LORENTZ VIOLATIONS POSTPONED
Pentcho Valev
money-spinner was dying and more money could be made in the area
called "Beyond Einstein". They also discovered that "Beyond Einstein"
implies "Lorentz violations" and all rushed in that direction but then
two silly careless Einsteinians wrote something awful:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."
Magueijo and Moffat's carelessness forced the experts to postpone the
Lorentz violations and camouflage the whole issue. Except for Alan
Kostelecky and his friends, in the next few years, Einsteinians will
only be able to make money WITHIN Divine Albert's Divine Theory. There
is no "Beyond Einstein":
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081015144155.htm
"Physicists working to disprove "Lorentz invariance" -- Einstein's
prediction that matter and massless particles will behave the same no
matter how they're turned or how fast they go -- won't get that
satisfaction from muon neutrinos, at least for the time being, says a
consortium of scientists.....Neutrinos travel at close to the speed of
light, are unaffected by gravitational and magnetic fields....."Every
experiment so far has not found violations of Lorentz invariance,"
Mufson said. "That doesn't mean we'll stop looking. We knew the MINOS
Experiment presented a new way of seeking out violations, and in a
difference place. We do things that are simple and look for something
profound."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
violations and especially the idea that the speed of light varies with
the frequency:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/codpiece-topology.html
"First of all, she follows Lee Smolin in claiming that the quantized
character of the space leads to violations the Lorentz invariance: a
different speed of light for different frequencies (or colors). That's
of course nonsense. Violations of the Lorentz symmetry are both
unnecessary as well as unjustified in a theory of quantum gravity and
all promising models and theories of particle physics and quantum
gravity still respect the Lorentz symmetry. Quite generally, Lorentz
violations also make perpetuum mobile possible in the presence of
black holes which is very bad for the consistency of any such theory."
Yet string theorists should not attack Lee Smolin: his "quantized
character of the space" and "a different speed of light for different
frequencies" are just silly reinterpretations of Einstein's discovery
that the speed of light obeys Newton's particle (discontinuous) model
of light, not the wave model according to which light is a continuous
field:
http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? 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://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein: "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's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
changed: now making career and money by introducing extremely small
Lorentz violations that cannot damage Divine Albert's Divine Theory at
all is too trivial. So Einsteinians are going to introduce "a new
potential class of violations of the Lorentz symmetry (this underlies
the mathematics of relativity) that could be 30 orders of magnitude—
10^30 times—larger than currently known violations" that may
RELATIVELY violate Divine Albert's Divine Theory:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/12/11/relative-violations-of-relativity
"Relative violations of relativity......Despite this high level of
precision and the countless tests carried out to date, a duo of
physicists from Indiana University have decided to essentially ask the
question, "have we missed anything?" In a paper set to appear in an
upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review Letters, the two confirm
that there is a relative elephant in the room that may have been
overlooked. They postulate that there may be a new potential class of
violations of the Lorentz symmetry (this underlies the mathematics of
relativity) that could be 30 orders of magnitude—10^30 times—larger
than currently known violations. These violations could manifest in
all the spatial directions, as well as time itself, and potentially be
different in all of them."
Needless to say, Einstein zombie world will invariably be singing "Yes
we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":
"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> Lorentz violations are not postponed after all. Rather, times have
> changed: now making career and money by introducing extremely small
> Lorentz violations that cannot damage Divine Albert's Divine Theory at
> all is too trivial. So Einsteinians are going to introduce "a new
> potential class of violations of the Lorentz symmetry (this underlies
> the mathematics of relativity) that could be 30 orders of magnitude—
> 10^30 times—larger than currently known violations" that may
> RELATIVELY violate Divine Albert's Divine Theory:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/12/11/relative-violations-of-relativity
> "Relative violations of relativity......Despite this high level of
> precision and the countless tests carried out to date, a duo of
> physicists from Indiana University have decided to essentially ask the
> question, "have we missed anything?" In a paper set to appear in an
> upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review Letters, the two confirm
> that there is a relative elephant in the room that may have been
> overlooked. They postulate that there may be a new potential class of
> violations of the Lorentz symmetry (this underlies the mathematics of
> relativity) that could be 30 orders of magnitude—10^30 times—larger
> than currently known violations. These violations could manifest in
> all the spatial directions, as well as time itself, and potentially be
> different in all of them."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090105150837.htm
"IU distinguished physics professor Alan Kostelecky and graduate
student Jay Tasson take on the long-held notion of the exact symmetry
promulgated in Einstein's 1905 theory and show in a paper to be
published in Physical Review Letters that there may be unexpected
violations of Lorentz invariance that can be detected in specialized
experiments. "It is surprising and delightful that comparatively large
relativity violations could still be awaiting discovery despite a
century of precision testing," said Kostelecky. "Discovering them
would be like finding a camel in a haystack instead of a needle." If
the findings help reveal the first evidence of Lorentz violations, it
would prove relativity is not exact. Space-time would not look the
same in all directions and there would be measurable relativity
violations, however minuscule."
Alan Kostelecky's brothers:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."
Einstein zombie world:
ukastronomy
life with so many posts to construct each and everyday.
You do have a normal life - don't you?