| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Astro Forum » CONTINUUM, DISCONTINUUM, EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Pentcho Valev... |
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2515
"...he then goes on to propose the completely opposite hypothesis,
namely that "the energy of light is discontinuously distributed".
Einstein advocates this view partly because the wave theory seems to
lead to contradictions when applied to certain emission and absorption
phenomena (such as the photoelectric effect), but mainly because he is
dissatisfied with the "profound difference" that existed between the
discrete corpuscular description of matter and Maxwell's continuous-
field description of radiation."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the continuum as a
foundational element in physics..." Albert Einstein: "I consider it
entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept,
that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole
castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also
nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativité, histoire d'une grande idée", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112: "De plus, si l'on admet que la lumière
est constituée de particules, comme Einstein l'avait suggéré dans son
premier article, 13 semaines plus tôt, le second principe parait
absurde: une pierre jetée d'un train qui roule très vite fait bien
plus de dégâts que si on la jette d'un train a l'arrêt. Or, d'après
Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine particule ne serait pas
indépendante du mouvement du corps qui l'émet! Si nous considérons que
la lumière est composée de particules qui obéissent aux lois de
Newton, ces particules se conformeront à la relativité newtonienne.
Dans ce cas, il n'est pas nécessaire de recourir à la contraction des
longueurs, au temps local ou à la transformation de Lorentz pour
expliquer l'échec de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme
nous l'avons vu, résista cependant à la tentation d'expliquer ces
échecs à l'aide des idées newtoniennes, simples et familières. Il
introduisit son second postulat, plus ou moins évident lorsqu'on
pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'éther."
Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."
Einstein zombie world:
"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pentcho Valev... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Einstein's skepticism about the field concept of light and his 1954
confession that this concept might kill contemporary physics:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the continuum as a
foundational element in physics..." Albert Einstein: "I consider it
entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept,
that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole
castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also
nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
can easily be understood by analysing this paper (one should only be
able to see through the standard relativistic camouflage):
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
Pentcho Valev
pvalev at (no spam) yahoo.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| moky... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:15 am
|
|