Теорията на относителността като идеология (Page 1 of 4)

"дължината на вълната се определя от източника"
не съм сигурен че схващам това, след като теорията обяснява защо измерваните дължини се различават - в случая именно дължината би била относителна, за което намеква наименованието на теорията
една друга реакция на същата работа:
http://tidbits.qrystal.name/post/107161 … relativity

"това очевидно увеличение на скоростта на светлината (по отношение на засиления наблюдател) е фатално за Айнщайниана"
дали е очевидно?
ако скоростта е постоянна, скъсяването на дължината на вълната дава увеличаване на честотата;
ако дължината е постоянна, и честотата расте, тогава съответно расте скоростта.

понякога се изкушавам от твърдението, че науката е в контраинтуитивното: по-тежките тела не падат по-бързо, слънцето не обикаля около земята, скоростите не се събират аритметично...

По-рано споменах че философът John Norton е най-умният представител на Айнщайниана и сега с три цитата ще се опитам да покажа това (разбира се, в Айнщайниана "умен" никак не се връзва с "честен"):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/p … index.html
John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive … 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."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

Последните два цитата трябва много внимателно да се съпоставят с две откровения на Айнщайн - едното направено през 1909 г. и другото през 1954 г. - и с едно много сполучливо описание на Banesh Hoffmann, един от апостолите на Айнщайн:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Devel … _Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index. … re_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, THAT IS ON CONTINUOUS STRUCTURES. Then NOTHING will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
John Stachel коментира хистерично: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Пенчо Вълев
pvalev@yahoo.com

Идеологическото възпитание в Айнщайниана започва рано. Под ръководството на опитни педагози, децата пеят "Divine Einstein" и скандират "Einstein! Einstein!  He's our man! If he can't solve it, no one can!":

http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/

http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

На по-високо ниво, студентите пеят "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" и понякога екстазът прелива в конвулсии:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

След това обучението протича гладко. Когато Stephen Hawking оборва John Michell като се позовава на експеримента на Майкелсън-Морли, първото и единствено нещо за което се сещат обучаемите е "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?opt … ;Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

Когато друг вожд в Айнщайниана, Steve Carlip, обяснява че скоростта на светлината е константа по дефиниция а в гравитационно поле тя е хем променлива хем константа, отново първото и единствено нещо за което се сещат обучаемите е "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R … light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is CONSTANT BY DEFINITION!....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. THIS INTERPRETATION IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general relativity."

Пенчо Вълев
pvalev@yahoo.com

Дори когато жреците на Айнщайниана изглеждат честно решени да избавят света от съсипващите рационалността абсурди, внимателният анализ показва че се касае за някакъв нов вид камуфлаж. В случая този "international team of leading philosophers and physicists" е решил да ликвидира абсурдите на специалната теория като се върне към Lorentz - нещо което само по себе си е абсурд но в епохата на постсциентизма, както казва Feyerabend, "anything goes": 

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simult … 0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Пенчо Вълев
pvalev@yahoo.com

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/19 … #seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

В Айнщайниана има и TRIPLETHINK когато се подхване най-опасната тема - темата за скоростта на светлината - и съзнанието на учените трябва да е изключително объркано. (1) Скоростта на светлината не варира с гравитационния потенциал. (2) Скоростта на светлината варира с гравитационния потенциал V в съответствие с уравнението на Айнщайн от 1911 г., c'=c(1+V/c^2), взаимствано от емисионната теория на Нютон . (3) Скоростта на светлината варира с гравитационния потенциал V в съответствие с "подобреното" уравнение на Айнщайн от 1915 г., c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Лъжата в случая са (1) и (3), и те са винаги една крачка пред истината (2):

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Tim … 0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed...)"

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
"Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant. Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z) times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z) L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a gravitational redshift."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annal … -908.pdf). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Пенчо Вълев
pvalev@yahoo.com

Има периоди в които, по неизвестни причини, жреците на Айнщайниана губят разсъдъка си, радикализират се и нищо свято за тях не остава - посягат на най-съкровеното - посягат на грешния втори постулат на Айнщайн от 1905 г. който ги храни и държи на върха на пирамидата вече цял век:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2003/ … teinwrong/
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … wanted=all
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word ''relative.''......''Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said. ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light.''

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees, Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more than 30 leading cosmologists."

Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
"LA RACINE DU MAL ETAIT CLAIREMENT LA RELATIVITE RESTREINTE. Tous ces paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin] devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais, comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement. (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne soit plus constante."

http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searc … _Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at a constant speed for all observers..."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin0 … 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."

Тези предреволюционни периоди не траят дълго - разсъдъкът се връща, революцията си остава завинаги "just around the corner" и отново настъпва спокойствие в блатото на постсциентизма. Грешният втори постулат на Айнщайн от 1905 г., издържал изпитанията, е по-верен от когато и да било.

Пенчо Вълев
pvalev@yahoo.com