At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death
of physics:

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains
of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of]
the rest of modern physics."

The choice Einstein had to make between the concept of light as a
continuous field and the concept of light as discontinuous particles
(photons) is rarely mentioned in the literature but still there are
eloquent quotations:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ :

"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a
twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles,
but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves.
Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast,
but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26,
sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to
confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/bibli...4-0486406768-0 :

"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann:
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Clearly, the particle model of light finds its support in the negative
result of Michelson-Morley experiment. It is also consistent with the
third equation of Maxwell (Faraday's induction law) as implied at the
beginning of Einstein's 1905 paper:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

(The "customary view" Einstein refers to is the ether model of Maxwell
that Maxwell himself abandoned in the end; the fact that the particle
model of light naturally contradicts the ether model by no means
implies that the particle model is inconsistent with the Faraday's
induction law, although the mythology says otherwise.)

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death
of physics:

No, just SR and GR.

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains
of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of]
the rest of modern physics."

A dying man seldom lies.

The choice Einstein had to make between the concept of light as a
continuous field and the concept of light as discontinuous particles
(photons) is rarely mentioned in the literature but still there are
eloquent quotations:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ :

Planck shocked his pants off after discovering the real world was
digital instead of analog. Still disoriented, Einstein presented his
paper based on Planck's conclusion. That does not make Einstein the
original.

Einstein's 1905 paper on the derivation of the Lorentz transform was
total gibberish. He tried to derive it again in his book years later.
However, the derivation was again total nonsense. Prior to 1905, the
Lorentz transform was derived by Larmor and widely studied by Lorentz
and Poincare. The properties of the Lorentz transform were the
constancy of the speed of light in vacuum and the principle of
Relativity. In 1905, Einstein reversed engineered the Lorentz
transform by the two postulates exactly equivalent to the properties of
the Lorentz transform. In doing so, his derivation of the Lorentz
transform afterwards was total nonsense. His later book on relativity
years later also showed equal nonsense on the derivation of the Lorentz
transform.

Also, in his 1905 paper, Einstein attempted the derivation of (E = m
c^2). The derivation again was total nonsense. The man simply did not
know what he was doing but knew the answer from somewhere. Years
later, he even said "Creativity is to know how to hide your
sources". It is so true of him. This trait is an obvious
plagiarism.

Einstein reminds me of that Peter Sellers movie. I think it was
"Being There".

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death
of physics:

No, just SR and GR.

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains
of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of]
the rest of modern physics."

A dying man seldom lies.

The choice Einstein had to make between the concept of light as a
continuous field and the concept of light as discontinuous particles
(photons) is rarely mentioned in the literature but still there are
eloquent quotations:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ :

Planck shocked his pants off after discovering the real world was
digital instead of analog. Still disoriented, Einstein presented his
paper based on Planck's conclusion. That does not make Einstein the
original.

Einstein's 1905 paper on the derivation of the Lorentz transform was
total gibberish. He tried to derive it again in his book years later.
However, the derivation was again total nonsense. Prior to 1905, the
Lorentz transform was derived by Larmor and widely studied by Lorentz
and Poincare. The properties of the Lorentz transform were the
constancy of the speed of light in vacuum and the principle of
Relativity. In 1905, Einstein reversed engineered the Lorentz
transform by the two postulates exactly equivalent to the properties of
the Lorentz transform. In doing so, his derivation of the Lorentz
transform afterwards was total nonsense. His later book on relativity
years later also showed equal nonsense on the derivation of the Lorentz
transform.

Also, in his 1905 paper, Einstein attempted the derivation of (E = m
c^2). The derivation again was total nonsense. The man simply did not
know what he was doing but knew the answer from somewhere. Years
later, he even said "Creativity is to know how to hide your
sources". It is so true of him. This trait is an obvious
plagiarism.

Please provide source for the quote.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death
of physics:

No, just SR and GR.

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains
of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of]
the rest of modern physics."

A dying man seldom lies.

The choice Einstein had to make between the concept of light as a
continuous field and the concept of light as discontinuous particles
(photons) is rarely mentioned in the literature but still there are
eloquent quotations:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ :

Planck shocked his pants off after discovering the real world was
digital instead of analog. Still disoriented, Einstein presented his
paper based on Planck's conclusion. That does not make Einstein the
original.

Einstein's 1905 paper on the derivation of the Lorentz transform was
total gibberish. He tried to derive it again in his book years later.
However, the derivation was again total nonsense. Prior to 1905, the
Lorentz transform was derived by Larmor and widely studied by Lorentz
and Poincare. The properties of the Lorentz transform were the
constancy of the speed of light in vacuum and the principle of
Relativity. In 1905, Einstein reversed engineered the Lorentz
transform by the two postulates exactly equivalent to the properties of
the Lorentz transform. In doing so, his derivation of the Lorentz
transform afterwards was total nonsense. His later book on relativity
years later also showed equal nonsense on the derivation of the Lorentz
transform.

Also, in his 1905 paper, Einstein attempted the derivation of (E = m
c^2). The derivation again was total nonsense. The man simply did not
know what he was doing but knew the answer from somewhere. Years
later, he even said "Creativity is to know how to hide your
sources". It is so true of him. This trait is an obvious
plagiarism.

Einstein reminds me of that Peter Sellers movie. I think it was
"Being There".

At least Einstein knew how to transform domains. Have you figured it
out yet?

Pentcho Valev wrote [with appropriate corrections made]:
At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible [death of the continuum concept and birth of a new physics going well beyond that of the 20th and preceding centuries and, in many ways, inspiring late 20th and early 21st century approaches, such as Connes' Non-Commutative Geometry approach]

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains
of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of]
the rest of modern physics."

Better now.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death
of physics:

No, just SR and GR.

There's nothing specifically pertaining to Poincare' relativity (which
distinguish GR & SR from the Galilean relativity that underlies
Newton/Cartan GR and Newtonian Physics), so obviously it has nothing to
do with that question.

No, it's pertaining to *all* physics based on the concept of a
continuum, as is made perfectly clear in the comments.

Not are they the words of a dying person, but the product of a
continuous evolution in thought regarding the issue of the limitations
of the "continuum" concept.

1936:
"To be sure, it has been pointed out that the introduction of a
space-time continuum may be considered as contrary to nature in view of
the molecular structure of everything which happens on a small scale.
It is maintained that perhaps the success of the Heisenberg method
points to a purely algebraical method of description of nature, that
is, to the elimination of continuous functions from physics. Then,
however, we must also give up, on
principal, the space-time continuum. It is conceivable that human
ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to
proceed along such a path."

p. 319, A. Einstein. Ideas and Opinions. (Crown, New York, 1954).

1940:
"All attempts to represent the particle and wave features displayed in
the phenomena of light and matter, by direct recourse to a space-time
model, have so far ended in failure. .. For the time being, we have to
admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics,
which can be regarded as its logical foundation. ... Some physicists,
among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and
forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in space
and time; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are
analogous to a game of chance."

p. 334

"Rock Brentwood" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Koobee Wublee wrote:
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
| At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death
| of physics:
|
| No, just SR and GR.
|
| There's nothing specifically pertaining to Poincare' relativity (which
| distinguish GR & SR from the Galilean relativity that underlies
| Newton/Cartan GR and Newtonian Physics), so obviously it has nothing to
| do with that question.
|
| No, it's pertaining to *all* physics based on the concept of a
| continuum, as is made perfectly clear in the comments.
|
| Not are they the words of a dying person, but the product of a
| continuous evolution in thought regarding the issue of the limitations
| of the "continuum" concept.
|
| 1936:
| "To be sure, it has been pointed out that the introduction of a
| space-time continuum may be considered as contrary to nature in view of
| the molecular structure of everything which happens on a small scale.
| It is maintained that perhaps the success of the Heisenberg method
| points to a purely algebraical method of description of nature, that
| is, to the elimination of continuous functions from physics. Then,
| however, we must also give up, on
| principal, the space-time continuum. It is conceivable that human
| ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to
| proceed along such a path."
|
| p. 319, A. Einstein. Ideas and Opinions. (Crown, New York, 1954).
|
| 1940:
| "All attempts to represent the particle and wave features displayed in
| the phenomena of light and matter, by direct recourse to a space-time
| model, have so far ended in failure. .. For the time being, we have to
| admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics,
| which can be regarded as its logical foundation. ... Some physicists,
| among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and
| forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in space
| and time; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are
| analogous to a game of chance."
|
| p. 334

Yeah, the drool of a lunatic.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm
Androcles.