🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 14, 9:23 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/greene06/greene06_index.html
> Brian Greene: "For decades, however, the force of gravity stubbornly
> resisted joining the fold. The problem was the very one that so
> troubled Einstein: the disjunction between his own general relativity,
> most relevant for extremely massive objects like stars and galaxies,
> and quantum mechanics, the framework invoked by physics to deal with
> exceptionally small objects like molecules and atoms and their
> constituents. Time and again, attempts to merge the two theories
> resulted in ill-defined mathematics, much like what happens on a
> calculator if you try to divide one by zero. The display will flash an
> error message, reprimanding you for misusing mathematics. The combined
> equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics yield similar
> problems. While the conflict rears its head only in environments that
> are both extremely massive and exceptionally tiny -- black holes and
> the Big Bang being two primary examples -- it tells of a FISSURE IN THE
> VERY FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS."
>
> Suggestion: the FISSURE IN THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS consists in
> the contradiction between Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c)
> and the true equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of
> light (v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer).
> In the presence of a gravitational field, c'=c+v is replaced by an
> equivalent (true) equation, c'=c(1+V/c^2), deduced by Einstein himself
> in 1911 (V is the gravitational potential).
>
> String theorists may disagree about the falsehood of c'=c and the
> truth of c'=c+v and c'=c(1+V/c^2), but in any event they should
> discuss (have discussed) the issue both explicitly and thoroughly.

In other words, string theorists should comment on Einstein's 1909
confession:

http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4683/vol_1/4683_chap1_4.pdf
Albert Einstein, 1909: "It is indeed undeniable, that there is an
extensive group of facts concerning radiation, which show that certain
fundamental characteristics must be attached to light that can be
understood far easily from the vewpoint of Newton's emission theory of
light than the vewpoint of the undulatory theory."

Could the speed of light be one of those "fundamental
characteristics"? Compare with:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com