| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Australopithecus Afarensis" |
| Date: |
05 Jul 2003 05:57:00 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Heisenberg on Einstein as a genuine physicist |
It is interesting to note that Heisenberg published this in 1961. It is
very much the only work he did after being imprisoned, discredited, charged
with war crime, etc. His point on Einstein prior to the end of WWII was
very much different. It is amazing how jail time can change some one.
Are the Special Theory of Relativity and the Lorentz Transform the only very
"distinct" theories that share the same mathematical equations?
I propose to call the Maxwell's Equations in differential calculus form to
Heaviside's Equations in honor of Oliver Heaviside. Maxwell's Equations
then describe electromagnetism in integral form before Stoke's Theorem and
Greene's Theorem being applied.
* * *
"Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.0307050528.714c3d14@posting.google.com...
Heisenberg on Einstein as a genuine physicist
I know that the title will seem very strange to many readers, but
there is from time to time those people who insist on denigrating
Einstein and the entire modern physics community of the 20th century
by claiming that Einstein was a physics buffoon that stole everything
he ever did in the field.
Now a buffoon could hardly have successfully stolen everything he
claimed was his and get away with it in the eyes of his peers. It's
takes a very brilliant person to accomplish that level of theft!
There are only two possibilities if this charge is correct:
1) The rest of Einstein's peer physicists of the 20th century
were themselves buffoons who couldn't discern the truthfulness
of Einstein's claims.
or
2) The rest of Einstein's peer physicists of the 20th century
were themselves dishonest to go along with this hoax of the
millennium. Why would they do this? How could they maintain
such an impossible cover-up?
Both possibilities are sheer nonsense. Just read the greats like
Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Poincare, etc to see what honest credit they
gave to Einstein as a physics creator and even genius. I'll start here
with statements from Heisenberg:
NOTE: Heisenberg has placed Einstein's principle theory of SR as
central to understanding modern physics because of the importance of
the Light Principle and how it directly affects physics as a
"measurement constant of nature." This is one big reason why
Einstein's SR is so important and why it differs from the similar
theories of other physicists of that time, according to Heisenberg.
------------------------------------------------
On Modern Physics
WERNER HEISENBERG, MAX BORN ERWIN SCHRODINGER, PIERRE AUGER
Clarkson N. Potter, Inc./Publisher, NEW YORK
c. 1961
Planck's discovery and the philosophical problems of atomic physics
by Werner Heisenberg
...........
Already a few years after Planck's discovery, the significance of a
second "measurement constant" was understood. Einstein's special
theory of relativity made it clear to physicists
--- p8 ---
that the velocity of light did not, as had previously been supposed in
electrodynamics, describe the property of a special
substance---"ether"---that supported the propagation of light, but
that a property of space and time was involved, that is, a general
property of nature not related in any way to particular objects or
things in nature. Thus, the velocity of light can also be considered
as a measurement constant of nature.
Our intuitive concepts of space and time can be applied only to those
phenomena in which small velocities with respect to the velocities of
light are involved. Conversely, the well-known paradoxes of the theory
of relativity are based on the fact that phenomena involving
velocities near that of light cannot be properly interpreted with our
normal concept of space and time. May I remind you of the well-known
paradox of the clocks --- that for a rapidly moving observer time
apparently moves more slowly than for a stationary one. After the
mathematical structure of the special theory of relativity had been
made clear, it very soon became possible in the first decade of this
century to analyze the physical significance of these mathematical
relationships. This was done so thoroughly that is was possible to
understand completely the aspects of nature connected with the
velocity of light as a measurement constant. The many discussions on
the theory of relativity clearly show that our deep-rooted concepts
impeded the understanding of the theory, but the objections were
rapidly overcome.
II. It was, however, much more difficult to understand the physical
relationships connected with the existence of Planck's action quantum.
It appeared probable from a paper of Einstein in the year 1918 that
the laws of the quantum theory in some way or other involved
statistical relationships. But the first attempt to thoroughly study
the statistical nature
--- p9 ---
of the laws of the quantum theory was made by Bohr, Kramers and Slater
in 1924.
Patrick
.
|
|
| User: "Australopithecus Afarensis" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg on Einstein as a genuine physicist |
06 Jul 2003 12:40:20 AM |
|
|
I was been sarcastic when I made these remarks below, but look folks --- I
might have a case now.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1a.html
* * *
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote in message
news:WIINa.92054$%42.54502@fed1read06...
It is interesting to note that Heisenberg published this in 1961. It is
very much the only work he did after being imprisoned, discredited, charged
with war crime, etc. His point on Einstein prior to the end of WWII was
very much different. It is amazing how jail time can change some one.
Are the Special Theory of Relativity and the Lorentz Transform the only very
"distinct" theories that share the same mathematical equations?
I propose to call the Maxwell's Equations in differential calculus form to
Heaviside's Equations in honor of Oliver Heaviside. Maxwell's Equations
then describe electromagnetism in integral form before Stoke's Theorem and
Greene's Theorem being applied.
* * *
"Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.0307050528.714c3d14@posting.google.com...
Heisenberg on Einstein as a genuine physicist
I know that the title will seem very strange to many readers, but
there is from time to time those people who insist on denigrating
Einstein and the entire modern physics community of the 20th century
by claiming that Einstein was a physics buffoon that stole everything
he ever did in the field.
Now a buffoon could hardly have successfully stolen everything he
claimed was his and get away with it in the eyes of his peers. It's
takes a very brilliant person to accomplish that level of theft!
There are only two possibilities if this charge is correct:
1) The rest of Einstein's peer physicists of the 20th century
were themselves buffoons who couldn't discern the truthfulness
of Einstein's claims.
or
2) The rest of Einstein's peer physicists of the 20th century
were themselves dishonest to go along with this hoax of the
millennium. Why would they do this? How could they maintain
such an impossible cover-up?
Both possibilities are sheer nonsense. Just read the greats like
Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Poincare, etc to see what honest credit they
gave to Einstein as a physics creator and even genius. I'll start here
with statements from Heisenberg:
NOTE: Heisenberg has placed Einstein's principle theory of SR as
central to understanding modern physics because of the importance of
the Light Principle and how it directly affects physics as a
"measurement constant of nature." This is one big reason why
Einstein's SR is so important and why it differs from the similar
theories of other physicists of that time, according to Heisenberg.
------------------------------------------------
On Modern Physics
WERNER HEISENBERG, MAX BORN ERWIN SCHRODINGER, PIERRE AUGER
Clarkson N. Potter, Inc./Publisher, NEW YORK
c. 1961
Planck's discovery and the philosophical problems of atomic physics
by Werner Heisenberg
...........
Already a few years after Planck's discovery, the significance of a
second "measurement constant" was understood. Einstein's special
theory of relativity made it clear to physicists
--- p8 ---
that the velocity of light did not, as had previously been supposed in
electrodynamics, describe the property of a special
substance---"ether"---that supported the propagation of light, but
that a property of space and time was involved, that is, a general
property of nature not related in any way to particular objects or
things in nature. Thus, the velocity of light can also be considered
as a measurement constant of nature.
Our intuitive concepts of space and time can be applied only to those
phenomena in which small velocities with respect to the velocities of
light are involved. Conversely, the well-known paradoxes of the theory
of relativity are based on the fact that phenomena involving
velocities near that of light cannot be properly interpreted with our
normal concept of space and time. May I remind you of the well-known
paradox of the clocks --- that for a rapidly moving observer time
apparently moves more slowly than for a stationary one. After the
mathematical structure of the special theory of relativity had been
made clear, it very soon became possible in the first decade of this
century to analyze the physical significance of these mathematical
relationships. This was done so thoroughly that is was possible to
understand completely the aspects of nature connected with the
velocity of light as a measurement constant. The many discussions on
the theory of relativity clearly show that our deep-rooted concepts
impeded the understanding of the theory, but the objections were
rapidly overcome.
II. It was, however, much more difficult to understand the physical
relationships connected with the existence of Planck's action quantum.
It appeared probable from a paper of Einstein in the year 1918 that
the laws of the quantum theory in some way or other involved
statistical relationships. But the first attempt to thoroughly study
the statistical nature
--- p9 ---
of the laws of the quantum theory was made by Bohr, Kramers and Slater
in 1924.
Patrick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Reany" |
|
| Title: Re: Heisenberg on Einstein as a genuine physicist |
06 Jul 2003 08:53:15 AM |
|
|
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <lucy@olduvaigorge.net> wrote in message news:<1DONa.93324$%42.70878@fed1read06>...
I was been sarcastic when I made these remarks below, but look folks --- I
might have a case now.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1a.html
It's an interesting site, but it is rife with misconceptions. I'll
offer just one:
"Thus, the main obstacle to experimental verification of
the Kaluza-Klein Theory (and the reason why people simply
didn't 'walk into the fourth dimension'), was that
quantum mechanics calculations affirmed that the only way
to physically probe such an infinitesimally tiny dimension
was with a new machine ... an 'atom smasher.' "
We all "walk into the fourth dimension" all the time! Let's just look
at the basic physics of mechanics, i.e., the study of material
particles in motion. This is part of a larger study of the natural
world in terms of the study of events in the physical realm. An event
is a description of where and when something happens within a specific
reference frame.
If I take a marble and throw it at point on the wall of my room, I can
describe its path through space as a series of points along a curve
through time. At a given time there is one point on the path that
corresponds to the marble in motion in my reference frame at one
point in time, so to speak. Thus we need time as a dimension to
describe the evolution of the marble in time along its flight path.
The marble moves through time as it moves through space. Events need
four dimensions to be fully described. We also need time as a
dimension to disambiguate the event of "now the marble sits still on
the table" and "later the marble sits still on the table" for a marble
at rest in the table over an extended period of time. The fourth
dimension here is used to disambiguate events that describe the motion
of the marble on the table. Even as the marble is at rest on the table
it moves through the fourth dimension, going from time t_1 to time
t_2. We humans do the same thing when "at rest." We also move through
time. So, in the description of events of our motion, we are never at
rest. We are always moving into the future.
Even Newton's mechanics is a four-dimensional world in the sense of
mathematical physics. I said nothing about relativity in my
description of the accounting of events on this mechanical world. Just
because different observers in his mechanics agree on the time of all
events, that does not eliminate their need to distinguish events by 3
spacial numbers and one time number = 4 spacetime numbers per event.
Patrick
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
