On Jul 29, 9:17***pm, moky <moky.m...***gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again, I do not care what Einstein was thinking about science
> development in 1905. This is surly interesting from an historical
> point of view, but now we have quantum mechanics and QED that deeply
> changed our understanding of light ... way more that all Einstein
> could imagine.

But you also said Einstein's theory would remain true even if his 1905
light postulate is false:

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sc...9e5d9fabf69d18
Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."
Laurent Claessens: "Eh bien, Einstein s'est trompé. C'est pour ça que
je dis qu'il ne faut pas lire les textes originaux."

Would you mind if from now on you are referred to as "Laurent
Claessens, humble follower of the Great Relativists Tom Roberts, Jean-
Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-Ping Hsu who gloriously proved that Divine
Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would be unaffected" even if
"light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz
transform":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond "De la relativite à la chronogeometrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D’autre part,
nous savons aujourd’hui que l’invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere
est une consequence de la nullite de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais etre consideree
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de
futures mesures mettent en evidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumiere alors n’irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de la lumiere, desormais
variable, ne s’identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "...an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-
standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity
theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and
retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This
question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of
special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz,
Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
> On Jul 29, 9:17�pm, moky <moky.m...***gmail.com> wrote:
> > Once again, I do not care what Einstein was thinking about science
> > development in 1905. This is surly interesting from an historical
> > point of view, but now we have quantum mechanics and QED that deeply
> > changed our understanding of light ... way more that all Einstein
> > could imagine.
>
> But you also said Einstein's theory would remain true even if his 1905
> light postulate is false:

Even if light has not an invariant speed, the Lorentz group remains
the correct one in the flat space.
But, of course, QED would have to be modified (because in QED, the
photon is the U(1) gauge boson, which is massless), or, more
precisely, its domain of validity should be restricted.

But, since you do not know one single word about QED (you do not even
know what is a U(1) gauge boson and have no idea of why it is
massless[1]), what do you expect to prove by discussing the
corrections that would be done in order to give a mass to the photon ?


That small parenthesis being closed, you can answer the questions :
* In the non-gravitational case, is Lorentz correct ?
* How do you do to, in the same time, claim that Gallilée is correct
and that string theory is the 21 century physics ?

The first question can be answered by "yes" or "no". I do not
understand why you are delaying your answer by changing the subject
everyday ...

Have a good night.
Laurent


[1] I know that you do not know because anybody who knows what a
gauge boson is knows what the spin representations of SL(2,C) are ...
or at least the ones of Lorentz.

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
> On Jul 29, 9:17�pm, moky <moky.m...***gmail.com> wrote:
> > Once again, I do not care what Einstein was thinking about science
> > development in 1905. This is surly interesting from an historical
> > point of view, but now we have quantum mechanics and QED that deeply
> > changed our understanding of light ... way more that all Einstein
> > could imagine.
>
> But you also said Einstein's theory would remain true even if his 1905
> light postulate is false:

Even if light has not an invariant speed, the Lorentz group remains
the correct one in the flat space.
But, of course, QED would have to be modified (because in QED, the
photon is the U(1) gauge boson, which is massless), or, more
precisely, its domain of validity should be restricted.

But, since you do not know one single word about QED (you do not even
know what is a U(1) gauge boson and have no idea of why it is
massless[1]), what do you expect to prove by discussing the
corrections that would be done in order to give a mass to the photon ?


That small parenthesis being closed, you can answer the questions :
* In the non-gravitational case, is Lorentz correct ?
* How do you do to, in the same time, claim that Gallilée is correct
and that string theory is the 21 century physics ?

The first question can be answered by "yes" or "no". I do not
understand why you are delaying your answer by changing the subject
everyday ...

Have a good night.
Laurent


[1] I know that you do not know because anybody who knows what a
gauge boson is knows what the spin representations of SL(2,C) are ...
or at least the ones of Lorentz.

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
> On Jul 29, 9:17�pm, moky <moky.m...***gmail.com> wrote:
> > Once again, I do not care what Einstein was thinking about science
> > development in 1905. This is surly interesting from an historical
> > point of view, but now we have quantum mechanics and QED that deeply
> > changed our understanding of light ... way more that all Einstein
> > could imagine.
>
> But you also said Einstein's theory would remain true even if his 1905
> light postulate is false:

Even if light has not an invariant speed, the Lorentz group remains
the correct one in the flat space.
But, of course, QED would have to be modified (because in QED, the
photon is the U(1) gauge boson, which is massless), or, more
precisely, its domain of validity should be restricted.

But, since you do not know one single word about QED (you do not even
know what is a U(1) gauge boson and have no idea of why it is
massless[1]), what do you expect to prove by discussing the
corrections that would be done in order to give a mass to the photon ?


That small parenthesis being closed, you can answer the questions :
* In the non-gravitational case, is Lorentz correct ?
* How do you do to, in the same time, claim that Gallilée is correct
and that string theory is the 21 century physics ?

The first question can be answered by "yes" or "no". I do not
understand why you are delaying your answer by changing the subject
everyday ...

Have a good night.
Laurent


[1] I know that you do not know because anybody who knows what a
gauge boson is knows what the spin representations of SL(2,C) are ...
or at least the ones of Lorentz.