 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » EINSTEINIANA ON THE CUSP OF A REVOLUTION AGAIN... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Pentcho Valev... |
 Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/12/a-new-challenge-to-einstein/
"So here is a new such test, courtesy of Rachel Bean of Cornell. She
combines a suite of cosmological data, especially measurements of weak
gravitational lensing from the Hubble Space Telescope, to see whether
GR correctly describes the behavior of large-scale structure in the
universe. And the surprising thing is — it doesn’t. At the 98%
confidence level, Rachel finds that general relativity is inconsistent
with the data. I'm not sure why we haven't been reading about this in
the science media or even on other blogs — it's certainly a newsworthy
result. Admittedly, the smart money is still that there is some tricky
thing that hasn't yet been noticed and Einstein will eventually come
through the victor, but this is serious work by a respected
cosmologist. Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard
to find out why, or it's right, and we're on the cusp of a
revolution."
Other recent revolutions in Einsteiniana:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool?"
Past revolutions in Einsteiniana:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2003/04/waseinsteinwrong/
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.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.....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! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[quote]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/12/a-new-challenge-to-einstein/
"So here is a new such test, courtesy of Rachel Bean of Cornell. She
combines a suite of cosmological data, especially measurements of weak
gravitational lensing from the Hubble Space Telescope, to see whether
GR correctly describes the behavior of large-scale structure in the
universe. And the surprising thing is — it doesn’t. At the 98%
confidence level, Rachel finds that general relativity is inconsistent
with the data. I'm not sure why we haven't been reading about this in
the science media or even on other blogs — it's certainly a newsworthy
result. Admittedly, the smart money is still that there is some tricky
thing that hasn't yet been noticed and Einstein will eventually come
through the victor, but this is serious work by a respected
cosmologist. Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard
to find out why, or it's right, and we're on the cusp of a
revolution."
Other recent revolutions in Einsteiniana:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool?"
Past revolutions in Einsteiniana:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2003/04/waseinsteinwrong/
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.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.....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! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Einsteiniana's revolutions are simultaneously devolutions (in any
case, new money-spinners):
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics
"Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum
Mechanics (...) And he wrote a series of incredibly readable, best-
selling science books to boot. And yet the 78-year-old Penrose—now an
emeritus professor at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford—
seems to live the humble life of a researcher just getting started in
his career. (...)
I understand you are setting out this critique of quantum mechanics in
your new book.
Roger Penrose: "The book is called Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the
New Physics of the Universe. Each of those words stands for a major
theoretical physics idea. The fashion is string theory; the fantasy
has to do with various cosmological schemes, mainly inflationary
cosmology [which suggests that the universe inflated exponentially
within a small fraction of a second after the Big Bang]. Big fish,
those things are. It’s almost sacrilegious to attack them. And the
other one, even more sacrilegious, is quantum mechanics at all levels—
so that’s the faith. People somehow got the view that you really can’t
question it."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/12/a-new-challenge-to-einstein/
"So here is a new such test, courtesy of Rachel Bean of Cornell. She
combines a suite of cosmological data, especially measurements of weak
gravitational lensing from the Hubble Space Telescope, to see whether
GR correctly describes the behavior of large-scale structure in the
universe. And the surprising thing is it doesnt. At the 98% confidence
level, Rachel finds that general relativity is inconsistent with the
data. I'm not sure why we haven't been reading about this in the
science media or even on other blogs it's certainly a newsworthy
result. Admittedly, the smart money is still that there is some tricky
thing that hasn't yet been noticed and Einstein will eventually come
through the victor, but this is serious work by a respected
cosmologist. Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard
to find out why, or it's right, and we're on the cusp of a
revolution."
Other recent revolutions in Einsteiniana:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool?"
Past revolutions in Einsteiniana:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2003/04/waseinsteinwrong/
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.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.....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! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It seems Einsteinians find the new revolution more serious than
previous revolutions:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427314.400-rethinking-relativity-is-time-out-of-joint.html
"To look for potential deviations from general relativity, Bean
reanalysed the data and dropped the requirement that these two
components of gravity had to be equal. Instead the ratio of the two
was allowed to change in value. She found that between 8 and 11
billion years ago gravity's distortion of time appeared to be three
times as strong as its ability to curve space."
This sounds like "She found that between 8 and 11 million years ago
the greenness of crocodiles appeared to be three times as great as
their length". Yet there is something very positive in the new
revolution: Einsteinians obviously have decided to take more notice,
although in an idiotic way, of what John Norton, the cleverest
Einsteinian, has hinted at recently:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."
That is, in the end Einsteiniana may put an end to the painful
destruction of human rationality caused by Einstein's time-is-an-
illusion discovery:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232009/einstein_lessons_dj_6-22-09.php
"For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert
Einstein
http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141509987
Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity,
and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like
an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized
into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time
that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what
happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It
still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's
wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is
wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy
in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So
it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and
juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million
times a day from ordinary comings and goings."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/12/a-new-challenge-to-einstein/
"So here is a new such test, courtesy of Rachel Bean of Cornell. She
combines a suite of cosmological data, especially measurements of weak
gravitational lensing from the Hubble Space Telescope, to see whether
GR correctly describes the behavior of large-scale structure in the
universe. And the surprising thing is it doesnt. At the 98% confidence
level, Rachel finds that general relativity is inconsistent with the
data. I'm not sure why we haven't been reading about this in the
science media or even on other blogs it's certainly a newsworthy
result. Admittedly, the smart money is still that there is some tricky
thing that hasn't yet been noticed and Einstein will eventually come
through the victor, but this is serious work by a respected
cosmologist. Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard
to find out why, or it's right, and we're on the cusp of a
revolution."
Other recent revolutions in Einsteiniana:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool?"
Past revolutions in Einsteiniana:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2003/04/waseinsteinwrong/
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.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.....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! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It seems Einsteiniana's revolution involves abandoning Divine Albert's
Divine Theory and establishing a new, truly eternal this time, money-
spinner:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/oct/24/michael-green-new-lucasian-professor
Michael Green: Master of the universe. Michael Green is the new
Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge – following in the
footsteps of Newton and Hawking. (...) Furthermore, string theory,
Green contends, "isn't simply something that will, once tested, be
either verified or disproved. It's become much more than that".
By the way, why does any Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge
become "Master of the universe"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/02/stephen.hawking
Master of his universe. When Rachel Cooke was granted an interview
with Stephen Hawking, she was told that he only had time to answer six
questions. So what would you ask the scientist with one of the most
acute brains of his generation? (...) The Department of Applied
Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, where
Hawking is the Lucasian professor of mathematics, a post once held by
Isaac Newton... The two-part series Stephen Hawking: Master of the
Universe starts on Channel 4 on Monday 3 March
I think I know why Hawking is Master of the universe - he discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
Yet I have no idea why Michael Green is Master of the universe -
perhaps the enormous power automatically goes to any Lucasian
professor of mathematics at Cambridge, even if he had not discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim Golden BandTech.com... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 2:31 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]It seems Einsteiniana's revolution involves abandoning Divine Albert's
Divine Theory and establishing a new, truly eternal this time, money-
spinner:
[/quote]
Pentcho you certainly are persistent here, and coherent too.
I've declared a fundamental conflict way back at the tensor usage in
relativity theory. The tensor was supposed to be rotationally
invariant, so that the usual behaviors of say 3D space allow for the
presentation of any rotated reference frame to work equally well
within the tensor's arithmetic structure. In layman's terminology if I
stand on my head and observe things they will be the same things that
I observe if I am laying in bed or standing up. Going to the 4D
spacetime we simply do not observe any freedom to test out its tensor
since we are not free to rotate into the direction of time. Thus the
4D tensor representation is a nonstarter from this perspective. As I
recall Einstein did have some fundamental difficulties with this math.
I do not know if my perspective was his perspective, but could it be
that like his cosmological constant blunder that he was correct
initially but had to sway to the flow of his own modernity, including
Minkowski's own view?
In terms of theoretical purity we understand that a theory is to
answer questions of why experiment exposes recurrent details. Those
details which are invariant are the most fundamental. The fact that we
observe three dimensional space does then beg the theorist to answer
why we observe it. Such a theory might be criticized as overly
optimistic, yet to completely overlook this option and to carry on
inserting the three dimensions of space along with one dimension of
time (which has its own farcical consequences) without any regard for
the concept of theory places such 'theory' in question. At the root of
physics we see that this has been done. It is not even the curve
fitters paradigm; it is a level below that. To simply validate the
question
Why spacetime?
would be a start. Some are pursuing this option and the fallout rings
deep into the heart of the matter. I have found fundamental arithmetic
which contains support for spacetime with unidirectional zero
dimensional time via the generalization of sign. This math is
consistent with existing mathematics but exposes some overlooked
details, particularly the one-signed numbers which best represent time
and its seeming paradoxes that cartesian thinkers are struggling with.
Beyond this support for electromagnetism as fundamental to spacetime
itself is apparent, but difficult to express mathematically. I welcome
others to pursue this possibility and have offered up a US$100 prize
for any contribution to this endeavor. Polysign numbers are layed out
on my website such that a non-mathematician might understand them:
http://bandtechnology.com/polysigned .
The concept is challenging due to the real numbers being nearly hard
wired into our minds. To truly generalize sign the old rules do not
suffice, though they are recovered within the polysign construction.
We exist in a structured spacetime. We exist as a conglomeration of
many particles and so the isotropic assumption of relativity is not
necessary since it can be recovered at the later stage by imposing
relative reference frames. This conception brings electromagnetism
into spacetime itself. To open to such a concept is to cast much of
physics as an open problem, or at least opens it to a new recasting of
the old concepts in the new paradigm. The tensor representation is a
lie which is covered up by imposing a lightcone atop its basis. The
Minkowski metric exposes structured spacetime, though they will swear
on the isotropic assumption. This is a fundamental conflict which gets
little attention.
- Tim Golden, http://bandtechnology.com
[quote]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/oct/24/michael-green-new-l...
Michael Green: Master of the universe. Michael Green is the new
Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge – following in the
footsteps of Newton and Hawking. (...) Furthermore, string theory,
Green contends, "isn't simply something that will, once tested, be
either verified or disproved. It's become much more than that".
By the way, why does any Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge
become "Master of the universe"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/02/stephen.hawking
Master of his universe. When Rachel Cooke was granted an interview
with Stephen Hawking, she was told that he only had time to answer six
questions. So what would you ask the scientist with one of the most
acute brains of his generation? (...) The Department of Applied
Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, where
Hawking is the Lucasian professor of mathematics, a post once held by
Isaac Newton... The two-part series Stephen Hawking: Master of the
Universe starts on Channel 4 on Monday 3 March
I think I know why Hawking is Master of the universe - he discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i....
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
Yet I have no idea why Michael Green is Master of the universe -
perhaps the enormous power automatically goes to any Lucasian
professor of mathematics at Cambridge, even if he had not discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| spudnik... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
distant action by a bunch of British spooks, like Newton,
who wouldn't "share" with Hooke, the first head
of the Royal Society?
this is a groovy thread, although Hawking, MoU, gets it wrong
about M&M, even by the usual "null" say-so;
the speed of light depends upon the index of refraction,
even in a relative vacuum, such as air at sea-level (NB:
there is some heighth, where the air is half dihydrogen).
Davies is more-correct then Smolin:
since stringtheory subsumes most of the math
of the older stuff, it really is not controversial;
Penrose has yet, AFAIK, to address plasma physics,
which is the "9" of Universe beyond the Department
of Einsteinmania, the Musical Department.... but,
he is so brave, to take the suit to the array
of lawyers on the estate of Schroedinger's joke-cat!
thus:
photon hath no restmass, precisely because
it is not a coorpuscle -- it am what it am,
"least action in least time" a la Fermat!
the photon is just a figment of Einstein's photo-electrical effect.
Descartes to Fermat
Tuesday, July 27, 1638
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/august08-fermat.pdf
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| spudnik... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It seems that Santa Monica has chosen to abandon the rather invasive
"solar-charged streetlamps
with enormous underground battery," in favor of a dual-use strategy of
"night-lights pegged
to trees." That's fine, because closed businesses don't need the
light, although
I suppose that the LED lights/photovoltaics/batteriees/etc. were made,
somewhere
in Southwest Asia -- and that is a development issue, or another sign
of a cargo-cult (stupid) economy.
The real problem is the denial of what the City did, not to a mere 23-
or-so (perfectly
healthy, as we could tell from the "cross-section" of the stumps, that
I saw) ficuses,
downtown, but some weeks later, to nearly 200 carobs in the
residential areas. The whole
of this odd policy amounts to a clear-cut of quite a nice wooded area;
I'd go so far,
as to say that the City contributed to the Station Fire, however
unquantifiable.
A way to ameliorate most of these developments would be gardens on
roofs. However,
as an intermediate step, especially considering how tall buildings
create wind, would
be to require all buildings over (say) two stories to place one, large-
potted tree
at every corner of the roof (typically, four). Count the number of
such corners, and
you have quite an amelioration of climate change -- whether or not
you believe in the "global" or overall warming of the computerized
simulacra --
on a local basis. Presumably, the corners are the logical placement,
for starters, but
experimentation is surely in order.
--Sincerely, |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| spudnik... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
time is simply the scalar, or "Re() paart,"
using quaternions a la Lanscoz (for special relativity
in _Variational Mechanics_, Dover Pubs.). so,
if you can find an obvious advantage
of using "polysignation," do it!
[quote]The concept is challenging due to the real numbers being nearly hard
wired into our minds. To truly generalize sign the old rules do not
suffice, though they are recovered within the polysign construction.
We exist in a structured spacetime. We exist as a conglomeration of
many particles and so the isotropic assumption of relativity is not
necessary since it can be recovered at the later stage by imposing
relative reference frames. This conception brings electromagnetism
into spacetime itself. To open to such a concept is to cast much of
[/quote]
[quote]I think I know why Hawking is Master of the universe - he discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell:
[/quote]
thus:
bingo!... royal flush?
[quote]Every aether experiment ever performed has shown the aether is not
stationary.
[/quote]
--Sir Dirty Harry Potter & Trickier Dick Cheeny want you:
Sudancrusade!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/Observations%20on%20Diophantus.pdf
1. Yes, this is his statement of what has come
to be known as “Fermat’s Last Theorem.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim Golden BandTech.com... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 25, 5:30 pm, spudnik <Space... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]time is simply the scalar, or "Re() paart,"
using quaternions a la Lanscoz (for special relativity
in _Variational Mechanics_, Dover Pubs.). so,
if you can find an obvious advantage
of using "polysignation," do it!
[/quote]
Unified spacetime is an accurate context. But time is somehow
different from the other dimensions even while being unified with
them. Yes, the quaternion does appear to address some of this
structural detail, but it does not address the unidirectional nature
of time, nor the lack of freedom which we observe in our control over
time. Relativity theory imposes a lightcone interpretation on top of
its tensor. We are not free to translate(move) in time as we are in
space. Thus the zero dimensional one-signed number is a clean match to
observations of time.
- Tim
[quote]
The concept is challenging due to the real numbers being nearly hard
wired into our minds. To truly generalize sign the old rules do not
suffice, though they are recovered within the polysign construction.
We exist in a structured spacetime. We exist as a conglomeration of
many particles and so the isotropic assumption of relativity is not
necessary since it can be recovered at the later stage by imposing
relative reference frames. This conception brings electromagnetism
into spacetime itself. To open to such a concept is to cast much of
I think I know why Hawking is Master of the universe - he discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell:
thus:
bingo!... royal flush?
Every aether experiment ever performed has shown the aether is not
stationary.
--Sir Dirty Harry Potter & Trickier Dick Cheeny want you:
Sudancrusade!http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/Observations%20on%20Diophantus.pdf
1. Yes, this is his statement of what has come
to be known as “Fermat’s Last Theorem.”[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| spudnik... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
don't confuze the odometer with the moment-being. anyway,
quaternions are the best odometer for 4D phase-space;
did Hamilton use the term, phase-space,
in regard to Hamiltonians?... I clipped what I meant to save,
but it's still "blather!"
[quote]of time, nor the lack of freedom which we observe in our control over
time. Relativity theory imposes a lightcone interpretation on top of
its tensor. We are not free to translate(move) in time as we are in
space. Thus the zero dimensional one-signed number is a clean match to
observations of time.
[/quote]
thus:
well, fisrt of all, if you are still referring
to "E=cmc," it is just the short version, and
it may not be in the best form, but it is *still*,
essentially, Leibniz's *vis viva*, which corrected
someone's "linear" formula (I think, Poor Galileo's).
[quote]It is more than a wrong formula, derived from a bungle. It is much more
disastrous. It is a wrong ideology, that appearance is actually reality,
that the Earth is standing still... it is the height of anti-science.
[/quote]
thus:
holy grapes; M&M's experiment was *not* a null; although
the annual anomaly was rather small, it was regular enough.
Miller's result confirmed this. the write-up was brought
to Einstein, at one of hte few times that he was
at his office at Caltech, and he poo-pooed it (according
to I. 4 Gott).
and one *still* has to account for all of the actual results
"proving relativity & so on."
[quote]You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller,
and countless others looked for and did not find?
[/quote]
--Seargent "give war a chance" Pepper & Trickier Dick Cheeny want
you:
SudanCrusade!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/Observations%20on%20Diophantus.pdf
1. Yes, this is his statement of what has come |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Some Einsteinians know nothing about Master of the universe Stephen
Hawking's discovery - that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell -
and publish awful things (should be kicked out of Einsteiniana
immediately):
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3q22q7284331087/
Schwarzschild Radius Before General Relativity: Why Does Michell-
Laplace Argument Provide the Correct Answer?
Giovanni Preti
Abstract A famous Newtonian argument by Michell and Laplace,
regarding the existence of “dark bodies” and dating back to the end of
the 18th century, is able to provide an exact general-relativistic
result, namely the exact formula for the Schwarzschild radius. Since
general relativity was formulated more than a century after this
argument had been issued, it looks quite surprising that such a
correct prediction could have been possible. Far from being merely a
fortuitous coincidence (as one might justifiably be induced to think),
this fact can find a reasonable explanation once the question is
approached the other way round, i.e. from the general-relativistic
point of view. By reexamining Laplace’s proof from this point of view,
we discuss here the reasons why Michell-Laplace argument can be so
“unexpectedly" correct in its general-relativistic prediction.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
It seems Einsteiniana's revolution involves abandoning Divine Albert's
Divine Theory and establishing a new, truly eternal this time, money-
spinner:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/oct/24/michael-green-new-lucasian-professor
Michael Green: Master of the universe. Michael Green is the new
Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge following in the footsteps
of Newton and Hawking. (...) Furthermore, string theory, Green
contends, "isn't simply something that will, once tested, be either
verified or disproved. It's become much more than that".
By the way, why does any Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge
become "Master of the universe"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/02/stephen.hawking
Master of his universe. When Rachel Cooke was granted an interview
with Stephen Hawking, she was told that he only had time to answer six
questions. So what would you ask the scientist with one of the most
acute brains of his generation? (...) The Department of Applied
Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, where
Hawking is the Lucasian professor of mathematics, a post once held by
Isaac Newton... The two-part series Stephen Hawking: Master of the
Universe starts on Channel 4 on Monday 3 March
I think I know why Hawking is Master of the universe - he discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
Yet I have no idea why Michael Green is Master of the universe -
perhaps the enormous power automatically goes to any Lucasian
professor of mathematics at Cambridge, even if he had not discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| spudnik... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
but, I agree, the lightcone is a useless obscurity,
owing peculiarly to treating "time like space" in a graph e.g.
thus:
analog is still very big in electronics. according
to the guy from the statistics area, addressing the math club
at a local university, all of the chairs in the Math Dept.
go to Statistics, and he advized "no doctorates in math,
unless it's statistics."
personally, I say that *mathematica* is four subjects, and
to avoid any one of them is a serious conceptual trilemma.
thus:
what is supposed to be "implimented?"
get rid of No Child Left Behind, Come the Rapture;
there is no such Constitutional thing, as "the separation
of church & state!"
get rid of the Three Rs babysitting mode d'education,
and impliment the quadrivium (mathematica -- scarey; eh ?-)
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200910/backpage.cfm
--Seargent "give war a chance" Pepper & Trickier Dick Cheeny want you,
in Sudancrusade; enlist at www.harrypotterPSes.gb.edu!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Revolutions in Einsteiniana involve two campaigns (often occurring
simultaneously):
Campaign 1: An extremely heretical claim, usually challenging
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, is advanced and even
experimentally confirmed. Selected "mavericks" in Einsteiniana extract
maximum career and money from it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-magic-results.html
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit – the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should
be absolutely irrelevant."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.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.....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! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
Campaign 2: The extremely heretical claim is useless and even harmful
(in terms of career and money) for other Einsteinians so it is slowly
but surely undermined, with "Einstein is still right" as the final
conclusion. The selected "mavericks" gradually abandon their heresy
but career and money gained in the process remain:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/10/29/a-gamma-ray-race-through-the-fabric-of-space-time-proves-einstein-right/
"New results are in from the Fermi Space Telescope, which settled into
orbit in the summer of 2008, and the findings seem to prove Albert
Einstein right once again. Man, that guy was good. (...) But the study
of the Fermi Telescope’s results, published in Nature, declares that
since all the gamma rays arrived within nine-tenths of a second apart,
they must have all traveled at almost exactly the same speed. (...)
Physicists working with the Fermi Telescope will keep looking for new
evidence. But for now, says study coauthor Peter F. Michelson, "I take
it as a confirmation that Einstein is still right" [The New York
Times]."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:50 am
|
|