Is Theoretical Physics Science?
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-01 14:19:12 UTC
Raw Message
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Is this still science?" has become a recurring question in the foundations of physics. Whether it's the multiverse, string theory, supersymmetry, or inflation, concerns abound that theoreticians have crossed a line. Science writer Jim Baggott called the new genre "fairy-tale science." Historian Helge Kragh coined the term "higher speculations," and Peter Woit, more recently, suggested the name "fake physics." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/11/if-science-is-what-scientists-do-what.html

In my comments in Hossenfelder's blog I'am suggesting that non-deductive (empirical) theories are killing physics. Yet the ultimate killer is Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate - the following quotations clearly show that:

"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/e-and-mc2-equality-it-seems-is-relative.html

"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/12/06/speed-light-discovered/

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-01 16:02:03 UTC
Raw Message
The speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V'=V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=V'/λ=(V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

Stationary receiver: Loading Image...

Moving receiver: Loading Image...

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [END OF QUOTATION] http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

That the speed of light is variable, not constant, was proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887:

Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

The analysis of the above information unavoidably leads to the following conclusion:

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate.

Banesh Hoffmann says essentially the same:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Here is the short truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-02 11:25:00 UTC
Raw Message
Peter Woit: "If, as seems increasingly all too possible, we're now at an endpoint of fundamental physics, with the field killed off by a pseudo-scientific argument ("no point in continuing, the multiverse did it"), Arkani-Hamed is one of those who will be most responsible for the situation." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9444

Nima Arkani-Hamed couldn't care less. He makes millions by teaching the gullible world that Einstein's spacetime is great, incredibly successful, nonexistent, doomed, to be removed, not to be removed, etc:

The Doom of Spacetime: Why it Must Dissolve into More Fundamental Structures

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

Pentcho Valev