Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:28 am Post subject: Einstein's Biggest Blunder
Quote:
...my original point was, 'Maxwells Equations' are primitive approximations compared to Weber's Electrodynamics. And Einstein blew it by choosing 'Maxwell' as the basis for modern physics instead of Weber.
Einstein considered his kludge of adding a 'Gravitational Constant' to his own Gen Rel field equations to create a 'steady state universe' to be the biggest mistake in his physics career. He may have been embarrassed about this, but he was wrong.
Einstein's biggest blunder was basing modern physical law upon Heaviside's formulation of Maxwell's Electromagnetic theory, because of his secret love affair with quaternions.
By the close of the 19th century it was well known that Newtonian mechanics had severe limitations, and that the original criticisms and growing alternative branch of physics founded upon 'least action' and relative motion by Leibnitz, and continued by Laplace, Gauss, Grassman and finally Hamiltion was the only and best viable solution.
The new powerful techniques applied to physics pioneered by Hamilton and taken up by Tait and Maxwell were brilliant but almost incomprensible, until Gibbs and Heaviside broke them down into reasonable bite-size pieces and practical subsystems (modern vectors). This was the birth of Classical Field theory.
However at the same time independant investigators were developing alternate theories and strategies for handling electrodynamics. Key players in the alternative options were Huygens, whose 'wavelets' and brilliant wave mechanics were later adopted by Schreodinger and became 20th century Quantum Mechanics.
Weber, who formulated an alternate version of Electrodynamics not based upon Quaternions.
And Heaviside who began a serious effort to generalize Electrodynamics to include gravity.
It was against this background that Einstein, guided by his German mentors chose to generalize physical laws on the model of Electrodynamics (SRT) and later to model gravity as a field theory, based upon the mathematical methods available, quaternions, Gauss and Reimannian Geometry, and Machian relativity. (Mach was Einstein's mentor).
Mach had hoped to carry out a program of complete relativity, believing that since motion could only be measured relatively, physics should be formulated in a totally relative set of laws. 'Absolute Space' was long an embarrassment, since it was known to be an artificial construction necessary in Newton's time to formulate laws of motion in an efficient manner.
Einstein's attempt to carry out the program of Mach was in fact a glorious failure. It became obvious that according to the new theory (GRT), the backdrop of stars was *not* the proper explanation for Newton's bucket experiment. If it were eliminated, there would still be 'absolute motion' relative to the Gravitational field. This 'field' had the same kind of function as Maxwell's 'displacement current'. It appeared to be just another version of artificial construct like 'absolute space' or the 'aether'. Einstein had eliminated the 'aether' (SRT) only to accidentally recreate it (GRT).
All of this came about because of Maxwell's original rejection of Weber's Electrodynamic theory, even while acknowledging its truth in the same breath, in order to use Hamilton's quaternions to form his field theory. Einstein merely followed the same wrong turn, now a well-worn highway hacked out of the jungle by Heaviside.
The sad thing was, the person to best understand the new jungle continent, Heaviside himself, the 'David Livingston' of Electromagnetic theory was marginalized and ignored. Not only was his attempt to generalize Electromagnetic theory to include gravitation implimented by Einstein in a flawed manner, but Heaviside's original insights were lost.
To make matters worse, Weber's powerful theoretical structure was neglected and forgotten in the wake of Heaviside's (unacredited) achievement in popularizing and making practical Maxwell's theory. The key truths and real physical experimental differences between the theories were lost in the quick and powerful successes of Electrical Engineering framed by Heaviside.
The virtual stampede of physicists into the new field of Quantum Mechanics also contributed to the quick 'stamp' of legitimization for SRT and GRT, as the most brilliant men of the age turned to nuclear physics and the power of the bomb.
Weber's Electrodynamics and Heaviside's gravitational investigations were neglected and forgotten, to the great loss of science, and the complete confusion of the state of physics in the 20th century.
To list credentials would create needless security risks, without any point.
I don't post personal information on the internet except of the most general kind. Even if it weren't my personal policy, I would be constrained by confidentiality agreements and employment contracts.
Finally, I don't personally ascribe to the theory that conventional education is a reliable indicator of much more than a personality suitable to corporate employment, and a primitive ability to blend with a certain subculture.
Leaving the question of SRT and GRT as final theories aside,
was there some historical fact in the above post you have a dispute with?
It is still legal to view SRT/GRT as provisional theories, as far as I know.
Confidentiality agreements that prevent you from saying where you went to school?? Sounds like BS to me. Anyway, you don't have to name institutions. Just generally wha formal and informal physics education have you had. (eg. BS, Ph.D, etc.)
I don't post personal information on the internet.
I've had this policy since /82.
I recommend it to everyone, as it is the only sensible approach.
Please adopt it, and recommend it to your family and friends, to protect them.
I don't post personal information on the internet.
I've had this policy since /82.
I recommend it to everyone, as it is the only sensible approach.
Please adopt it, and recommend it to your family and friends, to protect them.
Quote:
Guess you probably don't have any college training at the very least, which is what I expected.
Absurd. I suggest you stick to the topic of the post, or else don't post at all.
If you continuously post messages only about irrelevant topics, and refuse to address the actual topic at hand, you will give yourself the reputation of being a spammer, and people won't reply at all to your posts.
I'll repeat my question, which *is* relevant:
Leaving the question of SRT and GRT as final theories aside,
was there some historical fact in the above post you have a dispute with?
If you simply refuse to reply to my posts, I will stop taking you seriously. If you don't want to discuss the actual topic, I will assume you are not really interested at all, and I request you don't post in this thread.
Even though it is only the 8th message, I'll remind you of the topic again, its "Einstein's Greatest Blunder". If you think Einstein made a different or bigger blunder, I am quite happy to discuss that too.
If you just want to talk about something else, like my educational background, please start a new thread, "Hi, please put yourself at risk by volunteering personal information about yourself!" or with some other clever title, and see who responds.
OK Mr. On Topic Nazi, the answer to your question is, as I said before, I only skimmed your post. So at the moment I don't have a problem with it. Granted if I read it in detail I probably will, but I haven't done that yet. Did you want me to do that? I really don't care.
I presume Einstein's greatest blunder still interests you as a subject.
If there is nothing of interest in my first post,
perhaps you'd like to expound what you think Einstein's greatest blunder was.
I am quite interested in a scientific and philosophical discussion.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
