Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: EINSTEINIANA CONTRE LES REVISIONNISTES
Replies: 15   Last Post: Feb 22, 2013 9:04 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Pentcho Valev

Posts: 3,422
Registered: 12/13/04
EINSTEINIANA CONTRE LES REVISIONNISTES
Posted: Nov 29, 2012 9:15 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

http://semparis.lpthe.jussieu.fr/poster?searchpattern=7877&searchfield=Key&outputform=3
Mardi 4 Décembre 2012, 16 :00. Orateur : Alexandre Moatti (Université Paris 7). Résumé : L'orateur s'attache à analyser l'incompréhension et parfois le rejet à caractère non scientifique que suscite la théorie de la relativité, de sa publication jusqu'à l'Anné mondiale de la physique en 2005. Dès la Première Guerre mondiale, des savants français attaquent "la science allemande", dotée d'un "esprit de géométrie" disproportionné, par opposition à la "science française" et son "esprit de finesse". A partir de 1922, parfois avec des argument similaires, ce seront certains savants allemands (dont des prix Nobel de physique), et le parti national-socialiste, qui stigmatiseront la relativité, comme une "science dégénérée", opposée à la Deutsche Physik. Encore de nos jours, des révisionnistes scientifiques continuent à attaquer la relativité, nourrissant des courants alterscientifiques, proches de la théorie du complot ou du créationnisme."

Bravo, Moatti! A bas les révisionnistes et tous les autres ennemis de la Théorie Divine d'Albert le Divin! Mais est-ce qu'il y en a des révisionnistes en France aujourd'hui? A mon avis, l'esprit critique et libre est mort depuis longtemps. Jacques Maritain était peut-être le dernier avec un tel esprit:

http://www.amazon.ca/Oeuvres-compl%C3%A8tes-Jacques-Maritain/dp/2850492752
Jacques Maritain, Oeuvres complètes, Volume 3, p. 285: "Il ne reste plus alors qu'à avouer que la théorie [d'Einstein], si l'on donnait une signification ontologiquement réelle aux entités qu'elle met en jeu, comporterait des absurdités; entièrement logique et cohérente comme système hypothético-déductif et synthèse mathématique des phénomènes, elle n'est pas, malgré les prétensions de ses partisans, une philosophie de la nature, parce que le principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière, sur lequel elle s'appuie, ne peut pas être ontologiquement vrai." p. 300: "La science, même la plus mélangée d'hypothétique et de probable, même la moins élevée en intellectualité, la science est chose bonne en elle-même, et qui détient une étincelle divine. On a vu toutefois ce qu'elle peut produire, lorsqu'elle est employée par l'homme, en fait de ruines matérielles et de destructions sanglantes. Les désastres qu'en usant d'elle les apprentis sorciers peuvent provoquer dans l'ordre de l'esprit, pour être invisibles, ne sont pas moins énormes."

Des esprits critiques et libres existent même aujourd'hui mais pas en France:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "In the interwar period there was a significant school of thought that repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds that it contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics held extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to discredit their technical objections to relativity as being scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. (...) The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.