Thanks for the response Hrvoje,
How does "modern terminology" differ from "terminology of 1912?" I believe that Minkowski's spacetime is still Minkowski's spacetime, Einstein's relativity is yet Einstein's relativity, and the Lorentz Transformation yet transforms as Lorentz supposed it should. Even Newton's Calculus, from the 1600's, yet works.
Please take a look at:
"Each page of the 1912 Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity reveals an exacting mind at work. Mathematical equations have been altered, words have been crossed out and entire paragraphs have been rewritten.
When Einstein was asked to write these chapters, he decided to do more than simply summarize relativity. Instead, he derived from first principles the basic tenets of his influential theory about light, time and energy. In the process, he refined his ideas even further. For example, he adopted a novel four-dimensional mathematical system in this manuscript to explain portions of Special Relativity. Physicists refer to this four-dimensional system as "space-time"--the union of three-dimensional space with the fourth dimension of time." --from http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/energy/special.php
Is this not then a paper worth reading? I highly recommend Einstein's 1912 paper, along with original papers on quantum mechanics found in Wheeler's QUANTUM THEORY & MEASUREMENT. This could be the start of a renaissance--a rebirth of the classical, heroic spirit that has ever fostered advancement in physics.
"If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control." --Martin Luther King Jr.
Is not the Lorentz Transformation in Einstein's 1912 paper the very same Lorentz Transformation of today? I believe it is. If you believe otherwise, please do share with us how today's Lorentz Transformation differs from 1912's Lorentz Transformation. In addition to Einstein not comprehending relativity, did Lorentz also not grasp the Lorentz Tranformation?
Perhaps you could elaborate on how postmodern physicists "understand relativity much better than Einstein did."
But if you have not read the 1912 Manuscript, how can you be sure that postmodern physicists "understand relativity much better than Einstein did?" Maybe they are just telling you this for book deals and tenure--alas--we all must make a living in this rough and tumble world.
The suggestion that postmodern physicists "understand relativity much better than Einstein did" comes as a bit of a surprise to me.
For instance, what specifically do postmodern physicists understand better than Einstein did about relativity?
I was unaware that anything had been refuted in Einstein's 1912 paper. I'm pretty sure that Einstein's Relativity has been shown to be true in experimental test, after test, after test. Is there some test where it has failed?
Is there some erroneous use of "terminology" in his 1912 Manuscript that leads us down a wrong road? How has "modern terminology" shown us the right way?
Furthermore, I am fairly certain that Einstein's 1912 treatment is the fundamental foundation of modern relativity. Are you saying there are cracks in it? Is there another manuscript or text that is better or more fundamental to special relativity than Einstein's 1912 Manuscript?
Einstein published his first papers on relativity in 1905--his "Annus Mirabilis." His 1912 Manuscript is an improvement upon even those early papers.
I understand that Einstein was not perfect and that even he made mistakes--you would enjoy this book:
But yet, he is the singular Founding Father of relativity in its general form. Even his mistakes were so often right--that is the amazing thing about the above book.
When I first encountered a formal treatement of relativity in PJ Peebles' E&M class at Princeton my freshman year, I do not recall Professor Peebles stating that we now understand relativity "much better than Einstein." Instead, we spent the first few classes going over Einstein's notation--the very terminology developed by Einstein. Are you saying that Einstein's terminology no longer applies? Should we notify Professor Peebles and the Princteon Physics department? Whose terminology and relativity should they be teaching?
Then, when I encountered General Relativity in Misner/Thorne/Wheeler's GRAVITATION, again, I saw Einstein's terminology; and again, I saw Minkowski's spacetime! Are you saying that this book no longer applies either? I never recall Wheeler stating that he understood relativity better than Einstein. He was a very, very humble man; and very kind to give me the time of day, with that eternal twinkle in his eye, which shines on, even though he has departed this world. I do remember Wheeler clenching his fist one day and looking out the window of his Jadwin Hall office, and stating that "today's world lacks the noble," and then turning and smiling and saying, "and it's your generation's job to bring it back." I was just a twenty-year-old junior, nodding silently and anxiously in agreement, and those words have stayed with me and meant more and more over the years, as they seem to explain so much about postmodern life--our disregard for the classical eternities, and our arrogance that has lead to the current financial crisis, the breakdown of the family, and the resounding lack of progress in physics, other than the progress that has been made by deconstructing the classics, which tends to work better in realms that do not require empirical evidence.
I also remember standing in PJ Peebles' office that year, when I had him for quantum mechanics, and asking him, "when a photon is emitted from a light bulb, do we really not know where it's headed? Is it really just a probabilistic wave expanding at the rate of c?" "Yes," he said. And that stuck with me, because this is what quantum mechanics telles us. And relativity tells us that the ageless photon stays in the exact same place in the fourth expanding dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. dx4/dt = ic. It was many years later that I wrote that equation down, but somehow I sensed it that year, walking between Peebles' and Wheelers' offices.
Legend has it that Einstein eventually came up with relativity because he so often contemplated what it would be like to catch up with light--a pursuit which began in his childhood. I often wonder, had Einstein known that light actually propagates as a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront at the rate of c--had he actually known quantum mechanics--would he have seen that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt=ic?
Well Hrvoje, I am somewhat puzzled at this point regarding what your aim is. I am not sure we can make "further progress" if you insist that Einstein's terminology no longer applies to relativity, as it is the very terminology that I believe defines relativity.
Please provide specific examples supporting your contentions and elaborating on how
1) postmodern "physicists understand relativity much better than Einstein did," in his 1912 Manuscript (other than Star Trek, time travel, hyperspace, and wormholes and other entities that have never been seen beyond the silver screen)
2) how "modern terminology" differs from "1912 terminology"
I then may be able to answer your questions, once I comprehend the context you are oeprating in.
Thanks again for your time and responses!
One of byproducts of Moving Dimensions Theory has been another hypothesis--by losing touch with the foundational papers, physicists have lost touch with the foundational questions, and without those questions, all is for naught. Too many exist in a postmodern realm detached from reality, where all one must do is subscribe to the "idea" that we understand physics far better than its actual founders--it's very giants--and that loop quantum gravity and string theory are thus naturally superior to Einstein's relativity, which "Einstein did not understand." Such a system tends to favor the political over the philosophical, as we are told that mathematical eternities--such as those in Einstein's beautiful 1912 Manuscript on Relativity--are no longer true. And as funding and politics blossom, physics grinds to a halt, detached from its very fount--Truth and the rugged individual who holds Truth higher than even their own career, as did Einstein. He wrote his 1905 papers, which revolutionized physics, not as a professor, but as a patent clerk. Even Newton stated that he stood upon the shoulders of giants to see further, but today it seems too many try to stand there to cut their heads off. And the price paid is a great one, for ultimately one cannot deconstruct nor politicize Truth, and, as Galileo said after redacting his theory that the earth moves before teh Inquisition, "and yet, it moves."
A great essay to read is Feynman's Cargo Cult Science:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well", I said, "there aren't any". He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind". I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing -- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision. "--R.P. Feynman, http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html