One seldom hears anyone criticize Einstein, his views and work. I thought I would publish some of his critics.
First for a scathing review of Einstein's work and the history of E=Mc2 see the link below
See also the video below:
This video devastates Einstein's black hole equasions
Meantime here is an alternative view of Einstein and his work
The True Einstein Story
This is a juicy story and I know how you all out there love a good juicy, true story.
Get the popcorn out and give a listen.
Einstein in his earth-shaking new theory did not create it in a vacuum (smile) He was aiming to disagree with an existing theory of space that said space was filled with an Ether that acted like a fluid. Einstein, who was working at the time on how light propagates argued that light could not propagate in a fluid. (Yes, we saying these folks were making the argument that empty space is actually a fluid and behaves like a fluid and we are affected by the motion of this Ether fluid which is all around us.)
Einstein comes along and basically joined the gang who argue: "There is no Ether at all because as everyone knows liquids can diffuse and refract light and light does not behave that way, hence there is no fluid or Ether."
This was big news back in the day. Physics quickly choose sides in the controversy. Who to support,: the new upstart or the old professionals who needed to have explained what do you put in the place of Ether, if you drop the concept altogether?
Einstein and the quantum folks had an answer. They put quantum mechanics in the place of the Ether on the atomic level, and Einstein solved the problem by simply ignoring it and stated axiomatically that light moves at the speed of light and at a constant rate since there is no Ether to hinder its propagation.
Gravity, Einstein said is related to space-time which is moving around, not any fluid. Wow, talk about turning things on its head.
Einstein's antagonist in all of this was Dayton Miller, a well-known and respected scientist in his day who set out to prove the existence of ether by measuring its effects on the absolute velocity of the earth and as affected by this ether. This would disprove Einstein's whole edifice that everything is relative and dependent upon the vantage point of the observer. He was trying to prove there ain't no relativity at all and that light has no constant speed because space is really filled with fluid or ether.
The line of conflict was drawn. Miller published the results of his experiments in 1928 which showed there was an ether which the earth and all matter in the universe floats in and it moves. The absolute velocity of the earth and the speed of this moving ether itself could be computed and its velocity he said was moving toward a specific constellation. Wow again. This story is riveting.
You can see the threat to Einstein here who claimed; no everything is relative and the quantum folks added to all this, "therefore we can never know the position of particles at the quantum level with any certainty." Einstein's relativism on the macro level now had an analog on the micro level although later there was to be real problems with simply assuming that relativity worked the same on both levels.
Einstein's view prevailed and he actively sought to bury the Miller data and that point of view. He knew upon which slice of bread his Nobel prize lay.
In July of 1925 Einstein, writing to a friend stated:
"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia anin d gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.
"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)
Cited from Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look* by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
NASA apparently has it own version of Ether calling it a "vortex" and claiming that Einstein predicted it. Really. See video.
But as quantum mechanics took hold in the world of physics it, apparently had to re-invent the notion of ether fluid, calling it "Quantum Foam" and many other labels which essentially re-introduced the notion proclaming that because of the foam (I have called it an ocean-soup of particles) only probabilities can exist at the mico level. Think about it: if elemental particles disapate upon observation that could be someone interrupting the flow of a wave through a fluid, couldn't it?
Einstein had his doubts about quantum mechanics and even though he helped to create it he never really accepted it wholeheartedly.
But note, in later life, he seemed to doubt most of his relativity work as well. In a letter to a friend he wrote:
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)
"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
So quantum mechanics gives us ether without calling it ether. Interesting, even the string theory people are backing into a fluid like notion of space filled with strings, of course which vibrate and above all else, properties and characteristics of matter flow from these strings. For example Andrew Strominger says that space itself is composed of strings and behaves like a wave.or something close to it. Here comes those pesky fluid notions back again, one more time. Pardon me, critics say, but don't waves move in a fluid, elastic or otherwise?
So what is the difference we may ask betweeen this quantum ether and classical notions of ether and a modern notion of ether which is often referred to as superfluids.
So you thought this story would be simple huh?
Well like many theories in Physics we will see an initial attempt to distinguish a new theory from old ones, but then we see movements where the new tries to incorporate the old ideas after having declared them defunct or full of fundamental errors; but then later still make the claim that should new facts arise, claim," yes I was saying that too; my theory is consistent with what the facts that I now see emerging. It is is just that you and I were saying it differently; and by the way; a minor difference I will stress as a way of trying to maintain my ideas are also different than yours still, especially if I blow up this minor difference and pretend it is of greater import than it really is. And besides, just as you can't produce your particle, neither can I and last, but not least, I will hide my ideas in a blackboard filled with equations with terms I have not defined, and, in which I have hidden doubious terms which I am having my graduate students try to figure it out for me, and since that takes time--lets say thirty years to clarify what I was talking about in the first place. I proclaim now new knowledge is difficult to obtain and takes time, urging my students and colleges to be patient while I try to figure out what the hell went wrong with my ideas and while I secretly nurse a dry bitterness about those who don't appreciate the mathematical beauty of what I have been trying to do all these years.
But the above is a typical process not only in academia but also in many professions. I do not undervalue the work being done in advancing our knowledge in Physics and many other fields. It is just I see the humor in it emanating from the capacity of human beings to move peas and shells around when pressed for concrete answers to complex questions.
This is life and life only.
Tomorrow: Let's look at crystalization theories, more on fluid theory and the "We all live in a big box theory" and sundries. Oh, I am tired already.
Will fluid save us? Let's just say that for now we can only describe the situation in Physics as very fluid. The Ghost of Ether is everywhere.
So here we are at ether, like Einstein, we have to deal with it. We know what he did, he dismissed it and invented an arbitary speed limit for light and there by elminated the problem of ether. Now this is an indication of how difficult the problem is for Einstein to have made this manuver.
I am no Einstein and don't have the brains even to dismiss ether so, I too, want to through up my metaphorical hands and invent something entirely new.
Well I don't and can't do it but others have re-tacked the problem.
Now what would that be, you ask?
Well there are many alternatives out there and I can't go over all of them. But let's take a few conceptual ideas and see what categories they fall into.
First let's just take a huge idea totally different from the standard model then we'll let the idea sit for 24 hours.;
Here is the idea:
Einstein said let's see what happens to our thinking if we see space-time as one concept. Here is one he missed: What would happen to our thinking if we see matter-space as a single entity and related in such a way so as to explain everything we see in the universe. That is a a very interesting idea.
See video on expanding space below:
But first a hint: Why is the speed of light constant? Einstein said so and its speed is a constant but he never had an answer as to why.
Answer to ponder: Space is the inverse of matter and matter is the reciprocial of space--each aspect of this single reality interact with one another via disturbances in the two different electrical fields they propagate and all of that interaction can be described by wave functions in this (dare we say ether) along with vortex and superfluid like characteristics.
One variety of this view says that particles are merely aspects of wave functions and vortex interactions and condensates. A similar pattern exists they say in Helium 3 experiments where normal liquid helium interacts with superconductive Heliium3.
Now this is exactly the charteristics of the Higgs field that the CERN people describe. What goes on here.( See my blog on this site "Einstein Was Wrong-Maybe" for more detail on the Higg field. I undate it neary every day.)
To summarize: matter is enfolded space and space is expanding matter and produces particles from space-ether, now called the Higgs field.
These are the two major forces at work in the unverse. Gravity becomes a disturbance created in the Space-Matter continum (we don't need Einstein's time component) Light is a wave propagating in space defined as having superfluidity components. Light does not move but excites waves like a ripple in a pond propagating outward. These waves quantum folks call "quanta" all of this existing in a quantum soup or in the "quantum vacuum.'
Finally these superfluid aspects of matter found at the quantum level are also found in the core of neutron stars. Finally one theory (Scoce) identifies light as the manifestation of photons embedded in this elemental space and propagation is via wave functions across the medium of space which is defined as the ultimate superfluid.
Matter becomes congealed space. Note here E=mc2 is to be understood that matter as congealed space can be transformed back into it's space component and it is the dark energy of space itself expanding from the dynamics of the Einstein equation and perhaps is a form of dark matter as well.
Matter equals condensed space and can be transformed into energy or exploding space moving at speeds up to and/or exceeding the speed of light squared. And, then you can also read the equation backwards. This is an astounding concept if true would expain much which has no answers in the standard model. Add to this the concept of space as a plasma-like superfluid and you have the basic idea.
Now that is a clever turn on Einstein, don't you think?
We end up in this category of theories with basically only two elemental particles in the universe: photons and electrons and ions out of which everything else is built via a process acting in this vortex- interacting model and all other elements are created via "condensation" processes operating between the two processes, one positive and the other negative involved as wave functions. Goodbye particles--which in the end are wave condensations. Einstein himself believed in condensates but in a different context.
The argument, this group says, is that Physics got off on the wrong track with quantum mechanics and Einstein where causality was severed from effect and we have ended up with non-intuititive notions tied to math models which custom fit the results and produce the Uncertainty Models. If everything is uncertain then nothing can be known. They argue that we were better of with minor corrections to a previous model of ether, even as we notice that quantum folks in fact inch back toward that model while denying that they are doing so.
So the past is re-introduced via superfluids theories which are ether by another name.
Finally, they point out that the original equations around ether pointed out that the expansion of space as ether was infinite and Einstein's generation revolted against that outcome. Einstein's equation also ended up with infinity as a result in the context of a black hole. Now, point out the critics,, the expansion of space infiniitely is not so fantastic as it once seemed. After all superfluids under laboratory conditions are frictionless and once set in motion can continue to move forever. Humm, this is getting more and more confusing. But we like that don't we? It must mean we are on to something.
This is a lot to absorb at a single sitting. More later.
Next up Einstein's ideas vs. those of Tesla
Who was correct.
Let's start by looking at a video and then there are six more tomorrow.
For background on Tesla see the following six videos.
Meantime see the critique of Einstein black hole equations, proving he was possibily wrong about black holes.
The Higgs field sounds just like Aether?
"The particle is named for the University of Edinburgh scientist Peter Higgs, who was one of six physicists who suggested that a sort of cosmic molasses pervading space is what gives particles their heft. Particles trying to wade through it gather mass the way a bill moving though Congress gains riders and amendments, becoming more and more ponderous.
It was Dr. Higgs who pointed out that this cosmic molasses, normally invisible and, of course, odorless, would produce its own quantum particle if hit hard enough, by the right amount of energy, and so the branding rights went to him"
10/3/12 Are iron ion experiments at CERN worth the risk?
Iron in the core of stars cause supernovas? Apparently.
Notice that it is asserted that stars build heavy elements but it is not explained how. See Mathis' explaination of how every element in the periodic table is built and why.
It is clear that a given amount of iron in a given star will cause the star to go supernova, the greatest explosion known in the universe. Why is CERN going ahead with the iron ion experiments. Somebody please explain that there is no no risk here.
The answer to the above question might depend upon who is correct:
Einstein, Tesla or Mathis?
See what you think, because it is precisely the question of what is a Higgs field.