Histspec
- 136
- 57
After reading the Bad Nauheim debate (1920) between Albert Einstein and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Lenard" , there are three critical points raised by Lenard against relativity (see also the following descriptions of the debate by Hermann Weyl, Gehrcke, Körner):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Bad_Nauheim_Debate
a) That for every physical process there must be a corresponding explanation in the aether, that is, there must be an "illustrative" explanation by "images of the second kind", as opposed to mathematical explanations by images of the "first kind".
b) Only forces that are produced by masses can exist, but not the fictitious gravitational forces in the accelerated frames of general relativity. Therefore, in the case of a decelerating train, it is in fact the train that accelerates, not the environment.
c) That in rotating frames the speed of light is not constant, for example, when the Earth is considered at rest, than the universe is rotating - especially at its rim - with superluminal velocity.
Einstein's response:
a) What we call "illustrative" or "common sense" has changed in time, and therefore it cannot be regarded as a criterion of the theory's correctness.
b) He argues that the "fictitious" gravitational forces in accelerated frames are the products of the "distant masses". (Einstein evidently was alluding to Mach's principle.)
c) He says that in rotating frames the speed of light is indeed not constant, but this is no problem as in general relativity other rules for the speed of light apply than for special relativity.
It's notable, that Lenard (who never understood relativity) became a member of the Nazi party, and was the founder of the racist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik" .
Regards,
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Bad_Nauheim_Debate
a) That for every physical process there must be a corresponding explanation in the aether, that is, there must be an "illustrative" explanation by "images of the second kind", as opposed to mathematical explanations by images of the "first kind".
b) Only forces that are produced by masses can exist, but not the fictitious gravitational forces in the accelerated frames of general relativity. Therefore, in the case of a decelerating train, it is in fact the train that accelerates, not the environment.
c) That in rotating frames the speed of light is not constant, for example, when the Earth is considered at rest, than the universe is rotating - especially at its rim - with superluminal velocity.
Einstein's response:
a) What we call "illustrative" or "common sense" has changed in time, and therefore it cannot be regarded as a criterion of the theory's correctness.
b) He argues that the "fictitious" gravitational forces in accelerated frames are the products of the "distant masses". (Einstein evidently was alluding to Mach's principle.)
c) He says that in rotating frames the speed of light is indeed not constant, but this is no problem as in general relativity other rules for the speed of light apply than for special relativity.
It's notable, that Lenard (who never understood relativity) became a member of the Nazi party, and was the founder of the racist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik" .
Regards,
Last edited by a moderator: