Gist of the article, which I don't pretend to understand:

Since 1964, the Grand Poobahs of physics have assumed that the strange and inconsistent
Quantum Theory had to be final and unassailable, because of a set of proofs that assumed
certain things about the underlying mathematics.  One of those assumptions was that
processes like multiplication are commutative: that is, 3 * 4 is the same as 4 * 3. 

Now some mathy types are finally breaking out of the orthodoxy, by pointing out that
rotations in space are certainly not commutative.  (As any Poserite who has wrestled
with joint parameters knows!)  

The real underlying theory, if any, hasn't yet been formed; but it's good to see
a 40-year-long smug attachment to a weirdly egocentric theory breaking up.

(Things exist only when observed *by physicists? *Come on.)

Hi Ockham!

Great News!  This finally explains why,   
when I count my fingers forward on my left hand and arrive at 5,  
then count my fingers backwards on my right hand and arrive at 6,  
then add the two numbers I come up with the sum of 11 fingers!

Cheers
Pat

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the scientific community is smug but it can sometimes be too hidebound and suspicious of new ideas.  I have to confess a slight personal attachment here; two of my younger brothers are physicists. 

The Quantum certainly has not explained yet what gravity is....    only the relationship between mass and gravitational forces...  bigger mass.. more forces.... visa versa..     great...  but the question still lingers....  what is gravity...   Math attempts only to find models of nature and then fit an explanation on those basis...  

maybe there is no such thing as gravity....  maybe something else is happening all around us... the gravitational forces only appears to emanate from the center of planetary masses...

Quote - The Quantum certainly has not explained yet what gravity is....    only the relationship between mass and gravitational forces...  bigger mass.. more forces.... visa versa..     great...  but the question still lingers....  what is gravity...   Math attempts only to find models of nature and then fit an explanation on those basis...   maybe there is no such thing as gravity....

That's me pretty much knackered then, since I only believe in hydrogen and gravity and I'm not too sure about hydrogen.  :)

Say "renormalisation" in a roomfull of quantom physisists, and watch them run for cover! :lol:

I'd open the box, but I don't know if Kitty will be alive or dead, or both...;)
I have a wonderful proof of the above I've scribbled on the page...;)

Quote - (Things exist only when observed *by physicists? *Come on.)

Hehe.  If a tree falls in a forest and noone is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Actually, yes, Mr. Heisenberg.  Space-time events don't require so-called sentient 'observers' to have actually happened.  Otherwise, what was happening before we humans arrived (or any other life).  They just need to interact with surrounding space-time (space, energy, matter).  Sound is an energy transmitted through a material medium.  So the sound is 'observed' by all of the molecules that the sound energy encounters.  That is, in stricter Quantum terms, the sound waves/particles interact with other waves/particles.  QED: the event has been observed.

One thing bad about the mistaken 'observer' is that it has fueled stupid people in all sorts of areas (when you see Quantum in any product advert, run).  It has even been invoked for such vacant principles as solipsism (I exist, therefore you don't) and last-Thursdayism (nothing existed before now, no, now, wait, now). ;P

Analogies and gedanken-experiments from Quantum physicists never bothered me.  Their one problem is that people take them at face value, misunderstand, misconstrue, take out of context - that is, that quantum effects scale up to the real world.  Now the kitty-in-the-box paradox (Schroedinger's Cat) is interesting since it takes a Quantum event and 'scales it up' to have an outcome at macro levels.  In theory, it is a valid analogy, experiement even.  But the kitty will be either dead or alive but not both.  The probability factor for the cat being in a dual state is bigger than astronomical (some put it as once in several universe's existences).

they can't resurrect albert, as they removed his brain and put it in a jar somewhere. as an aside, the structure of reality is not impossible to know, but it won't be done by humans, I can assure ya. :lol:

No, Einstein will solve nothing, he will turn Posette's hand rotations to four dimensions later exyended to 23, 90 degrees will be the maximun rotation that can exist, to make a face morph you will have to deal with Riemann curvatures and be an expert in tensorial calculus. If her leg bends in a bad way you you will spend your life searching for the misterious "dark joint"....
Meantime the old Hamilton's quaternions.....

Quote - If her leg bends in a bad way you you will spend your life searching for the misterious "dark joint"....

:lol:

What astounds me are the guys like Einstein, Tesla, Michelangelo to name a few...what in the heck did these guys put in their tea? Absolutely amazing to think along these lines and put it into practice.

What's interesting is that Quantum Theory is a fluke.  Planck just fiddled with the math to make the available data fit - which was sorely frowned upon by other Physicists.  But it worked and spawned the entire enterprise - which has been 'proven' correct.

Einstein, Tesla, Isaac Newton, Galileo - they questioned, observed, saw something that noone had ever seen, and changed our worldview.  If it involves tea, I'll have to drink more of it! :)

Aye!

And send some over yonder too!

That sounds like a good idea.  Get meself a cup of tea and off to kip.

Einstein, Tesla, Isaac Newton, Galileo...yes.

But we even underestimate the level achieved by the Greeks. It is quite likely Archimedes had the calculus. 

The giants in this list were unburdened by the vile interpretations of Heisenburg et al and just kept going after more rational understanding of objective reality. Much of what they knew burned in Alexandria and perished the day Archimedes was slain by a brute in his study.

Heisenburg was an ardent student of Eastern religion, where contradiction is the teacher, as opposed to reality. Then he became a Nazi.

Metaphysically, it is a question of "The primacy of existence" vs "primacy of consciousness," to use Ayn Rand's forumlation. In the first, the universe exists outside of and is in no way contingent upon any given consciousness; in the second, the thinker is never free from the dim belief -- fearfully or triumphantly -- that he is making it all up as he goes along.

::::: Opera :::::

Not directly related to your point, OG, but you did make me think of how Archimedes et al did staggeringly well, just by observation and rational thought.

Back to your point... Primacy of consciousness sounds awfully close to solipsism.

Yes, one French intellectual of the school, whom we all know, wrote a play called "No Exit" in which is uttered the famous line "Hell is other people." and the novel "Nausea" in which the main character, not able control reality with his mind, believes objective reality (books, tables, rocks, people, situations etc) is a useless annoyance and disgusting prison, simply because it has the gall to "be" something rather than nothing . He wants freedom from existing and since he can't get it, he is nauseous.

::::: Opera :::::

The problem is that Quantics works and is useful!, can you say the same about Relativity?
Thanks Quantics you have your computer and you can render nude Vickies in a temple with a sword, but what the Hell Relativity gave to you?

Pure mathematics (like pure science) often has problems when put to test in the real world.

I remember a friend at uni who stated the real probability (chance) of anything happening was 1:2, saying, "... it either happens or it doesn't happen". - ergo 1:2..

Your theory can postulate that an elephant can fly and you always are able to invent a mathematics that will prove your theory.
Mathematics is only a tool, with a tool you can do useful things and also useless things.

Probability does have that nasty side effect. One can do detailed analyses of past events, calculate all of the conditions, and give very accurate probabilities.  But in the end, the event in question either happens or doesn't.  For instance, the chance of an ELE asteriod hitting Earth tomorrow has a very, very low probability from known data and historical evidence.  But that doesn't mean that it can't happen tomorrow.  It either does or doesn't.  So, I agree with him completely! ;)

Relativity does indeed work and is useful!  There is not a single area concerning astronomy, space exploration, or satellite technology (upon which we rely for TV, cell phones, weather forecasting, and a myriad other things related) that does not consider Relativistic effects.  Einstein is known for 'Relativity' but don't forget a few other amazing things he worked out:

• How Brownian motion works.  Impressive.
• The Photo-electric effect (BIG! VERY BIG!)
• E=MC^2.  Although very popularized, this equivalence between matter and energy changed the entire face of physics forever!  It facilitated the construction of atomic weapons (unfortunately) and the possibility of fission energy as well as fusion energy (which helped discover how stars work).  It helped in the formulation of Big Bang Theory and has been used in many others since. Biggest of ALL time - equivalent to Newton's Laws of Gravitation.

There are a few other things into which he dabbled - the first refrigeration system and, of course, Quantum Theory (of which he was a big opponent).  His argumentation with the theory helped perfect and clarify it.

The reason why Relativity theory isn't as useful is that in its own formulation it lays out the limits of what is possible.  Rather than a practical theory to be applied solely for technology, it presents a picture of how the universe works in a way far more advanced then previous models.  With gravity as a warping of space-time, the limits of speed imposed by light, information, and mass, and the effects of time and space governed by gravity and acceleration, he has provided the impetus to future discoveries.  That is its practicality, one must suppose - that one day it will allow another great mind to see even further on the shoulders of the shoulders of the giants.

Quote - Relativity does indeed work and is useful!  There is not a single area concerning astronomy, space exploration, or satellite technology (upon which we rely for TV, cell phones, weather forecasting, and a myriad other things related) that does not consider Relativistic effects.  Einstein is known for 'Relativity' but don't forget a few other amazing things he worked out:

Are you sure???, no practical application that we use every day use Relativity, I said NONE!
Cell phones don't use Einstein, it use Maxwell.
TV doesn't use Relativity, use Maxwell, Thomson, Crookes.
GPS if use Relativity must be coorected by the Sagnac effect, if not must ignore both.

  > Quote - How Brownian motion works.  Impressive.

You have probability, statistics, yes Einstein did those things, did you know it?, but nothing of Relativity there.

Quote - * The Photo-electric effect (BIG! VERY BIG!)

A great Einstein's contribution to Quantics, but nothing of Relativity there.

Quote - * E=MC^2.  Although very popularized, this equivalence between matter and energy changed the entire face of physics forever!  It facilitated the construction of atomic weapons (unfortunately) and the possibility of fission energy as well as fusion energy (which helped discover how stars work).

Thomson introduced this formula 15 years before Einstein and other scientists did too.
The equivalence between mass-energy need not any Relativity, Einstein only incorportaed this equivalence to his theory.

Quote - It helped in the formulation of Big Bang Theory and has been used in many others since.

This is true, Relativity is the base of BigBang theory, only a theory without any practical application and full of contradictions between the theory and observed data.

Quote - Biggest of ALL time - equivalent to Newton's Laws of Gravitation.

One more theory among others and too much complicated without any practical use.

Quote - There are a few other things into which he dabbled - the first refrigeration system

Refrigeration????, what the Hell Relativity has to do with Thermodynamics???

Quote - and, of course, Quantum Theory (of which he was a big opponent).  His argumentation with the theory helped perfect and clarify it.

The Quantum Theory that is used in every day practical applications ignores Relativity.
Relaticity was introduced in Quantics 50 years later by Dirac, is useful only for theories with some interesting consequences as anti-matter, but until know only theory without any practical application.

In resume, nothing we use needs Relativity, a nice theory for theoricists.

kuroyume0161 - You've certainly done your homework on these subjects and articulate your thoughts very very well. I've enjoyed reading them. ockham - On an atomic scale, electrons (in fact, all particules of matter) cannot be seen individually. They exist in a kind of 'cloud' of possiblities (called a quantum superposition). Only when a measurement is made by physicists does the electron snap out of this cloud of probability and assume a definite position or velocity, depending on which is being measured. After the measurement (observation) is made, the electron disappears back into the cloud of probabilty and nothing can be said of where it is or how fast its moving.

Is very important to note that in any measurement the process of measuring disturbs what we are measuring.
For everyday life the measurement instruments are desgned in a way that the pertubation is insignificant so we can ignore the error commited;
In Quantics the story is rather different, as the thing we are measuring are so small, so tiny that it's impossible to not disturb what we are observing, many times the perturbation is mych bigger than what we are measuring. We have no means and no ways of making an instrument that does't disturb what we are measuring.
Quantics takes into account the perturbations that we introdce and try extract some usefull information. In a limit when the perturbation is so big and what is observed is so small the result is nothing and we know nothing of what we wanted to measure.
The day we discover a way to do an instrument that doesn't disturb in a significant way what we are observing then we can return gack to Classic Physics and measure an electron without Quantics, for example.

Cell phones, TV, GPS - SATELLITES!!!!  Satellites use Relativitly to compensate for the difference in gravitational effects caused by Relativity.  Did you not read that carefully? ;P

Relativity may not be 'useful' in an everyday sense but it is far from working.  It has been experimentally validated on numerous occasions - starting with the perihelion of Mars, Eddington showing the effect of light passing near to the sun, the spectral shift of astronomical bodies due to acceleration (caused by expansion of space-time or relative motion), the disparity of clocks at varying distances in gravitational fields (conducted with atomic clocks).

The other mentions show that Einstein wasn't talking out his ass.  Those other achievements are included with Special and General Relativity.  The FIVE papers that changed the world.  How many physicists do you know that changed the world five times, eh?  Newton only provided the Laws, Calculus, and light spectra (incredible and far reaching but not as wide ranging).

'base of BigBang theory' - and others as mentioned (many others).

As you probably know, Quantum and Relativity Theory have NEVER been reconciled with each other completely - thus the big push for super-colliders to unify forces (ah, Einstein worked on that too - but he died in the process).

Again, when synchronizing clocks (using Quantum levels of accuracy - the energetic vibrations of atoms), one must consider Relativistic effects of gravitational fields.  A clock in orbit around the Earth will drift to one on the surface due to these effects.  That is why ALL satellites must consider these effects for timing, receiving, and transmission of data.  The problem with Relativity is that it is all relative (haha) to the relative disparities of at least two systems.  If you understand it, it involves the relative motions of systems and the relative accelerations of systems and how these two things alter measurements - something very, very, very, very (how many should I type here?) critical to all science (measurements - ya know, the data that makes theories or breaks them).  Quantum physics shows us that at sub-atomic levels, measurements are probabilistic dependent upon what we are measuring.  Relativity shows us that general measurements must consider effects before unconsidered (such as 'simultaneity' and 'sychronicity').

Zeno's paradoxes have all been resolved because Zeno, gosh bless his Athenian soul, never considered time as part of the subdivision steps of his thought experiments.  Einstein leap-frogged over unforeseen territory to warn us of impending paradoxes not even realized.  How amazing is that?  It is almost as if he wasn't human...

Quote - Cell phones, TV, GPS - SATELLITES!!!!

Cell phones, NO. TV NO. Satellites NO! GPS yes and is controversial, Sagnac effect!!!

Quote -   use Relativitly to compensate for the difference in gravitational effects caused by Relativity.  Did you not read that carefully? ;

Quote - gain, when synchronizing clocks (using Quantum levels of accuracy - the energetic vibrations of atoms), one must consider Relativistic effects of gravitational fields.  A clock in orbit around the Earth will drift to one on the surface due to these effects.

The result is controversial, not always the results agrre with Relativity and the second important point is the energetic vibrations of atoms variations due gravity and speed are a result of Relativity or due Quantics?
The frecuency of the emited radiation depend on the energy level differemce and energy depend on the mass which is a function of speed and potential, if the speed or the potencial is changed the energy of the electrons is changed and the emited frecuency related by the Plack's constant is changed, as what we measure time as the frecuency assuming that speed of light is constant we think that time has changed as Relativity states, but what has changed are only the energy levels and not time!

Quote - Relativity may not be 'useful' in an everyday sense but it is far from working.  It has been experimentally validated on numerous occasions - starting with the perihelion of Mars, Eddington showing the effect of light passing near to the sun, the spectral shift of astronomical bodies due to acceleration (caused by expansion of space-time or relative motion),

Always the same classical experiments that can be explained by a lot of theories too, I never heard that these experiments were a prove for the other theories.
There are other experiments that contradicts or don't agrre with Relativity.
You have the famous Michelson-Morley whose failure turned as the start and later prove of Einstein's theory, you must have heard this experiment thousands times, but what you never heard is that Michelson-Morley continued with their experiments and had success!!!, too bad, it shows that speed of light is not constant, something that you cannot know.
You also cannot know why the first experiment failed and how it was logical to fail.
There are many cases where gravity doesn't behave as the dogma states....

Quote - the disparity of clocks at varying distances in gravitational fields (conducted with atomic clocks).

As I said before, the results are controversial.

Quote - AThat is why ALL satellites must consider these effects for timing, receiving, and transmission of data.

Realtivity is not used for anything in transmision of data.

The maximun speed is the speed of light in vacuum, well..., something to think:

• At which speed light travels in a diamagnetic medium with permeability 1. ?
• And inside a superconductor?

I'll just add these tidbits:

Quoting Benjamin Franklin (slightly out of context), "What's the use of a baby?"

Relativity is a bit like a baby.  It is such a sweeping overview of a model of the universe that practical applications are far beyond its esoteric brilliance.  With it, we have realized that time is not absolute as previously considered in the "Newtonian universe", that not only light has a limited speed but that this speed governs all transmission of matter/energy throughout the universe (including propagation of gravity!), that gravity, although being the weakest force in the universe, has some of the greatest impact on our lives.

Not only did Relativity create the idea of 'space-time', but it spurred the idea of a universe where time was a dimension and one could view the universe as a 4D tunnel instead of a 3D static space.  Einstein postulated the existence of black holes with this theory - and, by gosh, there is extremely strong evidence of their existence and key role in galactic formation.  The benefits of this one theory of his have been continually expanding our knowledge for over one hundred years - and, I dare say, will do so for the next hundred or until some other brilliant mind goes beyond.

Hawking has extended his ideas in theoretical physics, but into realms that mainly remain theoretical.  Einstein's theories have been confirmed and continue to be confirmed by experiment and observation.  The one casualty of Einstein and Planck is theoretical physics.  It invited physicists to concoct models through pure mathematics and abstract modelling without concrete evidences.  Some times the models are well formed and prove accurate.  Most of the time they prove fantastical and unevidential - can you say 'String theory', 'multi-verses', and 'manifolds' (among others).  Postulating models where parts of the model must exist extra-universally (outside of verification) is a poor trend in science.  Work with what can be shown and stop extrapolating structures that can neither be observed nor verified.  Einstein went through great pains to devise experiments to provide evidence in favor of his theories - that should always be the bottom line.

Quote - Einstein postulated the existence of black holes with this theory - and, by gosh, there is extremely strong evidence of their existence and key role in galactic formation.

Newton did the same, so Newton discovered black holes.

Tired light theory is bunk!

Provide links to papers where the propagation of light (EM energy) is faster than the speed of light... (Of course, light can travel SLOWER than this - well explained, well known, maybe a bit more information needed for circumstances).

I have never heard of controversy with the experiments involving synchronized atomic clocks where one is left on the ground and the other either flown high in the stratosphere or in orbit.  The observed disparity in the clocks completely agreed with Relativistic effects. (?)

If there were a controversy between whether certain synchronicity effects were Relativistic or Quantum, it would certainly provide a perfect 'medium' for joining the two theories - don't you agree?  I don't espouse either one as more relevant than the other.  Quantum effects are as real as Relativistic effects.  They may be shadows of each other - both different ways to observe the same thing (that's the key to finding the unification of the two).  But it is assured that Quantum effects extend no further than sub-atomic particles and Relativistic effects have not been shown to extend into that realm.  This is what makes the conjoining of the two theories an endeavor of over half a century.

You seem to be saying that Relativity is pure fantasy - theoretical physics like 'multi-verses' where no evidence is considered.  How many physicists have you talked to about how many times Relativity has been experimentally verified?  Even a cursory examination of the mathematics of the thought-experimental system in Special Relativity (the train, platform, and lightning) bears out the reality of the acknowledged simultaneity problem.  The antithesis would result in a logical and real paradox.  With information travel (speed of light = c) limited to a particular value (as in reality and experimentally validated infinite numbers of times), the disparity in observation MUST occur as the two systems move faster with respect to each other.  It is a simple (amazingly) matter of seeing that the distances the information (light) travels to intercept each observer cannot be the same unless both are incidentally at the same point in space.  And from there, Einstein logically and stepwise proceeded.  If there were any major flaws in reasoning, then supposed black holes, gravitational lensing effects, the performed experiments, and a myriad other factors would be easily dismissed.  Yet they all have beared fruit - hmmmm....

They speculated on such objects, Einstein proposed in a way that allowed them to be detected:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/black_holes.html

Newton's black hole

For a satellite leave the Earth and enter into orbit the satellite lauuncher must achieve some speed that is called  "escape velocity". if something travels at a lower speed is impossible to leave the Earth. Which is this velocity?
By simple Newton's physics

1/2 m.v^2 = G.m.M/r
Simplifying
1/2 v^2 = GM/r
or
v^2 = 2GM/r
When the gravity originating from a mass M becomes bigger we shall need bigger velocity to escape, the maximun speed that we know that something can travel is light c, so in one moment when the gravity is so strong nothing will be able to leave the "Earth", now in equations:
 c^2 = 2GM/r
We have now a black hole, if we invert the eqaution for the radius, something below this radius will need to travel faster than light, inside this critical radius the speed of light and above it less than light, so it is possible to leave.
The value of this radius, nothing more than simple Newton applied is:

r0 = 2GM/c^2

And this value is exactly the same that General Relativity gives for the horizon of events, but without any tensor or absolute differential calculus.

Quote - Provide links to papers where the propagation of light (EM energy) is faster than the speed of light... (Of course, light can travel SLOWER than this - well explained, well known, maybe a bit more information needed for circumstances).

Beside Quantics (action at distance) or the absence of aberration of gravitation force I don't know.
I asked this two questions because is theorical possible to light travel faster than in vacuum and also I am very curious to know what happens inside a superconductor, that has some peculiar properties, and if something happens, how is explained.

Going further, never was proved in any experiment that the mass increase with speed, the only thing that the experiments proved was that the ratio charge/mass (e/m) decrease with speed and this can be explained by three ways, Relativity is only one of them.

And I don't dispute Newton (who could!).  Brilliant minds think alike. :)

Einstein formulated his black hole theory, obviously, on the idea of gravitational fields.  In the end, his idea ended up with a singularity at the center of the black hole - which is a fancy way of saying that the mathematics broke down beyond the event horizon.  Newton probably would have speculated the same thing if he were trying to completely describe the phenomenon.

My point is that Einstein's theories, although not as practical as Newton's, are not whimsical and unproven.  I admit that my studies of Physics sort of trailed off at String theory (et al due to their more or less proven before evidenced nature).  You are obviously aware of Bell's Incompleteness Theorem.  This, for a time, was considered radical bull.  But the logical process and mathematics were very rigorous.  And the validation has been at least tentatively confirmed by experiment.  What practicality is there in this theory?

This is the key to 'science'.  Science is so complex these days that most people must take theories on 'faith' (not blind faith, but faith in the system itself). In the ye olden days, various people would be compelled to retry experiments to validate them (late Renaissance into the mid-Classical periods) and could personally validate theories.  Nowadays, replication is left to 'scientiists' who have the education and support to do such things.  The rest of us have to rely upon the scientific communities self-governing regulation and 'practical applications'.  Cold-fusion showed that the system mostly works.

Both Quantum and Relativity theory are very much proven.  E=MC^2 is derivative of Relativity theory - is there any doubt of the efficacy of this equation?  The problem here is that Quantum physics play a more practical role in our lives due to one unifying factor - electronics- whereas Relativity deals with realms normally beyond our practical experience.  Quantum effects are realized because the technological processes that bring us computers are so fine that the effects are relevant to the operational parameters of the micro-circuitry.  There isn't much chance of Relativistic considerations here - considering that electron propagation through these materials cannot be at the speed of light (and this consideration really concerns matter with respect to such speeds - EM energy always travesl at or less than 'c' without such impediments as increased mass and so on).

Here's a revelation about Relativity: Einstein used and discussed the 'speed of light' a lot in the theory but much of what was affected by this was matter.  Time-dilation, distance-dilation, mass-increase are all aspects of matter (not energy).  In a sense, General Relativity is an explanation of how matter reacts with and is affected by energy and vice versa (not far from the photo-electric effect in principle).  The entire theory is a discourse on the relationship between matter, energy, and the so-called space-time continuum (the 'medium' containing the two).  Basically it says that energy is transmitted through the continuum at a constant speed or less through matter without any mass considerations, matter travels at far less speeds and exhibits odd properites as it is accelerated towards speeds nearing energy transmission.  Matter, having mass, exhibits a known effect on space-time: gravity.  M-M never proved the Ether and tens of thousands of physicists agree since then - some have actually replicated the experiment (keystone of science).

This is very difficult stuff for a bunch of primates to understand.  We are trying to divulge secrets of a place in which we reside like a fish ponders what contains it in a fishbowl.  We have progressed far, but as has been proven before there is never an end to new knowledge.  Just when we thing we know it all, something shows that we know very little.  Galileo, Newton, Einstein were just better at describing the water and the glass.

I'd like to say that nothing obserbable is isolated from the observer.
The "tree falling in the forest stuff".
In dynamic systens, the observer cannot be removed from the equasion (the observer).
Hence, in chaos, there appaars to be observable times of predictability, period doubling (bifurcation) etc,.when the systen is obserbably chaotic, regardless of the attractor.
I watch a kid running in the playground and she falls over. Did my ovservation lead to causality?

Special Relativity contradicts itself if we take into consideration the conservation of energy.
1- The postulate often taken as a dogma tells that nothing can travel faster than light.
2- It is assumed as consequence of the theory that mass increase with speed.
Let see the energy of a body following Special Relativity.

E = m0.c^2/sqrt(1  - v^2/c^2 + 2U/c^2)
Where's U is the potential per unit mass.
Or that is the same
E = mc^2 where m = m0/sqrt(1  - v^2/c^2 + 2U/c^2)

Let take Newton's apple and let it fall in an experiment. You will see that the apple falls and its speed will be incresing more and more as it fall.
What happens with the energy? The apple as has a speed it adquires kinetic energy and as the speed increases so does the kinetic energy. From where does come this kinetic energy?
As energy cannot come from nothing the only source that it come is from the gravitacional field, so the total energy of the apple must remain constant, in other words
E = constant = m0.c^2/sqrt(1  - v^2/c^2 + 2U/c^2)]
If is not constant energy is created from nothing!
As m0 (rest mass) and c are constant the only way to E remain constant is to
sqrt(1  - v^2/c^2 + 2U/c^2)] = constant
or
1  - v^2/c^2 + 2U/c^2 = constant
or

• v^2/c^2 + 2U/c^2 = k = constant
  We can evatuate k assuming that the velocity of the apple is zero at infinite distance and the potential is zero, we can assume anything else, it will not give difference for the goal.
  In this case
• v^2/c^2 + 2U/c^2 = 0
  or
  v^2/c^2 = 2U/c^2
  or
  v^2 = 2U
  or
  1/2 v^2 = U
  Multiplying by m and taking U = GM/r
  we have
  1/2 mv^2 = GmM/r
  Newton again, fine, let return to the begining
  We have proved that
  E = m0.c^2/sqrt(1  - v^2/c^2 + 2U/c^2) = constant = m0c^2
  and mass in the same way is
  m = m0
  What we have proved applying Einstein energy equation?
  1- The mass of the apple falling freely remains constant, it does not increase with speed!
  2- There no limit for the speed that the apple can achieve, no divison by zero, no singularity.
  As the potential can have any value and reaches infinity when r goes to zero also the speed of the apple will be infinite at r = 0.
  And this contradicts the theory, in other words, Einstein contradicts Einstein.

Part II
Neither Newton nor Einstein describes reality in its whole, only within a range. Both theories have the same problem: at distance = 0 they give an infinite value, Einstein is even worst, beside r = 0 it has another singularity at the horizon of events.
As a general rule of Physics, any equation that gives an infinite value at some point cannot describe a Physical phenomena and so, cannot be used at the singularity.
Another approach is that the gravitational field stores an energy, so if we integrate the field over all the Universe the integral must be the energy stored in the field.
But if we try to integrate the energy stored in a gravitational field of mass m using Newton's or Einstein's General Relativity the integral gives an infinite value, an impossible and wrong result.
Guest which is the correct value that the theory should have given and failed?
Nothing more than mc^2 !!!!!

Instead of Newton's gravitation or Einstein's gravitation let take a look at...., he, he, he;;;;
**Kawecki's Gravitation
**
**U = mc^2 exp-k/r where k = GM/c^2 ** (U = potential)

The gravitaion force is then
F = - GmM/r^2 exp-k/r
As k is very small it gives Newton's law
F = - GmM/r^2
If we consider k small we can approximate the exp and now we have as force
F = -GmM/r^2 (1 - GM/c^2/r)
That give us the Mercury precession of equinoxes
And if we integrate the energy stored in the gravitation field it gives
E = mc^2
Sadly..., no speed limit...he, he, he

Quote - Newton's black hole

For a satellite leave the Earth and enter into orbit the satellite lauuncher must achieve some speed that is called  "escape velocity". if something travels at a lower speed is impossible to leave the Earth. Which is this velocity?
By simple Newton's physics

Although Pierre Simon Laplace was the first to publish such a concept, in 1795.

nothing obserbable is isolated from the observer. "
The "tree falling in the forest stuff"." <<

Are you claiming that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around, it has not made a sound?

In dynamic systens, the observer cannot be removed from the equasion (the observer).
Hence, in chaos, there appaars to be observable times of predictability, period doubling (bifurcation) etc,.when the systen is obserbably chaotic, regardless of the attractor. <<

I could not follow this. Can you say it in another way?

I watch a kid running in the playground and she falls over. Did my ovservation lead to causality?<<

No. But what is the point of asking that question?

::: opera :::

Quote - Special Relativity contradicts itself if we take into consideration the conservation of energy.
1- The postulate often taken as a dogma tells that nothing can travel faster than light.

 
No, its not a postulate, it is a consequence of the theory. More precisely, the General Theory of Relativity has as a very simple consequence that no body with mass which is traveling less than the velocity of light in a vacumn C can be accelerated to the velocity of light in a vacumn because as the object's velocity approaches C its mass approaches infinity.

Why do you consider the Conservation of Energy to be more of a "law" than the constant velcocity of light? Special Relativity replaced the laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Mass with a unified Conservation of Mass-Energy. Essentially, mass and energy can be converted into one another under certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is in nuclear fission or fusion -- fission of heavy atoms and fusion of light atoms results in the conversion of mass to energy. Another circumstance is in the acceleration of mass-possessing objects. As they accelerate, not all of the energy which is applied to them is converted into kinetic energy, some of it becomes mass. (This is not a signficant factor until velocity approaches C.)

Which is why Special Relativity is 'special'. ;)  It only considers the simultaneity of events considering the speed of light to have a maximum value (systems moving relative to each other and clocks). It doesn't consider energy and is only the backbone upon which the next theory was framed.  That's what General Relativity provided - a more thorough description of matter in relative motion - considering energy, mass, time, and so on.

One thing about General Relativity that usually confounds people is that the change in these properties isn't experienced by observers in the frame of reference - only by observers in another frame of reference (thus, Relativity).

Singularities in the mathematic model of a theory are nasty buggers but hard to avoid - Einstein spent a long time trying to remove them.  The good thing is that the singularity only occurs at distance=0 in a gravitational field or beyond the event horizon, the latter being sort of self-explanatory.  What is beyond an area where not even light/energy/information can escape - who knows and who cares - we can never observe what is beyond it.

Have you read carefuly my example? I have used Einstein's equation with the equivalence mass-energy against Einstein and nothing turned infinite or imaginary above the speed of light

Regarding Quantum mechanics' important practical application : electronics.

I wonder.

Obviously Edison did not need the theory to produce the first bulb and his generator and light NYC. I even doubt that Bell Labs needed the theory to produce the transistor. Certainly Steve and Steve did not need the theory to produce personal computers.

So in the context of engineering and technical applications....what things require(d) working knowledge of or even arrose from, the theory itself?

I am not baiting or chiding here, it is an honest request for information.

:::: Opera :::::

in case anybody asks, the errors inherent in aristotelian and newtonian "thinking" were responsible for problems ranging from the trivial (celestial mechanics) to the deadly (the dark ages in europe).

Quote - Regarding Quantum mechanics' important practical application : electronics.

I wonder.

Obviously Edison did not need the theory to produce the first bulb and his generator and light NYC. I even doubt that Bell Labs needed the theory to produce the transistor. Certainly Steve and Steve did not need the theory to produce personal computers.

So in the context of engineering and technical applications....what things require(d) working knowledge of or even arrose from, the theory itself?

I am not baiting or chiding here, it is an honest request for information.

:::: Opera :::::

Answer = transistor.
Valves didn't need Quantics, relays didn't need Quantics, by I doubt very much that you could make Poser renders with a computer with millions valves, backup or DVD, movies?, forget only a simple 12" tape that don't need Quantics..

Quote - It doesn't consider energy and is only the backbone upon which the next theory was framed.  That's what General Relativity provided - a more thorough description of matter in relative motion - considering energy, mass, time, and so on.

Special Relativity do deal with energy, if not Einstein never should have included E = mc^2 in this theory.
The restriction of Special Relativity is that only deal with objects moving at constant uniform speed and in an empty space.
General Relativity deals with accelerations, rotations and gravitatory field, but ignores electromagnetism (a force very much powerful than gravitation).
But the story of conservation of energy gets really awful in General Relativity.

Quote - in case anybody asks, the errors inherent in aristotelian and newtonian "thinking" were responsible for problems ranging from the trivial (celestial mechanics) to the deadly (the dark ages in europe).

Aristotle yes, Newton no, the knowledge we have was thanks to the work of Newton.
Einstein is the Aristotle of the XX century, beside Quantics nothing new was done in a century, all what we have and all the modern "miracles! are based on 100 or 150 years old theories.
Even Quantics has stalled lost in a jungle of quarks.

Quote - the day Archimedes was slain by a brute in his study.

Which -- in a metaphor -- can say a lot about where philosophy gets you in the end.

I wonder what Archimedes -- or for that matter - Einstein -- would say, if they could speak to us today?  Most likely: things that they never would have dreamt of saying in their own lifetimes.

I shall bring one more desillusion, things are not like people usualy believe, there are some concepts that almost never are clearly explained and so people understand in a wrong way what it really are.
Mass is not matter, mass is a property of matter that mesures the amount of inertia that a matter has.
What is transformed into energy is not matter, what is trasformed into energy is the amount of inertia that a matter has, also energy can be transformed back into inertia.
When an atomic bomb explodes neither a single electron vanishes transformed into energy
.When the nuclear fission happens the uranium nucleous is divided in two giving two other elements. If we add the number of protons, neutons and electrons that the uranium atom has before the fision and we compare to the sum of protonts, neutrons and electrons of both elements produced by the fision and add the two liberated neutrons we shall find that are the same, no proton, no neutron, no electron has dissapeared, matter was preserved after the explosion.
So if no matter has vanished from where do come the energy liberated by the explosion?
The answer is that the energy stored in the uranium nucleous is bigger than the sum of energies stored in the nucleum of the produced elements.
 The energy stored in the nucleums we measure as mass and this is what is converted or liberated as energy, only a question of units.
Matter (protons, neutrons) is preserved by the explosion, a fraction of the internal energy (mass) is converted or liberated as energy.
Relativity tell us that mass increase with speed, but it doesn't mean that a plane flying becomes bigger than is on ground, it only means that a plane that is flying has more inertia than when is on ground.

Quote - When an atomic bomb explodes neither a single electron vanishes transformed into energy
.When the nuclear fission happens the uranium nucleous is divided in two giving two other elements. If we add the number of protons, neutons and electrons that the uranium atom has before the fision and we compare to the sum of protonts, neutrons and electrons of both elements produced by the fision and add the two liberated neutrons we shall find that are the same, no proton, no neutron, no electron has dissapeared, matter was preserved after the explosion.
So if no matter has vanished from where do come the energy liberated by the explosion?
The answer is that the energy stored in the uranium nucleous is bigger than the sum of energies stored in the nucleum of the produced elements.
 The energy stored in the nucleums we measure as mass and this is what is converted or liberated as energy, only a question of units.
Matter (protons, neutrons) is preserved by the explosion, a fraction of the internal energy (mass) is converted or liberated as energy.
Relativity tell us that mass increase with speed, but it doesn't mean that a plane flying becomes bigger than is on ground, it only means that a plane that is flying has more inertia than when is on ground.

Last point first. The relativistic mass increase at high velocities is more than the kinetic energy increase predicted from Newtonian physics. This is observable in the real world in supercolliders. First point--I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding fission and fusion. In fusion, there is a conversion of protons+electrons into neutrons. The fusion of two hydrogen atoms into the heavy isotope (deutrinium) of hydrogen takes two protons and two electrons and ends up with one proton, one neutron, and one electron. In fission, the atomic numbers of the fission products do not always sum up to the atomic number of the original atom, typically neutrons get converted into protons and electrons. However, there is a conservation of charge and of baryon (heavy particle) numbers.

The energy liberated in fusion, and fission, is not, however affected by proton+electron to neutron conversion. (At a given atomic weight of an atom, a neutron has the same mass as a proton and an electron combined.) The actual mass of protons and neutrons varies with the atomic mass of the atom they reside in. A neutron in a Plutonium atom has a little more mass than one in a Uranium atom, and a neutron in a hydrogen atom has a little more mass than one in a Helium atom. The point at which an atomic particle has the lowest mass is, IIRC, in an iron atom, which is one reason why atoms with higher atomic numbers are very rare (universaly speaking) -- they don't get formed by normal fusion (actually, it requires a pretty hot star on it's way to becoming a Nova to fuse anything much other than hydrogen to helium), and probably only get formed in Supernovas, where fusion (of heavy atoms) actually requires additional energy.

Anyway, the energy liberated in fusion of hydrogen to helium is because a helium atom (atomic mass 4) has slightly less mass than four hydrogen atoms (atomic mass 1). Similarly for fission byproducts, or, for that matter, normal radioactive decay. When an atom of Uranium-238 gives of an alpha particle (essentially a helium nucleus) to form Thorium-234, each proton and neutron in the Thorium masses slightly less than its counterpart in the Uranium. (The ones in the alpha particle mass more, but the net of all the mass changes is a decrease in mass, which is libereated as kinetic energy of the alpha particle.) Note that in fission and decay, a lot of the energy is liberated as kinetic energy. Look up "decay chain" in Wikipedia for more details.

Answer = transistor <<

Please be clear: are you stating that the engineers and inventors at Bell who came up with the transistor actually had to have a high-theoretical understanding of Quantum Mechanics in order to succeed, and that if QM had not developed as a theory in the years prior to the 50s that creating the transistor would have been impossible?

Notice: I am not asking if QM is how a transistor works at a primal level; I am only asking if the Bell people need to know and understand the explicated theory in their work.

::::: Opera :::::

yow...I knew I shoulda took physick in skool...;)
If Einstein is the Aristotle of the 20th Century,  does that make Hawking the Plato?..;)

I once read that 6% of matter is 'converted' to energy in a nukyelar explosion. I think the fission process releases  neutrons, light, heat, and radiation. Some of those are energy.

I also seem to remember the transistor was originally a 'germanium relay'..but that's semantics.

I'll let the folderal proceed, because I'm getting a headache from watching all this go so far over my head...;)

Just to come the defense of Aristotle for a moment....

Yes, his cosmology was completely wrong. 

But get it: he is the father of reason. He is the father of 'this worldliness' as opposed to superstition/supernatural. The entire basis of rationality and objective reality rests in Aristotle. He was exiled from Athens because it was becoming more and more religious and he made the claim "prayer does not work."

It sucks big time that he is identified with a wrong cosmology at the dawn of brains, instead of identified and respected as the progenitor of the sine qua non of science: reason.

Why did it take so long for Aristotle's cosmology to be overcome? Not because of Aristotle or any other rational. Only because of superstition and religion, which is Platonic. If Aristotle had the advantage of even just the telescope, you would have had to jump pretty fast to get out of the way as he raced passed everyone to throw out his musing on the Earth as the center on his way to finding the truth. He'd be past us all like lightening.

So kawecki I know you intended your statement that Einstein is the Aristotle of the 20th century to be an insult. However, your unintended consequence is to praise with the highest praise.

And Miss Nancy can you explain how errrors in Aristotle's thinking caused the horrors of the Dark/Middle ages? It was only the resurgence of Aristotle from 1200 on that pulled the West out of that superstitious mess.

::::: Opera :::::