Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2006

Karl Popper: "On this basis we can argue that it would be a highly
improbable coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly
predict very precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors
unless there is 'some truth' in it."

Unless the theory is criminal. In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the
frequency shift as light travels between the top and the bottom of a
tower. Their result confirmed Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of
speed of light (the c+v principle: the speed of light depends on the
speed v of the light source or observer) and refuted Einstein's
principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle: the
speed of light does not depend on the speed v of the light source or
observer). In Einstein's zombie world this meant that Einstein's
principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle) was
confirmed whereas Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light
(the c+v principle) was refuted. Criminal theories work in this way.

Still relativity is not so tragic. In the above case at least the
concepts are defined and the fact that the c+v principle is true and
the c principle false can be proved. So even Einstein's hypnotists are
forced to tell the truth sometimes:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

In thermodynamics, another criminal theory, the situation is really
hopeless:

L. McGlashan, Chemical thermodynamics, Academic Press, London (1979),
pp. 72-73:

"For an infinitesimal change in the state of a phase alpha we write

dU = T dS - p dV + SUM mu_B dn_B     (1)

We regard equation (1) as an axiom and call it the fundamental equation
for a change of the state of a phase alpha. It is one half of the
second law of thermodynamics. We do not ask where it comes from. Indeed
we do not admit the existence of any more fundamental relations from
which it might have been derived. Nor shall we here enquire into the
history of its formulation, though that is a subject of great interest
to the historian of science. It is a starting point ; it must be learnt
by heart. It may be allowed to stand as an axiom until any single one
of the host of equations that can be derived from it (with the help of
other axioms of thermodynamics) has been shown experimentally to be
false."

This so-called fundamental equation of thermodynamics is the most
idiotic mathematical expression ever taught in science courses. Gibbs
defined it for systems in equilibrium, then someone else applied it to
systems distant from equilibrium and now it could be anything - one
half of the second law of thermodynamics, two-thirds of the second law
of thermodynamics etc. Physicists abandoned it long time ago but poor
chemistry students should learn it intensively and then should derive
"the host of equations that can be derived from it".

Pentcho Valev