[ http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19626281.400-quantum-untanglement-is-spookiness-under-threat.html](http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19626281.400-quantum-untanglement-is-spookiness-under-threat.html)

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.)

My python page
My ShareCG freebies

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. 

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

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.  :)

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

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...;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

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).

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

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.....

Stupidity also evolves!

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

 

:lol:

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

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.

Comitted to excellence through art.

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! :)

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Aye!

And send some over yonder too!

Comitted to excellence through art.

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

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

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.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

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?

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

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.

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

 Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things!  ; )

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.

Stupidity also evolves!

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...

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

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?

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

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.

Stupidity also evolves!

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....

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

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

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

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.

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

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

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

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

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

Stupidity also evolves!

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Stupidity also evolves!

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...;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

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 :::::

Can I just step in here to say that this is, in fact, the first time I have ever appeared on television?

Er... no, really.  I like this thread.  This sort of thing is exactly why I love this place.  Even when I'm on an "I hate Poser" kick, the 'Rosity Poser Forum still rocks!  :D

===========================sigline======================================================

Cage can be an opinionated jerk who posts without thinking.  He apologizes for this.  He's honestly not trying to be a turkeyhead.

Cage had some freebies, compatible with Poser 11 and below.  His Python scripts were saved at archive.org, along with the rest of the Morphography site, where they were hosted.

Quote - Can I just step in here to say that this is, in fact, the first time I have ever appeared on television?

No, no we haven't time, because we're just going straight over to Luton.

Quote - >> 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 :::::

Transistor was invented by Shockley and is a direct consequence of Quantym theory, without QM it was impossible to make it. Contrary to most inventions the transistor was a theoricaly planed invention, the theory of a transistor existed before it physically existed, is just the opposite of he valve.
A valve or tube was a result of empirical work, walves existed, were used and nobody knew well how it worked, only Quantics was able to explain the valve. Quantics explained the valve, but wasn't needed for its creation and use.
Transistors were invented in the paper and are a direct consequence of the application of Schroedinger equation to a semiconductor. Without Schroedinger no way to know that a juctoon needs two semiconductors contaminated by a small amount of impurities and the ammount of them, well also no way to know a junction itself.
The problem was to make the transistor something usable and reliable, it was a technological problem, the first transistors were very fragile. The firsr commercial transistors were made of Germaniun, Silcon and other semiconductors were known, but Germanium was superior to Silicon and in those days no technology to do something with Silicon that only was used long years after. Silicon is inferior to Germanium, but it resists much higher temperatures, is strong mechanicaly, can be grown and contaminated in a very controlled way and suitable for integration. Also exist from the begining other semiconductors as Gallium-Arsenide, the electron has a very high mobility that allows it to be very much faster than Silicon, but still today there's no technology to use it as we use Silicon, so GaAs applications are limited to simple device as microwave diodes or laser diodes.

Quote - 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.

The problem is not Aristotle nor Einstein, the problem is people that elevated them to God.
Aristotle was a great Greek philosopher and he produced an extense work, ideas and concepts, some were correct and some were wrong.
Aristotle created, probably imported the idea from China, the theory of the four elemnts, a nice , and brilliant heory to explain Nature, some other Greek had the atom theory, but it was not so nice and brilliant. Fine, no problem, one more theory among others.
The problem was that people of middle-age picked Arsistotle's work as the most absolute truth, the other theories, conceptions, ideas, philosophers were plain and simple ignored if not had their work destroyed.
Nobody was allowed to contradict Aristotle, he turned God, no matter if what was observed didn't matched what Aristitke said, he was the tryth and only truth. If someone had another idea, theory or conception, no matter how this matched with the observation, he was ignored and ridiculizsed.
The result is obvious, if you base on a wrong theory no matter if you insist one thousands years with this theory the result always will be wrong and no progress made in those thousand years, in another words, the dark-age.
With Einstein is the same, Einstein had an idea, a concept and made another nice and brilliant theory, his theory explained some things that had in those days no explanation, the same happened with Aristitle in Greek times, the four elements explained many things.
In the same way as in Greece Aristotle made his four elements theory some another guy that nobody remembers his name made the atom theory.
In the XX centurty happened the same, Einstein's made his theory that explained many things, other guys that also nobody remebers their name, made another theories to explain the same.
Einstein was elevated to God and his theory is the most absolute truth, it is impossible to something travel faster than light, it's a dogma and the most absoulte truth, if someone makes a theory that contradicts this dogma no matter how this theory explain many things without explanation, he is ignored and ridiculized and have to wait for the year 3,000 to be discovered again.
There is a huge number of experiments and observations that contradicts Einstein theory, experiments and data that shows that gravity is not what Einstein said, all this that are giving a clue about Nature of something to be researched and discovered is ignored and no progress is made.
For making it worst, Einstein turned into the greatest Genius ever existed, but people said that he was a genius because someone or the media told them that he was a genius and not by taking his work, analyze and the say, "this is brilliant", people repeat only as parrots, there are few people that know his theory, but everybody tells that is the greatest theory.
Greatest in what?, how do you know if is great or a trash if you know nothing about it, you are not able to understand a simple equation,  by the same logic Chinese must be genius, I don't undertand a single painted Kanji.
Only when you know and are able to understand the theory you can say, is good, is bad, I agree, I disagree, he was a genius, he was a dedicated student or even he did nothing and copied the work of another person.

And for the end another clue:
Einstein's theory is a four dimensions theory, we had always three dimensions and Einstein introduced time as the fourth dimension, a great improvement that caused great admiration among people and a nice mathematical construction.
Now we live in an Universe with four dimensions, fine, but did you know that time in Einstein's theory is imaginary and not real?
Time is imaginary!!!, a nice mathematical construction. but it doesn't represent the real world, imaginary numbers only exist in the mind.

Stupidity also evolves!

Einstein is a Myth
Einstein turned into a myth and not a person or scientist. As anything that disagree with a myth is ignored Einteins himself was added to the ignore list.
Everyone know very well that Einstein did two theories that gave him all the fame, the Special Relativity (1905) and the General Relativity (1915) and here ends the myth of Einstein.
Einstein after his glorious General Relativity, didn't retired, dedicated to bonzai trees, made tourism in the Greek Islands or died, he instead continued with his work! and in 1950 he published his third and last theory, the Unified Field Theory.
Very few people knows that he made a third theory and if know it all end in the title of the theory.
Is almost impossible to find something about this theory
Einstein had the dream of his life that was to make a theory that integrated Gravitation with Electromagnetism, he worked his whole life and did this theory, the problem was that is Unified Field theory failed, appled to an electron gave ridiculous results and here is the problem, as for a myth is something inadmisible, Einstein's Unified Field theory together with 35 years of work was added to the ignore list.
It doesn't matter if the theory failed, it was a result of 35 years of work added to all the work of his previous theories, he could have failed, commited some mistakes, his theory can be revised, corrected the mistakes and turned into something useful , but all has vanished, nothing to analyze, nothing to correct or improve, no concept or idea to be learnt, the MYTH doesn't allows this, so Einsteins life as a scientist ends in 1916, forty years before his death!

Stupidity also evolves!

Even granting your major premise that Einstein was turned into a myth much as the Church turned Aristotle into a Myth, it behooves us not to hold the original person responsible for that**. If there has been myth-making, it is up to us to break that mesmerization with critical thinking.

And in that light, we ought to stop attaching the mythos of earth-centric cosmology to Aristotle and rebrand him as the father of reason and science.

I would suggest that the dogmatization of Aristotleanism by the Catholic Church was due to the problem of how to handle Aquinas. This guy let reason back into Europe, but attempted to retain faith intact nevertheless. So the Church seized upon the cosmology as dogma rather than reason as modus operandi.

And please note the other pole of this thinking: it would be a mistake to reject Einstein and relativity simply because he DID become dogma.

::::: Opera :::::

** i will modify the above with the sidenote that in fact Einstein may indeed have personally contributed to his own status as a God through 'failure to demur.'

Quote -
In the XX centurty happened the same, Einstein's made his theory that explained many things, other guys that also nobody remebers their name, made another theories to explain the same.
Einstein was elevated to God and his theory is the most absolute truth, it is impossible to something travel faster than light, it's a dogma and the most absoulte truth, if someone makes a theory that contradicts this dogma no matter how this theory explain many things without explanation, he is ignored and ridiculized and have to wait for the year 3,000 to be discovered again.

 
Einstein's theory doesn't state that nothing can travel faster than light. It states that the speed of light in a vacumn is constant. As a easily derivable result of the the theory, it is provable that no mass traveling at less than the speed of light can be accelerated by a finite force to the speed of light. (Or put another way, it takes an infinite force to accelerate a mass from less than the speed of light to the speed of light.) This in turn implies strongly that unless we come up with the right sort of balonium drive, you just can't get accelerate an object faster than light. However, there has been a very real, albeit so far unproven, theory about the possible existance of tachyons -- particles with an imaginary (in the mathemicatical sense) rest mass which travel faster than the speed of light. Interestingly enough, the mathematics show that it would take them an infinite amount of force to decelerate to the speed of light. Everything in Special Relativity derives from about two basic assumptions.

Quote -
There is a huge number of experiments and observations that contradicts Einstein theory, experiments and data that shows that gravity is not what Einstein said, all this that are giving a clue about Nature of something to be researched and discovered is ignored and no progress is made.

 
There has been a lot of work showing that relativity doesn't work at the quantum level.

Quote -
For making it worst, Einstein turned into the greatest Genius ever existed, but people said that he was a genius because someone or the media told them that he was a genius and not by taking his work, analyze and the say, "this is brilliant", people repeat only as parrots, there are few people that know his theory, but everybody tells that is the greatest theory.
Greatest in what?, how do you know if is great or a trash if you know nothing about it, you are not able to understand a simple equation,  by the same logic Chinese must be genius, I don't undertand a single painted Kanji.
Only when you know and are able to understand the theory you can say, is good, is bad, I agree, I disagree, he was a genius, he was a dedicated student or even he did nothing and copied the work of another person.

 
How come most, if not all, theoretical physicists hold Einstein in high esteem? He solved so many problems. And the Special Theory is very understandable if you work through the math. Unfortunately, the best book on the subject, by David Merman, is long out of print. 

Quote -
And for the end another clue:
Einstein's theory is a four dimensions theory, we had always three dimensions and Einstein introduced time as the fourth dimension, a great improvement that caused great admiration among people and a nice mathematical construction.
Now we live in an Universe with four dimensions, fine, but did you know that time in Einstein's theory is imaginary and not real?
Time is imaginary!!!, a nice mathematical construction. but it doesn't represent the real world, imaginary numbers only exist in the mind.

 
Sorry to burst your bubble, but physicists had been treating time as a dimension for a long time. Where Einstein changed things was in how you the transformation of two views of an event, from different reference frames, was handled. In particular, under Newtonian methods, the time between two events was always constant -- any two observers would measure the same time. This is not true in relativity.

Second, we actually (probably) live in a universe with 11 spatial dimensions, but 8 of them are very small. (String Theory). Time has never been treated the same as the other dimensions. You can transform the x and y and z axis via rotation, but you can't transform the t (time) axisinto any other, nor any spatial axis into the time axis. (You sort of can in quantum mechanics -- transforming a diagram for an atomic or partical reaction in one coordinate system by exchanging axis leads to a description of another, also valid interaction. For example, if you flip the diagram for an electron capture by a proton, you get a diagram for the electron release by a neutron.)

Third, time in Einstein's mathematics is not imaginary. (Where imaginary is in the mathematical sense, being a real number multiplied by the square root of -1.) It is always given as a real number.

Quote - Einstein is a Myth
Einstein turned into a myth and not a person or scientist. As anything that disagree with a myth is ignored Einteins himself was added to the ignore list.
Everyone know very well that Einstein did two theories that gave him all the fame, the Special Relativity (1905) and the General Relativity (1915) and here ends the myth of Einstein.

 
Like all the quantum mechanics researchers who disagreed with Einstein's views about the fundamental incorrectness of Quantum Mechanics?

Quote -
Einstein after his glorious General Relativity, didn't retired, dedicated to bonzai trees, made tourism in the Greek Islands or died, he instead continued with his work! and in 1950 he published his third and last theory, the Unified Field Theory.
Very few people knows that he made a third theory and if know it all end in the title of the theory.
Is almost impossible to find something about this theory.

 
That's because he never finished the Unified Field Theory. He was trying to integrate gravity with the other forces. Einstein was hampered on four counts. First, gravity is probably the most difficult of the forces to unify with the others (considering that the electromagnetic and weak forces were unified in the early 70s, in part helped by high-energy collisions and the use of quantum mechanics. There has been no generally accepted further unification -- competing unifications of the electroweak and strong forces are awaiting experimental verification. The second problem Einstein had was that he didn't really understand or fully believe in quantum mechanics, which is the heart of the other unified theories. The third strike is that experimental physics hadn't provided the rich experimental basis for creating unified theories. Simply put, you just can't describe a unified field theory of gravity plus the other forces (especially the nuclear ones) using relativity and classical mechanics alone. The fourth strike is that two of the forces, the weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces, weren't all that well understood in the 1950s (again, due to lack of experimentation.)

Besides, if Einstein has been irrationally and incorrectly deified, despite his obviously :) incorrect theories of relativity, why hasn't his Unified Theory been accepted via dictat, rather like Lysenko's genetics?

Quote -
Einstein had the dream of his life that was to make a theory that integrated Gravitation with Electromagnetism, he worked his whole life and did this theory, the problem was that is Unified Field theory failed, appled to an electron gave ridiculous results and here is the problem, as for a myth is something inadmisible, Einstein's Unified Field theory together with 35 years of work was added to the ignore list.
It doesn't matter if the theory failed, it was a result of 35 years of work added to all the work of his previous theories, he could have failed, commited some mistakes, his theory can be revised, corrected the mistakes and turned into something useful , but all has vanished, nothing to analyze, nothing to correct or improve, no concept or idea to be learnt, the MYTH doesn't allows this, so Einsteins life as a scientist ends in 1916, forty years before his death!

 
It was 35 years of work which didn't accomplish anything other than show which way not to progress. Brilliant as Einstein was, he reached his level of incompetence when dealing with unified fields because thinking about them productively required tools not in his arsenal. He really had no coherent unified field theory, and his papers on unified fields were barking up the wrong tree. That said, it appears (from a cursory, 5-minute google search), that all the papers are still available (though not all online), and that there are several non-kook books out about them, from a philisophical and from a history of science basis. (There are also some clearly kook books out.) I also see some papers (dating from the 80s at least) exploring some consequences of Einstein's Unified Field Theory (mostly having to do with the gravitational consequences), and some history of science articles.

Quote - And please note the other pole of this thinking: it would be a mistake to reject Einstein and relativity simply because he DID become dogma.

The rejection is due that Relavity doesn't explain or agree with many observed  phenomena.

• TheFaraday'a homopolar generator.
• The Sagnac effect.
• The successful experiment of Michelson-Morley (not the failed that Einstein used as base for his theory).
• Gravitational shielding.
• Antigravitation experiments.
• Difference on the value for g depending on the method used for its masurement.
• Antigravitatory forces in gyroscopes.
• Aberration of lights experiments that showed that speed of light doesn't depend on the speed of the source, but yes on the receiver's speed, so is not constant.
• The speed of gravity that is very much bigger than the speed of light.
• Behaviour of Galaxies that suggest the existence of a gravitational force 1/r and not 1/r^2.
• Singularity at r = 0
• The energy stored in a gravitational field gives an infinite value.
• Not inclusion in the theory of the electromagnetic constants that define the speed of light..
• Dubvious interpretation of the Mach principle.
• Much more
• And why in some locations a car with the motor turned off and without brakes climb up a hill?

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - Third, time in Einstein's mathematics is not imaginary.

Yes it is, the time coordinate is u = ict.
The imaginary number doesn't appear in an explicit way in Einstein's theory because appears squared and the square of an imaginary number is real.
The geodesic equation used by Einstein is
ds^2 = du^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
If time was real the geodesic equation should have been
**ds^2 = du^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

Well, is much worst, in Einstein's geodesic aquation the mimus sign is inverted so it looks as the time is real and the x,y,z coordinates are imaginary.**

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - > Quote - And please note the other pole of this thinking: it would be a mistake to reject Einstein and relativity simply because he DID become dogma.

The rejection is due that Relavity doesn't explain or agree with many observed  phenomena.

• TheFaraday'a homopolar generator.
• The Sagnac effect.
• The successful experiment of Michelson-Morley (not the failed that Einstein used as base for his theory).
• Gravitational shielding.
• Antigravitation experiments.
• Difference on the value for g depending on the method used for its masurement.
• Antigravitatory forces in gyroscopes.
• Aberration of lights experiments that showed that speed of light doesn't depend on the speed of the source, but yes on the receiver's speed, so is not constant.
• The speed of gravity that is very much bigger than the speed of light.
• Behaviour of Galaxies that suggest the existence of a gravitational force 1/r and not 1/r^2.
• Singularity at r = 0
• The energy stored in a gravitational field gives an infinite value.
• Not inclusion in the theory of the electromagnetic constants that define the speed of light..
• Dubvious interpretation of the Mach principle.
• Much more
• And why in some locations a car with the motor turned off and without brakes climb up a hill?

 
Whatever. You win.

kawecki, about your list...I, for one, will not gainsay one item on it because I am not educated enough to do so. You may be right, but I am not saying you ARE right. Now, I checked into a few websites about the invention of the transistor, and more than one partially substantiated what you said: that the inventor/engineers were fully knowlegable about QM and used it and needed it to invent the transistor. I have no facts to cite to the contrary at ths time.

::::: Opera :::::

- The successful experiment of Michelson-Morley (not the failed that Einstein used as base for his theory).

Those damned conspiratory Physicists hid that from the rest of us! Darn them!  The Luminiferous Aesther hypothesis has been adequately dismissed in experimental tests in the past hundred and more years.  There is no measurable medium through which EM waves/particles propagate - they propagate through the space-time continuum itself as best determined.

- Gravitational shielding.

???

- Antigravitation experiments.

There is no such thing.  Noone has proposed a hypothesis of anti-gravitation that has become theory.  And the experiments that I've seen of so-called 'antigravity' involve other well-known factors or fraud.

• Difference on the value for g depending on the method used for its masurement.

The value of g (gravitational acceleration on the surface of Earth) varies for many reasons - density, distance from the center (which isn't exactly the same over the planet since it is an oblate sphere - like all planets).  g may vary, but there is no place where it is 2g or 0.5g (ON THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET mind you).

• Antigravitatory forces in gyroscopes.*

Again, I'm skeptical.

- The speed of gravity that is very much bigger than the speed of light.

Current observations agree that the speed of gravity propagation is the same as the speed of light.  Next you'll tell me that Newton was correct concerning 'instantaneous action at a distance'.

- Behaviour of Galaxies that suggest the existence of a gravitational force 1/r and not 1/r^2.

Hmmmm...

*- And why in some locations a car with the motor turned off and without brakes climb up a hill?

Big, HMMMMM...  Cars 'climb up hill' because of an illusion.  The hill appears to be uphill due to surrounding references.  In reality the hill has a downward slope.  It has been evidenced.

You sound like someone who will believe anything.  I have some swamp land in Florida for sale - if you buy now I'll throw in a bridge! ;)  Will you be discussing the evil suppression of 'Cold-fusion' next?

Look, science is a self-correcting, self-regulating system.  The idea is that someone structures a hypothesis to explain some unknown phenomenon (in total or in part).  The someone or someone else constructs at least one experiment to validate the hypothesis.  If the experiment fails, it doesn't mean that the hypothesis is incorrect - may be a badly constructed experiment.  But, if or when it does succeed that is when things get interesting.  This is the self-correcting part.  Anyone should have access to the experimental data and experimental setup and procedure for review and verification of results.  This is why 'cold-fusion' is bunk.  Every other scientist who tried to verify the results of the original experiment had no success.  And the hypothesis was on shaky ground to begin with.  Out the window it went despite the cries of foul from the original scientists.

To err is human.  We are not perfect and neither is the scientific method (no formal system is perfect, by the way).  Miliken almost pulled a theory out of a poorly constructed experiment.  That is why there are measures that allow others to examine every part of a hypothesis and its experimental counterpart.  The scientific method is built with human error in mind.

Unfortunately for you, Einstein's Mythological theories have been tested, tested again, retested, tested over and over and over.  And they have withstood over 100 years of battering.  That means that they have adequately achieved THEORY status.  Your intention is to say that the hundreds of thousands of Physicists and Engineers since then who have used his theories are either all idiots, fools, or delusional.  And then you mention things like antigravity and that the speed of light can be faster or that gravity propagates faster - even though these have already been measured (billions and billions of times in the case of light).

For instance, you mention super-conductors.  Um, electricity (electrons) moves at LESS THAN the 'c' (speed of light - EM propagation) in solids despite their high conductivity.  Super-conductors just increase that speed a bit - but it is still LESS THAN 'c'.  If you are under the allusion that electricity travels at 'c' through circuit traces and wires and whatnot, you need to retake that course in Physics.

I'm all for new theories - but only those that have passed the gauntlet of the scientific method; not popular alternatives and potential hypotheses.  I don't call it String Theory.  In no way has any form of it ever been put to a test of its validity.  It is a hypothesis being constructed on the backwash of previous data.  And the continued refinement and changes to it speak of its 'not-quite-ready-for-theoryhood' situation.  It is String Hypothesis and that's where it remains - esp. with the need to cart in 11 dimensions.  The mantra remains, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  Einstein delivered.  Planck delivered.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

I don't call it String Theory.  In no way has any form of it ever been put to a test of its validity.  It is a hypothesis... <<

I could not agree with this more. Preying on the public's poor grasp of truth test in science, too many "popularizers", not to mention actual supposed scientists, clap the word "theory" on a hypothesis, thus cheapening the term 'Theory", which i am sure most in this thread know should only be applied to that which has been very vigorously tested and attacked, with not only experiments repeated by others, but predictions that could not otherwise have been attained, the entire body of connected knowlege vetted by the rational community as a whole. Contrary to postmodern theory [sarcasm intended], there is such a thing as certainty, and the word "Theory" should ONLY be applied to knowlege that is certain.

While there are many foisting this error on our culture, I hold the smarmy Brian Green particularily in contempt.

Thanks for making that point k.

:: og ::

P.S. Have you noticed a consequence? As a result of the cheapening of "Theory", kids nowadays can easily dismiss hard fact (in favor of radical skepticism that no truth can ipso facto be 'hard') with the tossed-off phrase, "Well, evolution (or fill in the blank) is ONLY a theory."

www.victorianweb.org/science/faraday.html provides a nice example of how differing traditions in science can result in differing views of the same phenomena. (It isn't really discussed in the article, but the French found it very difficult to reproduce Faraday's experiments, in large part because they hadn't seen the finicky apparatus demonstrated, and they also tended to give up to early in trying to get it to work correctly.)

Quote - but the French found it very difficult to reproduce Faraday's experiments,

I don't know if you are reffering to Faraday's hokopolar generator or to Faraday's experiments.
Faraday was a pioner, but his homopolar generator is not a laboratory experiment, is something real and working device. if you wish you can purchase an industrial version. Usualy are used for soldering and also are used as the energy source of "star war" lasers.
Homopolar geneartors are not a mystery, any high school technician can understand how it work, the only problem is that contradict Relativity, but as it work and are useful Einstein is ignored.
Dogma is only applied by scientists and academics and not by technicians, industry and business.
If something works and is useful, we can ignore God, do it and make money....

Quote - Those damned conspiratory Physicists hid that from the rest of us! Darn them!  The Luminiferous Aesther hypothesis has been adequately dismissed in experimental tests in the past hundred and more years.  There is no measurable medium through which EM waves/particles propagate - they propagate through the space-time continuum itself as best determined.

Is not a question of the aether  the problem is absolute or relative motion. The aether is an abstraction of something mystic that is at absolute rest,
Einstein said that is impossible to know the absolute speed of something, science found long time ago the absolute speed of Earth, value that agree with the measured relative to the background radiation and backaground radiation was only discovered recently.

Quote - And the experiments that I've seen of so-called 'antigravity' involve other well-known factors or fraud.

Many experiments produced very insignificant values that can be attributed to measurement errors and other sources not taken into account, but recently were some some experiment that produced a significative loss of weight that cannot be explained, so it remains as explication antigravity, gravitation shielding or some new and unknown force.

Quote - The value of g (gravitational acceleration on the surface of Earth) varies for many reasons - density, distance from the center (which isn't exactly the same over the planet since it is an oblate sphere - like all planets).  g may vary, but there is no place where it is 2g or 0.5g (ON THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET mind you).

Experiments at the same place! If you measure the gravitaion constant measuring the force between two bodies you achieve one value, if you measure it by geological means you achieve a value slight different, it suggest that the gravitation constant has a different value for short and long range.

Quote - Current observations agree that the speed of gravity propagation is the same as the speed of light.  Next you'll tell me that Newton was correct concerning 'instantaneous action at a distance'.

General Realtivity tell that is the speed of light, but the absence of gravitation force aberration suggest that is infinite or very high. Laplace gave a value 10 millions time the speed of light, other authors gives other values anyway is bery big. The direction of the force of the Sun on the Earth points to the real loaction of the Sun and not to the direction that we see the Sun (delayed by 8 mitus that the light must travel from the Sun to Earth).

Quote - Big, HMMMMM...  Cars 'climb up hill' because of an illusion.  The hill appears to be uphill due to surrounding references.  In reality the hill has a downward slope.  It has been evidenced.

Some cases were proven that are an illusion, but most cases are real The explanation that are an illusion are the same as when someone see an UFO and then comes an astronomers and explain that it was planet VEnus, of course planet Venus flying in formation.
Much better, logical and rationa explanation is that the mountain has a very gig amount of iron or that have magnetic materials, but this is not enough to explain.

Quote - This is why 'cold-fusion' is bunk.

Cold fusion is not dead, still are doing experiments. many have failed and many had success, but nobody is able to explain until now.

Quote - For instance, you mention super-conductors.  Um, electricity (electrons) moves at LESS THAN the 'c' (speed of light - EM propagation) in solids despite their high conductivity.  Super-conductors just increase that speed a bit - but it is still LESS THAN 'c'.  If you are under the allusion that electricity travels at 'c' through circuit traces and wires and whatnot, you need to retake that course in Physics.

I said tlight and not the electron. The speed of light is defined by two constants and this constants are not fixed, but defined by the properties of the medium in which travels the light or electromagnetic wave and also depend on the frecuency of the wave (Maxwell is more complete than Einstein). THere are no rstrictions for the values that these constants can have, so it is always possible, at least in theory, to find a nedium in which an electromagnetic wave of some frecuency travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum.
Einstein stated that the maximun speed is the speed of light in vacuum, but never proved this statement neither gave proves why it must be, it is only a dogma, a question of faith....
Superconductors exclude magnetic field inside, so are perfectly diamagnetic with a permeability zero. By Maxwell light must travel at infinite speed inside a superconductor.
I asked this question because I never heard of such experiment, I am only curious of the results. It doesn't matter the result, in any case or Einstein or the supeconductor theory needs to be explained better.

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - > Quote - but the French found it very difficult to reproduce Faraday's experiments,

I don't know if you are reffering to Faraday's hokopolar generator or to Faraday's experiments.
Faraday was a pioner, but his homopolar generator is not a laboratory experiment, is something real and working device.

 
His experiments. Here are some replicas of his original instruments.physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Electric_Motors/Rotation_of_Magnetic%20Pole/Rotation_of_Magnetic_Pole.html

Quote - Unfortunately for you, Einstein's Mythological theories have been tested, tested again, retested, tested over and over and over.  And they have withstood over 100 years of battering.  That means that they have adequately achieved THEORY status.  Your intention is to say that the hundreds of thousands of Physicists and Engineers since then who have used his theories are either all idiots, fools, or delusional.

This is not true, the theory has been tested hunfreds of times. but it was not proved those hundreds of times, only the great number of tests when the theory failed were not made public and you don't know. There exist a great number of experiments with no conclusive results, other are dubvious and controversial and in others the result contradicts in an evident way.
With internet the situation changed, today we can find all those experiments that were never made public and kept in silence, some are very very old and some are very recent.
It doesn't mean that all experiments were valid, proved or disproved, errors were made in both cases and a qrong experiment that proved Einstein is not a prove, neither the contrary
Often you find in the news "Einteins was proved...", but the information is so vague, so dubviousand som scientificaly contradictory or incorrect  that makes you think that is an invented story.
The faxt is that Einstein theory was proven and disproven many times, so the only conclusion is that Eintein's theory can be applied in some cases and cannot be applied in othe cases, is not an absolute theory and only a "relative" theory for a case, well relativity again...
Einstein's theory is like the Newton's and Hughens theory of light, in some cases Newton must be applied, in other cases Huyghens must be appled. Qunatics pleased God and Lucifer and so, light is a particle and is a wave...
As for fake or dubvious proves of Eintein you have the atomic clock experiments, as you mentioned somewhere in the posts.
This proves were never made. invented, faked or cheated and is easy to prove this by pure logic and Einstein himself:
Einstein predicts the time dilation with speed and gravity, so the experiment you read is that someone put an atomic clock in a plane or satellite and proved that Einstein's was right, so you believe that Einstein was proved one more time.
This is false and faulty.
1- Special Relativity which was used to prove Einstein in this case only can be appled to bodies that are moving at constant and unfiform speed and in vacuum, no accelerations, no gravitation.
2- Planes and satellites are subjected to acceleration and are linked to the Earth that is rotating around itself and around the Sun and also has gravitation ans the Sun and Moon too.
3- Special Relativity never can be applied to those experiments made in planes and satellites, so even gave a positive result the theory was applied in a wrong way and out of context.
4- The only theory that can be applied to these experiments is the General Relativity that deals with accelerations and gravitation.
5- Generl Relativity cannot be appled and is not appled because is too much complicated even in a linearised form for weak fields. I shall explain this better.
Bewton theory is very simple, can be appled and explained Kepler's laws, but the story ends when you have more than two bodies
With three pr more bodies Newton's theory has no exact mathematical solution and the story get complicated.
A satellite or any space flight is a very complicated scenario, you have the satellite that is rotating around the Earth, you have the Earth that is rotating and moving around the Sun, you have the Moon that is rotating around the Earth and influenced by the Sun and worst, the movement of the Earth is not something so simple as rotation and translation, it has other movements and is not an sphere with uniform density and shape, don't forget water that is moving too!
This is so complicated scenarion that eben the easy Newton cannot be applied. Whay is done?
What is done is to start with Newton in a simplified model when it can be applied, then added approximated more complicated Newton's model and the result corrected by empirical data, tables and equations adquired by decades of measurements.
Imagine now General Relativity that turns Newton into something for kids.

This is wht the atomic clock experiments are giving so different and controversial result even Einstein's theory is 100% correct.

Stupidity also evolves!

There are three univeres, in one unviverse where all is possible or impossible we have scientists, academics and philosophers that create theories and introduce ideas and concepts.
The second universe is of people that take the ideas and theories from the first universe and apply making something useful and we can use it every day for our needs.
The third unviverse is of people that have no theories, they have only an idea or insight and invemt something useful, they have no idea how the Hell it works, if is possible or imposible, if is against some theory or not, it only works and is useful.
If they are exoerts they become rich and known inventor, if not they remain unknown and someone else becomes very rich.
People of these three universes are needed.

I belong to the second universe, for people of the first universe it is very amazing to spend ten  years of their life make a beautiful theory about how many wings an angel has and then discuss wit other academics his theory and discredit the theory of other academic.
For me that belong to the second universe, for what do I want to know the number of wings of an angel?, it will make any difference if has 4. 6 or 21 wings? And what is the use knowing it?
Some theories belong to the first universe and will remain there, for me is only a curiosity.
What is the importance if Bang Bang exist or not, what the practical use to know if a black hole radiates or not energy?, what is the use of dark matter?
But if the gravity doesn't behave as Einstein's tell instead of inventing dark matter to agree the theory, I discover a new form of gravity laws and this new form can be applied to something here, I can leave the black holes and galaxies where iy are and make a flying saucer here and sell it, of course!
What's the use to know that the speed of light is the maximum limit?, I prefer to research lobgitudinal or scalar waves and make a commucation device that communicates at higher speed than light. Maybe I never find it, maybe is really impossible, but if my starting point is that is impossible I shall never research, I shall never try and now yes you can be sure that I never shall make such thing.
For me a good theory is something that can have some practical application, if not is only a curiosity. It doesn't mean that a theory must have an inmediate application, many times you have no materials that are needed or are two expensive. Many theories have waited 50 or 100 years for the technology needed was abailable to make something using this theory.
The other requirement that a theory must have is to be simple enough to make possibel apply it.
I prefer a simple, that everyone can use and apply even imoerfect and with small errors that can be used than a pretty, perfect full of mathematical formalism that makes academics amazed, but so complicated with very few people in the world that are able to undestand it and of course almost impossible to be applied on something due the complications that has.
Einstein's General Relativity belongs to the complicated case, so is useless in practical application.
For example the case of Mercury, Newton's theory that is simple was unable to explain. Einstein's theory that is very complicated was able to explain, but exist many other theories that also explained the case of Mercury and these theories are as simple as Newton.
I prefer the other theories, if both theories give the same result I use the simplest one and it doesn't matter which is right and which is wrong if both gives the same result for what I want.
In other case is possible that this theory cannot be applied, so I shall need to use Einstein, but also is possible that can be used and Einstein's theory cannot be used.
Life must be simple and not complicated and a head ache!

Stupidity also evolves!

I think the term 'paradigms' should be inserted instead of 'universes' here - you're not talking about discrete levels of existence, but simply different ways of viewing the world and Creation around us.

JonTheCelt

Jonthecelt: "I think the term 'paradigms' should be inserted instead of 'universes' here - you're not talking about discrete levels of existence, but simply different ways of viewing the world and Creation around us."

I see what you mean but I will counter with some irony that I enjoyed the mis-use of "universe" in this context because it helped degrade the power of that usage. I am always in favor of anything that makes people flinch at the phrase "well this is only one universe out of many possible universes" usually with the implied or stated codicil: 'and the laws we think are certain here do not operate there.' 

Down with that nonsense.

::::: Opera :::::

of course you all realise, by reversing the Polarity of the Neutron flow, all of Enstein's Theories can be applied using a simple magnetic interlock of the Dilithum Crystals over a Nth Dimension model as proved by B. Banzai and his team while working with Dr Brown and Professor Hardiagan, from the notes left by Dr. H West?

Quote - of course you all realise, by reversing the Polarity of the Neutron flow, all of Enstein's Theories can be applied using a simple magnetic interlock of the Dilithum Crystals over a Nth Dimension model as proved by B. Banzai and his team while working with Dr Brown and Professor Hardiagan, from the notes left by Dr. H West?

 

And here's me thinking all you needed was a Finite Improbability Generator and a really hot cup of tea.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Quote - > Quote - of course you all realise, by reversing the Polarity of the Neutron flow, all of Enstein's Theories can be applied using a simple magnetic interlock of the Dilithum Crystals over a Nth Dimension model as proved by B. Banzai and his team while working with Dr Brown and Professor Hardiagan, from the notes left by Dr. H West?

 

And here's me thinking all you needed was a Finite Improbability Generator and a really hot cup of tea.

that was superceeded by the use of bistromatics a few months ago...

well, I'm confused now. situation normal :lol:
no, wait a bit! I got that last reference - herbert west: re-animator
sorry for the interruption!

Ooh!  A bistromathics reference!

Arguing whether Einstein is valid is much more interesting (and harder to follow) than arguing whether Darwin or Freud is valid.  :unsure:

Basically, Cage has nothing intelligent to add to the discussion.  Sorry.  :lol: 

===========================sigline======================================================

Cage can be an opinionated jerk who posts without thinking.  He apologizes for this.  He's honestly not trying to be a turkeyhead.

Cage had some freebies, compatible with Poser 11 and below.  His Python scripts were saved at archive.org, along with the rest of the Morphography site, where they were hosted.

Darwin is valid.  Most consider Evolutionary Theory to be one of the most well-supported in history - despite the oft attempted discredit heaped on by creationists.  Basically, no biological-related science could function at the levels seen today without the knowledge that evolution is a fact and that Evolutionary Theory is the best model of those facts.  Darwin's own theory (Natural Selection) wasn't perfect and, at the time, the proposed mechanism of how evolution occured in a species was not known.  Of course, we all now know about DNA and its associated structures (messenger RNA and so forth) as the carrier of genetic information.  The creationists usually attack Darwin's original theory - which has since 'evolved' (hehe) into a rather resilient one - and things unrelated like abiogenesis.

Freud is fried fraud, right up there with Rorschach inkblot tests.  He started off on the right foot - he was examining the brain at the neural levels.  Then he got bored and decided to go out on a limb and ended up with 'dream analysis' and other rather tenuous correlations (mostly sexual based).  No doubt the brain functions at several levels (conscious, subconscious, automatic) but then the ideas of id, ego, and super-ego are unfounded or at best ill-defined.  Examining people's general behavior and attempting to extract hypotheses of how the mind/brain works doesn't lead to meaningful ones or ones of the level Freud attempted.  Studies of behavior in controlled environments have shown much more interesting and substantial finds.

I'll say no more on Physics without a Physicist present. ;P

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Quote - Freud is fried fraud

You don't like Freud because your mother......

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - > Quote - Freud is fried fraud

You don't like Freud because your mother......

 

:lol:

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Whilst I don't agre with all - in fact, most - of what Freud said, to call him a fraud is a little unfair. Given the relative infancy of the field of psychology, perhaps it's better to compare him to the greek philosopher-scientists: beginning to give shape to a model of how our brains work, which could be updated and rewritten as more concrete details became known. If you compare Aristotle's theories to today's sciences, then they're a joke - far too simplistic and in some places, just plain wrong. Similarly with Pythagoras, who taught the transmigration of souls along with his mathematical discoveries. But if you accept that it was just the foundation for others to come along and build upon, improving with each generation, then Freud can be seen as something more than just 'fried fraud'.

I do like the alliteration there, though. :)

JonTheCelt

Quote - Whilst I don't agre with all - in fact, most - of what Freud said, to call him a fraud is a little unfair. Given the relative infancy of the field of psychology, perhaps it's better to compare him to the greek philosopher-scientists: beginning to give shape to a model of how our brains work, which could be updated and rewritten as more concrete details became known. If you compare Aristotle's theories to today's sciences, then they're a joke - far too simplistic and in some places, just plain wrong. Similarly with Pythagoras, who taught the transmigration of souls along with his mathematical discoveries. But if you accept that it was just the foundation for others to come along and build upon, improving with each generation, then Freud can be seen as something more than just 'fried fraud'.

I do like the alliteration there, though. :)

JonTheCelt

 

I agree with you for the most part.  What I don't like is the doctrinaire approach to psychology and psychiatric medicine that most doctors in that part of medicine seem to have.  Rather than use the whole range of theories and approaches they tend to stick with one with an almost relilgious zeal.  At least, that's been my experience.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Freud interests me because he makes the effort to delve into the subjective depths of the human psyche.  It seems to me that more scientifically acceptable schools of psychology kind of neglect (perhaps necessarily?) depth, in order to arrive at some quantifiable system of metrics.  But there's more to humans than surface behavior.  I prefer Jung, myself, but recognize that such things can't be taken too seriously.

Freud, Darwin, and Einstein were sort of the pillars of modernism, in some sense, I've been led to think.  I sometimes wonder if the efforts to reject any or all of them is actually an effort to reject the modern era, grasping back toward some romanticized pre-modern world.  That kind of thing frightens me, really.

I do kind of wonder, today, if a debate of the merits of Lamarck vs. Darwin could be as interesting as this Einstein discussion....  I think I read of a study or two, not too long ago, which allegedly validated some aspect of Lamarckian evolution....

Sorry if this is OT babbling.  Cage is not as smart as the others in the thread, nor as well-informed, but he's definitely fascinated.... 

===========================sigline======================================================

Cage can be an opinionated jerk who posts without thinking.  He apologizes for this.  He's honestly not trying to be a turkeyhead.

Cage had some freebies, compatible with Poser 11 and below.  His Python scripts were saved at archive.org, along with the rest of the Morphography site, where they were hosted.

I said that Freud is a 'fried fraud'.  Sometimes a fraud isn't a fraud.

Subjectivity isn't something that should be used in any form of scientific endeavor.  It's good for personal observations that may assist in developing hypotheses, but after that objectivity is the only way to do science - especially practice it.  Freud can receive credit at least for moving psychology/psychiatry/psychoanalysis away from previous forms of mental health diagnosis and treatments (labotomies, electric shock therapy, straight jackets, and so on).  And don't think that such unorthodoxy doesn't exist today.  Just do a search of Gary Schwartz (Ph.D. at the Univ. of Arizona).

Yes, there is much more to humans than surface behavior - it is not a good indicator of what's happening in the brain.  Thus, simply doing subjective analysis will not provide certainty with respect to the true underlying causes.  What would Sigmund have made of the 'Guy in an ape suit' video or left-right brain disconnection (for epilsy control), and other interesting developments in brain function that have shattered notions of brain-mind separation or that a person is a perfect recorder of witnessed events.  Studying the behavioral world-view changes of children as they mature is intriguing - young children don't see the world in the same way as older children/adults.  What mentalist Derren Brown does freaks me out! ;P

I don't think we will ever go back to pre-Modern era, but please let us not return to 'Post-Modernism', please!  In Max Planck's day, it was all done.  In an exclamation similar to Bill Gate's "Noone will ever need more than 64KB of memory", some Physicists were proclaiming that all physical phenomena had been explained by the then current theories of Physics.  Nothing left to see here, you can go now.  Then the nagging black-body radiation problem arose (among others) which couldn't be squeezed into the current mathematical models.  Planck just worked the other way round and found the mathematical model that fit the data - thus creating Quantum Physics.  This is what we now call "Theoretical Physics" - the land of String 'Theory' and Hawking for instance - build mathematical models on experimental data and see if the model has predictive power in the real world.
We may find a better paradigm than the scientific method, but it won't be a return to subjectivity one hopes.  One good thing about science is that no theory is set in stone.  Scientific progression isn't about status quo.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

I guess there's psychology as the effort to increase scientific knowledge and then psychology in the service of therapy.  Without divulging too much about Cage's personal issues (hopefully), I have to say I've had trouble with professionals in the field of psychology who limit things to surface behavior or neuro-chemistry.  Therapy doesn't really help if it's just medicating, or a tendency to bully or manipulate the subject of the therapy.  So the scientific studies definitely need objectivity, but I wonder how much that really helps someone who is receiving therapy....

But I suspect I really do veer off-topic.  :-P

Is a certain subjective aspect necessary to science, an insertion of creative ideas or intuition?

What does Derrin Brown do?  I guess I should Google, eh?  :D  I'll butt out, now.  Dang, you folks are brainy.  :D

===========================sigline======================================================

Cage can be an opinionated jerk who posts without thinking.  He apologizes for this.  He's honestly not trying to be a turkeyhead.

Cage had some freebies, compatible with Poser 11 and below.  His Python scripts were saved at archive.org, along with the rest of the Morphography site, where they were hosted.

I don't think that practicing psychiatrists should be doing scientific studies on their patience - at least not without full disclosure and a signed agreement.  But, just like medicine, what is done in practice should be based upon scientific discoveries (clinical studies, for instance) and experienced practices that actually work.  Too much banding about of alternative medicine as a practical alternative to established methodologies.  Subjectively, they superficially appear to have positive results - but none has shown repeated objective results (actually cure the malady or provide prolonged relief).

I'll admit that A) I'm no student of psychology and B) that the entire enterprise covers a larger terrain than simple brain function (social interactions, illness, health, environment, etc.).  Since the so-called 'mind' is so complex as are the contributing factors aforementioned, a bit of subjectivity (let's call it experiential subjectivity) may be called for in practice.  It may be a long time before more accurate diagnoses can be applied to mental health followed by better prognoses.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

I'm not sure I even WANT to understand Relativity. :) But I DO understand Gravity, in a practical way - if I drop a 10 lb lump of lead..well, I'm going to get a sore foot :)

Quote - I'm not sure I even WANT to understand Relativity. :) But I DO understand Gravity, in a practical way - if I drop a 10 lb lump of lead..well, I'm going to get a sore foot :)

 

The Special Theory isn't all that difficult to understand, even the math requires only basic calculus. You can even use the Special Theory to analyze the Twin Paradox. (The solution isn't because the moving twin undergoes acceleration, it is because the moving twin changes reference frames.)

Actually, the basic train-lightning gedanken-experiment (simultaneity of event observations) can be shown with Trigonometry (as long as you 'believe' that the speed of light 'c' isn't infinite or doesn't change with the motion of the observer. As noted, kawecki isn't buying the latter premise). :)

But, yes, Special Relativity is an exercise in variance of measurements between systems moving with respect to one another - that is all.  Einstein starts off with clocks (important since time is based on events and recognition of events is based upon observation - usually via some form of energy transmission (sound or light, e.g.)) and moves onto distance (as they are tied together in a system where light doesn't act instantaneously at a distance).  In normal, everyday life, the train isn't moving at 0.8c compared to the observer on the platform so that the disparity becomes evident.  In other words, the effect of Relativity is a curvilinear one that ramps up the closer one gets to 'c' relative motion and the effect is negligible at small percentages of 'c'.

I'll admit that the one place Relativity fails is with subatomic particles themselves, of which light particles (photons) are involved.  This is why it has been impossible to combine Relativity and Quantum Physics.  Relativity is using the subatomic particles/waves grossly as part of the phenomenal study while Quantum Physics is studying them directly (as it were).  Relativity in no way explains why subatomic particles are always moving so fast, can't move faster, are apparently massless. and why they aren't affected by their own Relativistic speeds (when observed) even when slowed a bit by a medium.  Neither theory is particularly satisfying as a unifying model of the fabric of the universe (space-time and the subatomic realm).  There has been some headway into explaining macroscopic interactions with the subatomic processes via Quantum Physics but we're not there yet.  I don't want to hear anything about having finally arrived at the end of all understanding within Physics.  There are still tons of mysteries out there, large and small, to be solved and possibly relevant to changing paradigms.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

A friend of mine did an engineering postgrad, and his doctoral thesis, based on materials, was a two part examination of the facts that, according to known laws of physics and engineering,  a) the Clifton Suspension Bridge should have collapsed the minute the first coaches began to cross it, and b) the drive shaft of the Austin Allegro should have sheared immediately upon reaching 30mph. Now, whilst I'm no physicist or engineer, and couldn't follow his arguments, the fat that he got his doctorate suggests that there are definitely some things which current scientific understanding cannot explain!

(I know there are well-known mysteries like the bumble bee and all, but I like these two better, because they have more personal resonance!)

JonTheCelt

Quote - A friend of mine did an engineering postgrad, and his doctoral thesis, based on materials, was a two part examination of the facts that, according to known laws of physics and engineering,  a) the Clifton Suspension Bridge should have collapsed the minute the first coaches began to cross it, and b) the drive shaft of the Austin Allegro should have sheared immediately upon reaching 30mph. Now, whilst I'm no physicist or engineer, and couldn't follow his arguments, the fat that he got his doctorate suggests that there are definitely some things which current scientific understanding cannot explain!

(I know there are well-known mysteries like the bumble bee and all, but I like these two better, because they have more personal resonance!)

JonTheCelt

 

Well, if the Austin Allegro drive shaft had snapped, it would have saved a lot of people the heartbreak of actually owning one.  Bloody awful cars.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Quote - A friend of mine did an engineering postgrad, and his doctoral thesis, based on materials, was a two part examination of the facts that, according to known laws of physics and engineering,  a) the Clifton Suspension Bridge should have collapsed the minute the first coaches began to cross it, and b) the drive shaft of the Austin Allegro should have sheared immediately upon reaching 30mph. Now, whilst I'm no physicist or engineer, and couldn't follow his arguments, the fat that he got his doctorate suggests that there are definitely some things which current scientific understanding cannot explain!

This is how actual scence works, it remembers me Aristotle and his fly with four legs, he should have been reproved.
What is important is how nice and how correctly is applied the theory and not if the predictions match the observed reality, in worst case the reality is changed to match the theory and never the theory analised to find what is wrong.

Stupidity also evolves!

One might say that practical application is another form of prediction.

I was going to expound on Chaos Theory and uncertainty in Quantum Physics but lost the dissertation.  Basically, Einstein said, "God does not play dice."  And I said, "God is a gamblin' addict."  Between these two theories, we have a very unpredictable universe at hand - unlike those nice stable laws and theories of centuries past.  This is one reason that I see theories becoming more difficult to obtain from hypotheses - theories require predictable results whether from designed experiments or practical application.

Every good theory changes reality.  When Galileo showed that objects fall at the same rate - accelerating at a particular one nonetheless, he changed an entire Aristotlean world-view that was completely wrong.  What was the show called?  "The Day the Universe Changed" with James Burke.  Sums it up nicely.  A theory that doesn't change the universe is a minor one indeed. :tongue2:

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Another point of view of Relativity.
As I posted before Qunatics observes (it means measure) things so small that is no known way to not disturv what we are observerning, so Qunatics introduced the effect of the observer to achieve some useful result or in other words the observed data is corrected by the effects of the perturbations done by the observer.
With Relativity that deals with something big can happen the same and the observer is disturbing again what is observed.
In normaç siuations the speeds involved are very small, so the effects of Relativity are insignificant.
Speeds near the speed light are nothing common and only happens in some particular experiments involving particle accelerators and always is involved Electromagnetism in all parts of the process and Electromagnetism propagates at speed of light.
To make more clear, what will happen if we try to measure the speed of a particle using light or electromagnetism that propagates with the speed of light?
As the speed of the particle increases the finite speed light will introduce errors in the speed measured, when the speed get near the speed of light the errors become very significative, so to achieve something relaible we must correct the results by the effects of the measuring process.
What happens if the particle has a pseed higher than light?, the light is unable to follow the particle and the particle becomes invisible, it don't exist, not because the particle become invisible or vanishes, but because our measurument equipment is unable to see it, if we try to correct our measures by the same corrective equations the rsult will be imaginary as in the case of geometry where a circle never intersect a line.
Is not diificult to analyze a procress that measures the speed of something using light and find the equation that are needed to correct the result by the effect of propagation delays of the light used for measuring. The resulting eqautios that we find are the same as Relativity!!!
So Relativity can be interpreted as the corrections of what we observe using light, this is why the speed of light has such importance in Relativity.
If we have some means that propagates faster than light (superlight) and use this something to measure the speed of other something we shall be able to see and measure something faster than light and not more need to use Relativity to correct the measured results.
Galielo will return until the speed of the particle becomes nearer to the speed of this superlight, now all repeats agains and we shall need to use Relativity again, but this time with the speed of superlight instead of speed of light.

Stupidity also evolves!

I know it was only a typo, but I like the new word 'qunatics'... an interesting concatenation of one who obsessively follows the laws of quantum physics, perhaps? ;)

JonTheCelt

You know, the funny thing is, when someone actually does prove the united field theory that subsumes Classic Model, Relativity and Quantum Phyiscs, none of these will be proven wrong. All will remain standing.

The only important paradigm ever to be overthrown in physics was the 4-Element/EarthCentric metaphor.

I recommend two books by Alan Cromer, "Uncommon Sense" and "Connected Knowledge". In the first of those he gives a 'history of objectivity' from which my favorite line is: "Objective reality was revealed for the first time, and not everyone was happy with what they saw." In the second, he gives a tremendous analysis of the fact that while Quantum Physics is a true theory, it does not justify claims of non-causeality or the death of certainty.

::::: Opera :::::

Quote - You know, the funny thing is, when someone actually does prove the united field theory that subsumes Classic Model, Relativity and Quantum Phyiscs, none of these will be proven wrong. All will remain standing.

They are preserving their job for the rest of their lifes and for their kids too"

---

"Quanatics" is an empirical theory that works. nobody has an idea of what is an electron or how the Hell an electron does to pass through two holes at the same time, the only known thing is the probability for an electron pass through those holes.

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - > Quote - You know, the funny thing is, when someone actually does prove the united field theory that subsumes Classic Model, Relativity and Quantum Phyiscs, none of these will be proven wrong. All will remain standing.

They are preserving their job for the rest of their lifes and for their kids too"

 

Sounds rather like the philosophers who consulted with Deep Thought in H2G2.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

*rubs eyes and curls up in the corner, sucking a thumb

Mommy!*

---

On a more serious note - as entertaining as it is to read through all of this.. wow I think I was totally LOST after the first three posts. This stuff makes my brain go boom!! :D It's fascinating, but I totally just do NOT get ANY of it to understand, either! LMAO!

~ Seliah

Wow four pages. :)

Anyone mention this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rQiF2cRKdc

-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the face of truth is concealment."

Over 100,000 Downloads....

I'm familiar with the experiments but not that video.  Cool link, Anton.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery