http://bigthink.com/ideas/41222
Michio Kaku: "Now, they have done the experiment again, with a beam
spread out over 3 billionths of a second and they still find the
neutrino beam outracing the light beam. If you aren't aware already --
This is extremely bad news for relativity. According to Einstein,
nothing can go faster than light, so a neutrino beam cannot possibly
outrace a light beam! If this is the case - All hell breaks loose,
time goes backwards and all of modern physics has to essentially be
redone. But there is still hope for true believers (like me)."
There is no hope for Einsteiniana's true believers, Michio Kaku, even
if the OPERA result is wrong. Did the Maxwell's theory predict a
constant speed of light independent of the speed of the observer? You
believe yes, John Norton believes you are misstating the physics:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless
account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p.
45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was
vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:
Michio Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he
could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he
suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's
equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered
more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams
always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."
John Norton again: This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a
student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in
1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity.
Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the
ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That
theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of
a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
Gabrielle Bonnet and Stephen Hawking also believe what the Maxwell's
theory predicted a variable speed of light (that is, they are not true
believers):
http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
"empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed."
However 99% of Einsteinians are true believers, like you, Michio Kaku.
By definition, a true believer believes that BOTH the Maxwell's theory
and the Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirm Divine Albert's
Divine Special Relativity:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results
of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light
should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by
the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face
value by Einstein."
Only the cleverest Einsteinians, "the subtlest practitioners of
doublethink", would explicitly declare that the Michelson-Morley
experiment in fact confirmed Newton's emission theory of light:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com