DOCSLIB.ORG

Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics H Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics H. J. Spencer * IV ABSTRACT This is the fourth report on a new research programme investigating the electromagnetic interaction. In contrast to the previous paper in this series, which analyzed the continuous interaction of pairs of charged point particles, this paper focuses on the hypothesis that the inter-electron interaction only occurs discontinuously over time. This new hypothesis is in response to the previous results showing that all continuous interaction (force) theories between point particles that exhibit inertial resistance to changes in their motion are inconsistent with asynchronous forms of action-at-a-distance or equivalently, interactions limited to points ‘on their mutual light-cone’. It is shown here that the conventional approach to the special theory of relativity has been based on an implied merger of two distinct but incompatible theories. The continuous electric charge model (now used to develop Maxwell’s Equations of classical electromagnetism) leads directly to Relativistic Transformations of the space and time co-ordinates; while Planck’s 1906/7 Proposal for redefining an inertial point particle’s momentum came to replace classical Newtonian mechanics with its central concept of invariant particle mass. However, both of these theories are fatally flawed: electricity is not continuous but is particulate (point electrons with finite and discrete charge and mass values) while Planck’s relativistic derivation relied on a mysterious constant force that contradicts both the inverse square Coulomb force or the Heaviside velocity-sensitive force that are central to electromagnetism. An alternative model is now proposed here for the basic interaction between pairs of electrons that is shown to be consistent with classical electromagnetism and provides an alternative (but now readily understandable) physical explanation for the dynamical results of relativity without requiring the Relativistic transform to redefine the foundations of space and time. Physicists now must make a choice: they can continue to use continuum mathematics (grounded in the traditional calculus used to describe local but mass-less field theories that cover all of space and time, subject to the bizarre interpretations of relativity). Alternatively, theoretical physics can return to the physical models of impulse interactions between point particles (described by the mathematics of finite differences acting within the passive, but common-sense, view of space and time introduced by Newton in the Principia) but now acknowledging that the fundamental interaction is asynchronous. This latter choice means that the two interaction times must always be considered in a symmetric manner: the single-time approach can no longer be viewed as a suitable model of reality. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 [email protected] © H. J. Spencer Version 1.0 20-06-2008 Begun 21-12-2007 UET4 Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 RESEARCH PROGRAMME .................................................................................... 1 Conservative Science ...................................................................................................... 2 Science clings to its Theories .......................................................................................... 2 Maxwell discovered the ‘Truth’ ...................................................................................... 2 Einstein promoted Independence .................................................................................... 2 The Unity of Science ....................................................................................................... 3 Physics is always grounded in Points ............................................................................. 3 Reality involves Entities .................................................................................................. 3 Electrons are Points ........................................................................................................ 3 Existence is All Electrons ................................................................................................ 3 The Fact of the Act .......................................................................................................... 3 1.1.2 THE SECOND PILLAR OF MODERN PHYSICS .................................................. 4 It’s all about Time ........................................................................................................... 4 Einstein also began with Time ........................................................................................ 4 The Centrality of Time, not Geometry ............................................................................ 5 Defining Time .................................................................................................................. 5 Mass & Energy ............................................................................................................... 5 Electricity is the Electron ................................................................................................ 5 Pure Electron Theory ...................................................................................................... 5 Interactions cannot be Continuous ................................................................................. 5 1.1.3 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 6 1.2 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 A NEW APPROACH TO EM ................................................................................... 6 New EM Theory avoids Relativistic Transforms ............................................................ 6 Philosophy Redux ............................................................................................................ 7 Extending Newton’s Metaphysics ................................................................................... 7 Newton introduced Dualities .......................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 ELECTRODYNAMICS & MOTION ....................................................................... 7 1.2.2.1 Nineteenth Century EM ....................................................................................... 8 1.2.2.2 Experimental Anomalies ..................................................................................... 8 1.2.2.3 Relativistic Transformation Theory .................................................................... 8 1.2.2.4 Einstein’s 1905 Relativity Theory ....................................................................... 9 1.2.3 REACTIONS TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY ............................................................. 9 1.2.3.1 Planck’s Role in Relativity .................................................................................. 9 1.2.3.2 Planck’s Momentum Proposal .......................................................................... 10 1.2.3.3 Resistance to Relativity ..................................................................................... 10 1.2.3.4 Acceptance of Relativity .................................................................................... 10 1.2.3.5 Modern Views on Relativity .............................................................................. 10 1.2.3.6 Experimental Confirmation .............................................................................. 10 2 UET4 1.2.4 METAPHYSICS OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY ...................................................... 10 1.2.4.1 Continuity in Classical Physics ........................................................................ 11 1.2.4.2 Rigid Bodies ...................................................................................................... 11 1.2.4.3 Light as an Entity .............................................................................................. 11 1.2.4.4 The Role of Time ............................................................................................... 11 1.2.4.5 The Principle of Relativity ................................................................................ 11 1.2.4.6 Reference Frames ............................................................................................. 12 1.2.5 DISCRETE CLASSICAL MECHANICS ............................................................... 12 1.2.5.1 Continuum Physics ............................................................................................ 12 1.2.5.2 Classical Electron Metaphysics ........................................................................ 12 1.2.5.3 Finite Difference Mathematics ......................................................................... 13 1.2.5.4 Discrete Classical Physics ................................................................................ 13 1.2.6 TWO-ELECTRON RELATIVISTIC DYNAMICS ................................................ 14 1.2.6.1 Interactions: Directed & Discrete .................................................................... 14 1.2.6.2 Discrete Time Interactions ...............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Einstein and Physics Hundred Years Ago∗
    Vol. 37 (2006) ACTA PHYSICA POLONICA B No 1 EINSTEIN AND PHYSICS HUNDRED YEARS AGO∗ Andrzej K. Wróblewski Physics Department, Warsaw University Hoża 69, 00-681 Warszawa, Poland [email protected] (Received November 15, 2005) In 1905 Albert Einstein published four papers which revolutionized physics. Einstein’s ideas concerning energy quanta and electrodynamics of moving bodies were received with scepticism which only very slowly went away in spite of their solid experimental confirmation. PACS numbers: 01.65.+g 1. Physics around 1900 At the turn of the XX century most scientists regarded physics as an almost completed science which was able to explain all known physical phe- nomena. It appeared to be a magnificent structure supported by the three mighty pillars: Newton’s mechanics, Maxwell’s electrodynamics, and ther- modynamics. For the celebrated French chemist Marcellin Berthelot there were no major unsolved problems left in science and the world was without mystery. Le monde est aujourd’hui sans mystère— he confidently wrote in 1885 [1]. Albert A. Michelson was of the opinion that “The more important fundamen- tal laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote . Our future dis- coveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals” [2]. Physics was not only effective but also perfect and beautiful. Henri Poincaré maintained that “The theory of light based on the works of Fresnel and his successors is the most perfect of all the theories of physics” [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Hermann Minkowski Et La Mathématisation De La Théorie De La Relativité Restreinte 1905-1915
    THÈSE présentée à L’UNIVERSITÉ DE PARIS VII pour obtenir le grade de DOCTEUR Spécialité : Épistémologie et Histoire des Sciences par Scott A. WALTER HERMANN MINKOWSKI ET LA MATHÉMATISATION DE LA THÉORIE DE LA RELATIVITÉ RESTREINTE 1905-1915 Thèse dirigée par M. Christian Houzel et soutenue le 20 décembre 1996 devant la Commission d’Examen composée de : Examinateur : M. Christian Houzel Professeur à l’Université de Paris VII Examinateur : M. Arthur I. Miller Professeur à UniversityCollege London Rapporteur : M. Michel Paty Directeur de recherche, CNRS Rapporteur : M. Jim Ritter Maître de conférences à l’Univ. de Paris VIII S. Walter LA MATHÉMATISATION DE LA RELATIVITÉ RESTREINTE i Résumé Au début du vingtième siècle émergeait l’un des produits les plus remarquables de la physique théorique : la théorie de la relativité. Prise dans son contexte à la fois intellectuel et institution- nel, elle est l’objet central de la dissertation. Toutefois, seul un aspect de cette histoire est abordé de façon continue, à savoir le rôle des mathématiciens dans sa découverte, sa diffusion, sa ré- ception et son développement. Les contributions d’un mathématicien en particulier, Hermann Minkowski, sont étudiées de près, car c’est lui qui trouva la forme mathématique permettant les développements les plus importants, du point de vue des théoriciens de l’époque. Le sujet de la thèse est abordé selon deux axes; l’un se fonde sur l’analyse comparative des documents, l’autre sur l’étude bibliométrique. De cette façon, les conclusions de la première démarche se trouvent encadrées par les résultats de l’analyse globale des données bibliographiques.
    [Show full text]
  • Voigt Transformations in Retrospect: Missed Opportunities?
    Voigt transformations in retrospect: missed opportunities? Olga Chashchina Ecole´ Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France∗ Natalya Dudisheva Novosibirsk State University, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia† Zurab K. Silagadze Novosibirsk State University and Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia.‡ The teaching of modern physics often uses the history of physics as a didactic tool. However, as in this process the history of physics is not something studied but used, there is a danger that the history itself will be distorted in, as Butterfield calls it, a “Whiggish” way, when the present becomes the measure of the past. It is not surprising that reading today a paper written more than a hundred years ago, we can extract much more of it than was actually thought or dreamed by the author himself. We demonstrate this Whiggish approach on the example of Woldemar Voigt’s 1887 paper. From the modern perspective, it may appear that this paper opens a way to both the special relativity and to its anisotropic Finslerian generalization which came into the focus only recently, in relation with the Cohen and Glashow’s very special relativity proposal. With a little imagination, one can connect Voigt’s paper to the notorious Einstein-Poincar´epri- ority dispute, which we believe is a Whiggish late time artifact. We use the related historical circumstances to give a broader view on special relativity, than it is usually anticipated. PACS numbers: 03.30.+p; 1.65.+g Keywords: Special relativity, Very special relativity, Voigt transformations, Einstein-Poincar´epriority dispute I. INTRODUCTION Sometimes Woldemar Voigt, a German physicist, is considered as “Relativity’s forgotten figure” [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Ether and Electrons in Relativity Theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter
    Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900-1911) Scott Walter To cite this version: Scott Walter. Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900-1911). Jaume Navarro. Ether and Moder- nity: The Recalcitrance of an Epistemic Object in the Early Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press, 2018, 9780198797258. hal-01879022 HAL Id: hal-01879022 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01879022 Submitted on 21 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Ether and electrons in relativity theory (1900–1911) Scott A. Walter∗ To appear in J. Navarro, ed, Ether and Modernity, 67–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018 Abstract This chapter discusses the roles of ether and electrons in relativity the- ory. One of the most radical moves made by Albert Einstein was to dismiss the ether from electrodynamics. His fellow physicists felt challenged by Einstein’s view, and they came up with a variety of responses, ranging from enthusiastic approval, to dismissive rejection. Among the naysayers were the electron theorists, who were unanimous in their affirmation of the ether, even if they agreed with other aspects of Einstein’s theory of relativity. The eventual success of the latter theory (circa 1911) owed much to Hermann Minkowski’s idea of four-dimensional spacetime, which was portrayed as a conceptual substitute of sorts for the ether.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Einstein Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century Editors David E
    David E. Rowe • Tilman Sauer • Scott A. Walter Editors Beyond Einstein Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century Editors David E. Rowe Tilman Sauer Institut für Mathematik Institut für Mathematik Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany Mainz, Germany Scott A. Walter Centre François Viète Université de Nantes Nantes Cedex, France ISSN 2381-5833 ISSN 2381-5841 (electronic) Einstein Studies ISBN 978-1-4939-7706-2 ISBN 978-1-4939-7708-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7708-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018944372 Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 01A60, 81T20, 83C47, 83D05 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • Figures of Light in the Early History of Relativity (1905–1914)
    Figures of Light in the Early History of Relativity (1905{1914) Scott A. Walter To appear in D. Rowe, T. Sauer, and S. A. Walter, eds, Beyond Einstein: Perspectives on Geometry, Gravitation, and Cosmology in the Twentieth Century (Einstein Studies 14), New York: Springer Abstract Albert Einstein's bold assertion of the form-invariance of the equa- tion of a spherical light wave with respect to inertial frames of reference (1905) became, in the space of six years, the preferred foundation of his theory of relativity. Early on, however, Einstein's universal light- sphere invariance was challenged on epistemological grounds by Henri Poincar´e,who promoted an alternative demonstration of the founda- tions of relativity theory based on the notion of a light ellipsoid. A third figure of light, Hermann Minkowski's lightcone also provided a new means of envisioning the foundations of relativity. Drawing in part on archival sources, this paper shows how an informal, interna- tional group of physicists, mathematicians, and engineers, including Einstein, Paul Langevin, Poincar´e, Hermann Minkowski, Ebenezer Cunningham, Harry Bateman, Otto Berg, Max Planck, Max Laue, A. A. Robb, and Ludwig Silberstein, employed figures of light during the formative years of relativity theory in their discovery of the salient features of the relativistic worldview. 1 Introduction When Albert Einstein first presented his theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), he began by explaining how his kinematic assumptions led to a certain coordinate transformation, soon to be known as the \Lorentz" transformation. Along the way, the young Einstein affirmed the form-invariance of the equation of a spherical 1 light-wave (or light-sphere covariance, for short) with respect to in- ertial frames of reference.
    [Show full text]
  • Like Thermodynamics Before Boltzmann. on the Emergence of Einstein’S Distinction Between Constructive and Principle Theories
    Like Thermodynamics before Boltzmann. On the Emergence of Einstein’s Distinction between Constructive and Principle Theories Marco Giovanelli Forum Scientiarum — Universität Tübingen, Doblerstrasse 33 72074 Tübingen, Germany [email protected] How must the laws of nature be constructed in order to rule out the possibility of bringing about perpetual motion? Einstein to Solovine, undated In a 1919 article for the Times of London, Einstein declared the relativity theory to be a ‘principle theory,’ like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘constructive theory,’ like the kinetic theory of gases. The present paper attempts to trace back the prehistory of this famous distinction through a systematic overview of Einstein’s repeated use of the relativity theory/thermodynamics analysis after 1905. Einstein initially used the comparison to address a specic objection. In his 1905 relativity paper he had determined the velocity-dependence of the electron’s mass by adapting Newton’s particle dynamics to the relativity principle. However, according to many, this result was not admissible without making some assumption about the structure of the electron. Einstein replied that the relativity theory is similar to thermodynamics. Unlike the usual physical theories, it does not directly try to construct models of specic physical systems; it provides empirically motivated and mathematically formulated criteria for the acceptability of such theories. New theories can be obtained by modifying existing theories valid in limiting case so that they comply with such criteria. Einstein progressively transformed this line of the defense into a positive heuristics. Instead of directly searching for new theories, it is often more eective to search for conditions which constraint the number of possible theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Like Thermodynamics Before Boltzmann. on the Emergence of Einstein’S Distinction Between Constructive and Principle Theories
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Philsci-Archive Like Thermodynamics before Boltzmann. On the Emergence of Einstein’s Distinction between Constructive and Principle Theories Marco Giovanelli Forum Scientiarum — Universität Tübingen, Doblerstrasse 33 72074 Tübingen, Germany [email protected] How must the laws of nature be constructed in order to rule out the possibility of bringing about perpetual motion? Einstein to Solovine, undated In a 1919 article for the Times of London, Einstein declared the relativity theory to be a ‘principle theory,’ like thermodynamics, rather than a ‘constructive theory,’ like the kinetic theory of gases. The present paper attempts to trace back the prehistory of this famous distinction through a systematic overview of Einstein’s repeated use of the relativity theory/thermodynamics analysis after 1905. Einstein initially used the comparison to address a specic objection. In his 1905 relativity paper he had determined the velocity-dependence of the electron’s mass by adapting Newton’s particle dynamics to the relativity principle. However, according to many, this result was not admissible without making some assumption about the structure of the electron. Einstein replied that the relativity theory is similar to thermodynamics. Unlike the usual physical theories, it does not directly try to construct models of specic physical systems; it provides empirically motivated and mathematically formulated criteria for the acceptability of such theories. New theories can be obtained by modifying existing theories valid in limiting case so that they comply with such criteria. Einstein progressively transformed this line of the defense into a positive heuristics.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Relativistic Responses to the Kaufmannn Experiments$
    Heuristics versus Norms: On the Relativistic Responses to the Kaufmannn ExperimentsI Jan Potters1 Centre for Philosophical Psychology, Department of Philosophy, University of Antwerp, Grote Kauwenberg 18, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium Abstract The aim of this article is to provide a historical response to Michel Janssen's (2009) claim that the special theory of relativity establishes that relativistic phenomena are purely kinematical in nature, and that the relativistic study of such phenomena is completely independent of the dynamics of the systems displaying such behavior. This response will be formulated through a histori- cal discussion of one of Janssen's cases, the experiments carried out by Walter Kaufmann on the velocity-dependence of the electron's mass. Through a dis- cussion of the different responses formulated by early adherents of the princi- ple of relativity (Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Hermann Minkowski and Max von Laue) to these experiments, it will be argued that the historical devel- opment of the special theory of relativity argues against Janssen's historical IThe author would like to thank Richard Staley, Hasok Chang, Marco Giovanelli, Har- vey Brown, Dennis Lehmkuhl, Thomas Ryckman, and the audiences at the Fifth Young Researchers Day in Logic, History and Philosophy of Science 2016 (Brussels), the Forum Scientiarium Summerschools of 2017 and 2018 (T¨ubingen),and the EPSA 2017 confer- ence (Exeter). This article was partially written during a stay as a visiting student at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge (UK). Email address: [email protected] (Jan Potters) 1Corresponding Author, Research Funded by the FWO (Research Foundation { Flan- ders) Preprint submitted to Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern PhysicsFebruary 12, 2019 presentation of the case, and that this raises questions about his general philosophical claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Eckert Science, Life and Turbulent Times –
    Michael Eckert Arnold Sommerfeld Science, Life and Turbulent Times – Michael Eckert Arnold Sommerfeld. Science, Life and Turbulent Times Michael Eckert translated by Tom Artin Arnold Sommerfeld Science, Life and Turbulent Times 1868–1951 Michael Eckert Deutsches Museum Munich , Germany Translation of Arnold Sommerfeld: Atomphysiker und Kulturbote 1868–1951, originally published in German by Wallstein Verlag, Göttingen ISBN ---- ISBN ---- (eBook) DOI ./---- Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: © Springer Science+Business Media New York Th is work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifi cally for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law. Th e use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Studies Reader
    The Science Studies Reader EDITED BY MARIO BIAGIOLI IN CONSULTATION WITH PETER GALISON · DONNA J. HARAWAY EMILY MARTIN · EVERETT MENDELSOHN SHARON TRAWEEK Routledge NEW YORK AND LONDON IJ6 ARNOLD I, DAVIDSON 25. Ibid., 39. 26. Ibid., 48 (my emphasis). 27. Ibid., 50. 28. T~omas Nagel, "Sexual Perversion," Journal of Philosophy(16 January 1969): 15, 29. Ibid., 16. 30. Nagel, Mortal Q}testions,50-51. 31. Ia~ Hacking, ."Proof and Eternal Truths: Descartes and Leibniz," in S. Geukroger, ed., Descartes:Philosophy, IO Mathematicsand Physics,(New York: Barnes and Noble, 1980), 169. 32. See n. 12, 33, A. C. Crombie, "Philosophical Presuppositions and Shifting Interpretations of Galileo " in J Hinfikk D. Gruedn_er, and E. Agazzi, eds., TheoryChange (Dorohecht: Reidel, 1981), 283, ' · a, 34· M1c?el Foucault, HerculineBarbin, Being the RecentlyDiscovered Memoirs of a Nineteenth-CenturyFrench TradingZone Hermaphrodite(New York: Pantheon, 1980), vii-viii. · 35. Ibid., viii. 36. Ibid., 127-28 (my emphasis). CoordinatingAction and Belief 37. Ibid., 135-36. ~8. I_bid.,123. Tardieu'~ boo){ was publi~hed in 1874. Parts of it had previously appeared in the Anna/es d'hygiene publ1q11em 1872. A fuller d1scuss1onof quest10ns of sexual identity would have to consider this document in detail PETER GALISON 39, H~velock Ellis, "Sexo-Aesthetic Inversion," Alienist and Neurologist34 (1913):156-6 7, · 40. Ibid., 156. 41. Ibid., 159. 42. Ibid., 158, n. 7. 43, Am_ericanPsy~hi~tric Ass?ci.ation, Diagnosticand StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders,3d ed. (Washington, D. C.: Amen can Psych1atnc Assoc1at10n,1980), 261. 44· D. 11:'1·Ro~ier, Des habit111ess_ecretes 011 des maladiesproduites par l'onanismechez /esfemmes (Paris: Audin, PART I: INTERCALATION 1830).
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein Meaning of Relativity Pdf
    Einstein meaning of relativity pdf Continue Project Gutenberg 63.455 ebook Free 7 by Albert Einstein Albert Einstein was born on 14 March 1879 in Ulm. He spent his boyfriem in Munich where his family owned a small car shop. At the age of twelve years, Einstein taught himself Euclidean Geometry. His family moved to Milan, where he stayed for a year, and used it as an excuse to deposit him outside the school, which bore him. He finished high school in Aarau, Switzerland and entered the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. Einstein graduated in 1900, not studying the scores of a comrade since he didn't go to his classes out of borety, yet. His teachers did not like him and would not recommend him for a position at the University. For two years, Einstein worked as a standby professor at Bern. In 1905, he received his doctorate from the University of Zurich for a theoretical speech about the dimension of molecules. Einstein also published three theoretical papers of central importance to the development of 20th Century Physics. The first was Brownian's motion right, and second photoelectric effort, which was a revolutionary way of thinking and contradiction tradition. No one accepted the proposals in the first two papers. Then was the third one published in 1905 and named on the Electrodynamics body. Einstein's words became what is known today as the special theory of relativity and said that the physics laws are the same in all uneral reference systems and that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant.
    [Show full text]