Science > Physics > QUANTUM GRAVITY, STRING THEORY, THE FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2008 01:33:06 AM |
| Object: |
QUANTUM GRAVITY, STRING THEORY, THE FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE |
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html
Lee Smolin, September 2006: "Well, every string theory that's been
written down says the speed of light is universal. But other ideas
about quantum gravity predict the speed of light has actually
increased. And an experiment on the Gamma Ray Large Area Space
Telescope, launching next year, will check this. So I've said, look,
if the speed of light isn't universal, that disconfirms string theory.
But the string theorists say they could probably invent versions of
the theory that work either way. We'd have to change our notion of
what science is to accommodate this proposition. You just can't do
science on that basis."
Bravo Smolin! As I have already said elsewhere, in Einstein criminal
cult you are the hypnotist who is abandoning Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate in the most subtle way. String theorists are obviously
sillier than you: they have no idea how to get rid of the falsehood.
Yet the silliest hypnotists are obviously John Stachel and his
sycophant Jean Eisenstaedt who are fiercely reintroducing Newton's
emission theory of light (they want to get rid of Einstein's false
light postulate as quickly as possible):
http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/artigos/essay-einstein-relativity.pdf
John Stachel: "The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of
particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity
into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission
theory" of light, a phrase I shall use...... The usual velocity
addition law is then replaced by a new one, in which the velocity of
light "added" to any other velocity ("added" in a new sense-it would
be better to say "compounded with") does not increase, but stays the
same! The Maxwell-Lorentz equations, when examined with the aid of
this new kinematics, prove to take the same form in every inertial
frame. They are, therefore, quite compatible with the relativity
principle, which demands that the laws of electricity, magnetism and
optics have this property. The presence or absence of an electric or
magnetic field, is then also found to be relative to an inertial
frame, allowing a completely satisfactory relativistic analysis of the
example of the conducting wire loop and magnet in relative motion.
Within six weeks of taking "the step," Einstein later recalled, he had
worked out all of these consequences and submitted the 1905 SRT paper
to Annalen der Physik. This does not imply that Lorentz's equations
are adequate to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein
already knew they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the
processes of its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body
radiation. Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible
with an emission theory of light, just because the speed of light
compounded with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we
model a beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can
still be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly
expressed the view that an adequate future theory of light would have
to be some sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories. This is
an example of how the special theory of relativity functioned as a
theory of principle, limiting but not fixing the choice of a
constructive theory of light."
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: QUANTUM GRAVITY, STRING THEORY, THE FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE |
08 Jan 2008 05:23:06 AM |
|
|
Smolin Smolin you are a genius! No other hypnotist in Einstein
criminal cult can reject Einstein's 1905 false light postulate so
imperceptibly:
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_index.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special
theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can
implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the
former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin,
and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and
found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small
dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower
than low-energy photons....A very exciting question we are now
wrestling with is, How drastically shall we be forced to modify
Einstein's special theory of relativity if the predicted effect is
observed? The most severe possibility is that the principle of
relativity simply fails....But there is another possibility. This is
that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special
theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to
have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have
learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon
can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"
Your sycophants in the Perimeter Institute are trying to emulate your
subtlety Smolin Smolin but they are so silly (perhaps you should kick
them out):
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: QUANTUM GRAVITY, STRING THEORY, THE FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE |
15 Jan 2008 01:15:16 AM |
|
|
On Jan 8, 1:23=A0pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Smolin Smolin you are a genius! No other hypnotist in Einstein
criminal cult can reject Einstein's 1905 false light postulate so
imperceptibly:
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_index.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special
theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can
implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the
former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin,
and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and
found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small
dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower
than low-energy photons....A very exciting question we are now
wrestling with is, How drastically shall we be forced to modify
Einstein's special theory of relativity if the predicted effect is
observed? The most severe possibility is that the principle of
relativity simply fails....But there is another possibility. This is
that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special
theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to
have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have
learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon
can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"
Your sycophants in the Perimeter Institute are trying to emulate your
subtlety Smolin Smolin but they are so silly (perhaps you should kick
them out):
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."
http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2008/01/15/Ne=
ws/Speakers.On.Campus.Planck.Units.Quantize.Universe-3151923.shtml
"The tentative conclusions that arose from Smolin's seminar were that
there "exists a GZK cutoff, Einstein's relativity principle is
continued at Planck scales and double special relativity and good old-
fashioned special relativity are fine."
Bravo Smolin! Although your sycophants' comment above is extremely
dangerous, you still did give an answer: Einstein's relativity
principle is OK and Einstein's special relativity is OK. But then your
sycophants' comment implies there could be no Lorentz violations while
all criminal Einsteinans, yourself included, are fiercely predicting
Lorentz violations nowadays!?! Your sycophants Magueijo and Moffat are
quite straightforward Smolin Smolin:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."
That is, either Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false or there
could be no Lorentz violations. Could you get out of this predicament
Smolin Smolin?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: QUANTUM GRAVITY, STRING THEORY, THE FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE |
08 Jan 2008 08:58:38 AM |
|
|
Smolin Smolin silly string theorists still do not know that Einstein's
1905 light postulate is false and a painful internal struggle may
destroy them some day:
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."
Quantum gravity theorists do not suffer from any internal struggle do
they Smolin Smolin. All of them have read George Orwell:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: QUANTUM GRAVITY, STRING THEORY, THE FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE |
02 Feb 2008 01:04:46 AM |
|
|
On Jan 8, 4:58=A0pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Smolin Smolin silly string theorists still do not know that Einstein's
1905 light postulate is false and a painful internal struggle may
destroy them some day:
http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=3D20050422141509=
987
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."
Quantum gravity theorists do not suffer from any internal struggle do
they Smolin Smolin. All of them have read George Orwell:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force ofgravityworks? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"
It seems there can be nothing sillier in Einstein criminal cult than a
string theorist:
http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm?author_number=3D9=
89
Q: "You say that a particle on one side of the universe can influence
the action of a sister particle on the other side of the universe
instantaneously. Does this violate Einstein's statement that nothing
can travel faster than the speed of light?"
Brian Greene: "It is a delicate question, but most physicists would
say no. The influence is such that no information can be sent from
place to place at faster than light speed, and many believe that's
enough to avoid conflict with Einstein's recognition that light sets a
cosmic speed limit. I am among those who take this point of view, but
as I stress in the book, this issue--due to remaining conundrums
surrounding quantum mechanics--is not fully settled."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
