Otto E. Rossler and Frank Kuske, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Germany
No. 1 (1905) – discovery of the observer-centered constancy of the speed of light c in the vacuum
A single light sphere is expanding about both the standing Einstein and the fast-moving Besso who crosses Einstein’s position the very moment a light flash is going off at their feet.
(This seeming logical impossibility of one light sphere containing two centers is solved by the “light cone picture” with its two mutually slanted cuts.)
No. 2 (1907) – visualizing the prospective red-and-white Apollo spacecraft in full blast in outer space
Light that is ascending from the bottom to the tip suffers a gravitational redshift.
(This at first sight absurd prediction follows because the tip picks up speed during the light climb-up.)
No. 3 (1907) – slowed light propagation along the horizontal bottom of the accelerating rocketship when observed from the tip
This correct description possesses a corollary:
No. 4 (1907, 2012) – existence of an optically masked size increase downstairs
The observed reduced speed of light (point 3) is caused by the surprise fact that a light ray advancing horizontally downstairs is everywhere upwards-slanted relative to the tip. Hence length downstairs is invisibly increased by the redshift factor. Therefore the global c is restored after more than a century.
Note: The same size increase follows independently from quantum mechanics. For the locally normal-appearing, yet reduced photon energy downstairs implies, via the creation-annihilation operators of quantum mechanics, a decrease in atomic mass and hence a proportional increase in atomic size via the Bohr radius formula.
(The “holy grail of physics” – unification of quantum mechanics and gravitation – is implicit.)
No. 5 (1915) – discovery of general relativity
The main implication of this deed is the possible formation of black holes.
No. 6 (1915, 2008) – global-c transform of general relativity
Only this transform implicit in No. 4 possesses physical reality. So far, but a special solution – the global-c Schwarzschild metric – has been described in its global-c form.
(Georg Slotta described the 3-D generalization.)
No. 7 (1935) – prediction that in the case of correlated particles, one quantum property (“position”) can be measured on the one particle and the complementary property (“momentum”) on the other
Almost three decades later, in 1964, John S. Bell found a way to prove that the first measurement influences the second at a distance – the “spooky action at a distance” of Einstein’s, verified.
(Only Einstein was strong enough to make this prediction but he considered this outcome unlikely.)
No. 8 (1935, 1984) – the double-frame Aspect experiment, first spotted by Asher Peres in 1984
It tests the survival of the Bell correlations when either measurement is the first in its own frame. The currently expected outcome (survival of the Bell correlations) will fulfill Einstein’s aim to prove Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics wrong. For then, only Everett’s later “many-quantum-worlds theory” of 1957 survives: the inhabitants of the two relativistic frames (earth; satellite) cannot live in the same quantum world if the Bell correlations survive.
Note: This crucial experiment is in progress with ESA since 2001 (courtesy Anton Zeilinger). The expected outcome – “survival of the Bell correlations between ground and receding satellite” – rules out Copenhagen since the same set of pairs of measurements cannot hold true in the world of the observer in the satellite according to the laws of quantum mechanics.
(This expected eighth outcome will mark the end of the four-centuries-long anti-religious phase of science.)
July 23, 2016
It is certain, No. 1 and No.5 were not discovered by Einstein. Please see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305355323_Pseudoscience_and_the_distorted_and_wrong_information_about_Einstein_and_the_theory_of_relativity?ev=prf_pub
Data Pseudoscience and the distorted and wrong information about ...
Dear Yin:
It is not that simple. Point No. 1 was also seen in part by others, especially the great Poincaré. But the true "criminal" pictorial strength of mind needed to spot, for example, the totally surprising twins paradox, is owed to Einstein's unique foreignness of thinking.
Point No. 5 is not even quite true in the form formulated so far. To whom do you then ascribe General Relativity? Take, for example, the Schwarzschild metric which is unaffected by the c-global issue: Who do you claim invented all that before Einstein? Clifford certainly was close, so it is good to include history in the picture as John Wheeler did, for example. But the "criminal energy" (in the good sense of the word as it is so vitally needed for big progress in science was nowhere stronger.
Greatness should be appreciated where ever it shows its rare face. You have it, too, if you can corroborate your claims. Trying is always honorable.
Dear Yin:
It was in the air, right. And Clifford had come close. And even avoided the false over-all curvature.
Nordström was interesting. But this man, Einstein, was stronger. It is a specific form of fearlessness and esthetic strength that I was referring to.
And of course the broadness and consistency achieved single-handedly. Think of the twins paradox as an example: reckoning with the absurd, and proving it.
This is elegance. A form of fearless nakedness, if you see my point. Like the young David by Michelangelo. Not preposterous.
- Badges
- Science topic