🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 27, 4:53 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Seventh Next Einstein Lee Smolin, Fourth Next Einstein Giovanni
> Amelino-Camelia and Former Next Einstein Joao Magueijo deeply
> understand the falsehood of Einstein's principle of constancy of the
> speed of light:
>
> 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.....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! This was understood a few years
> ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
> did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
> College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
> coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
> seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
> was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
> had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
> Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
> relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
>
> Since Second Next Einstein Stephen Hawking deeply understands the
> Michelson-Morley experiment, he has received the Michelson-Morley
> Award:
>
> http://admission.case.edu/admissions/news/news_story.asp?iNewsID=243&strBack=%2Fadmissions%2Fnews%2Fnews_archive.asp
> "While in Cleveland, Hawking will receive the Michelson-Morley Award
> for his outstanding contributions to science. The Michelson-Morley
> experiment took place at the Case Institute of Technology in 1887,
> where Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that the speed of
> light is constant, independent by its direction or the speed of its
> source, discoveries later reflected in Albert Einstein's theory of
> relativity."
>
> Einsteinian John Norton does not understand the Michelson-Morley
> experiment so deeply and for that reason he will NEVER be Next
> Einstein and will NEVER be given the Michelson-Morley Award:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."

Like Second Next Einstein Stephen Hawking and unlike Ordinary
Einsteinian John Norton, George Smoot, Recipient, The 2006 Nobel Prize
for Physics, deeply understands the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smoot06/smoot06_index.html
George Smoot: "I have often wondered what special abilities and
circumstances led Einstein to his breakthroughs in the miracle year of
1905. When I taught special relativity to my physics students at
Berkeley, I tended, like many of my colleagues, to follow a well-worn
path: first, the Michelson-Morley experiment ("The most important
thing that ever happened in Cleveland"), with its null result on the
motion of Earth through the so-called luminerifous aether (thought to
be the medium carrying light waves) and its demonstration that the
speed of light is constant."

Yet Seventh Next Einstein Lee Smolin does not see George Smoot as a
Next Einstein because, although George Smoot deeply understands the
Michelson-Morley experiment, as an experimentalist he is not always
consistent in his understanding and sometimes says dangerous things:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smoot06/smoot06_index.html
George Smoot: "The flaw in this beautiful account was that Einstein
had often denied knowing about the work of A. A. Michelson and Edward
Morley; his ideas came from thinking about what it would be like to
ride along on a beam of light. It would seem that we were misleading
the students to the right conclusions. This discrepancy disturbed me,
and I finally searched out an obscure report of an interview with
Einstein in Japan in which he remarked that he had indeed heard of the
Michelson-Morley result before 1905. Why was this remark buried
beneath his other widely covered comments that he had come to special
relativity by what appeared to be pure thought? Einstein had certainly
known of Lorentz's work, and by implication that of Michelson and
Morley......Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools,
especially when there are no observations to guide the effort, made me
uneasy--seemed a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial
spheres. More recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special
relativity not on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical
observation and codifying theory--in particular, electromagnetism and
the theory of light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Einstein was
certainly aware of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell
side, not the Michelson-Morley results. He was reducing these ideas
down to two essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1)
The speed of light is definite and independent of the speed of the
source or of the observer...."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com