Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
EINSTEINIANA: TWO CRUCIAL QUESTIONS
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
May 16, 2012, 2:27:57 AM5/16/12
to
QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
Clues:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."
QUESTION 2: The frequency of light falling in a gravitational field increases in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Does this mean that the speed of light also increases, in accordance with another prediction of the emission theory, c'=c(1+gh/c^2)?
Clues:
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spring10/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0403/0403082.pdf
The Gravitational Red-Shift, R.F.Evans and J.Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull: "Attention is drawn to the fact that the well-known expression for the red-shift of spectral lines due to a gravitational field may be derived with no recourse to the theory of general relativity. This raises grave doubts over the inclusion of the measurement of this gravitational red-shift in the list of crucial tests of the theory of general relativity. (...) In truth, it would seem that the result for the red-shift of spectral lines due to the action of a gravitational field has nothing specifically to do with the theory of general relativity. It is a result which draws on more modern results due to such as Planck and Poincaré, but, apart from those, is deduced from notions of Newtonian mechanics alone."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."
http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."
http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Clues:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."
QUESTION 2: The frequency of light falling in a gravitational field increases in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Does this mean that the speed of light also increases, in accordance with another prediction of the emission theory, c'=c(1+gh/c^2)?
Clues:
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spring10/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0403/0403082.pdf
The Gravitational Red-Shift, R.F.Evans and J.Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull: "Attention is drawn to the fact that the well-known expression for the red-shift of spectral lines due to a gravitational field may be derived with no recourse to the theory of general relativity. This raises grave doubts over the inclusion of the measurement of this gravitational red-shift in the list of crucial tests of the theory of general relativity. (...) In truth, it would seem that the result for the red-shift of spectral lines due to the action of a gravitational field has nothing specifically to do with the theory of general relativity. It is a result which draws on more modern results due to such as Planck and Poincaré, but, apart from those, is deduced from notions of Newtonian mechanics alone."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."
http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."
http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel
May 16, 2012, 3:09:34 AM5/16/12
to
Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> QUESTION 1:
Is Pentcho Valev a troll?
> QUESTION 2:
Is Pentcho Valev dumb?
Clues:
the Famous List of Differences Persistenly Ignored by Pentcho Valev:
- reading text vs. copying it to Usenet posts
- light vs. sound,
- ideal circumstances vs. realistic circumstances,
- crackpots vs. people writing books fancied by crackpots,
- rates vs. values,
- a personal humorous musing vs. a common dogma,
- children's books vs. inspired essays,
- physicists vs. philosophers,
- coordinate time vs. proper time,
- invariance vs. constancy,
- special relativity vs. general relativity,
- teachers vs. hypnotists,
- laymen vs. zombies,
- a person being right vs. a theory being right,
- students vs. imbeciles,
- bad science vs. bad engineering,
- bad engineering vs. bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory vs. fighting it,
- physics vs. linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 vs. a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book vs. turning its pages,
- speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra vs. randomly writing down symbols,
- real life vs. a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply vs. being ignored,
- everyday concepts vs. scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial vs. non-inertial,
- speed vs. velocity,
- an article vs. a book,
- relativity vs. disguised ether addiction,
- algebra vs. analytic geometry,
- kneeling down vs. bending over,
- local vs. global,
- a sycophant in English vs. in French,
- a relation vs. an equation,
- massive vs. massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho vs. a Sears poncho,
- implication vs. equivalence,
- group velocity vs. phase velocity,
- science vs. religion
Dirk Vdm
> QUESTION 1:
Is Pentcho Valev a troll?
> QUESTION 2:
Is Pentcho Valev dumb?
Clues:
the Famous List of Differences Persistenly Ignored by Pentcho Valev:
- reading text vs. copying it to Usenet posts
- light vs. sound,
- ideal circumstances vs. realistic circumstances,
- crackpots vs. people writing books fancied by crackpots,
- rates vs. values,
- a personal humorous musing vs. a common dogma,
- children's books vs. inspired essays,
- physicists vs. philosophers,
- coordinate time vs. proper time,
- invariance vs. constancy,
- special relativity vs. general relativity,
- teachers vs. hypnotists,
- laymen vs. zombies,
- a person being right vs. a theory being right,
- students vs. imbeciles,
- bad science vs. bad engineering,
- bad engineering vs. bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory vs. fighting it,
- physics vs. linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 vs. a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book vs. turning its pages,
- speed vs. relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra vs. randomly writing down symbols,
- real life vs. a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply vs. being ignored,
- everyday concepts vs. scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial vs. non-inertial,
- speed vs. velocity,
- an article vs. a book,
- relativity vs. disguised ether addiction,
- algebra vs. analytic geometry,
- kneeling down vs. bending over,
- local vs. global,
- a sycophant in English vs. in French,
- a relation vs. an equation,
- massive vs. massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho vs. a Sears poncho,
- implication vs. equivalence,
- group velocity vs. phase velocity,
- science vs. religion
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
May 16, 2012, 3:25:33 AM5/16/12
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.comnot> wrote in message
news:4fb352ae$0$3115$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
No, but Dork Vdm is.
>
>> QUESTION 2:
> Is Pentcho Valev dumb?
> Clues:
> the Famous List of Differences Persistenly Ignored by Pentcho Valev:
"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years.
Dork Vdm, 12 Nov, 2002.
Pentcho Valev
May 16, 2012, 8:08:16 AM5/16/12
to
CRUCIAL QUESTION 3: Both Newton's emission theory of light and Maxwell's ether theory, unlike special relativity, predict that the frequency and the speed of light, as measured by the observer, vary with the speed of the observer. On the other hand, when the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v (c>>v), the frequency shift seems to ALWAYS obey the equation f'=f(1+v/c). Does this support Newton's emission theory of light or Maxwell's ether theory (or both)?
ANSWER: If the frequency shift ALWAYS obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), then only Newton's emission theory of light gets support while Maxwell's ether theory is refuted. The latter predicts that the frequency shifts in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+v/(c±V)), where V is the speed of the ether wind along the line connecting source and observer, relative to the source.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
ANSWER: If the frequency shift ALWAYS obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), then only Newton's emission theory of light gets support while Maxwell's ether theory is refuted. The latter predicts that the frequency shifts in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+v/(c±V)), where V is the speed of the ether wind along the line connecting source and observer, relative to the source.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
xxein
May 16, 2012, 8:05:50 PM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 2:27 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
>
>
> Pentcho Valev
> QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
>
>
> pva...@yahoo.com
xxein: Duh! Yes, the observer has light approaching him at <>c.
I'm glad you mentioned frequency measurement. F^2-1/f^2+1 will give
the relativistic velocity for a common or re-normalized frequency as
measured by the receiver. How? You can mathematically derive it with
cancellation.
But it will not reveal your speed, nor the sender's speed. That's why
there is relativity. Don't you wish you could tear it apart and give
an absolute velocity?
Emission theories wish. Well? We all wish. But the physic is just
so. Go find it instead of wishing.
The secret is not a secret. Examine all. Not just a part. You will
get very much closer to what you must think of before you make any
false conclusions.
Solve for what gravity is. That's a great start but don't forget the
whole. You might get somewhere if you consider the whole.
Even I have have not gone far enough. I'm loosing the energy to
pursue. But I still see a clear path to obtaining an absolute
velocity. Well, sort of and under the certain conditions that are
built in and will not change. But we are talking about OUR universe
here. Not some other. Who knows what physical conditions will change
if universes meet and mix their different inherent physical
properties.
All told so far is that they are almost the same or at least very
similar. But this seems anecdotal so far because we only see OUR
galaxies or clusters of galaxies colliding. Not different universes
(that we know of). But who does know?
There is not even an explanation for quasars yet. Well. You didn't
hear from me yet, anyway.
Don't work from the inside of a microcosm. Learn to expand to to the
macrocosm. Don't make me tell you this again.
Now have your fun and don't put false images of the physic before me.
Alfonso
May 18, 2012, 5:51:17 AM5/18/12
to
On 16/05/12 07:27, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
Really you are missing the point. It is a question of the philosophical
> QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?
basis of physics not a question of science.
If one takes classical philosophy it is based upon the assumption that
cause precedes effect and that cause and effect are linked by some
physical process. Further that it is the role of science to try and
hypothesise, understand and mathematically quantify that physical
process. Based upon this philosophy LET is a far superior theory to
relativity in that it hypothesises a physical process and according to
the physical process hypothesised the change in light frequency is
indeed caused by a real change in the speed of light w.r.t the observer
but due to the effect on instruments of movement through the aether you
are unable to measure that change in speed.
The new philosophy adopted around 1920 says that reality it beyond the
human mind. Mathematics is god a mathematical description *is* a physics
theory. It is a "physical" theory because it predicts a physical
outcome. "undersatanding" nature, or the physical process which the
mathematics describes is no longer considered a valid part of physics.
"..time-ordered deterministic causality through a unique set of physical
states is abandoned." PD
Maxwell's waves in aether theory becomes Maxwell's equations. It is no
longer a valid question to ask what the waves consist of, what light
*is*; what it is which travels from say the sun to the earth all that is
required is a mathematical formulation which gives accurate predictions
in its domain of applicability. Is light waves or particles? is not a
valid question, it is perfectly acceptable to have one mathematical
formulation which is based on the idea that the energy in light is
spread evenly through space and another which says it is not even though
the concepts are mutually exclusive in classical philosophy. Under the
new philosophy reality is beyond the human mind.
The maths of Lorentz is therefore divorced from its classical theory
credited to Einstein. Provided the maths predicts the right answer that
is all that is expected of it. Inherent in the new philosophy is that it
is forbidden to speculate beyond what is measured in fact the Copenhagen
interpretation states that what you measure is brought into existence by
the act of measurement.
In classical terms the light postulate says that light always separates
from the source at whatever speed is required to be c w.r.t the
observer. The wavelength, or the distance between a series of bursts is
therefore the separation velocity times the time interval. The new
philosophy requires no explanation as to how this is brought about.
Under classical philosophy one would put this down to an unknown
physical process and try and determine what it is. Now if I change my
speed the frequency changes. According to the maths this is due to the
fact that the wavelength (or the spacing between bursts) has changed
because light is now separating from the source at a new rate however
you are now observing light which separated from the source some time
ago how can it have a new wavelength, how can the spacing between bursts
be different. Classical philosophy says it can't. Classical philosophy
says that a change in speed cannot affect the spacing between wave
crests, or bursts of light which are already in transit. The modern
philosophy says the only rules which constrain are the rules of
mathematics which while rigorous in themselves are not constrained by
any concept of reality. If you are one light year from the source then
Mathematically your change in speed causes light leaving the source 1
year ago to separate from the source at the new speed and hence produce
the new wavelength. That is allowed according to PD's definition of
causality in the new physics.
"..time-ordered deterministic causality through a unique set of physical
states is abandoned." PD
"..time-ordered .. causality ...is abandoned." PD
Cause does not need to precede effect so the effect - the new
wavelength/spacing can precede the cause - your change in speed.
"..deterministic causality through a unique set of physical states is
abandoned." PD
There is no requirement to explain some physical process whereby your
change in speed causes an effect 1 light year away 1 year in the past.
Reality is deemed to be beyond the human mind so is not allowed to
constrain the maths.
Set free from the constraints of concepts of reality physics has been
able to advance into the brave new world - or it is heaping crap upon
crap at a horrendous rate depending on your PoV or on your philosophy.
LaLALa
May 18, 2012, 9:11:45 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 4:51 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
> Really you are missing the point. It is a question of the philosophical
> basis of physics not a question of science.
>
> If one takes classical philosophy it is based upon the assumption that
> cause precedes effect and that cause and effect are linked by some
> physical process. Further that it is the role of science to try and
> hypothesise, understand and mathematically quantify that physical
> process. Based upon this philosophy LET is a far superior theory to
> relativity in that it hypothesises a physical process and according to
> the physical process hypothesised the change in light frequency is
> indeed caused by a real change in the speed of light w.r.t the observer
> but due to the effect on instruments of movement through the aether you
> are unable to measure that change in speed.
>
> The new philosophy adopted around 1920 says that reality it beyond the
> human mind. Mathematics is god a mathematical description *is* a physics
> theory. It is a "physical" theory because it predicts a physical
> outcome. "undersatanding" nature, or the physical process which the
> mathematics describes is no longer considered a valid part of physics.
>
> "..time-ordered deterministic causality through a unique set of physical
> states is abandoned." PD
>
I am fascinated, Mr. Alfonso. You obviously take the approach that one
>
> Really you are missing the point. It is a question of the philosophical
> basis of physics not a question of science.
>
> If one takes classical philosophy it is based upon the assumption that
> cause precedes effect and that cause and effect are linked by some
> physical process. Further that it is the role of science to try and
> hypothesise, understand and mathematically quantify that physical
> process. Based upon this philosophy LET is a far superior theory to
> relativity in that it hypothesises a physical process and according to
> the physical process hypothesised the change in light frequency is
> indeed caused by a real change in the speed of light w.r.t the observer
> but due to the effect on instruments of movement through the aether you
> are unable to measure that change in speed.
>
> The new philosophy adopted around 1920 says that reality it beyond the
> human mind. Mathematics is god a mathematical description *is* a physics
> theory. It is a "physical" theory because it predicts a physical
> outcome. "undersatanding" nature, or the physical process which the
> mathematics describes is no longer considered a valid part of physics.
>
> "..time-ordered deterministic causality through a unique set of physical
> states is abandoned." PD
>
must first commit to a philosophy and never change from it and this
will determine the course of how you do science forever after. It
seems that by doing this if you ever change your philosophy then by
definition you are no longer doing science because the science is
wedded to that particular philosophy that you vowed ever to cherish
and hold dear.
I had no idea that science is an activity that is literally defined by
a prior choice of philosophy. I also was unaware that because a
classical philosophy was at least once adhered to before now that this
morally obligates us to pursue science in that classical philosophy.
It makes me wonder how people ever broke away from the Aristotelean
philosophy.
I have only one question pertaining to this. Perhaps I am confused
about the classical philosophy. If I understand you right a classical
philosophy holds that every observed effect is traceable to some
cause. And in the classical philosophy as embodied by Isaac Newton
physical causes are all associated with something that can be called a
force in the sense that Newton wrote in his famous second law of
motion. And yet this same Newton said that there is an observed effect
called continued motion that happens in the complete absence of force.
Not the initial motion but the continuation of the motion. So I must
be confused about how the observed effect of continuation of motion
can be ascribed to a force (cause) and at the same time to the
complete absence of force. Maybe you can help since you are such a
strong advocate of this classical philosophy.
Alfonso
May 19, 2012, 6:56:56 AM5/19/12
to
On 19/05/12 02:11, LaLALa wrote:
> On May 18, 4:51 am, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Really you are missing the point. It is a question of the philosophical
>> basis of physics not a question of science.
>>
>> If one takes classical philosophy it is based upon the assumption that
>> cause precedes effect and that cause and effect are linked by some
>> physical process. Further that it is the role of science to try and
>> hypothesise, understand and mathematically quantify that physical
>> process. Based upon this philosophy LET is a far superior theory to
>> relativity in that it hypothesises a physical process and according to
>> the physical process hypothesised the change in light frequency is
>> indeed caused by a real change in the speed of light w.r.t the observer
>> but due to the effect on instruments of movement through the aether you
>> are unable to measure that change in speed.
>>
>> The new philosophy adopted around 1920 says that reality it beyond the
>> human mind. Mathematics is god a mathematical description *is* a physics
>> theory. It is a "physical" theory because it predicts a physical
>> outcome. "undersatanding" nature, or the physical process which the
>> mathematics describes is no longer considered a valid part of physics.
>>
>> "..time-ordered deterministic causality through a unique set of physical
>> states is abandoned." PD
>>
>
> I am fascinated, Mr. Alfonso. You obviously take the approach that one
> must first commit to a philosophy
Science is meaningless without an underlying philosophy. This isn't
> On May 18, 4:51 am, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Really you are missing the point. It is a question of the philosophical
>> basis of physics not a question of science.
>>
>> If one takes classical philosophy it is based upon the assumption that
>> cause precedes effect and that cause and effect are linked by some
>> physical process. Further that it is the role of science to try and
>> hypothesise, understand and mathematically quantify that physical
>> process. Based upon this philosophy LET is a far superior theory to
>> relativity in that it hypothesises a physical process and according to
>> the physical process hypothesised the change in light frequency is
>> indeed caused by a real change in the speed of light w.r.t the observer
>> but due to the effect on instruments of movement through the aether you
>> are unable to measure that change in speed.
>>
>> The new philosophy adopted around 1920 says that reality it beyond the
>> human mind. Mathematics is god a mathematical description *is* a physics
>> theory. It is a "physical" theory because it predicts a physical
>> outcome. "undersatanding" nature, or the physical process which the
>> mathematics describes is no longer considered a valid part of physics.
>>
>> "..time-ordered deterministic causality through a unique set of physical
>> states is abandoned." PD
>>
>
> I am fascinated, Mr. Alfonso. You obviously take the approach that one
> must first commit to a philosophy
obvious as a student absorbs the underlying philosophy from the ambience
of the subject.
> and never change from it
and this
> will determine the course of how you do science forever after. It
> seems that by doing this if you ever change your philosophy then by
> definition you are no longer doing science because the science is
> wedded to that particular philosophy that you vowed ever to cherish
> and hold dear.
>
> I had no idea that science is an activity that is literally defined by
> a prior choice of philosophy.
You might like to consider this lecture by someone with qualifications
in both Physics and philosophy.
http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/
> I have only one question pertaining to this. Perhaps I am confused
> about the classical philosophy. If I understand you right a classical
> philosophy holds that every observed effect is traceable to some
> cause.
traceable.
"...the fact that an electron is so light that we cannot measure exactly
where it is without disturbing it does not mean that the electron's
location is not precisely defined; nor does it require that there must
be anything indeterminate about the electron itself as a particle, or
about its interactions with other particles. The point we have picked up
here is that the word "determinate" is not synonymous with "predictable
by mankind". Scott Murray
Put simply just because we have no way of finding out where an electron
is does not under classical philosophy mean that it doesn't have a
precise position. The new philosophy says:
"What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
conceptual scheme" Schrödinger.
Translated as - If you can't measure the position of an electron - it
doesn't have one.
This in turn leads to Schrödinger's Cat.
If you can't observe the state of the cat it it must have all states
allowed by the maths. Reality is beyond the human mind so what we think
of as "real" cannot be taken into consideration. If the maths says both
states are possible - then both states exist. The cat must be both alive
and dead up until the box is opened as per the mathematical description.
Classical philosophy accepts that we have some - though limited -
knowledge of reality. That the cat is either alive or dead and that what
the maths is describing is the state of our knowledge. What changes when
the box is opened is only our knowledge.
One can go a step further and do a autopsy and show that the cat has
been dead for at least half an hour which under classical philosophy is
proof that the cat was dead before the box was open.
The new philosophy rejects this argument on the grounds that physics is
only about prediction, not about understanding. Retrospective
measurement has no place. We should not try to understand nature as
reality is beyond the human mind.
Here is another example of retrospective measurement being rejected.
"On the one hand. a precise position measurement on the particle P in
the domain K yields the prediction of a very wide range of velocities
for P; and on the other hand, when the particle has been detected after
a time (delta t) in the spatial domain K', one can retrospectively
ascribe to P a quite sharp value of the velocity. namely KK'/(delta t),
and also a precise direction of motion. Isn’t it tempting to assert that
the particle P actually had the velocity KK'/(delta t), but
that quantum theory could not predict it'?"
In simple terms you cannot determine what the particles speed is, nor
what direction it will take but retrospectively you can determine what
it's speed was and which direction it took.
"... "Before the second measurement, it is ubiquitous in the cloud (it
is not a particle at all)".... "You have not found a particle at K', you
have produced one there!". Indeed, if this is so, the location K is not
relevant for the "particle" detected at K', and there is no reason left
to ascribe it the velocity KK'/(delta t)."
Found in "Schrödinger's philosophy of quantum mechanics" By Michel
Bitbol. The quotes are Schrödinger's.
This is the Copenhagen interpretation that the act of measurement
creates the result. The act of opening the box creates the result of the
cat being both alive or dead and prior to that it is both.
The maths is king. If the maths says that a photon can head off in any
number of directions Classical philosophy says that it sets off in a
particular direction the result of a definite but indeterminable causal
sequence. There are fundamental reasons why we cannot determine that
causal sequence and the maths describes our knowledge of the probability
as to which direction it takes.
The new philosophy (Copenhagen interpretation) says that a photon sets
off in all possible directions allowed by the maths and is created - as
a particle of light - by the act of detection.
The new philosophy (Many Worlds interpretation) says that a photon sets
off in a specific direction but that there are an infinite number of
parallel universes and it sets off in all possible directions in one or
another of them. It arrives at all possible points in some universe or
other and happens to arrive at where it does in ours. It also says that
when the box is opened the cat is alive in some universes and dead in
others.
Why is this important? Surely all that philosophy does is view the same
thing differently? No. If you accept that the maths relating to
Schrodingers cat may relate to our knowledge and not accurately describe
the system the whole basis of theoretical physics is undermined. It is
based on being able to make statements such as "This equation *shows*
.....(this that or the other)" Not on "if we understood the reality of
the system we might know what this equation represents".
And in the classical philosophy as embodied by Isaac Newton
> physical causes are all associated with something that can be called a
> force in the sense that Newton wrote in his famous second law of
> motion. And yet this same Newton said that there is an observed effect
> called continued motion that happens in the complete absence of force.
> Not the initial motion but the continuation of the motion. So I must
> be confused about how the observed effect of continuation of motion
> can be ascribed to a force (cause) and at the same time to the
> complete absence of force. Maybe you can help since you are such a
> strong advocate of this classical philosophy.
LaLALa
May 19, 2012, 7:13:23 AM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 5:56 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
> > I am fascinated, Mr. Alfonso. You obviously take the approach that one
> > must first commit to a philosophy
>
> Science is meaningless without an underlying philosophy. This isn't
> obvious as a student absorbs the underlying philosophy from the ambience
> of the subject.
>
> > and never change from it
>
> Did I say that?
In a manner of speaking you did, Mr. Alfonso. You said that you had
>
> > I am fascinated, Mr. Alfonso. You obviously take the approach that one
> > must first commit to a philosophy
>
> Science is meaningless without an underlying philosophy. This isn't
> obvious as a student absorbs the underlying philosophy from the ambience
> of the subject.
>
> > and never change from it
>
> Did I say that?
adopted a classical philosophy where all effects come from a prior
cause for example and that you were unshakeable in that. It seems now
impossible to switch to a philosophy other than this one that holds
all effects come from a prior cause without suffering some sense of
loss of the whole -- I hope this is the right word -- shebang. In this
position I would not know how to pick a philosophy that did not hold
this to be true.
>
> > and this
> > will determine the course of how you do science forever after. It
> > seems that by doing this if you ever change your philosophy then by
> > definition you are no longer doing science because the science is
> > wedded to that particular philosophy that you vowed ever to cherish
> > and hold dear.
>
> > I had no idea that science is an activity that is literally defined by
> > a prior choice of philosophy.
>
> Well you do now.
agree that their activity is defined by a prior choice of philosophy?
>
>
> > I have only one question pertaining to this. Perhaps I am confused
> > about the classical philosophy. If I understand you right a classical
> > philosophy holds that every observed effect is traceable to some
> > cause.
>
> No. Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be
> traceable.
>
>
> And in the classical philosophy as embodied by Isaac Newton
> > physical causes are all associated with something that can be called a
> > force in the sense that Newton wrote in his famous second law of
> > motion. And yet this same Newton said that there is an observed effect
> > called continued motion that happens in the complete absence of force.
> > Not the initial motion but the continuation of the motion. So I must
> > be confused about how the observed effect of continuation of motion
> > can be ascribed to a force (cause) and at the same time to the
> > complete absence of force. Maybe you can help since you are such a
> > strong advocate of this classical philosophy.
>
> I think you have misunderstood Newton. Whether Newton's
Unfortunately, Mr. Alfonso, you spent so much time answering a
> > physical causes are all associated with something that can be called a
> > force in the sense that Newton wrote in his famous second law of
> > motion. And yet this same Newton said that there is an observed effect
> > called continued motion that happens in the complete absence of force.
> > Not the initial motion but the continuation of the motion. So I must
> > be confused about how the observed effect of continuation of motion
> > can be ascribed to a force (cause) and at the same time to the
> > complete absence of force. Maybe you can help since you are such a
> > strong advocate of this classical philosophy.
>
> I think you have misunderstood Newton. Whether Newton's
question I did not ask that you ran out of room to answer the question
I did have. Would you mind focusing on clearing up this puzzle for me
first so that then I can pay attention to cats and other matters?
Tom Roberts
May 19, 2012, 9:44:14 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/12 5/19/12 5:56 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be traceable.
Attempting to impose your personal hopes and dreams onto the world is hopeless.
> Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be traceable.
That is not science.
The models we have for phenomena at very small scales do not have this property,
and they have been shown to be valid in literally zillions of experiments.
Spontaneous emission and decay are integral aspects of these models.
Your "philosophy" is outdated, but you don't realize it because of your personal
ignorance about physics.
Moreover, the very notions and language you use are insufficiently precise. For
example, what "causes" a pion to decay into a muon and a neutrino, rather than
an electron and a neutrino? There are many aspects of QFT that cannot be
described as "causes", in addition to spontaneous decay and emission. You entire
approach is grossly flawed.
> "What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
> conceptual scheme" Schrödinger.
> Translated as - If you can't measure the position of an electron - it doesn't
> have one.
> This in turn leads to Schrödinger's Cat.
In particular, a cat is not a quantum object, and it is inappropriate to apply
quantum models to it. Hint: the cat is much larger than subatomic scales.
Yes, the old guard of QM did this too. We have learned a thing or
three since the '20s and '30s.
> [... further nonsense based on personal ignorance]
Tom Roberts
Y
May 19, 2012, 11:48:50 AM5/19/12
to
-y
Y
May 19, 2012, 11:50:40 AM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 11:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/19/12 5/19/12 5:56 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>
> > Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be traceable.
>
> Attempting to impose your personal hopes and dreams onto the world is hopeless.
> That is not science.
>
> The models we have for phenomena at very small scales do not have this property,
> and they have been shown to be valid in literally zillions of experiments.
> Spontaneous emission and decay are integral aspects of these models.
>
> Your "philosophy" is outdated, but you don't realize it because of your personal
> ignorance about physics.
Philosophies do not 'outdate'. They assume different positions. A
> On 5/19/12 5/19/12 5:56 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>
> > Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be traceable.
>
> Attempting to impose your personal hopes and dreams onto the world is hopeless.
> That is not science.
>
> The models we have for phenomena at very small scales do not have this property,
> and they have been shown to be valid in literally zillions of experiments.
> Spontaneous emission and decay are integral aspects of these models.
>
> Your "philosophy" is outdated, but you don't realize it because of your personal
> ignorance about physics.
superseded philosophy remains in importance as a point of reference.
-y
Y
May 19, 2012, 11:58:33 AM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 11:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The elements were the physics of the day. It is all a matter of
observation and metaphor. While ideas and the language used to
describe observations have changed, this general spirit - of
observation and metaphor - remains the same.
"First, the fir, containing a considerable quantity of air and fire,
and very little water and earth, being constituted of such light
elements, is not heavy: hence bound together by its natural hardness
it does not easily bend, but keeps its shape in framing. The objection
to fir is, that it contains so much heat as to generate and nourish
the worm, which is very destructive to it. It is moreover very
inflammable, because it's open pores are so quickly penetrated by
fire, that it yields a great flame. (Marcus Vitruvius Pollio)
-y
Y
May 19, 2012, 11:47:15 AM5/19/12
to
> classical philosophy was at least once adhered to before now that this
> morally obligates us to pursue science in that classical philosophy.
science.
> It makes me wonder how people ever broke away from the Aristotelean
> philosophy.
minds. They convinced the stupid and acquired safety in numbers.
> I have only one question pertaining to this. Perhaps I am confused
> about the classical philosophy.
>If I understand you right a classical
> philosophy holds that every observed effect is traceable to some
> cause.
>And in the classical philosophy as embodied by Isaac Newton
> physical causes are all associated with something that can be called a
> force in the sense that Newton wrote in his famous second law of
your mind. Is time the cause or gravity ?
> motion. And yet this same Newton said that there is an observed effect
> called continued motion that happens in the complete absence of force.
> Not the initial motion but the continuation of the motion. So I must
> be confused about how the observed effect of continuation of motion
> can be ascribed to a force (cause) and at the same time to the
> complete absence of force.
LaLALa
May 19, 2012, 3:31:00 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 10:47 am, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then tell me, why is time the cause for the teacup dropping ? Make up
> your mind. Is time the cause or gravity ?
>
I am further confused, Mr. Yanarchi. Did someone say that time is the
>
> Then tell me, why is time the cause for the teacup dropping ? Make up
> your mind. Is time the cause or gravity ?
>
Katsumoto Sakuraba
May 19, 2012, 7:47:46 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 3:44 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/19/12 5/19/12 5:56 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>
> > Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be traceable.
>
> Attempting to impose your personal hopes and dreams onto the world is hopeless.
> That is not science.
>
> The models we have for phenomena at very small scales do not have this property,
> and they have been shown to be valid in literally zillions of experiments.
> Spontaneous emission and decay are integral aspects of these models.
are you just telling that there is
> On 5/19/12 5/19/12 5:56 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>
> > Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be traceable.
>
> Attempting to impose your personal hopes and dreams onto the world is hopeless.
> That is not science.
>
> The models we have for phenomena at very small scales do not have this property,
> and they have been shown to be valid in literally zillions of experiments.
> Spontaneous emission and decay are integral aspects of these models.
an invisible mechanism in your
model, forcing the particles to
do that ???
> Tom Roberts
good bye
Y
May 19, 2012, 9:16:05 PM5/19/12
to
LaLALa
May 19, 2012, 9:33:47 PM5/19/12
to
Mr. Hawking say that time caused the teacup to fall. What he seemed to
say is that some force caused the fall but that cause precedes effect
at least as long as the universe is expanding. He also seemed to say
that cause would follow effect once the universe started to collapse.
This just means he is talking about an order in time about causes and
effects not that time is the cause itself.
I have also heard that in the quantum realm where the size of the
quantums are about as big as the object you are studying then this
order becomes -- what is the word? -- loosie goosie. I don't know what
Mr. Hawking thinks about that. He didn't seem to be discussing it in
that minute or so.
Y
May 19, 2012, 10:29:19 PM5/19/12
to
Mr Hawking has effectively attacked your frontal lobe. Let's think
carefully about what he says, beyond the frontal lobe attacks.
Mr Hawking begins by asking; Where does the difference between the
past and the future come from ? He places the model for this question
of time, past and future on the falling teacup.
He shows us a teacup falling to the floor. It breaks. "But you will
never see the cup gather itself back together on the table" This is
the first series of statements and ideas that implies that 'time' is
controlling the movement of the cup.
Mr Hawking then begins to wonder what would happen if the universe
stopped expanding and began to 'contract' or 'collapse'.
"Would we see broken cups gather themselves together of the floor and
jump back onto the table ?"
To Mr Hawkings 'time' is the cause of the effects on the teacup.
Causing it to drop, break, and if the universe were to collapse, it
would return to the table. He further entails the 'time cause' with an
'entropy cause'. To Mr Hawking, 'time' controls the teacup so much so,
that a reversal of time, would entail a reversal of it's tragic
trajectory.
At NO point during his statements does Mr Hawking speak of gravity.
Gravity is the true cause for the falling teacup. What he should be
suggesting is that the laws of gravity would need to reverse in order
for time to reverse. How else would the cup be able to regather itself
and 'jump' back on the table? The first thing any educated person
should be explaining to children, and to people and to adults, is that
Gravity is what is causing the cup to fall to the floor. In order for
'time' to reverse, presuming it exists, then so too a reversal of
'time' would entail a reversal of natural gravitational law.
-y
Alfonso
May 20, 2012, 6:02:04 AM5/20/12
to
Galileo the philosophy was that the workings of the universe is known
only to God and a scientists job was merely to find useful
relationships. Galileo risked his life to establish the philosophy that
underpinned modern science for 300 years. Physics has reverted to the
idea that reality is known only to god or and is beyond human
understanding. That mathematical relationships giving accurate
prediction is all that can be expected.
>
>>
>>> I have only one question pertaining to this. Perhaps I am confused
>>> about the classical philosophy. If I understand you right a classical
>>> philosophy holds that every observed effect is traceable to some
>>> cause.
>>
>> No. Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be
>> traceable.
>>
>>
>> And in the classical philosophy as embodied by Isaac Newton
>>> physical causes are all associated with something that can be called a
>>> force in the sense that Newton wrote in his famous second law of
>>> motion. And yet this same Newton said that there is an observed effect
>>> called continued motion that happens in the complete absence of force.
>>> Not the initial motion but the continuation of the motion. So I must
>>> be confused about how the observed effect of continuation of motion
>>> can be ascribed to a force (cause) and at the same time to the
>>> complete absence of force. Maybe you can help since you are such a
>>> strong advocate of this classical philosophy.
>>
>> I think you have misunderstood Newton. Whether Newton's
>
> Unfortunately, Mr. Alfonso, you spent so much time answering a
> question I did not ask that you ran out of room to answer the question
> I did have. Would you mind focusing on clearing up this puzzle for me
> first so that then I can pay attention to cats and other matters?
Effect = a change of some sort.
Continued motion = no change = no effect = requires no cause [first law]
Change in motion = acceleration = an effect = requires a cause i.e. a
force. [second law]
Basically you have misunderstood what is an effect in the philosophical
sense. Essentially Newton recognised that continuous motion is an
unchanging state not an effect so not requiring a cause.
I still don't see why you think it relevant in the context.
Alfonso
May 20, 2012, 6:31:09 AM5/20/12
to
On 19/05/12 14:44, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/19/12 5/19/12 5:56 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be
>> traceable.
>
> Attempting to impose your personal hopes and dreams onto the world is
> hopeless. That is not science.
Read the context. That is a definition in classical philosophy
> On 5/19/12 5/19/12 5:56 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> Every observed effect *has* a prior cause, it may or may not be
>> traceable.
>
> Attempting to impose your personal hopes and dreams onto the world is
> hopeless. That is not science.
>
> The models we have for phenomena at very small scales do not have this
> property, and they have been shown to be valid in literally zillions of
> experiments. Spontaneous emission and decay are integral aspects of
> these models.
>
> Your "philosophy" is outdated, but you don't realize it because of your
> personal ignorance about physics.
>
> Moreover, the very notions and language you use are insufficiently
> precise. For example, what "causes" a pion to decay into a muon and a
> neutrino, rather than an electron and a neutrino? There are many aspects
> of QFT that cannot be described as "causes", in addition to spontaneous
> decay and emission. You entire approach is grossly flawed.
>
>
>> "What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
>> Translated as - If you can't measure the position of an electron - it
>> doesn't
>> have one.
>> This in turn leads to Schr�dinger's Cat.
>> doesn't
>> have one.
>
> That is an OUTRAGEOUSLY oversimplified "translation".
>
> In particular, a cat is not a quantum object, and it is inappropriate to
> apply quantum models to it. Hint: the cat is much larger than subatomic
> scales.
Physicists (and I don't include you) have realised that in terms of the
> That is an OUTRAGEOUSLY oversimplified "translation".
>
> In particular, a cat is not a quantum object, and it is inappropriate to
> apply quantum models to it. Hint: the cat is much larger than subatomic
> scales.
underlying philosophy adopted, which underpins the whole of theoretical
physics they cannot make an exception for Schrodinger's cat. Either you
can say of a mathematical description "this shows......" in which case
the mathematical description *must* be accepted as a complete
description and that cat according to the description is both dead and
alive. Or you accept that a mathematical description is not sufficient
on its own anywhere within theoretical physics - you need additional
knowledge to understand what the mathematics is describing. In the case
of the cat if you accept the alternative possibility that the cat is
either alive or dead and the maths is describing the state of our
knowledge then you have to accept the alternative possibilities
regarding say an electron - that it has a definite position - the maths
simply reflects our knowledge of where it is, rather than it has no
definite position as described by the maths. Theoretical physics is
built on the assumption that one can interpret maths without any
additional knowledge.
Google Schrodingers Cat. The debate is no longer about whether it is
both dead and alive until the box is opened but as to the
interpretation. Whether in accordance with the Copenhagen school the act
of measurement creates the result or the many worlds interpretation
which states that it remains both dead and alive in different parallel
universes.
>
> Yes, the old guard of QM did this too. We have learned a thing or
> three since the '20s and '30s.
was trying to show how absurd it would be to apply the thinking to an
everyday scenario. Unfortunately it was soon realised that if you accept
it as absurd you have to accept that the thinking itself is absurd.
Rather than do that it was reluctantly accepted that strange though it
may seem the cat is both alive and dead until the box is opened. Either
that or the whole of theoretical physics is based on a false premise.
Read up on the subject. Find me a quote from a respected non physics
sceptic which says otherwise.
Katsumoto Sakuraba
May 20, 2012, 6:49:52 AM5/20/12
to
this is easy, wait long enough and the cat
is not alive 100% for sure, no interpretation
good bye
Tom Roberts
May 20, 2012, 10:00:05 PM5/20/12
to
nothing in QFT that could be called "the cause of this particle's decay" or "the
cause of selecting this decay mode rather than that one".
Tom Roberts
Alfonso
May 21, 2012, 2:13:14 PM5/21/12
to
can't observe the mechanism - there isn't one. End of story.
"What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
conceptual scheme" Schrödinger.
legitimate to speculate as to what it might be. If for example a large
number of a specific type of atom has a well defined half life then
under classical philosophy there must be a reason as required by the
concept of causality.
Suppose as an analogy one has a massive room full of roulette wheels
suppose they are each spun at the same interval and when a ball lands on
zero that wheel is stopped from further participation. One can predict
how long it will be before half the wheels have stopped and it is the
result of the fact that a single roulette wheel has (I believe) 37 numbers.
Under classical philosophy it would be reasonable to postulate for
example that atoms nuclei have a dynamic and chaotic structure and that
when a certain configuration is reached it decays.
Under the current philosophy, postulating a mechanism is forbidden.
The be all and end all of physics according to this philosophy is
prediction. Using my analogy, understanding why the roulette wheels have
a specific half life would be of no consequence as it in no way allows
you to predict when a specific wheel will stop turning.
Whether or not there *is* a mechanism in nature is not something we are
likely to find out. Being "valid" as you call it simply means accurate
prediction and in no way shows the presence or absence of a causal
mechanism.
Alfonso
Y
May 21, 2012, 11:18:09 PM5/21/12
to
Entropy is an idea within Quantum Field Theories. Just because there
are many ways of measuring it, doesn't mean in nature that there are
many natural laws of entropy. In QFT there are many measures of the
one entropy idea.
Just as in relativity there are two ways of measuring Gravity, GR and
SR.
The natural 'causes' are fully described, (as gravity or entropy)
though they are not fully explainable by mathematical language.
-y
0 new messages