Re: Michelson Morley explained by Total Energy equation
- From: "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Nov 2006 16:54:05 -0800
On Nov 20, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ref:http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/2/1
[...] Most physicists would be happy to make one discovery that is
important enough to be taught to future generations of physics
students. Only a very small number manage this in their lifetime, and
even fewer make two appearances in the textbooks. But Einstein was
different. In little more than eight months in 1905 he completed five
papers that would change the world for ever. Spanning three quite
distinct topics - relativity, the photoelectric effect and Brownian
motion - Einstein overturned our view of space and time, [...]
None of these papers have any new or revolutionary good ideas. Most of
them are totally wrong and nonsense. The concept of combining space
and time at this stage in time was still unknown. It took Minkowski in
1908 to combine the Lorentz transform into that famous spacetime
equation.
Genius at work
[...]
The man did not discover anything in 1905.
Statistical revelations
[...] - Einstein
submitted a paper titled "A heuristic point of view concerning the
production and transformation of light" to Annalen der Physik.
Einstein suggested that, from a thermodynamic perspective, light can
be described as if it consists of independent quanta of energy (Ann.
Phys., Lpz 17 132-148). This hypothesis, which had been tentatively
proposed by Max Planck a few years earlier, directly challenged the
deeply ingrained wave picture of light.
For a paper with such extraordinary claim without referencing to any
experimental result, it is like taking a wild guess. Einstein must
have seen Planck's work.
However, Einstein was able to
use the idea to explain certain puzzles about the way that light or
other electromagnetic radiation ejected electrons from a metal via
the photoelectric effect.
What puzzles?
[...]
"The arguments Einstein used in the photoelectric and subsequent
radiation theory are staggering in their boldness and beauty," says
Frank Wilczek, a theorist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics. "He put
forward revolutionary ideas that both inspired decisive experimental
work and helped launch quantum theory." Although not fully
appreciated at the time, Einstein's work on the quantum nature of
light was the first step towards establishing the wave-particle
duality of quantum particles.
Planck's work was revolutionary. Einstein just echoed what Planck
had said. What is so revolutionary about Einstein's idea?
A special discovery
Shortly after finishing his paper on Brownian motion Einstein had an
idea about synchronizing clocks that were spatially separated. This
led him to write a paper that landed on the desks of Annalen der
Physik on 30 June, and would go on to completely overhaul our
understanding of space and time. Some 30 pages long and containing no
references, his fourth 1905 paper was titled "On the electrodynamics
of moving bodies" (Ann. Phys., Lpz 17 891-921).
Yes, in that paper, there are a lot of error and nonsensical math. If
anyone wants, I can point each out one by one.
In the 200 or so years before 1905, physics had been built on
Newton's laws of motion, which were known to hold equally well in
stationary reference frames and in frames moving at a constant
velocity in a straight line. Provided the correct "Galilean" rules
were applied, one could therefore transform the laws of physics so
that they did not depend on the frame of reference. However, the
theory of electrodynamics developed by Maxwell in the late 19th
century posed a fundamental problem to this "principle of relativity"
because it suggested that electromagnetic waves always travel at the
same speed.
Typical Einstein garbage. There is no mentioning of MMX that results
in these lines of thought.
Either electrodynamics was wrong or there had to be some kind of
stationary "ether" through which the waves could propagate.
Alternatively, Newton was wrong. True to style, Einstein swept away
the concept of the ether (which, in any case, had not been detected
experimentally) in one audacious step. He postulated that no matter
how fast you are moving, light will always appear to travel at the
same velocity: the speed of light is a fundamental constant of nature
that cannot be exceeded.
Einstein's 1905 papers did not even discuss the Aether. How can he
have swept away the concept of the Aether?
Combined with the requirement that the laws of physics are the
identical in all "inertial" (i.e. non-accelerating) frames,
This is a direct violation of the principle of Consistency where all
laws of physics must be the same at every point in space as well as at
any moment in time.
Einstein
built a completely new theory of motion that revealed Newtonian
mechanics to be an approximation that only holds at low, everyday
speeds. The theory later became known as the special theory of
relativity - special because it applies only to non-accelerating
frames - and led to the realization that space and time are
intimately linked to one another.
The Lorentz transform was discovered by Larmor about 8 years prior to
1905. SR is merely an interpretation to the mathematics of Lorentz
transform. Lorentz transform although obeying the principle of
Relativity which is a subset of the principle of Consistency manifests
the twin's paradox. Thus, it must be wrong. This should give a hint
on why Lorentz transform cannot properly deal with acceleration.
In order that the two postulates of special relativity are respected,
strange things have to happen to space and time, which, unbeknown to
Einstein, had been predicted by Lorentz and others the previous year.
For instance, the length of an object becomes shorter when it travels
at a constant velocity, and a moving clock runs slower than a
stationary clock. Effects like these have been verified in countless
experiments over the last 100 years, but in 1905 the most famous
prediction of Einstein's theory was still to come.
Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform in 1905 was utterly
nonsense. He did not even mention FitzGerald or Lorentz's work. To
arrive at the Lorentz transform like that, he must have seen it
somewhere.
After a short family holiday in Serbia, Einstein submitted his fifth
and final paper of 1905 on 27 September. Just three pages long and
titled "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?",
this paper presented an "afterthought" on the consequences of special
relativity, which culminated in a simple equation that is now known
as E = mc^2 (Ann. Phys., Lpz 18 639-641). This equation, which was to
become the most famous in all of science, was the icing on the cake.
The equation (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)) was hinted in the
previous 1905 paper. The derivation took the reader through a series
of errors. It is impossible to arrive at this equation through these
series of gross mathematical errors. Without this equation, (E = m
c^2) is totally meaningless. For example, (E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - v^2 /
c^2)) or (E = m c^2 (1 - v^2 / c^2)) would result in very different
laws of physics encountered today.
"The special theory of relativity, culminating in the prediction that
mass and energy can be converted into one another, is one of the
greatest achievements in physics - or anything else for that matter,"
says Wilczek. "Einstein's work on Brownian motion would have merited
a sound Nobel prize, the photoelectric effect a strong Nobel prize,
but special relativity and E = mc^2 were worth a super-strong Nobel
prize."
The credit should go to the one who first proposed an observed mass
increase due to an observed relative speed between the observer and the
observed. Not Einstein. A minor credit should go to the one who
derived the equation (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)). Who would
that be? I believe yours truly is the first to derive that equation
through the calculus of variations. That is the only way.
[...] However, most think that it
would have taken much longer - perhaps a few decades - for Einstein's
general theory of relativity to emerge. Indeed, Wilczek points out
that one consequence of general relativity being so far ahead of its
time was that the subject languished for many years afterwards.
If one were to be able to go back in time and kill the first bacterium,
life on earth would take an extremely different evolutionary path. If
Einsetin were not to exist, the nonsense of SR would not have found
such great acceptance.
The aftermath
[... Einstein's]
crowning achievement - the general theory of relativity - was still
to come.
The exponentially nonsense of GR would not have happened if Einstein.
His bragging about deriving Mercury's orbital anomaly without the
Schwarzschild metric caused Hilbert to come up with BS in desperation.
Box: Elsewhere in 1905
[...]
application of E = mc^2 with the detonation of the first atomic bomb.
If (m = m0 sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)), there would be no atomic bomb. What
is the big deal about (E = m c^2)?
How can the world be such ignorant?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Michelson Morley explained by Total Energy equation
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: Michelson Morley explained by Total Energy equation
- Prev by Date: Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- Next by Date: Re: A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
- Previous by thread: Re: Michelson Morley explained by Total Energy equation
- Next by thread: Re: Michelson Morley explained by Total Energy equation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
