| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2007 12:35:12 PM |
| Object: |
THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
The Weight of Light. Harvard Univ. & Physics in Perspective 2, 224
(2000)
"In honor of the World Year of Physics, which commemorates Einstein's
"miraculous year" in 1905, we're presenting papers from the Physical
Review archive related to Einstein's accomplishments....Imagine a
pulse of light emitted downward from the top of a cliff just as a
diver jumps. By the time the light reaches the ground, the diver will
have gained speed and will regard a detector stationed on the ground
as moving upward. According to the diver, the light source was
stationary when it emitted the pulse, but the detector is racing
upwards toward the light pulse at the moment of detection. So the
detector should see the light's frequency increased by the Doppler
effect."
So, according to the diver, "the detector is racing upwards toward the
light pulse at the moment of detection" with speed v, that is, v is
the relative speed of the diver and the detector. On the other hand,
"the detector should see the light's frequency increased". The
question is: What speed of light will measure the detector? Will it be
c'=c+v? Or c'=c?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
02 Oct 2007 01:17:31 PM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191346512.687158.84750@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
: The Weight of Light. Harvard Univ. & Physics in Perspective 2, 224
: (2000)
: "In honor of the World Year of Physics, which commemorates Einstein's
: "miraculous year" in 1905, we're presenting papers from the Physical
: Review archive related to Einstein's accomplishments....Imagine a
: pulse of light emitted downward from the top of a cliff just as a
: diver jumps. By the time the light reaches the ground, the diver will
: have gained speed and will regard a detector stationed on the ground
: as moving upward. According to the diver, the light source was
: stationary when it emitted the pulse, but the detector is racing
: upwards toward the light pulse at the moment of detection. So the
: detector should see the light's frequency increased by the Doppler
: effect."
:
: So, according to the diver, "the detector is racing upwards toward the
: light pulse at the moment of detection" with speed v, that is, v is
: the relative speed of the diver and the detector. On the other hand,
: "the detector should see the light's frequency increased". The
: question is: What speed of light will measure the detector? Will it be
: c'=c+v? Or c'=c?
:
No no no...
According to the starter, all the race participants were
stationary when the gun went off and Aunt Martha was
munching an ice cream, but the finishing tape was broken
by only one participant who'd finished her ice-cream and
took a photograph of Aunt Martha in her wheelchair.
Who was in the wheelchair?
a) The stationary starter.
b) A race participant.
c) Aunt Martha.
d) I want to see the photograph.
e) A divers diver.
f) Soggy ice scream.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henri Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
03 Oct 2007 12:14:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:17:31 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191346512.687158.84750@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
: The Weight of Light. Harvard Univ. & Physics in Perspective 2, 224
: (2000)
: "In honor of the World Year of Physics, which commemorates Einstein's
: "miraculous year" in 1905, we're presenting papers from the Physical
: Review archive related to Einstein's accomplishments....Imagine a
: pulse of light emitted downward from the top of a cliff just as a
: diver jumps. By the time the light reaches the ground, the diver will
: have gained speed and will regard a detector stationed on the ground
: as moving upward. According to the diver, the light source was
: stationary when it emitted the pulse, but the detector is racing
: upwards toward the light pulse at the moment of detection. So the
: detector should see the light's frequency increased by the Doppler
: effect."
:
: So, according to the diver, "the detector is racing upwards toward the
: light pulse at the moment of detection" with speed v, that is, v is
: the relative speed of the diver and the detector. On the other hand,
: "the detector should see the light's frequency increased". The
: question is: What speed of light will measure the detector? Will it be
: c'=c+v? Or c'=c?
:
No no no...
According to the starter, all the race participants were
stationary when the gun went off and Aunt Martha was
munching an ice cream, but the finishing tape was broken
by only one participant who'd finished her ice-cream and
took a photograph of Aunt Martha in her wheelchair.
Who was in the wheelchair?
a) The stationary starter.
b) A race participant.
c) Aunt Martha.
d) I want to see the photograph.
e) A divers diver.
f) Soggy ice scream.
...you haven't improved...
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
03 Oct 2007 07:58:01 AM |
|
|
Asminov told us the Sun loses 8 million tons every second by radiating
photons. Go figure Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
03 Oct 2007 12:29:38 PM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13111-470391D9-1372@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
Asminov told us the Sun loses 8 million tons every second by radiating
photons. Go figure Bert
I don't understand why you believe it to be strange. That's just a basic
application of E = mc^2. As a matter of fact Einstein used a object which
radiates energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. He applied the
principle of relativity and obtained the result that when a body radiates an
amout of radiation E then its mass decreases by the anount E/c^2. So Asminov
is using a quite literal example of Einstein's work on E = mc^2.
Pete
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
03 Oct 2007 01:07:11 PM |
|
|
"Pmb" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:UM-dnXAar6E6TJ7anZ2dnUVZ_tmhnZ2d@comcast.com...
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13111-470391D9-1372@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
Asminov told us the Sun loses 8 million tons every second by radiating
photons. Go figure Bert
I don't understand why you believe it to be strange. That's just a basic
application of E = mc^2. As a matter of fact Einstein used a object which
radiates energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. He applied the
principle of relativity and obtained the result that when a body radiates
an
amout of radiation E then its mass decreases by the anount E/c^2. So
Asminov
is using a quite literal example of Einstein's work on E = mc^2.
Asimov. No "n".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
03 Oct 2007 12:59:21 PM |
|
|
Pete What you posted sounds right to me Bert.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
05 Oct 2007 12:59:22 AM |
|
|
On 2 Oct, 20:35, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
The Weight of Light. Harvard Univ. & Physics in Perspective 2, 224
(2000)
"In honor of the World Year of Physics, which commemorates Einstein's
"miraculous year" in 1905, we're presenting papers from the Physical
Review archive related to Einstein's accomplishments....Imagine a
pulse of light emitted downward from the top of a cliff just as a
diver jumps. By the time the light reaches the ground, the diver will
have gained speed and will regard a detector stationed on the ground
as moving upward. According to the diver, the light source was
stationary when it emitted the pulse, but the detector is racing
upwards toward the light pulse at the moment of detection. So the
detector should see the light's frequency increased by the Doppler
effect."
So, according to the diver, "the detector is racing upwards toward the
light pulse at the moment of detection" with speed v, that is, v is
the relative speed of the diver and the detector. On the other hand,
"the detector should see the light's frequency increased". The
question is: What speed of light will measure the detector? Will it be
c'=c+v? Or c'=c?
Einsteinians (both zombies and hypnotists) who wish to solve the
problem could also see this:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
"The stationary physicists operating the experiment aren't qualified
to judge the relative motion between source and detector because they
experience gravity, which can be mimicked by accelerated motion of the
ground and cliff. These physicists call the change in the light's
frequency a GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT rather than a Doppler effect."
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of
light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was
the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general
relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes
through a gravitational field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein
stated:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the
general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity
of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position."......Today we find that
since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of
the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even
suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant.
This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a
paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,"
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with
the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of
light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's
calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the
influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The
result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also
known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
Einsteinians may discover that the problem can be formulated in the
following way: Is the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2, confirmed
experimentally by Pound-Rebka, consistent with the equations c'=c+v
and c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicting a VARIABLE speed of light, or is it
consistent with Einstein's light postulate c'=c? Of course, the final
solution will be found in the new version of Tom Roberts' FAQ. The old
version
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
is silly, uninformative and misleading but in the new version all
experimental confirmations of Einstein's relativity will be explained
clearly and unambiguously.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
10 Oct 2007 04:14:40 AM |
|
|
On 5 Oct, 07:59, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2 Oct, 20:35, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
The Weight of Light. Harvard Univ. & Physics in Perspective 2, 224
(2000)
"In honor of the World Year of Physics, which commemorates Einstein's
"miraculous year" in 1905, we're presenting papers from the Physical
Review archive related to Einstein's accomplishments....Imagine a
pulse of light emitted downward from the top of a cliff just as a
diver jumps. By the time the light reaches the ground, the diver will
have gained speed and will regard a detector stationed on the ground
as moving upward. According to the diver, the light source was
stationary when it emitted the pulse, but the detector is racing
upwards toward the light pulse at the moment of detection. So the
detector should see the light's frequency increased by the Doppler
effect."
So, according to the diver, "the detector is racing upwards toward the
light pulse at the moment of detection" with speed v, that is, v is
the relative speed of the diver and the detector. On the other hand,
"the detector should see the light's frequency increased". The
question is: What speed of light will measure the detector? Will it be
c'=c+v? Or c'=c?
Einsteinians (both zombies and hypnotists) who wish to solve the
problem could also see this:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
"The stationary physicists operating the experiment aren't qualified
to judge the relative motion between source and detector because they
experience gravity, which can be mimicked by accelerated motion of the
ground and cliff. These physicists call the change in the light's
frequency a GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT rather than a Doppler effect."
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of
light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was
the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general
relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes
through a gravitational field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein
stated:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the
general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity
of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position."......Today we find that
since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of
the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even
suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant.
This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a
paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,"
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with
the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of
light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's
calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the
influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The
result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also
known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
Einsteinians may discover that the problem can be formulated in the
following way: Is the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2, confirmed
experimentally by Pound-Rebka, consistent with the equations c'=c+v
and c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicting a VARIABLE speed of light, or is it
consistent with Einstein's light postulate c'=c? Of course, the final
solution will be found in the new version of Tom Roberts' FAQ. The old
version
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
is silly, uninformative and misleading but in the new version all
experimental confirmations of Einstein's relativity will be explained
clearly and unambiguously.
Einsteinians are very very close to the truth:
http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/10/10/ScienceTech/Space.Discovery.May.Challenge.Einsteins.Theory-3022842.shtml
"In August, an international team of scientists made a discovery that
could radically change our view of the universe....The MAGIC team
discovered that high-energy photons emitted from a black hole more
than 300 million years ago arrived four minutes later than the low
energy photons. This discovery casts doubt on Einstein's theory of
relativity, which has been the basis of modern physics for many
years....The new results suggest that our old view of space is
incorrect and that space behaves more like a material than an empty
vacuum...."If photons are genuinely slowed down in vacuum, this effect
would mean the breakdown of relativity," Ferenc said."
The only problem will remain the authorship and the future Nobel
prize: it will turn out that some Einsteinians have refuted Einstein's
relativity 10 years ago, others 15 years ago etc.:
"And what's even more amazing is the delay of four minutes precisely
matched a theoretical prediction made before the observation by
Professor John Ellis 10 years ago."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: THE WEIGHT OF LIGHT |
11 Oct 2007 12:58:41 AM |
|
|
On 10 Oct, 12:14, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 5 Oct, 07:59, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2 Oct, 20:35, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
The Weight of Light. Harvard Univ. & Physics in Perspective 2, 224
(2000)
"In honor of the World Year of Physics, which commemorates Einstein's
"miraculous year" in 1905, we're presenting papers from the Physical
Review archive related to Einstein's accomplishments....Imagine a
pulse of light emitted downward from the top of a cliff just as a
diver jumps. By the time the light reaches the ground, the diver will
have gained speed and will regard a detector stationed on the ground
as moving upward. According to the diver, the light source was
stationary when it emitted the pulse, but the detector is racing
upwards toward the light pulse at the moment of detection. So the
detector should see the light's frequency increased by the Doppler
effect."
So, according to the diver, "the detector is racing upwards toward the
light pulse at the moment of detection" with speed v, that is, v is
the relative speed of the diver and the detector. On the other hand,
"the detector should see the light's frequency increased". The
question is: What speed of light will measure the detector? Will it be
c'=c+v? Or c'=c?
Einsteinians (both zombies and hypnotists) who wish to solve the
problem could also see this:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
"The stationary physicists operating the experiment aren't qualified
to judge the relative motion between source and detector because they
experience gravity, which can be mimicked by accelerated motion of the
ground and cliff. These physicists call the change in the light's
frequency a GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT rather than a Doppler effect."
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of
light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was
the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general
relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes
through a gravitational field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein
stated:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the
general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity
of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position."......Today we find that
since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of
the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even
suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant.
This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a
paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,"
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with
the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of
light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's
calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the
influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The
result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also
known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
Einsteinians may discover that the problem can be formulated in the
following way: Is the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2, confirmed
experimentally by Pound-Rebka, consistent with the equations c'=c+v
and c'=c(1+V/c^2) predicting a VARIABLE speed of light, or is it
consistent with Einstein's light postulate c'=c? Of course, the final
solution will be found in the new version of Tom Roberts' FAQ. The old
version
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
is silly, uninformative and misleading but in the new version all
experimental confirmations of Einstein's relativity will be explained
clearly and unambiguously.
Einsteinians are very very close to the truth:
http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/10/10/ScienceTech/Space.Discovery.May.Challenge.Einsteins.Theory-3022842.shtml
"In August, an international team of scientists made a discovery that
could radically change our view of the universe....The MAGIC team
discovered that high-energy photons emitted from a black hole more
than 300 million years ago arrived four minutes later than the low
energy photons. This discovery casts doubt on Einstein's theory of
relativity, which has been the basis of modern physics for many
years....The new results suggest that our old view of space is
incorrect and that space behaves more like a material than an empty
vacuum...."If photons are genuinely slowed down in vacuum, this effect
would mean the breakdown of relativity," Ferenc said."
The only problem will remain the authorship and the future Nobel
prize: it will turn out that some Einsteinians have refuted Einstein's
relativity 10 years ago, others 15 years ago etc.:
"And what's even more amazing is the delay of four minutes precisely
matched a theoretical prediction made before the observation by
Professor John Ellis 10 years ago."
Professor John Ellis may have refuted Einstein's relativity 10 years
ago but I think the Nobel prize will nevertheless go to Lee Smolin who
knows something Professor John Ellis does not know:
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. 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. The effect is very small, but it amplifies
over time. Two photons produced by a gamma-ray burst 10 billion years
ago, one redder and one bluer, should arrive on Earth at slightly
different times. The time delay predicted by the theory is large
enough to be detectable by a new gamma-ray observatory called GLAST
(for Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope), which is scheduled for
launch into orbit in 2006. We very much look forward to the
announcement of the results, as they will be testing a prediction of a
quantum theory of gravity. 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?
Now if you ask Professor John Ellis to answer the question he would
say "JUST A LITTLE DRASTICALLY" and would leave it at that. Professor
John Ellis simply does not know that Einstein's special relativity
should have been abandoned in 1907, when Einstein discovered that the
speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
"Einstein's Legacy -- Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin:
"Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few
people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories
of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that
the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that
the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how
the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that
theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary
relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not
absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
"What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the
Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there
is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The
constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect
homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a
special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same
velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to
general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of
light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
