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

Topic: THE ONLY REASON BEHIND EINSTEIN'S 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE
Replies: 3   Last Post: Feb 12, 2014 5:23 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: 3,505
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: THE ONLY REASON BEHIND EINSTEIN'S 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE
Posted: Feb 12, 2014 4:29 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

All evidence, both theoretical and experimental, spoke in favour of the concept that speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of the observer, and yet Einstein wrestled with this concept "over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair". Eventually he procrusteanized time in order to create a world where the false antithesis (the speed of light does NOT vary with the speed of the observer) is ostensibly correct:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time..."

Yet the hoax was not fully successful - there is an Achilles heel to Einstein's relativity:

A light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000km). A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency of the pulses to be f=c/d:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif

An observer/receiver moving with speed v (let v be small so that the relativistic corrections can be ignored) towards the light source measures the frequency of the pulses to be f'=(c+v)/d:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif

The crucial question:

Why does the frequency shift from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d ?

Answer 1 (fatal for relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the observer/receiver shifts from c to c'=c+v.

Answer 2 (saving relativity): Because...

There is no reasonable statement that could become Answer 2.

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.