be partially abandoned: no alternative development is possible. 140 years ago Clausius deduced it from two false premises but now people neither care nor are able to repair anything.
Lately scientists have been worrying about gravity at small distances: "Gravity, which is the behavior of space and time, is well-understood at large distances - when talking about planets, for instance. But when scientists attempt to apply it at very small distances, the idea that we can measure space and time breaks down....Although what actually occurs at small distances remains a mystery, Burgess conjectures that what will probably be true is that at very small distances, it will not make sense to talk about space and time at all.":
In his Opticks Newton wrote: "Do not bodies act upon light at a distance, and by their action bend its rays; and is not this action strongest at a least distance?". Since Newton meant bending around the edge of the diffraction hole his idea obviously went beyond the standard gravitational theory. This could have been developed if the false concept of light as a continuous field had not filled the science stable. Nothing can be done now. The ubiquitous Huygens wavelets will continue to be the explanation of everything.
Pentcho Valev
8 - Pentcho Valev
THEORIES BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS
ELECTROSTATICS. The electrostatic theory is based on the assumption that forces involved in energy changes are CONSERVATIVE. The following quotation makes the assumption clearer: "We must remember that the only physical fact underlying this discussion is Coulomb's law, the remainder of the discusion being mathematical, and therefore we cannot expect to obtain any physical concept regarding the mechanical interaction of charges which will add any physical facts beyond Coulomb's law." (Panofsky, Phillips, CLASSICAL ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM, 1962, p.103.) The problem is that a system in which only Coulomb's law is acting is unable to exchange heat under isothermal conditions (friction is neglected). Yet the electrostatic theory deals with the concept of isothermal heat exchange (not caused by friction) and therefore we do have "physical facts beyond Coulomb's law".
THERMODYNAMICS. In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the conclusion "All reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency" from the false assumption "While flowing from hot to cold and doing work in the process heat is conserved". Clausius and Kelvin kept the false assumption for some time and extracted a lot of profit from the conclusion. Then they did declare that Carnot's assumption was false but continued to exploit the profitable conclusion: somehow they managed to convince the world that "All reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency", although being a corollary of Carnot's false assumption, could also be deduced from the the true assumption "Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot" and therefore was true.
RELATIVITY. Initially Einstein based his theory on the false principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light, deduced miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) and was deified. It was easy to refute the miracles through REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM but unfortunately scientists discovered that theories could only be refuted through experiments (REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM did not seem to be an experimental procedure). Being a deity, Einstein introduced the true principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light and obtained correct results, e.g. the gravitational redshift factor. Einsteinians camouflaged the coexistence of the two incompatible principles.
OPTICS. In the third book of Opticks Newton wrote: "Do not the rays of Light which fall upon Bodies and are reflected or refracted, begin to bend before they arrive at the Bodies; and are they not reflected, refracted and inflected by one and the same Principle, acting variously in various circumstances?". Newton's assumption is quite reasonable but the modern theory of optics is implicitly based on its negation e.g. implying that refraction is due to the change of the speed of light AFTER the incidence and not to any bending BEFORE the incidence.
Pentcho Valev
9 - Pentcho Valev
EINSTEINIANS AS CONVULSIONISTS The miraculous corollary of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light - length contraction - allows Einsteinians to see through opaque bodies: see Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54),
Seeing through the opaque stick is exciting but Einsteinians experience something even more exciting. After having moved towards the wall the rear end of the stick starts moving backward from the wall in an attempt to restore the proper length of the stick. Einsteinians do see that backward movement and ask questions: What is its speed? What is its energy? Sometimes Einsteinians believe the energy of the backward movement of the rear end is infinite. If it were not, they argue, some pawl would be able to prevent the stick from restoring its proper length but no, no, nothing can prevent the stick from restoring its proper length. Therefore in its backward movement the rear end of the stick is able to break ANY pawl.
So much excitement makes Einsteinians go into convulsions. Spasms are regularly interrupted by ecstatic singing. "Divine Einstein" fills the space:
Pentcho Valev
10 - Pentcho Valev
LIFE AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics emerged in a thought experiment involving two reversible heat engines which work in parallel but DO NOT INTERACT. That is, as the force F1 exerted by the first engine does work along the displacement X1, the force F2 exerted by the second engine remains unchanged. Vice versa, the second engine working along the displacement X2 leaves F1 unchanged. In mathematical terms, the partial derivatives dF2/dX1 and dF1/dX2 are both zero.
If the two reversible heat engines DO INTERACT, the partial derivatives dF2/dX1 and dF1/dX2 are not zero. However one could postulate that they remain equal under isothermal conditions:
dF2/dX1 = dF1/dX2 /1/
It can be shown that equation /1/ is a version of the second law: if /1/ is correct no work can be extracted from an isothermal cycle performed by the two heat engines. However if the inequality
dF2/dX1 > or < dF1/dX2 /2/
is correct, the second law is violated: the reversible isothermal cycle amounts to perpetual motion of the second kind.
The partial derivatives dF2/dX1 and dF1/dX2 can be determined experimentally. Equation /1/ is highly improbable and in this sense absurd whereas the inequality /2/ virtually characterizes all INTERACTING heat engines. Initially Life may have used perpetual motion machines of the second kind but their extreme slowness under isothermal conditions brought about sweeping changes: mechanisms exploiting external energy (e.g. that of the photons) were superimposed.
Pentcho Valev
11 - Pentcho Valev
MORAL SPECIAL RELATIVITIES "Lorentz violation and deformed special relativity... First of all, Einstein's discovery of special relativity in 1905 was the real beginning of modern theoretical physics.....The second postulate of special relativity MORALLY follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did."
Absolutely correct. That Einstein's second postulate
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
is a corollary of Einstein's first postulate was discovered by Einstein himself and explained in Chapter 7 in his "Relativity". True, in 1905 Einstein did not know the second postulate was so superfluous (at least he did not give the impression he knew) but in 1911 he discovered this postulate was in fact false and had to react somehow. So it is absolutely true that the derivation of the second postulate from the first has a lot to do with morality and nothing to do with logic or physics. Recent developments of Einstein's moral approach - Very Special Relativity, Doubly Special Relativity, Deformed Special Relativity etc. should be called, accordingly, MORAL SPECIAL RELATIVITIES.
Pentcho Valev
12 - Pentcho Valev
THE GUILTY CONSCIENCE OF RUDOLF CLAUSIUS Jos Uffink, "Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics":
pp. 39-40: "On many occasions Clausius was criticised by his contemporaries. I do not know if, in his own time, he was criticised in particular for his famous formulation of the second law as the increase of the entropy of the universe. However, Kuhn (1978, pp.13-15, p. 260) has pointed out the remarkable fact that in the book (Clausius 1876) he eventually composed from his collected articles, every reference to the entropy of the universe and even to the idea that entropy never decreases in irreversible processes in adiabatically isolated systems is deleted! The most general formulation given to the second law in this book, which may be regarded as the mature presentation of Clausius' ideas, is again the relation (10), where the system is supposed to undergo a cycle, and entropy increase is out of the question."
The relation (10) referred to by Uffink is a fundamental relation of thermodynamics, the so-called Clausius inequality:
Cyclic integral dQ/T =< 0 (10)
Clausius obtained it by using a proof described by Uffink on p. 34:
p. 34: "His argument is as follows: for an umkehrbar [reversible] cyclic process the result (9) [Cyclic integral dQ/T = 0] rests on the argument that according to the modified version of the second law the integral cannot be positive. The reversed cyclic process, where the integral has the opposite sign, must also satisfy this condition, and the integral is therefore also not negative.Therefore it must vanish. In the case of the nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] cyclic process the second part of this argument is not applicable, but the first part remains valid. Hence we obtain (10)."
Is Clausius proof correct? That is, is Clausius inequality true? The problem is difficult but those who wish to resolve it may find useful this.
Note that Clapeyron equation has been used in the calculations. Is this use legitimate?
Pentcho Valev
13 - Pentcho Valev
BURSTS OF CONSCIENCE IN EINSTEIN'S CULT:
"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.....Moreover, photons of low energy travel at 'c' while photons above a threshhold energy can have varying values, faster than 'c', which are proportional to their energy.....For accepted cosmological theories to be valid, it is required that the universe is composed of 5% ordinary matter, 25% dark matter and 70% dark energy. It seems more realistic to believe in a varying speed of light via the mechanisms discussed above, rather than invent abstract conceptions simply because they happen to balance familiar cosmological equations."
One day conscience in Einstein's cult will be fully restored and Einsteinians will draw all the consequences of Einstein's 1911 discovery that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential. They may even discover that this is equivalent to c'=c+v, where c' is the speed of light as measured by an observer, c is the initial speed of light relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. For the moment bursts of conscience die down as soon as Einsteinians realise what money-spinner they are going to lose. There is nothing clearer than Einstein's prediction: "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."
Pentcho Valev
14 - Pentcho Valev
SUBTLE FRAUD IN THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Initially Kelvin and Clausius offered the following equivalent versions of the second law of thermodynamics:
Kelvin: It is impossible for a self-acting machine, UNAIDED BY AN EXTERNAL AGENCY, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature.
Clausius: Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body WITHOUT SOME OTHER CHANGE, connected herewith, occurring at the same time.
Both statements are true but trivial: no interesting conclusion can be deduced from them. So Kelvin and Clausius implicitly replaced them with and in fact used the following non-trivial but false versions:
It is impossible for a self-acting machine, EVEN AIDED BY AN EXTERNAL AGENCY, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature.
Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF SOME OTHER CHANGE, connected herewith, occurring at the same time.
The false versions naturally produced a false conclusion:
False conclusion: All reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency.
The false conclusion was in fact the so-called Carnot theorem; Carnot had deduced it from the false premise:
Carnot false premise: Heat engines do work without any consumption of heat.
Pentcho Valev
15 - Pentcho Valev
THE PRINCIPLE EINSTEIN DID NOT INTRODUCE
Scientists all know Einstein managed to deduce his divine theory from a few simple principles. An ordinary mortal cannot do so and in scientific (not religious) hymns Einstein is referred to as "dee-vine Einstein":
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!
Yet assume some additional principle, one that Einstein did not find it suitable to introduce, is indispensable: "First suggested by Albert Einstein more than 100 years ago, the paradox deals with the effects of time in the context of travel at near the speed of light. Einstein originally used the example of two clocks - one motionless, one in transit. He stated that, due to the laws of physics, clocks being transported near the speed of light would move more slowly than clocks that remained stationary....Einstein and other scientists have attempted to resolve this problem before, but none of the formulas they presented proved satisfactory. Kak's findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. "I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars," said Kak."
If the new principle is really essential, there is no reason why Einsteinians should continue to sing "dee-vine Einstein" so fiercely. If, in the absence of the additional principle, some of Einstein's results prove only suggested but not rigorously deduced, "dee-vine Einstein" should be reduced to "Einstein" or just "Albert". However Kak, the discoverer of the additional principle, should automatically become "dee-vine Kak". That would be fair: after all, Einstein made enough money in days long gone although his deductions were invalid whereas now Kak's situation is different.
Pentcho Valev
16 - Pentcho Valev
EINSTEIN WORLD AND THE EXTERNAL WORLD
John Stachel: "At first Einstein looked for a scalar generalization of Newton's theory, based on the gravitational potential. By the middle of 1912, he had worked out what he regarded as a satisfactory theory for the case of a static gravitational field. He developed a field equation for the gravitational potential, which he identified in this case with a VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT c(x,y,z) INSTEAD OF THE CONSTANT SPEED OF THE SPECIAL THEORY..."
In Einstein's world "the external world exists only in the mind", as George Orwell would put it. When Einstein and his hypnotists call the speed of light "variable" they mean "variable so far as WE call it so and deal with it accordingly". The fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential makes sense only so far as Einstein used it in the period 1907-1915. Then Einstein stopped using it and therefore for later periods this fact makes no sense at all. If in some period Einstein had applied his equivalence principle and deduced that, since the speed of light varied with the gravitational potential, it also varied with the relative speed of the light source and the observer, in the absence of a gravitational field, then Einstein's second postulate (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source) would be false for that period. However for other periods Einstein's second postulate would be true. That is a speculation of course: Einstein does not seem to have deduced anything like that and therefore his second postulate is true forever.
Pentcho Valev
17 - Pentcho Valev
RELATIVISTS: SIMULTANEITY IS ABSOLUTE
Einstein, Relativity & Absolute Simultaneity, Smith & Craig
Editor(s) - William Lane Craig, Quentin Smith
Series: Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativity's relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication."
Language and Time by Quentin, Smith: "This book offers a defense of the tensed theory of time, a critique of the New Theory of Reference, and an argument that simultaneity is absolute.....He concludes the book with a lengthy critique of Einstein's theory of time."
Bravo! Relativists' next step will be to discover which false principle misled Einstein into believing that simultaneity was relative. The false principle of constancy of the speed of light? Who knows.
Pentcho Valev
18 - Pentcho Valev
EINSTEIN AND THE EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
John Norton, "Einstein's Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics prior to 1905":
Einstein: "I certainly knew that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is something quite independent of the relativity postulate [see chapter 7 in his "Relativity" where he derives the former from the latter]; and I considered what would be more probable, the principle of the constancy of c, as was demanded by Maxwell's equations, or the constancy of c, exclusively for an observer sitting at the light source. I decided in favor of the first, since I was convinced that each light [ray] should be defined by frequency and intensity alone, quite independently of whether it comes from a moving or a resting light source."
Needless to say, this argument of Einstein's against the emission theory of light is absurd but John Norton gives a more serious reason why Einstein abandoned this theory:
"The principle of relativity, if implemented in Galilean kinematics, dictated that the modified theory must embody an emission theory of light. We know that Einstein entertained such a theory.....Einstein leveled objections against all theories of this type. Some were technical complications. The most fundamental, however, was that these EMISSION THEORIES ADMITTED NO FIELD THEORY.
However at the end of his life Einstein said:
"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."
So one can "consider it quite possible" that modern physics died long time ago.
Pentcho Valev
19 - Pentcho Valev
RECONCILING RELATIVITY AND SUPERLUMINAL SIGNALS
Sometimes relativity educators offer courses where they stake the survival of Einstein's theory on the claim that no signal can travel faster than c=300000km/s. See, for instance, Problem 6 ("Train in a tunnel"), p. 47 (solution on p. 53):
"A train and a tunnel both have have proper lengths L. The train speeds towards the tunnel, with speed v. A bomb is located at the front of the train. The bomb is designed to explode when the front of the train passes the far end of the tunnel. A deactivation sensor is located at the back of the train. When the back of the train passes the near end of the tunnel, this sensor tells the bomb to disarm itself. Does the bomb explode?"
If the signal can travel faster than 300000km/s we have an absurdity that follows directly from Einstein's concept of length contraction: the bomb does explode in the frame of the train but does not in the frame of the tunnel. The theory of relativity would have to be abandoned. So Einsteinians have a duty: they should explain why any of the countless "faster than light" movements reported in the press are unable to deactivate the bomb. Lately the situation has become quite strange: Einsteinians constantly shock the public by publishing their "faster than light" discoveries but on the other hand constantly repeat divine relativity remains divine.
Here is one of those discoveries: "Scientists have finally exceeded the speed of light, causing a light pulse to travel hundreds of times faster than normal. It raced so fast the pulse exited a specially-prepared chamber before it even finished entering it. The experiment is the first-ever evidence of faster-than-light motion."
So what would prevent an equivalent pulse sent by the deactivation sensor from "exiting", that is, deactivating, the bomb?
Pentcho Valev
20 - Pentcho Valev
EDUCATION AND THE TWIN PARADOX
Is acceleration the cause of the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin? Educational principles in the world of Einstein presuppose oscillating between the absurdity of the answer yes and the absurdity of the answer no until any rationality disappears. Educators should only keep an eye on the oscillation, without hinting at either answer. However even in the world of Einstein educators make mistakes. Sometimes they do drop a hint and then they should repair the harm as quickly as possible. Consider Problem 19, "Modified twin paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65.
In the previous version of the textbook there was the following additional text:
"This form of the twin paradox loses a bit of the punch of the usual statement of the problem, since we don't compare the ages of the same two people before and after the journey. But on the other hand, THIS VERSION OF THE PROBLEM DOES NOT INVOLVE ACCELERATION."
Needless to say, by hinting that acceleration is immaterial to the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin the educator had made a huge strategic mistake. However in the present version of the textbook the situation is under control again and the oscillation between the two absurdities can continue.
Pentcho Valev
21 - Pentcho Valev
THE SMELL OF DEAD SCIENCE
Five years ago Einsteinians quite unexpectedly found it suitable to extract money not from singing dithyrambs and worshipping Divine Albert but, rather, from challenging Divine Albert's false principle of constancy of the speed of light and hinting at "a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory". The journal Nature wholeheartedly helped them:
"Was Einstein Wrong?... A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics -- Einstein's theory of relativity.... "That means giving up the theory of relativity and E-mc squared and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters....Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the August 8 edition of scientific journal Nature..... They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which Davies summarizes as "you can't get something for nothing.".... "If what we're seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear.".... "For example, there's a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity," Davies said. The accepted speed of light is 300,000 km (186,300 miles) per second. "Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off," Davies said."
Sadly, the "paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory" did not happen and now one finds the same Einsteinians relying again on the old money-spinner, Divine Albert's false principle of constancy of the speed of light:
"For this prof, it's only a matter of time... Davies said an object traveling at a given speed experiences time slower relative to a stationary object. The faster the object moves, the slower it experiences time, he said. If a man traveled at 99 percent the speed of light for a certain amount of time to a point in space, then turned around and came back, he would find people on Earth aged years more than he did."
Pentcho Valev
22 - Pentcho Valev
HOW EINSTEINIANS UNDERSTAND SCIENCE: "Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy in the Interpretations of Relativity Theory" - Budapest, Hungary, 7-9 September 2007. Objectives: "While the organizing committee encourages critical investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."
Pentcho Valev
23 - Pentcho Valev
EINSTEINIANS WILL REFUTE EINSTEIN IN 2015: "LISA is scheduled to launch in 2015. "No one has detected gravitational waves yet. If LISA flies and works properly, it will detect gravitational waves from astronomical sources," Richstone said. "If it doesn't, then Einstein's theory of general relativity is wrong."
In fact, Einsteinians tried to refute Einstein in 1960 but failed. At that time Pound and Rebka had measured a frequency shift
f'=f(1+V/c^2)
and many Einsteinians suspected that this result confirmed Einstein's 1911 equation according to which the speed of light is variable:
c'=c(1+V/c^2)
However simultaneously Einsteinians discovered that nothing can refute Einstein's theory, even Einstein's own equations. Refutation is only possible in the distant future but, surprisingly, as the distant future approaches, it stops being a distant future and refutation becomes impossible again.
Pentcho Valev
24 - Pentcho Valev
HOW TO PROVE EINSTEIN WRONG
If one is really interested in verifying Einstein's theory, one could start from the following text written by a fashionable Einsteinian: Tom Roberts: "If the light emitted from a source moving with velocity v toward the observer has a speed c+kv in the observer's frame.....The Doppler effect is the observed variation in frequency of a source when it is observed by a detector that is moving relative to the source. This effect is most pronounced when the source is moving directly toward or away from the detector...."
What is the value of k and how is it related to the frequency variation? Judging from what another fashionable Einsteinian has admitted, the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the value k=1 is correct:
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."
But the problem is more complicated. If there had been more honesty in the relativity cult, the experiment of Michelson-Morley would have led to two competing interpretations:
1. AS FAR AS THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONCERNED, Newton's particle model of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. That is what the emission theory says; no miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) can be introduced.
2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) are OBLIGATORY - without them the falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light (c'=c) would be obvious.
The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second was adopted in 1905. That was the beginning of a wrong science of course but by no means a sin. The sin started when Einstein implicitly reintroduced the true principle of variability of the speed of light (c'=c+v), thereby obtaining correct results (e.g. the gravitational frequency variation factor), and at the same time conserved the false principle of constancy of the speed of light plus appended miracles, thereby destroying the rationality of generations of scientists (see Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity" for more detail).
Einstein reintroduced the true principle of variability of the speed of light in 1911 when he showed that the speed of light varied with the gravitational potential in accordance with the equation
c' = c(1 + V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential. One can apply the equivalence principle as shown in pp.2-4
Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's 1911 equation and you obtain c'=c+v. For that reason relativists do not like Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and often declare it wrong, although in 1960 Pound and Rebka confirmed it implicitly by measuring a frequency variation
f' = f(1 + V/c^2)
As for the Doppler effect, it would be difficult for relativists to claim that, although the frequency variation measured by Pound and Rebka confirmed the principle of variability of the speed of light c'=c+v, the frequency variation in the slightly different (no acceleration) Doppler situation would be consistent with the false principle of constancy of the speed of light c'=c.
Pentcho Valev
25 - Pentcho Valev
GRAVITY, SPEED OF LIGHT AND THE SALVATION OF RELATIVITY
Does the speed of light vary with the gravitational potential and, if yes, can it become greater than c=299792km/s? Clever relativists would answer yes and then again yes but then would save Einstein's theory by declaring that, for an INERTIAL observer, the speed of light is always c=299792km/s (not so clever relativists would save Einstein's theory by answering anything and then again anything). The solution to the following problem could clarify the situation:
A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light c' will the observer measure?
In 1911 Einstein offered the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where V is the gravitational potential difference between the light source and the observer. Clearly, Einstein's 1911 equation is a direct solution to the problem but this solution is extremely dangerous for Einstein's theory because the observer is INERTIAL. The alternative solution is c'=c but that is even more dangerous. So in the end Einsteinians would only be able to save Einstein's theory if they manage to avoid this problem forever. At least they should never choose explicitly between c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c.
Pentcho Valev