info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Tragedy of Quantum Gravity
61 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jun 13, 2016, 2:24:37 PM6/13/16
to
http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2016/06/string-phenomenology-of-somewhat.html
Sabine Hossenfelder: "...in 2006, everybody was hitting on Lee Smolin for pointing out what everybody knew anyway, that string theorists, lacking experimental feedback for decades, had drifted off in a math bubble with questionable relevance for the description of nature. It’s somewhat ironic that, from my personal experience, the situation is actually worse in Loop Quantum Gravity, an approach pioneered, among others, by Lee Smolin. At least the math used by string theorists seems to be good for something. The same cannot be said about LQG."
https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez 2008: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
John Baez was right - the situation now is "deeply schizophrenic":
http://www.catholic.org/news/technology/story.php?id=69335
"World renown scientist says he has found proof of God! We may be living the the 'Matrix'. Michio Kaku believes he has found evidence for God in his work. Kaku is a well respected scientist, who has helped pioneer String Theory of the universe, the idea that the universe is formed by many different dimensions of space and time. String Theory is very complex and requires a significant background in physics to explain, but it is favored by many scientists because it succinctly answers many of the questions they have about the universe. [...] While working on String Theory, Kaku, discovered what he sees as evidence that the universe is created by an intelligence, rather than merely formed by random forces. He suggests he can explain it by what he calls, "primitive semi-radius tachyons." We do not yet have a succinct explanation of this idea from Kaku, other than he's referring to tachyons, which are theoretical particles that unbind particles from one another. Without getting into physics itself, Kaku concludes that we live in a Matrix-style universe, created by an intelligence. "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."
Pentcho Valev
Sabine Hossenfelder: "...in 2006, everybody was hitting on Lee Smolin for pointing out what everybody knew anyway, that string theorists, lacking experimental feedback for decades, had drifted off in a math bubble with questionable relevance for the description of nature. It’s somewhat ironic that, from my personal experience, the situation is actually worse in Loop Quantum Gravity, an approach pioneered, among others, by Lee Smolin. At least the math used by string theorists seems to be good for something. The same cannot be said about LQG."
https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez 2008: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. [...] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
John Baez was right - the situation now is "deeply schizophrenic":
http://www.catholic.org/news/technology/story.php?id=69335
"World renown scientist says he has found proof of God! We may be living the the 'Matrix'. Michio Kaku believes he has found evidence for God in his work. Kaku is a well respected scientist, who has helped pioneer String Theory of the universe, the idea that the universe is formed by many different dimensions of space and time. String Theory is very complex and requires a significant background in physics to explain, but it is favored by many scientists because it succinctly answers many of the questions they have about the universe. [...] While working on String Theory, Kaku, discovered what he sees as evidence that the universe is created by an intelligence, rather than merely formed by random forces. He suggests he can explain it by what he calls, "primitive semi-radius tachyons." We do not yet have a succinct explanation of this idea from Kaku, other than he's referring to tachyons, which are theoretical particles that unbind particles from one another. Without getting into physics itself, Kaku concludes that we live in a Matrix-style universe, created by an intelligence. "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Jun 13, 2016, 2:25:18 PM6/13/16
to
--
Jan
Pentcho Valev
Jun 13, 2016, 3:33:21 PM6/13/16
to
Einstein's followers in ultimate despair - science is dying and their brothers Einsteinians don't need empirical evidence anymore:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
George Ellis and Joe Silk: "This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue - explicitly - that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html
Adam Frank, professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester, and Marcelo Gleiser, professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College: "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics. Do physicists need empirical evidence to confirm their theories? You may think that the answer is an obvious yes, experimental confirmation being the very heart of science. But a growing controversy at the frontiers of physics and cosmology suggests that the situation is not so simple. (...) ...a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given the field its credibility."
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/what-happens-when-we-cant-test-scientific-theories
Frank Close, professor of physics at the University of Oxford: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."
http://www7.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave. [...] Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... [...] Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."
http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."
The best symbol for suicidal science:
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/all_seeing_eye/conan/snake01.jpg
Pentcho Valev
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
George Ellis and Joe Silk: "This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue - explicitly - that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html
Adam Frank, professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester, and Marcelo Gleiser, professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College: "A Crisis at the Edge of Physics. Do physicists need empirical evidence to confirm their theories? You may think that the answer is an obvious yes, experimental confirmation being the very heart of science. But a growing controversy at the frontiers of physics and cosmology suggests that the situation is not so simple. (...) ...a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given the field its credibility."
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/what-happens-when-we-cant-test-scientific-theories
Frank Close, professor of physics at the University of Oxford: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."
http://www7.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave. [...] Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... [...] Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."
http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."
The best symbol for suicidal science:
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/all_seeing_eye/conan/snake01.jpg
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Jun 13, 2016, 4:27:09 PM6/13/16
to
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 12:33:21 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein's followers in ultimate despair -
You should call around Hollywood screenwriting agents, you certainly have
> Einstein's followers in ultimate despair -
a talent for inventing engaging stories. International calls from Bulgaria
are practically free now - give it a try!
--
Jan
Neil
Jun 13, 2016, 6:27:58 PM6/13/16
to
JanPB wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
>> Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa
>> Randall: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you
>> get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No
>> matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No
>> matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you
>> are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the
>> same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time
>> slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows
>> down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow.
>> It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful
>> piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful
>> piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>
> And your point is what exactly?
It's simple, no wonder you kant get it. We need to get ride of this kind
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
>> Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa
>> Randall: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you
>> get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No
>> matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No
>> matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you
>> are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the
>> same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time
>> slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows
>> down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow.
>> It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful
>> piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful
>> piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>
> And your point is what exactly?
of simplistic primitive reduction materialism in Relativity. There are for
instance no mathematical fundament for the speed of gravity in physics. It
is just assumed is c, but there are no derivations able to prove that.
Good by and learn some real physics.
JanPB
Jun 13, 2016, 11:38:31 PM6/13/16
to
like that one. Your concern is a legitimate one but it belongs to _philosophy_, not _science_.
Mixing philosophy with physics is very common on this newsgroup BTW.
I'm not saying philosophy is bad, just different.
--
Jan
Pentcho Valev
Jun 14, 2016, 2:31:16 AM6/14/16
to
https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez: "...quantum mechanics... [...] ...General Relativity... [...] Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."
Einstein's relativity as a whole should be immediately discarded, and let us hope that the resurrection of physics, after a century of collective schizophrenia, is still possible. Einstein's "theory" involves the idiotic concept of relative time (time dilation), a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/gravitational-waves-einstein-ligo-by-marek-abramowicz-2016-05
Marek Abramowicz, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Göteborg University, Sweden: "As a result, for many physicists today, the genuinely fundamental problem of reconciling the two theories [quantum mechanics and general relativity] has degenerated into pompous, meaningless humbug."
http://lecercle.lesechos.fr/economie-societe/recherche-innovation/recherche/221160264/physique-est-schizophrene
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "La physique est schizophrène (...) ...relativiste le matin, quantique le soir... mais schizophrène lorsqu'il tente de concilier les deux visions. C'est là que réside le problème fondamental de la physique d'aujourd'hui."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – A, then B, then C – someone moving at a different velocity could have seen it a different way – C, then B, then A. In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
Pentcho Valev
John Baez: "...quantum mechanics... [...] ...General Relativity... [...] Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."
Einstein's relativity as a whole should be immediately discarded, and let us hope that the resurrection of physics, after a century of collective schizophrenia, is still possible. Einstein's "theory" involves the idiotic concept of relative time (time dilation), a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true."
https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/gravitational-waves-einstein-ligo-by-marek-abramowicz-2016-05
Marek Abramowicz, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Göteborg University, Sweden: "As a result, for many physicists today, the genuinely fundamental problem of reconciling the two theories [quantum mechanics and general relativity] has degenerated into pompous, meaningless humbug."
http://lecercle.lesechos.fr/economie-societe/recherche-innovation/recherche/221160264/physique-est-schizophrene
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "La physique est schizophrène (...) ...relativiste le matin, quantique le soir... mais schizophrène lorsqu'il tente de concilier les deux visions. C'est là que réside le problème fondamental de la physique d'aujourd'hui."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – A, then B, then C – someone moving at a different velocity could have seen it a different way – C, then B, then A. In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
Pentcho Valev
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jun 14, 2016, 7:06:10 AM6/14/16
to
The ’nym-shifting troll posted “not even wrong”-type gibberish again:
> There are for instance no mathematical fundament for the speed of gravity
> in physics.
There is.
> It is just assumed is c, but there are no derivations able to
> prove that.
There are. There is also experimental evidence now through the observation
of gravitational waves, namely GW150914 by the two LIGO detectors in Hanford
(WA), and Livingston (LA).
> Good by and learn some real physics.
Pot calling the kettle black.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> There are for instance no mathematical fundament for the speed of gravity
> in physics.
> It is just assumed is c, but there are no derivations able to
> prove that.
of gravitational waves, namely GW150914 by the two LIGO detectors in Hanford
(WA), and Livingston (LA).
> Good by and learn some real physics.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Gary Harnagel
Jun 14, 2016, 10:20:05 AM6/14/16
to
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 12:31:16 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einstein's relativity as a whole should be immediately discarded,
By this idiotic "reasoning" NASA should stop using Newtonian gravitation
>
> Einstein's relativity as a whole should be immediately discarded,
to move its spacecraft around the Solar System because we know that it
can't explain gravitational time dilation.
[The remainder of Pentcho's regurgitated links deleted because of excessive
redundancy]
Gary
Tom Roberts
Jun 14, 2016, 11:01:27 AM6/14/16
to
On 6/13/16 6/13/16 5:27 PM, Neil wrote:
> We need to get ride of this kind
> of simplistic primitive reduction materialism in Relativity.
It's not at all clear what you mean by this. It seems to be word salad related
> We need to get ride of this kind
> of simplistic primitive reduction materialism in Relativity.
to (or based on) your error:
> There are for
> instance no mathematical fundament for the speed of gravity in physics. It
> is just assumed is c, but there are no derivations able to prove that.
on what you mean. If you attempt to determine "how fast the gravitation of the
sun gets to earth" you will be disappointed. But in our best model of
gravitation, General Relativity, it is rigorously true that CHANGES in
gravitation propagate with local speed c. Gravitational waves are merely one
specific example of this general property. Unlike electromagnetic waves, this is
independent of any material objects such changes or waves might encounter.
Tom Roberts
JanPB
Jun 14, 2016, 3:44:10 PM6/14/16
to
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 11:31:16 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
> John Baez: "...quantum mechanics... [...] ...General Relativity... [...] Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."
>
> Einstein's relativity as a whole should be immediately discarded,
Says who? You?
> https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
> John Baez: "...quantum mechanics... [...] ...General Relativity... [...] Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."
>
> Einstein's relativity as a whole should be immediately discarded,
--
Jan
0 new messages