Re: 2005 is Einstein Year

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 01/14/05 

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:53:10 GMT

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:23:55 +0000, John Kennaugh
<JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <34lg9rF4e4e03U1@individual.net>, robert j. kolker
><nowhere@nowhere.net> writes
>>
>>
>>John Kennaugh wrote:
>>
>>> I am not clear what it is which Einstein is supposed to have done in
>>>respect of SR. Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory - that
>>>light was waves travelling in the ether at c as per Maxwell but
>>>because of interaction between the ether and ponderable matter -
>>>which expressed mathematically gave the Lorentz transforms - it
>>>appeared to an observer that the speed of light is always c.
>>>
>>
>>Einstein modified the laws of mechanics so they would be Lorentz
>>invariant.
>
>Please explain the term 'Lorentz invariant'
>
>Please explain why anyone at the time would want the laws of mechanics
>to be Lorentz invariant.
>
>> Prior to Einstein there was a discontinuity between electrodynamic
>>laws (which are inherently Lorentz invariant)
>> and the laws of mechanics which are Galilean invariant.k
>
>The discontinuity followed from a belief in the ether. If one accepts
>that MMX showed there to be no ether, then there is no reason to keep
>believing that light is source independent. That came from: "If the
>speed of light is constant w.r.t the ether it cannot be affected by the
>speed of the source".
>
>If you reject belief in the ether then a source is surrounded by nothing
>which can affect the speed of the light so light has to be source
>dependent because there is nothing else physical it can depend upon. If
>light is source dependent then there is no discontinuity between
>electrodynamic laws and the laws of mechanics. The speed of light adds
>to the speed of the source just like the rest of mechanics.
>
> Lorentz was justified in retained source independence because his
>theory retained the ether as does Lorentzian maths. As far as I can see
>all Einstein did was to derive the Lorentzian maths by postulating that
>the answer they gave was true. He discarded two axioms of physics in
>order to retain a property of the ether - source independence - as per
>the second postulate. The myth is that he somehow dispensed with the
>ether. What relativity does is to give the properties of a stationary
>ether to a FoR - implicit in the second postulate. However a FoR defines
>a region of space which, if there is no ether, cannot have physical
>properties which affect light.
>
>
>>In addition he generalized the quantum of energy to apply to
>>electromagnetic radiation (light) and explained the photoelectric
>>effect.
>
>The honours must be shared. Planck made the break though in realising
>that light generation must be quantized. Einstein explained the photo
>electric by applying Planck's quantization.
>
>His discovery seems to have had little affect on his thinking.
>The sequence goes:
>
>Maxwell's em theory was at odds with black body radiation.
>Planck showed BB radiation was the result of quantization.
>Einstein showed that light remained quantized.
>
>Surely the logic is that light is fundamentally particulate and
>*appears* to be waves rather than *is* waves. That Maxwell's equations
>have limited application and do not represent the fundamental laws of
>nature but describe the symptom not the cause. If one accepts this then
>it puts the ether question into perspective. Particles don't need an
>ether and one would assume their speed is relative to whatever ejects
>them. What else can determine the speed if space is empty of any
>physical entity which the speed could otherwise depend upon?

It wont matter how many times you explain the obvious to them they wont give up
their 'faith'.

>
>As far as I can see everything pointed to source dependency. The idea
>was taken up by Walter Ritz who was too good a physicist to have done so
>had there been any convincing evidence ruling it out. Shankland reports
>the following 1950 interview with Einstein.
>
> "... he had thought of, and abandoned the [Ritz]
> emission theory before 1905. He gave up this approach
> because he could think of no form of differential
> equation which could have solutions representing waves
> whose velocity depended on the motion of the source. In
> this case, the emission theory would lead to phase
> relations such that the propagated light would be all
> badly "mixed up' and might even 'back up on itself.' He
> asked me, 'Do you understand that ?' I said no and he
> carefully repeated it all. When he came again to the
> 'mixed up' part he waved his hands before his face and
> laughed, an open hearty laugh at the idea!"
>
>In 1952 Einstein wrote:
> "Moreover this theory [Ritz's] requires that everywhere and in
> each fixed direction light waves of a different
> velocity of propagation should be possible. It may
> well be impossible to set up an electromagnetic theory
> that is in any way reasonable and accomplishes such a
> feat. This is the principle reason why, even before the
> special theory of relativity, I rejected this way out,
> which is intrinsically conceivable."
>
>As I say his discovery of the photon had no affect on his thinking. To
>him light was still waves *in* something and you cannot have waves
>propagating at different speeds in the same 'something'. That is why he
>was attracted by Lorenz's theory and what he did followed on from it
>-source independence included - a property of the ether.
>
>It was unfortunate that Ritz died in 1909. It was unfortunate that in
>1913 De Sitter produced 'evidence' of source independence which
>inhibited others from taking up the idea. That evidence was discredited
>in 1965 by Fox. This leaves an avenue largely unexplored. Logic suggests
>that is the route which should have been followed and that the reasons
>for taking the SR route owe more to long held, but by then no longer
>justifiable, beliefs.
>
>
>> That is what he got the Nobel for. His paper on the Brownian motion
>>pretty well nailed the case for the atomic hypothesis (in 1905 there
>>were physicists who did not yet believe atoms existed). Einstein also
>>came up with a more general derivation of Planck's radiation law. All
>>in the same year, 1905. Not a bad year at all.
>
>One day in the future 1905 may be looked upon as the year physics
>took a seriously wrong direction which was not corrected for more than a
>century - and counting.
>
>"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
>sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."
>"We must be very careful indeed to differentiate between the physical
>world and the metaphysical world." Dr Scott Murray

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why isnt the mathematician Henri Poincare acknowledged as the true discoverer of special relativ
    ... Einstein was rejected by the universities, ... > I read the so-called evidence of the paternity of Poincaré, ... He referred in that note to the constructed theory of Lorentz as ... history by physics text books. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: 2005 is Einstein Year
    ... >>Please explain why anyone at the time would want the laws of mechanics ... > Einstein's first postulate states only that the laws of physics ... light is source dependent then you don't need the Lorentz transforms. ... believed in the ether which gives him source independence and his ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What if: the Jewish Media had NOT hyped Einstein?
    ... I know one thing that wouldn't have happened if the Jewish Media ... had not hyped Einstein. ... Lorentz, or any of the other contributors to relativity theory, would ... When Hitler ranted against "Jewish physics," he wasn't just ranting ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... Lorentz never ... Einstein has made of this principle. ... i', j', k' are unit-vectors of the deformed moving system, and i, j, k ... Mathematical Physics, and the space and time measured with them, are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
    ... But in physics it appears (at ... least to an amateur like me) that Newton's "Laws" remained fixed, ... and granite slap-like until Einstein came along. ... and the force was electricity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)