Was Einstein Wrong? Check Out The NY Times Article

[lockecole]

Please, take a look at the last paragraph of the http://www.aliasabur.com/nytimes.html then read the whole article and answer my question.

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by lockecole
Please, take a look at the last paragraph of the http://www.aliasabur.com/nytimes.html then read the whole article and answer my question.

It should really come as no shock to anyone that Einstein might have been wrong about something. Like all physicists, some theories fly, some sink. The constancy of the speed of light is not strictly the brainchild of Einstein, by the way. It's unfortunately for his contemporaries (Lorentz, Mach, etc...) that their contributions to the development of relativity theory are lost to the Einstein PR Machine...

 

[Norman]

Variable speed of light cosmologies are gaining ground. There are only a few people in the world working on them. Check around on the web and in the cosmology forum. I believe that the idea is that a varying speed of light might explain some interesting cosmological effects we are seeing today, such as an accelerating universe and why it is accelerating now (as in this point in time). If you are really interested someone will know on here about it.
cheers,
Norm

 

[Norman]

Here is one of the first papers by one of the leading researchers in the field. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305457
For those that care, appearantly varying speed of light cosmologies do not solve the flatness problem since in their purest form no violation of the strong energy condition occurs. But they can supposedly be easily adapted into inflationary theories that do solve the flatness problem.
Cheers,
Norm

 

[russ_watters]

Einstein was wrong about a number of things: he was even sometimes wrong about being right and right about being wrong (cosmological constant).

This is not one of those things.

 

[Integral]

The constant Speed of light is not Einstein's it is Maxwell's. Einstein only showed the RESULTS of a constant speed of light.

Originally posted by GRQC It's unfortunately for his contemporaries (Lorentz, Mach, etc...) that their contributions to the development of relativity theory are lost to the Einstein PR Machine...

Thats why they call them the Einstein transforms... No wait...

It seems that others have received some recognition for their work!

 

[ZapperZ]

Originally posted by Norman
Variable speed of light cosmologies are gaining ground. There are only a few people in the world working on them. Check around on the web and in the cosmology forum. I believe that the idea is that a varying speed of light might explain some interesting cosmological effects we are seeing today, such as an accelerating universe and why it is accelerating now (as in this point in time). If you are really interested someone will know on here about it.
cheers,
Norm

If you're referring to the possible variation to the fine structure constant that may in turn suggest that c may have been different during the history of our universe, then you may want to hold back on jumping on this bandwagon just yet. There are three separate papers that have thrown serious doubt to the original "discovery" by J.K Webb et al. The first two can be found in the references at the end of this Nature science update piece at

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030428/030428-20.html

The 2nd one, and more recent, is the paper by T. Ashenfelter et al.[1] reporting that the observation made by Webb et al. from the globular clusters can be explained via the synthesis of various isotopes of Mg. This affects the absorption spectra of the quasars observed by Webb et al., and can be explained without invoking any variation in alpha.

Zz.

[1] T Ashenfelter et al., PRL v.92, p.041102 (2004).

 

[NanoTech]

I give much props to the 14-year old prodigy, but I can't understand why she would think light isn't constant. Unless she has derived a whole new set of mathematics, then I will doubt it anytime soon. Give her about 5 years, then we'll see, haha! ~Dave

 

[Norman]

Originally posted by ZapperZ
If you're referring to the possible variation to the fine structure constant that may in turn suggest that c may have been different during the history of our universe, then you may want to hold back on jumping on this bandwagon just yet. There are three separate papers that have thrown serious doubt to the original "discovery" by J.K Webb et al. The first two can be found in the references at the end of this Nature science update piece at

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030428/030428-20.html

The 2nd one, and more recent, is the paper by T. Ashenfelter et al.[1] reporting that the observation made by Webb et al. from the globular clusters can be explained via the synthesis of various isotopes of Mg. This affects the absorption spectra of the quasars observed by Webb et al., and can be explained without invoking any variation in alpha.

Zz.

[1] T Ashenfelter et al., PRL v.92, p.041102 (2004).

Actually I was looking into this theory as an explanation of anomalies with ultra high energy cosmic rays (which is part of my research). But another question they claim to possibly explain is the acceleration of the universe and the WMAP data. I actually don't like the idea on a fundamental level and until they can rectify the flatness problem I do not see them as being a serious contender. I just wanted to let the person know who originally asked about the ideas that were out there. Because it is possible (albeit a small possibility in my mind) that they may be a good solution to some issues in cosmology.
Cheers,
Norm

 

[cookiemonster]

Sounds like an interesting person. I wouldn't mind meeting her someday.

Of course, I'll have to catch up first...

cookiemonster

 

[pmb_phy]

Originally posted by Integral
The constant Speed of light is not Einstein's it is Maxwell's. Einstein only showed the RESULTS of a constant speed of light.

Einstein was responsible for postulating that the speed of light is independant of the motion of the source. That was assumed not to be true before Einstein. Einstein in his famous 1905 paper made two postulates, one of which he stated as follows - he first postulates the principle or relativity and then goes on to say

..., and also introduce an other postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light always propagates in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independant of the state of motion of the emitting body.

 

[Integral]

Why was Einstein able to POSTULATE this? Why did he not have to prove it? Because MAXWELL predicted it, and the entire Physics community had spend 40 yrs attempting to disprove it. Needless to say they were unable to. As soon as Maxwell derived an expression for the speed of Electro Magnetic waves consisting only of fundamental constants it became clear that this speed was independent of any motion of the source.

You cannot simply postulate something out of the blue, there must be some evidence, if you are attempting to create a meaningful physical theory, that is. Not only did Einstein have a sound tested theory predicting the constancy of c, he had direct experimental verification from Michelson and Morley. All that has changed in the last 100 yrs is a compounding of the evidence that c is indeed a constant.

 

[ZapperZ]

Originally posted by Integral
Why was Einstein able to POSTULATE this? Why did he not have to prove it? Because MAXWELL predicted it, and the entire Physics community had spend 40 yrs attempting to disprove it. Needless to say they were unable to. As soon as Maxwell derived an expression for the speed of Electro Magnetic waves consisting only of fundamental constants it became clear that this speed was independent of any motion of the source.

You cannot simply postulate something out of the blue, there must be some evidence, if you are attempting to create a meaningful physical theory, that is. Not only did Einstein have a sound tested theory predicting the constancy of c, he had direct experimental verification from Michelson and Morley. All that has changed in the last 100 yrs is a compounding of the evidence that c is indeed a constant.

I'm not certain that Maxwell made the same prediction as Einstein regarding "c" being a constant. Remember that the biggest problem with Maxwell equations back then was their non-covariant form under Galilean transformation. So he had no way of showing the "c" is covariant in all reference frame. All he could get out of his equations was that c depends on the permittivity and permeability of "free space", which at that time still had an "ether". This is fundamentally different than Einstein's postulate that "c" is covariant in all reference frame, allowing for the formulation of the covariant form of Maxwell equations under a Lorentz transformation.

Also, based on all the biographies of Einstein that I have read (a total of 3 different books), and a conversation I had with H. Barschall back in the 1980's while I was still an undergrad at UW-Madison, Einstein was not aware of the MM experiment when he wrote his 1905 SR paper. He certainly made no references to the experiment in that paper, which would be rather strange if he had known about it since one would think he would have cited it to strenghten his argument.

Zz.

 

[toasty]

Maybe C like some other once called constants is banded - behaves like a constant in one condition but in another does not.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by toasty
Maybe C like some other once called cosntants is banded - behaves like a constant in one condition but in another does not.

We have yet to observe a phenomenon that shows C to not be constant.

 

[Integral]

If Einstein was making a startling new claim in his 1905 paper concerning the speed of light, he would not have been able to postulate it. He would have had to back up this claim in some manner. The very fact that he did not do this, and that his contemporaries were not bothered by this claim is verification of my argument that speed of light was commonly accepted to be as Einstein postulated. The postulate was not and could not be a controversial claim at the time it was made. Only now after a century has passed when Einstein is either legendary hero or legendary heel is there any question of this issue.

Einstein has already drawn fire because of his lack of reference to the work of others, so you say that his failure to mention the M-M experiment is proof that he was unaware of it? I do not see that as proof of anything other then the fact that he does not speak of it. I find it hard to believe that, as involved in this issue as Einstein was, that he was unaware of M-M.

 

[ZapperZ]

Originally posted by Integral
If Einstein was making a startling new claim in his 1905 paper concerning the speed of light, he would not have been able to postulate it. He would have had to back up this claim in some manner. The very fact that he did not do this, and that his contemporaries were not bothered by this claim is verification of my argument that speed of light was commonly accepted to be as Einstein postulated. The postulate was not and could not be a controversial claim at the time it was made. Only now after a century has passed when Einstein is either legendary hero or legendary heel is there any question of this issue.

Then this is inconsistent with the resistance Einstein received when the SR paper came out, and why, even after many years, the Nobel committee would not award him the physics Nobel Prize for SR and instead opted for the photoelectric effect. By all accounts that I have read, this was singularly due to the "controversial" nature of Relativity. While there is already a value of "c" in free space, and Lorentz transformation is already in existence back then, I do believe that the postulates are new. I am not saying these postulates came out of thin air, but they have not been formulated this clearly to be incorporated into machanics.

Einstein has already drawn fire because of his lack of reference to the work of others, so you say that his failure to mention the M-M experiment is proof that he was unaware of it? I do not see that as proof of anything other then the fact that he does not speak of it. I find it hard to believe that, as involved in this issue as Einstein was, that he was unaware of M-M.

There are two separate issues here. First is that the criticism that Einstein failed to cite other works was solely based on claims by others that they have already produced such work, or something similar. This incorrectly perpetuates (till today) a few claims that Einstein "plagarized" the work of others. One would think that he would prefer,if he could, not to cite this - it is not to his advantage. On the other hand, the MM experiment would strenghten his case, rather than detract from it. So unlike the previous type, it is to his advantage to cite this, and he didn't.

Secondly, I drew my opinion on what he probably knew or didn't know not based on what I would imagine he would or would not do, but based on what I have gathered either by various biogrophers, or persons (Barschall) who have met and talked to him. If I am unjustified to insist that he knew nothing about MM based on such information, I would also say that it is also unjustified to claim the contrary.

Whatever the case, it does not diminish one bit the importance of the year 1905.

Zz.

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by ZapperZ
By all accounts that I have read, this was singularly due to the "controversial" nature of Relativity.

I think a more important fact was that the photoelectric effect was immediately testable. SR and GR were less-so.

 

[Integral]

Zapper,
All good and fine but while the RESULTS of a constant c created some controversy, the postulate did not. Why? If the postulates were in question the entire work would be meaningless. The postulates HAD to be accepted physics, not new revelations, or the paper would have been rejected out of hand.

 

[NanoTech]

Everyone should be reminded about the German physics establisment of the time, particularly the publishers of the leading physics journal, Annals of Physics, who took the risk- one that few journals today would dare- of publishing 2 revolutionary articles written by an unknown employee of the Swiss patent office! And we shouldn't overlook Einstein's remarkable mental balance. It's easy to imagine how destabilizing it might have been for a young man of 26, working alone, to come up with the solution to problems that had foiled people with twice his experience for generations! Yet he did so with astonishing ease..

 

[Integral]

Do not forget also that Einstein was a graduate of a Physics program of a reputable school. He had some conflicts with a prominent professor which made it very difficult for him to find a position in physics.

 

[toasty]

Originally posted by Integral
Do not forget also that Einstein was a graduate of a Physics program of a reputable school. He had some conflicts with a prominent professor which made it very difficult for him to find a position in physics.

Vested interests always fear the truth, even here!

Getting back to the question of the supposed 'constant' C, can we now again begin to think of experiments - isn't that what Science is supposed to do? - which explore other aspects of the illusion that we experience as light?

For example when I blow my whistle on a train it sounds to me as if it plays in G, but to a person on a bridge listening as I approach it sounds like A above G and on passing like E below G.

Thus is not the expected effect of perceived light moving towards one bound to be 'brighter' and on passing 'darker'?

And if so, can we now note it could only be so if like sound it had to have a medium by which it moves.

Accordingly when in some environments it could be expected to behave in a very
unC way, which brings me back to the original point about the universe - it abhors constants!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by toasty
Getting back to the question of the supposed 'constant' C, can we now again begin to think of experiments - isn't that what Science is supposed to do? - which explore other aspects of the illusion that we experience as light?

For example when I blow my whistle on a train it sounds to me as if it plays in G, but to a person on a bridge listening as I approach it sounds like A above G and on passing like E below G.

Thus is not the expected effect of perceived light moving towards one bound to be 'brighter' and on passing 'darker'?

And if so, can we now note it could only be so if like sound it had to have a medium by which it moves.

Good analogy and a good illustration of the most common misconception about how light propagates. Usually though, people connect that to a non-constant C, but brightness - no. Brightness is amplitude. With a train whistle, it doesn't sound louder or softer because of doppler shift, it just changes the pitch (frequency).

Light experiences motion related doppler shifts, but it doesn't affect speed of light measurements.

There are hundreds of permutations of M&M type experiments that have attempted for more than a hundred years to find an ether. All have failed.

 

[toasty]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Good analogy and a good illustration of the most common misconception about how light propagates. Usually though, people connect that to a non-constant C, but brightness - no. Brightness is amplitude. With a train whistle, it doesn't sound louder or softer because of doppler shift, it just changes the pitch (frequency).

Light experiences motion related doppler shifts, but it doesn't affect speed of light measurements.

There are hundreds of permutations of M&M type experiments that have attempted for more than a hundred years to find an ether. All have failed.

Thanks for the critique! The word 'ether'
is a better one to 'black light' which I have also heard about in this discussion.


Nontheless, I do think that we shall find some thing in between light source and target that enables the effect. IOW I do not think light can propagate in absolute nothing.

I expect I should now be exploring 'vacuum' and what we know about that one.

 

[Integral]

Notice that in 2 years the "shell" has grown less then 2 light years, so what ever it is that is expanding is moving at less then c. What is the problem with this?

 

[toasty]

Originally posted by Integral
Notice that in 2 years the "shell" has grown less then 2 light years, so what ever it is that is expanding is moving at less then c. What is the problem with this?

Since I made a mistake in it I removed the entry, but must clarify what I took notice of; Hubble object V838 images taken in May 2002 and again in Feb 2004 shows growth of 2-3 lightyears.

However we are looking at some kind of gas of debris and it is highly unlikely that such a thing could happen if C is constant and the limit of velocity in the universe.

At close to C nothing except light should be showing itself and this image shows something is happening at the same or a greater velocity.

 

[Integral]

Since I made a mistake in it I removed the entry,

Does this mean that, to keep you honest, we need to do a complete quote of each of your entries?

The particles scattering the light we see need not be moving at all. So you have found nothing unusual. You simply lack the fundamental knowledge required to meaningfully assess what you are seeing.

 

[NateTG]

Note that the assumtion is that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. The speed of light need not be constant in accelerated reference frames.

 

[toasty]

"You simply lack the fundamental knowledge required to meaningfully assess what you are seeing."

You are so into squiggle that you cannot correctly interpret the real world when it is staring right at you!

 

[toasty]

Originally posted by NateTG
Note that the assumtion is that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. The speed of light need not be constant in accelerated reference frames.

Yes in a way that is what could be going on here; but, what should be taking front seat is the event itself.

Perhaps the so called empty space is not as empty as we have been told, perhaps under different conditions / environments C is not @ 186k m/sec

What I do notice here is that from precisely these kinds of events we shall soon learn many new things including what ends Einstein's account based as it was upon an unmeasurably small part of reality.

 

[Integral]

What I do notice here is that from precisely these kinds of events we shall soon learn many new things including what ends Einstein's account based as it was upon an unmeasurably small part of reality.

While much is yet to be learned the work of Einstein, like the work of Newton will be the basis for advances to be made. What we now know matchs the universe to well to be thrown out.

What makes you think that you have a special handle on reality?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by toasty
Since I made a mistake in it I removed the entry, but must clarify what I took notice of; Hubble object V838 images taken in May 2002 and again in Feb 2004 shows growth of 2-3 lightyears.

However we are looking at some kind of gas of debris and it is highly unlikely that such a thing could happen if C is constant and the limit of velocity in the universe.

At close to C nothing except light should be showing itself and this image shows something is happening at the same or a greater velocity.

It's kinda tough working out what toasty posted then removed; it seems to be a reference to http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2004/10/images/b/formats/web_print.jpg has also been seen.

Needless to say, no need for variable c, or any other new physics.

 

[toasty]

Originally posted by Nereid
It's kinda tough working out what toasty posted then removed; it seems to be a reference to http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2004/10/images/b/formats/web_print.jpg has also been seen.

Needless to say, no need for variable c, or any other new physics.

If we cannot trust the evidence then what is left to investigate?

 

[ZapperZ]

Originally posted by Integral
Zapper,
All good and fine but while the RESULTS of a constant c created some controversy, the postulate did not. Why? If the postulates were in question the entire work would be meaningless. The postulates HAD to be accepted physics, not new revelations, or the paper would have been rejected out of hand.

Hi Integral...

Not to drag this thing longer than it should, but in the March 2004 issue of the APS News (starting on pg. 4), there are 4 separate letters responding to Millikan's 1949 tribute to Einstein. Each one of them questioned Millikan's assertion that Einstein either knew, or were significantly influenced by the MM experiment in his formulation of Special Relativity. There appears to be a unanimous agreement, at least in this issue, that at best, MM experiment played no significant role in SR's formulation.

There are also descriptions on why the 1905 SR paper was significant, but that's a separate issue than what I want to emphasize here. :)

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by toasty
If we cannot trust the evidence then what is left to investigate?

Nothing. So it would seem, you've painted yourself into a corner.

 

[kinnabird5]

just a small side thought...when Einstein made his first in home weekly calender, he forgot saturday. he told people he liked friday so much that he wanted two of them.

 

[ZapperZ]

Originally posted by kinnabird5
just a small side thought...when Einstein made his first in home weekly calender, he forgot saturday. he told people he liked friday so much that he wanted two of them.

Maybe HE was the first one to yell "Thank God It's Friday!" :)

He probably said that right before the God-Dice thing... OK, I think I need to cut back on my caffine intake.

Zz.

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by ZapperZ
Hi Integral...

Not to drag this thing longer than it should, but in the March 2004 issue of the APS News (starting on pg. 4), there are 4 separate letters responding to Millikan's 1949 tribute to Einstein. Each one of them questioned Millikan's assertion that Einstein either knew, or were significantly influenced by the MM experiment in his formulation of Special Relativity. There appears to be a unanimous agreement, at least in this issue, that at best, MM experiment played no significant role in SR's formulation.

There are also descriptions on why the 1905 SR paper was significant, but that's a separate issue than what I want to emphasize here. :)

Zz.

It could very well be that Einstein's original paper was written as a response solely to Maxwell's prediction. Even without Michelson's failure to detect an ether experimentally, Maxwell's prediction shook the foundations of Physics. After all, it is WHY Michelson and Morley performed their experiment.