Not even wrong

Abstract: U-2 observations have revealed anisotropy in the 3 K blackbody radiation which bathes the universe. The radiation is a few millidegrees ho er in the direction of Leo, and cooler in the direction of Aquarius. The spread around the mean describes a cosine curve. Such observations have far reaching implications for both the history of the early universe and in predictions of its future development. Based on the measurements of anisotropy, the entire Milky Way is calculated to move through the intergalactic medium at approximately 600 kms. It is noted that in a frame of reference moving with the original plasma emi ed by the big bang, the blackbody radiation would have a temperature of 4500 K. Nobody cared about that, even though it went into the Scientific American! The general reaction was: “So if you assume the cosmic background radiation field is an absolute frame of reference, you can derive absolute motion. So what?” The idea that the public in general gives a damn about special relativity is wrong. In any case, Einstein says that general relativity – which is background independent and thus compatible with any metric, not just Lorentz invariance – is the correct theory, not special or “restricted” relativity: ‘The special theory of relativity ... does not extend to non-uniform motion ... The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity... The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). ...’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916. No newspaper published this on the front page in 1916 with a headline like “Einstein says special relativity is bunk in general!”, because relativity only got into the newspapers in 1919 when general relativity was verified by deflection of starlight. What you find is that few people know what general relativity is about beyond the mathematical structure. If you treat these things as purely mathematical systems, then physical facts are all too easily dismissed as philosophical speculations. This is the problem. Einstein never presented either special or general relativity as a physical theory with causal mechanisms because he was too far into Mach’s philosophy that only stuff the observer measures is real. He did make a mess of things when he stated: ‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, p23. Problem was, Einstein did not have the data required about the various force fields (the standard model of particle physics) when he was trying to solve the problems, and that was only developed (a er a lot of experimentation with particle physics) in the 1970s. Theories must be based on experimental facts. Once you start trying to build a theory which unifies Smolin, Woit, the failure of string theory, and how string theory responds... http://nige.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/smolin-woit-the-failure-of-string... Стр. 12 из16 24.08.2013 12:06 speculative spin-2 gravitons with speculative Planck scale unification, by means of adding speculative extra dimensions, supersymmetric partners, an increase of tunable standard model parameters from 19 to 125 or more, etc., you’re no longer doing physics. That’s where mainstream physics is today, without even mentioning the cosmology crisis with evolving dark energy, etc. I’m writing up a textbook presenting the facts, but the more I learn about the current crisis and the way that even people like Drs Woit and Smolin actually think about physics, the clearer it becomes that even if string theory sinks, physics is not the scientific subject I thought it to be when a kid. Instead, physics is all about prejudices of one form or another, and closed-mindedness. It’s too much about elite power politics, not li le concerned with facts. That’s not new of course, things are always difficult. Comment by nige — April 14, 2007 @ 9:10 am Reply Nige wrote: “Pentcho, you’re wrong in claiming that Einstein taught people that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential. He actually taught that the velocity of light varies with the gravitational potential. The speed remains constant; the velocity varies because the direction changes and velocity is a vector, a statement of speed and direction not just speed.” h p://www.pi .edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf “What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?”, John D. Norton: “...ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, [einstein] HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential.” h p://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: “... SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT.” h p://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm “So, IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: “On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,”Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book “The Principle of Relativity.” You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein”s derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c’ = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured.” h p://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html “Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about THE SPEED OF LIGHT CHANGING in this new theory. In the 1920 book “Relativity: the special and general theory” he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so.” 5. Smolin, Woit, the failure of string theory, and how string theory responds... http://nige.wordpress.com/2007/03/17/smolin-woit-the-failure-of-string... Стр. 13 из16 24.08.2013 12:06 Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com Comment by Pentcho Valev — April 26, 2007 @ 5:44 am Reply NC’s note in response to above comment: Pentcho, I’ve modified this comment by editing out some of the superfluous material in the quotes which make them unreadably off-topic and irrelevant. I’ve explained to you that the effect of gravity in general relativity is change the direction of light, which means changing the velocity, not the speed. If your car is going 100 miles per hour and changes direction without changing speed, its velocity changes. Your quotation of John D. Norton indicates he doesn’t understand the distinction between vectors like velocity and scalars like speed, because he is completely wrong. Your quotation of Lee Smolin is interesting polemics. The quote you give from h p://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts /ae13.cfm is completely inaccurate physics: Einstein’s 1911 paper is wrong. Your quotation from h p://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html just shows how that site is confused about Einstein’s general relativity, first claiming to be quoting Einstein saying the speed of light depends on gravity, then giving a quotation where Einstein clearly and correctly states that the velocity (not speed) depends on gravity. Consider now a black hole. Light can’t escape from it (the Hawking radiation mechanism has light produced just beyond the event horizon due to pair production, with one charge in the pairs of charges created falling into the black hole). Is this because light which is moving in the outward radial direction in a black hole is slowed down and can’t escape? What happens here is crucial. R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr. in 1959 proved that light is redshi ed by gravity, as predicted by general relativity by sending gamma rays upwards in a 22.5 metres high tower and measuring the shi in gamma ray energy using the extremely sensitive Mößbauer effect, see h p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment So you send gamma rays or light upwards against gravity, and it loses energy. It is not deflected by gravity in this case, because the light is travelling parallel to (i.e., along) radial gravitational field lines. The question is whether gravitationally redshi ed light is slowed down, and blueshi ed light speeded up. In the longitudinal Doppler effect with sound in air, this doesn’t happen because the whistle sound from a receding train travels at the same speed towards you that it would in the air regardless of the train’s recession speed. The physics of the Doppler shi is that the wavelengths of the sound are stretched at the b